The Works of Richard Hooker, Volume III (1888)

Richard Hooker

Published by Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. It was founded in 1960 thus making 2010 its 50th Anniversary Year.

The Foundation develops, supervises, and finances its own educational activities to foster thought and encourage discourse on enduring intellectual issues pertaining to liberty. This is done through the implementation of different programs:

1. Each year, Liberty Fund conducts over 150 conferences throughout the United States, Canada, Latin America, and Europe.

2. Liberty Fund publishes about 10 books each year, many of which are classic works which have gone out of print. There is an online catalog where these books can be ordered <http://www.libertyfund.org/books.aspx>.

3. Liberty Fund has produced video and audio tapes including The Intellectual Portrait Series of videotapes and DVDs which records conversations with some of the most significant thinkers of our time.

4. Liberty Fund hosts two websites which contain books, articles, discussion, and podcasts about liberty: the Library of Economics and Liberty <http://www.econlib.org/> and the Online Library of Liberty <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>.

These programs focus on the place individual liberty has in an intellectual heritage evident from ancient times and continuing through our own times. The programs are intended to enrich understanding and appreciation of the complex nature of a society of free and responsible individuals and to contribute to its preservation.

Liberty Fund also sponsors the following websites:

1. Liberty Fund’s main website <http://www.libertyfund.org>

2. LF online catalog <http://www.libertyfund.org/books.aspx>

3. The Goodrich Seminar Room Virtual Tour <http://goodrich.libertyfund.org/goodrich/>

4. The Online Library of Liberty <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>

5. Library of Economics and Liberty <http://www.econlib.org/>

As a tax-exempt, private operating foundation, Liberty Fund’s purposes are educational. It does not, therefore, engage in political action of any kind. It fulfills its mission by conducting programs, not by awarding grants to outside organizations or individuals.

The cuneiform inscription that appears in the logo and serves as a design element in all Liberty Fund books and websites is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.

LIBERTY FUND, INC.

8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300

Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684

U.S.A.

Phone no.: 1.800.955.8335

Liberty Fund’s Collection of Epub Titles on Liberty

The text you are currently reading comes from Liberty Fund’s Online Library of Liberty (OLL) <http://oll.libertyfund.org>. Additional titles in ePub format can be downloaded from the main OLL website from each title’s Table of Contents page or from this list <http://files.libertyfund.org/output/epub/>. One convenient way to load titles directly into your iPad is to email yourself this link, click on the title of your choice, and open it directly in iBook on your iPad (thus circumventing the need to load titles from your laptop or desktop computer.

Epub and Kindle versions of books published by Liberty Fund are not available for free download. They can be purchased from Amazon.com.

The Online Library of Liberty

The OLL was established in 2004 in order to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc, namely “to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals”. It is a multi-award winning website which makes available at no charge to the public outstanding resources for teaching and learning about the humanities and the social sciences.

Awards

The OLL has won a number of international awards for its outstanding collection of online material in the humanities and social sciences. It has been recognised by

- the Library of Congress for its Minerva archiving project

- the National Endowment for the Humanities

- the British Arts and Humanities Research Council, and

- the International Political Science Association.

The Portable Library of Liberty

The 50th Anniversary Edition (2010) of the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD (PLL) contains 1,002 books in PDF format & 34 hours of MP3 audio files from Liberty Fund’s website The Online Library of Liberty (OLL) <oll.libertyfund.org>. Highlights include the complete scholarly editions of the works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill, the collected works of Jefferson, Madison, J. Adams,and 166 books published by Liberty Fund. It also contains a collection of Quotations about Liberty and Power, MP3 audio files from the Intellectual Portrait Series: Conversations with Leading Classical Liberal Figures of Our Time and the lecture series The Legacy of Friedrich Hayek.

The books and other resources in the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD are designed to be read or listened to on portable devices such as MP3 Players, smart phones, and E-Book Readers. Hence, this collection is called the “Portable” Library of Liberty and has material in the following formats: text-based PDF, MP3, and ePub.

Liberty Fund is happy to send a copy of this data DVD free of charge upon request for educational purposes. Please email the Director at <oll@libertyfund.org> and make sure you include your postal address.

Copyright and Fair Use Statement

There are four different types of texts which Liberty Fund has made available as part of the Online Library of Liberty website, the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD (PLL), and ePub titles for hand held reading devices:

1. public domain texts published before 1923. These texts are no longer under copyright and are in the public domain. We have put them online in order to further the educational aims of Liberty Fund.

2. texts to which the Liberty Fund has electronic rights, such as the books published by Liberty Fund in both print and online formats

3. other texts to which Liberty Fund has acquired the electronic rights from third parties, such as the journal Literature of Liberty (from the Institute for Humane Studies)

4. titles which are put online under license from third parties, such as the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith (from Oxford University Press).

For titles in the first three categories listed above, no special permission from Liberty Fund is required for quoting material in papers and essays, or for limited photocopying and distribution for academic or other educational or non-profit purposes. The only requirements are that you include proper attribution on the first page of the document being distributed - e.g. for John Locke’s The Two Treatises of Government you would say one of the following:

- if using the OLL website - “This material originally appeared on the Online Library of Liberty hosted by Liberty Fund, Inc. URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 and accessed on 2010-01-22.” This information can be found in the “Citation” button on the title’s table of contents page.

- or if using the copy on the PLL DVD - “This material originally appeared in the Portable Library of Liberty published by Liberty Fund, Inc. URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 and PLL v5 (generated 22 January, 2010).” This information can be found in the footer of the EBook PDF.

- or if using the ePub version on a portable reading device: “This material is part of the collection of ePub titles in the Online Library of Liberty website hosted by Liberty Fund, Inc. Source Text URL http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 accessed on 2010-04-20.” This information can be found on the “Introduction to the Book” page in this file.

For titles in category two and three, any reprint of material “for profit”, such as a chapter or a substantial section of an online book for inclusion in a book or other publication for sale, requires written permission from Liberty Fund.

For titles in the fourth category you must follow the specific requirements of the copyright holder whose work we publish online under license. This information can be found in the “Introduction to the Book” page under the section “Copyright Information.” In the case of the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith published under license from Oxford University Press, for reprint or copying permission you need to contact OUP directly. Under our contractual obligations with OUP we have placed the following declaration on the front page of every book and section of the online version of the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith:

The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith and the associated volumes are published in hardcover by Oxford University Press. The six titles of the Glasgow Edition, but not the associated volumes, are being published in soft cover by Liberty Fund. The online edition is published by Liberty Fund under license from Oxford University Press.

© Oxford University Press 1976. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be stored transmitted retransmitted lent or reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of Oxford University Press.

Thus, for reprint or copying permission you need to contact OUP directly. Liberty Fund cannot grant you this permission because it is not the copyright holder.

THE WORKS OF MR. RICHARD HOOKER

London

HENRY FROWDE

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE

AMEN CORNER, E.C.

THE WORKS OF THAT LEARNED AND JUDICIOUS DIVINE MR. RICHARD HOOKER

WITH AN ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE AND DEATH BY ISAAC WALTON

ARRANGED BY THE REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A. LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD

SEVENTH EDITION

REVISED BY THE VERY REV. R. W. CHURCH, M.A., D.C.L. Honorary Fellow of Oriel College, and Dean of St. Paul’s AND THE REV. F. PAGET, D.D. Canon of Christ Church, and Regius Professor of Pastoral Theology in the University of Oxford

VOL. III

Oxford

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

M DCCC LXXXVIII

OF THE LAWS OF ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY.

BOOK VI.: CONTAINING THEIR FIFTH ASSERTION, WHICH IS [a] , THAT OUR LAWS ARE CORRUPT AND REPUGNANT TO THE LAWS OF GOD, IN MATTER BELONGING TO THE POWER OF ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION, IN THAT WE HAVE NOT THROUGHOUT ALL CHURCHES CERTAIN LAY-ELDERS ESTABLISHED FOR THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER [1] .

BOOK VI. Ch. i. 1.  THE same men which in heat of contention do hardly either speak or give ear to reason, being after sharp and bitter conflict [b] retired to a calm remembrance of all their former proceedings; the causes that brought them into quarrel, the course which their stirring [c] affections have followed, and the issue whereunto they are come;     The question between us, whether all congregations or parishes ought to have lay-elders invested with power of jurisdiction in spiritual causes.  may per-adventure, as troubled waters, in small time, of their own accord, by certain easy degrees settle themselves again, and so recover that clearness of well-advised judgment, whereby they shall stand at the length indifferent, both to yield and admit any reasonable satisfaction, where before they could not endure with patience to be gainsayed. Neither will I despair of the like success in these unpleasant controversies touching ecclesiastical policy; the time of silence which both parts have willingly taken to breathe [1] , seeming now as it were a pledge of all men’s quiet contentment to hear with more indifferency the weightiest [2] and last remains of that cause, Jurisdiction [3] , Dignity [4] , Dominion Ecclesiastical [5] . For, let not [d] any man imagine, that the bare and naked difference of a few ceremonies could either have kindled so much fire,     BOOK VI. Ch. i. 2, 3.  or have caused it to flame so long; but that the parties which herein laboured mightily for change, and (as they say) for Reformation, had somewhat more than this mark only [e] whereat to aim [6] .

Having therefore drawn out a complete form, as they supposed [f] , of public service to be done to God, and set down their plot for the office of the ministry in that behalf; they very well knew how little their labours so far forth bestowed would avail them in the end, without a claim of jurisdiction to uphold the fabric which they had erected; and this neither likely to be obtained but by the strong hand of the people, nor the people unlikely to favour it; the more [g] , if overture were made of their own interest, right, and title thereunto. Whereupon there are many which have conjectured this to be the cause, why in all the projects of their discipline (it being manifest that their drift is to wrest the key of spiritual authority out of the hands of former governors, and equally to possess therewith the pastors of all several congregations) the people, first for surer accomplishment, and then for better defence thereof, are pretended [7] necessary actors in those things, whereunto their ability for the most part is as slender, as their title and challenge unjust.

Notwithstanding whether they saw it necessary for them so [h] to persuade the people,     BOOK VI. Ch. i. 4. ii. 1.  without whose help they could do nothing; or else, (which I rather think,) the affection which they bare [i] towards this new form of government made them to imagine it God’s own ordinance, their doctrine is, “that by the law of God, there must be for ever in all congregations certain lay-elders, ministers of ecclesiastical jurisdiction [1] ,” inasmuch as our Lord and Saviour by testament (for so they presume) hath left all ministers or pastors in the Church executors equally to the whole power of spiritual jurisdiction, and with them hath joined the people as colleagues. By maintenance of which assertion there is unto that part apparently gained a twofold advantage; both because the people in this respect are much more easily drawn to favour it, as a matter of their own interest; and for that, if they chance to be crossed by such as oppose against them, the colour of divine authority, assumed for the grace and countenance of that power in the vulgar sort, furnisheth their leaders with great abundance of matter, behoveful for their encouragement to proceed always with hope of fortunate success in the end, considering their cause to be as David’s was, a just defence of power given them from above, and consequently, their adversaries’ quarrel the same with Saul’s by whom the ordinance of God was withstood.

Now on the contrary side, if this their surmise prove false; if such, as in justification whereof no evidence sufficient either hath been or can be alleged (as I hope it shall clearly appear after due examination and trial), let them then consider whether those words of Corah, Dathan and Abiram against Moses and against Aaron [2] , “It is too much that ye take upon you, seeing all the congregation is holy,” be not the very true abstract and abridgment of all their published Admonitions, Demonstrations, Supplications, and Treatises whatsoever, whereby they have laboured to void the rooms of their spiritual superiors before authorized, and to advance the new fancied sceptre by lay presbyterial power.

The nature of spiritual jurisdiction.  II. But before there can be any settled determination, whether truth do [k] rest on their part, or on ours, touching lay-elders; we are to prepare the way thereunto, by explication of some things requisite and very needful to be considered; as first, how besides that spiritual power which is of Order,     BOOK VI. Ch. ii. 2.  and was instituted for performance of those duties whereof there hath been speech sufficient [l] already had, there is in the Church no less necessary a second kind, which we call the power of Jurisdiction. When the Apostle doth speak of ruling the Church of God [1] , and of receiving accusations [2] , his words have evident reference to the power of jurisdiction. Our Saviour’s words to the power of order, when he giveth his disciples charge [3] , saying, “Preach; baptize; do this in remembrance of me.” “A Bishop” (saith Ignatius) “doth bear the image of God and of Christ; of God in ruling, of Christ in administering, holy things [4] .” By this therefore we see a manifest difference acknowledged between the power of Ecclesiastical Order, and the power of Jurisdiction ecclesiastical.

[m] The spiritual power of the Church being such as neither can be challenged by right of nature, nor could by human authority be instituted, because the forces and effects thereof are supernatural and divine; we are to make no doubt or question, but that from him which is the Head it hath descended unto us that are the body now invested therewith. He gave it for the benefit and good of souls, as a mean to keep them in the path which leadeth unto endless felicity, a bridle to hold them within their due and convenient bounds, and if they do go astray, a forcible help to reclaim them. Now although there be no kind of spiritual power, for which our Lord Jesus Christ did not give both commission to exercise, and direction how to use the same, although his laws in that behalf recorded by the holy evangelists be the only ground and foundation, whereupon the practice of the Church must sustain itself: yet, as all multitudes, once grown to the form of societies, are even thereby naturally warranted to enforce upon their own subjects particularly those things which public wisdom shall judge expedient for the common good:     BOOK VI. Ch. iii. 1.  so it were absurd to imagine the Church itself, the most glorious amongst them, abridged of this liberty; or to think that no law, constitution, or canon, can be further made either for limitation [n] or amplification [o] in the practice of our Saviour’s ordinances, whatsoever occasion be offered through variety of times and things, during the state of this unconstant [p] world, which bringing [q] forth daily such new evils as must of necessity by new remedies be redrest, did both of old enforce our venerable predecessors [r] , and will always constrain others, sometime to make, sometime to abrogate, sometime to augment, and again to abridge sometime; in sum, often to vary, alter, and change customs incident into the manner of exercising that power which doth itself continue always one and the same. I therefore conclude, that spiritual authority is a power which Christ hath given to be used over them which are subject unto it for the eternal good of their souls, according to his own most sacred laws and the wholesome positive constitutions of his Church.

In doctrines [s] referred unto action and practice, as this is which concerneth [t] spiritual jurisdiction, the first step towards [u] sound and perfect understanding is the knowledge of the end, because thereby both use doth frame, and contemplation judge all things.

Of penitence  [x] , the chiefest end propounded by spiritual Jurisdiction. Two kinds of Penitency; the one a private duty towards God, the other a duty of external discipline. Of the Virtue of Repentance, from which the former duty proceedeth; and of Contrition, the first part of that duty. III. [y] Seeing then [z] that the chiefest cause of spiritual jurisdiction is to provide for the health and safety of men’s souls, by bringing them to see and repent their grievous offences committed against God, as also to reform all injuries offered with the breach of Christian love and charity, towards [a] their brethren, in matters of ecclesiastical cognizance [1] ; the use of this power shall by so much the plainlier appear, if first the nature of repentance itself be known.

We are by repentance to appease whom we offend by sin. For which cause, whereas all sins deprive [b] us of the favour of Almighty God, our way of reconciliation with him is the inward secret repentance of the heart; which inward repentance alone sufficeth, unless some special thing, in the quality of sin committed, or in the party that hath done amiss, require more. For besides our submission in God’s sight, repentance must not only proceed to the private contentation of men, if the sin be a crime injurious; but also further [c] , where the wholesome discipline of God’s Church exacteth a more exemplary and open satisfaction [1] . Now the Church being satisfied with outward repentance, as God is with inward, it shall not be amiss, for more perspicuity, to term this latter always the Virtue, that [d] former the Discipline of Repentance: which discipline hath two sorts of penitents to work upon, inasmuch as it hath been accustomed to lay the offices of repentance on some seeking, others shunning them; on some at their own voluntary request, on others altogether against their wills; as shall hereafter appear by store of ancient examples. Repentance being therefore either in the sight of God alone, or else with the notice also of men: without the one, sometimes throughly performed, but always practised more or less, in our daily devotions and prayers, we have no remedy for any fault; whereas the other is only required in sins of a certain degree and quality: the one necessary for ever, the other so far forth as the laws and orders of God’s Church shall make it requisite: the nature, parts, and effects of the one always the same; the other limited, extended, varied by infinite occasions [1] .

BOOK VI. Ch. iii. 2.  [e] The virtue of repentance in the heart of man is God’s handy work, a fruit or effect of divine grace. Which grace continually offereth itself, even unto them that have forsaken it, as may appear by the words of Christ in St. John’s Revelation [2] , “I stand at the door and knock:” nor doth he only knock without, but also within assist to open [3] , whereby access and entrance is given to the heavenly presence of that saving power, which maketh man a repaired Temple for God’s good Spirit again to inhabit. And albeit the whole train of virtues which are implied in the name of grace be infused at one instant [4] ; yet because when they meet and concur unto any effect in man, they have their distinct operations rising orderly one from another; it is no unnecessary thing that we note the way or method of the Holy Ghost in framing man’s sinful heart to repentance.

A work, the first foundation whereof is laid by opening and illuminating the eye of faith, because by faith are discovered the principles of this action, whereunto unless the understanding do first assent, there can follow in the will towards penitency no inclination at all. Contrariwise, the resurrection of the dead, the judgment of the world to come, and the endless misery of sinners being apprehended, this worketh fear; such as theirs was, who feeling their own distress and perplexity, in that passion besought our Lord’s Apostles earnestly to give them counsel what they should do [5] . For fear is impotent and unable to advise itself; yet this good it hath, that men are thereby made desirous to prevent, if possibly they may, whatsoever evil they dread. The first thing that wrought the Ninivites’ repentance, was fear of destruction within forty days [1] :     BOOK VI. Ch. iii. 3.  signs and miraculous works of God, being extraordinary representations of divine power, are commonly wont to stir any the most wicked with terror, lest the same power should bend itself against them. And because tractable minds, though guilty of much sin, are hereby moved to forsake those evil ways which make his power in such sort their astonishment and fear; therefore our Saviour denounced his curse against Corazin and Bethsaida, saying, that if Tyre and Sidon had seen that which they did, those signs which prevailed little with the one would have brought [f] the other’s repentance [2] . As the like thereunto did in the men given to curious arts, of whom the apostolic history saith [3] , that “fear came upon them, and many which had followed vain sciences, burnt openly the very books out of which they had learned the same.” As fear of contumely and disgrace amongst men, together with other civil punishments, are a bridle to restrain from many [g] heinous acts whereinto men’s outrage would otherwise break; so the fear of divine revenge and punishment, where it taketh place, doth make men desirous to be rid likewise from that inward guiltiness of sin, wherein they would else securely continue.

Howbeit, when faith hath wrought a fear of the event of sin, yet repentance hereupon ensueth not, unless our belief conceive both the possibility and means to avert evil: the possibility, inasmuch as God is merciful, and most willing to have sin cured; the means, because he hath plainly taught what is requisite and shall suffice unto that purpose. The nature of all wicked men is, for fear of revenge to hate whom they most wrong; the nature of hatred, to wish that destroyed which it cannot brook; and from hence ariseth the furious endeavour [h] of godless and obdurate sinners to extinguish in themselves the opinion of God, because they would not have him to be, whom execution of endless woe doth not suffer them to love. Every sin against God abateth, and continuance in sin extinguisheth our love towards him. It was therefore said to the angel of Ephesus having sinned [4] , “Thou art fallen away from thy first love;” so that, as we never decay in love till we sin, in like sort neither can we possibly forsake sin, unless we first begin again to love. What is love towards God, but a desire of union with God? And shall we imagine a sinner converting himself to God, in whom there is no desire of union with God presupposed? I therefore conclude, that fear worketh no man’s inclination to repentance, till somewhat else have wrought in us love also. Our love and desire of union with God ariseth from the strong conceit which we have of his admirable goodness. The goodness of God which particularly moveth unto repentance, is his mercy towards mankind, notwithstanding sin: for let it once sink deeply into the mind of man, that howsoever we have injuried God, his very nature is averse from revenge, except unto sin we add obstinacy; otherwise always ready to accept our submission as a full discharge or recompense for all wrongs; and can we choose but begin to love him whom we have offended? or can we but begin to grieve that we have offended him whom we now [1] love? Repentance considereth sin as a breach of the law of God, an act obnoxious to that revenge, which notwithstanding may be prevented, if we pacify God in time.

The root and beginning of penitency therefore is the consideration of our own sin, as a cause which hath procured the wrath, and a subject which doth need the mercy of God. For unto man’s understanding there being presented, on the one side, tribulation and anguish upon every soul that doth evil; on the other, eternal life unto them which by continuance in well-doing seek glory, and honour, and immortality: on the one hand, a curse to the children of disobedience; on the other, to lovers of righteousness all grace and benediction: yet between these extremes, that eternal God, from whose unspotted justice and undeserved mercy the lot of each inheritance proceedeth, is so inclinable rather to shew compassion than to take revenge, that all his speeches in Holy Scripture are almost nothing else but entreaties of men to prevent destruction by amendment of their wicked lives; all the works of his providence little other than mere allurements of the just to continue steadfast, and of the unrighteous to change their course;     BOOK VI. Ch. iii. 4.  all his dealings and proceedings such towards true converts, as have even filled the grave writings of holy men with these and the like most sweet sentences: “Repentance (if I may so speak [1] ) stoppeth God in his way, when being provoked by crimes past he cometh to revenge them with most just punishments; yea, it tieth as it were the hands of the avenger, and doth not suffer him to have his will.” Again, “ [2] The merciful eye of God towards men hath no power to withstand penitency, at what time soever it comes in presence.” And again, “God doth not take it so in evil part, though we wound that which he hath required us to keep whole, as that after we have taken hurt there should be in us no desire to receive his help.” Finally, lest I be carried too far in so large a sea, “There was never any man condemned of God but for neglect, nor justified except he had care, of repentance.”

From these considerations, setting before our eyes our inexcusable both unthankfulness in disobeying so merciful, and foolishness in provoking so powerful a God, there ariseth necessarily a pensive and corrosive desire that we had done otherwise; a desire which suffereth us to foreslow no time, to feel no quietness within ourselves, to take neither sleep nor food with contentment, never to give over supplications, confessions, and other penitent duties, till the light of God’s reconciled favour shine in our darkened soul.

Fulgentius asking the question, why David’s confession should be held for effectual penitence, and not Saul’s; answereth [3] , that the one hated sin, the other feared only punishment in this world:     BOOK VI. Ch. iii. 5.  Saul’s acknowledgment of sin was fear, David’s both fear and also love. This was the fountain of Peter’s tears, this the life and spirit of David’s eloquence, in those most admirable hymns entitled Penitential, where the words of sorrow for sin do melt the very bowels of God [k] remitting it, and the comforts of grace in remitting sin carry him which sorrowed rapt as it were into heaven with ecstasies of joy and gladness. The first motive of the Ninivites unto repentance was their belief in a sermon of fear, but the next and most immediate, an axiom of love [1] ; “Who can tell whether God will turn away his fierce wrath, that we perish not?” No conclusion such as theirs, “Let every man turn from his evil way,” but out of premises such as theirs were, fear and love. Wherefore the well-spring of repentance is faith, first breeding fear, and then love; which love causeth hope, hope resolution of attempt [2] ; “I will go to my Father, and say, I have sinned against heaven and against thee;” that is to say, I will do what the duty of a convert requireth.

[l] Now in a penitent’s or convert’s duty, there are included, first, the aversion of the will from sin [3] ; secondly, the submission of ourselves to God by supplication and prayer; thirdly, the purpose of a new life, testified with present works of amendment: which three things do very well seem to be comprised in one definition, by them which handle repentance, as a virtue that hateth, bewaileth, and sheweth a purpose to amend sin. We offend God in thought, word, and deed. To the first of which three, they make contrition; to the second, confession; and to the last, our works of satisfaction, answerable.

[m] Contrition doth not here import those sudden pangs and convulsions of the mind which cause sometimes the most forsaken of God to retract their own doings; it is no natural passion or anguish, which riseth in us against our wills, but a deliberate aversion of the will of man from sin; which being always accompanied with grief, and grief oftentimes partly with tears, partly with other external signs, it hath been thought, that in these things contrition doth chiefly consist: whereas the chiefest thing in contrition is that alteration whereby the will,     BOOK VI. Ch. iii. 6. iv. 1.  which was before delighted with sin, doth now abhor and shun nothing more. But forasmuch as we cannot hate sin in ourselves without heaviness and grief, that there should be in us a thing of such hateful quality, the will averted from sin must needs make the affection suitable; yea, great reason why it should so do: for sith the will by conceiving sin hath deprived the soul of life; and of life there is no recovery without repentance, the death of sin; repentance not able to kill sin, but by withdrawing the will from it; the will unpossible to be withdrawn, unless it concur with a contrary affection to that which accompanied it before in evil: is it not clear that as an inordinate delight did first begin sin, so repentance must begin with a just sorrow, a sorrow of heart, and such a sorrow as renteth the heart; neither a feigned nor a slight [n] sorrow; not feigned, lest it increase sin; nor slight, lest the pleasures of sin overmatch it.

Wherefore of Grace, the highest cause from which man’s penitency doth proceed; of faith, fear, love, hope, what force and efficiency they have in repentance; of parts and duties thereunto belonging, comprehended in the schoolmen’s definitions; finally, of the first among those duties, contrition, which disliketh and bewaileth iniquity, let this suffice.

[o] And because God will have offences by repentance not only abhorred within ourselves, but also with humble supplication displayed before him, and a testimony of amendment to be given, even by present works, worthy repentance, in that they are contrary to those we renounce and disclaim: although the virtue of repentance do require that her other two parts, confession and satisfaction, should here follow; yet seeing they belong as well to the discipline as to the virtue of repentance, and only differ for that in the one they are performed to man, in the other to God alone; I had rather distinguish them in joint handling, than handle them apart, because in quality and manner of practice they are distinct [p] .

Of the Discipline of Repentance instituted by Christ, practised by the Fathers, converted by the Schoolmen into a Sacrament: and of Confession; that which belongeth to the virtue of repentance, that which was used among the Jews, that which the Papacy imagineth a Sacrament, and that which ancient discipline practised.  IV. [q] Our Lord and Saviour in the sixteenth of St. Matthew’s Gospel giveth his Apostles regiment in general over God’s Church [1] . For they that have the keys of the kingdom of heaven are thereby signified to be stewards of the house of God, under whom they guide, command, judge, and correct his family. The souls of men are God’s treasure, committed to the trust and fidelity of such as must render a strict account for the very least which is under their custody. God hath not invested them with power to make a revenue thereof, but to use it for the good of them whom Jesus Christ hath most dearly bought.

And because their office herein [r] consisteth of sundry functions, some belonging to doctrine, some to discipline, all contained in the name of the Keys; they have for matters of discipline, as well litigious as criminal, their courts and consistories erected by the heavenly authority of his most sacred voice, who hath said, Dic Ecclesiæ, Tell the Church [1] : against rebellious and contumacious persons which refuse to obey their sentence, armed they are with power to eject such out of the Church, to deprive them of the honours, rights, and privileges of Christian men, to make them as heathen and publicans, with whom society was hateful.

Furthermore, lest their acts should be slenderly accounted of,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 2.  or had in contempt, whether they admit to the fellowship of saints or seclude from it, whether they bind offenders or set them again at liberty, whether they remit or retain sins, whatsoever is done by way of orderly and lawful proceeding, the Lord himself hath promised to ratify. This is that grand original warrant, by force whereof the guides and prelates in God’s Church, first his Apostles [2] , and afterwards others following them successively [3] , did both use and uphold that discipline, the end whereof is to heal men’s consciences, to cure their sins, to reclaim offenders from iniquity, and to make them by repentance just.

Neither hath it of ancient time for any other respect been accustomed to bind by ecclesiastical censures, to retain so bound till tokens of manifest repentance appeared, and upon apparent repentance to release, saving only because this was received as a most expedient method for the cure of sin.

[s] The course of discipline in former ages reformed open transgressors by putting them unto offices of open penitence;     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 3.  especially confession, whereby they declared their own crimes in the hearing of the whole Church, and were not from the time of their first convention capable of the holy mysteries of Christ, till they had solemnly discharged this [t] duty.

Offenders in secret, knowing themselves altogether as unworthy to be admitted to the Lord’s table, as the others [u] which were withheld, being also persuaded, that if the Church did direct them in the offices of their penitency, and assist them with public prayer, they should more easily obtain that they sought, than by trusting wholly to their own endeavours; finally, having no impediment to stay them from it but bashfulness, which countervailed not the former inducements, and besides was greatly eased by the good construction which the charity of those times gave to such actions, wherein men’s piety and voluntary care to be reconciled to God, did purchase them much more love, than their faults (the testimonies of common frailty) were able to procure disgrace; they made it not nice to use some one of the ministers of God, by whom the rest might take notice of their faults, prescribe them convenient remedies, and in the end after public confession, all join in prayer unto God for them.

The first beginners of this custom had the more followers, by means of that special favour which always was with good consideration shewed towards voluntary penitents above the rest. But as professors of Christian belief grew more in number, so they waxed worse, when kings and princes had submitted their dominions unto the sceptre of Jesus Christ, by means whereof persecution ceasing, the Church immediately became subject to those evils which peace and security bringeth forth; there was not now that love which before kept all things in tune, but every where schisms, discords, dissensions amongst men, conventicles of heretics, bent more vehemently against the sounder and better sort than very infidels and heathens themselves; faults not corrected in charity, but noted with delight, and kept for malice to use when deadliest opportunities should be offered. Whereupon, forasmuch as public confessions became dangerous and prejudicial to the safety of well-minded men, and in divers respects advantageous to the enemies of God’s Church, it seemed first unto some, and afterwards generally, requisite, that voluntary penitents should surcease from open confession.

[x] Instead whereof, when once private and secret confession had taken place with the Latins, it continued as a profitable ordinance, till the Lateran council [1] had decreed, that all men once in a year at the least should confess themselves to the priest. So that being thus made a thing [y] both general and also necessary, the next degree of estimation whereunto it grew, was to be honoured and lifted up to the nature of a sacrament; that as Christ did institute Baptism to give life, and the Eucharist to nourish life, so Penitency [z] might be thought a sacrament ordained to recover life, and Confession a part of the sacrament.

They define therefore their private penitency [2] to be “a sacrament of remitting sins after baptism:” the virtue of repentance, “a detestation of wickedness [3] , with full purpose to amend the same, and with hope to obtain pardon at God’s hands.” Wheresoever the Prophets cry Repent, and in the Gospel Saint Peter maketh the same exhortation to the Jews as yet unbaptized, they will have the virtue of repentance only to be understood; the sacrament, where he adviseth Simon Magus to repent, because the sin of Simon Magus was after baptism.

Now although they have only external repentance for a sacrament, internal for a virtue, yet make they sacramental repentance nevertheless to be composed of three parts, contrition, confession, and satisfaction: which is absurd; because contrition, being an inward thing, belongeth to the virtue and not to the sacrament of repentance, which must consist of external parts, if the nature thereof be external. Besides, which is more absurd, they leave out absolution; whereas some of their school-divines [1] , handling penance in the nature of a sacrament, and being not able to espy the least resemblance of a sacrament save only in absolution (for a sacrament by their doctrine must both signify and also confer or bestow some special divine grace), resolved themselves, that the duties of the penitent could be but mere preparations to the sacrament, and that the sacrament itself was wholly in absolution. And albeit Thomas with his followers have thought it safer, to maintain as well the services of the penitent, as the words of the minister, necessary unto the essence of their sacrament; the services of the penitent, as a cause material; the words of absolution, as a formal [2] ; for that by them all things else are perfected to the taking away of sin; which opinion now reigneth in all their schools, sithence the time that the council of Trent [3] gave it solemn approbation; seeing they all make absolution, if not the whole essence, yet the very form whereunto they ascribe chiefly the whole force and operation of their sacrament; surely to admit the matter as a part, and not to admit the form, hath small congruity with reason.

Again, forasmuch as a sacrament is complete, having the matter and form which it ought, what should lead them to set down any other part [a] of sacramental repentance, than confession and absolution, as Durandus [4] hath done? For touching satisfaction,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 4.  the end thereof, as they understand it, is a further matter, which resteth after the sacrament administered, and therefore can be no part of the sacrament. Will they draw in contrition with satisfaction, which are no parts, and exclude absolution, a principal part, yea, the very complement, form, and perfection of the rest, as themselves account it?

But for their breach of precepts in art, it skilleth not, if their doctrine otherwise concerning penitency, and in penitency [b] , touching confession, might be found true. [c] We say, let no man look for pardon, which doth smother and conceal sin, where in duty it should be revealed. The cause why God requireth confession to be made to him is, that thereby testifying a deep hatred of our own iniquities [d] , the only cause of his hatred and wrath towards us, we might, because we are humble, be so much the more capable of that compassion and tender mercy, which knoweth not how to condemn sinners that condemn themselves. If it be our Saviour’s own principle, that the conceit we have of our debt forgiven, proportioneth our thankfulness and love to him at whose hands we receive pardon [1] , doth not God foresee, that they which with ill-advised modesty seek to hide their sin like Adam [2] , that they which rake it up under ashes, and confess it not, are very unlikely to requite with offices of love afterwards the grace which they shew themselves unwilling to prize at the very time when they sue for it; inasmuch as their not confessing what crimes they have committed, is a plain signification, how loth they are that the benefit of God’s most gracious pardon should seem great? Nothing more true than that of Tertullian [3] , “Confession doth as much abate the weight of men’s offences, as concealment doth make them heavier. For he which confesseth hath a purpose to appease God; he, a determination to persist and continue obstinate, which keepeth them secret to himself.” St. Chrysostom almost in the same words [1] , “Wickedness is by being acknowledged lessened, and doth [e] grow by being hid. If men having done amiss let it slip, as though they knew no such matter, what is there to stay them from falling often [f] into one and the same evil? To call ourselves sinners availeth nothing, except we lay our faults in the balance, and take the weight of them one by one. Confess thy crimes to God, disclose thy transgressions before the [g] Judge, by way of humble supplication and suit, if not with tongue, at the least with heart, and in this sort seek mercy. A general persuasion that thou art a sinner will neither so humble nor [h] bridle thy soul, as if the catalogue of thy sins examined severally be continually kept in mind. This shall make thee lowly in thine own eyes, this shall preserve thy feet from falling, and sharpen thy desire towards all good things. The mind I know doth hardly admit such unpleasant remembrances, but we must force it, we must constrain it thereunto. It is safer now to be bitten with the memory, than hereafter with the torment of sin.”

The Jews, with whom no repentance for sin is held [i] available without confession, either conceived in mind or uttered; which latter kind they call usually וִדּוּי, confession delivered by word of mouth [2] ; had first that general confession which once every year was made, both severally by each of the people for himself upon the day of expiation, and by the priest for them all [1] , acknowledging unto God [2] the manifold transgressions of the whole nation, his own personal offences likewise, together with the sins, as well of his family, as of the rest of his rank and order.

They had again their voluntary confessions, at all [k] times and seasons, when men, bethinking themselves of their wicked conversation past, were resolved to change their course, the beginning of which alteration was still confession of sins.

Thirdly, over and besides these, the law imposed upon them also that special confession which they in their books call [l] וִרּוִי עַל עָוׁן מְיוּחָר, confession of that particular fault for which we namely seek pardon at God’s hands. The words of the law [3] concerning confession in this kind are as followeth: “When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, and transgress against the Lord, their sin which they have done” (that is to say, the very deed itself in particular) “they shall acknowledge.” In Leviticus, after certain transgressions there mentioned, we read the like [4] : “When a man hath sinned in any one of these things, he shall then confess, how in that thing he hath offended.” For such kind of special sins they had also special sacrifices, wherein the manner was, that the offender should lay his hands on the head of the sacrifice which he brought, and should there make confession to God, saying [5] , “Now, O Lord, that I have offended, committed sin and done wickedly in thy sight, this or this being my fault; behold I repent me, and am utterly ashamed of my doings; my purpose is, never to return more to the same crime.”

[6] Finally, there was no man amongst them at any time, either condemned to suffer death,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 5.  or corrected, or chastised with stripes, none ever sick and near his end, but they called upon him to repent and confess his sins.

Of malefactors convict by witnesses, and thereupon either adjudged to die, or otherwise chastised, their custom was to exact, as Joshua did of Achan, open confession [1] : “My son, now give glory to the Lord God of Israel; confess unto him, and declare unto me what thou hast committed; conceal it not from me.”

Concerning injuries and trespasses which happen between men, they highly commend such as will acknowledge before many. “ [2] It is in him which repenteth accepted as an high sacrifice, if he will confess before many, make them acquainted with his oversights, and reveal the transgressions which have passed between him and any of his brethren; saying, I have verily offended this man, thus and thus I have done unto him; but behold I do now repent and am sorry. Contrariwise, whosoever is proud, and will not be known of his faults, but cloaketh them, is not yet come to perfect repentance; for so it is written [3] , ‘He that hideth his sins shall not prosper:’ ” which words of Salomon they do not further extend, than only to sins committed against men, which are in that respect meet before men to be acknowledged particularly. “But in sins between man and God, there is no necessity that man should himself make any such open and particular recital of them:” to God they are known, and of us it is required, that we cast not the memory of them carelessly and loosely behind our backs, but keep in mind, as near as we can, both our own debt and his grace which remitteth the same.

[m] Wherefore, to let pass Jewish confession, and to come unto them which hold confession in the ear of the priest commanded, yea, commanded in the nature of a sacrament, and thereby so necessary that sin without it cannot be pardoned; let them find such a commandment in holy Scripture, and we ask no more. John the Baptist was an extraordinary person; his birth, his actions of life, his office extraordinary. It is therefore recorded for the strangeness of the act, but not set down as an everlasting law for the world [1] , “that to him Jerusalem and all Judæa made confession of their sins;” besides, at the time of this confession, their pretended sacrament of repentance, as they grant, was not yet instituted; neither was it sin after baptism which penitents did there confess. When that which befell the seven sons of Sceva [2] , for using the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in their conjurations, was notified to Jews and Grecians in Ephesus, it brought an universal fear upon them, insomuch that divers of them which had believed before, but not obeyed the laws of Christ as they should have done, being terrified by this example, came to the Apostle, and confessed their wicked deeds. Which good and virtuous act no wise man, (as I suppose,) will disallow, but commend highly in them, whom God’s good Spirit shall move to do the like when need requireth. Yet neither hath this example the force of any general commandment or law, to make it necessary for every man to pour into the ears of the priest whatsoever hath been done amiss, or else to remain everlastingly culpable and guilty of sin; in a word, it proveth confession practised as a virtuous act, but not commanded as a sacrament.

Now concerning St. James his exhortation [3] , whether the former branch be considered, which saith, “Is any sick amongst you? let him call for the ancients of the Church, and let them make their prayers for him;” or the latter, which stirreth up all Christian men unto mutual acknowledgment of faults among themselves, “Lay open your minds, make your confessions one to another;” is it not plain, that the one hath relation to that gift of healing, which our Saviour promised his Church, saying [4] , “They shall lay their hands on the sick, and the sick shall recover health;” relation to that gift of healing, whereby the Apostle imposed his hands on the father of Publius [5] , and made him miraculously a sound man; relation, finally, to that gift of healing, which so long continued in practice after the Apostles’ times, that whereas the Novatianists denied the power of the Church of God in curing sin after baptism, St. Ambrose asked them again [1] , “Why it might not as well prevail with God for spiritual as for corporal and bodily health; yea, wherefore,” saith he, “do ye yourselves lay hands on the diseased, and believe it to be a work of benediction or prayer, if happily the sick person be restored to his former safety?” And of the other member, which toucheth mutual confession, do not some of themselves, as namely Cajetan [2] , deny that any other confession is meant, than only that, “which seeketh either association of prayers, or reconciliation, and pardon of wrongs?” Is it not confessed by the greatest part of their own retinue [3] , that we cannot certainly affirm sacramental confession to have been meant or spoken of in this place? Howbeit Bellarmine, delighted to run a course by himself where colourable shifts of wit will but make the way passable, standeth as formally for this place [4] , and no less for that in St. John, than for this.

St. John saith [5] , “If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness;” doth St. John say, If we confess to the priest, God is righteous to forgive; and if not, that our sins are unpardonable? No, but the titles of God, just and righteous, do import that he pardoneth sin only for his promise sake; “And there is not” (they say) “any promise of forgiveness upon confession made to God without the priest [6] .” Not any promise, but with this condition, and yet this condition no where exprest?     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 6.  Is it not strange, that the Scripture speaking so much of repentance, and of the several duties which appertain thereunto, should ever mean, and no where mention, that one condition, without which all the rest is utterly of none effect? or will they say, because our Saviour hath said to his ministers, “Whose sins ye retain,” c. and because they can remit no more than what the offenders have confest, that therefore, by virtue of this [n] promise, it standeth with the righteousness of God to take away no man’s sins, until by auricular confession they be opened unto the priest?

[o] They are men that would seem to honour antiquity, and none more to depend upon the reverend judgment thereof. I dare boldly affirm, that for many hundred years after Christ the Fathers held no such opinion; they did not gather by our Saviour’s words any such necessity of seeking the priest’s absolution from sin, by secret and (as they now term it) sacramental confession: public confession they thought necessary by way of discipline, not private confession, as in the nature of a sacrament, necessary.

For to begin with the purest times, it is unto them which read and judge without partiality a thing most clear, that the ancient ἐξομολόγησις or Confession, defined by Tertullian [1] to be a discipline of humiliation and submission, framing men’s behaviour in such sort as may be fittest to move pity, the confession which they use to speak of in the exercise of repentance, was made openly in the hearing of the whole both ecclesiastical consistory and assembly. [2] This is the reason wherefore he perceiving that divers were better content their sores should secretly fester and eat inward, than be laid so open to the eyes of many, blameth greatly their unwise bashfulness, and to reform the same, persuadeth with them, saying [1] , “Amongst thy brethren and fellow-servants, which are partakers with thee of one and the same nature, fear, joy, grief, sufferings, (for of one common Lord and Father we all have received one spirit,) why shouldst thou not think with thyself, that they are but thine ownself? wherefore dost thou avoid them, as likely to insult over thee, whom thou knowest subject to the same haps? At that which grieveth any one part, the whole body cannot rejoice, it must needs be that the whole will labour and strive to help that wherewith a part of itself is molested.”

St. Cyprian, being grieved with the dealings of them, who in time of persecution had through fear betrayed their faith, and notwithstanding thought by shift to avoid in that case the necessary discipline of the church, wrote for their better instruction the book intituled De Lapsis; a treatise concerning such as had openly forsaken their religion, and yet were loth openly to confess their fault in such manner as they should have done: in which book he compareth with this sort of men, certain others which had but a purpose only to have departed from the faith; and yet could not quiet their minds, till this very secret and hidden fault was confest: “How much both greater in faith,” saith St. Cyprian [2] , “and also as touching their fear better are those men, who although neither sacrifice nor libel [3] could be objected against them, yet because they thought to have done that which they should not, even this their intent they dolefully open unto God’s priests; they confess that whereof their conscience accuseth them, the burden that presseth their minds they discover, they foreslow not of smaller and slighter evils to seek remedy.” He saith, they declared their fault, not to one only man in private, but they revealed it to God’s priests; they confest it before the whole consistory of God’s ministers.

Salvianus, (for I willingly embrace their conjecture, who ascribe those homilies to him, which have hitherto by common error past under the counterfeit name of Eusebius Emesenus [1] ,) I say, Salvianus, though coming long after Cyprian in time, giveth nevertheless the same evidence for this truth, in a case very little different from that before alleged; his words are these: “ [2] Whereas, most dearly beloved, we see that penance oftentimes is sought and sued for by holy souls which even from their youth have bequeathed themselves a precious treasure unto God, let us know that the inspiration of God’s good spirit moveth them so to do for the benefit of his Church, and let such as are wounded learn to inquire for that remedy, whereunto the very soundest do thus offer and obtrude as it were themselves, that if the virtuous do bewail small offences, the other cease not to lament great. And surely, when a man that hath less need, performeth sub oculis Ecclesiæ, in the view, sight, and beholding of the whole Church, an office worthy of his faith and compunction for sin, the good which others thereby reap is his own harvest, the heap of his rewards groweth by that which another gaineth, and through a kind of spiritual usury, from that amendment of life which others learn by him, there returneth lucre into his coffers.”

The same Salvianus, in another of his Homilies [1] , “If faults happily be not great and grievous, (for example, if a man have offended in word, or in desire, worthy of reproof, if in the wantonness of his eye, or the vanity of his heart,) the stains of words and thoughts are by daily prayer to be cleansed, and by private compunction to be scoured out: but if any man examining inwardly his own conscience, have committed some high and capital offence, as, if by bearing false witness he have quelled and betrayed his faith, and by rashness of perjury have violated the sacred name of truth; if with the mire of lustful uncleanness he have sullied the veil of baptism, and the gorgeous robe of virginity; if by being the cause of any man’s death, he have been the death of the new man within himself; if by conference with soothsayers, wizards, and charmers, he hath enthralled himself to Satan: these and such like committed crimes cannot throughly be taken away with ordinary, moderate, and secret satisfaction; but greater causes do require greater and sharper remedies: they need such remedies as are not only sharp, but solemn, open, and public.” Again [2] , “Let that soul,” saith he, “answer me, which through pernicious shamefastness is now so abasht to acknowledge his sin in conspectu fratrum, before his brethren, as he should have been before abasht to commit the same, what he will do in the presence of that Divine tribunal, where he is to stand arraigned in the assembly of a glorious and celestial host?”

I will hereunto add but St. Ambrose’s testimony; for the places which I might allege are more than the cause itself needeth. “There are many,” saith he [1] , “who fearing the judgment that is to come, and feeling inward remorse of conscience, when they have offered themselves unto penitency and are enjoined what they shall do, give back for the only scar which they think that public supplication will put them unto.” He speaketh of them which sought voluntarily to be penanced, and yet withdrew themselves from open confession, which they that were penitents for public crimes could not possibly have done, and therefore it cannot be said he meaneth any other than secret sinners in that place.

Gennadius, a Presbyter of Marsiles, in his book touching Ecclesiastical Assertions, maketh but two kinds of confession necessary: the one in private to God alone for smaller offences; the other open, when crimes committed are heinous and great [2] : “Although,” saith he, “a man be bitten with the conscience [p] of sin, let his will be from thenceforward to sin no more; let him, before he communicate, satisfy with tears and prayers, and then putting his trust in the mercy of Almighty God (whose wont is to yield unto godly confessions) let him boldly receive the sacrament. But I speak this of such as have not burthened themselves with capital sins: them I exhort to satisfy first by public penance, that so being reconciled by the sentence of the priest, they may communicate safely with others.”

Thus still we hear of public confessions, although the crimes themselves discovered were not public; we hear that the cause of such confessions was not the openness, but the greatness, of men’s offences; finally, we hear that the same being now not held [q] by the church of Rome to be sacramental, were the only penitential confessions used in the Church for a long time, and esteemed as necessary remedies against sin.

They which will find auricular confessions in St. Cyprian [1] , therefore, must seek out some other passage than that which Bellarmine allegeth; “Whereas in smaller faults which are not committed against the Lord himself, there is a competent time assigned unto penitency, and that confession is made, after that observation [2] and trial had been had of the penitent’s behaviour, neither may any communicate till the Bishop and clergy have laid their hands upon him; how much more ought all things to be warily and stayedly observed, according to the discipline of the Lord, in those most grievous and extreme crimes.” St. Cyprian’s speech is against rashness in admitting idolaters to the holy Communion, before they had shewed sufficient repentance, considering that other offenders were forced to stay out their time, and that they made not their public confession, which was the last act of penitency, till their life and conversation had been seen into, not with the eye of auricular scrutiny, but of pastoral observation, according to that in the council of Nice [3] , where, thirteen years being set for the penitency of certain offenders,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 7.  the severity of this decree is mitigated with special caution: “That in all such cases, the mind of the penitent and the manner of his repentance is to be noted, that as many as with fear and tears and meekness, and the exercise of good works, declared themselves to be converts indeed, and not in outward appearance only, towards them the bishop at his discretion might use more lenity.” If the council of Nice suffice not, let Gratian, the founder of the Canon Law, expound Cyprian, who sheweth [1] that the stint of time in penitency is either to be abridged or enlarged, as the penitent’s faith and behaviour shall give occasion. “I have easilier found out men,” saith St. Ambrose [2] , “able to keep themselves free from crimes, than conformable to the rules which in penitency they should observe.” St. Gregory Bishop of Nyse [r] complaineth and inveigheth bitterly against them, who in the time of their penitency lived even as they had done always before [3] : “Their countenance as cheerful, their attire as neat, their diet as costly, and their sleep as secure as ever, their worldly business purposely followed, to exile pensive thoughts from their minds, repentance pretended, but indeed nothing less exprest:” these were the inspections of life whereunto St. Cyprian alludeth; as for auricular examinations he knew them not.

[s] Were the Fathers then without use of private confession as long as public was in use? I affirm no such thing. The first and ancientest that mentioneth this confession is Origen, by whom it may seem that men, being loth to present rashly themselves and their faults unto the view of the whole Church, thought it best to unfold first their minds to some one special man of the clergy, which might either help them himself, or refer them to an higher court, if need were. “Be therefore circumspect,” saith Origen [1] , “in making choice of the party to whom thou meanest to confess thy sin; know thy physician before thou use him: if he find thy malady such as needeth to be made public, that others may be the better by it, and thyself sooner helpt, his counsel must be obeyed and followed.”

That which moved sinners thus voluntarily to detect themselves both in private and in public, was fear to receive with other Christian men the mysteries of heavenly grace, till God’s appointed stewards and ministers did judge them worthy. It is in this respect that St. Ambrose findeth fault with certain men which sought imposition of penance, and were not willing to wait their time, but would be presently admitted communicants. “Such people,” saith he [2] , “do seek, by so rash and preposterous desires, rather to bring the priest into bonds than to loose themselves.” In this respect it is that St. Augustine hath likewise said [3] , “When the wound of sin is so wide, and the disease so far gone, that the medicinable body and blood of our Lord may not be touched, men are by the Bishop’s authority to sequester themselves from the altar, till such time as they have repented, and be after reconciled by the same authority.”

Furthermore, because the knowledge how to handle our own sores is no vulgar and common art, but we either carry towards ourselves for the most part an over-soft and gentle hand, fearful of touching too near the quick; or else, endeavouring not to be partial, we fall into timorous scrupulosities, and sometimes into those extreme discomforts of mind, from which we hardly do ever lift up our heads again; men thought it the safest way to disclose their secret faults, and to crave imposition of penance from them whom our Lord Jesus Christ hath left in his Church to be spiritual and ghostly physicians, the guides and pastors of redeemed souls, whose office doth not only consist in general persuasions unto amendment of life, but also in the private particular cure of diseased minds.

Howsoever the Novatianists presume to plead against the Church, saith Salvianus [1] , that “every man ought to be his own penitentiary, and that it is a part of our duty to exercise, but not of the Church’s authority to impose or prescribe repentance;” the truth is otherwise, the best and strongest of us may need in such cases direction: “What doth the Church in giving penance, but shew the remedies which sin requireth? or what do we in receiving the same, but fulfil her precepts? what else but sue unto God with tears and fasts, that his merciful ears may be opened?”

St. Augustine’s exhortation is directly to the same purpose; “ [2] Let every man while he hath time judge himself, and change his life of his own accord; and when this is resolved upon, let him from the disposers of the holy sacraments [1] learn in what manner he is to pacify God’s displeasure.”

But the greatest thing which made men forward and willing upon their knees to confess whatsoever they had committed against God, and in no wise to be withheld from the same with any fear of disgrace, contempt, or obloquy, which might ensue, was their fervent desire to be helped and assisted with the prayers of God’s saints. Wherein as St. James [2] doth exhort unto mutual confession, alleging this only for a reason, that just men’s devout prayers are of great avail with God; so it hath been heretofore the use of penitents for that intent to unburthen their minds, even to private persons, and to crave their prayers. Whereunto Cassianus alluding, counselleth [3] , “That if men possest with dulness of spirit be themselves unapt to do that which is required, they should in meek affection seek health at the least by good and virtuous men’s prayers unto God for them.” And to the same effect Gregory, Bishop of [t] Nyss [4] : “Humble thyself, and take unto thee such of thy brethren as are of one mind, and do bear kind affection towards thee, that they may together mourn and labour for thy deliverance. Shew me thy bitter and abundant tears, that I may blend mine own with them.” But because of all men there is or should be none in that respect more fit for troubled and distressed minds to repair unto than God’s ministers, he proceedeth further [5] : “Make the priest, as a father, partaker of thy affliction [u] and grief; be bold to impart unto him the things that are most secret, he will have care both of thy safety and of thy credit.”

“Confession,”     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 8.  saith Leo [1] , “is first to be offered to God, and then to the priest, as to one which maketh supplication for the sins of penitent offenders.” Suppose we, that men would ever have been easily drawn, much less of their own accord have come unto public confession, whereby they knew they should sound the trumpet of their own disgrace; would they willingly have done this, which naturally all men are loth to do, but for the singular trust and confidence which they had in the public prayers of God’s Church? “Let thy mother the Church weep for thee,” saith St. Ambrose [2] , “let her wash and bathe thy faults with her tears: our Lord doth love that many should become suppliants [x] for one.” In like sort, long before him, Tertullian [3] , “Some few assembled make a Church, and the Church is as Christ himself; when thou dost therefore put forth thy hands to the knees of thy brethren, thou touchest Christ; it is Christ unto whom thou art a suppliant [y] ; so when they pour out their [z] tears over them, it is even Christ that taketh compassion; Christ which prayeth when they pray: neither can that be easily denied, for which the Son is himself contented to become a suitor.”

[a] Whereas in these considerations therefore, voluntary penitents had been long accustomed, for great and grievous crimes, though secret, yet openly both to repent and confess, as the canons of ancient discipline required; the Greek church first, and in process of time the Latin altered this order, judging it sufficient and more convenient that such offenders should do penance and make confession in private only. The cause why the Latins did, Leo declareth, saying, “ [1] Although that ripeness of faith be commendable, which for the fear of God doth not fear to incur shame before all men; yet because every one’s crimes are not such, that it can be free and safe for them to make publication of all things wherein repentance is necessary; let a custom so unfit to be kept be abrogated, lest many forbear to use the remedies of penitency, whilst they either blush or are afraid to acquaint their enemies with those acts for which the laws may take hold upon them. Besides, it shall win the more to repentance, if the consciences of sinners be not emptied into the people’s ears.” And to this only cause doth Sozomen [2] impute the change which the Grecians made, by ordaining throughout all churches certain penitentiaries to take the confessions, and appoint the penances of secret offenders. Socrates [3] (for this also may be true, that moe [b] inducements than one did set forward an alteration so generally made) affirmeth the Grecians (and not unlikely) to have especially [c] respected therein the occasion, which the Novatianists took at the multitude of public penitents, to insult over the discipline of the Church, against which they still cried out wheresoever they had time and place, “ [4] He that sheweth sinners favour, doth but teach the innocent to sin.”     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 9.  And therefore they themselves admitted no man to their communion upon any repentance, which once was known to have offended after baptism, making sinners thereby not the fewer, but the closer and the more obdurate, how fair soever their pretence might seem.

[d] The Grecians’ canon for some one presbyter in every Church to undertake the charge of penitency, and to receive their voluntary confessions which had sinned after baptism, continued in force for the space of about some hundred years [1] , till Nectarius, and the bishops of churches under him, began a second alteration, abolishing even that confession which their penitentiaries took in private. There came to the penitentiary of the Church of Constantinople a certain gentlewoman [2] , and to him she made particular confession of her faults committed after baptism, whom thereupon he advised to continue in fasting and prayer, that as with tongue she had acknowledged her sins, so there might appear in her likewise some work worthy of repentance. But the gentlewoman goeth forward, and detecteth herself of a crime, whereby they were forced to disrobe an ecclesiastical person, that is, to degrade a deacon of the same Church. When the matter by this mean came to public notice, the people were in a kind of tumult offended [3] , not only at that which was done, but much more, because the Church should thereby endure open infamy and scorn. The clergy perplexed and altogether doubtful what way to take, till one Eudæmon, born in Alexandria, but at that time a priest in the church of Constantinople, considering that the cause of voluntary confession, whether public or private, was especially to seek the Church’s aid, as hath been before declared, lest men should either not communicate with others, or wittingly hazard their souls, if so be they did communicate, and that the inconvenience which grew to the whole Church was otherwise exceeding great, but especially grievous by means of so manifold offensive detections, which must needs be continually more, as the world did itself wax continually worse (for antiquity together with the gravity and severity thereof (saith Sozomen [1] ) had already begun by little and little to degenerate into loose and careless living, whereas before offences were less, partly through bashfulness in them which opened [e] their own faults, and partly by means of their great austerity which sate [f] as judges in this business): these things Eudæmon having weighed with himself, resolved easily the mind of Nectarius, that the penitentiaries’ office must be taken away, and for participation in God’s holy mysteries every man be left to his own conscience; which was, as he thought, the only mean to free the Church from danger of obloquy and disgrace. “Thus much,” saith Socrates [2] , “I am the bolder to relate, because I received it from Eudæmon’s own mouth, to whom my [g] answer was at that time; Whether your counsel, sir, have been for the Church’s good, or otherwise, God knoweth: but I see you have given occasion,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 10.  whereby we shall not now any more reprehend one another’s faults, nor observe that apostolic precept, which saith, Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather be ye also reprovers of them.” With Socrates, Sozomen [1] both agreeth in the occasion of abolishing penitentiaries; and moreover testifieth also, that in his time, living with the younger Theodosius, the same abolition did still continue, and that the bishops had in a manner every where followed the example given them by Nectarius.

[h] Wherefore to implead the truth of this history, Cardinal Baronius allegeth that Socrates, Sozomen and Eudæmon were all Novatianists; and that they falsify in saying (for so they report), that as many as held the consubstantial being of Christ, gave their assent to the abrogation of the forerehearsed canon. The sum is, he would have it taken for a fable, and the world to be persuaded that Nectarius did never any such thing [2] . Why then should Socrates first and afterwards Sozomen publish it? To please their pew-fellows, the disciples of Novatian. A poor gratification, and they very silly friends, that would take lies for good turns. For the more acceptable the matter was, being deemed true, the less they must needs (when they found the contrary) either credit or affect him, which had deceived them. Notwithstanding we know that joy and gladness rising from false information, do not only make men forward [i] to believe that which they first hear, but also apt to scholie upon it, and to report as true whatsoever they wish were true. But so far is Socrates from any such purpose, that the fact of Nectarius, which others did both like and follow, he doth both [k] disallow and reprove. His speech to Eudæmon, before set down, is proof sufficient that he writeth nothing but what was famously known to all, and what himself did wish had been otherwise. As for Sozomen’s correspondence [l] with heretics, having shewed to what end the Church did first ordain penitentiaries, he addeth immediately, that Novatianists, which had no care of repentance, could have no need of this office [1] . Are these the words of a friend or an enemy? Besides, in the entrance of that whole narration [2] , “Not to sin,” saith he, “at all, would require a nature more divine than ours is: but God hath commanded to pardon sinners: yea, although they transgress and offend often.” Could there be any thing spoken more directly opposite to the doctrine of Novatian?

Eudæmon was presbyter under Nectarius. To Novatianists the Emperor gave liberty of using their religion quietly by themselves, under a bishop of their own, even within the city, for that they stood with the Church in defence of the Catholic faith against all other heretics besides [3] . Had therefore Eudæmon favoured their heresy, their camps were not pitched so far off, but he might at all times have found easy access unto them. Is there any man that lived with him, and hath touched him that way? if not, why suspect we him more than Nectarius?

Their report touching Grecian catholic bishops, who gave approbation to that which was done, and did also the like themselves in their own churches, we have no reason to discredit, without some manifest and clear evidence brought against it. For of Catholic bishops, no likelihood but that their greatest respect to Nectarius, a man honoured in those parts no less than the Bishop of Rome himself in the western churches,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 11.  brought them both easily and speedily unto conformity with him; Arians, Eunomians, Apollinarians, and the rest that stood divided from the Church, held their penitentiaries as before. Novatianists from the beginning had never any, because their opinion touching penitency was against the practice of the Church therein, and a cause why they severed themselves from the Church: so that the very state of things as they then stood, giveth great show of probability to his speech, who hath affirmed [1] , “That they only which held the Son consubstantial with the Father, and Novatianists which joined with them in the same opinion, had no penitentiaries in their churches, the rest retained them.”

By this it appeareth therefore how Baronius, finding the relation plain, that Nectarius did abolish even those private secret confessions, which the people had before been accustomed to make to him that was penitentiary, laboureth what he may to discredit the authors of the report, and to leave it imprinted in men’s minds, that whereas Nectarius did but abrogate public confession, Novatianists have maliciously forged the abolition of private. As if the odds between these two were so great in the balance of their judgment, which equally hated and contemned both; or, as if it were not more clear than light, that the first alteration which established penitentiaries took away the burthen of public confession in that kind of penitents, and therefore the second must either abrogate private, or nothing.

[m] Cardinal Bellarmine therefore finding that against the writers of the history it is but in vain to stand upon so doubtful terms and exceptions, endeavoureth mightily to prove, even by their report, no other confession taken away than public, which penitentiaries used in private to impose upon public offenders [2] . “For why? It is,” saith he, “very certain, that the name of penitents in the Fathers’ writings signifieth only public penitents; certain, that to hear the confessions of the rest was more than one could possibly have done; certain, that Sozomen, to shew how the Latin Church retained in his time what the Greek had clean cast off, declareth the whole order of public penitency used in the Church of Rome, but of private he maketh no mention.” And, in these considerations, Bellarmine will have it the meaning both of Socrates and of [n] Sozomen, that the former episcopal constitution, which first did erect penitentiaries, could not concern any other offenders, than such as publicly had sinned after baptism; that only they were prohibited to come to the holy communion, except they did first in secret confess all their sins to the penitentiary, by his appointment openly acknowledge their open crimes, and do public penance for them; that whereas, before Novatian’s uprising, no man was constrainable to confess publicly any sin, this canon enforced public offenders thereunto, till such time as Nectarius thought good to extinguish the practice thereof.

Let us examine therefore these subtile and fine conjectures, whether they be able to hold the touch. “It seemed good,” saith Socrates, “to put down the office of these priests which had charge of penitency [1] ;” what charge that was, the kinds of penitency then usual must make manifest. There is often speech in the Fathers’ writings, in their books frequent mention of penitency, exercised within the chambers of our own heart, and seen of God, and not communicated to any other, the whole charge of which penitency is imposed of God, and doth rest upon the sinner himself. But if penitents in secret being guilty of crimes whereby they knew they had made themselves unfit guests for the table of our Lord, did seek direction for their better performance of that which should set them clear; it was in this case the Penitentiary’s office to take their confessions, to advise them the best way he could for their soul’s good, to admonish them, to counsel them, but not to lay upon them more than private penance. As for notorious wicked persons, whose crimes were known, to convent [o] , judge, and punish them, was the office of the ecclesiastical consistory; Penitentiaries had their institution to another end. Now [p] unless we imagine that the ancient time knew no other repentance than public, or that they had little occasion to speak of any other repentance, or else that in speaking thereof they used continually some other name, and not the name of repentance, whereby to express private penitency; how standeth it with reason, that wheresoever [q] they write of penitents, it should be thought they meant only public penitents? The truth is, they handle all three kinds, but private and voluntary repentance much oftener, as being of far more general use; whereas public was but incident unto few, and not oftener than once incident unto any. Howbeit, because they do not distinguish one kind of penitency from another by difference of names, our safest way for construction is to follow circumstance of matter, which in this narration will not yield itself appliable only unto public penance, do what they can that would so expound it.

They boldly and confidently affirm, that no man being compellable to confess publicly any sin before Novatian’s time, the end of instituting penitentiaries afterward in the Church was, that by them men might be constrained unto public confession. Is there any record in the world which doth testify this to be true? There is that testifieth the plain contrary. For Sozomen declaring purposely the cause of their institution, saith [1] , “That whereas men openly craving pardon at God’s hands (for public confession, the last act of penitency, was always made in the form of a contrite prayer unto God), it could not be avoided but they must withal confess what their offences were; this in the opinion of their prelates [r] seemed from the first beginning (as we may probably think) to be somewhat burthensome;” not burthensome, I think [s] , to notorious offenders; for what more just than in such sort to discipline them? but burthensome, that men whose crimes were unknown should blaze their own faults as it were on a stage, acquainting all the people with whatsoever they had done amiss. And therefore to remedy this inconvenience, they laid the charge upon one only priest, chosen out of such as were of best conversation, a silent and a discreet man, to whom they which had offended might resort and lay open their lives. He according to the quality of every one’s transgressions appointed what they should do or suffer, and left them to execute it upon themselves. Can we wish a more direct and evident testimony, that the office here spoken of was to ease voluntary penitents from the burthen of public confessions, and not to constrain notorious offenders thereunto? That such offenders were not compellable to open confession [t] till Novatian’s time, that is to say, till after the days of persecution under Decius the emperor, they of all men should not so peremptorily avouch; with whom if Fabian bishop of Rome, who suffered martyrdom [u] the first year of Decius, be of any authority and credit, it must enforce them to reverse their sentence, his words are so plain and clear against them [2] . “For such as commit those crimes, whereof the Apostle hath said, They that do them shall never inherit the kingdom of heaven, must,”     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 12.  saith he, “be forced unto amendment, because they slip down to hell, if ecclesiastical authority stay them not.” Their conceit of impossibility, that one man should suffice to take the general charge of penitency in such a church as Constantinople, hath arisen from a mere erroneous supposal, that the ancient manner of private confession was like the shrift at this day usual in the Church of Rome, which tieth all men at one certain time to make confession; whereas confession was then neither looked for till men did offer it, nor offered for the most part by any other than such as were guilty of heinous transgressions, nor to them any time appointed for that purpose. Finally, the drift which Sozomen had in relating the discipline of Rome, and the form of public penitency there retained even till his time, is not to signify that only public confession was abrogated by Nectarius, but that the West or Latin Church held still one and the same order from the very beginning, and had not, as the Greek, first cut off public voluntary confession by ordaining, and then private by removing Penitentiaries.

Wherefore to conclude, it standeth, I hope, very plain and clear, first against the one Cardinal, that Nectarius did truly abrogate confession in such sort as the ecclesiastical history hath reported; and secondly, as clear against them both, that it was not public confession only which Nectarius did abolish.

[x] The paradox in maintenance whereof [y] Hassels [1] wrote purposely a book touching this argument, to shew that Nectarius did but put the penitentiary from his office, and not take away the office itself, is repugnant to the whole advice which Eudæmon gave, of leaving the people from that time forward to their own consciences; repugnant to the conference between Socrates and Eudæmon, wherein complaint is made of some inconvenience which the want of the office would breed; finally, repugnant to that which the history declareth concerning other churches, which did as Nectarius had done before them, not in deposing the same man (for that was impossible) but in removing the same office out of their churches, which Nectarius had banished from his. For which cause Bellarmine [1] doth well reject the opinion of Hessels,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 13.  howsoever it please Pamelius [2] to admire it as a wonderful happy invention. But in sum, they are all gravelled, no one of them able to go smoothly away, and to satisfy either others or himself with his own conceit concerning Nectarius.

[z] Only in this they are stiff, that auricular confession Nectarius did not abrogate, lest if so much should be acknowledged, it might enforce them to grant that the Greek church at that time held not confession, as the Latin now doth, to be the part of a sacrament instituted by our Saviour Jesus Christ, which therefore the Church till the world’s end hath no power to alter. Yet seeing that as long as public voluntary confession of private crimes did continue in either church (as in the one it remained not much above two hundred years, in the other about four hundred) the only acts of such repentance were; first, the offender’s intimation of those crimes to some one presbyter, for which imposition of penance was sought; secondly, the undertaking of penance imposed by the Bishop; thirdly, after the same performed and ended, open confession to God in the hearing of the whole church; whereupon [a] ensued the prayers of the Church; [b] then the Bishop’s imposition of hands; and so [c] the party’s reconciliation or restitution to his former right in the holy sacrament: I would gladly know of them which make only private confession a part of their sacrament of penance, how it could be so in those times. For where the sacrament of penance is ministered, they hold that confession to be sacramental which he receiveth who must absolve; whereas during the fore-rehearsed manner of penance, it can no where be shewed, that the priest to whom secret information was given did reconcile or absolve any; for how could he, when public confession was to go before reconciliation, and reconciliation likewise in public thereupon to ensue? So that if they did account any confession [d] sacramental, it was surely public, which is now abolisht in the Church of Rome; and as for that which the Church of Rome doth so esteem, the ancient neither had it in such estimation, nor thought it to be of so absolute necessity for the taking away of sin.

But (for any thing that I could ever observe out of them) although not only in crimes open and notorious, which made men unworthy and uncapable of holy mysteries, their discipline required first public penance, and then granted that which St. Hierom mentioneth, saying, “The priest layeth his hand upon the penitent, and by invocation entreateth that the Holy Ghost may return to him again, and so after having enjoined solemnly all the people to pray for him, reconcileth to the altar him who was delivered to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit might be safe in the day of the Lord [1] :”—Although I say not only in such offences being famously known to the world, but also if the same were committed secretly, it was the custom of those times, both that private intimation should be given, and public confession made thereof; in which respect, whereas all men did willingly the one, but would as willingly have withdrawn themselves from the other, had they known how; “Is it tolerable,” saith St. Ambrose [2] , “that to sue to God thou shouldst be ashamed, which blushest not to seek and sue unto man? Should it grieve thee to be a suppliant to him from whom thou canst not possibly hide thyself; when to open thy sins to him, from whom, if thou wouldst, thou mightest conceal them, it doth not any thing at all trouble thee? This thou art loth to do in the Church, where, all being sinners, nothing is more opprobrious indeed than concealment of sin, the most humble the best thought of, and the lowliest accounted the justest:”—All this notwithstanding, we should do them very great wrong, to father any such opinion upon them, as if they did teach it a thing impossible for any sinner to reconcile himself unto God, without confession unto the priest. [1] Would Chrysostom thus persuaded have said, “Let the inquiry and presentment [e] of thy offences be made in thine own thoughts; let the tribunal whereat thou arraignest thyself be without witness: let God and only God see thee and thy confession?” Would Cassianus [2] , so believing, have given counsel, “That if any were withheld by bashfulness from discovering their faults to men, they should be so much the more instant and constant in opening them by supplication to God himself, whose wont is to help without publication of men’s shame, and not to upbraid them when he pardoneth?” Finally, would Prosper [3] , settled in this opinion, have made it, as touching reconciliation to God, a matter indifferent, “Whether men of ecclesiastical order did detect their crimes by confession, or leaving the world ignorant thereof, would separate voluntarily themselves for a time from the altar, though not in affection, yet in execution of their ministry, and so bewail their corrupt life?” Would he have willed them as he doth “to make bold of it, that the favour of God being either way recovered by fruits of forcible repentance,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 14.  they should not only receive whatsoever they had lost by sin, but also after this their new enfranchisement, aspire to the endless joys of that supernal city?”

To conclude, we every where find the use of confession, especially public, allowed of and commended by the Fathers; but that extreme and rigorous necessity of auricular and private confession, which is at this day so mightily upheld by the church of Rome, we find not [f] . It was not then the faith and doctrine of God’s Church, as of the papacy at this present, 1. [g] That the only remedy for sin after baptism is sacramental penitency. 2. That confession in secret is an essential part thereof. 3. That God himself cannot now forgive sins [h] without the priest. 4. That because forgiveness at the hands of the priest must arise from confession in the offender [i] , therefore to confess unto him is a matter of such necessity, as being not either in deed, or at the least in desire performed, excludeth utterly from all pardon, and must consequently in Scripture be commanded, wheresoever any promise of forgiveness is made. No, no; these opinions have youth in their countenance; antiquity know them not, it never thought nor dreamed of them.

[k] But to let pass the papacy. Forasmuch as repentance doth import alteration within the mind of a sinful man, whereby through the power of God’s most gracious and blessed Spirit, he seeth and with unfeigned sorrow acknowledgeth former offences committed against God, hath them in utter detestation, seeketh pardon for them in such sort as a Christian should do, and with a resolute purpose settleth himself to avoid them, leading as near as God shall assist him, for ever after, an unspotted life; and in the order (which Christian religion hath taught for procurement of God’s mercy towards sinners) confession is acknowledged a principal duty; yea, in some cases, confession to man, not to God only; it is not in the reformed churches denied by the learneder sort of divines [1] , but that even this confession, cleared from all errors, is both lawful and behoveful for God’s people.

Confession by man to man [1] being either private or public, private confession to the minister alone touching secret crimes, or absolution thereupon ensuing, as the one, so the other is neither practised by the French discipline, nor used in any of those churches which have been cast by the French mould. Open confession to be made in the face of the whole congregation by notorious malefactors they hold necessary; howbeit not necessary towards the remission of sins [1] , “but only in some sort to content the Church, and that one man’s repentance may seem to strengthen many, which before have been weakened by one man’s fall.”

Saxonians and Bohemians in their discipline constrain no man to open confession [2] . Their doctrine is, that whose faults have been public, and thereby scandalous unto the world, such, when God giveth them the spirit of repentance, ought as solemnly to return, as they have openly gone astray: first, for the better testimony of their own unfeigned conversion unto God; secondly, the more to notify their reconcilement unto the church; and lastly, that others may make benefit of their ensample [m] .

But concerning confession in private, the churches of Germany [3] , as well the rest as Lutherans, agree all [n] , that all men should at certain times confess their offences to God in the hearing of God’s ministers,     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 15.  thereby to shew how their sins displease them; to receive instruction for the warier carriage of themselves hereafter; to be soundly resolved, if any scruple or snare of conscience do entangle their minds; and, which is most material, to the end that men may at God’s hands seek every one his own particular pardon, through the power of those keys, which the minister of God using according to our blessed Saviour’s institution in that case, it is their part to accept the benefit thereof as God’s most merciful ordinance for their good, and, without any distrust or doubt, to embrace joyfully his grace so given them, according to the word of our Lord, which hath said [1] , “Whose sins ye remit they [o] are remitted.” So that grounding upon this assured belief, they are to rest with minds encouraged and persuaded concerning the forgiveness of all their sins, as out of Christ’s own word and power, by the ministry of the keys.

[p] It standeth with us in the Church of England, as touching public confession, thus:

First, seeing day by day we in our Church begin our public prayers to Almighty God with public acknowledgment of our sins, in which confession every man prostrate as it were before his glorious Majesty crieth guilty [q] against himself; and the minister with one sentence pronounceth universally all clear, whose acknowledgment so made hath proceeded from a true penitent mind; what reason is there every man should not under the general terms of confession represent to himself his own particulars whatsoever, and adjoining thereunto that affection which a contrite spirit worketh, embrace to as full effect the words of divine Grace, as if the same were severally and particularly uttered with addition of prayers, imposition of hands, or all the ceremonies and solemnities that might be used for the strengthening of men’s affiance in God’s peculiar mercy towards them? Such complements are helps to support our weakness, and not causes that serve to procure or produce his gifts. If with us there be “truth in the inward parts,” as David speaketh, the difference of general and particular forms in confession and absolution is not so material, that any man’s safety or ghostly good should depend upon it.

And for private confession and absolution it standeth thus with us:

The minister’s power to absolve is publicly taught and professed, the Church not denied to have authority either of abridging or enlarging the use and exercise of that power, upon the people no such necessity imposed of opening their transgressions unto men, as if remission of sins otherwise were impossible [1] ; neither any such opinion had of the thing itself, as though it were either unlawful or unprofitable, saving [r] only for these inconveniences, which the world hath by experience observed in it heretofore. And in regard thereof, the Church of England hitherto hath thought it the safer way to refer men’s hidden crimes unto God and themselves only; howbeit, not without special caution for the admonition of such as come to the holy Sacrament, and for the comfort of such as are ready to depart the world.

First, because there are but few that consider how much that part of divine service which consisteth in partaking the holy Eucharist doth import their souls; what they lose by neglect thereof, and what by devout practice they might attain unto: therefore, lest carelessness of general confession should, as commonly it doth, extinguish all remorse of men’s particular enormous crimes; our custom (whensoever men present themselves at the Lord’s Table) is, solemnly to give them very fearful admonition [s] what woes are perpendicularly hanging over the heads of such as dare adventure to put forth their unworthy hands to those admirable mysteries of life, which have by rare examples been proved conduits of irremediable death to impenitent receivers; whom therefore as we repel being known, so being not known we can but terrify. Yet with us, the ministers of God’s most holy word and sacraments, being all put in trust with the custody and dispensation of those mysteries, wherein our communion is and hath been ever accounted the highest grace that men on earth are admitted unto, have therefore all equally the same power to withhold that sacred mystical food from notorious evil livers, from such as have any way wronged their neighbours, and from parties between whom there doth open hatred and malice appear, till the first sort have reformed their wicked life, the second recompensed them unto whom they were injurious, and the last condescended unto some course of Christian reconciliation, whereupon their mutual accord may ensue. In which cases, for the first branch of wicked life, and the [t] last which is open enmity, there can arise no great difficulty about the exercise of his power: in the second, concerning wrongs, there may, if men shall presume to define or measure injuries according to their own conceits, depraved oftentimes as well by error as partiality, and that no less in the minister himself, than in any other of the people under him. The knowledge therefore which he taketh of wrongs must rise as it doth in the other two, not from his own opinion or conscience, but from the evidence of the fact which is committed; yea, from such evidence as neither doth admit denial nor defence. For if the offender having either colour of law to uphold, or any other pretence to excuse his own uncharitable and wrongful dealings, shall wilfully stand in defence thereof, it serveth as a bar to the power of the minister in this kind. [1] Because (as it is observed by men of very good judgment in these affairs) “although in this sort our separating of them be not to strike them with the mortal wound of excommunication, but to stay them rather from running desperately headlong into their own harm; yet in us it is not [u] to sever from the holy communion but such as are either found culpable by their own confession, or have been convicted in some public secular, or [x] ecclesiastical court. For who is he that dare take upon him to be any man’s both accuser and judge? [1] Evil persons are not rashly, and as we list, to be thrust from communion with the Church; insomuch that, if we cannot proceed against them by any orderly course of judgment, they are rather to be suffered for the time than molested. Many there are reclaimed, as Peter; many, as Judas, known well enough, and yet tolerated; many, which must remain undescried till the day of His appearance, by whom the secret corners of darkness shall be brought into open light.”

Leaving therefore unto his judgment them whom we cannot stay from casting their own souls into so great hazard, we have in the other part of penitential jurisdiction, in our power and authority to release sin, joy on all sides, without trouble or molestation unto any. And if to give be a thing more blessed than to receive, are we not infinitely happier in being authorized to bestow the treasure of God, than when necessity doth constrain to withdraw the same?

They which, during life and health, are never destitute of ways to delude [y] repentance, do notwithstanding oftentimes, when their last hour draweth on, both feel that sting which before lay dead in them, and also thirst after such helps as have been always till then unsavoury. St. Ambrose’s words touching late repentance are somewhat hard [1] , “If a man be penitent and receive absolution (which cannot in that case be denied him) even at the very point of death, and so depart, I dare not affirm he goeth out of the world well; I will counsel no man to trust to this, because I am loth to deceive any man, seeing I know not what to think of it. Shall I judge such a one a castaway? Neither will I avouch him safe. All I am able to say, is, Let his estate be left to the will and pleasure of Almighty God. Wilt thou be therefore clearly [z] delivered of all doubt? Repent while yet thou art healthy and strong. If thou defer it till time give no longer possibility of sinning, thou canst not be thought to have left sin, but rather sin to have forsaken thee.” Such admonitions may in their time and place be necessary, but in no wise prejudicial to the generality of God’s own high and heavenly promise, “Whensoever a sinner doth repent from the bottom of his heart, I will put out all his iniquity.” And of this, although it hath pleased God not to leave to the world any multitude of examples, lest the careless should too far presume; yet one he hath given, and that most memorable, to withhold from despair in the mercies of God, at what instant soever man’s unfeigned conversion be wrought. Yea, because to countervail the fault of delay, there are in the latest repentance oftentimes the surest tokens of sincere dealing; therefore upon special confession made to the minister of God, he presently absolveth in this case the sick party from all his sins by that authority which Jesus Christ hath committed unto him, knowing that God respecteth not so much what time is spent, as what truth is shewed in repentance.     BOOK VI. Ch. iv. 16.

[a] In sum, when the offence doth stand only between God and man’s conscience, the counsel is good which St. Chrysostom giveth [1] : “I wish thee not to bewray thyself publicly, nor to accuse thyself before others. I wish thee to obey the Prophet, who saith, Disclose thy way unto the Lord, confess thy sin before him, tell thy sins to him that he may blot them out. If thou be abasht to tell unto any other wherein thou hast offended, rehearse them every day between thee and thy soul. I wish thee not to confess them to thy fellow-servant, who may upbraid thee with them; tell them to God, who will cure them; there is no need for thee in the presence of witnesses to acknowledge them; let God alone see thee at thy confession. I pray and beseech you, that you would more often than you do confess to God eternal, and reckoning [b] your trespasses desire his pardon [2] . I carry you not into a theatre or open court of many your fellow-servants, I seek not to detect your crimes before men; disclose your conscience before God, unfold yourselves to him, lay forth your wounds before him, the best physician that is, and desire of him salve for them.” If hereupon it follow, as it did with David, “I thought, I will confess against myself my wickedness unto thee, O Lord, and thou forgavest me the plague of my sin,” we have then [c] our desire, and there remaineth only thankfulness,     BOOK VI. Ch. v. 1.  accompanied with perpetuity of care to avoid that, which being not avoided we know we cannot remedy without new perplexity and grief. Contrariwise, if peace with God do not follow the pains we have taken in seeking after it, if we continue disquieted, and not delivered from anguish, mistrusting whether that we do be sufficient; it argueth that our sore doth exceed the power of our own skill, and that the wisdom of the pastor must bind up those parts, which being bruised are not able to be recured of themselves.

Of Satisfaction.  V. [d] There resteth now Satisfaction only to be considered; a point which the Fathers do often touch, albeit they never aspire to such mysteries, as the papacy hath found enwrapped within the folds and plaits thereof. And it is happy for the Church of God, that we have the writings of the Fathers, to shew what their meaning was. The name of Satisfaction, as the ancient Fathers meant it, containeth whatsoever a penitent should do in the humbling himself unto God, and testifying by deeds of contribution the same which confession in words pretendeth. “He which by repentance for sins” (saith Tertullian [1] , speaking of fickle-minded men) “had a purpose to satisfy the Lord, will now by repenting his repentance make Satan satisfaction; and be so much more hateful to God, as he is unto God’s enemy more acceptable.” Is it not plain, that satisfaction doth here include the whole work of penitency, and that God is satisfied when men are restored through [e] sin into favour by repentance? “How canst thou,” saith Chrysostom [2] , “move God to pity thee, when thou wilt not seem as much as to know that thou hast offended?” By appeasing, pacifying, and moving God to pity, St. Chrysostom meaneth the very same with the Latin Fathers, when they speak of satisfying God: “We feel,” saith St. [f] Cyprian [3] , “the bitter smart of his [g] rod and scourge,     BOOK VI. Ch. v. 2.  because there is in us neither care to please him with our good deeds, nor to satisfy him for our evil.” Again [1] , “Let the eyes which have looked on idols, sponge out their unlawful acts with those sorrowful tears, which have power to satisfy God.” The Master of Sentences allegeth out of St. Augustine that which is plain enough to this purpose [2] : “Three things there are in perfect penitency, compunction, confession, and satisfaction; that as we three ways offend God, namely in heart, word, and deed, so by three duties we may satisfy God.”

Satisfaction, as a part, comprehendeth only that which the Baptist meant by works [h] worthy of repentance; and if we speak of the whole work of repentance itself, we may in the phrase of antiquity term it very well satisfaction.

[i] Satisfaction is a work which justice requireth to be done for contentment of persons injured: neither is it in the eye of justice a sufficient satisfaction, unless it fully equal the injury for which we satisfy. Seeing then that sin against God eternal and infinite must needs be an infinite wrong; justice in regard thereof doth necessarily exact an infinite recompense, or else inflict upon the offender infinite punishment. Now because God was thus to be satisfied, and man not able to make satisfaction in such sort, his unspeakable love and inclination to save mankind from eternal death ordained in our behalf a Mediator, to do that which had been for any other impossible. Wherefore all sin is remitted in the only faith of Christ’s passion,     BOOK VI. Ch. v. 3.  and no man without belief thereof justified [1] . Faith alone maketh Christ’s satisfaction ours; howbeit that faith alone which after sin maketh us by conversion his. [k] For inasmuch as God will have the benefit of Christ’s satisfaction both thankfully acknowledged and duly esteemed of all such as enjoy the same, he therefore imparteth so high a treasure unto no man, whose faith hath not made him willing by repentance to do even that, which of itself how unavailable soever, yet being required and accepted with God, we are in Christ made thereby [1] capable and fit vessels to receive the fruit [m] of his satisfaction: yea, we so far please and content God, that because when we have offended he looketh but for repentance at our hands, our repentance and the works thereof are therefore termed satisfactory, not for that so much is thereby done as the justice of God can exact, but because such actions of grief and humility in man after sin are illices divinæ misericordiæ (as Tertullian [2] speaketh of them), they draw that pity of God towards us, wherein he is for Christ’s sake contented upon our submission to pardon our rebellion against him; and when that little which his law appointeth is faithfully executed, it pleaseth him in tender compassion and mercy to require no more.

[n] Repentance is a name which noteth the habit and operation of a certain grace or virtue in us: Satisfaction, the effect which it hath, either with God or man. And it is not in this respect said amiss, that satisfaction importeth acceptation, reconciliation, and amity; because that through satisfaction, on the one part made, and allowed on the other, they which before did reject are now content to receive, they to be won again which were lost, and they to love unto whom just cause of hatred was given. We satisfy therefore in doing that which is sufficient to this effect; and they towards whom we do it are satisfied, if they accept it as sufficient, and require no more: otherwise we satisfy not, although we do satisfy: for so between man and man it oftentimes falleth out, but between man and God, never. It is therefore true, that our Lord Jesus Christ by one most precious and propitiatory sacrifice, which was his body, a gift of infinite worth, offered for the sins of the whole world, hath thereby once reconciled us to God, purchased his general free pardon, and turned away divine indignation from mankind. But we are not for that cause to think any office of penitence either needless or fruitless on our own behalf: for then would not God require any such duties at our hands. Christ doth remain everlastingly a gracious intercessor, even for every particular penitent. Let this assure us, that God, how highly soever displeased and incensed with our sins, is notwithstanding for his sake by our tears pacified, taking that for satisfaction which is due [done?] by us, because Christ hath by his satisfaction made it acceptable. For, as he is the High-priest of our salvation, so he hath made us priests likewise under him [1] , to the end we might offer unto God praise and thankfulness, while we continue in the way of life, and when we sin, the satisfactory or propitiatory sacrifice of a broken and contrite heart [2] . There is not any thing that we do that could pacify God, and clear us in his sight from sin, if the goodness and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ were not; whereas now beholding the poor offer of our religious endeavour meekly to submit ourselves as often as we have offended, he regardeth with infinite mercy those services which are as nothing, and with words of comfort reviveth our afflicted minds, saying, “It is I, even I, that take away thine iniquities for mine own sake.” Thus doth repentance satisfy God, changing his wrath and indignation unto mercy.

BOOK VI. Ch. v. 4.  [o] Anger and mercy are in us passions; but in him not so. “God,” saith St. Basil [1] , “is no ways passionate, but because the punishments which his judgments do inflict are, like effects of indignation, severe and grievous to such as suffer them, therefore we term the revenge which he taketh upon sinners, anger; and the withdrawing of his plagues, mercy.” “His wrath,” saith St. Augustine [2] , is not as ours, the trouble of a mind disturbed and disquieted with things amiss, but a calm, unpassionate, and just assignation of dreadful punishment to be their portion which have disobeyed; his mercy a free determination of all felicity and happiness unto men, except their sins remain as a bar between it and them.” So that when God doth cease to be angry with sinful men, when he receiveth them into favour, when he pardoneth their offences, and remembereth their iniquities no more (for all these signify but one thing), it must needs follow, that all punishments before due in revenge of sin, whether they be temporal or eternal, are remitted. For how should God’s indignation import only man’s punishment, and yet some punishment remain unto them, towards whom there is now in God no indignation remaining? “God,” saith Tertullian [3] , “taketh [p] penitency at men’s hands, and men at his in lieu thereof receive impunity;” which notwithstanding doth not prejudice the chastisements that [q] God after pardon hath laid upon some offenders [4] , as on the people of Israel, on Moses, on Miriam, on David, either for their own [5] more sound amendment, or for example [1] unto others in this present world (for in the world to come punishments have unto these intents no use, the dead being not in case to be bettered by correction, nor to take warning by executions of God’s justice there seen); but assuredly to whomsoever he remitteth sin, their very pardon is in itself a full absolute and perfect discharge for revengeful punishments [r] ; which God doth nowhere [s] threaten, but with purpose of revocation if men repent, nowhere inflict but on them whom impenitency maketh obdurate.

Of the one therefore it is said [2] , “Though I tell the wicked, Thou shalt die the death, yet if he turn [t] from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live and not die.” Of the other [3] , “Thou according to thine hardness, and heart that will not repent, treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and evident appearance of the just judgment of God.” If God be satisfied and do pardon sin, our justification restored is as perfect as it was at the first bestowed. For so the Prophet Isaiah witnesseth [4] , “Though your sins were as crimson, they shall be made as white as snow; though they were all [u] scarlet, they shall be as white as wool.” And can we doubt concerning the punishment of revenge, which was due to sin, but that if God be satisfied and have forgotten his wrath, it must be even as St. Augustin reasoneth, “ [5] What God hath covered he will not observe, and what he observeth not he will not punish.” The truth of which doctrine is not to be shifted off by restraining it unto eternal punishment alone. For then would not David have said [6] , “They are blessed to whom God imputeth no [x] sin;” blessedness having no part or fellowship at all with malediction: whereas to be subject to revenge for sin, although the punishment be but temporal, is to be under the curse of the law: wherefore, as one and the same fire consumeth stubble and refineth gold, so if it please God to lay punishment on them whose sins he hath forgiven, yet is not this done for any destructive end of wasting and eating them out, as in plagues inflicted upon the impenitent, neither is the punishment of the one as of the other proportioned by the greatness of sin past, but according to that future purpose whereunto the goodness of God referreth it, and wherein there is nothing meant to the sufferer but furtherance of all happiness, now in grace, and hereafter in glory. St. Augustine, to stop the mouths of Pelagians arguing, “That if God had imposed death upon Adam and Adam’s posterity, as a punishment of sin, death should have ceased when Christ [y] had procured sinners their pardon;” answereth first, “It is no marvel, either that bodily death should not have happened to the first man, unless he had first sinned (death as a punishment following his sin), or that after sin is forgiven, death notwithstanding befalleth the faithful; to the end that the strength of righteousness might be exercised by overcoming the fear thereof [1] . So that justly God did inflict bodily death on man for committing sin, and yet after sin forgiven took it not away, that his righteousness might still have whereby to be exercised.” He fortifieth this with David’s example, whose sin he forgave, and yet afflicted him for exercise and trial of his humility. Briefly, a general axiom he hath for all such chastisements, “Before forgiveness, they are the punishment of sinners; and after forgiveness, they are exercises and trials of righteous men [2] .” Which kind of proceeding is so agreeable with God’s nature and man’s comfort, that it sheweth [z] even injurious to both, if we should admit those surmised reservations of temporal wrath in God appeased towards reconciled sinners.     BOOK VI. Ch. v. 5, 6.  “As a Father he delights in his children’s conversion, neither doth he threaten the penitent with wrath, or them with punishment which already mourn; but by promise assureth such of indulgence and mercy [1] ;” yea, even of plenary pardon, which taketh away all both faults and penalties: there being no reason why we should think him the less just because he sheweth him [a] thus merciful; when they which before were obstinate labour to appease his wrath with the pensive meditations [b] of contrition, the meek humility which confession expresseth, and the deeds wherewith repentance declareth itself to be an amendment as well of the rotten fruits [c] , as the dried leaves and withered root of the tree. For with these duties by us performed, and presented unto God in heaven by Jesus Christ, whose blood is a continual sacrifice of propitiation for us, we content, please, and satisfy God.

Repentance therefore, even the sole virtue of repentance, without either purpose of shrift, or desire of absolution from the priest; repentance, the secret conversion of the heart, in that it consisteth of these three, and doth by these three pacify God, may be without hyperbolical terms most truly magnified, as a recovery of the soul of man from deadly sickness, a restitution of glorious light to his darkened mind, a comfortable reconciliation with God, a spiritual nativity, a rising from the dead, a day-spring from out the depth of obscurity, a redemption from more than the Egyptian thraldom, a grinding of the old Adam even into dust and powder, a deliverance out of the prisons of hell, a full restoration of the seat of grace and throne of glory, a triumph over sin, and a saving victory.

[d] Amongst the works of satisfaction, the most respected have been always these three, Prayers, Fasts, and Almsdeeds: by prayer [e] , we lift up our souls to him from whom sin and iniquity hath [f] withdrawn them; by fasting, we reduce the body from thraldom under vain delights, and make it serviceable for parts of virtuous conversation; by alms, we dedicate to charity these [g] worldly goods and possessions,     BOOK VI. Ch. v. 6.  which unrighteousness doth neither get nor bestow well: the first, a token of piety intended towards God; the second, a pledge of moderation and sobriety in the carriage of our own persons; the last, a testimony of our meaning to do good to all men. In which three, the Apostle by way of abridgment comprehendeth whatsoever may appertain to sanctimony, holiness, and good life: as contrariwise the very mass of general corruption throughout the world, what is it but only forgetfulness of God, carnal pleasure, immoderate desire after worldly things; profaneness, licentiousness, covetousness?

All offices of repentance have these two properties; there is in performance of them painfulness, and in their nature a contrariety unto sin. The one consideration causeth them both in holy Scripture [1] and elsewhere to be termed judgments or revenges taken voluntarily on ourselves, and to be furthermore also preservatives from future evils, inasmuch as we commonly use to keep with the greater care that which with pain we have recovered [2] . And they are in the other respect contrary to sin committed; contrition, contrary to the pleasure; confession, to the error, which is mother of sin; and to the deeds of sin, the works of satisfaction contrary; therefore they all [h] the more effectual to cure the evil habit thereof. Hereunto it was that St. Cyprian referred his earnest and vehement exhortations [3] , “That they which had fallen should be instant in prayer, reject bodily ornaments when once they have stripped themselves out of Christ’s attire, abhor all food after Satan’s morsels tasted, follow works of righteousness which wash away sin, and be plentiful in alms-deeds wherewith souls are delivered from death.” Not, as if God did, according to the manner of corrupt judges,     BOOK VI. Ch. v. 7.  take so much [i] money to abate so much in the punishment of malefactors. “These duties must be offered,” saith Salvianus [1] , “not in confidence to redeem or buy out sin, but as tokens of meek submission; neither are they with God accepted, because of their value, but for the [k] affection’s sake, which doth thereby shew itself.”

Wherefore concerning Satisfaction made to God by Christ only, and of the manner how repentance generally, particularly also, how certain special works of penitency, both are by the Fathers in their ordinary phrase of speech called satisfactory, and may be by us very well so acknowledged; enough hath been spoken.

[1] Our offences sometimes [m] are of such nature, as requireth that particular men be satisfied, or else repentance to be utterly void, and of none effect. For, if either through open rapine or cloaked fraud, if through injurious or unconscionable dealings [n] , a man have wittingly wronged others to enrich himself; the first thing evermore in this case required (ability [o] serving) is restitution. For let no man deceive himself: from such offences we are not discharged, neither can be, till recompense and restitution to man accompany the penitent confession we have made to Almighty God. In which case the law of Moses was direct and plain [2] . “If any sin and commit a trespass against the Lord, and deny unto his neighbour [p] that which was given [q] him to keep, or that which was put unto him of trust; or doth by robbery or by violence oppress his neighbour; or hath found that which was lost, and denieth it, and sweareth [r] falsely: for any of these things that a man doth wherein he sinneth, he that doth thus offend and trespass, shall restore the robbery that he hath taken, or the thing he hath gotten by violence, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost thing which he found; and for whatsoever he hath sworn falsely, adding perjury to injury, he shall both restore the whole sum, and shall add thereunto a fifth part more, and deliver it unto him, to whom it belongeth, the same day wherein he offereth for his trespass.” Now because men are commonly overslack to perform this duty, and do therefore defer it sometimes [s] , till God hath [t] taken the party wronged out of the world; the law providing that trespassers might not under any [u] such pretence gain the restitution which they ought to make, appointeth the kindred surviving to receive what the dead should, if they had continued. “But,” saith Moses [1] , “if the party wronged have no kinsman to whom this damage may be restored, it shall then be rendered to the Lord himself for the priests’ use.” The whole order of proceeding herein is in sundry traditional writings set down by their great interpreters and scribes, which taught them that [2] a trespass between a man and his neighbour can never be forgiven, till the offender have by restitution made recompense for wrongs done; yea, they hold it necessary that he appease the party grieved by submitting himself unto him, or, if that will not serve, by using the help and mediation of others: “In this case (say they) for any man to shew himself unappeasable and cruel, were a sin most grievous, considering that the people of God should be easy to relent, as Joseph was towards his brethren.” Finally, if so it fall out, that the death of him which [x] was injured prevent his submission which did offend, let him then (for so they determine that he ought) go accompanied with ten others unto the sepulchre of the dead, and there make confession of the fault, saying, “I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and against this man, to whom I have done such or such injury; and if money be due, let it be restored to his heirs, or in case he have none known, leave it with the house of judgment:” that is to say, with the senators, ancients, and guiders [y] of Israel. We hold not Christian people tied unto Jewish orders for the manner of restitution; but surely restitution we must hold necessary, as well in our own repentance as theirs, for sins of wilful oppression [z] and wrong [3] .

BOOK VI. Ch. v. 8.  [a] Now although it suffice [b] , that the offices wherewith we pacify God or private men be secretly done; yet in cases where the Church must be also satisfied, it was not to this end and purpose unnecessary, that the ancient discipline did further require outward signs of contrition to be shewed, confession of sins to be made openly, and those works to be apparent, which served as testimonies of [c] conversion before men. Wherein [1] , if either hypocrisy did at any time delude their judgment, they knew that God is he whom masks and mockeries cannot blind, that he which seeth men’s hearts would judge them according unto his own evidence, and, as Lord, correct the sentence of his servants concerning matters beyond their reach: or if such as ought to have kept the rules of canonical satisfaction would by sinister means and practices undermine the same, obtruding presumptuously themselves to the participation of Christ’s most sacred mysteries before they were orderly readmitted thereunto, the Church for contempt of holy things held them uncapable of that grace, which God in the Sacrament doth impart to devout communicants; and no doubt but he himself did retain bound, whom the Church in those cases refused to loose.

The Fathers, as may appear by sundry decrees and canons of the primitive Church, were (in matter specially of public scandal) provident that too much facility of pardoning might not be shewed. “He that casteth off his lawful wife,” saith St. Basil [2] , “and doth take another, is adjudged an adulterer by the verdict of our Lord himself; and by our fathers it is canonically ordained, that such for the space of a year shall mourn, for two years’ space hear, three years be prostrate, the seventh year assemble with the faithful in prayer, and after that be admitted to communicate, if with tears they bewail their fault.”

Of them which had fallen from their faith in the time of the Emperor Licinius, and were not thereunto forced by any extreme usage, the Nicene synod under Constantine ordained [1] , “That earnestly repenting, they should continue three years hearers, seven years be prostrate, and two years communicate with the people in prayer, before they came to receive the oblation. ” Which rigour sometimes they tempered nevertheless with lenity, the selfsame synod having likewise defined, “That whatsoever the cause were, any man desirous at the time of departure out of this life to receive the Eucharist might (with examination and trial ) have it granted him by the bishop [2] .” Yea, besides this case of special commiseration, there is a canon [3] more large, which giveth always liberty to abridge or extend out the time, as the party’s meek or sturdy disposition should require.

By means of which discipline, the Church having power to hold them many years in suspense, there was bred in the minds of the penitents, through long and daily practice of such submission, a contrary habit unto that which before had been their ruin, and for ever afterwards wariness not to fall into those snares out of which they knew they could not easily wind themselves. Notwithstanding, because there was likewise hope and possibility of shortening the time, this made them in all the parts and offices of their repentance the more fervent. In the first station, while they only beheld others, passing towards the temple of God, whereunto for themselves to approach it was not lawful; they stood as miserable forlorn men, the very patterns of perplexity and woe. In the second, when they had the favour to wait at the doors of God, where  Hooker1888: 2.  the sound of his comfortable word might be heard; none  Hooker1888: 3.  received it with attention like to theirs. [d] Being taken and admitted to the next degree of prostrates, at the feet yet behind the back of that angel representing God, whom the rest saw face to face; their tears, and entreaties both of Pastor  Hooker1888: 4.  and people, were such as no man could resist. After the fourth step, which gave them liberty to hear and pray with the rest of the people; being so near the haven, no diligence was then slacked which might hasten admission to the heavenly table of Christ, their last desire. It is not therefore a thing to be marvelled at, though St. Cyprian took it in very evil [e] part, when open backsliders from the faith and sacred religion of Christ laboured by sinister practice to procure from imprisoned saints those requests for present absolution, which the Church could neither yield unto with safety of discipline, nor in honour of martyrdom easily deny. For, what would thereby ensue they needed not to conjecture, when they saw how every man which came so commended to the Church by letters thought that now he needed not to crave, but might challenge of duty, his peace; taking the matter very highly, if but any little forbearance or small delay were [f] used. “He which is overthrown,” saith St. [g] Cyprian [1] , “menaceth them that stand, the wounded them that were never toucht; and because presently he hath not the body of our Lord in his foul imbrued hands, nor the blood within his polluted lips, the miscreant fumeth at God’s priests: such is thy madness, O thou furious man; thou art angry with him which laboureth to turn away God’s anger from thee: him thou threatenest, which sueth unto God for grace and mercy on thy behalf.”

Touching Martyrs he answereth [1] , “That it ought not in this case to seem offensive, though they were denied, seeing God himself did [h] refuse to yield to the piety of his own righteous saints, making suit for obdurate Jews.”

As for the parties, in whose behalf such shifts were used; to have their desire was, in very truth, a way to make them the more guilty [2] : such peace granted contrary to the vigour [i] of the Gospel, contrary to the law of our Lord and God, doth but under colour of merciful relaxation deceive sinners, and by soft handling destroy them; a grace dangerous for the giver, and to him which receiveth it nothing at all available. “The patient expectation that bringeth health is by this means not regarded; recovery of soundness not sought for by the only medicine available, which is satisfaction; penitency thrown out of men’s hearts; the remembrance of that heaviest and last judgment clean banisht; the wounds of dying men, which should be healed, are covered; the stroke of death, which hath gone as deep as any bowels are to receive it, is overcast with the slight show of a cloudy look. From the altars [k] of Satan to the holy of the Lord men are not afraid to come even belching in a manner the sacrificed morsels they have eaten; yea, their jaws yet breathing out the irksome savour of their former contagious wickedness, they seize upon the blessed body of our Lord, nothing terrified with that dreadful commination, which saith [1] , ‘Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of Christ.’ They vainly think it to be peace, which is gotten before they be purged of their faults, before their crime be solemnly confest, before their conscience be cleared by the sacrifice, and imposition of the priests’ hands, and before they have pacified the indignation of God. Why term they that a favour, which is an injury? Wherefore cloak they impiety with the name of charitable indulgence? Such facility giveth not, but rather taketh away peace; and is itself another fresh persecution or trial, whereby that fraudulent enemy maketh a secret havock of such as before he had overthrown; and now to the end he may clean swallow them, he casteth sorrow in a dead sleep, putteth grief to silence, wipeth out the memory of faults newly done, smothereth the sighs that should arise [1] from a contrite spirit, drieth up eyes which ought to send forth rivers of tears, and permitteth not God to be pacified with full repentance, whom heinous and enormous crimes have displeased.”

By this then we see, that in St. Cyprian’s judgment, all absolutions are void, frustrate, and of no effect, without sufficient repentance first shewed; whereas contrariwise, if true and full satisfaction have gone before, the sentence of man here given is ratified of God in heaven, according to our Saviour’s own sacred testimony, “Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted.”

BOOK VI. Ch. v. 9.  [m] By what works in the Virtue, and by what in the Discipline of Repentance, we are said to satisfy either God or men, cannot now be thought obscure.     The end of satisfaction.  As for the inventors of sacramental satisfaction, they have both altered the natural order heretofore kept in the Church, by bringing in a strange preposterous course, to absolve before satisfaction be made, and moreover by this their misordered practice are grown into sundry errors concerning the end whereunto it is referred.

They imagine, beyond all conceit of antiquity, that when God doth remit sin and the punishment eternal thereunto belonging, he reserveth the torments of hell-fire, to be nevertheless endured for a time, either shorter or longer, according to the quality of men’s crimes. Yet so that there is between God and man a certain composition (as it were) or contract, by virtue whereof works assigned by the priest to be done after absolution shall satisfy God, as touching the punishment which he otherwise would inflict for sin pardoned and forgiven [n] .

The way of satisfying by others.  Now because they cannot assure any man, that if he perform what the priest appointeth it shall suffice; this (I say) because they cannot do, inasmuch as the priest hath no power to determine or define of equivalency between sins and satisfactions; (and yet if a penitent depart this life, the debt of satisfaction being either in whole or in part undischarged, they steadfastly hold that the soul must remain in unspeakable torment till all be paid:) therefore for help and mitigation in this case, they advise men to set certain copesmates on work, whose prayers and sacrifices may satisfy God for such souls as depart in debt. Hence have arisen the infinite pensions of their priests, the building of so many altars and tombs, the enriching of Churches with so many glorious and costly gifts, the bequeathing of lands and ample possessions to religious companies, even with utter forgetfulness of friends, parents, wife, children [o] , all natural affection giving place unto that desire, which men doubtful of their own estate have to deliver their souls from torment after death.

[p] The ground of satisfying [q] by the Pope’s indulgences [r] . Yet behold, even this being also done, how far forth it shall avail they are not sure; and therefore the last upshot unto all their former inventions is, that as every action of Christ did both merit for himself, and satisfy partly for the eternal, and partly for the temporal punishment due unto men for sin; so his saints have obtained the like privilege of grace, making every good work they do, not only meritorious in their own behalf, but satisfactory too for the benefit of others. Or if, having at any time grievously sinned, they do more to satisfy God than he in justice can exact or look for at their hands; the surplusage runneth to a common stock, out of which treasury, containing whatsoever Christ did by way of satisfaction for temporal punishment, together with the satisfactory force which resideth in all the virtuous works of saints, and in their satisfactions whatsoever doth abound, (I say,) “From hence they hold God satisfied for such arrearages as men behind in accompt discharge not by other means; and for disposition hereof, as it is their doctrine that Christ remitteth not eternal death without the priest’s absolution, so without the grant of the Pope they cannot but teach it alike unpossible [s] that souls in hell should receive any temporal release of pain; the sacrament of pardon from him being to this effect no less necessary, than the priest’s absolution to the other.” So that by this postern-gate cometh in the whole mart of papal indulgences [1] ; a gain inestimable [t] unto him, to others a spoil; a scorn both to God and man. So many works of satisfaction pretended to be done by Christ, by saints, and martyrs; so many virtuous acts possessed with satisfactory force and virtue; so many supererogations in satisfying beyond the exigence of their own necessity;     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 1, 2.  and this that the Pope might make a monopoly of all, turning all to his own gain, or at the least to the gain of them [u] which are his own. Such facility they have to convert a pretended sacrament into a true [x] revenue.

Of Absolution of Penitents.  VI. [y] Sin is not helped but by being assecured of pardon. It resteth therefore to be considered what warrant we have concerning forgiveness, when the sentence of man absolveth us from sin committed against God. At the words of our Saviour [1] , saying to the sick of the palsy, “Son, thy sins are forgiven thee,” exception was taken by the Scribes, who secretly reasoned against him, “Is any able to forgive sins, but only God?” Whereupon they condemned his speech as blasphemy [2] ; the rest, which believed him to be a Prophet sent from God, saw no cause wherefore he might not as lawfully say, and as truly, to whomsoever amongst them, “God hath taken away thy sins,” as Nathan (they all knew) had used the very like speech; to whom David did not therefore impute blasphemy, but embraced, as became him, the words of truth with joy and reverence.

Now there is no controversy but as God in that special case did authorize Nathan, so Christ more generally his Apostles and the ministers of his word in his name to absolve sinners. Their power being equal, all the difference between them can be but only in this, that whereas the one had prophetical evidence, the other have the certainty partly of faith, and partly of human experience, whereupon to ground their sentence: faith, to assure them of God’s most gracious pardon in Heaven unto all penitents; and touching the sincerity of each particular party’s repentance, as much as [z] outward sensible tokens or signs can warrant.

[a] It is not to be marvelled that so great a difference appeareth between the doctrine of Rome and ours, when we teach repentance. They imply in the name of repentance much more than we do. We stand chiefly upon the true [b] inward conversion of the heart; they more upon works of external show. We teach, above all things, that repentance which is one and the same from the beginning to the world’s end;     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 2.  they a sacramental penance of their own devising and shaping. We labour to instruct men in such sort, that every soul which is wounded with sin may learn the way how to cure itself; they, clean contrary, would make all sores seem incurable, unless the priest have a hand in them.

Touching the force of whose absolution they strangely hold, that whatsoever the penitent doth, his contrition, confession, and satisfaction have no place of right to stand as material parts in this sacrament, nor consequently any such force as to make them available for the taking away of sin, in that they proceed from the penitent [1] himself without the privity of the minister, but only, as they are enjoined by the minister’s authority and power. So that no contrition or grief of heart, till the priest exact it; no acknowledgment of sins, but that which he doth demand; no praying, no fasting, no alms, no recompense or restitution for whatsoever we have done, can help, except by him it be first imposed. It is the chain of their own doctrine, no remedy for mortal sin committed after baptism but the sacrament of penance only; no sacrament of penance, if either matter or form be wanting; no ways to make those duties a material part of the sacrament, unless we consider them as required and exacted by the priest. Our Lord and Saviour, they say, hath ordained his priests judges in such sort, that no man which sinneth after baptism can be reconciled unto God but by their sentence [2] . For why? If there were any other way of reconciliation, the very promise of Christ should be false, in saying [3] , “Whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whose sins soever ye retain, are retained [4] .” Except therefore the priest be willing, God hath by promise so hampered himself [c] , that it is not now in his own power to pardon any man. Let him which hath offended crave as the publican did [5] ; “Lord, be thou merciful to me a sinner;”     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 3.  let him, as David, make a thousand times his supplication [1] , “Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving-kindness; according to the multitude of thy compassions [d] put away mine iniquities:” all this doth not help, till such time as the pleasure of the priest be known; till he have signed us a pardon, and given us our quietus est, God himself hath no answer to make but such as that of his angel unto Lot, “I can do nothing [2] .”

[e] It is true, that our Saviour by those words, “Whose sins ye remit, they are remitted,” did ordain judges over sinful souls, give them authority to absolve from sin, and promise to ratify in heaven whatsoever they should do on earth in execution of this their office; to the end that hereby, as well his ministers might take encouragement to do their duty with all faithfulness, as also his people admonition, gladly with all reverence to be ordered by them; both parts knowing that the functions of the one towards the other have his perpetual assistance and approbation. Howbeit all this with two restraints, which every jurisdiction in the world hath; the one, that the practice thereof proceed in due order; the other, that it do not extend itself beyond due bounds; which bounds or limits have so confined penitential jurisdiction, that although there be given unto it power of remitting sin, yet not such sovereignty of power, that no sin should be pardonable in man without it. Thus to enforce our Saviour’s words, is as though we should gather, that because whatsoever Joseph did command in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh’s grant was [f] , it should be done; therefore he granted [g] that nothing should be done in the land of Egypt but what Joseph did command, and so consequently, by enabling his servant Joseph to command under him, disableth himself to command any thing without Joseph.

But by this we see how the papacy maketh all sin unpardonable, which hath not the priest’s absolution; except peradventure in some extraordinary [3] case, where albeit absolution be not had, yet it must be desired.

BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 4.  [h] What is then the force of absolution? What is it which the act of absolution worketh in a sinful man? Doth it by any operation derived from itself alter the state of the soul? Doth it really take away sin, or but ascertain us of God’s most gracious and merciful pardon? The latter of wich two is our assertion, the former theirs.

[1] At the words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, saying unto the sick of the palsy, “Son, thy sins are forgiven thee,” the Pharisees, which knew him not to be the “Son of the living God,” took secret exception, and fell to reasoning with themselves against him; “Is any able to forgive sins but God only [2] ?” “The sins,” saith St. Cyprian, “that are committed against him, he alone hath power to forgive, which took upon him our sins, he which sorrowed and suffered for us, he whom the Father delivered unto death for our offences.” Whereunto may be added that which Clemens Alexandrinus hath, “ [3] Our Lord is profitable every way, every way beneficial, whether we respect him as man [i] , or as God; as God forgiving, as man instructing and learning how to avoid sin.” For it is “ [4] I, even I, that putteth away thine iniquities for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins,” saith the Lord.

Now albeit we willingly confess with St. Cyprian, “The sins that are committed against him, he only hath power to forgive, who hath taken upon him our sins, he which hath sorrowed and suffered for us, he whom God hath given for our offences [5] :” yet neither did St. Cyprian intend to deny the power of the minister,     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 5.  otherwise than if he presume beyond his commission to remit sin, where God’s own will is it should be retained; for against such absolutions he speaketh (which being granted to whom they ought to have been denied, are of no validity;) and, if rightly it be considered how higher causes in operation use to concur with inferior means, his grace with our ministry, God really performing the same which man is authorized to act as in his name, there shall need for decision of this point no great labour.

[k] To remission of sins there are two things necessary; grace, as the only cause which taketh away iniquity; and repentance, as a duty or condition required in us. To make repentance such as it should be, what doth God demand but inward sincerity joined with fit and convenient offices for that purpose? the one referred wholly to our own consciences, the other best discerned by them whom God hath appointed judges in this court. So that having first the promises of God for pardon generally unto all offenders penitent; and particularly for our own unfeigned meaning, the unfallible [l] testimony of a good conscience; the sentence of God’s appointed officer and vicegerent to approve with unpartial judgment the quality of that we have done, and as from his tribunal, in that respect to assoil us of any crime: I see no cause but that by the rules of our faith and religion we may rest ourselves very well assured touching God’s most merciful pardon and grace; who, especially for the strengthening of weak, timorous, and fearful minds, hath so far endued his church with power to absolve sinners. It pleaseth God that men sometimes should, by missing this help, perceive how much they stand bound to him for so precious a benefit enjoyed. And surely, so long as the world lived in any awe or fear of falling away from God, so dear were his ministers to the people, chiefly in this respect, that being through tyranny and persecution deprived of pastors, the doleful rehearsal [1] of their lost felicities hath not any one thing more eminent, than that sinners distrest should not now know how or where to unlade their burthen. Strange it were unto me, that the Fathers, who so much every where extol the grace of Jesus Christ in leaving unto his Church this heavenly and divine power, should as men whose simplicity had generally [m] been abused, agree all to admire and magnify a needless office.

The sentence therefore of ministerial absolution hath two effects: touching sin, it only declareth us free [n] from the guiltiness thereof, and restored into God’s favour [o] ; but concerning right in sacred and divine mysteries, whereof through sin we were made unworthy, as the power of the Church did before effectually bind and retain us from access unto them, so upon our apparent repentance it truly restoreth our liberty, looseth [p] the chains wherewith we were tied, remitteth all whatsoever is past, accepteth us no less, returned, than if we never had gone astray.

For inasmuch as the power which our Saviour gave to his Church is of two kinds, the one to be exercised over voluntary penitents only, the other over such as are to be brought to amendment by ecclesiastical censure [q] ; the words wherein he hath given this authority must be so understood, as the subject or matter whereupon it worketh will permit. It doth not permit that in the former kind, (that is to say, in the use of power over voluntary converts,) to bind or loose, remit or retain, should signify any other than only to pronounce of sinners according to that which may be gathered by outward signs; because really to effect the removal or continuance of sin in the soul of any offender [r] , is no priestly act, but a work which far exceedeth their ability [s] . Contrariwise, in the latter kind of spiritual jurisdiction,     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 6.  which by censures constraineth men to amend their lives; it is true, that the minister of God doth more than [t] declare and signify what God hath wrought. And this power, true it is, that the Church of Christ hath invested in it.

[u] Howbeit, as other truths, so this hath both by error been oppugned, and depraved through abuse. The first of name, that openly in writing withstood the Church’s authority and power to remit sin, was Tertullian, after he had combined himself with Montanists drawn to the liking of their heresy through the very sourness of his own nature, which neither his incredible skill and knowledge otherwise, nor the very doctrine of the gospel itself, could but so much alter, as to make him savour any thing which carried with it the taste of lenity. A sponge steeped in wormwood and gall, a man through too much severity merciless, and neither able to endure nor to be endured of any. His book entitled Concerning Chastity, and written professedly against the discipline of the Church, hath many fretful and angry sentences, declaring a mind very much offended with such as would not persuade themselves, that of sins, some be pardonable by the keys of the Church, some uncapable of forgiveness [1] ; that middle and moderate offences having received chastisement, may by spiritual authority afterwards be remitted, but greater transgressions must (as touching indulgence) be left to the only pleasure of Almighty God in the world to come [2] ; that as idolatry and bloodshed, so likewise fornication and sinful lust are of this nature [1] ; that they which so far are fallen from God, ought to continue for ever after barred from access unto his sanctuary, condemned to perpetual profusion of tears, deprived of all expectation and hope to receive any thing at the Church’s hands, but publication of their shame [2] . “For,” saith he, “who will fear to waste out that which he hopeth he may recover? Who will be careful for ever to hold that, which he knoweth cannot for ever be withheld from him? He which slackeneth the bridle to sin, doth thereby give it even the spur also [3] . Take away fear, and that which presently succeedeth instead thereof is licentious desire. Greater offences therefore are punishable, but not pardonable, by the Church. If any Prophet or Apostle [4] be found to have remitted such transgressions, they did it not by the ordinary course of discipline, but by extraordinary power. For they also raised the dead, which none but God is able to do; they restored impotent [x] and lame men, a work peculiar to Jesus Christ; yea, that which Christ would not do, because executions of such severity beseemed not him who came to save and redeem the world by his sufferings, they by their power struck Elymas and Ananias, the one blind, and the other dead. Approve first yourselves to be as they were Apostles or Prophets, and then take upon you to pardon all men. But if the authority you have be only ministerial, and no way sovereign, over-reach not the limits which God hath set you; know that to pardon capital sin is beyond your commission.”

Howbeit, as oftentimes the vices of wicked men do cause other their commendable qualities to be abhorred, so the honour of great men’s virtues is easily a cloak to their errors. In which respect Tertullian hath past with much less obloquy and reprehension than Novatian; who, broaching afterwards the same opinion, had not otherwise wherewith to countervail the offence he gave, and to procure it the like toleration. Novatian, at the first a stoical philosopher, (which kind of men hath always accounted stupidity the highest top of wisdom, and commiseration the deadliest sin,) became by institution and study the very same which the other had been before through a secret natural distemper, upon his conversion to the Christian faith and recovery from sickness, which moved him to receive the sacrament of Baptism in his bed. The bishop contrary to the canons of the Church [1] would needs in special love towards him ordain him presbyter, which favour satisfied not him who thought himself worthy of greater place and dignity. He closed therefore with a number of well-minded men, and not suspicious what his secret purposes were, and having made them sure unto him by fraud, procureth his own consecration to be their bishop. His prelacy now was able as he thought to countenance what he intended to publish, and therefore his letters went presently abroad to sundry churches, advising them never to admit to the fellowship of holy mysteries such as had after baptism offered sacrifice to idols.

There was present at the council of Nice, together with other bishops, one Acesius a Novatianist [2] , touching whose diversity in opinion from the Church the emperor desirous to hear some reason, asked of him certain questions; for answer whereunto Acesius weaveth out a long history of things that happened in the persecution under Decius, and of men, which to save life forsook faith.     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 7.  But the end was a certain bitter canon framed in their own school [1] , “That men which fall into deadly sin after holy baptism, ought never to be again admitted to the communion of divine mysteries; that they are to be exhorted unto repentance, howbeit not to be put in hope that pardon can be had at the priest’s hands; but with God, which hath sovereign power and authority in himself to remit sins, it may be in the end they shall find mercy.”

Those followers of Novatian, which gave themselves the title of καθαροὶ, clean, pure, and unspotted men, had one point of Montanism more than their master did profess; for amongst sins unpardonable they reckoned second marriages, of which opinion Tertullian making (as his usual manner was) a salt apology, “Such is,” saith he [2] , “our stony hardness, that defaming our Comforter with a kind of enormity in discipline, we dam up the doors of the church no less against twice-married men than against adulterers and fornicators.” Of this sort therefore it was ordained by the Nicene Synod [3] , that if any such did return to the catholic and apostolic unity, they should in writing bind themselves to observe the orders of the Church, and communicate as well with them which had been often married, or had fallen in time of persecution, as with other sorts of Christian people. But further to relate, or at all to refel the errors of misbelieving men concerning this point, is not now to our present purpose greatly necessary.

[y] The Church may receive no small detriment by corrupt practice, even there where doctrine concerning the substance of things practised is free from any great or dangerous corruption. If therefore that which the papacy doth in matter of confessions and absolutions [z] be offensive; if it palpably swerve in the use of the keys; howsoever that which it teacheth in general concerning the Church’s power to retain and forgive sins be admitted true, have they not on the one side as much whereat to be abasht, as on the other wherein to rejoice?

They bind all men, upon pain of everlasting condemnation and death, to make confession to their ghostly fathers of every great offence they know, and can remember that they have committed against God. Hath Christ in his Gospel so delivered the doctrine of repentance unto the world? Did his Apostles so preach it to nations? Have the Fathers so believed or so taught? Surely Novatian was not so merciless in depriving the Church of power to absolve some certain offenders, as they in imposing upon all a necessity thus to confess. Novatian would never [a] deny but God might remit that which the Church could not; whereas in the papacy it is maintained, that what we conceal from men, God himself shall never pardon. By which oversight, as they have surcharged the world with multitude, but much abated the weight of confession, so the careless manner of their absolution hath made discipline for the most part amongst them a bare formality; yea, rather a mean of emboldening unto vicious and wicked life, than either any help to prevent future, or medicine to remedy present evils in the soul of man. The Fathers were slow and always fearful to absolve any before very manifest tokens given of a true penitent and contrite spirit. It was not their custom to remit sin first, and then to impose works of satisfaction, as the fashion of Rome is now; insomuch that this their preposterous course, and misordered practice [b] , hath bred in them also [c] an error concerning the end and purpose of these works. For against the guiltiness of sin, and the danger of everlasting condemnation thereby incurred, confession and absolution succeeding the same, are, as they take it, a remedy sufficient; and therefore what their penitentiaries do think good to enjoin [d] farther, whether it be a number of Ave-Maries daily to be scored up, a journey of pilgrimage to be undertaken,     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 8.  some few dishes of ordinary diet to be exchanged, offerings to be made at the shrines of saints, or a little to be scraped off from men’s superfluity for relief of poor people, all is in lieu or exchange with God, whose justice, notwithstanding our pardon, yet oweth us still some temporal punishment, either in this or in the life to come, except we quit [e] it ourselves here with works of the former kind, and continued till the balance of God’s most strict severity shall find the pains we have taken equivalent with the plagues we [f] should endure, or else that [g] the mercy of the pope relieve us. And at this postern gate cometh in the whole mart of papal indulgences [1] , so infinitely strewed, that the pardon of sin, which heretofore was obtained hardly and by much suit, is with them become now almost impossible to be escaped.

[h] To set down then the force of this sentence in absolving penitents; there are in sin these three things [2] : the act which passeth away and vanisheth; the pollution wherewith it leaveth the soul defiled; and the punishment whereunto they are made subject that have committed it. The act of sin, is every deed, word, and thought against the law of God. “For sin is the transgression of the law [3] ;” and although the deed itself do not continue, yet is that bad quality permanent, whereby it maketh the soul unrighteous and deformed in God’s sight. “From the heart [4] come evil cogitations, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, slanders; these are things which defile a man.” They do not only, as effects of impurity, argue the nest to be unclean, out of which they came, but as causes they strengthen that disposition unto wickedness which brought them forth; they are both fruits and seeds of uncleanness, they nourish the root out of which they grow, they breed that iniquity which bred them. The blot therefore of sin abideth, though the act be transitory. And out of both ariseth a present debt, to endure what punishment soever the evil which we have done deserveth; an obligation, in the chains whereof sinners by the justice of Almighty God continue bound till repentance loose them. “Repent this thy wickedness [1] ,” saith Peter unto Simon Magus, “beseech God, that if it be possible the thought of thine heart may be pardoned; for I see that [i] thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.” In like manner Salomon [2] : “The wicked shall be held fast in the cords of his own sin.”

Nor doth God only bind sinners hands [k] and foot by the dreadful determination of his own unsearchable judgment against them; but sometime also the Church bindeth by the censures of her discipline [3] : so that when offenders upon their repentance are by the same discipline absolved, the Church looseth but her own bands [l] , the chains wherein she had tied them before.

The act of sin God alone remitteth, in that his purpose is never to call it to account, or to lay it unto men’s charge [4] ; the stain he washeth out by the sanctifying grace of his Spirit [5] ; and concerning the punishment of sin, as none else hath power to cast body and soul into hell-fire, so none power to deliver either besides him [6] . As for the ministerial sentence of private absolution, it can be no more than a declaration what God hath done; it hath but the force of the Prophet Nathan’s absolution [7] , “God hath taken away thy sin:” than which construction, especially of words judicial, there is not any thing more vulgar. For example, the publicans are said in the Gospel to have justified God [8] ; the Jews in Malachi [9] to have blessed proud men, which sin and prosper; not that the one did make God righteous, or the other the wicked happy: but to “bless,” to “justify,” and to “absolve,” are as commonly used for words of judgment or declaration, as of true and real efficacy. Yea even by the opinion of the Master of Sentences [1] , “it may be soundly affirmed and thought that God alone doth remit and retain sins, although he have given the Church power [m] to do both: but he one way, and the Church another. He only by himself forgiveth sin, who cleanseth the soul from inward blemish, and looseth the debt of eternal death. So great a privilege he hath not given unto his priests, who notwithstanding are authorized to loose and bind, that is to say, to [n] declare who are bound, and who are loosed. For albeit a man be already cleared before God, yet he is not in the face of the Church so [o] taken, but by virtue of the priest’s sentence; who likewise may be said to bind by imposing satisfactions [p] , and to loose by admitting to the holy communion.”

Saint Hierome also, whom the Master of the Sentences [2] allegeth for more countenance of his own opinion, doth no less plainly and directly affirm [3] : “That as the priests of the law could only discern, and neither cause nor remove leprosies; so the ministers of the Gospel, when they retain or remit sin, do but in the one judge how long we continue guilty, and in the other declare when we are clear or free.” For there is nothing more apparent, than that the discipline of repentance both public and private was ordained as an outward mean to bring men to the virtue of inward conversion;     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 9.  so that when this by manifest tokens did seem effected, absolution ensuing (which could not make) served only to declare men innocent.

[q] But the cause wherefore they are so stiff, and have forsaken their own master in this point, is for that they hold the private discipline of penitency to be a sacrament, absolution an external sign in this sacrament, the signs external of all sacraments in the New Testament to be both causes of that which they signify, and signs of that which they truly cause.

To this opinion concerning sacraments they are now tied by expounding a canon in the Florentine council [1] according to a former scholastical [r] invention received from Thomas. For his device it was, that the mercy of God, which useth sacraments as instruments whereby to work, endueth them at the time of their administration with supernatural force and ability to induce grace into the souls of men; even as the axe and saw do serve [s] to bring timber into that fashion which the mind of the artificer intendeth [2] . His conceit [t] Scotus [1] ,     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 10.  Occam, Petrus Alliacensis, with sundry others, do most earnestly and strongly impugn, shewing very good reason, wherefore no sacrament of the new law can either by virtue which itself hath, or by force supernaturally given it, be properly a cause to work grace; but sacraments are therefore said to work or confer grace, because the will of Almighty God is, although not to give them such efficacy, yet himself to be present in the ministry of the [u] working that effect, which proceedeth wholly from him without any real operation of theirs, such as can enter into men’s souls.

[x] In which construction, seeing that our books [y] and writings have made it known to the world how we join with them, it seemeth very hard and injurious dealing, that Bellarmine throughout the whole course of his second book De Sacramentis in Genere [2] , should so boldly face down his adversaries, as if their opinion were, that sacraments are naked, empty, and uneffectual signs; wherein there is no other force than only such as in pictures to stir up the mind, that so by theory and speculation of things represented, faith may grow: finally, that all the operation which sacraments have, is a sensible and divine instruction. But had it pleased him not to hoodwink his own knowledge, I nothing doubt but he fully saw how to answer himself; it being a matter very strange and incredible, that one which with so great diligence had [z] winnowed his adversaries’ writings, should be ignorant of their minds. For, even as in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ both God and man, when his human nature is by itself considered, we may not attribute that unto him, which we do and must ascribe as oft as respect is had unto both natures combined; so because in sacraments there are two things distinctly to be considered, the outward sign, and the secret concurrence of God’s most blessed Spirit, in which respect our Saviour hath taught that water and the Holy Ghost are combined to work the mystery of new birth [1] ; sacraments therefore as signs have only those effects before mentioned; but of sacraments, in that by God’s own will and ordinance they are signs assisted always with the power of the Holy Ghost, we [2] acknowledge whatsoever either the places of Scripture, or the authorities of councils and fathers, or the proofs and arguments of reason which he allegeth, can shew to be wrought by them. The elements and words have power of infallible signification, for which they are called seals of God’s truth; the spirit affixed unto those elements and words, power of operation within the soul, most admirable, divine, and impossible to be exprest. For so God hath instituted and ordained, that, together with due administration and receipt of sacramental signs, there shall proceed from himself grace effectual to sanctify, to cure, to comfort, and whatsoever is else [a] for the good of the souls of men.

Howbeit this opinion [3] Thomas rejecteth, under pretence that it maketh sacramental words and elements to be in themselves no more than signs, whereas they ought to be held as causes of that they signify. He therefore reformeth it with this addition, that the very sensible parts of the Sacraments do instrumentally effect and produce, not grace (for the schoolmen [1] both of these times and long after did for the most part maintain it untrue, and some of them unpossible, that sanctifying grace should efficiently proceed but from God alone [2] , and that by immediate creation [3] as the substance of the soul doth;) but the phantasy which Thomas [4] had was, that sensible things through Christ and the priest’s benediction receive a certain supernatural transitory force, which leaveth behind it a kind of preparative quality or beauty within the soul, whereupon immediately from God doth ensue the grace that justifieth.

Now they which pretend to follow Thomas, differ from him in two points. For first, they make grace an immediate effect of the outward sign, which he for the dignity and excellency thereof was afraid to do. Secondly, whereas he to produce but a preparative quality in the soul, did imagine God to create in the instrument a supernatural gift or ability [b] ; they confess, that nothing is created, infused, or any way inherent, either in the word or in the elements; nothing that giveth them instrumental efficacy, but God’s mere motion or application. Are they able to explain unto us, or themselves to conceive, what they mean when they thus speak?     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 11.  For example, let them teach us, in the sacrament of Baptism, what it is for water to be moved till it bring forth grace. The application thereof by the minister is plain to sense; the force which it hath in the mind, as a moral instrument of information or instruction, we know by reason; and by faith we understand how God doth assist it with his Spirit: whereupon ensueth the grace which Saint Cyprian did in himself observe, saying [1] , “After the bath of regeneration having scoured out the stained foulness of former life, supernatural light had entrance into the breast which was purified and cleansed for it: after that a second nativity had made me [c] another man, by inward receipt of the Spirit from heaven; things doubtful began in marvellous manner to appear certain, that to be open which lay hid, darkness to shine like the clear light, former hardness to be made facility, impossibility easiness: insomuch as it might be discerned how that was earthly, which before had been carnally bred, and lived, given over unto sins; that now God’s own, which the Holy Ghost did quicken.”

[d] Our opinion is therefore plain unto every man’s understanding. We take it for a very good speech which Bonaventure hath uttered in saying [2] , “Heed must be taken, that while we ascribe too much to the bodily signs in way of their commendation, we withdraw not the honour which is due to the cause which worketh in them, and the soul which receiveth them:” whereunto we conformably teach, that the outward sign applied hath of itself no natural efficacy towards grace, neither doth God put into it any supernatural inherent virtue. And, as I think, we thus far avouch no more than they themselves confess to be very true.

If any thing displease them, it is because we add to these premisses another assertion; that with the outward sign God joineth his Holy Spirit, and so the whole instrument of God bringeth that to pass, whereunto the baser and meaner part could not extend. As for operations through the motions of signs, they are dark, intricate, and obscure; perhaps possible; howbeit, not proved either true or likely, by alleging [1] that the touch of our Saviour’s garment restored health, clay sight, when he applied it. Although ten thousand such examples should be brought, they overthrow not this one principle; that, where the instrument is without inherent virtue [e] , the effect must necessarily proceed from the only agent’s adherent power.

It passeth a man’s conceit how water should be carried into the soul with any force of divine motion, or grace proceed but merely from the influence of God’s Spirit. Notwithstanding if God did himself teach his Church in this case to believe that which he hath not given us capacity to comprehend, how incredible soever it may seem, yet our wits should submit themselves, and reason give place unto faith therein. But they [2] yield it to be no question of faith, how grace doth proceed from sacraments; if in general they be acknowledged true instrumental causes, by the ministry whereof men receive divine grace; and that they which impute grace to the only operation of God himself, concurring with the external sign, do no less acknowledge the true efficacy of the sacrament, than they that ascribe [3] the same to the quality of the sign applied, or to the motion of God applying, and so far carrying it, till grace be thereby [f] not created, but extracted out of the natural possibility of the soul. Nevertheless this last philosophical imagination (if I may call it philosophical,) which useth the terms, but overthroweth the rules of philosophy, and hath no article of faith to support it, but whatsoever it be, they follow it in a manner all; they cast off the first opinion, wherein is most perspicuity and strongest evidence of certain truth.

The Council of Florence [1] and Trent [2] , defining that sacraments contain and confer grace, the sense whereof (if it liked them) might so easily conform itself with the same opinion, which [3] they drew without any just cause quite and clean the other way, making grace the issue of bare words in such sacraments as they have framed destitute of any visible element, and holding it the offspring as well of elements as of words in those sacraments where both are, but in no sacrament acknowledging grace to be the fruit of the Holy Ghost working with the outward sign and not by it; in such sort as Thomas himself teacheth [4] ; that the Apostle’s imposition of hands caused not the coming of the Holy Ghost, which notwithstanding was bestowed together with the exercise of that ceremony; yea, by it, (saith the Evangelist,) to wit, as by a mean which came between the true agent and the effect, but not otherwise.

Many of the ancient Fathers, presupposing that the faithful before Christ had not till the time of his coming that perfect life and salvation which they looked for and we possess, thought likewise their sacraments to be but prefigurations of that which ours in present do exhibit. For which cause the Florentine council comparing the one with the other, saith [1] , “That the old did only shadow grace, which was afterward to be given through the passion of Jesus Christ.” But the after-wit of later days hath found out another more exquisite distinction, that evangelical sacraments are causes to effect grace, through motion of signs legal, according to the same signification and sense wherein evangelical sacraments are held by us to be God’s instruments for that purpose. For howsoever Bellarmine hath shrunk up the Lutherans’ sinews, and cut off our doctrine by the skirts; [2] Allen, although he term us heretics, according to the usual bitter venom of his proud style, doth yet ingenuously confess, that the old schoolmen’s [3] doctrine and ours is one concerning sacramental efficacy, derived from God himself assisting by promise those outward signs of elements and words, out of which their schoolmen of the newer mint [4] are so desirous to hatch grace. Where God doth work and use these outward means, wherein he neither findeth nor planteth force and aptness towards his intended purpose, such means are but signs to bring men to the consideration of his own [g] omnipotent power, which without the use of things sensible would not be marked.     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 12.  At the time therefore when he giveth his heavenly grace, he applieth by the hands of his ministers that which betokeneth the same; nor only betokeneth, but, being also accompanied for ever with such power as doth truly work, is in that respect termed God’s instrument, a true efficient cause of grace; a cause not in itself, but only by connexion of that which is in itself a cause, namely God’s own strength and power. Sacraments, that is to say, the outward signs in sacraments, work nothing till they be blessed and sanctified of God. But what is God’s heavenly benediction and sanctification, saving only the association of his Spirit? Shall we say that sacraments are like magical signs, if thus they have their effect? Is it magic for God to manifest by things sensible what he doth, and to do by his own most glorious Spirit really what he manifesteth in his sacraments? the delivery and administration whereof remaineth in the hands of mortal men, by whom, as by personal instruments, God doth apply signs, and with signs inseparably join his Spirit, and through the power of his Spirit work grace. The first is by way of concomitance and consequence to deliver the rest also that either accompany or ensue.

It is not here, as in cases of mutual commerce, where diverse persons have divers acts to be performed in their own behalf; a creditor to shew his bill, and a debtor to pay his money. But God and man do here meet in one action upon a third, in whom, as it is the work of God to create grace, so it is his work by the hand of the minister to apply a sign which should betoken, and his work to annex, that Spirit, which shall effect it. The action therefore is but one, God the author thereof, and man a cooperator [h] by him assigned to work for, with, and under him. God the giver of grace by the outward ministry of man, so far forth as he authorizeth man to apply the sacraments of grace in the soul, which he alone worketh, without either instrument or co-agent.

[i] Whereas therefore with us the remission of sin is ascribed unto God, as a thing which proceedeth from him only, and presently followeth upon the virtue of true repentance appearing in man; that which we attribute to the virtue, they do not only impute to the sacrament of repentance, but having made repentance a sacrament, and thinking of sacraments as they do, they are enforced to make the ministry of his priests and their absolution a cause of that which the sole omnipotency of God worketh.

And yet, for mine [k] own part, I am not able well to conceive how their doctrine, that human absolution is really a cause out of which our deliverance from sin doth ensue, can cleave with the council of Trent, defining [1] , “That contrition perfected with charity doth at all times itself reconcile offenders to God, before they come to receive actually the sacrament of penance:” how it can stand with those discourses of the learnedest rabbins [1] , which grant [2] , “That whosoever turneth unto God with his whole heart, hath immediately his sins taken away; that if a man [m] be truly converted, his pardon can neither be denied nor delayed:” it doth not stay for the priest’s absolution, but presently followeth. Surely, if every contrite sinner, in whom there is charity and a sincere conversion of heart, have remission of sins given him before he seek it at the priest’s hands; if reconciliation to God be a present and immediate sequel upon every such conversion or change: it must of necessity follow, seeing no man can be a true penitent or contrite which doth not both love God and sincerely abhor sin, that therefore they all before absolution attain forgiveness; whereunto notwithstanding absolution is pretended a cause so necessary, that sin without it, except in some rare extraordinary case, cannot possibly be remitted. Shall absolution be a cause producing and working that effect which is always brought forth without it, and had before absolution be sought [n] ? But when they which are thus beforehand pardoned of God shall come to be also assoiled by the priest, I would know what force his absolution hath in this case?     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 13.  Are they able to say here that the priest doth remit any thing? Yet when any of ours ascribeth the work of remission to God, and interpreteth the priest’s sentence to be but a solemn declaration of that which God himself hath already performed, they scorn at it; they urge against it, that if this were true, our Saviour Christ should rather have said, “What is loosed in heaven, ye shall loose on earth,” than as he doth, “Whatsoever ye loose on earth, shall in heaven be loosed.” As if he were to learn of us how to place his words, and not we to crave rather of him a sound and right understanding, lest to his dishonour and our own hurt we misexpound them. It sufficeth, I think, both against their constructions to have proved that they ground an untruth on his speech, and in behalf of our own, that his words without any such transposition do very well admit the sense we give them; which is, that he taketh to himself the lawful proceedings of authority in his name, and that the act of spiritual authority in this case, is by sentence to acquit or pronounce them free from sin whom they judge to be sincerely and truly penitent; which interpretation they themselves do acknowledge, though not sufficient, yet very true. Absolution [1] , they say, declareth indeed, but this is not all, for it likewise maketh innocent; which addition being an untruth proved, our truth granted hath we [o] hope sufficiency without it, and consequently our opinion therein neither to be challenged as untrue, nor as unsufficient.

[p] To rid themselves out of these briers, and to make remission of sins an effect of absolution, notwithstanding that which hitherto hath been said, they have two shifts. As first, that in many penitents there is but attrition [2] of heart, which attrition they define to be grief proceeding from fear without love; and to these they say absolution doth give that contrition whereby men are really purged from sin. Secondly, that even where contrition or inward repentance doth cleanse without absolution, the reason why it cometh so to pass is [1] , because such contrites intend and desire absolution, though they have it not. Which two things granted; the one, that absolution given maketh them contrite that are not, the other, that even in them which are contrite, the cause why God remitteth sin is the purpose or desire they have to receive absolution [2] ; we are not to stand against a sequel so clear and manifest as this, that always remission of sin proceedeth from absolution either had or desired.

But should a reasonable man give credit to their bare conceit, and because their positions have driven them to imagine absolving of unsufficiently-disposed penitents to be a real creating of further virtue in them, must all other men think it true [q] ? Let them cancel henceforward and blot out of all their books those old cautions touching necessity of wisdom [3] , lest priests should inconsiderately absolve any man in whom there were not apparent tokens of true repentance [4] ; which to do was, in Cyprian’s [r] judgment [5] , “pestilent deceit and flattery, not only not available, but hurtful to them that had transgrest; a frivolous, frustrate and false peace, such as caused the unrighteous to trust to a lie, and destroyed them unto whom it promised safety.” What needeth observation whether penitents have worthiness and bring contrition, if the words of absolution do infuse contrition? Have they borne us all this while in hand that contrition is a part of the matter of their sacrament [s] , a condition or preparation of the mind towards grace to be received by absolution in the form of their sacrament? and must we now believe that the form doth give the matter? that absolution bestoweth contrition, and that the words do make presently of Saul, David; of Judas, Peter? For what was the penitency of Saul and Judas, but plain attrition; horror of sin through fear of punishment, without any loving sense, or taste of God’s mercy?

[t] Their other fiction, imputing remission of sin to desire of absolution from the priest, even in them which are truly contrite, is an evasion somewhat more witty, but no whit more possible for them to prove. Belief of the world and judgment to come, faith in the promises and sufferings of Christ for mankind, fear of his majesty, love of his mercy, grief for sin, hope for pardon, suit for grace; these we know to be the elements of true contrition: suppose that besides all this, God did also command that every penitent should seek his absolution at the priest’s hands; where so many causes are concurring unto one effect, have they any reason to impute the whole effect unto one? any reason in the choice of that one, to pass by faith, fear, love, humility, hope, prayer, whatsoever else, and to enthronize above them all a desire of absolution from the priest, as if, in the whole work of man’s repentance, God did regard and accept nothing, but for and in consideration of this? Why doth the Tridentine council impute it to charity [1] , “that contrites are reconciled in God’s sight before they receive the sacrament of penance,” if desired absolution be the true cause?

But let this pass how it will; seeing the question is not, what virtues [u] God may accept in penitent sinners, but what grace absolution actually given doth really bestow upon them. If it were, as they will have it, that God, regarding the humiliation of a contrite spirit, because there is joined therewith a lowly desire of the sacrament of priestly absolution, pardoneth immediately and forgiveth all offences; doth this any thing help to prove that absolution received afterward [x] from the priest, can more than declare him already pardoned which did desire it? To desire absolution, presupposing it commanded, is obedience; and obedience in that case is a branch of the virtue of repentance; which virtue being thereby made effectual to the taking away of sins without the sacrament of repentance, is it not an argument that the sacrament of absolution hath here no efficacy, but the virtue of contrition worketh all? For how should any effect ensue from causes which actually are not? The sacrament must be applied wheresoever any grace doth proceed from it. So that where it is but desired only, whatsoever may follow upon God’s acceptation of this desire, the sacrament afterwards received can be no cause thereof. Wherefore the further we wade, the better we see it still appear, that the priest doth never in absolution, no not so much as by way of service and ministry, really either forgive the act, take away the uncleanness, or remove the punishment of sin: but if the party penitent come contrite, he hath by their own grant absolution before absolution; if not contrite, although the priest should ten thousand times absolve [y] him, all were in vain. For which cause, the ancienter [z] and better sort of their school-divines, Abulensis [1] , Alexander Hales [2] , Bonaventure [3] , ascribe the real abolition of sin and eternal punishment to the mere pardon of Almighty God without dependency upon the priest’s absolution as a cause to effect the same. His absolution hath in their doctrine certain other effects specified [4] but this denied.

Wherefore, having hitherto spoken of the virtue of repentance required;     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 14.  of the discipline of repentance which Christ did establish; and of the sacrament of repentance invented sithence, against the pretended force of human absolution in sacramental penitency: let it suffice thus far to have shewed how God alone doth truly give, the virtue of repentance alone procure, and private ministerial absolution but declare remission of sins.

[a] Now the last and sometimes hardest to be satisfied by repentance, are our minds; and our minds we have then satisfied, when the conscience is of guilty become clear. For as long as we are in ourselves privy to our own most heinous crimes, but without sense of God’s mercy and grace towards us, unless the heart be either brutish for want of knowledge, or altogether hardened by wilful atheism, the remorse of sin is in it as the deadly sting of a serpent. Which point sith very infidels and heathens have observed in the nature of sin (for the disease they felt, though they knew no remedy to help it) we are not rashly to despise those sentences which are the testimonies of their experience touching this point. They knew that the eye of a man’s own conscience is more to be feared by evil doers than the presence of a thousand witnesses, inasmuch as the mouths of other accusers are many ways stopt, the ears of the accused not always subject to glowing with contumely and exprobration; whereas a guilty mind being forced to be still both a martyr and a tyrant itself, must of necessity endure perpetual anguish and grief. For, as the body is rent with stripes, so the mind with guiltiness of cruelty, lust, and wicked resolutions. Which furies brought the Emperor Tiberius sometimes into such perplexity, that writing to the senate, his wonted art of dissimulation failed him utterly in this case; and whereas it had been ever his peculiar delight so to speak that no man might be able to sound his meaning, he had not the power to conceal what he felt through the secret scourge of an evil conscience, though no necessity did now enforce [b] to disclose the same.     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 15.  “What to write, or how to write, at this present, if I know,” saith Tiberius [1] , “let those gods and goddesses, who thus continually eat me, only be worse to me than they are.” It was not his imperial dignity and power that could provide a way to protect him against himself, the fears and suspicions [c] which improbity had bred being strengthened by every occasion, and those virtues clean banished which are the only foundation of sound tranquillity of mind. For which cause it hath been truly said, and agreeably with all men’s experience, that if the righteous [d] did excel in no other privilege, yet far happier they are than the contrary sort of men, for that their hopes be always better.

Neither are we to marvel that these things, known unto all, do stay so few from being authors of their own woe. For we see by the ancient example of Joseph’s unkind brethren, how it cometh to remembrance easily when crimes are once past, what the difference is of good from evil, and of right from wrong: but such considerations when they should have prevented sin, were overmatcht by unordinate [e] desires.

Are we not bound then with all thankfulness to acknowledge his infinite goodness and mercy, which hath revealed unto us the way how to rid ourselves of these mazes; the way how to shake off that yoke, which no flesh is able to bear; the way how to change most grisly horror into a comfortable apprehension of heavenly joy?

[f] Whereunto there are many which labour with so much the greater difficulty, because imbecility of mind doth not suffer them to censure rightly their own doings: some fearful lest the enormity of their crimes be so impardonable that no repentance can do them good; some lest the imperfection of their repentance make it uneffectual to the taking away of sin. The one drive all things to this issue, whether they be not men which [g] have sinned against the Holy Ghost; the other to this, what repentance is sufficient to clear sinners, and to assure them that they are delivered.

Such as by error charge themselves of unpardonable sin, must think, it may be they deem that impardonable which is not. Our Saviour speaketh indeed of a [h] blasphemy which shall never be forgiven. But have they any sure and infallible knowledge what that blasphemy is? If not, why are they unjust and cruel to their own souls, imagining certainty of guiltiness in a crime concerning the very nature whereof they are uncertain? For mine own part, although where this blasphemy is mentioned, the cause why our Saviour spake thereof was the Pharisees’ blasphemy, which were [i] not afraid to say, “He had an unclean spirit, and did cast out spirits by the power of Beelzebub [1] ;” nevertheless I dare not precisely deny but that even the very [k] Pharisees themselves might have repented and been forgiven, and that our Lord Jesus Christ peradventure might but take occasion at their blasphemy, which as yet was pardonable, to tell them further of an unpardonable blasphemy, whereinto he foresaw that the Jews would fall. For it is plain that many thousands, at the first professing Christian religion, became afterwards wilful apostatas [l] , moved with no other cause of revolt, but mere indignation that the Gentiles should enjoy the benefit of the Gospel as much as they, and yet not be burthened with the yoke of Moses’ law. The Apostles by preaching had won them to Christ, in whose name they embraced with great alacrity the full remission of their former sins and iniquities [2] ; they received by imposition [m] of the Apostles’ hands that grace and power of the Holy Ghost whereby they cured diseases, prophesied, spake with tongues: and yet in the end after all this they fell utterly away, renounced the mysteries of Christian faith, blasphemed in their formal abjurations that most glorious and blessed Spirit, the gifts whereof themselves had possest, and by this means sunk their souls in the gulf of that unpardonable sin, whereof as our Lord Jesus Christ had told them beforehand, so the Apostle at the first appearance of such their revolt putteth them in mind again [1] , that falling now to their former blasphemies, their salvation was irrecoverably gone.     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 17.  It was for them in this case impossible to be renewed by any repentance: because they were now in the state of Satan and his angels, the Judge of quick and dead had passed his irrevocable sentence against them. So great difference there is between infidels unconverted, and backsliders in this manner fallen away, that always we have hope to reclaim the one, which only hate whom they never knew; but to the other, which know and blaspheme, to them that with more than infernal malice accurse both the seen brightness of glory which is in him, and in themselves the tasted goodness of divine grace, as those execrable miscreants did, who first received in extraordinary miraculous manner, and then in outrageous sort blasphemed, the Holy Ghost, abjuring both it and the whole religion, which God by it did confirm and magnify; to such as wilfully thus sin [2] , after so great light of the truth and gifts of the Spirit, there remaineth justly no fruit or benefit to be expected by Christ’s sacrifice.

For all other offenders, without exception or stint, whether they be strangers that seek access, or followers that will make return unto God; upon the tender of their repentance, the grant of his grace standeth everlastingly signed with his blood in the book of eternal life. That which in this case over-terrifieth fearful souls, is a misconceit whereby they imagine every act which we do knowing that we do amiss, and every wilful breach or transgression of God’s law, to be mere sin against the Holy Ghost; forgetting that the Law of Moses itself ordained sacrifices of expiation as well for faults presumptuously committed, as things wherein men offend by error.

[n] Now there are on the contrary side others, who doubting not of God’s mercy toward all that perfectly repent, remain notwitstanding scrupulous and troubled with continual fear, lest defects in their own repentance be a bar against them. These cast themselves first into very great, and peradventure needless agonies, through misconstruction of things spoken about proportioning our griefs to our sins [1] , for which they never think they have wept and mourned enough; yea, if they have not always a stream of tears at commandment [o] , they take it for a sign of a heart [p] congealed and hardened in sin; when to keep the wound of contrition bleeding, they unfold the circumstances of their transgressions, and endeavour to leave out [q] nothing which may be heavy against themselves. Yet do what they can, they are still fearful, lest herein also they do not that which they ought and might. Come to prayer, their coldness taketh all heart and courage from them; with fasting albeit their flesh should be withered and their blood clean dried up, would they ever the less object [r] , What is this to David’s humiliation [2] ? wherein notwithstanding there was not any thing more than necessary. In works of charity and alms-deeds, it is not all the world can persuade them they did ever reach the poor bounty of the widow’s two mites [3] , or by many millions of leagues come near the mark [s] which Cornelius [4] touched: so far they are off from the proud surmise of any penitential supererogation in miserable wretched worms of the earth.

Notwithstanding, forasmuch as they wrong themselves with over rigorous and extreme exactions, by means whereof they fall sometimes into such perplexities as can hardly be allayed; it hath therefore pleased Almighty God, in tender commiseration over these imbecillities of men, to ordain for their spiritual and ghostly comfort consecrated persons, which by sentence of power and authority given from above, may as it were out of his very mouth ascertain timorous and doubtful minds in their own particular, ease them of all their scrupulosities, leave them settled in peace and satisfied touching the mercy of God towards them.     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 18.  To use the benefit of this [t] help for our better satisfaction in such cases is so natural, that it can be forbidden no man; but yet not so necessary, that all men should be in case to need it.

[u] They are of the two the happier therefore that can content and satisfy themselves by judging discreetly what they perform, and soundly [v] what God doth require of them. For having that which is most material, the substance of penitency rightly bred; touching signs and tokens thereof, we may boldly affirm that they err, which [w] imagine for every offence a certain proportionable degree in the passions and griefs of mind, whereunto whosoever aspireth not, repenteth in vain: that to frustrate men’s confessions and considerations of sin, except every circumstance which may aggravate the same be unript and laid in the balance, is a merciless extremity, although it be true, that as near as we can such wounds must be searched to the very bottom: last of all, that [x] to set down the like stint, and to shut up the doors of mercy against penitents which come short thereof in the devotion [y] of their prayers, in the continuance of their fasts, in the largeness and bounty of their alms, or in the course of any other such like duties, is more than God hath himself thought meet, and consequently more than mortal men should presume to do. That which God doth chiefly respect in men’s penitency [1] , is their hearts. The heart is it which maketh repentance sincere, sincerity that which findeth favour in God’s sight, and the favour of God that which supplieth by gracious acceptation whatsoever may seem defective in the faithful, hearty, and true offices of his servants. “Take it” (saith Chrysostom [2] ) “upon my credit, Such is God’s merciful inclination towards men, that repentance offered with a single and sincere mind he never refuseth; no not although we be come to the very top of iniquity.     BOOK VI. Ch. vi. 18.  If there be a will and desire to return, he receiveth, embraceth, omitteth nothing which may restore us to former happiness; yea, that which is yet above all the rest, albeit we cannot in the duty of satisfying him attain what we ought and would, but come far behind our mark, he taketh nevertheless in good worth that little which we do; be it never so mean, we lose not our labour therein.” The least and lowest step of repentance in Saint [z] Chrysostom’s judgment severeth and setteth us above them that perish in their sin. I will therefore end with St. Augustin’s conclusion [1] , “Lord, in thy book and volume of life all shall be written, as well the least of thy saints, as the chiefest. Let not therefore the unperfect fear; let them only proceed and go forward.”

APPENDIX TO BOOK VI.

[ Notes by George Cranmer and Edwin Sandys, on B. VI. as sent to them in MS. [1] ]

George Cranmer’s notes on M. Hooker’s [2] .

Notes upon the 6 Booke.

BOOK VI. Appendix.  P. 1. “ IT may suffice.” I thinke if this booke began at the next sentence following, yt were not amisse. But then I could wishe that sentence to be divided into two; for yt is long. Which may be done without any alteration thus: “As it is not enough that our” c.     +

“Helpe be had: to this end.”     +  Here I could wishe the first sentence to end but with a more full word then (had) as namely, “Helpe be provided,” or, “procured.” And the next sentence to go on, “To this end therefore.”

“Learned clerkes.” The name clerkes (as I thinke) cometh from κλη̑ρος inheritance [3] , and not as you seeme to say from their power of order.     ◯  And although yt be true that the name be only given to them, yet is yt not given according to your speach, in that regard.

+  “Saith Ignatius [4] .” Quote yt.

“Obligatory declaration.” By this word obligatory I understand such a kynd of declaration as either men must obey yt, or suffer punishment. But the word will not be generally understood.

“So that these two things,” c. and afterwardes, to “Ys yt within such compasse.” It ys true that the power of Jurisdiction is limited by Lawe, but those wordes (“So that”) do seeme to argue that so much was implyed in the definition before, wherein I thinke no such thing is contayned.

P. 2. “I will that younger women marry.” Do you thinke this was a commandement, which to have neglected had been a sinne, or rather an admonition or advise.

“Or civill is.” I would leave out (“Is”).

“Cases of right to thinges,” and, “esteemed such.” I would say, “Cases of right belonging to thinges”—and, “esteemed spirituall,”     +  for the word such is not playne.     ◯

P. 3. “Non intendimus indicare de fœdo” [“judicare de feudo,” v. p. 131, n. 1]. This was the sentence of a Pope, as I conceave, chalenging unto him self that which by us is denyed him: and therefore yt may be this allegation is not so fitt, although I very well understand in what sense yt is alleaged by you. But I may be deceaved in this matter because yt is a matter of story, whereof I have no knowledge.

“Touching manner and form.” Rather, “Touching the manner of exercising power ecclesiasticall.” And in the end of the sentence, I would say, “Requisite is this also.”

P. 4. “Namely to the end.” I could wishe this were no parenthesis, and that the sentence did end at those wordes, (“As it were by force,”) knitting the next wordes in this manner,     +  (“which may serve as a reason why they,”) for this sentence otherwise will be very long.

“Curia Christianitatis.” I could wishe that as little as might be were in the margent but rather, if it be of moment, in the text.     +  And it may be this were not amisse to be inserted.

P. 7. “Well or ill of good men.” I thinke there is some fault in the writing. “That afterwardes whereas.     ◯  ” I guesse there is a line left out here in the writing.

P. 8. “Fittest way.” I would adde, “way of awnsweare,” because (“way”) by ytself alone seemeth not sufficient.     +  But then yt must be sayd in the wordes immediatly going before, not “against,” but “unto such presumptuous cavills.”

“Esay, for your sake:” quote yt.     +

“Pure handes.” You remember D. Raynoldes note in the former bookes.

“Last of all.” This sentence I do not understand. Eyther yt is false written, or yt must be otherwise explained in my opinion.

P. 11. “Severe Lawgiver.” Was yt Draco? Cite your author.     +

“Si quis privatus aut populus.” Translate yt:     +  and I thinke yt shall not neede to sett the Latine in the margine.

“Elias the Levite.” Quote the booke [1] .

P. 12. “It is the phancy of some.” If they be men of any accompt, I would not say, (“phancy,”) but opinion; or, “some are of opinion.”

“Cut of from the stocke of faith, and soules rooted out.” In the third [2] you may remember yt is sayd that excommunication doth not exclude from out the visible Church.     +  It seemeth by theys wordes that the [Fathers [3] ?] did make accompt of men so separated, as if they were utterly excluded. You may thinke upon these wordes whether they do not seeme to imply some repugnancy to the former: and although I know they may be reconciled, yet perhaps it were not amisse if before hand they were qualifyed.

“Self same kynd of anathema.” You seeme by theis wordes to understand St. Paul’s meaning [4] of the lowest degree of three, whereas yt is commonly taken (you know) for a farre greater matter than the highest degree of excommunication can import.     +  And yet in the beginning of this discourse you make anathema the second degree, and here in St. Paule’s speach the first onely. But because [this] opinion is newe and contrary to that which hath been receaved, [I] could wishe that common opinion were sett downe and their reference to the speach of Moses [5] specified together with the reasons of your opinion on the other side, and the dissimilitude of Moses speach from the Apostles. Moreover because yt may seeme but a sleight kynd of endamagement which the Apostle doth wishe unto himself, yf yt reach no farther than you seeme to understand it, especially in theis dayes wherein separation from the Church is taken for a matter of nothing: yt may be shewed how highely they accompted of the visible and outward communion of saintes, as may appeare in that Psalme where David extolleth the state of the sparrowe (as I remember) even in that respect because she had her nest in the temple. But of this enough.     +

P. 13. “Lett that nation.” Quote it.

“To express those actions by.” I would say, As names to expresse those actions of publique judgment: and so leave out those wordes (“in publique judgment”) immediatly going before.

P. 14. “The Syrian language.” Did they speake the Syriacke in Christs tyme ordinarily or only the learneder of them? for so I have heard.

“St. Gregorie [1] .” I would say in the very text for more autority St. Gregory Nyssene, because the later Gregory will otherwise be understood.

“Towardes thy self.” This sentence is unperfect in the writing.

P. 16. “Every open scandalous action.” By this yt may seeme that because in the 4 booke [2] you have sett downe that all sinne hath a scandalizing nature, every open sinne is subject to the censure of the Church, so as it would seeme to followe that all causes might be brought under discipline. For myne owne part I do not conceave wherein the distinction lyeth betweene causes spirituall and temporall, although yt be manifest that a distinction there is betweene them. And in the practise of the commonwealth causes spirituall in some cases are determinable in civill courtes, as tithes, perjury; and causes temporall in the spirituall courtes, as testamentes, which in my opinion are merely civill: so as I see the division with us is not according to the nature of the thing, but as lawe or custom hath prevayled.

“For this cause Tertullian.” In the margine.     +  It may be that this note might come in well into the text.

P. 17. “Whose flesh the tortures.” If any auncient writer do autorise this opinion, yt were not amisse to quote him.     +

“The auncient fathers of the Church.” The places here quoted in the margine do not (in my opinion) prove any such corporall plague as for which they are alleaged. It may be some more pregnant testimony might be found. For the thing (I thinke) is true. The place of Tertullian in the margine is false written,     +  as I take yt.

P. 18. “Dischurched.” I would say, “as it were dischurched,” because the word is unusuall.

P. 19. “Howsoever.” I would leave out this sentence wholly, because that for which you bring it in,     +  is pertinent and short and needeth no qualifying or excuse.

“Very well then.” I would leave out these wordes, and say, “Be it so,” for they are to familiar.

P. 20. “Mariage feast in Cana?” Although yt be no necessary consequence, yet some presumption yt is that if any such thing had beene used in the Church before Victor, yt would at some tyme or other have beene mentioned. And therefore if any testimony could here be alleaged of the exercise of excommunication before Victor, it would be very fitt. For this and the like if you cannot call to remembrance any cleare testimony, it may be D. Raynoldes were able to furnish you, with a word writing unto him, when you send your booke.     +

P. 21. “Epicurus opinion.” I could wishe for more perspicuity (for that is it which D. Some requireth in your booke [1] ) that the opinion of the Epicure sett downe in the margine by Lucretius were in the text: and that the sentence were divided into two in this or the like manner; “A philosopher there is who in this regard especially magnifyeth his master Epicurus opinion, that the world was not created by God, for that it serveth as a present cure to such weake and feeble myndes as are continually perplexed with touch of conscience, and therefore in this sort he frameth his speach unto him, ‘No sooner dost thou teach that the world,’ c. [2] :” taking the marginall note into the text, and leaving the Latine only in the margine. The next sentence then must followe. “In like manner these good folke,” c. You may polish yt at your pleasure.

“They would not be light.” You knowe the manner of our excommunication which for this point specially is accused. And I thinke either something is to be sayd in defence thereof [3] , or this clause to be left out which doth seeme to blame the exercise of yt, as now it is used. You knowe that no man is excommunicate but for contumacy, which in the least thinges for the most part is greatest, because the more easily the thing is done, the greater is the contempt in neglecting yt. So as theyr cavil is but slander when they say, we are excommunicate for fees [4] : for it is not in that regard, but because the Church hath no other meanes to make men appeare or do theyr dutyes but this onely. This point may be thought upon. If other meanes were appointed whereby the spirituall courtes might punishe contumacy in such cases, I thinke yt were not amisse, but no other beeing, that must be used.

“Magistratus execrator.” In the margine. It may be this marginall note might be brought into the text.

P. 23. “The people of God.” I would leave out, “of God,” because [even?] the optimates or elders are part of the people of God, but in division of the polity, as in this place it is understood, they are not a part of the people.

“There is not any man.” I would say in the beginning, “Surely there is not any man.     +  ”

“Looke for obedience.” You meane in matter of fact; in matter of perswasion it is lawfull for any man to thinke as he list: so as the sentences do not seeme to be both made of the same thing.

“To compell by reason.” I would say, enforce; for although both these wordes do imply force, yet compulsion is properly of things violent.

P. 24. “Importeth chiefety of dominion.” I would say, “Importeth not power of jurisdiction, but chiefety of dominion.” For so yt wilbe plainer. And in the margine for the better understanding what you meane by chiefety of dominion, you may sett, “That which the Grecians call τὸ κύριον.     +  ” Although this explication be only for the learned.

“Two thinges being necessary.” This sentence is long: I would divide yt thus: “Two thinges are necessary:” and afterwardes; “which two thinges are thought weaker in each particular,” c.     +  The sentence may very well end at those wordes “the common good of all.” And the next sentence may beginne, “By this meanes therefore yt commeth to passe.”

“That cable.” I would say, “That threefold cable whereof Salomon speaketh [1] .”

“By Solon had not.” You may quote some author for this; and if Machiavel be not an unfitt author, it is his observation lib. i. Disc. sop. Tit. Liv. [cap. 2. p. 9. ed. 1550.]

P. 25. “Annexed unto yt.” In this place I could wishe something were added to this effect. “For in theys considerations it hath beene thought that the mixed state is best:” otherwise (you know) yt is by [Aristotle?] confest l. 4. Polit. that if any one may be of so exceeding vertue as betweene him alone and the rest of the people jointly there be no comparison, he ought by the lawe of nature to have absolute and souverayne dominion. Which incomparable vertue because we cannot deny to our Saviour Christ, we ought not to deny him any souverainety, nor to adioyne unto him any assistants.

“According unto astrology.” I would rather say,     +  (“and the court of the Areopagites as yt were certayne optimates.”) For that will better resemble theyr pretended mixture, than the heavens, so far removed.

P. 26. “Fourthly.” This word is referred to the three generall branches before specified, whereas in this place it may seeme to followe upon the three specialtys going immediatly before. Reade the sentence, and you shall perceave my meaning. You may say: furthermore, or, moreover.

“Will before.” False written.

“Imperiall power.” I could wishe that in this discourse and in the whole body of your booke wheresoever mention is made of τὸ κύριον, you should give yt the same name. You terme yt sometymes chiefety of dominion, sometymes souverainety, sometimes imperiall power. I thinke theys wordes (souverainety of dominion or souverayne dominion) are the fittest to be alwayes used, and plainest to be understood. If you be of this mynd, you may alter those places before, and make them all alike.

P. 29. “tribunes.” Quote yt. Li. i. Dec. l. 2. as I remember.

“Power of Jurisdiction.” I thinke it may in this place be added; that “if at any tyme any ecclesiasticall person have growen to so great auctority as his power hath beene fearefull unto the state, lest thereby some alteration should ensue,” whereof yet I remember no example; “this hath never come to passe by the meanes of his power of jurisdiction, but by some other accidentall occasions, as favour of the prince, forrayne allyes,” c.

P. 28. “Likelihood of sound reason.     +  ” If a brief collection were made in one sentence of all the five (fine?) absurdityes of this reason before alleaged, it were not amisse, in my opinion. For the greater his auctority is who alleageth it, the plainer I would have the inconsequence of his reason to be made.

“There is no one thinge.” It were good to sett down some of their sentences to this purpose in the margine in such places as you shall find meete. But of one thing I would wishe they were admonished, that in the question of lay elders they urge the Jewish polity,     +  in the next of episcopall autority they will not stand to the lawe, so as when they thinke yt maketh for them they will maintayne it; when otherwise, they disclayme yt. This I leave to your consideration. [In margin] I thinke this may be sett in another place afterwardes more conveniently, as I have noted.

“Lay elders personally distinguished.” In the margine. This clause I understand not, for whether those lay elders were the same with the auncients of the civill state or others, it commeth all to one passe in my opinion, if it appeare they dealt in causes spirituall. [In margin] In this point I do since understand your meaning upon reading the whole discourse.

“The rest were his [sonnes’ sonnes?”]. Had they no wives nor servants? If they had, then they were in the number. [This with a line drawn across it.]

“The whole into tribes.     +  ” Quote yt and that which followeth of familyes and houses.

“The witt of man.” If yt were the order of God, no marvayle if the witt of man could not have devised a better:     +  if not of God but of man, the wordes are well enough.

P. 29. “The congregation, and the whole people.” Quote yt.     +

“The representative body.     +  ” I thinke it were meete to bring some autority or proof hereof.

“Extend this.” I would say, “Extend his wordes:” or, “theyr wordes.”

P. 30. Looke to the quotations in the margine that they be right and rightly placed.     +  And that care is to be had through the whole booke.

P. 31. “Fathers.” And afterwardes [“Decurion?”]. Quote theys thinges.     +

“This was done by Moses.” In the margine. I do not understand to what purpose this marginall note serveth, if it be compared with the text, and for ought I see it may be spared.

“They prophecyed and ceased not.” This coniecture I thinke will seeme straung, unlesse some auctority be given unto yt by testimony. If not, I thinke yt were not amisse to leave it out.

P. 32. “Judges before appointed.” Quote where.

“The Jewish co[ni]ecture.” Cite the author and quote where.     +

P. 34. “Kinges have dominion.” I could wishe that in this place for more perspicuity some such wordes were added, as these: “They are at the choice of the prince, the assistantes of Moses were not.”

“Import souverainety.” I had rather say, “Monarchicall or royall souverainety (for in that sense c.     +  ) but that kynd of souveraine power whereby the state of the Jewes was then go[u?]verned.”

P. 35. “The Jewes tearme them.” Quote yt.     +

“Fifthly the reasons.” This last braunch doth not seeme to be a thinge to be noted in the lawe before alleaged, as in the first wordes you say, but rather to come in by collaterall meanes through their disputes. And therefore you may say, “Lastly we are to examine the reasons which are alleaged.”

P. 37. “Doe every where.” Quote some testimonyes.

“If it should.” Perhaps it were better to say, “If it did not.” And afterward, “questions of doubt inferiour judges.” The composition is hard. I would say, “Inferiour judges are willed to bring those questions of doubt,” c. Or some such alteracion.

“Of this sort likewise.” It seemeth by this that the number was increased, and then could not the Jewes call yt the great court of 71. Some auctority must be alleaged for this point. Unlesse we may say that they were not of the body of the court, except they were also of the 70, but onely associates in judgment by way of advise.

P. 38. “Of priestes onely.” I do not understand what you meane by this word, onely, nor in regard of what it is in this place an exclusive.

“Judiciall assemblyes.     +  ” Do you thinke that in such causes as were brought to the court of 70 from out the cityes abroad that all the 70 were present at judgment? It seemeth unlikely that such a number could all meete together to determine of so many causes at so many tymes.

P. 39. “Did farther devise.” Because this is contrary to their mayne position handled in the 3 booke,     +  I could wishe that some instaunce were given wherein David or Salomon altered the prescript of Moses by addition or any other chaunge. It may be sett in the margine.

P. 41. “Touching causes they.” I thinke there is some fault in the writing: for the word, “causes,” doth not seeme to fill the sentence with perfect sense.

P. 42. “Ordinary judges.” This is a good coniecture; and if any of the Jewes do any where seeme to intimate so much, it were good to quote them.

“His legates.” I had rather say; “lieutenantes.”

“Th’ aforesayd.” You knowe Mr. Sandes mynd and myne of this word.

P. 43. “In the 10 of Ezra.” This marginall note perhaps may come well into the text.     +

P. 44. “Was lesse commodious.” The reason were good to be shewed.     +

“Post [hoc?] et alia.” English it; and I thinke the Latin should not stand in the margine, but ether nothing at all or the Greeke.

P. 46. “State regall.” I cannot tell whether this word “regall,” and the placing of it in this sort, “state regall,” be good. It may be that, “monarchicall” or “royall state,” were better.

“Chiefety of regiment.” Of this you see what I have written before.     ◯  I could wishe that here were putt, “Souverainety of dominion,” or “souverayne dominion.” And I thinke yt were playner. Afterwardes where it is sayd, “Either under that kingly power,” c.; perhaps it were more perspicuous to say, “When they lived under kinges either appointed by them selves or by forrayne power placed over them.” And yet it is to be considered that their 3 first kinges were chosen by God,     ◯  the rest by succession obtayned the crowne, so as those wordes (“which them selves did appoint”) seeme not to be so proper.

P. 47. “Alludeth both unto those princes.” It were perhaps not amisse to say this indefinitly rather then categorically.

P. 48. “The other of the 70.” Mallem, “The rest of the 70.”

“Afterwardes Scribes.” It may be remembred that there were prophets at the same tyme when there were Scribes,     +  and therefore that the Scribes were not interpretors of the lawe after the prophets but at the same tyme.

“Such a doctor was Gamaliel.” Gamaliel as I remember was a Pharisee and therefore not a Scribe, as Scribes and Pharisees are opposed in division one to another. But if the name of Scribe do signify (as you seeme to say) any one professing skill in the lawe, in that sense a Pharisee may be called a Scribe, and the name of Scribe is ambiguous, applied both to the genus and species. If it be so, as I coniecture by your discourse, it were not amisse to sett the distinction plainely downe of the word, Scribe.     +

P. 49. “Νομικά.” Νομικοὶ I thinke. And yet I cannot tell, because I remember some such phrase in Plato, παιδικὰ, referred to the person.

“The great synagogue.” If this synagogue were that which Ezra founded, how can it be sayd to preceede the prophets; if it were any other, yet because no mention nor speech hath been made of it in the former discourse,     +  perhaps it will not be well conceaved what you meane by that great synagogue.

“These are the genealogies.” If you be not certayne hereof, speake it indefinitely: if you be, alleage some sufficient proof.     +  And afterwardes, “The masters of ,” I would say,     +  “The teachers of .”

“Of them that.” I thinke it is false written.     +

“Senatus, sacerdotes.” Translate yt.     +

P. 50. “Th’ arraignement of Herode.” I would say, “Whereof we spake before,” or some such reference.

P. 51. “Do intimate a difference.     +  ” I could wishe that this were made plainer by drawing the marginall note following into the text.

P. 52. “from tyme to tyme.” In this place I thinke it were not amisse if some discourse were added to this effect. That the antiquityes of all nations, especially of the Jewes so farre removed from us both in place and tyme, are for the most part obscure and hard to be particularly sett downe, because being well knowne and not greately regarded of all then living, men are not commonly willing to take paynes in delivering such thinges to posterity: but that partly out of Scripture, partly by probable coniecture and out of the writinges of the Jewes you have collected and sett downe that which in your opinion is most consonant unto trueth. Hereupon I could wishe that a brief collection were made of all those mayne positions which are contayned in the former discourse. I will sett downe what I have conceaved of the Jewes estate out of your discourse; for otherwise I have no skill nor knowledge therein; but if I have mistaken ought, you may perceave wherein some explanation is requisite for other mens farther direction. I conceave therefore that your meaning is this, 1. that for the ease of Moses in inferiour causes there were first appointed [1] inferiour judges: 2. that afterwardes for his farther ease even in those waighty affayres which he had reserved unto himself, other associates were joined [2] unto him;     +  whereof I thinke one presumption may be that which you have omitted, that God indued those later with part of Moses spirite, which I thinke is not written of the former, and therefore it should seeme that as their guiftes were more excellent, so their charge was more waighty also: 3. that in Moses together with these 70 the souverainety of the Jewish state did remayne; and that the chief of this senate were Moses or his successor and the high priest;     +  the rest were the princes of the tribes and other auncientes of greatest nobility; 5. that none of the common people were of this senate; 6. that in this senate all high and principall affayrs were handled whether ecclesiasticall or civill; 7. that in causes ecclesiasticall the High Priest was chief of this senate and might assemble them, in causes civill the judge or supreme civil gouvernor: 8. that this High Court was afterwardes by Moses institution to be planted in Jerusalem and till they were gouverned by a king was the souverayne auctority and τὸ κύριον of that common wealth; 9. that after their state was altered from an aristocracy into a monarchy and the souverainety thereby removed, yet this court was the principall and highest court of justice; 10. That the king himself was chief of this court if he list to sitt therein, if not, then some of the princes by him appointed; 11. That the High Priest was the next in this court unto the King himself; 12. But sometymes it so fell out that the same person was both High Priest and supreme civil gouvernor,     +  as Ely [1] , Ezra, Simon; 13. That the state of Jury beeing greatly decayed by the rent of the ten tribes the same was by Jehosaphat restored. In whose reformation these thinges I observe, first that he appointed [2] judges in all the cityes according to the ordinance of Moses in Deuteronomy [3] which I take to awnsweare in proportion unto those inferiour judges appointed by Moses upon Jethroes motion; secondly that in Jerusalem he established [4] the high senate of the 70, the same which before by Moses was instituted [5] : thirdly that he established but one high senate for both kind of causes, and not as they would have it, one for civil,     +  another for ecclesiasticall. Whereof I have these presumptions, first because it is sayd by Jehosaphat to the judges of that court [6] , “In every cause that shall come unto you of your brethren that dwell in their cityes, betweene bloud and bloud:” which wordes, “bloud and bloud,     +  ” seeme to be a plaine reference to the institution of Moses in Deuteronomy [7] where the same wordes are used. If the court therefore by Moses there established were but one, as I thinke they confesse, or if they do not, the course of the text will convince it, because it is sayd, “The priestes and the judge,” joyning them together as it were in the same high commission; if (I say) that court were but one, it seemeth that the court by Jehosaphat restored and reestablished with so plaine reference to the wordes of Moses was the same court, and therefore but one. Againe it is sayd [8] , “Behold Amariah the priest shalbe chief over you in all matters of the Lord, and Zebadiah for the kinge’s affayres.” What shall Zebadiah be? chief over you: over whom? over the same persons over whom Amariah is also placed, as the wordes must needes enforce: so as Amariah was not chief of one court, Zebadiah of another, but both of the same in different causes. For it followeth in the text, “And the Levites shalbe officers before you:     +  ” before whome? Not before any civil judges where Zebadiah being a civil magistrate did sitt upon civil causes only; for that were not likely that Jehosaphat would appoint Levites to be under officers in such a court, but rather where together with Zebadiah the high priest did sitt. Thirdly this I note that whereas it is always most likely that expresse mention should be made of any court at the first institution rather than at a restitution afterwardes; they are fayne to fly from the bookes of Moses, (by whome if any such court as they conceave had been established,     +  it is most likely that he would have expressly set downe the institution thereof,) and to picke out a court out of Jehosaphat’s reformation; whome because they must suppose to have established nothing but that which by Moses was commanded, it were to be wished they would shewe where any such court was appointed by Moses. Which if they cannot,     +  it seemeth a farre more naturall course to construe the reformation of Jehosaphat according to that which we find in the bookes of Moses, then to coniecture any newe thing of Moses doinges upon an after-ground of Jehosaphat’s reformation [1] . But to conclude this point (for you may well thinke with yourself “Ne sutor”) I take it were not amisse after some brief collection of these positions concerning the Jewes estate to shewe the difference betweene that which they desire and that which was amongst the Jewes.     +  The high senate of the Jewes was but one, it was a standing court, it was a court whereunto men might appeale from all inferiour courtes. One of the chief in the court was the high priest, and sometymes the onely chief in both kynd of causes, the rest were of the nobility, none of the common people; whereas they make a high senate in every parish, from whence although there lye an appeale, yet to no standing court, and in that court or synode no perpetuall chief gouvernor. Moreover they take away superiority of ministers, and civil autority from ministers, and bestowe ecclesiasticall in part upon the common people. Many such differences you may conceave. But suppose the state of the Jewes were such as they would fayne have it;     +  why should we be tyed to the Jewish polity in the matter of lay-elders, and they be free in the matter of inequality betweene ministers. Here may come in that which before I mentioned p. 28. One thing I have omitted in this discourse, which is, that if in any prophane or ecclesiasticall story you could exemplify where two presidents have beene over one court in causes of a different nature, I thinke it would greatly cleare that point of Amariah and Zebadiah in the story of Jehosaphat. I can call no example to my remembrance. I leave yt therefore to your consideration.

For this long discourse you shall pardon me, because I have done yt partly to settle that in my head by writing, which by bare reading perhaps would have flitted away the sooner, partly because if I be deceaved in any part of your meaning, you may both reforme my opinion, and cleare the matter in such sort that others may not be deceaved with me.

Whatsoever you shall thinke meete to be placed in your booke out of these observations, you may place them severally where you see cause; for I perceave they cannot well be ioyned altogether [1] .

“It resteth therefore.” What their opinion is hath not beene plainely sett downe before in the beginning nor in this place it is not manifest, so as it will not so clearly appeare whether the dispute about Jehosaphat’s reformation and this which followeth doth appertayne. I could wishe therefore that in the beginning of this discourse concerning Jewish regiment their opinion were plainely delivered and the point wherein you contradict them. As likewise I thinke it were meete that in the beginning of the booke, after you have refuted Erastus, the state of the question in general concerning lay elders were layd open in most playne tearmes; which may be very well done in one or two sentences. I thinke those wordes of Mr. Cartwright p. 70 might be referred to that place, because they are the general description of lay elders in such sort as they would have them. And I like Mr. Sandes judgement very well in your second booke concerning the setting downe of the state of the question, and I thinke yt meete to be observed through this whole booke, both in the generall questions and in particular thereout arising.

“The Evangelistes.” Quote it; and with all their wordes.     +  Lett the force of their reason appeare and likewise of your awnsweare both in this argument and those which followe.

“Auncients simply so named.” Who these were you do not signify, nor give any coniecture whereby we may guesse who they were.

“Sith Joseph.” I would say of Arimathæa for distinction. Againe,     +  I perceave at all no force in this argument of theirs because there is no shadowe of proof that Joseph was not one [of] the 70, wherein the force of their argument should stand.

P. 53. “Which condemned Christ.” It were good to make this and the former reason together with your awnsweares very plaine and manifest, for the lesse force there is in their allegations,     +  the more I am desirous you should insist upon them and make their poverty apparent to the world. And in my opinion in theis two places by them alleaged you are somewhat to short, as also in that last point concerning Jehosaphat, whereof I have written before my conceit.     +  But in this place I thinke it should be made manifest that Christ was condemned by the high senate of 70, and therefore Joseph not giving his consent to the sentence against Christ must needes be of the 70: else it were no cause to commend him for not consenting unto the sentence of that court, wherein he had nothing at all to do, as beeing a senatour of an ecclesiasticall court. This I conceave is your meaning, and this I could wishe to be plainely sett downe.     +

“Ecclesiasticall.” Adde, “as they say, and those of the layty,” c.     +

“Power of life and death.” I thinke you meane by the Romaynes, and it were not amisse to say so much.

P. 55. “Priests and Levites.” You seeme to say and also to bring some coniecturall arguments to prove that none of the grand senate of 70 were priests. Notwithstanding in the establishment thereof by Moses afterwardes in Jerusalem you shall reade [1] , And thou shalt come unto the priests of the Levites: in the reformation of Jehosaphat it is likewise sayd, Jehosaphat did sett of the Levites and of the priests c. So as I should thinke that besides the high priest some of the senate were of the tribe of Levi: and then the Jewish coniecture that Moses took 6 out of every tribe to make up this senate will not stand.     +  Moreover because this court is by you supposed to be the highest court in causes both ecclesiasticall and civill, it seemeth very requisite that many priests should be associates to the high priest therein. For the causes among them determinable by priests were (as I conceave) ten tymes as many as those which by civil authority were to be decided, both because the temporal lawyers of Jury were the priests, and because in so many thinges belonging to their civil state they were to aske counsel of God by the meanes of the priest, as in making warre, peace, confederacyes, c. The causes therefore which came to the high priest’s handes being so many, it may be he had many associates.

“Had a second high court.” This one thing is now come to my mynd, that I thinke this may be a great presumption against their conceit of two high courtes, that it were a great absurdity to establish two courtes of souveraine autority in one realme so as the one should no way depend of the other, for it were as much as to make διττὸν τὸ κύριον.

P. 56. “Were annexed.” I would say, were joined, or associate, or such like.

P. 59. “To whome whereas.     +  ” I thinke this sentence would be plainer if you sayd, And whereas finally; putting the wordes (to whome) after attribute.

“ Judæorum Synodum. ” Translate it. And Synodus I take it is of the feminine gender, so is not damnatum, nor illud, nor constitutum.

[In margin here.] It should be Synedrium, and then I am awnsweared.

P. 60. “The power of excommunication.” I would adde, in that place meant.

P. 61. “Persons not ecclesiasticall.” I had rather say, lay persons, as in the former parte of the sentence you have done; and so beate upon the word, lay.

“ Quum per alium. ” Translate it; and quote it.     +

P. 62. “Shewe it hath of probability.” It is more than a shewe of probability, as I conceave, and therefore I would give it some wordes of greater autority; as, force of reason.

P. 63. “Of our faith.” I knowe not what translation you followe, but the Greeke hath not the word, our [1] .     +

P. 65. “Wholesome exhortation.” This word may seeme to savour of a scoffe, and therefore I would leave it out.

“Unto it alone.” For more manifestation of their weakenes in this place I would adde, As though he which prayeth might not fast, nor he which fasteth bestow almes, nor he which bestoweth almes either fast or pray. And here because Mr. Chatterton in the fruitefull sermon [2] so highely magnifyed by them doth labour to prove out of this one place all partes of their discipline, and therefore interpreteth him that teacheth to be a doctor, him that exhorteth to be pastor, him that distributeth to be a deacon, him that ruleth a lay elder, him that sheweth mercy a widowe, (for thus as farre as I remember he maketh St. Paul speake after his language,     +  ) I could wishe you would reade over that fruitefull Sermon and lett it not pass without some remembrance by the way. Lett them knowe it is somewhat harder to prove all their discipline out of this text, then they tooke it to be. But I would wishe you rather to lessen the autority of [it?] then by direct opposition to refute so poor a conjecture. Your similitude of the Alchimist p. 71, would serve in this place very fitly.     +

P. 66. “Ech particular.” It should be either, ech mans, or each particulars possession.

“Auncientes.” I thinke it were alwayes good to use the word elders or presbyters.

“Regiments.” I thinke the word governements is better, both because it is that which the Apostle useth [1] , and because the using of another word breedeth some obscurity. And I could wishe that for the better clearing and manifesting of their folly in this argument,     +  it were shewed how the Church hath heretofore understood that place which may be done by alleaging one or two testimonyes out of the fathers upon the same, if you find any meete for the purpose; for therein I thinke it were not amisse to yeeld now and then to the streame of the world. Afterwardes ἐκ περιουσίας your answeare will come in. But in some places, especially where their arguments are weakest, I thinke if you did at the last drawe them into a short enthymeme,     ◯  it would breed some shame in them and in others a contempt of their kynd of reasoning. As, God hath left in his Church Apostles, teachers, aydes, gouvernements, ergo there must be in every congregation lay elders.

“And have the matter.” I would say, and hold the matter.

When I speake with you, pray remember me to tell You D. Cousines awnsweare to this place, as I have heard from M. Sharpe.  P. 67. “For to the end.” Because this place [2] only seemeth to favour their conceit, I am desirous it should be most fully answeared. The common awnsweare you knowe is, to distinguish betweene those presbiters which teach, and those which teach with great labour and wearines. Which interpretation is taken from the force of that word, κοπιω̑ντες, toyling. And because this awnsweare is not improbable, I could wish you did mention it. As for that which yourself alleage, I observe therein these thinges, which in their severall places you shall find prickt, but I have thought it better to sett them downe all together, first your distinction of presbyters, because it seemeth to favour an unlearned ministry, must be very sufficiently proved. For I somewhat doubt thereof, partly because it is not likely the Apostles having sett downe that rule that a [1] presbyter should be able to teach would themselves transgresse it, partly because it seemeth that in the prime of the Church by the imposition of the Apostles handes the spirite of God was conferred, so as none by them ordayned could want those guifts which to a minister are requisite. Secondly, Mr. Cartwright’s assertion is to be sifted more narrowly, and, in my opinion, more plainely to be sett downe, unlesse perhaps you meane to cite their very wordes in the margine; for as they are now delivered, the purpose, for which by them they are alleaged, doth not appeare, namely, to prove their lay elders [2] to have been established in every Church, because these presbyters appointed by Paul and Barnabas could not all be preachers, as they presume [3] : out of which position of theirs it will followe that either St. Paul established a lay presbytery without a pastor,     ◯  or if there were a pastor wheresoever there was a presbitery, then must they needes presume him a preacher, or no preacher. And which of two they list they may choose: for in both they contradict themselves. Theis absurdityes I could wishe to be plainely sett downe. Thirdly,     +  It shall not be amisse to shewe how the fathers heretofore have understood this text, and that none of them have ever so expounded it, excepting their Ambrose [4] , to whom afterwardes you make awnsweare. Fourthly because this question of lay elders and the next of bishops are the most essentiall points of all this controversy, I could wishe that although in the other bookes you have rather beaten backe their arguments then brought any proof for our assertions, yet in theis two questions if you did deale with them ἀνασκευαστικω̑ς καὶ κατασκευαστικω̑ς I thinke it were not amisse. And in the booke of B. I thinke you have done so. [Margin] In this point I have since considered, that the questions of B. being handled κατασκευαστικω̑ς doth by way of consequence overthrow their elders, and therefore the lesse shall neede to be sayd in this point. [Text] What proofes therefore you can alleage out of Scripture, or antiquity, or reason, to breake the neck of their presbytery, I thinke it were not labour lost to alleage them. This one thing I observe that whereas the thing is urged as most necessary, and as the absolute ordinaunce of God, yet no direct place can be brought, where any such authority is given to lay elders, but here and there a text is snatcht up by the way, and construed according to their purpose,     +  Bishops and deacons are described, of their elders there is no description, only out of a clause concerning their maintenaunce, a formall distinction is coyned, and an ecclesiasticall court on the suddayne erected.

P. 68. “Whence,” should be, Whome, as I take it.

“Touching propriety.” I could wishe this sentence were somewhat altered. Touching propriety of speach they will not have it thought absurde in them selves when they divide, c. nor when they affirme, c. nor when they comprehend, c., for this way in my opinion it is somewhat plainer.

“Laboured in.” A proper division; as if there were in the Church a certayne kynd of men who might sitt still and have their salvation wrought out by other men to their hands;     ◯  and another kynd who neede not looke to their owne salvation but only care for other men. And if some such clause were putt in by the way (for old acquaintance) I could like it very well.

“Leaders or presidents.” I could wishe this point to be somewhat more stood upon. As, may a deacon be tearmed in their language a leader of the rest, beeing a meere layman and employed in nothing els but in the bestowing of Church almes, and is it an unproper speach in us to tearme a presbiter though unable to preach,     +  yet autorized to administer the holy Sacramentes, and present the prayers of the people unto God, a president in the Church? Polish it as you shall thinke meete, but some such thing I could wish were sayd. Then it may followe, if therefore in respect of prayers and Sacramentes onely we should call them leaders, c.

P. 69. “Our meaning.” The force of this whole sentence I do not perceave. Neither do I see what is sayd in it more than in the former hath been sayd sufficiently. For where you say afterwardes, was nothing else, c.; I do not perceave what other function they could have then to minister the Sacramentes and reade publique prayers.     ◯

P. 72. “One chief bishop.” I could wishe that in this place something were added, as, Thus much therefore we have learned of Ignatius, that bishops do, as it were, sustayne the person of God himself, that presbyters do resemble the blessed Apostles of God,     +  that all reverence and submission is due to BB. But doth Ignatius any where teach, c.

“Præsident probati quique seniores [1] .” Sett downe the place at large and in English.

“For of whome.” It doth not appeare by that which you have alleaged but that the names of seniores and præsidentes were given to divers persons, nor that there were not two kyndes of presidents,     +  which they urge. And therefore I thinke this point is to be cleared more sufficiently.

[Marg.] “This exception.” Is the word exception well used in this place?

“Honor fratrum sportulantium.” Lett it appeare by some evident proof out of Cyprian’s [2] owne wordes that this is the meaning of theis wordes, because you pinch Mr. Cartwright for it. Otherwise it may be sayd that Fratres sportulantes were not those which receaved allowance, but those which distributed the allowaunce to the presbyters.

“By which decree.” To this clause, which is the most materiall, I do not perceave what you have awnsweared. Pray consider of it [3] . [Marg.] I tooke theis wordes to have beene the very wordes of Socrates, but I thinke they are T. C. and then they are sufficiently awnsweared.

P. 80. “St. Jerome drawing.” I could wish that the disputation betweene St. Jerome [4] and the Luciferians thus farre should stand, because it toucheth them very neare, but that which followeth, because it is one of the most absurd disputes that ever I read, and because it favoureth the papistes in some points, if it were cleane left out I should never misse it.

P. 82. “Are these the witnesses.” Pray sift this place of Jerome a little more fully, for it maketh against them exceedingly in the point of episcopall authority, which I could wishe were noted.     +  And in generall for ought I can see all the places by them alleaged do make against them, as that of Ignatius [1] , of Cyprian, of Posidonius [2] : Socrates, and this of Hierome.

“Elderly men.” This in Latine is seniores I thinke, which they will say is translated amisse because you call them, elderly men, whereas it should be elders.     If you sayd both, as, elders or elderly men, I thinke it were not amisse.  And yet in regard of that exposition which afterwardes you give it must be so. I could wishe that the distinction of this word seniores for elders and elderly men were expressely sett downe; and your awnsweare somewhat enlarged.

P. 83. “Pamelius.” Say, “A papiste, and therefore not likely to impeach the credit of any thing supposed to be written by the auncient fathers.”

◯  P. 85. “In withstanding them.” I could wishe that something were sayd to this effect concerning their lay elders. That if they would plainely confesse that the first founder of this platforme was Mr. Calvin, that the B. of Geneva beeing banished he could not establish an episcopall regiment, that without some discipline the people could not be rayned,     +  that unlesse they had beene persuaded it had come from God they would not so willingly have obeyed it, that therefore in a religious kynd of polity he maintayned it to be commaunded of God; if they would confesse thus much, and yet argue for the conveniency thereof and shewe the great commodityes thereout arising, we would then enter into a politique conference with them, and on the other side declare unto them that if their lay elders should take place we are persuaded that divers inconveniences would followe; contempt of the prince and nobility, insolency of the base people, c. and such other as at your leasure you may conceave.

[Marg. just after the beginning of the last note.] “His councell not to accept.” I would say, not to accept his counsayle.

“Whether we thinke it so, yea or no.” This clause will not be well understood. What if you sayd, As long as they perswade us by way of advise to that which they, c.

[Text.] To conclude. I could wishe that through all the bookes you should be carefull of the quotations both of their sentences and of other auctorityes alleaged (for in the former bookes you knowe there is a defect that way); 2. that in the margine you sett as little as may be; 3. that thinges onely probable be indefinitely affirmed; 4. that in awnswearing their arguments you do not only satisfy yourself and those which are learned, but as farre as may be, even the simplest, which must be done by persecuting them when you have them at a lift, not by hard wordes but by laying open the inconsequence of their argumentes as plainely as may be.

Omitted, p. 67. Mr. Carthwrighte’s argument is this. Paul and Barnabas appointed presbyters in every city, therefore more then one. But it is not likely they could appoint more then one preaching presbyter, therefore they appointed some unpreaching presbyters; ergo laymen. Out of this reason I do not see how you can take that advantage which you do, as if an unpreaching ministery could be concluded thereby. But to the reason itself it is no hard matter to awnsweare, both because it might be truely sayd that Paul appointed presbyters in every city, though in every particular city he appointed but one, and also because it may be that the churches beeing at that tyme beeing [sic] great in cityes needed more than one presbyter or pastor,     ◯  and therefore it is not unlikely that more then one preaching presbyter was appointed.

P. 68. “With repugnancy unto their owne.” This repugnancy I do not perceave.

P. 74. “After having mentioned.” I thinke the place of Cyprian before alleaged were sufficient. This later sentence they may take some advauntage at, because it seemeth to barre spirituall persons from secular affaires, which in BB. you knowe are ioyned together.

“Into the clergie.” Yet by Cyprian’s wordes it seemeth they were as yet no pastors. How that will agree together, I do not conceave. And that clause, for that they had beene most worthy, c. I thinke might be omitted, both to make the sentence shorter, and because in my opinion it is not greatly materiall.

P. 78. “Arius troubled the Church.” Some such thing may be added. So as that which by our opposites is urged as the universal practise of the primitive Church is by Socrates [1] alleaged as a straung custome observed in one Church onely for a tyme.     +

P. 79. “Exhorted Nepotian.” How this doth prove that for which it is alleaged I do not perceave; for it may be graunted that Nepotian was a preaching presbyter, and yet their distinction of presbyters not contradicted.

“Priests and BB.” Did Arius make BB? beeing him self but a B. [P.?] for so I conceave he was no more.

P. 82. “A layman may baptize.” It were not amisse to say, Wherein as they thought a layman might baptize.

THE SIXT BOOKE.

Edwin Sandys [1] .

In Mr. Cranmer’s notes, those wherein I thoroughly agree with him, I will note with this mark +. If I happen clearely to dissent, I will note them with this mark o. The rest I will leave unmarked.

P. 1. This booke beeing generally intended against their whole plat for ecclesiasticall jurisdiction wherein it is faltie; yet dealeth with no other part then only lay presbiters. If no other part be faltie; then well enough. If otherwise, then is it necessarie both that in the end of this booke other [tracts?] be added, and that this title be enlarged. What think you of deviding the pastor and doctour? Or where handle you that point? what of their consistorie? what of their Synodes?

A morall exordium and conclusion I should greatly commend in all your bookes.

P. 3. “Yea or no.” The affirmative is included in the former woords. And although I disallow not this form of speach; yet perhaps you use it verie often, as in your printed bookes.

“Why causes matrimoniall—is not obscure.” Nor verie plaine. And therefore I pray you set it down. And add with all the reason why causes of legitimation and bastardie are spirituall. Moreover if you can, why matters testamentarie, which is the greatest point of all other. Wherein the nature and difference of causes meerely ecclesiastical and mixt is to be opened [2] . These points are at this day verie strongly impugned; and therefore the trueth in them most necessarie to be thoroughly unfolded.

“Non intendimus [1] .” Translate this and the rest.

P. 4. “When they can take.” When they can securely take.

“Unto the form.” Here may fitly be handled the way of proceeding to these tryalls by oath: which the Precisians so much impugne. Some where it must needes be handled. But if the controversie of this and those other points you handle somewhere els: then neede they to be here only briefly touched, as conclusions of trueth.

In marg. “The courte, which in former tymes.” For ought that I know they were the same coorts then. And the spirituall coorts were called Curiæ Christianitatis by the civill courts. And so it is often in our temporall law-bookes.

P. 5. “To this purpose.” These woords either are needeles, or their use is obscure.

“Our Saviour’s speech in the Gospell.” Add Tell the Church or of complayning to the Church.

P. 7. “Of good men.” Put out of.

P. 8. “Last of all it worketh.” Put out it woorketh.

P. 10. “Yet swearing apart.” Quote the psalme “All that swear by him shall be commended.”

“Præiudize of acceptation. ” This should be some other woord: execration I think.

P. 12. “Same kynd of anathema.” It seemes by that which goeth before and cometh after that you make Anathema the genus of the three degrees: although most properly used for the second degree. And so may this shew of repugnancie be reconciled, which would be specified immediately after the proposing of the three kynds.

P. 13. “Paul may probably.” I like your opinion marvailously well: on condition that you can interpret Moses’ speech to the same effect. Which it is fit you either doe: or shew reason of the diversitie. For my own part I must confesse it could never sink into my beleefe, that anie man would redeem the happiness of other men with his own spirituall . And therefore I conceived of those [The last line of the page is worn out.]

P. 14. “in the 18th.” No quotations of chapters in the text. “Towards thy self.” And offend thee.

“Of private admonition.” Here you must needes insert the second degree which seemes omitted by the writers falt.

P. 16. “Is everie open.” Add and grievous; for so you seeme to say and verie truly, page 3. And on that woord you may ground an answer to the returning of your obiection against the præcisians in your preface upon yourself: where you say that seeing in most civill controversies and suites in law, the law of charitie is broken on the one part or the other, they were likelie to draw all these causes to their consistories. Indeede as all things of this lyfe have their reference to the life to come; so all civill causes have something in them spirituall: whereupon riseth the difficultie of distinguishing the one kynd from the other. But I take first these two rules necessarie to be observed: one that in criminall causes where the temporall coort doeth proceede to the punishing of anie man, there the ecclesiasticall forbeare, least one falt be twise punished: an other, that in causes litigious and not criminall, where the parties proceede by course of civill law, their doeings be not censured by the ecclesiasticall coort, to avoid oppositions of the one court to the other. This ground being layd, and these rules set down; the distinguishing of causes doth ensue of his own accord. Some are meerely civill, as the tryall of title of land: some meerely ecclesiasticall, as crimes of heresie and schisme: other mixt, as matter of slaunder, incontinencie, testaments; wherein perhaps nature directing that the part prædominant in the mixture doe carrie the cause with it to that coort which this part prædominant belongs to, yet the declaration hereof is to be made by positive lawe of the whole state: which positive lawe itself is neither ecclesiasticall nor civill, but mixt of both, even as the prince is a mixt person: which was verie well proved by Mr. Speaker [1] in the Parliament.

The canon law I know greately urgeth that all mixt causes be ecclesiasticall, for honour of that part: which seemes hard to yeald to, at least wise it would be now hardly taken to require it. These things you must needes handle somewhere or other.

P. 17. “Both separation and execration.” You make these two the divers kynds of excommunication, and seeme so to distinguish them, as that excommunicatio a judice is separation, and excommunicatio a canone, execration. If this be a true and an only distinction in the use of excommunication I would wishe it to be so playnly recollected in the end of this passage. But if there be any other use of the differencie of these kynds, it is verie necessarie that it be set down here. And perhaps there is some more, as you seeme to insinuate pag. 19, 1. 9.

P. 19. “Beeing the subject of holy things.” Interdiction seemes to be only separation, and so you seeme to make it here. Yet doe it somewhat more playnly.

P. 23. “Chiefly of dominion.” Chiefty of dominion. In this discourse of Beza one may smell that which hath beene allwaie suspected of the Præcisians that they confound their ecclesiasticall jurisdiction and dominion: and so exclude the soveraine of the estate from bearing anie soveraigntie in the Church. Which in England is to denie the princes supremacie in causes ecclesiasticall. And you know they hold the authoritie of their presbyterie immediately from God: and make the prince (even as the papists doe) a meere lay person. It seemeth verie necessarie that this be touched in this place, for els when you answer them by this distinction, they will say that you doe petere principium.

P. 24. “Are weaker.” Are for the most part weaker. It cannot be simply held for trueth that the mixt regiment is of his own nature best: but by reason of the wickednes of men, and ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ. And therefore this must be qualified.

“Which are.” Which for the most part are.

“Is either so good or so durable.” Is lightly both so good and so durable.

P. 26. “A great deale better. ” A great deale fitter because of the repeting of the woord better afterward.

P. 27. “By ministeriall power.” By the bare ministeriall power.

P. 28. “His nephewes.” Set this note in the margent [ that is his sonnes sonnes ] because in English we abuse the word for brothers sonnes.

“And here the Jewish nobilitie.” What meane you by here? If you meane these first persons, then after the death of these they had no nobilitie. If all descended from these, then had they no communaltie. If the first-born descended from these, then must you expresse it so.

P. 31. “Out of this number.” You make here an exceeding greate number of the gentrie: which could affoord Decurions [?] to the whole armie. You must therfore make proofe of these things by the quotations in the margent.

“Were the chief Chiliarchs.” Wherein was their chiefty, unlesse they were over the Chiliarchs, which should be likely? Els their chiefty was but ordinis. Expresse it in particular if you can, and quote it.

P. 33. “Seeing Moses and Aaron.” Add and the successors of Aaron (as you say afterward that the high priest was alwaie of this senate): This, if you continue of the opinion that Levi was excluded. But this seemeth verie hard, that in the soveraigntie of the estate consisting of so manie persons, all the priests should be excluded but only the high priest. For Moses successour was not necessarily of that tribe, or of anie one other. Are not the priests often mentioned as judges in the highest causes? [marg.] This is holpen after p. 37 and 38, for deciding of causes of greatest doubt. But that point is the least part of soveraigntie. [Text.] As for the choosing of 6 out of each tribe, seeing it is but coniecturall; consider whether of the two is more waightie: especially seeing that number doeth not precisely meete, and that of Eldad and Medad is but likewise coniecturall. Lastly may not both stand, by uniting the tribe of Joseph? for perhaps the dividing of it tooke no effect in the wildernes, but then when they came to division of the land: where Levi was then otherwise provided for then like the rest. But two things here are to be farther considered if it may be declared. One whether the high judge and the high priest were allwaies of the 70, or besides that number, as you seeme afterwards to say, so that the whole were 72. And then what needes there anie excluding by lott? for they may be reckoned with the rest of their tribes. An other by whom these 70 were chosen and by what meanes. If it fall out that Levi was excluded, then have the Præcisians an argument that ministers may not deale in civill causes. But trueth must be [only?] aymed at.

P. 34. “Was the high priest.” Was allwaies the high priest.

P. 35. “ In which law.” Concerning which law.

P. 36. “Hurt and hurt.” Before it is translated plauge and plauge; afterwards you interpret it damage. Looke that all these agree; which must be set down in some marginall note. Remember your adversaries.

P. 37. “If it should not.” If in other citties and inferiour courts it should not.

P. 38. “Of this sort.” Of these sorts.

“Of priests only and of an high priest the chief judge.” It should be I think of priests only and of an high priest and the chief judge, for so it is in the law. But in all this law here being no mention of the 70 auncients, how prove you that the priests were annexed to those 70, and that they were not a coort by themselves. Do not some devines interpret the lawe to be of causes ecclesiasticall only and mixt? I would wish this point somewhat strengthened if it may be.

“That the high priest in such cases was to assemble.” This is prooved only for that the high priest is named before the judge and so would be specified.

“The auncients of Israel.” Whom meane you here, the auncients personally or representatively, namely the 70 auncients?

“In marg. permissum erat jura condere. ” Search the place. I think you have miscited it. [Marg.] It shold be de iure respondere.

P. 39. “Of the high priest.” Or judge saith the text: which you must well consider.

P. 42. “The 12 princes.” Where have you proofe of these 12 princes now? If you have any, quote it.

P. 46. “Contempsit.” I would never have Greeke authors cited in Latin.

P. 47. “First of twelve.” You say this may playnly be gathered. Not playnly the number of 12 out of that place.

“Alludeth.” Seemeth to allude. And perhaps best so to qualifie your assertions of like nature immediately ensuing.

P. 48. “Were the heads.” What authoritie for that? quote it.

“First named prophets, and afterwards scribes.” I think there is an other and a greater difference of these names; for prophets were men extraordinarily inspired.

P. 49. “Lacarnim.” Cite your authorities, both for this and other like antiquities. A bare narration, unquoted, uncredited.

“These are.” These seeme to be.

P. 50. “Sagen.” Quote it.

P. 51. “Power of lyfe and death they had not.” You may note here in the margent, that for this cause they were faine to have Pilate’s consent for the crucifying of Christ.

P. 52. “Such ecclesiasticall auncients.” Such peculiar ecclesiasticall auncients. Mr. Cranmers conclusion upon this narration I cannot here but very especially commend unto you.

“Arch priests.” In your note in the margent you say priests simply. Take heede you misrecite not their opinion: but rather set it down more playnly and fully.

“Auncients of Jerusalem which are the same with auncients of the people.” But not simply as auncients of the people are opposite to auncients of the priests as you say in the line before: for these auncients of Jerusalem comprehend also the auncients of the priests. It must therefore be qualified.

P. 53. “That famous councell.” Specifie of 70, and quote the woords of Christ.

“At the south part.” This discourse of the place of the greate senate seemes to me either unperfect or obscure. You seeme first to make 2 places, one generall in the sanctuarie, an other particular for causes of lyfe and death adioyning to the south part. Afterwards having no use of this they choose out a third place Hamith [1] , which hath the same use with the first. I pray you cleare these matters and quote your authorities.

P. 54. “11 of Numbers—10 of Levit.” Set the chapters in the margent.

P. 56. “Ut probabile est.” Quote him upon the margent.

P. 58. “500 synagougs.” Quote your author.

“Haddaishan.” Quote this and the rest.

P. 59. “As these men doe imagine.” As these men upon so slender coniecture so untruly imagine. If so then in the next line, for have they had they.

P. 61. “Recte omnia nostra facimus.” Doe there not want some woords after these, namely, per eos, or quæ ab iis fiunt?

P. 62. “T. C.” I will here put you in mynd once for all, that you must needes set down Mr. Cartwrights and W. T. [2] woords at large in the margent of this booke wheresoever they are impugned. Els will your discourse want much credit of sinceritie: which in your former it hath especially by that meanes.

P. 65. “Let him that fasteth.” They will replie that there is a difference in these speaches: for that St. Paule’s woords are in publick functions and services of the Church wherein ἓν πρὸς ἓν to be observed: yours in private duties of all Christians, whose duties towardes God and men are manifold. You must therefore either anticipate this obiection, or rather if you can frame a meeter similitude.

P. 66. “Those verie auncients.” Those verie lay auncients.

P. 67. “Two divers kynds.” This answer of yors I think the only true answer, although not so plausible as some other: because it seems to encline to the tolerating of an unlearned ministrie: but it is only to a toleration thereof and that in case of necessitis, which is as farr from absurditie as this world and the church in this world are from perfection. Only I could wish you did somewhat more strengthen your interpretation. Two points for which purpose I will offer to your remembrance. One that St. Paule denieth that he used to baptise: and saith that he came not to baptise but to preach. And although he add, Least any man should think I baptized in my own name: yet I take not this to be the cause, but an effect of his so doeing. Now whereas Christ gave ioynt commission of preaching and baptizing: it is probable out of this place, that the [1] paucitie of men able to preach, was the cause that they which were able, did wholly attend to that, beeing the more principall part, and ordeined other grave men unable to preach, to supply those other religious dueties which you mention. If some did only preach; why not other some only baptize, c.? For that the Apostles by laying on their hands enabled men foorthwith with sufficiencie to preach, I neither reade nor believe.

An other point that by the name elder and other circumstances in the Actes and Epistles it is apparent that the Apostles in what citties they converted anie number to the faith, there appointed of the discreetest gravest and auncientest persons, to receive from them the care pastorall of guiding and feeding the Church (for so was it necessarie in those tymes of hethenisme and persecution, that the Church should have an inward government in it self). Now how likely is it that of those auncient pastors there might be manie, which though unable to use any greate continuate speach or discourse to deserve the name of preachers: yett were able to do especiall good service to the Church, what in devoutnes and praying and reverend administration of the sacraments, what in countenancing and assisting and upholding that inward government: and so which deserve double honour without preaching. How manie bishops have there beene excellent wise governors of the Church; having small gift in preaching. Neither hath it any manner of show of probabilitie, that this kynd of elders should be excluded from preaching for anie other want, save only of habilitie.

P. 68. “We collect.” We may with much more probabilitie and reason collect.

“Double honor.” Here perhaps you may fitly draw in those other two points: and you must have care to answer their obiection verie fully, that this upholds an ignorant ministerie. The answer is plaine: and riseth out of those two points.

“Whose salvation is laboured in.” Rather about whose salvation they labour.

“Deacons under the name of Leaders.” You must needes cite their woords in the margent as generally for all other points, so in particular, and that very necessarily for this.

P. 69. “Not to signify that their function was nothing else, saving to minister the sacraments only.” Their function was also to govern. And here it is fit that somewhat be added, both generally to showe how farr foorth everie pastor is to govern his flock (in which respect our law doeth term persons of parishes rectores: which was obiected in the Parliament house to shew that our persons not beeing governors were declined from their auncient degree in the church, having suffered bishops to usurp upon their office:) and also in particular to show how in the first Church their government was a point of greate weight and necessitie; by reason of the estate of persecution.

These points beeing added, I shall think your answer to this obiection verie perfitt: which I greately wish, by reason that this is their only argument of anie show.

P. 73. “Tertullian’s woords.” It seemeth necessarie that you ad some briefe answer here likewise to their exception. But especially have care of well knitting together seniores and præsidentes.

P. 76. “Honor fratrum sportulantium.” It doeth not appeare to me in which of the texts before alleaged these woords are found. Neither know I which is that other plan of more plainnes, whereof you speake page 73. This must be holpen by exact quotations, and setting text down at full in the margent. Without which the whole booke will greatly want perspicuitie. I have noted for the most part such places with my mark.

P. 79. “The selfsame heresie.” This I take it is a rule in the cannon law: that ordinatus ab hæreticis beeing reconciled to the catholick church, shall notwithstanding never teach or administer. Consider well hereof. Indeede the pope may dispense; and so I take it and no otherwise is their preachinge.

P. 80. “This one is brought.” Add for more perspicuitie [ on their side ].

P. 81. “Receiveth not the spirit.” Are these St. Jeromes direct woords? Is it possible he should with one breath speake so apparent contradictories; as to receive the spirit in baptisme, and not to receive it but by confirmation [1] ?

P. 82. “A lay man may baptise.” A layman ( so they thought ) may baptise.

“Should authorize.” Add and license, for that is St. Jerome’s woord [2] , which by interpreting thus you answer.

P. 83. “Ambrose Bishop.” Ambrose Archbishop.

P. 84. “Which may be thought.” Add by men that way allreadie affected.

“Ambrose last mentioned [1] .” Add but more than they have any sound peace of proofe for. For so I would wish you alwaies where you graunt any thing to them ἐκ περιουσίας, verie playnly to signifie that you graunt it not for trueth’s sake, but admitt it by way of disputation to shew their utter weakeness.

P. 85. I like very well that you close up this tract as Mr. Cranmer adviseth. Provided that you leave not out such other points touching their new officers and consistorie as are yet unhandled.

BOOK VII.: THEIR SIXTH ASSERTION, THAT THERE OUGHT NOT TO BE IN THE CHURCH, BISHOPS ENDUED WITH SUCH AUTHORITY AND HONOUR AS OURS ARE.

- THE MATTER CONTAINED IN THIS SEVENTH BOOK.

- I. The state of Bishops, although some time oppugned, and that by such as therein would most seem to please God, yet by his providence upheld hitherto, whose glory it is to maintain that whereof himself is the author.

- II. What a Bishop is, what his name doth import, and what doth belong unto his office as he is a Bishop.

- III. In Bishops two things traduced; of which two, the one their authority; and in it the first thing condemned, their superiority over other ministers: what kind of superiority in ministers it is which the one part holdeth, and the other denieth lawful.

- IV. From whence it hath grown that the Church is governed by Bishops.

- V. The time and cause of instituting every where Bishops with restraint.

- VI. What manner of power Bishops from the first beginning have had.

- VII. After what sort Bishops, together with presbyters, have used to govern the churches which were under them.

- VIII. How far the power of Bishops hath reached from the beginning in respect of territory, or local compass.

- IX. In what respects episcopal regiment hath been gainsaid of old by Aërius.

- X. In what respect episcopal regiment is gainsaid by the authors of pretended reformation at this day.

- XI. Their arguments in disgrace of regiment by Bishops, as being a mere invention of man, and not found in Scripture, answered.

- XII. Their arguments to prove there was no necessity of instituting Bishops in the Church.

- XIII. The fore-alleged arguments answered.

- XIV. An answer unto those things which are objected concerning the difference between that power which Bishops now have, and that which ancient Bishops had more than other presbyters.

- XV. Concerning the civil power and authority which our Bishops have.

- XVI. The arguments answered, whereby they would prove that the law of God, and the judgment of the best in all ages condemneth the ruling superiority of one minister over another.

- XVII. The second malicious thing wherein the state of Bishops suffereth obloquy, is their honour.

- XVIII. What good doth publicly grow from the Prelacy.

- XIX. What kinds of honour be due unto Bishops.

- XX. Honour in Title, Place, Ornament, Attendance, and Privilege.

- XXI. Honour by Endowment with Lands and Livings.

- XXII. That of ecclesiastical Goods, and consequently of the Lands and Livings which Bishops enjoy, the propriety belongs unto God alone.

- XXIII. That ecclesiastical persons are receivers of God’s rents, and that the honour of Prelates is to be thereof his chief receivers, not without liberty from him granted of converting the same unto their own use, even in large manner.

- XXIV. That for their unworthiness to deprive both them and their successors of such goods, and to convey the same unto men of secular callings, now [were?] extreme sacrilegious injustice.

BOOK VII. Ch. i. 1.  I. I HAVE heard that a famous kingdom [1] in the world being solicited to reform such disorders as all men saw the Church exceedingly burdened with, when of each degree great multitudes thereunto inclined, and the number of them did every day so increase that this intended work was likely to take no other effect than all good men did wish and labour for;     The state of Bishops although sometime oppugned, and that by such as therein would most seem to please God, yet by his providence upheld hitherto, whose glory it is to maintain that whereof himself is the author.  a principal actor herein (for zeal and boldness of spirit) thought it good to shew them betimes what it was which must be effected, or else that there could be no work of perfect reformation accomplished. To this purpose, in a solemn sermon, and in a great assembly, he described unto them the present quality of their public estate by the parable of a tree, huge and goodly to look upon, but without that fruit which it should and might bring forth; affirming that the only way of redress was a full and perfect establishment of Christ’s discipline (for so their manner is to entitle a thing hammered out upon the forge of their own invention), and that to make way of entrance for it, there must be three great limbs cut off from the body of that stately tree of the kingdom: those three limbs were three sorts of men; nobles, whose high estate would make them otherwise disdain to put their necks under that yoke; lawyers, whose courts being not pulled down, the new church consistories were not like to flourish; finally, prelates, whose ancient dignity, and the simplicity of their intended church discipline, could not possibly stand together.     BOOK VII. Ch. i. 2, 3.  The proposition of which device being plausible to active spirits, restless through desire of innovation, whom commonly nothing doth more offend than a change which goeth fearfully on by slow and suspicious paces; the heavier and more experienced sort began presently thereat to pull back their feet again, and exceedingly to fear the stratagem of reformation for ever after. Whereupon ensued those extreme conflicts of the one part with the other, which continuing and increasing to this very day, have now made the state of that flourishing kingdom even such, as whereunto we may most fitly apply those words of the Prophet Jeremiah [1] , “Thy breach is great like the sea, who can heal thee?”

Whether this were done in truth, according to the constant affirmation of some avouching the same, I take not upon me to examine; that which I note therein is, how with us that policy hath been corrected. For to the authors of pretended reformation with us, it hath not seemed expedient to offer the edge of the axe to all three boughs at once, but rather to single them, and strike at the weakest first, making show that the lop of that one shall draw the more abundance of sap to the other two, that they may thereby the better prosper.

All prosperity, felicity and peace we wish multiplied on each estate, as far as their own hearts’ desire is: but let men know that there is a God, whose eye beholdeth them in all their ways; a God, the usual and ordinary course of whose justice is to return upon the head of malice the same devices which it contriveth against others. The foul practices which have been used for the overthrow of bishops, may perhaps wax bold in process of time to give the like assault even there, from whence at this present they are most seconded.

Nor let it over dismay them who suffer such things at the hands of this most unkind world, to see that heavenly estate and dignity thus conculcated, in regard whereof so many their predecessors were no less esteemed than if they had not been men, but angels amongst men. With former bishops it was as with Job in the days of that prosperity which at large he describeth, saying [1] ,     BOOK VII. Ch. i. 4.  “Unto me men gave ear, they waited and held their tongue at my counsel; after my words they replied not; I appointed out their way and did sit as chief; I dwelt as it had been a king in an army.” At this day the case is otherwise with them; and yet no otherwise than with the selfsame Job at what time the alteration of his estate wrested these contrary speeches from him [2] , “But now they that are younger than I mock at me, the children of fools, and offspring of slaves, creatures more base than the earth they tread on, such as if they did shew their heads, young and old would shout at them and chase them through the streets with a cry, their song I am, I am a theme for them to talk on.” An injury less grievous if it were not offered by them whom Satan hath through his fraud and subtilty so far beguiled as to make them imagine herein they do unto God a part of most faithful service. Whereas the lord in truth, whom they serve herein, is as St. Cyprian telleth them [3] , like, not Christ, (for he it is that doth appoint and protect bishops,) but rather Christ’s adversary and enemy of his Church.

A thousand five hundred years and upward the Church of Christ hath now continued under the sacred regiment of bishops. Neither for so long hath Christianity been ever planted in any kingdom throughout the world but with this kind of government alone; which to have been ordained of God, I am for mine own part even as resolutely persuaded, as that any other kind of government in the world whatsoever is of God. In this realm of England, before Normans, yea before Saxons, there being Christians, the chief pastors of their souls were bishops. This order from about the first establishment of Christian religion, which was publicly begun through the virtuous disposition of King Lucie not fully two hundred years after Christ [4] , continued till the coming in of the Saxons; by whom Paganism being every where else replanted, only one part of the island, whereinto the ancient natural inhabitants the Britons were driven, retained constantly the faith of Christ, together with the same form of spiritual regiment, which their fathers had before received. Wherefore in the histories of the Church we find very ancient mention made of our own bishops. At the council of Ariminum [1] , about the year three hundred and fifty-nine, Britain had three of her bishops present. At the arrival of Augustine the monk [2] , whom Gregory sent hither to reclaim the Saxons from Gentility about six hundred years after Christ, the Britons he found observers still of the selfsame government by bishops over the rest of the clergy; under this form Christianity took root again, where it had been exiled. Under the selfsame form it remained till [3] the days of the Norman conqueror. By him and his successors thereunto [4] sworn, it hath from that time till now by the space of five hundred years more been upheld.

O nation utterly without knowledge, without sense! We are not through error of mind deceived, but some wicked thing hath undoubtedly bewitched us, if we forsake that government, the use whereof universal experience hath for so many years approved, and betake ourselves unto a regiment neither appointed of God himself, as they who favour it pretend, nor till yesterday ever heard of among men. By the Jews Festus [5] was much complained of, as being a governor marvellous corrupt, and almost intolerable:     BOOK VII. Ch. ii. 1.  such notwithstanding were they who came after him, that men which thought the public condition most afflicted under Festus, began to wish they had him again, and to esteem him a ruler commendable. Great things are hoped for at the hands of these new presidents, whom reformation would bring in: notwithstanding the time may come, when bishops whose regiment doth now seem a yoke so heavy to bear, will be longed for again even by them that are the readiest to have it taken off their necks.

But in the hands of Divine Providence we leave the ordering of all such events, and come now to the question itself which is raised concerning bishops. For the better understanding whereof we must beforehand set down what is meant, when in this question we name a bishop.

What a Bishop is, what his name doth import, and what doth belong to his office as he is a Bishop.  II. For whatsoever we bring from antiquity, by way of defence in this cause of bishops, it is cast off as impertinent matter, all is wiped away with an odd kind of shifting answer, “That the bishops which now are, be not like unto them which were.” We therefore beseech all indifferent judges to weigh sincerely with themselves how the case doth stand. If it should be at this day a controversy whether kingly regiment were lawful or no, peradventure in defence thereof, the long continuance which it hath had sithence the first beginning might be alleged; mention perhaps might be made what kings there were of old even in Abraham’s time, what sovereign princes both before and after. Suppose that herein some man purposely bending his wit against sovereignty, should think to elude all such allegations by making ample discovery through a number of particularities, wherein the kings that are do differ from those that have been, and should therefore in the end conclude, that such ancient examples are no convenient proofs of that royalty which is now in use. Surely for decision of truth in this case there were no remedy, but only to shew the nature of sovereignty, to sever it from accidental properties, make it clear that ancient and present regality are one and the same in substance, how great odds soever otherwise may seem to be between them. In like manner, whereas a question of late hath grown, whether ecclesiastical regiment by bishops be lawful in the Church of Christ or no:     BOOK VII. Ch. ii. 2.  in which question, they that hold the negative, being pressed with that general received order, according whereunto the most renowned lights of the Christian world have governed the same in every age as bishops; seeing their manner is to reply, that such bishops as those ancient were, ours are not; there is no remedy but to shew, that to be a bishop is now the selfsame thing which it hath been; that one definition agreeth fully and truly as well to those elder, as to these latter bishops. Sundry dissimilitudes we grant there are, which notwithstanding are not such that they cause any equivocation in the name, whereby we should think a bishop in those times to have had a clean other definition than doth rightly agree unto bishops as they are now. Many things there are in the state of bishops, which the times have changed; many a parsonage at this day is larger than some ancient bishoprics were; many an ancient bishop poorer than at this day sundry under them in degree. The simple hereupon lacking judgment and knowledge to discern between the nature of things which changeth not, and these outward variable accidents, are made believe that a bishop heretofore and now are things in their very nature so distinct that they cannot be judged the same. Yet to men that have any part of skill, what more evident and plain in bishops, than that augmentation or diminution in their precincts, allowances, privileges, and such like, do make a difference indeed, but no essential difference between one bishop and another? As for those things in regard whereof we use properly to term them bishops, those things whereby they essentially differ from other pastors, those things which the natural definition of a bishop must contain; what one of them is there more or less appliable unto bishops now than of old?

The name Bishop hath been borrowed from the Grecians [1] , with whom it signifieth one which hath principal charge to guide and oversee others. The same word in ecclesiastical writings being applied unto church governors, at the first unto all and not unto the chiefest only [1] , grew in short time peculiar and proper to signify such episcopal authority alone, as the chiefest governors exercised over the rest. For with all names this is usual, that inasmuch as they are not given till the things whereunto they are given have been sometime first observed, therefore generally [2] things are ancienter than the names whereby they are called.

Again, sith the first things that grow into general observation, and do thereby give men occasion to find names for them, are those which being in many subjects, are thereby the easier, the oftener, and the more universally noted; it followeth that names imposed to signify common qualities or operations are ancienter, than is the restraint of those names, to note an excellency of such qualities and operations in some one or few amongst others. For example, the name disciple being invented to signify generally a learner, it cannot choose but in that signification be more ancient than when it signifieth as it were by a kind of appropriation, those learners who being taught of Christ [3] were in that respect termed disciples by an excellency. The like is to be seen in the name Apostle, the use whereof to signify a messenger must needs be more ancient than that use which restraineth it unto messengers sent concerning evangelical affairs; yea this use more ancient than that whereby the same word is yet restrained further to signify only those whom our Saviour himself immediately did send. After the same manner the title or name of a Bishop having been used of old to signify both an ecclesiastical overseer in general, and more particularly also a principal ecclesiastical overseer; it followeth, that this latter restrained signification is not so ancient as the former, being more common [4] . Yet because the things themselves are always ancienter than their names; therefore that thing which the restrained use of the word doth import, is likewise ancienter than the restraint of the word is,     BOOK VII. Ch. ii. 3.  and consequently that power of chief ecclesiastical overseers, which the term of a bishop importeth, was before the restrained use of the name which doth import it. Wherefore a lame and an impotent [1] kind of reasoning it is, when men go about to prove that in the Apostles’ times there was no such thing as the restrained name of a bishop doth now signify, because in their writings there is found no restraint of that name, but only a general use whereby it reacheth unto all spiritual governors and overseers.

But to let go the name, and come to the very nature of that thing which is thereby signified. In all kinds of regiment whether ecclesiastical or civil, as there are sundry operations public, so likewise great inequality there is in the same operations, some being of principal respect, and therefore not fit to be dealt in by every one to whom public actions, and those of good importance, are notwithstanding well and fitly enough committed. From hence have grown those different degrees of magistrates or public persons, even ecclesiastical as well as civil. Amongst ecclesiastical persons therefore bishops being chief ones, a bishop’s function must be defined by that wherein his chiefty consisteth.

A Bishop is a minister of God, unto whom with permanent continuance there is given not only power of administering the Word and Sacraments, which power other Presbyters have; but also a further power to ordain ecclesiastical persons, and a power of chiefty in government over Presbyters as well as Laymen, a power to be by way of jurisdiction a Pastor even to Pastors themselves. So that this office, as he is a Presbyter or Pastor, consisteth in those things which are common unto him with other pastors, as in ministering the Word and Sacraments: but those things incident unto his office, which do properly make him a Bishop, cannot be common unto him with other Pastors.

Now even as pastors, so likewise bishops being principal pastors, are either at large or else with restraint: at large, when the subject of their regiment is indefinite, and not tied to any certain place;     BOOK VII. Ch. iii. 1.  bishops with restraint are they whose regiment over the Church is contained within some definite, local compass, beyond which compass their jurisdiction reacheth not. Such therefore we always mean when we speak of that regiment by bishops which we hold a thing most lawful, divine and holy in the Church of Christ.

In Bishops two things traduced; of which two the one their authority; and in it the first thing condemned, their superiority over other ministers: what kind of superiority in ministers it is which the one part holdeth and the other denieth lawful.  III. In our present regiment by bishops two things there are complained of, the one their great authority, and the other their great honour. Touching the authority of our bishops, the first thing which therein displeaseth their adversaries, is their superiority which bishops have over other ministers. They which cannot brook the superiority which bishops have, do notwithstanding themselves admit that some kind of difference and inequality there may be lawfully amongst ministers. Inequality as touching gifts and graces they grant, because this is so plain that no mist in the world can be cast before men’s eyes so thick, but that they needs must discern through it, that one minister of the gospel may be more learneder, holier, and wiser, better able to instruct, more apt to rule and guide them than another: unless thus much were confessed, those men should lose their fame and glory whom they themselves do entitle the lights and grand worthies of this present age. Again, a priority of order they deny not but that there may be, yea such a priority as maketh one man amongst many a principal actor in those things whereunto sundry of them must necessarily concur, so that the same be admitted only during the time of such actions and no longer; that is to say, just so much superiority, and neither more nor less may be liked of, than it hath pleased them in their own kind of regiment to set down. The inequality which they complain of is, “That one minister of the word and sacraments should have a permanent superiority above another, or in any sort a superiority of power mandatory, judicial, and coercive over other ministers.” By us on the contrary side, “inequality, even such inequality as unto bishops being ministers of the word and sacraments granteth a superiority permanent above ministers, yea a permanent superiority of power mandatory, judicial and coercive over them,” is maintained a thing allowable, lawful and good.

BOOK VII. Ch. iii. 2.  For superiority of power may be either above them or upon them, in regard of whom it is termed superiority. One pastor hath superiority of power above another, when either some are authorized to do things worthier than are permitted unto all, [or] some are preferred to be principal agents, the rest agents with dependency and subordination. The former of these two kinds of superiority is such as the high-priest had above other priests of the law, in being appointed to enter once a year the holy place, which the rest of the priests might not do. The latter superiority, such as presidents have in those actions which are done by others with them, they nevertheless being principal and chief therein.

One pastor hath superiority of power, not only above but upon another, when some are subject unto others’ commandment and judicial controlment by virtue of public jurisdiction.

Superiority in this last kind is utterly denied to be allowable; in the rest it is only denied that the lasting continuance and settled permanency thereof is lawful. So that if we prove at all the lawfulness of superiority in this last kind, where the same is simply denied, and of permanent superiority in the rest where some kind of superiority is granted, but with restraint to the term and continuance of certain actions, with which the same must, as they say, expire and cease; if we can shew these two things maintainable, we bear up sufficiently that which the adverse party endeavoureth to overthrow. Our desire therefore is, that this issue may be strictly observed, and those things accordingly judged of, which we are to allege. This we boldly therefore set down as a most infallible truth, “That the Church of Christ is at this day lawfully, and so hath been sithence the first beginning, governed by Bishops, having permanent superiority, and ruling power over other ministers of the word and sacraments.”

For the plainer explication whereof, let us briefly declare first, the birth and original of the same power, whence and by what occasion it grew. Secondly, what manner of power antiquity doth witness bishops to have had more than presbyters which were no bishops. Thirdly, after what sort bishops together with presbyters have used to govern the churches under them,     BOOK VII. Ch. iv. 1, 2.  according to the like testimonial evidence of antiquity. Fourthly, how far the same episcopal power hath usually extended, unto what number of persons it hath reached, what bounds and limits of place it hath had. This done, we may afterwards descend unto those by whom the same either hath been heretofore, or is at this present hour gainsaid.

From whence it hath grown that the Church is governed by Bishops.  IV. The first Bishops in the Church of Christ were his blessed Apostles; for the office whereunto Matthias was chosen the sacred history doth term ἐπισκοπὴν, an episcopal office. Which being spoken expressly of one, agreeth no less unto them all than unto him. For which cause St. Cyprian [1] speaking generally of them all doth call them Bishops. They which were termed Apostles, as being sent of Christ to publish his gospel throughout the world, and were named likewise Bishops, in that the care of government was also committed unto them, did no less perform the offices of their episcopal authority by governing, than of their apostolical by teaching. The word ἐπισκοπὴ, expressing that part of their office which did consist in regiment, proveth not (I grant) their chiefty in regiment over others, because as then that name was common unto the function of their inferiors, and not peculiar unto theirs. But the history of their actions sheweth plainly enough how the thing itself which that name appropriated importeth, that is to say, even such spiritual chiefty as we have already defined to be properly episcopal, was in the holy Apostles of Christ. Bishops therefore they were at large.

But was it lawful for any of them to be a bishop with restraint? True it is their charge was indefinite; yet so, that in case they did all whether severally or jointly discharge the office of proclaiming every where the gospel and of guiding the Church of Christ, none of them casting off his part in their burden [2] which was laid upon them, there doth appear no impediment but that they having received their common charge indefinitely might in the execution thereof notwithstanding restrain themselves, or at leastwise be restrained by the after commandment of the Spirit,     BOOK VII. Ch. iv. 2.  without contradiction or repugnancy unto that charge more indefinite and general before given them: especially if it seemed at any time requisite, and for the greater good of the Church, that they should in such sort tie themselves unto some special part of the flock of Jesus Christ, guiding the same in several as bishops. For first, notwithstanding our Saviour’s commandment unto them all to go and preach unto all nations; yet some restraint we see there was made, when by agreement between Paul and Peter [1] , moved with those effects of their labours which the providence of God brought forth, the one betook himself unto the Gentiles, the other unto the Jews, for the exercise of that office of every where preaching. A further restraint of their apostolic labours as yet there was also made, when they divided themselves into several parts of the world; John [2] for his charge taking Asia, and so the residue other quarters to labour in. If nevertheless it seem very hard that we should admit a restraint so particular, as after that general charge received to make any Apostle notwithstanding the bishop of some one church; what think we of the bishop of Jerusalem [3] , James, whose consecration unto that mother see of the world,     BOOK VII. Ch. iv. 3.  because it was not meet that it should at any time be left void of some Apostle, doth seem to have been the very cause of St. Paul’s miraculous vocation, to make up the number of the twelve again, for the gathering of nations abroad, even as the martyrdom of the other James, the reason why Barnabas in his stead [1] was called.

Finally, Apostles, whether they did settle in any one certain place, as James, or else did otherwise, as the Apostle Paul, episcopal authority either at large or with restraint they had and exercised. Their episcopal power they sometimes gave unto others to exercise as agents only in their stead, and as it were by commission from them. Thus Titus [2] , and thus Timothy, at the first, though afterwards endued with apostolical power of their own [3] .

For in process of time the Apostles gave episcopal authority, and that to continue always with them which had it. “We are able to number up them,” saith Irenæus [4] , “who by the Apostles were made bishops.” In Rome he affirmeth that the Apostles themselves made Linus the first bishop [5] . Again of Polycarp he saith likewise [6] , that the Apostles made him bishop of the church of Smyrna. Of Antioch they made Evodius bishop, as Ignatius witnesseth [7] , exhorting that church to tread in his holy steps, and to follow his virtuous example.

The Apostles therefore were the first which had such authority, and all others who have it after them in orderly sort are their lawful successors, whether they succeed in any particular church, where before them some Apostle hath been seated,     BOOK VII. Ch. iv. 4.  as Simon succeeded James in Jerusalem; or else be otherwise endued with the same kind of bishoply power, although it be not where any Apostle before hath been. For to succeed them, is after them to have that episcopal kind of power which was first given to them. “All bishops are,” saith Jerome [1] , “the Apostles’ successors.” In like sort Cyprian [2] doth term bishops, “Præpositos qui Apostolis vicaria ordinatione succedunt.” From hence it may haply seem to have grown, that they whom we now call Bishops [3] were usually termed at the first Apostles, and so did carry their very names in whose rooms of spiritual authority they succeeded.

Such as deny Apostles to have any successors [4] at all in the office of their apostleship, may hold that opinion without contradiction to this of ours, if they well explain themselves in declaring what truly and properly apostleship is. In some things every presbyter, in some things only bishops, in some things neither the one nor the other are the Apostles’ successors. The Apostles were sent [5] as special chosen eyewitnesses of Jesus Christ, from whom immediately they received their whole embassage, and their commission to be the principal first founders of an house of God, consisting as well of Gentiles as of Jews. In this there are not after them any other like unto them; and yet the Apostles have now their successors upon earth, their true successors [6] , if not in the largeness, surely in the kind of that episcopal function,     BOOK VII. Ch. v. 1.  whereby they had power to sit as spiritual ordinary judges, both over laity and over clergy, where churches Christian were established.

The time and cause of instituting everywhere Bishops with restraint.  V. The Apostles of our Lord did according unto those directions which were given them from above, erect churches in all such cities as received the word of truth, the gospel of God. All churches by them erected received from them the same faith, the same sacraments, the same form of public regiment. The form of regiment by them established at first was, that the laity or people should be subject unto a college of ecclesiastical persons, which were in every such city appointed for that purpose. These in their writings they term sometime presbyters, sometime bishops. To take one church out of a number for a pattern what the rest were; the presbyters of Ephesus, as it is in the history [1] of their departure from the Apostle Paul at Miletum, are said to have wept abundantly all, which speech doth shew them to have been many. And by the Apostle’s exhortation it may appear that they had not each his several flock to feed, but were in common appointed to feed that one flock, the church of Ephesus; for which cause the phrase of his speech is this [2] , Attendite gregi, “Look all to that one flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops.” These persons ecclesiastical being termed as then, presbyters and bishops both, were all subject unto Paul as to an higher governor appointed of God to be over them [3] .

BOOK VII. Ch. v. 2.  But forasmuch as the Apostles could not themselves be present in all churches, and as the Apostle St. Paul foretold the presbyters of the Ephesians [1] that there would “rise up from amongst their ownselves, men speaking perverse things to draw disciples after them;” there did grow in short time amongst the governors of each church those emulations, strifes, and contentions, whereof there could be no sufficient remedy provided, except according unto the order of Jerusalem already begun, some one were endued with episcopal authority over the rest, which one being resident might keep them in order, and have preeminence or principality in those things wherein the equality of many agents was the cause of disorder and trouble. This one president or governor amongst the rest had his known authority established a long time before that settled difference of name and title took place, whereby such alone were named bishops. And therefore in the book of St. John’s Revelation [2] we find that they are entitled angels.

It will perhaps be answered, that the angels of those churches were only in every church a minister of the word and sacraments. But then we ask, is it probable that in every of these churches, even in Ephesus itself, where many such ministers were long before, as hath been proved, there was but one such when John directed his speech to the angel of that church? If there were many, surely St. John in naming but only one of them an angel, did behold in that one somewhat above the rest.

Nor was this order peculiar unto some few churches, but the whole world universally became subject thereunto; insomuch as they did not account it to be a church which was not subject unto a bishop. It was the general received persuasion of the ancient Christian world, that Ecclesia est in Episcopo [3] , “the outward being of a church consisteth in the having of a bishop.” That where colleges of presbyters were, there was at the first equality amongst them, St. Jerome thinketh it a matter clear [1] ;     BOOK VII. Ch. v. 3.  but when the rest were thus equal, so that no one of them could command any other as inferior unto him, they all were controllable by the Apostles, who had that episcopal authority abiding at the first in themselves, which they afterwards derived unto others.

The cause wherefore they under themselves appointed such bishops as were not every where at the first, is said to have been those strifes and contentions, for remedy whereof, whether the Apostles alone did conclude of such a regiment, or else they together with the whole Church judging it a fit and a needful policy did agree to receive it for a custom; no doubt but being established by them on whom the Holy Ghost was poured in so abundant measure for the ordering of Christ’s Church, it had either divine appointment beforehand, or divine approbation afterwards, and is in that respect to be acknowledged the ordinance of God, no less than that ancient Jewish regiment, whereof though Jethro were the deviser [2] , yet after that God had allowed it, all men were subject unto it, as to the polity of God, and not of Jethro.

That so the ancient Fathers did think of episcopal regiment; that they held this order as a thing received from the blessed Apostles themselves, and authorized even from heaven, we may perhaps more easily prove, than obtain that they all shall grant it who see it proved. St. Augustine [3] setteth it down for a principle, that whatsoever positive order the whole Church every where doth observe, the same it must needs have received from the very Apostles themselves, unless perhaps some general council were the authors of it. And he saw that the ruling superiority of bishops was a thing universally established, not by the force of any council (for councils do all presuppose bishops, nor can there any council be named so ancient, either general, or as much as provincial, sithence the Apostles’ own times, but we can shew that bishops had their authority before it, and not from it). Wherefore St. Augustine knowing this, could not choose but reverence the authority of bishops, as a thing to him apparently and most clearly apostolical.     BOOK VII. Ch. v. 4, 5.

But it will be perhaps objected that regiment by bishops was not so universal nor ancient as we pretend; and that an argument hereof may be Jerome’s own testimony, who, living at the very same time with St. Augustine, noted this kind of regiment as being no where ancient, saving only in Alexandria; his words are these [1] : “It was for a remedy of schism that one was afterwards chosen to be placed above the rest; lest every man’s pulling unto himself should rend asunder the Church of Christ. For (that which also may serve for an argument or token hereof), at Alexandria, from Mark the Evangelist, unto Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one of themselves, whom they placed in higher degree, and gave unto him the title of bishop.” Now St. Jerome [2] they say would never have picked out that one church from amongst so many, and have noted that in it there had been bishops from the time that St. Mark lived, if so be the selfsame order were of like antiquity every where; his words therefore must be thus scholied: in the church of Alexandria, presbyters indeed had even from the time of St. Mark the Evangelist always a bishop to rule over them, for a remedy against divisions, factions, and schisms. Not so in other churches, neither in that very church any longer than usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium, “till Heraclas and his successor Dionysius were bishops.”

But this construction doth bereave the words construed, partly of wit, and partly of truth; it maketh them both absurd and false. For, if the meaning be that episcopal government in that church was then expired, it must have expired with the end of some one, and not of two several bishops’ days, unless perhaps it fell sick under Heraclas, and with Dionysius gave up the ghost.

Besides, it is clearly untrue that the presbyters of that church did then cease to be under a bishop. Who doth not know that after Dionysius,     BOOK VII. Ch. v. 6.  Maximus was bishop of Alexandria [1] , after him Theonas [2] , after him Peter, after him Achillas [3] , after him Alexander: of whom Socrates [4] in this sort writeth: “it fortuned on a certain time that this Alexander in the presence of the presbyters which were under him, and of the rest of the clergy there, discoursed somewhat curiously and subtilly of the holy Trinity, bringing high philosophical proofs, that there is in the Trinity an Unity. Whereupon Arius, one of the presbyters which were placed in that degree under Alexander, opposed eagerly himself against those things which were uttered by the bishop.” So that thus long bishops continued even in the church of Alexandria. Nor did their regiment here cease, but these also had others their successors till St. Jerome’s own time, who living long after Heraclas and Dionysius had ended their days, did not yet live himself to see the presbyters of Alexandria otherwise than subject unto a bishop. So that we cannot with any truth so interpret his words as to mean, that in the church of Alexandria there had been bishops endued with superiority over presbyters from St. Mark’s time only till the time of Heraclas and of Dionysius.

Wherefore that St. Jerome may receive a more probable interpretation than this, we answer, that generally of regiment by bishops, and what term of continuance it had in the church of Alexandria, it was no part of his mind to speak, but to note one only circumstance belonging to the manner of their election, which circumstance is, that in Alexandria they use to choose their bishops altogether out of the college of their own presbyters, and neither from abroad nor out of any other inferior order of the clergy; whereas oftentimes elsewhere the use was to choose as well from abroad as at home [5] , as well inferior unto presbyters as presbyters when they saw occasion. This custom, saith he, the Church of Alexandria did always keep, till in Heraclas and Dionysius they began to do otherwise. These two were the very first not chosen out of their college of presbyters.

The drift and purpose of St. Jerome’s speech doth plainly shew what his meaning was: for whereas some did over extol the office of the deacon in the church of Rome, where deacons being grown great, through wealth, challenged place above presbyters; St. Jerome to abate this insolency, writing to Evagrius diminisheth by all means the deacon’s estimation, and lifteth up presbyters as far as possible the truth might bear [1] . “An attendant,” saith he, “upon tables and widows proudly to exalt himself above them at whose prayers is made the Body and Blood of Christ; above them, between whom and bishops there was at the first for a time no difference neither in authority nor in title. And whereas afterward schisms and contentions made it necessary that some one should be placed over them, by which occasion the title of bishop became proper unto that one, yet was that one chosen out of the presbyters, as being the chiefest, the highest, the worthiest degree of the clergy, and not out of deacons: in which consideration also it seemeth that in Alexandria even from St. Mark to Heraclas and Dionysius bishops there, the presbyters evermore have chosen one of themselves, and not a deacon at any time, to be their bishop. Nor let any man think that Christ hath one church in Rome and another in the rest of the world; that in Rome he alloweth deacons to be honoured above presbyters, and otherwise will have them to be in the next degree to the bishop. If it be deemed that abroad where bishops are poorer, the presbyters under them may be the next unto them in honour, but at Rome where the bishop hath ample revenues, the deacons whose estate is nearest for wealth, may be also for estimation the next unto him: we must know that a bishop in the meanest city is no less a bishop than he who is seated in the greatest; the countenance of a rich and the meanness of a poor estate doth make no odds between bishops: and therefore, if a presbyter at Eugubium be the next in degree to a bishop, surely, even at Rome it ought in reason to be so likewise, and not a deacon for wealth’s sake only to be above, who by order should be, and elsewhere is, underneath a presbyter. But ye will say that according to the custom of Rome a deacon presenteth unto the bishop him which standeth to be ordained presbyter, and upon the deacon’s testimony given concerning his fitness, he receiveth at the Bishop’s hands ordination: so that in Rome the deacon having this special preeminence, the presbyter ought there to give place unto him. Wherefore is the custom of one city brought against the practice of the whole world? The paucity of deacons in the church of Rome hath gotten the [them?] credit; as unto presbyters their multitude hath been cause of contempt: howbeit even in the Church of Rome, presbyters sit, and deacons stand; an argument as strong against the superiority of deacons, as the fore-alleged reason doth seem for it. Besides, whosoever is promoted must needs be raised from a lower degree to an higher; wherefore either let him which is presbyter be made a deacon, that so the deacon may appear to be the greater; or if of deacons presbyters be made, let them know themselves to be in regard of deacons, though below in gain, yet above in office. And to the end we may understand that those apostolical orders are taken out of the Old Testament, what Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple,     BOOK VII. Ch. v. 7.  the same in the Church may bishops and presbyters and deacons challenge unto themselves.”

This is the very drift and substance, this the true construction and sense of St. Jerome’s whole discourse in that epistle: which I have therefore endeavoured the more at large to explain, because no one thing is less effectual or more usual to be alleged against the ancient authority of bishops; concerning whose government St. Jerome’s own words otherwhere are sufficient to shew his opinion, that this order was not only in Alexandria so ancient, but even as ancient in other churches. We have before alleged his testimony touching James the bishop of Jerusalem. As for bishops in other churches, on the first of the Epistle to Titus thus he speaketh [1] , “Till through instinct of the Devil there grew in the Church factions, and among the people it began to be professed, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, and I of Cephas [2] , churches were governed by the common advice of presbyters;     BOOK VII. Ch. v. 8.  but when every one began to reckon those whom himself had baptized his own and not Christ’s, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen out of the presbyters should be placed above the rest, to whom all care of the Church should belong, and so the seeds of schism be removed.” If it be so, that by St. Jerome’s own confession this order was not then begun when people in the apostles’ absence began to be divided into factions by their teachers, and to rehearse, “I am of Paul,” but that even at the very first appointment thereof [it] was agreed upon and received throughout the world; how shall a man be persuaded that the same Jerome thought it so ancient no where saving in Alexandria, one only church of the whole world?

A sentence there is indeed of St. Jerome’s, which being not thoroughly considered and weighed may cause his meaning so to be taken, as if he judged episcopal regiment to have been the Church’s invention long after, and not the apostles’ own institution; as namely, when he admonisheth bishops in this manner [1] : “As therefore presbyters do know that the custom of the Church makes them subject to the Bishop which is set over them; so let bishops know [2] that custom, rather than the truth of any ordinance of the Lord’s maketh them greater than the rest, and that with common advice they ought to govern the Church.”

To clear the sense of these words therefore, as we have done already the former: laws which the Church from the beginning universally hath observed were some delivered by Christ himself, with a charge to keep them to the world’s end, as the law of baptizing and administering the holy eucharist; some brought in afterwards by the apostles, yet not without the special direction of the Holy Ghost, as occasions did arise. Of this sort are those apostolical orders and laws whereby deacons, widows, virgins, were first appointed in the Church. [*] [This answer to St. Jerome seemeth dangerous [1] ; I have qualified it as I may by addition of some words of restraint: yet I satisfy not myself, in my judgment it would be altered.] “Now whereas Jerome doth term the government of bishops by restraint an apostolical tradition, acknowledging thereby the same to have been of the apostles’ own institution, it may be demanded how these two will stand together; namely, that the apostles by divine instinct should be, as Jerome confesseth, the authors of that regiment; and yet the custom of the Church be accounted (for so by Jerome it may seem to be in this place accounted) the chiefest prop that upholdeth the same? To this we answer, That forasmuch as the whole body of the Church hath power to alter, with general consent and upon necessary occasions, even the positive laws of the apostles, if there be no command to the contrary, and it manifestly appears to her, that change of times have clearly taken away the very reasons of God’s first institution; as by sundry examples may be most clearly proved: what laws the universal Church might change, and doth not, if they have long continued without any alteration, it seemeth that St. Jerome ascribeth the continuance of such positive laws, though instituted by God himself, to the judgment of the Church. For they which might abrogate a law and do not, are properly said to uphold, to establish it, and to give it being. The regiment therefore whereof Jerome speaketh being positive, and consequently not absolutely necessary, but of a changeable nature, because there is no divine voice which in express words forbiddeth it to be changed; he might imagine both that it came by the apostles by very divine appointment at the first, and notwithstanding be, after a sort, said to stand in force, rather by the custom of the Church, choosing to continue in it, than by the necessary constraint of any commandment from the word, requiring perpetual continuance thereof.” So that St. Jerome’s admonition is reasonable, sensible, and plain, being contrived to this effect: The ruling superiority of one bishop over many presbyters in each church, is an order descended from Christ to the Apostles, who were themselves bishops at large, and from the Apostles to those whom they in their steads appointed bishops over particular countries and cities; and even from those ancient times, universally established, thus many years it hath continued throughout the world; for which cause presbyters must not grudge to continue subject unto their bishops, unless they will proudly oppose themselves against that which God himself ordained by his apostles, and the whole Church of Christ approveth and judgeth most convenient. On the other side bishops, albeit they may avouch with conformity of truth that their authority hath thus descended even from the very apostles themselves, yet the absolute and everlasting continuance of it they cannot say that any commandment of the Lord doth enjoin; and therefore must acknowledge that the Church hath power by universal consent upon urgent cause to take it away, if thereunto she be constrained through the proud, tyrannical, and unreformable dealings of her bishops, whose regiment she hath thus long delighted in, because she hath found it good and requisite to be so governed. Wherefore lest bishops forget themselves, as if none on earth had authority to touch their states, let them continually bear in mind, that it is rather the force of custom,     BOOK VII. Ch. v. 9.  whereby the Church having so long found it good to continue under the regiment of her virtuous bishops, doth still uphold, maintain, and honour them in that respect, than that any such true and heavenly law can be shewed, by the evidence whereof it may of a truth appear that the Lord himself hath appointed presbyters for ever to be under the regiment of bishops, in what sort soever they behave themselves. Let this consideration be a bridle unto them, let it teach them not to disdain the advice of their presbyters, but to use their authority with so much the greater humility and moderation, as a sword which the Church hath power to take from them. In all this there is no let why St. Jerome might not think the authors of episcopal regiment to have been the very blessed apostles themselves, directed therein by the special motion of the Holy Ghost, which the ancients all before and besides him and himself also elsewhere being known to hold, we are not without better evidence than this to think him in judgment divided both from himself and from them [1] .

Another argument that the regiment of churches by one Bishop over many presbyters hath been always held apostolical, may be this. We find that throughout all those cities where the apostles did plant Christianity, the history of times hath noted succession of pastors in the seat of one, not of many (there being in every such Church evermore many pastors), and the first one in every rank of succession we find to have been, if not some Apostle, yet some Apostle’s disciple. By Epiphanius [2] the bishops of Jerusalem are reckoned down from James to Hilarion then Bishop. Of them which boasted that they held the same things which they received of such as lived with the apostles themselves, Tertullian speaketh after this sort [3] : “Let them therefore shew the beginnings of their churches,     BOOK VII. Ch. v. 10.  let them recite their bishops one by one, each in such sort succeeding other, that the first bishop of them have had for his author and predecessor some Apostle, or at least some apostolical person who persevered with the apostles. For so apostolical churches are wont to bring forth the evidence of their estates. So doth the Church of Smyrna, having Polycarp whom John did consecrate.” Catalogues of bishops in a number of other churches, [*] (bishops, and succeeding one another) from the very apostles’ times, are by Eusebius and Socrates collected; whereby it appeareth so clear, as nothing in the world more, that under them and by their appointment this order began, which maketh many presbyters subject unto the regiment of some one bishop. For as in Rome while the civil ordering of the commonwealth was jointly and equally in the hands of two consuls, historical records concerning them did evermore mention them both, and note which two as colleagues succeeded from time to time; so there is no doubt but ecclesiastical antiquity had done the very like, had not one pastor’s place and calling been always so eminent above the rest in the same church.

And what need we to seek far for proofs that the apostles, who began this order of regiment of bishops, did it not but by divine instinct, when without such direction things of far less weight and moment they attempted not? Paul and Barnabas did not open their mouths to the Gentiles, till the Spirit had said [1] , “Separate me Paul and Barnabas for the work whereunto I have sent them.” The eunuch by Philip [2] was neither baptized nor instructed before the angel of God was sent to give him notice that so it pleased the Most High. In Asia [3] , Paul and the rest were silent, because the Spirit forbade them to speak. When they intended to have seen Bithynia [4] they stayed their journey, the Spirit not giving them leave to go. Before Timothy [5] was employed in those episcopal affairs of the Church, about which the Apostle St. Paul used him, the Holy Ghost gave special charge for his ordination, and prophetical intelligence more than once,     BOOK VII. Ch. vi. 1, 2.  what success the same would have. And shall we think that James was made bishop of Jerusalem, Evodius bishop of the church of Antioch, the Angels in the churches of Asia bishops, that bishops every where were appointed to take away factions, contentions, and schisms, without some like divine instigation and direction of the Holy Ghost? Wherefore let us not fear to be herein bold and peremptory, that if any thing in the Church’s government, surely the first institution of bishops was from heaven, was even of God, the Holy Ghost was the author of it [1] .

What manner of power Bishops from the first beginning have had.  VI. “A Bishop,” saith St. Augustine [2] , “is a Presbyter’s superior:” but the question is now, wherein that superiority did consist. The Bishop’s preeminence we say therefore was twofold. First he excelled in latitude of the power of order, secondly in that kind of power which belongeth unto jurisdiction. Priests in the law had authority and power to do greater things than Levites, the high-priest greater than inferior priests might do; therefore Levites were beneath priests, and priests inferior to the high-priest, by reason of the very degree of dignity, and of worthiness in the nature of those functions which they did execute, and not only for that the one had power to command and control the other. In like sort presbyters having a weightier and a worthier charge than deacons had, the deacon was in this sort the presbyter’s inferior; and where we say that a bishop was likewise ever accounted a presbyter’s superior, even according unto his very power of order, we must of necessity declare what principal duties belonging unto that kind of power a bishop might perform, and not a presbyter.

The custom of the primitive Church in consecrating holy virgins and widows unto the service of God and his Church, is a thing not obscure, but easy to be known, both by that which St. Paul himself [1] concerning them hath,     BOOK VII. Ch. vi. 3.  and by the latter consonant evidence of other men’s [2] writings. Now a part of the preeminence which bishops had in their power of order, was that by them only such were consecrated.

Again, the power of ordaining both deacons and presbyters, the power to give the power of order unto others, this also hath been always peculiar unto bishops. It hath not been heard of, that inferior presbyters were ever authorized to ordain. And concerning ordination, so great force and dignity it hath, that whereas presbyters, by such power as they have received for administration of the sacraments, are able only to beget children unto God; bishops having power to ordain, do by virtue thereof create fathers to the people of God, as Epiphanius [3] fitly disputeth. There are which hold that between a bishop and a presbyter, touching power of order, there is no difference. The reason of which conceit is, for that they see presbyters no less than bishops authorized to offer up the prayers of the Church, to preach the gospel, to baptize, to administer the holy Eucharist; but they considered not withal as they should, that the presbyter’s authority to do these things is derived from the bishop which doth ordain him thereunto, so that even in those things which are common unto both, yet the power of the one is as it were a certain light borrowed from the others’ lamp. The apostles being bishops at large, ordained every where [4] presbyters. Titus and Timothy having received episcopal power, as apostolic ambassadors or legates, the one in Greece [5] [Crete], the other in Ephesus [6] , they both did by virtue thereof likewise ordain throughout all churches deacons and presbyters within the circuits allotted unto them. As for bishops by restraint, their power this way incommunicable unto presbyters which of the ancients do not acknowledge?

BOOK VII. Ch. vi. 4-6.  I make not confirmation any part of that power which hath always belonged only unto bishops [1] , because in some places the custom was that presbyters might also confirm in the absence of a bishop; albeit for the most part none but only bishops were thereof the allowed ministers.

Here it will perhaps be objected that the power of ordination itself was not every where peculiar and proper unto bishops, as may be seen by a council of Carthage [2] , which sheweth their church’s order to have been, that presbyters should together with the bishop lay hands upon the ordained. But the answer hereunto is easy; for doth it hereupon follow that the power of ordination was not principally and originally in the bishop? Our Saviour hath said unto his Apostles [3] , “With me ye shall sit and judge the twelve tribes of Israel;” yet we know that to him alone it belongeth to judge the world, and that to him all judgment is given. With us even at this day presbyters are licensed to do as much as that council speaketh of, if any be present. Yet will not any man thereby conclude that in this church others than bishops are allowed to ordain. The association of presbyters is no sufficient proof that the power of ordination is in them; but rather that it never was in them we may hereby understand, for that no man is able to shew either deacon or presbyter ordained by presbyters only, and his ordination accounted lawful in any ancient part of the Church; every where examples being found both of deacons and of presbyters ordained by bishops alone oftentimes, neither ever in that respect thought unsufficient.

Touching that other chiefty, which is of jurisdiction; amongst the Jews he which was highest through the worthiness of peculiar duties incident unto his function in the legal service of God, did bear always in ecclesiastical jurisdiction the chiefest sway. As long as the glory of the temple of God did last, there were in it sundry orders of men consecrated unto the service thereof,     BOOK VII. Ch. vi. 7.  one sort of them inferior unto another in dignity and degree; the Nathiners subordinate unto the Levites, the Levites unto the Priests, the rest of the priests to those twenty-four which were chief priests, and they all to the High Priest. If any man surmise that the difference between them was only by distinction in the former kind of power, and not in this latter of jurisdiction, are not the words of the law manifest which make Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest chief captain of the Levites [1] , and overseer of them unto whom the charge of the sanctuary was committed? Again, at the commandment of Aaron and his sons are not the Gersonites themselves required [2] to do all their service in the whole charge belonging unto the Gersonites, being inferior priests as Aaron and his sons were high priests? Did not Jehoshaphat [3] appoint Amarias the priest to be chief over them who were judges for the cause of the Lord in Jerusalem? “Priests,” saith Josephus [4] , “worship God continually, and the eldest of the stock are governors over the rest. He doth sacrifice unto God before others, he hath care of the laws, judgeth controversies, correcteth offenders, and whosoever obeyeth him not is convict of impiety against God.”

But unto this they answer, that the reason thereof was because the high priest did prefigure Christ [5] , and represent to the people that chiefty of our Saviour which was to come; so that Christ being now come there is no cause why such preeminence should be given unto any one. Which fancy pleaseth so well the humour of all sorts of rebellious spirits, that they all seek to shroud themselves under it. Tell the Anabaptist, which holdeth the use of the sword unlawful for a Christian man, that God himself did allow his people to make wars [1] ; they have their answer round and ready, “Those ancient wars were figures of the spiritual wars of Christ.” Tell the Barrowist what sway David and others the kings of Israel did bear in the ordering of spiritual affairs, the same answer again serveth, namely, “That David and the rest of the kings of Israel prefigured Christ.” Tell the Martinist of the high priest’s great authority and jurisdiction amongst the Jews, what other thing doth serve his turn but the selfsame shift; “By the power of the high priest the universal supreme authority of our Lord Jesus Christ was shadowed.”

The thing is true, that indeed high priests were figures of Christ, yet this was in things belonging unto their power of order; they figured Christ by entering into the holy place, by offering for the sins of all the people once a year, and by other the like duties: but that to govern and to maintain order amongst those that were subject to them, is an office figurative and abrogated by Christ’s coming in the ministry; that their exercise of jurisdiction was figurative, yea figurative in such sort, that it had no other cause of being instituted, but only to serve as a representation of somewhat to come, and that herein the Church of Christ ought not to follow them; this article is such as must be confirmed, if any way, by miracle, otherwise it will hardly enter into the heads of reasonable men, why the high priest should more figure Christ in being a Judge than in being whatsoever he might be besides. St. Cyprian [2] deemed it no wresting of Scripture to challenge as much for Christian bishops as was given to the high priest among the Jews,     BOOK VII. Ch. vi. 8.  and to urge the law of Moses as being most effectual to prove it. St. Jerome likewise thought it an argument sufficient to ground the authority of bishops upon [1] . “To the end,” saith he, “we may understand Apostolical traditions to have been taken from the Old Testament; that which Aaron and his sons and the Levites were in the temple, Bishops and Presbyters and Deacons in the Church may lawfully challenge to themselves.”

In the office of a Bishop Ignatius [2] observeth these two functions, ἱερατεύειν καὶ ἄρχειν: concerning the one, such is a [the?] preeminence of a bishop, that he only hath the heavenly mysteries of God committed originally unto him, so that otherwise than by his ordination, and by authority received from him, others besides him are not licensed therein to deal as ordinary ministers of God’s church. And touching the other part of their sacred function, wherein the power of their jurisdiction doth appear, first how the Apostles themselves, and secondly how Titus and Timothy had rule and jurisdiction over presbyters [3] , no man is ignorant. And had not Christian bishops afterwards the like power? Ignatius bishop of Antioch being ready by blessed martyrdom to end his life, writeth unto his presbyters, the pastors under him, in this sort [4] : Οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, ποιμάνατε τὸ ἐν ὑμι̑ν ποιμνίον, ἕως ἀναδείξῃ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν μέλλοντα ἄρχειν ὑμω̑ν. Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἤδη σπένδομαι. After the death of Fabian bishop of Rome, there growing some trouble about the receiving of such persons into the Church as had fallen away in persecution, and did now repent their fall, the presbyters and deacons of the same church advertised St. Cyprian thereof [5] , signifying, “That they must of necessity defer to deal in that cause till God did send them a new bishop which might moderate all things.” Much we read of extraordinary fasting usually in the Church. And in this appeareth also somewhat concerning the chiefty of bishops. “The custom is,” saith Tertullian [1] , “that bishops do appoint when the people shall all fast.” “Yea, it is not a matter left to our own free choice whether bishops shall rule or no, but the will of our Lord and Saviour is,” saith Cyprian [2] , “that every act of the Church be governed by her bishops.” An argument it is of the bishop’s high preeminence, rule and government over all the rest of the clergy, even that the sword of persecution did strike, especially, always at the bishop as at the head, the rest by reason of their lower estate being more secure, as the selfsame Cyprian noteth; the very manner of whose speech unto his own both deacons and presbyters who remained safe, when himself then bishop was driven into exile, argueth likewise his eminent authority and rule over them. “By these letters,” saith he [3] , “I both exhort and command that ye whose presence there is not envied at, nor so much beset with dangers, supply my room in doing those things which the exercise of religion doth require.” Unto the same purpose serve most directly those comparisons [4] , than which nothing is more familiar in the books of the ancient Fathers,     BOOK VII. Ch. vi. 9.  who as oft as they speak of the several degrees in God’s clergy, if they chance to compare presbyters with Levitical priests of the law, the bishop they compare [1] unto Aaron the high priest; if they compare the one with the Apostles, the other they compare (although in a lower proportion) sometime to Christ [2] , and sometime to God himself, evermore shewing that they placed the bishop in an eminent degree of ruling authority and power above other presbyters. Ignatius [3] comparing bishops with deacons, and with such ministers of the word and sacraments as were but presbyters, and had no authority over presbyters; “What is,” saith he, “the bishop, but one which hath all principality and power over all, so far forth as man may have it, being to his power a follower even of God’s own Christ?”

Mr. Calvin himself, though an enemy unto regiment by bishops, doth notwithstanding confess [4] , that in old time the ministers which had charge to teach, chose of their company one in every city, to whom they appropriated the title of bishop, lest equality should breed dissension. He added farther, that look, what duty the Roman consuls did execute in proposing matters unto the senate, in asking their opinions, in directing them by advice, admonition, exhortation, in guiding actions by their authority, and in seeing that performed which was with common consent agreed on, the like charge had the bishop in the assembly of other ministers. Thus much Calvin being forced by the evidence of truth to grant, doth yet deny the bishops to have been so in authority at the first as to bear rule over other ministers:     BOOK VII. Ch. vi. 10.  wherein what rule he doth mean, I know not. But if the bishops were so far in dignity above other ministers, as the consuls of Rome for their year above other senators, it is as much as we require. And undoubtedly if as the consuls of Rome, so the bishops in the Church of Christ had such authority, as both to direct other ministers, and to see that every of them should observe that which their common consent had agreed on, how this could be done by the bishop not bearing rule over them, for mine own part I must acknowledge that my poor conceit is not able to comprehend.

One objection there is of some force to make against that which we have hitherto endeavoured to prove, if they [1] mistake it not who allege it. St. Jerome, comparing other presbyters with him unto whom the name of bishop was then appropriate, asketh [2] , “What a bishop by virtue of his place and calling may do more than a presbyter, except it be only to ordain?” In like sort Chrysostom having moved a question, wherefore St. Paul should give Timothy precept concerning the quality of bishops, and descend from them to deacons, omitting the order of presbyters between, he maketh thereunto this answer [3] , “What things he spake concerning bishops, the same are also meet for presbyters, whom bishops seem not to excel in any thing but only in the power of ordination.” Wherefore seeing this doth import no ruling superiority, it follows that bishops were as then no rulers over that part of the clergy of God.

Whereunto we answer, that both St. Jerome and St. Chrysostom had in those their speeches an eye no further than only to that function for which presbyters and bishops were consecrated unto God. Now we know that their consecration had reference to nothing but only that which they did by force and virtue of the power of order, wherein sith bishops received their charge, only by that one degree, to speak of, more ample than presbyters did theirs, it might be well enough said that presbyters were that way authorized to do, in a manner, even as much as bishops could do, if we consider what each of them did by virtue of solemn consecration: for as concerning power of regiment and jurisdiction, it was a thing withal added unto bishops for the necessary use of such certain persons and people, as should be thereunto subject in those particular churches whereof they were bishops, and belonged to them only as bishops of such or such a church; whereas the other kind of power had relation indefinitely unto any of the whole society of Christian men, on whom they should chance to exercise the same, and belonged to them absolutely, as they were bishops wheresoever they lived. St. Jerome’s conclusion thereof is [1] , “That seeing in the one kind of power there is no greater difference between a presbyter and a bishop, bishops should not because of their preeminence in the other too much lift up themselves above the presbyters under them.” St. Chrysostom’s collection, “That whereas the Apostle doth set down the qualities whereof regard should be had in the consecration of bishops, there was no need to make a several discourse how presbyters ought to be qualified when they are ordained; because there being so little difference in the functions, whereunto the one and the other receive ordination, the same precepts might well serve for both; at leastwise by the virtues required in the greater, what should need in the less might be easily understood. As for the difference of jurisdiction, the truth is, the Apostles yet living, and themselves where they were resident exercising the jurisdiction in their own persons, it was not every where established in bishops.” When the Apostles prescribed those laws, and when Chrysostom thus spake concerning them, it was not by him at all respected, but his eye was the same way with Jerome’s; his cogitation was wholly fixed on that power which by consecration is given to bishops more than to presbyters, and not on that which they have over presbyters by force of their particular accessary jurisdiction.

Wherein if any man suppose that Jerome and Chrysostom knew no difference at all between a presbyter and a bishop, let him weigh but one or two of their sentences. The pride of insolent bishops hath not a sharper enemy than Jerome, for which cause he taketh often occasions most severely to inveigh against them, sometimes for [1] shewing disdain and contempt of the clergy under them; sometime for not [2] suffering themselves to be told of their faults, and admonished of their duty by inferiors; sometime for not admitting [3] their presbyters to teach, if so be themselves were in presence; sometimes for not vouchsafing to use any conference with them, or to take any counsel of them. Howbeit never doth he in such wise bend himself against their disorders, as to deny their rule and authority over presbyters. Of Vigilantius being a presbyter, he thus writeth [4] : “Miror sanctum episcopum in cujus parochia presbyter esse dicitur, acquiescere furori ejus, et non virga apostolica virgaque ferrea confringere vas inutile:” “I marvel that the holy bishop under whom Vigilantius is said to be a presbyter, doth yield to his fury, and not break that unprofitable vessel with his apostolic and iron rod.” With this agreeth most fitly the grave advice he giveth to Nepotian [5] : “Be thou subject unto thy bishop, and receive him as the father of thy soul. This also I say, that bishops should know themselves to be priests and not lords; that they ought to honour the clergy as beseemeth the clergy to be honoured, to the end their clergy may yield them the honour which as bishops they ought to have [1] . That of the orator Domitius is famous: ‘Wherefore should I esteem of thee as of a prince, when thou makest not of me that reckoning which should in reason be made of a senator?’ Let us know the bishop and his presbyters to be the same which Aaron sometime and his sons were.” Finally writing against the heretics which were named Luciferians [2] , “The very safety of the Church,” saith he, “dependeth on the dignity of the chief priest, to whom unless men grant an exceeding and an eminent power, there will grow in churches even as many schisms as there are persons which have authority.”

Touching Chrysostom, to shew that by him there was also acknowledged a ruling superiority of bishops over presbyters, both then usual, and in no respect unlawful, what need we allege his words and sentences, when the history of his own episcopal actions in that very kind is till this day extant for all men to read that will? For St. Chrysostom of a presbyter in Antioch, grew to be afterwards bishop of Constantinople; and in process of time when the emperor’s heavy displeasure had through the practice of a powerful faction against him effected his banishment, Innocent the bishop of Rome understanding thereof wrote his letters unto the clergy of that Church [3] , “That no successor ought to be chosen in Chrysostom’s room: nec ejus Clerum alii parere Pontifici, nor his clergy obey any other bishop than him.” A fond kind of speech, if so be there had been as then in bishops no ruling superiority over presbyters.     BOOK VII. Ch. vii. 1.  When two of Chrysostom’s presbyters [1] had joined themselves to the faction of his mortal enemy Theophilus, Patriarch in the Church of Alexandria, the same Theophilus and other bishops which were of his conventicle, having sent those two amongst others to cite Chrysostom their lawful bishop, and to bring him into public judgment, he taketh against this one thing special exception, as being contrary to all order, that those presbyters should come as messengers and call him to judgment, who were a part of that clergy whereof himself was ruler and judge. So that bishops to have had in those times a ruling superiority over presbyters, neither could Jerome nor Chrysostom be ignorant; and therefore hereupon it were superfluous that we should any longer stand.

After what sort Bishops together with presbyters have used to govern the churches which were under them.  VII. Touching the next point, how bishops together with presbyters have used to govern the churches which were under them: it is by Zonaras somewhat plainly and at large declared, that the bishop had his seat on high in the church above the residue which were present; that a number of presbyters did always there assist him; and that in the oversight of the people those presbyters were after a sort the bishop’s coadjutors [2] . The bishops [bishop?] and presbyters who together with him governed the Church, are for the most part by Ignatius jointly mentioned. In the epistle to them of Trallis [3] , he saith of presbyters that they are σύμβουλοι καὶ συνέδρευται του̑ ἐπισκόπου, “counsellors and assistants of the bishop;” and concludeth in the end, “He that should disobey these were a plain atheist, and an irreligious person, and one that did set Christ himself and his own ordinances at nought.” Which order making presbyters or priests the bishop’s assistants doth not import that they were of equal authority with him, but rather so adjoined that they also were subject, as hath been proved. In the writings of St. Cyprian [1] nothing is more usual than to make mention of the college of presbyters subject unto the bishop, although in handling the common affairs of the Church they assisted him. But of all other places which open the ancient order of episcopal presbyters the most clear is that epistle of Cyprian unto Cornelius [2] , concerning certain Novatian heretics received again upon their conversion into the unity of the Church [3] . “After that Urbanus and Sidonius, confessors, had come and signified unto our presbyters, that Maximus a confessor and presbyter did together with them desire to return into the Church, it seemed meet to hear from their own mouths and confessions that which by message they had delivered. When they were come, and had been called to account by the presbyters touching those things they had committed, their answer was, that they had been deceived, and did request that such things as there they were charged with might be forgotten. It being brought unto me what was done, I took order that the presbytery might be assembled. There were also present five bishops, that upon settled advice it might be with consent of all determined what should be done about their persons.” Thus far St. Cyprian. Wherein it may be peradventure demanded, whether he and other bishops did thus proceed with advice of their presbyters in all such public affairs of the Church, as being thereunto bound by ecclesiastical canons, or else that they voluntarily so did, because they judged it in discretion as then most convenient. Surely the words of Cyprian are plain, that of his own accord he chose this way of proceeding, “ [1] Unto that,” saith he, “which Donatus, and Fortunatus, and Novatus, and Gordius, our com-presbyters, have written, I could by myself alone make no answer, forasmuch as at the very first entrance into my bishoprick I resolutely determined not to do any thing of mine own private judgment, without your counsel and the people’s consent.” The reason whereof he rendereth in the same epistle, saying [2] , “When by the grace of God myself shall come unto you,” (for St. Cyprian was now in exile,) “of things which either have been or must be done we will consider, sicut honor mutuus poscit, as the law of courtesy which one doth owe to another of us requireth.” And at this very mark doth St. Jerome evermore aim in telling bishops that presbyters were at the first their equals, that in some churches for a long time no bishop was made but only such as the presbyters did choose out amongst themselves, and therefore no cause why the bishop should disdain to consult with them, and in weighty affairs of the Church to use their advice. Sometime to countenance their own actions, or to repress the boldness of proud and insolent spirits, that which bishops had in themselves sufficient authority and power to have done, notwithstanding they would not do alone, but craved therein the aid and assistance of other bishops, as in the case of those Novatian heretics, before alleged, Cyprian himself did. And in Cyprian we find of others the like practice. Rogatian a bishop, having been used contumeliously by a deacon of his own church, wrote thereof his complaint unto Cyprian and other bishops. In which case their answer was [1] ,     BOOK VII. Ch. vii. 2. viii. 1.  “That although in his own cause he did of humility rather shew his grievance, than himself take revenge, which by the vigour of his apostolical office and the authority of his chair he might have presently done, without any further delay;” yet if the party should do again as before, their judgments were, “fungaris circa eum potestate honoris tui, et eum vel deponas vel abstineas;”—“use on him that power which the honour of thy place giveth thee, either to depose him or exclude him from access unto holy things.”

The bishop for his assistance and ease had under him, to guide and direct deacons in their charge, his archdeacon, so termed in respect of care over deacons, albeit himself were not deacon but presbyter. For the guidance of presbyters in their function the bishop had likewise under him one of the selfsame order with them, but above them in authority, one whom the ancients termed usually an arch-presbyter [2] , we at this day name him dean. For most certain truth it is that churches cathedral and the bishops of them are as glasses, wherein the face and very countenance of apostolical antiquity remaineth even as yet to be seen, notwithstanding the alterations which tract of time and the course of the world hath brought. For defence and maintenance of them we are most earnestly bound to strive, even as the Jews were for their temple and the high priest of God therein: the overthrow and ruin of the one, if ever the sacrilegious avarice of Atheists should prevail so far, which God of his infinite mercy forbid, ought no otherwise to move us than the people of God were moved, when having beheld the sack and combustion of his sanctuary in most lamentable manner flaming before their eyes, they uttered from the bottom of their grieved spirits those voices of doleful supplication [3] , “Exsurge Domine et miserearis Sion; Servi tui diligunt lapides ejus, pulveris ejus miseret eos.”

How far the power of Bishops hath reached from the beginning in respect of territory or local compass.  VIII. How far the power which bishops had did reach, what number of persons was subject unto them at the first, and how large their territories were, it is not for the question we have in hand a thing very greatly material to know. For if we prove that bishops have lawfully of old ruled over other ministers, it is enough, how few soever those ministers have been, how small soever the circuit of place which hath contained them. Yet hereof somewhat, to the end we may so far forth illustrate church antiquities.

A law imperial there is,     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 2.  which sheweth that there was great care had to provide for every Christian city a bishop as near as might be [1] , and that each city had some territory belonging unto it, which territory was also under the bishop of the same city; that because it was not universally thus, but in some countries one bishop had subject unto him many cities and their territories, the law which provided for establishment of the other orders, should not prejudice those churches wherein this contrary custom had before prevailed. Unto the bishop of every such city, not only the presbyters of the same city, but also of the territory thereunto belonging, were from the first beginning subject. For we must note that when as yet there were in cities no parish churches, but only colleges of presbyters under their bishop’s regiment, yet smaller congregations and churches there were even then abroad, in which churches there was but some one only presbyter to perform among them divine duties [2] . Towns and villages abroad receiving the faith of Christ from cities whereunto they were adjacent, did as spiritual and heavenly colonies by their subjection honour those ancient mother churches out of which they grew. And in the Christian cities themselves, when the mighty increase of believers made it necessary to have them divided into certain several companies, and over every of those companies one only pastor to be appointed for the ministry of holy things;     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 3.  between the first and the rest after it there could not but be a natural inequality, even as between the temple and synagogues in Jerusalem. The clergy of cities were termed urbici [1] , to shew a difference between them and the clergies of the towns, of villages, of castles abroad. And how many soever these parishes or congregations were in number, which did depend on any one principal city church, unto the bishop of that one church they and their several sole presbyters were all subject.

For if so be, as some imagine, every petty congregation or hamlet had had his own particular bishop, what sense could there be in those words of Jerome [2] concerning castles, villages, and other places abroad, which having only presbyters to teach them and to minister unto them the sacraments, were resorted unto by bishops for the administration of that wherewith their presbyters were not licensed to meddle. To note a difference of that one church where the bishop hath his seat, and the rest which depend upon it, that one hath usually been termed cathedral, according to the same sense wherein Ignatius speaking of the Church of Antioch termeth it his throne; and Cyprian making mention of Evaristus, who had been bishop and was now deposed, termeth him cathedræ extorrem [3] , one that was thrust besides his chair. The church where the bishop is set with his college of presbyters about him we call a see; the local compass of his authority we term a diocess [4] . Unto a bishop within the compass of his own both see and diocess, it hath by right of his place evermore appertained to ordain presbyters [5] , to make deacons,     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 4.  and with judgment to dispose of all things of weight. The apostle St. Paul had episcopal authority, but so at large that we cannot assign unto him any one certain diocess. His [1] positive orders and constitutions churches every where did obey. Yea, “a charge and a care,” saith he [2] , “I have even of all the churches.” The walks of Titus and Timothy were limited within the bounds of a narrow precinct. As for other bishops, that which Chrysostom hath concerning them, if they be evil, could not possibly agree unto them, unless their authority had reached farther than to some one only congregation. “The danger being so great as it is, to him that scandalizeth one soul, what shall he,” saith Chrysostom [3] , speaking of a bishop, “what shall he deserve, by whom so many souls, yea, even whole cities and peoples, men, women, and children, citizens, peasants, inhabitants, both of his own city, and of other towns subject unto it, are offended?” A thing so unusual it was for a bishop not to have ample jurisdiction, that Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, for making one a bishop of a small town, is noted as a proud despiser of the commendable orders of the Church with this censure [4] : “Such novelties Theophilus presumed every where to begin, taking upon him, as it had been, another Moses.”

Whereby is discovered also their error, who think that such as in ecclesiastical writings they find termed Chorepiscopos were the same in the country which the bishop was in the city: whereas the old Chorepiscopi are they that were appointed of the bishop [a] to have, as his vicegerents [b] , some oversight of those churches abroad, which were subject unto his see;     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 5.  in which churches they had also power to make subdeacons, readers, and such like petty church officers. With which power so stinted, they not contenting themselves, but adventuring at the length to ordain even deacons and presbyters also, as the bishop himself did, their presumption herein was controlled and stayed by the ancient edict of councils. For example that of Antioch [1] , “It hath seemed good to the holy synod that such in towns and countries as are called Chorepiscopi do know their limits and govern the churches under them, contenting themselves with the charge thereof, and with authority to make readers, sub-deacons, exorcists, and to be leaders or guiders of them; but not to meddle with the ordination either of a presbyter or of a deacon, without the bishop of that city, whereunto the Chorepiscopus and his territory also is subject.” The same synod appointed likewise that those Chorepiscopi shall be made by none but the bishop of that city under which they are. Much might hereunto be added, if it were further needful to prove that the local compass of a bishop’s authority and power was never so straitly listed, as some men would have the world to imagine.

But to go forward; degrees there are and have been of old even amongst bishops also themselves; one sort of bishops being superiors unto presbyters only, another sort having preeminence also above bishops. It cometh here to be considered in what respect inequality of bishops was thought at the first a thing expedient for the Church, and what odds there hath been between them, by how much the power of one hath been larger, higher, and greater than of another. Touching the causes for which it hath been esteemed meet that bishops themselves should not every way be equals; they are the same for which the wisdom both of God and man hath evermore approved it as most requisite, that where many governors must of necessity concur for the ordering of the same affairs, of what nature soever they be, one should have some kind of sway or stroke more than all the residue. For where number is, there must be order, or else of force there will be confusion. Let there be divers agents, of whom each hath his private inducements with resolute purpose to follow them (as each may have); unless in this case some had preeminence above the rest, a chance it were if ever any thing should be either begun, proceeded in, or brought unto any conclusion by them; deliberations and counsels would seldom go forward, their meetings would always be in danger to break up with jars and contradictions. In an army a number of captains, all of equal power, without some higher to oversway them; what good would they do? In all nations where a number are to draw any one way, there must be some one principal mover.

Let the practice of our very adversaries themselves herein be considered; are the presbyters able to determine of church affairs, unless their pastors do strike the chiefest stroke and have power above the rest? Can their pastoral synod do any thing, unless they have some president amongst them? In synods they are forced to give one pastor preeminence and superiority above the rest. But they answer, that he who being a pastor according to the order of their discipline is for the time some little deal mightier than his brethren, doth not continue so longer than only during the synod [1] . Which answer serveth not to help them out of the briers; for by their practice they confirm our principle touching the necessity of one man’s preeminence wheresoever a concurrency of many is required unto any one solemn action: this nature teacheth, and this they cannot choose but acknowledge. As for the change of his person to whom they give this preeminence, if they think it expedient to make for every synod a new superior, there is no law of God which bindeth them so to [do] [c] ;     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 6, 7.  neither any that telleth them that they might [not?] suffer one and the same man being made president even to continue so during life, and to leave his preeminence unto his successors after him, as by the ancient order of the Church, archbishops, presidents amongst bishops, have used to do.

The ground therefore of their preeminence above bishops is the necessity of often concurrency of many bishops about the public affairs of the Church, as consecrations of bishops, consultations of remedy of general disorders, audience judicial, when the actions of any bishop should be called in question, or appeals are made from his sentence by such as think themselves wronged. These and the like affairs usually requiring that many bishops should orderly assemble, begin, and conclude somewhat; it hath seemed in the eyes of reverend antiquity a thing most requisite, that the Church should not only have bishops, but even amongst bishops some to be in authority chiefest [1] .

Unto which purpose, the very state of the whole world, immediately before Christianity took place, doth seem by the special providence of God to have been prepared. For we must know, that the countries where the Gospel was first planted, were for the most part subject to the Roman empire. The Romans’ use was commonly, when by war they had subdued foreign nations, to make them provinces, that is, to place over them Roman governors, such as might order them according to the laws and customs of Rome. And, to the end that all things might be the more easily and orderly done, a whole country being divided into sundry parts, there was in each part some one city, whereinto they about did resort for justice. Every such part was termed a diocess [2] . Howbeit, the name diocess is sometime so generally taken, that it containeth not only more [d] such parts of a province,     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 7.  but even more provinces also than one; as the diocess of Asia contained eight [1] , the diocess of Africa seven [2] . Touching diocesses according unto a stricter sense, whereby they are taken for a part of a province, the words of Livy [3] do plainly shew what order the Romans did observe in them. For at what time they had brought the Macedonians into subjection, the Roman governor, by order from the senate of Rome, gave charge that Macedonia should be divided into four regions or diocesses. “Capita regionum ubi concilia fierent, primæ sedis Amphipolim, secundæ Thessalonicen, tertiæ Pellam, quartæ Pelagoniam fecit. Eo concilia suæ cujusque regionis indici, pecuniam conferri, ibi magistratus creari jussit.” This being before the days of the emperors, by their appointment Thessalonica was afterwards the chiefest [4] , and in it the highest governor of Macedonia had his seat. Whereupon the other three diocesses were in that respect inferior unto it, as daughters unto a mother city; for not unto every town of justice was that title given, but was peculiar unto those cities wherein principal courts were kept. Thus in Macedonia the mother city was Thessalonica; in Asia, Ephesus [5] ; in Africa, Carthage; for so Justinian in his time made it [6] . The governors, officers, and inhabitants of these mother cities were termed for difference’ sake metropolites, that is to say, mother city men; than which nothing could possibly have been devised more fit to suit with the nature of that form of spiritual regiment under which afterward the Church should live.

Wherefore if the prophet saw cause to acknowledge unto the Lord that the light of his gracious providence did shine no where more apparently to the eye than in preparing the land of Canaan to be [a] [e] receptacle for that Church which was of old [1] ,     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 8.  “Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt, thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it, thou madest room for it, and when it had taken root it filled the land:” how much more ought we to wonder at the handy-work of Almighty God who to settle the kingdom of his dear Son did not cast out any one people, but directed in such sort the politic counsels of them who ruled far and wide over all, that they throughout all nations, people and countries upon earth, should unwittingly prepare the field wherein the vine which God did intend, that is to say, the Church of his dearly-beloved Son was to take root? For unto nothing else can we attribute it, saving only unto the very incomprehensible force of Divine providence, that the world was in so marvellous fit sort divided, levelled and laid out before-hand. Whose work could it be but his alone to make such provision for the direct implantation of his Church?

Wherefore inequality of Bishops being found a thing convenient for the Church of God, in such consideration as hath been shewed, when it came secondly in question which bishops should be higher and which lower, it seemed herein not to the civil monarch only, but to the most, expedient that the dignity and celebrity of mother cities should be respected [2] . They which dream that if civil authority had not given such preeminence unto one city more than another, there had never grown an inequality amongst bishops, are deceived: superiority of one bishop over another would be requisite in the Church although that civil distinction were abolished: other causes having made it necessary even amongst bishops to have some in degree higher than the rest, the civil dignity of place was considered only as a reason wherefore this bishop should be preferred before that: which deliberation had been likely enough to have raised no small trouble, but that such was the circumstance of place,     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 9.  as being followed in that choice, besides the manifest conveniency thereof, took away all show of partiality, prevented secret emulations, and gave no man occasion to think his person disgraced in that another was preferred before him.

Thus we see upon what occasion metropolitan bishops became archbishops. Now while the whole Christian world in a manner still continued under one civil government, there being oftentimes within some one more large territory divers and sundry mother churches, the metropolitans whereof were archbishops; as for order’s sake it grew hereupon expedient there should be a difference also amongst them, so no way seemed in those times more fit than to give preeminence unto them whose metropolitan sees were of special desert or dignity: for which cause these as being bishops in the chiefest mother churches were termed primates, and at the length by way of excellency, patriarchs. For ignorant we are not, how sometimes the title of patriarch is generally given to all metropolitan bishops.

They are mightily therefore to blame which are so bold and confident, as to affirm [1] that for the space of above four hundred and thirty years after Christ, all metropolitan bishops were in every respect equals, till the second council of Constantinople [2] exalted certain metropolitans above the rest. True it is, they were equals as touching the exercise of spiritual power within their diocesses, when they dealt with their own flock. For what is it that one of them might do within the compass of his own precinct, but another within his might do the same? But that there was no subordination at all of one of them unto another; that when they all, or sundry of them, were to deal in the same causes, there was no difference of first and second in degree, no distinction of higher and lower in authority acknowledged amongst them; is most untrue.

The great council of Nice was after our Saviour Christ but three hundred twenty-four years, and in that council [1] certain metropolitans are said even then to have had an ancient preeminence and dignity above the rest; namely the primate of Alexandria, of Rome, and of Antioch. Threescore years after this there were synods [2] under the emperor Theodosius; which synod was the first at Constantinople, whereat one hundred and fifty bishops were assembled: at which council it was decreed [3] that the bishop of Constantinople should not only be added unto the former primates, but also that his place should be second amongst them, the next to the bishop of Rome in dignity. The same decree again renewed concerning Constantinople, and the reason thereof laid open [4] in the council of Chalcedon: at the length came that second of Constantinople [1] ,     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 10.  whereat were six hundred and thirty bishops, for a third confirmation thereof. Laws imperial there are likewise extant [2] to the same effect. Herewith the bishop of Constantinople being overmuch puffed up, not only could not endure that see to be in estimation higher, whereunto his own had preferment to be the next, but he challenged more than ever any Christian bishop in the world before either had, or with reason could have. What he challenged, and was therein as then refused by the bishop of Rome, the same the bishop of Rome in process of time obtained for himself, and having gotten it by bad means, hath both upheld and augmented it, and upholdeth it by acts and practices much worse.

But primates, according to their first institution, were all, in relation unto archbishops, the same by prerogative [3] which archbishops were being compared unto bishops. Before the council of Nice, albeit there were both metropolitans and primates, yet could not this be a means forcible enough to procure the peace of the Church, but all things were wonderful tumultuous and troublesome, by reason of one special practice common unto the heretics of those times; which was, that when they had been condemned and cast out of the Church by the sentence of their own bishops, they contrary to the ancient received orders of the Church, had a custom to wander up and down, and to insinuate themselves into favour where they were not known, imagining themselves to be safe enough, and not to be clean cut off from the body of the Church, if they could any where find a bishop which was content to communicate with them; whereupon ensued, as in that case there needs must, every day quarrels and jars unappeasable amongst bishops. The Nicene council for redress hereof considered the bounds of every archbishop’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction, what they had been in former times, and accordingly appointed unto each grand part of the Christian world some one primate, from whose judgment no man living within his territory might appeal, unless it were to a council general of all bishops. The drift and purpose of which order was, that neither any man oppressed by his own particular bishop might be destitute of a remedy through appeal unto the more indifferent sentence of some other ordinary judge; nor yet every man be left at such liberty as before, to shift himself out of their hands for whom it was most meet to have the hearing and determining of his cause. The evil, for remedy whereof this order was taken, annoyed at that present especially the church of Alexandria in Egypt, where Arianism begun. For which cause the state of that church is in the Nicene canons concerning this matter mentioned before the rest. The words of their sacred edict are these [1] : “Let those customs remain in force which have been of old, the customs of Egypt and Libya,     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 11.  and Pentapolis; by which customs the bishop of Alexandria hath authority over all these; the rather for that this hath also been the use of the bishop of Rome, yea the same hath been kept in Antioch and in other provinces.” Now because the custom likewise had been that great honour should be done to the bishop of Ælia or Jerusalem, therefore lest their decree concerning the primate of Antioch should any whit prejudice the dignity and honour of that see, special provision is made [1] , that although it were inferior in degree, not only unto Antioch the chief of the East, but even unto Cæsarea too, yet such preeminence it should retain as belonged to a mother city, and enjoy whatsoever special prerogative or privilege it had besides. Let men therefore hereby judge of what continuance this order which upholdeth degrees of bishops must needs have been, when a general council of three hundred and eighteen bishops living themselves within three hundred years after Christ doth reverence the same for antiquity’s sake, as a thing which had been even then of old observed in the most renowned parts of the Christian world [2] .

Wherefore needless altogether are those vain and wanton demands, “No mention of an archbishop in Theophilus bishop of Antioch? None in Ignatius? None in Clemens of Alexandria? None in Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian? None in all those old historiographers, out of which Eusebius gathereth his story? None till the time of the council of Nice, three hundred and twenty years after Christ [3] ?” As if the mention which is thereof made in that very council, where so many bishops acknowledge archiepiscopal dignity even then ancient, were not of far more weight and value than if every of those Fathers had written large discourses thereof. But what is it which they will blush at, who dare so confidently set it down [1] , that in the council of Nice some bishops being termed metropolitans, no more difference is thereby meant to have been between one bishop and another, than is shewed between one minister and another, when we say such a one is a minister in the city of London, and such a one minister in the town of Newington? So that to be termed a metropolitan bishop did in their conceit import no [more [f] ] preeminence above other bishops, than we mean that a girdler [2] hath over others of the same trade, if we term him which doth inhabit some mother city for difference’ sake a metropolitan girdler.

But the truth is too manifest to be so deluded; a bishop at that time had power in his own diocess over all other ministers there, and a metropolitan bishop sundry preeminences above other bishops, one of which preeminences was in the ordination of bishops, to have κυ̑ρος τω̑ν γινομένων, the chief power of ordering all things done. Which preeminence that council itself doth mention [3] , as also a greater belonging unto the patriarch or primate of Alexandria, concerning whom it is there likewise said, that to him did belong ἐξουσία, authority and power over all Egypt, Pentapolis, and Libya: within which compass sundry metropolitan sees to have been, there is no man ignorant,     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 12.  which in those antiquities have [hath?] any knowledge.

Certain prerogatives there are wherein metropolitans excelled other bishops, certain also wherein primates excelled other metropolitans. Archiepiscopal or metropolitan prerogatives are those mentioned in old imperial constitutions, to convocate [1] the holy bishops under them within the compass of their own provinces, when need required their meeting together for inquisition and redress of public disorders; to grant unto bishops under them leave and faculty of absence from their own diocesses [2] , when it seemed necessary that they should otherwhere converse for some reasonable while; to give notice [3] unto bishops under them of things commanded by supreme authority; to have the hearing [4] and first determining of such causes as any man had against a bishop; to receive the appeals of the inferior clergy, in case they found themselves overborne by the bishop their immediate judge [5] . And lest haply it should be imagined that canons ecclesiastical we want to make the selfsame thing manifest; in the council of Antioch it was thus decreed [1] :     BOOK VII. Ch. viii. 13.  “The bishops in every province must know, that he which is bishop in the mother city hath not only charge of his own parish or diocess, but even of the whole province also.” Again: “It hath seemed good that other bishops without him should do nothing more than only that which concerns each one’s parish and the places underneath it.” Further by the selfsame council all councils provincial are reckoned void and frustrate [2] , unless the bishop of the mother city within that province where such councils should be, were present at them. So that the want of his presence, and in canons for church-government, want of his approbation also, did disannul them: not so the want of any others. Finally, concerning elections of bishops, the council of Nice hath this general rule [3] , that the chief ordering of all things here, is in every province committed to the metropolitan.

Touching them, who amongst metropolitans were also primates, and had of sundry united provinces the chiefest metropolitan see, of such that canon in the council of Carthage was eminent, whereby [4] a bishop is forbidden to go beyond seas without the license of the highest chair within the same bishop’s own country; and of such which beareth the name of apostolical, is that ancient canon likewise, which chargeth [5] the bishops of each nation, to know him which is first amongst them, and to esteem of him as an head, and to do no extraordinary thing but with his leave. The chief primates of the Christian world were the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. To whom the bishop of Constantinople being afterwards added, St. Chrysostom the bishop of that see is in that respect said [1] to have had the care and charge not only of the city of Constantinople,     BOOK VII. Ch. ix. 1.  “sed etiam totius Thraciæ, quæ sex præfecturis est divisa, et Asiæ totius, quæ ab undecim præsidibus regitur.” The rest of the East was under Antioch, the South under Alexandria, and the West under Rome. Whereas therefore John the bishop of Jerusalem being noted of heresy, had written an apology for himself unto the bishop of Alexandria, named Theophilus; St. Jerome [2] reproveth his breach of the order of the Church herein, saying, “Tu qui regulas quæris ecclesiasticas, et Niceni concilii canonibus uteris, responde mihi, ad Alexandrinum episcopum Palæstina quid pertinet? Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palæstinæ metropolis Cæsarea sit, et totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Cæsariensem episcopum referre debueras; aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius literæ dirigendæ.” Thus much concerning that Local Compass which was anciently set out to bishops; within the bounds and limits whereof we find that they did accordingly exercise that episcopal authority and power which they had over the Church of Christ.

In what respects episcopal regiment hath been gainsaid of old by Aërius.  IX. The first whom we read to have bent themselves against the superiority of bishops were Aërius and his followers. Aërius seeking to be made a bishop, could not brook that Eustathius was thereunto preferred before him. Whereas therefore he saw himself unable to rise to that greatness which his ambitious pride did affect, his way of revenge was to try what wit being sharpened with envy and malice could do in raising a new seditious opinion, that the superiority which bishops had was a thing which they should not have, that a bishop might not ordain, and that a bishop ought not any way to be distinguished from a presbyter. For so doth St. Augustine [3] deliver the opinion of Aërius: Epiphanius [1] not so plainly nor so directly,     BOOK VII. Ch. ix. 2.  but after a more rhetorical sort. “His speech was rather furious than convenient for man to use: What is,” saith he, “a bishop more than a presbyter? The one doth differ from the other nothing. For their order is one, their honour one, one their dignity. A bishop imposeth his hands, so doth a presbyter. A bishop baptizeth, the like doth a presbyter. The bishop is a minister of divine service, a presbyter is the same. The bishop sitteth as judge in a throne, even the presbyter sitteth also.” A presbyter therefore doing thus far the selfsame thing which a bishop did, it was by Aërius enforced that they ought not in any thing to differ.

Are we to think Aërius had wrong in being judged an heretic for holding this opinion? Surely if heresy be an error falsely fathered upon Scriptures, but indeed repugnant to the truth of the Word of God, and by the consent of the universal Church, in the councils, or in her contrary uniform practice throughout the whole world, declared to be such; and the opinion of Aërius in this point be a plain error of that nature: there is no remedy, but Aërius, so schismatically and stiffly maintaining it, must even stand where Epiphanius and Augustine have placed him. An error repugnant unto the truth of the Word of God is held by them, whosoever they be, that stand in defence of any conclusion drawn erroneously out of Scripture, and untruly thereon fathered. The opinion of Aërius therefore being falsely collected out of Scripture, must needs be acknowledged an error repugnant unto the truth of the word of God. His opinion was that there ought not to be any difference between a bishop and a presbyter. His grounds and reasons for this opinion were sentences of Scripture. Under pretence of which sentences, whereby it seemed that bishops and presbyters at the first did not differ,     BOOK VII. Ch. ix. 3.  it was concluded by Aërius that the Church did ill in permitting any difference to be made.

The answer which Epiphanius maketh unto some part of the proofs by Aërius alleged, was not greatly studied or laboured; for through a contempt of so base an error (for this himself did perceive and profess) yieldeth he thereof expressly this reason: Men that have wit do evidently see that all this is mere foolishness. But how vain and ridiculous soever his opinion seemed unto wise men, with it Aërius deceived many [1] ; for which cause somewhat was convenient to be said against it. And in that very extemporal slightness which Epiphanius there useth [2] , albeit the answer made to Aërius be in part but raw [3] , yet ought not hereby the truth to find any less favour than in other causes it doth, where we do not therefore judge heresy to have the better, because now and then it allegeth that for itself, which defenders of the truth do not always so fully answer. Let it therefore suffice, that Aërius did bring nothing unanswerable. The weak solutions which the one doth give, are to us no prejudice against the cause, as long as the other’s oppositions are of no greater strength and validity. Did not Aërius, trow you, deserve to be esteemed as a new Apollos, mighty and powerful in the word, which could for maintenance of his cause bring forth so plain divine authorities, to prove by the Apostles’ own writings that bishops ought not in any thing to differ from other presbyters? For example, where it is said [4] that presbyters made Timothy bishop, is it not clear that a bishop should not differ from a presbyter, by having power of ordination? Again, if a bishop might by order be distinguished from a presbyter,     BOOK VII. Ch. ix. 4. x. 1.  would the Apostle have given as he doth [1] unto presbyters the title of bishops? These were the invincible demonstrations wherewith Aërius did so fiercely assault bishops.

But the sentence of Aërius perhaps was only, that the difference between a bishop and a presbyter hath grown by the order and custom of the Church, the word of God not appointing that any such difference should be. Well, let Aërius then find the favour to have his sentence so construed; yet his fault in condemning the order of the Church, his not submitting himself unto that order, the schism which he caused in the Church about it, who can excuse? No, the truth is, that these things did even necessarily ensue, by force of the very opinion which he and his followers did hold. His conclusion was, that there ought to be no difference between a presbyter and a bishop. His proofs, those Scripture sentences which make mention of bishops and presbyters without any such distinction or difference. So that if between his conclusion and the proofs whereby he laboured to strengthen the same, there be any show of coherence at all, we must of necessity confess, that when Aërius did plead, There is by the Word of God no difference between a presbyter and a bishop, his meaning was not only, that the Word of God itself appointeth not, but that it enforceth on us the duty of not appointing nor allowing that any such difference should be made.

In what respects episcopal regiment is gainsaid by the authors of pretended reformation at this day.  X. And of the selfsame mind are the enemies of government by bishops, even at this present day. They hold as Aërius did, that if Christ and his Apostles were obeyed, a bishop should not be permitted to ordain; that between a presbyter and a bishop the word of God alloweth not any inequality or difference to be made; that their order, their authority, their power, ought to be one; that it is but by usurpation and corruption that the one sort are suffered to have rule of the other, or to be any way superior unto them. Which opinion having now so many defenders, shall never be able while the world doth stand to find in some [so many?],     BOOK VII. Ch. x. 2. xi. 1.  believing antiquity, as much as one which hath given it countenance, or borne any friendly affection towards it.

Touching these men therefore, whose desire is to have all equal, three ways there are whereby they usually oppugn the received order of the Church of Christ. First, by disgracing the inequality of pastors, as a new and mere human invention, a thing which was never drawn out of Scripture, where all pastors are found (they say) to have one and the same power both of order and jurisdiction: Secondly, by gathering together the differences between that power which we give to bishops, and that which was given them of old in the Church; so that albeit even the ancient took more than was warrantable, yet so far they swerved not as ours have done: Thirdly, by endeavouring to prove, that the Scripture directly forbiddeth, and that the judgment of the wisest, the holiest, the best in all ages, condemneth utterly the inequality which we allow.

Their arguments in disgrace of regiment by Bishops, as being a mere invention of man, and not found in Scripture, answered.  XI. That inequality of pastors is a mere human invention, a thing not found in the word of God, they prove thus:

i. “All the places of Scripture where the word Bishop is used, or any other derived of that name, signify an oversight in respect of some particular congregation only, and never in regard of pastors committed unto his oversight. For which cause the names of bishops, and presbyters, or pastoral elders, are used indifferently, to signify one and the selfsame thing. Which so indifferent and common use of these words for one and the selfsame office, so constantly and perpetually in all places [1] , declareth that the word Bishop in the Apostles’ writing importeth not a pastor of higher power and authority over other pastors.”

ii. “All pastors are called to their office by the same means of proceeding; the Scripture maketh no difference in the manner of their trial, election, ordination: which proveth their office and power to be by Scripture all one.”

iii. “The Apostles were all of equal power, and all pastors do alike succeed the Apostles in their ministry and power, the commission and authority whereby they succeed being in Scripture but one and the same that was committed to the Apostles, without any difference of committing to one pastor more, or to another less [1] .”     BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 2.

iv. “The power of the censures and keys of the Church, and of ordaining and ordering ministers (in which two points especially this superiority is challenged), is not committed to any one pastor of the Church more than to another; but the same is committed as a thing to be carried equally in the guidance of the Church. Whereby it appeareth, that Scripture maketh all pastors, not only in the ministry of the word and sacraments, but also in all ecclesiastical jurisdiction and authority, equal.”

v. “The council of Nice [2] doth attribute this difference, not unto any ordination of God, but to an ancient custom used in former times, which judgment is also followed afterwards by other councils: Concil. Antioch. cap. 9 [3] .”

vi. Upon these premises, their summary collection and conclusion is, “That the ministry of the Gospel, and the functions thereof, ought to be from heaven and of God (John i. 23); that if they be of God, and from heaven, then are they set down in the word of God [4] ; that if they be not in the word of God, (as by the premises it doth appear, they say, that our kind of bishops are not,) it followeth, they are invented by the brain of men, and are of the earth, and that consequently they can do no good in the Church of Christ, but harm.”

Answer.  Our answer hereunto is, first, that their proofs are unavailable to shew that Scripture affordeth no evidence for the inequality of pastors: Secondly, that albeit the Scripture did no way insinuate the same to be God’s ordinance, and the Apostles to have brought it in,     BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 3, 4.  albeit the Church were acknowledged by all men to have been the first beginner thereof a long time after the Apostles were gone; yet is not the authority of bishops hereby disannulled, it is not hereby proved unfit or unprofitable for the Church.

First, that the word of God doth acknowledge no inequality of power amongst pastors of the Church, neither doth it appear by the signification of this word bishop, nor by the indifferent use thereof.

For concerning signification, first it is clearly untrue, that no other thing is thereby signified, but only an oversight in respect of a particular church and congregation. For, I beseech you, of what parish or particular congregation was Matthias bishop? his office Scripture doth term episcopal [1] : which being no other than was common unto all the Apostles of Christ, forasmuch as in that number there is not any to whom the oversight of many pastors did not belong by force and virtue of that office; it followeth that the very word doth sometimes even in Scripture signify an oversight, such as includeth charge over pastors themselves.

And if we look to the use of the word, being applied with reference unto some one church, as Ephesus, Philippi, and such like, albeit the guides of those churches be interchangeably in Scripture termed sometime bishops, sometime presbyters, to signify men having oversight and charge, without relation at all unto other than the Christian laity alone; yet this doth not hinder, but that Scripture may in some place have other names, whereby certain of those presbyters or bishops are noted to have the oversight and charge of pastors, as out of all peradventure they had whom St. John doth entitle angels [2] .

Secondly, as for those things which the Apostle hath set down concerning trial, election, and ordination of pastors, that he maketh no difference in the manner of their calling, this also is but a silly argument to prove their office and their power equal by the Scripture. The form of admitting each sort unto their offices, needed no particular instruction: there was no fear, but that such matters of course would easily enough be observed. The Apostle therefore toucheth those things wherein judgment,     BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 5.  wisdom and conscience is required, he carefully admonisheth of what quality ecclesiastical persons should be, that their dealing might not be scandalous in the Church. And forasmuch as those things are general, we see that of deacons there are delivered in a manner the selfsame precepts which are given concerning pastors, so far as concerneth their trial, election, and ordination. Yet who doth hereby collect that Scripture maketh deacons and pastors equal?

If notwithstanding it be yet demanded, “Wherefore he which teacheth what kind of persons deacons and presbyters should be, hath nothing in particular about the quality of chief presbyters, whom we call bishops?” I answer briefly, that there it was no fit place for any such discourse to be made, inasmuch as the Apostle wrote unto Timothy and Titus, who having by commission episcopal authority, were to exercise the same in ordaining, not bishops (the apostles themselves yet living, and retaining that power in their own hands) but presbyters, such as the apostles at the first did create throughout all churches. Bishops by restraint (only James at Jerusalem excepted) were not yet in being.

Thirdly, about equality amongst the apostles there is by us no controversy moved. If in the rooms of the apostles, which were of equal authority, all pastors do by Scripture succeed alike, where shall we find a commission in Scripture which they speak of, which appointed all to succeed in the selfsame equality of power, except that commission which doth authorize to preach and baptize should be alleged, which maketh nothing to the purpose, for in such things all pastors are still equal. We must, I fear me, wait very long before any other will be shewed. For howsoever the Apostles were equals amongst themselves, all other pastors were not equals with the Apostles while they lived, neither are they any where appointed to be afterward each other’s equal. Apostles had, as we know, authority over all such as were no Apostles; by force of which their authority they might both command and judge. It was for the singular good and benefit of those disciples whom Christ left behind him, and of the pastors which were afterwards chosen; for the great good,     BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 6.  I say, of all sorts, that the Apostles were in power above them. Every day brought forth somewhat wherein they saw by experience, how much it stood them in stead to be under controlment of those superiors and higher governors of God’s house. Was it a thing so behoveful that pastors should be subject unto pastors in the Apostles’ own times? and is there any commandment that this subjection should cease with them, and that the pastors of the succeeding ages should be all equals? No, no, this strange and absurd conceit of equality amongst pastors (the mother of schism and of confusion) is but a dream newly brought forth, and seen never in the Church before.

Fourthly, power of censure and ordination appeareth even by Scripture marvellous probable to have been derived from Christ to his Church, without this surmised equality in them to whom he hath committed the same. For I would know whether Timothy and Titus were commanded by St. Paul to do any thing more than Christ hath authorized pastors to do? And to the one it is Scripture which saith [1] , “Against a presbyter receive thou no accusation, saving under two or three witnesses;” Scripture which likewise hath said to the other [2] , “For this very cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest redress the things that remain, and shouldest ordain presbyters in every city, as I appointed thee. ” In the former place the power of censure is spoken of, and the power of ordination in the latter. Will they say that every pastor there was equal to Timothy and Titus in these things? If they do, the Apostle himself is against it, who saith that of their two very persons he had made choice, and appointed in those places them, for performances of those duties: whereas if the same had belonged unto others no less than to them, and not principally unto them above others, it had been fit for the Apostle accordingly to have directed his letters concerning these things in general unto them all which had equal interest in them; even as it had been likewise fit to have written those epistles in St. John’s Revelation unto whole ecclesiastical senates, rather than only unto the angels of each church, had not some one been above the rest in authority to order the affairs of the church. Scripture therefore doth most probably make for the inequality of pastors, even in all ecclesiastical affairs,     BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 7, 8.  and by very express mention as well in censures as ordinations.

Fifthly, In the Nicene council there are confirmed certain prerogatives and dignities belonging unto primates or archbishops, and of them it is said that the ancient custom of the Church had been to give them such preeminence, but no syllable whereby any man should conjecture that those fathers did not honour [did honour?] the superiority which bishops had over other pastors only upon ancient custom, and not as a true apostolical, heavenly, and divine ordinance.

Sixthly, Now although we should leave the general received persuasion held from the first beginning, that the Apostles themselves left bishops invested with power above other pastors; although, I say, we should give over this opinion, and embrace that other conjecture which so many have thought good to follow [1] , and which myself did sometimes judge a great deal more probable than now I do,     BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 8.  merely that after the Apostles were deceased, churches did agree amongst themselves for preservation of peace and order, to make one presbyter in each city chief over the rest, and to translate into him that power by force and virtue whereof the Apostles, while they were alive,     BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 9.  did preserve and uphold order in the Church, exercising spiritual jurisdiction partly by themselves and partly by evangelists, because they could not always every where themselves be present: this order taken by the Church itself (for so let us suppose that the Apostles did neither by word nor deed appoint it) were notwithstanding more warrantable than that it should give place and be abrogated, because the ministry of the Gospel and the functions thereof ought [1] to be from heaven.

There came chief priests and elders unto our Saviour Christ as he was teaching in the temple, and the question which they moved unto him was this [2] , “By what authority doest thou these things, and who gave thee this authority?” Their question he repelled with a counter-demand, “The baptism of John, whence was it, from heaven, or of men?” Hereat they paused, secretly disputing within themselves, “If we shall say, From heaven, he will ask, Wherefore did ye not then believe him? and if we say, Of men, we fear the people, for all hold John a prophet.” What is it now which hereupon these men would infer? That all functions ecclesiastical ought in such sort to be from heaven, as the function of John was? No such matter here contained. Nay, doth not the contrary rather appear most plainly by that which is here set down? For when our Saviour doth ask concerning the baptism, that is to say the whole spiritual function, of John, whether it were “from heaven, or of men,” he giveth clear to understand that men give authority unto some,     BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 10.  and some God himself from heaven doth authorize. Nor is it said, or in any sort signified, that none have lawful authority which have it not in such manner as John, from heaven. Again when the priests and elders were loth to say that John had his calling from men, the reason was not because they thought that so John should not have had any good or lawful calling, but because they saw that by this means they should somewhat embase the calling of John; whom all men knew to have been sent from God, according to the manner of prophets, by a mere celestial vocation. So that out of the evidence here alleged, these things we may directly conclude: first that whoso doth exercise any kind of function in the Church, he cannot lawfully so do except authority be given him; secondly that if authority be not given him from men, as the authority of teaching was given unto Scribes and Pharisees, it must be given him from heaven, as authority was given unto Christ, Elias, John Baptist, and the prophets. For these two only ways there are to have authority. But a strange conclusion it is, God himself did from heaven authorize John to bear witness of the light, to prepare a way for the promised Messias, to publish the nearness of the kingdom of God, to preach repentance, and to baptize (for by this part, which was in the function of John most noted, all the rest are together signified), therefore the Church of God hath no power upon new occurrences to appoint, to ordain an ecclesiastical function, as Moses did upon Jethro’s advice devise a civil.

All things we grant which are in the Church ought to be of God. But forasmuch as they may be two ways accounted such, one if they be of his own institution and not of ours, another if they be of ours, and yet with his approbation: this latter way there is no impediment but that the same thing which is of men may be also justly and truly said to be of God, the same thing from heaven which is from earth. Of all good things God himself is author, and consequently an approver of them. The rule to discern when the actions of men are good, when they are such as they ought to be, is more ample and large than the law which God hath set particular down in his holy word; the Scripture is but a part of that rule, as hath been heretofore at large declared. If therefore all things be of God which are well done, and if all things be well done which are according to the rule of well-doing, and if the rule of well-doing be more ample than the Scripture [1] : what necessity is there, that every thing which is of God should be set down in holy Scripture? True it is in things of some one kind; true it is that what we are now of necessity for ever bound to believe or observe in the special mysteries of salvation, Scripture must needs give notice of it unto the world; yet true it cannot be, touching all things that are of God. Sufficient it is for the proof of lawfulness in any thing done, if we can shew that God approveth it. And of his approbation the evidence is sufficient, if either himself have by revelation in his word warranted it, or we by some discourse of reason find it good of itself, and unrepugnant unto any of his revealed laws and ordinances. Wherefore injurious we are unto God, the author and giver of human capacity, judgment, and wit, when because of some things wherein he precisely forbiddeth men to use their own inventions, we take occasion to disauthorize and disgrace the works which he doth produce by the hand either of nature or of grace in them. We offer contumely even unto him, when we scornfully reject what we list, without any other exception than this, “The brain of man hath devised it.” Whether we look into the church or commonweal, as well in the one as in the other, both the ordination of officers, and the very institution of their offices may be truly derived from God, and approved of him, although they be not always of him in such sort as those things are which are in Scripture. Doth not the Apostle term the law of nature [2] , even as the evangelist doth the law of Scripture [3] , δικαίωμα του̑ Θεου̑, God’s own righteous ordinance? The law of nature then being his law, that must needs be of him which it hath directed men unto. Great odds I grant there is between things devised by men, although agreeable with the law of nature, and things in Scripture set down by the finger of the Holy Ghost. Howbeit the dignity of these is no hinderance, but that those be also reverently accounted of in their place.

BOOK VII. Ch. xi. 11.  Thus much they very well saw, who although not living themselves under this kind of church polity, yet being through some experience more moderate, grave and circumspect in their judgment, have given hereof their sounder and better advised sentence. “That which the holy Fathers,” saith Zanchius [1] , “have by common consent without contradiction of Scripture received, for my part I neither will nor dare with good conscience disallow. And what more certain than that the ordering of ecclesiastical persons, one in authority above another, was received into the church by the common consent of the Christian world? What am I that I should take upon me to control the whole Church of Christ in that which is so well known to have been lawfully, religiously, and to notable purpose instituted?”

Calvin making mention [2] even of primates that have authority above bishops: “It was,” saith he, “the institution of the ancient church, to the end that the bishops might by this bond of concord continue the faster linked amongst themselves.” And lest any man should think that as well he might allow the papacy itself, to prevent this he addeth, “Aliud est moderatum gerere honorem, quam totum terrarum orbem immenso imperio complecti.”

BOOK VII. Ch. xii. 1.  These things standing as they do, we may conclude, that albeit the offices which bishops execute had been committed unto them only by the Church, and that the superiority which they have over other pastors were not first by Christ himself given to the Apostles, and from them descended to others, but afterwards in such consideration brought in and agreed upon as is pretended; yet could not this be a just or lawful exception against it.

Their arguments to prove there was no necessity of instituting Bishops in the Church.  XII. But they will say, “There was no necessity of instituting bishops; the Church might have stood well enough without them; they are as those superfluous things, which neither while they continue do good, nor do harm when they are removed, because there is not any profitable use whereunto they should serve. For first, in the primitive Church their pastors were all equal, the bishops of those days were the very same which pastors of parish churches at this day are with us, no one at commandment or controlment by any other’s authority amongst them. The Church therefore may stand and flourish without bishops. If they be necessary, wherefore were they not sooner instituted?

“Again, if any such thing were needful for the Church, Christ would have set it down in Scripture, as he did all kind of officers needful for Jewish regiment. He which prescribed unto the Jews so particularly the least thing pertinent unto their temple, would not have left so weighty offices undetermined of in Scripture, but that he knew the Church could never have any profitable use of them.”

“Furthermore, it is the judgment of Cyprian [1] , that equity requireth every man’s cause to be heard, where the fault he is charged with was committed: and the reason he allegeth is, forasmuch as there they may have both accusers and witnesses in their cause. Sith therefore every man’s cause is meetest to be handled at home by the judges of his own parish, to what purpose serveth their device, which have appointed bishops unto whom such causes may be brought,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiii. 1, 2.  and archbishops to whom they may be also from thence removed?”

The forealleged arguments answered.  XIII. What things have necessary use in the Church, they of all others are the most unfit to judge, who bend themselves purposely against whatsoever the Church useth, except it please themselves to give it the grace and countenance of their favourable approbation; which they willingly do not yield unto any part of church polity, in the forehead whereof there is not the mark of that new-devised stamp. But howsoever men like or dislike, whether they judge things necessary or needless in the house of God, a conscience they should have, touching that which they boldly affirm or deny.

(1.) “In the primitive Church no bishops, no pastors having power over other pastors, but all equals, every man supreme commander and ruler within the kingdom of his own congregation or parish? The bishops that are spoken of in the time of the primitive Church, all such as parsons or rectors of parishes are with us?” If thus it have been in the prime of the Church, the question is, how far they will have that prime to extend? and where the latter spring of that new supposed disorder to begin? That primitive Church, wherein they hold that amongst the Fathers all which had pastoral charge were equal, they must of necessity so far enlarge as to contain some hundred of years, because for proof hereof they allege boldly and confidently St. Cyprian, who suffered martyrdom about two hundred and threescore years after our blessed Lord’s incarnation. A bishop, they say, such as Cyprian doth speak of, had only a church or congregation, such as the ministers and pastors with us, which are appointed unto several towns. Every bishop in Cyprian’s time was pastor of one only congregation, assembled in one place to be taught of one man [1] .

A thing impertinent, although it were true. For the question is about personal inequality amongst governors of the Church.     BOOK VII. Ch. xiii. 2.  Now to shew there was no such thing in the Church at such time as Cyprian lived, what bring they forth? Forsooth that bishops had then but a small circuit of place for the exercise of their authority. Be it supposed, that no one bishop had more than one only town to govern, one only congregation to rule: doth it by Cyprian appear, that in any such town or congregation being under the care and charge of some one bishop, there were not besides that one bishop others also ministers of the word and sacraments, yet subject to the power of the same bishop? If this appear not, how can Cyprian be alleged for a witness that in those times there were no bishops which did differ from other ministers, as being above them in degree of ecclesiastical power?

But a gross and a palpable untruth it is, that “bishops with Cyprian were as ministers are with us in parish churches; and that each of them did guide some parish without any other pastors under him.” St. Cyprian’s own person may serve for a manifest disproof hereof. Pontius being deacon under Cyprian noteth, that his admirable virtues caused him to be bishop with the soonest [1] ; which advancement therefore himself endeavoured for a while to avoid. It seemed in his own eyes too soon for him to take the title of so great honour, in regard whereof a bishop is termed Pontifex, Sacerdos, Antistes Dei. Yet such was his quality, that whereas others did hardly perform that duty whereunto the discipline of their order [2] , together with the religion of the oath they took at their entrance into the office, even constrained them; him the chair did not make but receive such a one as behoved that a bishop should be. But soon after followed that proscription, whereby being driven into exile, and continuing in that estate for the space of some two years, he ceased not by letters to deal with his clergy, and to direct them about the public affairs of the Church.     BOOK VII. Ch. xiii. 3.  They unto whom those epistles were written [1] , he commonly entitleth the presbyters and deacons of that church. If any man doubt whether those presbyters of Carthage were ministers of the word and sacraments or no, let him consider but that one only place of Cyprian, where he giveth them his careful advice, how to deal with circumspection in the perilous times of the Church, that neither they which were for the truth’s sake imprisoned might want those ghostly comforts which they ought to have, nor the Church by ministering the same unto them incur unnecessary danger and peril. In which epistle it doth expressly appear, that the presbyters of whom he speaketh did offer, that is to say, administer the Eucharist; and that many there were of them in the Church of Carthage, so as they might have every day change for performance of that duty. Nor will any man of sound judgment I think deny, that Cyprian was in authority and power above the clergy of that church, above those presbyters unto whom he gave direction. It is apparently therefore untrue, that in Cyprian’s time ministers of the word and sacraments were all equal, and that no one of them had either title more excellent than the rest, or authority and government over the rest. Cyprian being bishop of Carthage was clearly superior unto all other ministers there: yea Cyprian was by reason of the dignity of his see an archbishop, and so consequently superior unto bishops.

Bishops we say there have been always, even as long as the Church of Christ itself hath been. The Apostles who planted it, did themselves rule as bishops over it; neither could they so well have kept things in order during their own times, but that episcopal authority was given them from above,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiii. 4.  to exercise far and wide over all other guides and pastors of God’s Church. The Church indeed for a time continued without bishops by restraint, every where established in Christian cities. But shall we thereby conclude that the Church hath no use of them, that without them it may stand and flourish? No, the cause wherefore they were so soon universally appointed was, for that it plainly appeared that without them the Church could not have continued long. It was by the special providence of God no doubt so disposed, that the evil whereof this did serve for remedy might first be felt, and so the reverend authority of bishops be made by so much the more effectual, when our general experience had taught men what it was for churches to want them. Good laws are never esteemed so good, nor acknowledged so necessary, as when precedent crimes are as seeds out of which they grow. Episcopal authority was even in a manner sanctified unto the Church of Christ by that little better [bitter?] [g] experience which it first had of the pestilent evil of schisms. Again, when this very thing was proposed as a remedy, yet a more suspicious and fearful acceptance it must needs have found, if the selfsame provident wisdom of Almighty God had not also given beforehand sufficient trial thereof in the regiment of Jerusalem, a mother church, which having received the same order even at the first, was by it most peaceably governed, when other churches without it had trouble. So that by all means the necessary use of episcopal government is confirmed, yea strengthened it is and ratified, even by the not establishment thereof in all churches every where at the first.

(2.) When they further dispute [1] , “That if any such thing were needful, Christ would in Scripture have set down particular statutes and laws, appointing that bishops should be made, and prescribing in what order, even as the law doth for all kind of officers which were needful in the Jewish regiment;” might not a man that would bend his wit to maintain the fury of the Petrobrusian heretics [2] , in pulling down oratories,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiii. 5.  use the selfsame argument with as much countenance of reason? “If it were needful that we should assemble ourselves in churches, would that God which taught the Jews so exactly the frame of their sumptuous temple, leave us no particular instructions in writing, no not so much as which way to lay any one stone?” Surely such kind of argumentation doth not so strengthen the sinews of their cause, as weaken the credit of their judgment which are led therewith.

(3.) And whereas thirdly, in disproof [of] [h] that use [h] which episcopal authority hath in judgment of spiritual causes, they bring forth the verdict of Cyprian, who saith [1] , that “equity requireth every man’s cause to be heard, where the fault he was charged with was committed, forasmuch as there they may have both accusers and witnesses in the cause;” this argument grounding itself on principles no less true in civil than in ecclesiastical causes, unless it be qualified with some exceptions or limitations, overturneth the highest tribunal seats both in Church and commonwealth; it taketh utterly away all appeals; it secretly condemneth even the blessed Apostle himself [2] , as having transgressed the law of equity, by his appeal from the court of Judæa unto those higher which were in Rome. The generality of such kind of axioms deceiveth, unless it be construed with such cautions as the matter whereunto they are appliable doth require. An usual and ordinary transportation of causes out of Africa into Italy, out of one kingdom into another, as discontented persons list, which was the thing that Cyprian disalloweth, may be unequal and unmeet; and yet not therefore a thing unnecessary to have the courts erected in higher places, and judgment committed unto greater persons, to whom the meaner may bring their causes either by way of appeal or otherwise, to be determined according to the order of justice; which hath been always observed every where in civil states, and is no less requisite also for the state of the Church of God.     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 1, 2.  The reasons which teach it to be expedient for the one, will shew it to be for the other at leastwise not unnecessary.

Inequality of pastors is an ordinance both divine and profitable: their exceptions against it in these two respects we have shewed to be altogether causeless, unreasonable, and unjust.

An answer unto those things which are objected, concerning the difference between that power which Bishops now have, and that which ancient Bishops had, more than other presbyters.  XIV. The next thing which they upbraid us with, is the difference between that inequality of pastors which hath been of old, and which now is. For at length they grant, that “the superiority of bishops and of archbishops is somewhat ancient, but no such kind of superiority as ours have.” By the laws of our discipline a bishop may ordain without asking the people’s consent, a bishop may excommunicate and release alone, a bishop may imprison, a bishop may bear civil office in the realm, a bishop may be a counsellor of state; these things ancient bishops neither did nor might do. Be it granted that ordinarily neither in elections nor deprivations, neither in excommunicating nor in releasing the excommunicate, in none of the weighty affairs of government, bishops of old were wont to do any thing without consultation with their clergy and consent of the people under them. Be it granted that the same bishops did neither touch any man with corporal punishment, nor meddle with secular affairs and offices, the whole clergy of God being then tied by the strict and severe canons of the Church to use no other than ghostly power, to attend no other business than heavenly. Tarquinius was in the Roman commonwealth deservedly hated, of whose unorderly proceedings the history [1] speaketh thus: “Hic regum primus traditum a prioribus morem de omnibus senatum consulendi solvit; domesticis consiliis rempub. administravit; bellum, pacem, fœdera, societates, per seipsum, cum quibus voluit, injussu populi ac senatus, fecit diremitque.” Against bishops the like is objected, “That they are invaders of other men’s rights, and by intolerable usurpation take upon them to do that alone, wherein ancient laws have appointed that others, not they only, should bear sway.”

Let the case of bishops be put, not in such sort as it is,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 3.  but even as their very heaviest adversaries would devise it. Suppose that bishops at the first had encroached upon the Church; that by sleights and cunning practices they had appropriated ecclesiastical, as Augustus did imperial power; that they had taken the advantage of men’s inclinable affections, which did not suffer them for revenue’s [1] sake to be suspected of ambition; that in the meanwhile their usurpation had gone forward by certain easy and unsensible degrees; that being not discerned in the growth, when it was thus far grown as we now see it hath proceeded, the world at length perceiving there was just cause of complaint, but no place of remedy left, had assented unto it by a general secret agreement to bear it now as a helpless evil; all this supposed for certain and true, yet surely a thing of this nature, as for the superior to do that alone unto which of right the consent of some other inferiors should have been required by them; though it had an indirect entrance at the first, must needs, through continuance of so many ages as this hath stood, be made now a thing more natural to the Church, than that it should be oppressed with the mention of contrary orders worn so many ages since quite and clean out of ure.

But with bishops the case is otherwise; for in doing that by themselves which others together with them have been accustomed to do, they do not any thing but that whereunto they have been upon just occasions authorized by orderly means. All things natural have in them naturally more or less the power of providing for their own safety: and as each particular man hath this power, so every politic society of men must needs have the same, that thereby the whole may provide for the good of all parts therein. For other benefit we have not any by sorting ourselves into politic societies, saving only that by this mean each part hath that relief which the virtue of the whole is able to yield it. The Church therefore being a politic society or body, cannot possibly want the power of providing for itself; and the chiefest part of that power consisteth in the authority of making laws. Now forasmuch as corporations are perpetual, the laws of the ancienter Church cannot choose but bind the latter, while they are in force. But we must note withal, that because the body of the Church continueth the same, it hath the same authority still,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 4, 5.  and may abrogate old laws, or make new, as need shall require. Wherefore vainly are the ancient canons and constitutions objected as laws, when once they are either let secretly to die by disusage, or are openly abrogated by contrary laws.

The ancient [1] had cause to do no otherwise than they did; and yet so strictly they judged not themselves in conscience bound to observe those orders, but that in sundry cases they easily dispensed therewith, which I suppose they would never have done, had they esteemed them as things whereunto everlasting, immutable, and undispensable observation did belong. The bishop usually promoted none which were not first allowed as fit, by conference had with the rest of his clergy and with the people: notwithstanding, in the case of Aurelius [2] , St. Cyprian did otherwise. In matters of deliberation and counsel, for disposing of that which belongeth generally to the whole body of the Church, or which being more particular, is nevertheless of so great consequence, that it needeth the force of many judgments conferred; in such things the common saying must necessarily take place, “An eye cannot see that which eyes can [3] .” As for clerical ordinations, there are no such reasons alleged against the order which is, but that it may be esteemed as good in every respect as that which hath been; and in some considerations better; at leastwise (which is sufficient to our purpose) it may be held in the Church of Christ without transgressing any law, either ancient or late, divine or human, which we ought to observe and keep.

The form of making ecclesiastical officers hath sundry parts, neither are they all of equal moment.

When Deacons having not been before in the Church of Christ,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 6.  the Apostles saw it needful to have such ordained, they first, assemble the multitude, and shew them how needful it is that deacons be made: secondly, they name unto them what number they judge convenient, what quality the men must be of, and to the people they commit the care of finding such out: thirdly, the people hereunto assenting, make their choice of Stephen and the rest; those chosen men they bring and present before the Apostles: howbeit, all this doth not endue them with any ecclesiastical power. But when so much was done, the Apostles finding no cause to take exception, did with prayer and imposition of hands make them deacons. This was it which gave them their very being; all other things besides were only preparations unto this.

Touching the form of making Presbyters, although it be not wholly of purpose any where set down in the Apostles’ writings, yet sundry speeches there are which insinuate the chiefest things that belong unto that action: as when Paul and Barnabas are said [1] to have fasted, prayed, and made presbyters: when Timothy is willed to “lay hands suddenly on no man [2] ,” for fear of participating with other men’s sins. For this cause the order of the primitive Church was, between choice and ordination to have some space for such probation and trial as the Apostle doth mention in deacons [3] , saying, “Let them first be proved, and then minister, if so be they be found blameless.”

Alexander Severus [4] beholding in his time how careful the Church of Christ was, especially for this point; how after the choice of their pastors they used to publish the names of the parties chosen, and not to give them the final act of approbation till they saw whether any let or impediment would be alleged; he gave commandment that the like should also be done in his own imperial elections, adding this as a reason wherefore he so required, namely,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 7.  “For that both Christians and Jews being so wary about the ordination of their priests, it seemed very unequal for him not to be in like sort circumspect, to whom he committed the government of provinces, containing power over men’s both estates and lives.” This the canon itself doth provide for, requiring before ordination scrutiny [1] : “Let them diligently be examined three days together before the Sabbath, and on the Sabbath [i.e. Saturday [2] ] let them be presented unto the bishop.” And even this in effect also is the very use of the church of England, at all solemn ordaining of ministers; and if all ordaining were solemn, I must confess it were much the better.

The pretended disorder of the church of England is, that bishops ordain them to whose election the people give no voices, and so the bishops make them alone; that is to say, they give ordination without popular election going before, which ancient bishops neither did nor might do. Now in very truth, if the multitude have hereunto a right, which right can never be translated from them for any cause, then is there no remedy but we must yield, that unto the lawful making of ministers the voice of the people is required; and that according to the adverse party’s assertion [3] , such as make ministers without asking the people’s consent, do but exercise a certain tyranny.

At the first erection of the commonwealth of Rome, the people (for so it was then fittest) determined of all affairs:     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 8.  afterwards this growing troublesome, their senators did that for them which themselves before had done: in the end all came to one man’s hands, and the emperor alone was instead of many senators.

In these things the experience of time may breed both civil and ecclesiastical change from that which hath been before received, neither do latter things always violently exclude former, but the one growing less convenient than it hath been, giveth place to that which is now become more. That which was fit for the people themselves to do at the first, might afterwards be more convenient for them to do by some other: which other is not thereby proved a tyrant, because he alone doth that which a multitude were wont to do, unless by violence he take that authority upon him, against the order of law, and without any public appointment; as with us if any did, it should (I suppose) not long be safe for him so to do.

This answer (I hope) will seem to be so much the more reasonable, in that themselves, who stand against us, have furnished us therewith. For whereas against the making of ministers by bishops alone, their use hath been to object, what sway the people did bear when Stephen and the rest were ordained deacons; they begin to espy how their own platform swerveth not a little from that example wherewith they control the practice of others. For touching the form of the people’s concurrence in that action, they observe it not; no, they plainly profess that they are not in this point bound to be followers of the Apostles. The Apostles ordained whom the people had first chosen. They hold, that their ecclesiastical senate ought both to choose, and also to ordain. Do not themselves then take away that which the Apostles gave the people, namely, the privilege of choosing ecclesiastical officers? They do. But behold in what sort they answer it. “By the sixth and the fourteenth of the Acts [1] ” (say they) “it doth appear that the people had the chiefest power of choosing. Howbeit that, as unto me it seemeth, was done upon special cause which doth not so much concern us, neither ought it to be drawn unto the ordinary and perpetual form of governing the Church.     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 9.  For as in establishing commonweals, not only if they be popular, but even being such as are ordered by the power of a few the chiefest, or as by the sole authority of one, till the same be established, the whole sway is in the people’s hands, who voluntarily appoint those magistrates by whose authority they may be governed; so that afterward not the multitude itself, but those magistrates which are chosen by the multitude, have the ordering of public affairs: after the selfsame manner it fared in establishing also the Church; when there was not as yet any placed over the people, all authority was in them all; but when they all had chosen certain to whom the regiment of the Church was committed, this power is not now any longer in the hands of the whole multitude, but wholly in theirs who are appointed guides of the Church. Besides, in the choice of deacons, there was also another special cause wherefore the whole Church at that time should choose them. For inasmuch as the Grecians murmured against the Hebrews, and complained that in the daily distribution which was made for relief of the poor, they were not indifferently respected, nor such regard had of their widows as was meet; this made it necessary that they all should have to deal in the choice of those unto whom that care was afterwards to be committed, to the end that all occasion of jealousies and complaints might be removed. Wherefore that which was done by the people for certain causes, before the Church was fully settled, may not be drawn out and applied unto a constant and perpetual form of ordering the Church.”

Let them cast the discipline of the church of England into the same scales where they weigh their own, let them give us the same measure which here they take, and our strifes shall soon be brought to a quiet end. When they urge the Apostles as precedents; when they condemn us of tyranny, because we do not in making ministers the same which the Apostles did; when they plead, “That with us one alone doth ordain, and that our ordinations are without the people’s knowledge, contrary to that example which the blessed Apostles gave:” we do not request at their hands allowance as much as of one word we speak in our own defence,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 10.  if that which we speak be of our own; but that which themselves speak, they must be contented to listen unto. To exempt themselves from being over far pressed with the Apostles’ example, they can answer, “That which was done by the people once upon special causes, when the Church was not yet established, is not to be made a rule for the constant and continual ordering of the Church.” In defence of their own election, although they do not therein depend on the people so much as the Apostles in the choice of deacons, they think it a very sufficient apology, that there were special considerations why deacons at that time should be chosen by the whole Church, but not so now. In excuse of dissimilitudes between their own and the Apostles’ discipline, they are contented to use this answer, “That many things were done in the Apostles’ times, before the settling of the Church, which afterward the Church was not tied to observe.” For countenance of their own proceedings, wherein their governors do more than the Apostles, and their people less than under the Apostles the first Churches are found to have done, at the making of ecclesiastical officers, they deem it a marvellous reasonable kind of pleading to some [say?] “That even as in commonweals, when the multitude have once chosen many or one to rule over them, the right which was at the first in the whole body of the people is now derived into those many or that one which is so chosen; and that this being done, it is not the whole multitude, to whom the administration of such public affairs any longer appertaineth, but that which they did, their rulers may now do lawfully without them: after the selfsame manner it standeth with the Church also.”

How easy and plain might we make our defence, how clear and allowable even unto them, if we could but obtain of them to admit the same things consonant unto equity in our mouths, which they require to be so taken from their own! If that which is truth, being uttered in maintenance of Scotland and Geneva, do not cease to be truth when the church of England once allegeth it, this great crime of tyranny wherewith we are charged hath a plain and an easy defence.

“Yea, but we do not at all ask the people’s approbation, which they do [1] , whereby they shew themselves more indifferent and more free from taking away the people’s right.” Indeed, when their lay-elders have chosen whom they think good, the people’s consent thereunto is asked, and if they give their approbation, the thing standeth warranted for sound and good. But if not, is the former choice overthrown? No, but the people is to yield to reason; and if they which have made the choice, do so like the people’s reason, as to reverse their own deed at the hearing of it, then a new election to be made [2] ; otherwise the former to stand, notwithstanding the people’s negative and dislike. What is this else but to deal with the people, as those nurses do with infants, whose mouths they besmear with the backside of the spoon, as though they had fed them, when they themselves devour the food? They cry in the ears of the people, that all men’s consent should be had unto that which concerns all; they make the people believe we wrong them, and deprive them of their right in making ministers, whereas with us the people have commonly far more sway and force than with them. For inasmuch as there are but two main things observed in every ecclesiastical function, Power to exercise the duty itself, and some charge of People whereon to exercise the same; the former of these is received at the hands of the whole visible catholic Church. For it is not any one particular multitude that can give power, the force whereof may reach far and wide indefinitely, as the power of order doth, which whoso hath once received, there is no action which belongeth thereunto but he may exercise effectually the same in any part of the world without iterated ordination.     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 11.  They whom the whole Church hath from the beginning used as her agents in conferring this power, are not either one or more of the laity, and therefore it hath not been heard of that ever any such were allowed to ordain ministers: only persons ecclesiastical, and they, in place of calling, superiors both unto deacons and unto presbyters; only such persons ecclesiastical have been authorized to ordain both, and to give them the power of order, in the name of the whole Church. Such were the Apostles, such was Timothy, such was Titus, such are bishops. Not that there is between these no difference, but that they all agree in preeminence of place above both presbyters and deacons, whom they otherwise might not ordain [1] .

Now whereas hereupon some do infer, that no ordination can stand but only such as is made by bishops, which have had their ordination likewise by other bishops before them, till we come to the very Apostles of Christ themselves; in which respect it was demanded of Beza at Poissie [2] , “By what authority he could administer the holy sacraments, being not thereunto ordained by any other than Calvin, or by such as to whom the power of ordination did not belong, according to the ancient orders and customs of the Church; sith Calvin and they who joined with him in that action were no bishops:” and Athanasius maintaineth the fact of Macarius a presbyter [3] , which overthrew the holy table whereat one Ischyras would have ministered the blessed Sacrament, having not been consecrated thereunto by laying on of some bishop’s hands [1] , according to the ecclesiastical canons; as also Epiphanius inveigheth sharply against divers for doing the like, when they had not episcopal ordination: to this we answer, that there may be sometimes very just and sufficient reason to allow ordination made without a bishop.

The whole Church visible being the true original subject of all power, it hath not ordinarily allowed any other than bishops alone to ordain: howbeit, as the ordinary course is ordinarily in all things to be observed, so it may be in some cases not unnecessary that we decline from the ordinary ways.

Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church. One is, when God himself doth of himself raise up any, whose labour he useth without requiring that men should authorize them; but then he doth ratify their calling by manifest signs and tokens himself from heaven: and thus even such as believed not our Saviour’s teaching, did yet acknowledge him a lawful teacher sent from God: “Thou art a teacher sent from God, otherwise none could do those things which thou doest [2] .” Luther did but reasonably [3] therefore, in declaring that the senate of Mulheuse should do well to ask of Muncer, from whence he received power to teach, who it was that had called him; and if his answer were that God had given him his charge, then to require at his hands some evident sign thereof for men’s satisfaction: because so God is wont, when he himself is the author of any extraordinary calling.

Another extraordinary kind of vocation is, when the exigence of necessity doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which otherwise we would willingly keep: where the church must needs have some ordained,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 12.  and neither hath nor can have possibly a bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity, the ordinary institution of God hath given oftentimes, and may give, place. And therefore we are not simply without exception to urge a lineal descent of power from the Apostles by continued succession of bishops in every effectual ordination. These cases of inevitable necessity excepted, none may ordain but only bishops: by the imposition of their hands it is, that the Church giveth power of order, both unto presbyters and deacons.

Now when that power so received is once to have any certain subject whereon it may work, and whereunto it is to be tied, here cometh in the people’s consent, and not before. The power of order I may lawfully receive, without asking leave of any multitude; but that power I cannot exercise upon any one certain people utterly against their wills; neither is there in the church of England any man, by order of law, possessed with pastoral charge over any parish, but the people in effect do choose him thereunto. For albeit they choose not by giving every man personally his particular voice, yet can they not say that they have their pastors violently obtruded upon them, inasmuch as their ancient and original interest therein hath been by orderly means derived into the patron who chooseth for them. And if any man be desirous to know how patrons came to have such interest, we are to consider, that at the first erection of churches, it seemed but reasonable in the eyes of the whole Christian world to pass that right to them and their successors, on whose soil and at whose charge the same were founded [1] . This all men gladly and willingly did, both in honour of so great piety, and for encouragement of many others unto the like, who peradventure else would have been as slow to erect churches or to endow them, as we are forward both to spoil them and to pull them down.

It is no true assertion therefore in such sort as the pretended reformers mean it [2] , “That all ministers of God’s word ought to be made by consent of many, that is to say,     BOOK VII. Ch. xiv. 13.  by the people’s suffrages; that ancient bishops neither did nor might ordain otherwise; and that ours do herein usurp a far greater power than was, or than lawfully could have been granted unto bishops which were of old.”

Furthermore, as touching spiritual jurisdiction, our bishops, they say, do that which of all things is most intolerable, and which the ancient never did. “Our bishops excommunicate and release alone [1] , whereas the censures of the Church neither ought, nor were wont to be administered otherwise than by consent of many.” Their meaning here, when they speak of many [2] , is not as before it was; when they hold that ministers should be made with consent of many, they understand by many, the multitude, or common people; but in requiring that many should evermore join with the bishop in the administration of church censures, they mean by many, a few lay-elders chosen out of the rest of the people to that purpose. This they say is ratified by ancient councils [3] , by ancient bishops [4] this was practised. And the reason hereof, as Beza supposeth [1] , was, “Because if the power of ecclesiastical censures did belong unto any one, there would this great inconveniency follow, ecclesiastical regiment should be changed into mere tyranny, or else into a civil royalty: therefore no one, either bishop or presbyter, should or can alone exercise that power, but with his ecclesiastical consistory he ought to do it, as may appear by the old discipline.” And is it possible, that one so grave and judicious should think it in earnest tyranny for a bishop to excommunicate, whom law and order hath authorized so to do? or be persuaded that ecclesiastical regiment degenerateth into civil regality, when one is allowed to do that which hath been at any time the deed of more? Surely, far meaner witted men than the world accounteth Mr. Beza do easily perceive, that tyranny is power violently exercised against order, against law; and that the difference of these two regiments, ecclesiastical and civil, consisteth in the matter about which the actions of each are conversant; and not in this, that civil royalty admitteth but one, ecclesiastical government requireth many supreme correctors. Which allegation, were it true, would prove no more than only that some certain number is necessary for the assistance of the bishop; but that a number of such as they do require is necessary, how doth it prove? Wherefore albeit bishops should now do the very same which the ancients did, using the college of presbyters under them as their assistants when they administer church-censures, yet should they still swerve utterly from that which these men so busily labour for, because the agents whom they require to assist in those cases are a sort of lay-elders, such as no ancient bishop ever was assisted with.

Shall these fruitless jars and janglings never cease? shall we never see end of them? How much happier were the world if those eager taskmasters whose eyes are so curious and sharp in discerning what should be done by many and what by few, were all changed into painful doers of that which every good Christian man ought either only or chiefly to do, and to be found therein doing when that great and glorious Judge of all men’s both deeds and words shall appear? In the meanwhile, be it one that hath this charge, or be they many that be his assistants, let there be careful provision that justice may be administered, and in this shall our God be glorified more than by such contentious disputes.

BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 1-3.  XV. Of which nature that also is, wherein Bishops are over and besides all this accused “to have much more excessive power than the ancient, inasmuch as unto their ecclesiastical authority, the civil magistrate for the better repressing of such as contemn ecclesiastical censures,     Concerning the civil power and authority which our Bishops have.  hath for divers ages annexed civil [1] . The crime of bishops herein is divided into these two several branches; the one, that in causes ecclesiastical they strike with the sword of secular punishments; the other, that offices are granted them, by virtue whereof they meddle with civil affairs.”

Touching the one, it reacheth no farther than only unto restraint of liberty by imprisonment (which yet is not done but by the laws of the land, and by virtue of authority derived from the prince). A thing which being allowable in priests amongst the Jews, must needs have received some strange alteration in nature since, if it be now so pernicious and venomous to be coupled with a spiritual vocation in any man which beareth office in the Church of Christ. Shemaiah writing to the college of priests which were in Jerusalem, and to Zephaniah the principal of them, told them they were appointed of God, “that they might be officers in the house of the Lord, for every man which raved, and did make himself a prophet [2] ,” to the end that they might by the force of this their authority “put such in prison and in the stocks.” His malice is reproved, for that he provoketh them to shew their power against the innocent. But surely, when any man justly punishable had been brought before them, it could be no unjust thing for them even in such sort then to have punished.

As for offices by virtue whereof bishops have to deal in civil affairs, we must consider that civil affairs are of divers kinds,     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 3.  and as they be not all fit for ecclesiastical persons to meddle with, so neither is it necessary, nor at this day haply convenient, that from meddling with any such thing at all they all should without exception be secluded. I will therefore set down some few causes, wherein it cannot but clearly appear unto reasonable men that civil and ecclesiastical functions may be lawfully united in one and the same person.

First therefore, in case a Christian society be planted amongst their professed enemies, or by toleration do live under some certain state whereinto they are not incorporated, whom shall we judge the meetest man to have the hearing and determining of such mere civil controversies as are every day wont to grow between man and man? Such being the state of the church of Corinth, the Apostle giveth them this direction, “Dare any of you having business against another be judged by the unjust, and not under saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? If the world then shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge the angels? how much more things that appertain to this life? If then ye have judgment of things pertaining to this life, set up them which are least esteemed in the Church. I speak it to your shame; is it so that there is not a wise man amongst you? no not one that can judge between his brethren, but a brother goeth to law with a brother and that under the infidels? Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another; why rather suffer ye not wrong, why rather sustain ye not harm [1] ?” In which speech there are these degrees: better to suffer and to put up injuries, than to contend; better to end contention by arbitrement, than by judgment; better by judgment before the wisest of their own, than before the simpler; better before the simplest of their own, than the wisest of them without; So that if judgment of secular affairs should be committed unto wise men, unto men of chiefest credit and account amongst them, when the pastors of their souls are such, who more fit to be also their judges for the ending of strifes? The wisest in things divine may be also [1] in things human the most skilful. At leastwise they are by likelihood commonly more able to know right from wrong than the common unlettered sort.

And what St. Augustine did hereby gather, his own words do sufficiently shew. “I call God to witness upon my soul,” saith he [2] , “that according to the order which is kept in well-ordered monasteries, I could wish to have every day my hours of labouring with my hands, my hours of reading and of praying, rather than to endure these most tumultuous perplexities of other men’s causes, which I am forced to bear while I travel in secular businesses, either by judging to discuss them, or to cut them off by entreaty: unto which toils that Apostle, who himself sustained them not, for any thing we read, hath notwithstanding tied us not of his own accord, but being thereunto directed by that Spirit which speaks in him. His own apostleship which drew him to travel up and down,     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 4, 5.  suffered him not to be any where settled to this purpose; wherefore the wise, faithful and holy men which were seated here and there, and not them which travelled up and down to preach, he made examiners of such businesses. Whereupon of him it is no where written, that he had leisure to attend these things, from which we cannot excuse ourselves although we be simple: because even such he requireth, if wise men cannot be had, rather than the affairs of Christians should be brought into public judgment. Howbeit not without comfort in our Lord are these travels undertaken by us, for the hope’s sake of eternal life, to the end that with patience we may reap fruit.” So far is St. Augustine from thinking it unlawful for pastors in such sort to judge civil causes, that he plainly collecteth out of the Apostle’s words a necessity to undertake that duty; yea himself he comforteth with the hope of a blessed reward, in lieu of travel that way sustained.

Again, even where whole Christian kingdoms are, how troublesome were it for universities and other greater collegiate societies, erected to serve as nurseries unto the Church of Christ, if every thing which civilly doth concern them were to be carried from their own peculiar governors, because for the most part they are (as fittest it is they should be) persons of ecclesiastical calling? It was by the wisdom of our famous predecessors foreseen how unfit this would be, and hereupon provided by grant of special charters that it might be as now it is in the universities; where their vice-chancellors, being for the most part professors of divinity, are nevertheless civil judges over them in the most of their ordinary causes.

And to go yet some degrees further; a thing impossible it is not, neither altogether unusual, for some who are of royal blood to be consecrated unto the ministry of Jesus Christ, and so to be nurses of God’s Church, not only as the Prophet [1] did foretell, but also as the Apostle St. Paul was. Now in case the crown should by this mean descend unto such persons, perhaps when they are the very last, or perhaps the very best of their race, so that a greater benefit they are not able to bestow upon a kingdom than by accepting their right therein:     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 5.  shall the sanctity of their order deprive them of that honour whereunto they have right by blood? or shall it be a bar to shut out the public good that may grow by their virtuous regiment? If not, then must they cast off the office which they received by divine imposition of hands; or, if they carry a more religious opinion concerning that heavenly function, it followeth, that being invested as well with the one as the other, they remain God’s lawfully anointed both ways. With men of skill and mature judgment [1] there is of this so little doubt, that concerning such as at this day are under the archbishops of Mentz, Colen, and Trevers, being both archbishops and princes of the empire; yea such as live within the Pope’s own civil territories, there is no cause why any should deny to yield them civil obedience in any thing which they command, not repugnant to Christian piety; yea, even that civilly for such as are under them not to obey them, were but the part of seditious persons. Howbeit for persons ecclesiastical thus to exercise civil dominion of their own,     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 6, 7.  is more than when they only sustain some public office, or deal in some business civil, being thereunto even by supreme authority required.

As nature doth not any thing in vain, so neither grace. Wherefore if it please God to bless some principal attendants on his own sanctuary, and to endue them with extraordinary parts of excellency, some in one kind, some in another, surely a great derogation it were to the very honour of him who bestowed so precious graces, except they on whom he hath bestowed them should accordingly be employed, that the fruit of those heavenly gifts might extend itself unto the body of the commonwealth wherein they live; which being of purpose instituted (for so all commonwealths are) to the end that all might enjoy whatsoever good it pleaseth the Almighty to endue each one man with, must needs suffer loss, when it hath not the gain which eminent civil ability in ecclesiastical persons is now and then found apt to afford. Shall we then discommend the people of Milan for using Ambrose their bishop as an ambassador [1] about their public and politic affairs; the Jews for electing their priests sometimes to be leaders in war; David for making the high-priest his chiefest counsellor of state: finally, all Christian kings and princes which have appointed unto like services bishops or other of the clergy under them? No, they have done in this respect that which most sincere and religious wisdom alloweth.

Neither is it allowable only, when either a kind of necessity doth cast civil offices upon them, or when they are thereunto preferred in regard of some extraordinary fitness; but further also when there are even of right annexed unto some of their places, or of course imposed upon certain of their persons, functions of dignity and account in the commonwealth; albeit no other consideration be had therein save this, that their credit and countenance may by such means be augmented. A thing if ever to be respected, surely most of all now, when God himself is for his own sake generally no where honoured, religion almost no where, no where religiously adored,     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 7.  the ministry of the word and sacraments of Christ a very cause of disgrace in the eyes both of high and low, where it hath not somewhat besides itself to be countenanced with. For unto this very pass things are come, that the glory of God is constrained even to stand upon borrowed credit, which yet were somewhat the more tolerable, if there were not that dissuade to lend it him.

No practice so vile, but pretended holiness is made sometime as a cloak to hide it. The French king Philip Valois [1] in his time made an ordinance that all prelates and bishops should be clean excluded from parliaments where the affairs of the kingdom were handled; pretending that a king with good conscience cannot draw pastors, having cure of souls, from so weighty a business, to trouble their heads with consultations of state. But irreligious intents are not able to hide themselves, no not when holiness is made their cloak. This is plain and simple truth, that the councils of wicked men hate always the presence of them, whose virtue, though it should not be able to prevail against their purposes, would notwithstanding be unto their minds a secret corrosive: and therefore, till either by one shift or another they can bring all things to their own hands alone,     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 8, 9.  they are not secure.

Ordinances holier and better there stand as yet in force by the grace of Almighty God, and the works of his providence amongst us. Let not envy so far prevail, as to make us account that a blemish, which if there be in us any spark of sound judgment, or of religious conscience, we must of necessity acknowledge to be one of the chiefest ornaments unto this land: by the ancient laws whereof, the clergy being held for the chief of those three estates, which together make up the entire body of this commonwealth, under one supreme head and governor, it hath all this time ever borne a sway proportionable in the weighty affairs of the land; wise and virtuous kings condescending most willingly thereunto, even of reverence to the Most High; with the flower of whose sanctified inheritance, as it were with a kind of Divine presence, unless their chiefest civil assemblies were so far forth beautified as might be without any notable impediment unto their heavenly functions, they could not satisfy themselves as having shewed towards God an affection most dutiful.

Thus, first, in defect of other civil magistrates; secondly, for the ease and quietness of scholastical societies; thirdly, by way of political necessity; fourthly, in regard of quality, care, and extraordinancy; fifthly, for countenance unto the ministry; and lastly, even of devotion and reverence towards God himself: there may be admitted at leastwise in some particulars well and lawfully enough a conjunction of civil and ecclesiastical power, except there be some such law or reason to the contrary, as may prove it to be a thing simply in itself naught.

Against it many things are objected, as first, “That the matters which are noted in the holy Scriptures to have belonged to the ordinary office of any ministers of God’s holy word and sacraments, are these which follow, with such like, and no other; namely, the watch of the sanctuary, the business of God, the ministry of the word and sacraments, oversight of the house of God, watching over his flock, prophecy, prayer, dispensations of the mysteries of God, charge and care of men’s souls [1] .”     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 10.  If a man would shew what the offices and duties of a chirurgeon or physician are, I suppose it were not his part so much as to mention any thing belonging to the one or the other, in case either should be also a soldier or a merchant, or an housekeeper, or a magistrate: because the functions of these are different from those of the former, albeit one and the same man may haply be both. The case is like, when the Scripture teacheth what duties are required in an ecclesiastical minister; in describing of whose office, to touch any other thing than such as properly and directly toucheth his office that way, were impertinent.

Yea, “but in the Old Testament [2] the two powers civil and ecclesiastical were distinguished, not only in nature, but also in person; the one committed unto Moses, and the magistrates joined with him; the other to Aaron and his sons. Jehoshaphat in his reformation [3] doth not only distinguish causes ecclesiastical from civil, and erecteth divers courts for them, but appointeth also divers judges.”

With the Jews these two powers were not so distinguished, but that sometimes they might and did concur in one and the same person. Was not Eli both priest and judge [1] ? after their return from captivity, Esdras a priest, and the same their chief governor even in civil affairs also?

These men which urge the necessity of making always a personal distinction of these two powers, as if by Jehoshaphat’s example the same person ought not to deal in both causes, yet are not scrupulous [2] to make men of civil place and calling presbyters and ministers of spiritual jurisdiction in their own spiritual consistories. If it be against the Jewish precedents for us to give civil power unto such as have ecclesiastical; is it not as much against the same for them to give ecclesiastical power unto such as have civil? They will answer perhaps, that their position is only against conjunction of ecclesiastical power of order, and the power of civil jurisdiction in one person. But this answer will not stand with their proofs, which make no less against the power of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in one person; for of these two powers Jehoshaphat’s example is: besides, the contrary example [examples?] of Eli and of Ezra, by us alleged, do plainly shew, that amongst the Jews even the power of order ecclesiastical and civil jurisdiction were sometimes lawfully united in one and the same person.

BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 11, 12.  Pressed further we are with our Lord and Saviour’s example, who “denieth his kingdom to be of this world, and therefore, as not standing with his calling, refused to be made a king, to give sentence in a criminal cause of adultery [1] , and in a civil of dividing an inheritance [2] .” The Jews imagining that their Messiah should be a potent monarch upon earth, no marvel, though when they did otherwise wonder at Christ’s greatness, they sought forthwith to have him invested with that kind of dignity, to the end he might presently begin to reign. Others of the Jews, which likewise had the same imagination of the Messiah, and did somewhat incline to think that peradventure this might be he, thought good to try whether he would take upon him that which he might do, being a king, such as they supposed their true Messiah should be. But Christ refused to be a king over them, because it was no part of the office of their Messiah, as they did falsely conceive; and to intermeddle in those acts of civil judgment he refused also, because he had no such jurisdiction in that commonwealth, being in regard of his civil person a man of mean and low calling [3] . As for repugnancy between ecclesiastical and civil power, or any inconvenience that these two powers should be united, it doth not appear that this was the cause of his resistance either to reign or else to judge.

What say we then to the blessed Apostles, who teach [4] , “that soldiers entangle not themselves with the business of this life,     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 12.  but leave them, to the end they may please him who hath chosen them to serve, and that so the good soldiers of Christ ought to do.”

“The Apostles which taught this, did never take upon them any place or office of civil power. No, they gave over the ecclesiastical care of the poor, that they might wholly attend upon the word and prayer [1] .”

St. Paul indeed doth exhort Timothy after this manner [2] : “Suffer thou evil as a noble soldier of Jesus Christ: no man warring is entangled with the affairs of life, because he must serve such as have pressed him unto warfare.” The sense and meaning whereof is plain, that soldiers may not be nice and tender, that they must be able to endure hardness, that no man betaking himself unto wars continueth entangled with such kind of businesses as tend only unto the ease and quiet felicity of this life, but if the service of him who hath taken them under his banner require the hazard, yea the loss of their lives, to please him they must be content and willing with any difficulty, any peril, be it never so much against the natural desire which they have to live in safety. And at this point the clergy of God must always stand; thus it behoveth them to be affected as oft as their Lord and captain leadeth them into the field, whatsoever conflicts, perils, or evils they are to endure. Which duty being not such, but that therewith the civil dignities which ecclesiastical persons amongst us do enjoy may enough stand; the exhortation of Paul to Timothy is but a slender allegation against them.

As well might we gather out of this place, that men having children or wives are not fit to be ministers, (which also hath been collected, and that by sundry of the ancient [3] ), and that it is requisite the clergy be utterly forbidden marriage: for as the burden of civil regiment doth make them who bear it the less able to attend their ecclesiastical charge;     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 13, 14.  even so St. Paul doth say, that the married are careful for the world, the unmarried freer to give themselves wholly to the service of God. Howbeit, both experience hath found it safer, that the clergy should bear the cares of honest marriage, than be subject to the inconveniences which single life imposed upon them would draw after it: and as many as are of sound judgment know it to be far better for this present age, that the detriment be borne which haply may grow through the lessening of some few men’s spiritual labours, than that the clergy and commonwealth should lack the benefit which both the one and the other may reap through their dealing in civil affairs. In which consideration, that men consecrated unto the spiritual service of God be licensed so far forth to meddle with the secular affairs of the world, as doth seem for some special good cause requisite, and may be without any grievous prejudice unto the Church, surely there is not in the Apostles being rightly understood, any let.

That no Apostle did ever bear office, may it not be a wonder, considering the great devotion of the age wherein they lived, and the zeal of Herod, of Nero the great commander of the known world, and of other kings of the earth at that time, to advance by all means Christian religion.

Their deriving unto others that smaller charge of distributing of the goods which were laid at their feet, and of making provision for the poor, which charge, being in part civil, themselves had before (as I suppose lawfully) undertaken, and their following of that which was weightier, may serve as a marvellous good example for the dividing of one man’s office into divers slips, and the subordinating of inferiors to discharge some part of the same, when by reason of multitude increasing that labour waxeth great and troublesome which before was easy and light; but very small force it hath to infer a perpetual divorce between ecclesiastical and civil power in the same persons.

The most that can be said in this case is, “That sundry eminent canons, bearing the name of apostolical, and divers councils likewise there are, which have forbidden the clergy to bear any secular office [1] ;     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 14.  and have enjoined them to attend altogether upon reading, preaching, and prayer: whereupon the most of the ancient fathers have shewed great dislikes that these two powers should be united in one person [2] .”

For a full and final answer whereunto, I would first demand, whether the commixtion and separation of these two powers be a matter of mere positive law, or else a thing simply with or against the law immutable of God and nature? That which is simply against this latter law can at no time be allowable in any person, more than adultery, blasphemy, sacrilege, and the like. But conjunction of power ecclesiastical and civil, what law is there which hath not at some time or other allowed as a thing convenient and meet? In the law of God we have examples sundry, whereby it doth most manifestly appear how of him the same hath oftentimes been approved. No kingdom or nation in the world, but hath been thereunto accustomed without inconvenience and hurt. In the prime of the world, kings and civil rulers were priests for the most part all. The Romans [1] note it as a thing beneficial in their own commonwealth, and even to them [2] apparently forcible for the strengthening of the Jews’ regiment under Moses and Samuel.

I deny not but sometime there may be, and hath been perhaps, just cause to ordain otherwise. Wherefore we are not so to urge those things which heretofore have been either ordered or done, as thereby to prejudice those orders, which upon contrary occasion and the exigence of the present time by like authority have been established. For what is there which doth let but that from contrary occasions contrary laws may grow, and each be reasoned and disputed for by such as are subject thereunto, during the time they are in force; and yet neither so opposite to other, but that both may laudably continue, as long as the ages which keep them do see no necessary cause which may draw them unto alteration?     BOOK VII. Ch. xv. 15.  Wherefore in these things, canons, constitutions, and laws, which have been at one time meet, do not prove that the Church should always be bound to follow them. Ecclesiastical persons were by ancient order forbidden to be executors of any man’s testament, or to undertake the wardship of children. Bishops by the imperial law are forbidden to bequeath by testament or otherwise to alienate any thing grown unto them after they were made bishops [1] . Is there no remedy but that these or the like orders must therefore every where still be observed?

The reason is not always evident, why former orders have been repealed and other established in their room. Herein therefore we must remember the axiom used in the civil laws, “That the prince is always presumed to do that with reason, which is not against reason being done, although no reason of his deed be expressed.” Which being in every respect as true of the Church, and her divine authority in making laws, it should be some bridle unto those malapert and proud spirits, whose wits not conceiving the reason of laws that are established, they adore their own private fancy as the supreme law of all, and accordingly take upon them to judge that whereby they should be judged.

But why labour we thus in vain? For even to change that which now is, and to establish instead thereof that which themselves would acknowledge the very selfsame which hath been, to what purpose were it, sith they protest [2] , “that they utterly condemn as well that which hath been as that which is;     BOOK VII. Ch. xvi. 1, 2.  as well the ancient as the present superiority, authority and power of ecclesiastical persons.”

The arguments answered, whereby they would prove that the law of God and the judgment of the best in all ages condemneth the ruling superiority of one minister over another.  XVI. Now where they lastly allege [1] , “That the law of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the judgment of the best in all ages, condemn all ruling superiority of ministers over ministers;” they are in this, as in the rest, more bold to affirm, than able to prove the things which they bring for support of their weak and feeble cause. “The bearing of dominion or the exercising of authority (they say [2] ), is that wherein the civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer, according to the words of our Lord and Saviour, ‘Kings of nations bear rule over them, but it shall not be so with you:’ therefore bearing of dominion doth not agree to one minister over another.”

This place hath been, and still is, although most falsely, yet with far greater show and likelihood of truth, brought forth by the anabaptists [3] , to prove that the Church of Christ ought to have no civil magistrates, but [to be] ordered only by Christ. Wherefore they urge the opposition between heathens and them unto whom our Saviour speaketh. For sith the Apostles were opposite to heathens, not in that they were Apostles, but in that they were Christians, the anabaptists’ inference is,     BOOK VII. Ch. xvi. 3, 4.  “that Christ doth here give a law, to be for ever observed by all true Christian men, between whom and heathens there must be always this difference, that whereas heathens have their kings and princes to rule, Christians ought not in this thing to be like unto them.” Wherein their construction hath the more show, because that which Christ doth speak to his Apostles is not found always agreeable unto them as Apostles, or as pastors of men’s souls, but oftentimes it toucheth them in generality, as they are Christians; so that Christianity being common unto them with all believers, such speeches must be so taken that they may be applied unto all, and not only unto them.

They which consent with us, in rejecting such collections as the anabaptist maketh with more probability, must give us leave to reject such as themselves have made with less: for a great deal less likely it is, that our Lord should here establish an everlasting difference, not between his Church and pagans, but between the pastors of his Church and civil governors. For if herein they must always differ, that the one may not bear rule, the other may; how did the Apostles themselves observe this difference, the exercise of whose authority, both in commanding and in controlling others, the Scripture hath made so manifest that no gloss can overshadow it? Again, it being, as they would have it, our Saviour’s purpose to withhold his Apostles and in them all other pastors from bearing rule, why should kingly dominion be mentioned, which occasions men to gather, that not all dominion and rule, but this one only form was prohibited, and that authority was permitted them, so it were not regal? Furthermore, in case it had been his purpose to withhold pastors altogether from bearing rule, why should kings of nations be mentioned, as if they were not forbidden to exercise, no not regal dominion itself, but only such regal dominion as heathen kings do exercise?

The very truth is, our Lord and Saviour did aim at a far other mark than these men seem to observe. The end of his speech was to reform their particular mispersuasion to whom he spake: and their mispersuasion was, that which was also the common fancy of the Jews at that time, that their Lord being the Messias of the world, should restore unto Israel that kingdom, whereof the Romans had as then bereaved them;     BOOK VII. Ch. xvi. 5.  they imagined that he should not only deliver the state of Israel, but himself reign as king in the throne of David with all secular pomp and dignity; that he should subdue the rest of the world, and make Jerusalem the seat of an universal monarchy. Seeing therefore they had forsaken all to follow him, being now in so mean condition, they did not think but that together with him they also should rise in state; that they should be the first and the most advanced by him. Of this conceit it came that the mother of the sons of Zebedee sued for her children’s preferment; of this conceit it grew, that the Apostles began to question amongst themselves which of them should be greatest; and in controlment of this conceit it was that our Lord so plainly told them, that the thoughts of their hearts were vain:” the kings of nations have indeed their large and ample dominions, they reign far and wide, and their servants they advance unto honour in the world; they bestow upon them large and ample secular preferments, in which respect they are also termed many of them benefactors, because of the liberal hand which they use in rewarding such as have done them service: but was it the meaning of the ancient prophets of God that the Messias the king of Israel should be like unto these kings, and his retinue grow in such sort as theirs? “Wherefore ye are not to look for at my hands such preferment as kings of nations are wont to bestow upon their attendants, ‘With you not so.’ Your reward in heaven shall be most ample, on earth your chiefest honour must be to suffer persecution for righteousness’ sake; submission, humility and meekness are things fitter for you to inure your minds withal, than these aspiring cogitations; if any amongst you be greater than other, let him shew himself greatest in being lowliest, let him be above them in being under them, even as a servant for their good. These are affections which you must put on; as for degrees of preferment and honour in this world, if ye expect any such thing at my hands ye deceive yourselves, for in the world your portion is rather the clear contrary.”

Wherefore they who allege this place against episcopal authority abuse it, they many ways deprave and wrest it, clean from the true understanding wherein our Saviour himself did utter it.     BOOK VII. Ch. xvi. 6.

For first, whereas he by way of mere negation had said, “With you it shall not be so,” foretelling them only that it should not so come to pass as they vainly surmised; these men take his words in the plain nature of a prohibition, as if Christ had thereby forbidden all inequality of ecclesiastical power. Secondly, whereas he did but cut off their idle hope of secular advancements; all standing superiority amongst persons ecclesiastical these men would rase off with the edge of his speech. Thirdly, whereas he in abating their hope even of secular advancements spake but only with relation unto himself, informing them that he would be no such munificent Lord unto them in their temporal dignity and honour, as they did erroneously suppose; so that any Apostle might afterwards have grown by means of others to be even emperor of Rome, for any thing in those words to the contrary: these men removing quite and clean the hedge of all such restraints, enlarge so far the bounds of his meaning, as if his very precise intent and purpose had been not to reform the error of his Apostles conceived as touching him, and to teach what himself would not be towards them, but to prescribe a special law both to them and their successors for ever; a law determining what they should not be in relation of one to another, a law forbidding that any such title should be given to any minister as might import or argue in him a superiority over other ministers [1] .

Being thus defeated of that succour which they thought their cause might have had out of the words of our Saviour Christ, they try [2] their adventure in seeking what aid man’s testimony will yield them: “Cyprian objecteth it to Florentinus as a proud thing, that by believing evil reports, and misjudging of Cyprian, he made himself bishop of a bishop, and judge over him whom God had for the time appointed to be judge [1] .” “The endeavour of godly men to strike at these insolent names may appear in the council of Carthage: where it was decreed, that the bishop of the chief see should not be entitled the exarch of priests, or the highest priest, or any other thing of like sense, but only the bishop of the chiefest see [2] ; whereby are shut out the name of archbishop, and all other such haughty titles.” In these allegations it fareth, as in broken reports snatched out of the author’s mouth, and broached before they be half either told on the one part, or on the other understood. The matter which Cyprian complaineth of in Florentinus was thus: Novatus misliking the easiness of Cyprian to admit men into the fellowship of believers after they had fallen away from the bold and constant confession of Christian faith, took thereby occasion to separate himself from the Church [3] , and being united with certain excommunicate persons, they joined their wits together, and drew out against Cyprian their lawful bishop sundry grievous accusations; the crimes such, as being true, had made him uncapable of that office whereof he was six years as then possessed; they went to Rome, and to other places, accusing him every where as guilty of those faults of which themselves had lewdly condemned him, pretending that twenty-five African bishops (a thing most false) had heard and examined his cause in a solemn assembly, and that they all had given their sentence against him, holding his election by the canons of the church void.     BOOK VII. Ch. xvi. 7.  The same factious and seditious persons coming also unto Florentinus, who was at that time a man imprisoned for the testimony of Jesus Christ, but yet a favourer of the error of Novatus, their malicious accusations he over-willingly hearkened unto, gave them credit, concurred with them [1] , and unto Cyprian in fine wrote his letters against Cyprian: which letters he justly taketh in marvellous evil part, and therefore severely controlleth his so great presumption in making himself a judge of a judge, and, as it were, a bishop’s bishop, to receive accusations against him, as one that had been his ordinary. “ [2] What height of pride is this (saith Cyprian), what arrogancy of spirit, what a puffing up of mind, to call guides and priests to be examined and sifted before him! So that unless we shall be cleared in your court, and absolved by your sentence, behold for these six years’ space neither shall the brotherhood have had a bishop, nor the people a guide, nor the flock a shepherd, nor the Church a governor, nor Christ a prelate, nor God a priest.” This is the pride which Cyprian condemneth in Florentinus, and not the title or name of archbishop; about which matter there was not at that time so much as the dream of any controversy at all between them. A silly collection it is, that because Cyprian reproveth Florentinus for lightness of belief and presumptuous rashness of judgment, therefore he held the title of archbishop to be a vain and a proud name.

Archbishops were chief amongst bishops, yet archbishops had not over bishops that full authority which every bishop had over his own particular clergy: bishops were not subject unto their archbishop as an ordinary, by whom at all times they were to be judged, according to the manner of inferior pastors, within the compass of each diocess. A bishop might suspend, excommunicate, depose, such as were of his own clergy without any other bishops assistants; not so an archbishop the bishops that were in his own province, above whom divers prerogatives were given him, howbeit no such authority and power as alone to be judge over them. For as a bishop could not be ordained, so neither might he be judged by any one only bishop, albeit that bishop were his metropolitan. Wherefore Cyprian, concerning the liberty and freedom which every bishop had, spake in the council of Carthage, whereat fourscore and seven bishops were present, saying [1] , “It resteth that every of us declare what we think of this matter, neither judging nor severing from the right of communion any that shall think otherwise: for of us there is not any which maketh himself a bishop of bishops, or with tyrannical fear constraineth his colleagues unto the necessity of obedience, inasmuch as every bishop, according to the reach of his liberty and power, hath his own free judgment, and can no more have another his judge, than himself be judge to another.” Whereby it appeareth, that amongst the African bishops none did use such authority over any as the bishop of Rome did afterwards claim over all, forcing upon them opinions by main and absolute power. Wherefore unto the bishop of Rome the same Cyprian also writeth concerning his opinion about baptism [2] : “These things we present unto your conscience, most dear brother, as well for common honour’s sake, as of single and sincere love, trusting that as you are truly yourself religious and faithful, so those things which agree with religion and faith will be acceptable unto you:     BOOK VII. Ch. xvi. 8.  howbeit we know, that what some have over drunk in, they will not let go, neither easily change their mind, but with care of preserving whole amongst their brethren the bond of peace and concord, retaining still to themselves certain their own opinions wherewith they have been inured; wherein we neither use force, nor prescribe a law unto any, knowing that in the government of the Church every ruler hath his own voluntary free judgment, and of that which he doth shall render unto the Lord himself an account.”

As for the council of Carthage, doth not the very first canon thereof establish with most effectual terms all things which were before agreed on in the council of Nice [1] ? and that the council of Nice did ratify the preeminence of metropolitan bishops, who is ignorant? The name of an archbishop importeth only a bishop having chiefty of certain prerogatives above his brethren of the same order. Which thing, sith the council of Nice doth allow, it cannot be that the other of Carthage should condemn it, inasmuch as this doth yield unto that a Christian unrestrained approbation. The thing provided for by the synod of Carthage can be no other therefore, than only that the chiefest metropolitan, where many archbishops were within any greater province, should not be termed by those names, as to import the power of an ordinary jurisdiction belonging in such degree and manner unto him over the rest of the bishops and archbishops, as did belong unto every bishop over other pastors under him.

But much more absurd it is to affirm [2] , that both Cyprian and the council of Carthage condemn even such superiority also of bishops themselves over pastors their inferiors, as the words of Ignatius imply, in terming the bishop “a prince of priests.”     BOOK VII. Ch. xvi. 9.  Bishops to be termed arch-priests, in regard of their superiority over priests, is in the writings of the ancient Fathers a thing so usual and familiar, as almost no one thing more. At the council of Nice, saith Theodoret, three hundred and eighteen arch-priests were present [1] . Were it the meaning of the council of Carthage, that the title of chief priests and such like ought not in any sort at all to be given unto any Christian Bishop, what excuse should we make for so many ancient both Fathers [2] , and synods [3] of Fathers, as have generally applied the title of arch-priest unto every bishop’s office?

High time I think it is, to give over the obstinate defence of this most miserable forsaken cause; in the favour whereof neither God, nor amongst so many wise and virtuous men as antiquity hath brought forth, any one can be found to have hitherto directly spoken. Irksome confusion must of necessity be the end whereunto all such vain and ungrounded confidence doth bring, as hath nothing to bear it out but only an excessive measure of bold and peremptory words, holpen by the start of a little time, before they came to be examined.     BOOK VII. Ch. xvii. 1.  In the writings of the ancient Fathers, there is not any thing with more serious asseveration inculcated, than that it is God which maketh bishops, that their authority hath divine allowance, that the bishop is the priest of God, that he is judge in Christ’s stead, that according to God’s own law the whole Christian fraternity standeth bound to obey him. Of this there was not in the Christian world of old any doubt or controversy made, it was a thing universally every where agreed upon. What should move men to judge that now so unlawful and naught, which then was so reverendly esteemed? Surely no other cause but this, men were in those times meek, lowly, tractable, willing to live in dutiful awe and subjection unto the pastor of their souls: now we imagine ourselves so able every man to teach and direct all others, that none of us can brook it to have superiors; and for a mask to hide our pride, we pretend falsely the law of Christ, as if we did seek the execution of his will, when in truth we labour for the mere satisfaction of our own against his.

The second malicious thing wherein the state of Bishops suffereth obloquy is their honour.  XVII. The chiefest cause of disdain and murmur against bishops in the Church of England is that evil-affected eye wherewith the world looked upon them, since the time that irreligious profaneness, beholding the due and just advancements of God’s clergy, hath under pretence of enmity unto ambition and pride proceeded so far, that the contumely of old offered unto Aaron in the like quarrel may seem very moderate and quiet dealing, if we compare it with the fury of our own times. The ground and original of both their proceedings one and the same; in declaration of their grievances they differ not; the complaints as well of the one as the other are [1] , “Wherefore lift ye up yourselves” thus far “above the congregation of the Lord? It is too much which you take upon you;” too much power, and too much honour. Wherefore as we have shewed that there is not in their power any thing unjust or unlawful, so it resteth that in their honour also the like be done. The labour we take unto this purpose is by so much the harder,     BOOK VII. Ch. xvii. 2.  in that we are forced to wrestle with the stream of obstinate affection, mightily carried by a wilful prejudice, the dominion whereof is so powerful over them in whom it reigneth, that it giveth them no leave, no not so much as patiently to hearken unto any speech which doth not profess to feed them in this their bitter humour. Notwithstanding, forasmuch as I am persuaded that against God they will not strive, if they perceive once that in truth it is he against whom they open their mouths, my hope is their own confession will be at the length, “Behold, we have done exceeding foolishly; it was the Lord, and we knew it not; him in his ministers we have despised, we have in their honour impugned his.” But the alteration of men’s hearts must be his good and gracious work, whose most omnipotent power framed them.

Wherefore to come to our present purpose, honour is no where due, saving only unto such as have in them that whereby they are found, or at the least presumed, voluntarily beneficial [1] unto them of whom they are honoured. Wheresoever nature seeth the countenance of a man, it still presumeth that there is in him a mind willing to do good, if need require, inasmuch as by nature so it should be; for which cause men unto men do honour, even for very humanity’s sake: and unto whom we deny all honour, we seem plainly to take from them all opinion of human dignity, to make no account or reckoning of them, to think them so utterly without virtue, as if no good thing in the world could be looked for at their hands. Seeing therefore it seemeth hard that we should so hardly think of any man, the precept of St. Peter is [2] , “Honour all men.”

Which duty of every man towards all doth vary according to the several degrees whereby they are more or less beneficial, whom we do honour. “Honour the physician [3] ,” saith the wise man: the reason why, because for necessities’ sake God created him. Again [4] , “Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the person of the aged:” the reason why, because the younger sort have great benefit by their gravity, experience, and wisdom; for which cause, these things the wise man [1] termeth the crown or diadem of the aged. Honour due to parents:     BOOK VII. Ch. xvii. 3, 4.  the reason why, because we have our beginning from them [2] ; “Obey the father that hath begotten thee, the mother that bare thee despise thou not.” Honour due unto kings and governors: the reason why, because God hath set them [3] “for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well.” Thus we see by every of these particulars, that there is always some kind of virtue beneficial, wherein they excel who receive honour; and that degrees of honour are distinguished according to the value of those effects which the same beneficial virtue doth produce.

Nor is honour only an inward estimation, whereby they are reverenced and well thought of in the minds of men; but honour whereof we now speak, is defined to be an external sign, by which we give a sensible testification that we acknowledge the beneficial virtue of others. Sarah honoured her husband Abraham; this appeareth by the title she gave him. The brethren of Joseph did him honour in the land of Egypt; their lowly and humble gesture sheweth it. Parents will hardly persuade themselves that this intentional honour, which reacheth no farther than to the inward conception only, is the honour which their children owe them. Touching that honour which mystically agreeing unto Christ, was yielded literally and really unto Solomon, the words of the Psalmist concerning it are [4] , “Unto him they shall give of the gold of Sheba, they shall pray for him continually, and daily bless him.”

Weigh these things in themselves, titles, gestures, presents, other the like external signs wherein honour doth consist, and they are matters of no great moment. Howbeit, take them away, let them cease to be required, and they are not things of small importance, which that surcease were likely to draw after it. Let the lord mayor of London, or any other unto whose office honour belongeth, be deprived but of that title which in itself is a matter of nothing; and suppose we that it would be a small maim unto the credit, force, and countenance of his office? It hath not without the singular wisdom of God been provided, that the ordinary outward tokens of honour should for the most part be in themselves things of mean account;     BOOK VII. Ch. xvii. 5. xviii. 1, 2.  for to the end they might easily follow as faithful testimonies of that beneficial virtue whereunto they are due, it behoved them to be of such nature, that to himself no man might over-eagerly challenge them, without blushing; nor any man where they are due withhold them, but with manifest appearance of too great malice or pride.

Now forasmuch as according to the ancient orders and customs of this land, as of the kingdom of Israel, and of all Christian kingdoms through the world, the next in degree of honour unto the chief sovereign are the chief prelates of God’s Church; what the reason hereof may be, it resteth next to be inquired.

What good doth publicly grow from the Prelacy.  XVIII. Other reason there is not any, wherefore such honour hath been judged due, saving only that public good which the prelates of God’s clergy are authors of. For I would know which of these things it is whereof we make any question, either that the favour of God is the chiefest pillar to bear up kingdoms and states; or that true religion publicly exercised is the principal mean to retain the favour of God; or that the prelates of the Church are they without whom the exercise of true religion cannot well and long continue. If these three be granted, then cannot the public benefit of prelacy be dissembled [1] .

And of the first or second of these I look not for any professed denial; the world at this will blush, not to grant at the leastwise in word as much as heathens themselves have of old with most earnest asseveration acknowledged [2] , concerning the force of divine grace in upholding kingdoms. Again, though his mercy doth so far strive with men’s ingratitude, that all kind of public iniquities deserving his indignation, their safety is through his gracious providence many times nevertheless continued to the end that amendment might if it were possible avert their envy;     BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 3.  so that as well commonweals as particular persons both may and do endure much longer, when they are careful, as they should be, to use the most effectual means of procuring his favour on whom their continuance principally dependeth: yet this point no man will stand to argue, no man will openly arm himself to enter into set disputation against the emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, for making unto their laws concerning religion this preface [1] , “Decere arbitramur nostrum imperium, subditos nostros de religione commonefacere. Ita enim et pleniorem acquiri Dei ac Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi benignitatem possibile esse existimamus, si quando et nos pro viribus ipsi placere studuerimus, et nostros subditos ad eam rem instituerimus:” or against the emperor Justinian, for that he also maketh the like profession [2] : “Per sanctissimas ecclesias et nostrum imperium sustineri, et communes res clementissimi Dei gratia muniri credimus.” And in another place [3] , “Certissime credimus, quia Sacerdotum puritas et decus, et ad Dominum Deum ac salvatorem nostrum Jesum Christum fervor, et ab ipsis missæ perpetuæ preces, multum favorem nostræ reipublicæ et incrementum præbent.”

Wherefore only the last point is that which men will boldly require us to prove; for no man feareth now to make it a question, “whether the prelacy of the Church be any thing available or no to effect the good and long continuance of true religion?” Amongst the principal blessings wherewith God enriched Israel, the prophet in the Psalm [4] acknowledgeth especially this for one, “Thou didst lead thy people like sheep by the hands of Moses and Aaron.” That which sheep are if pastors be wanting, the same are the people of God if so be they want governors: and that which the principal civil governors are in comparison of regents under them, the same are the prelates of the Church being compared with the rest of God’s clergy. Wherefore inasmuch as amongst the Jews the benefit of civil government grew principally from Moses, he being their principal civil governor; even so the benefit of spiritual regiment grew from Aaron principally, he being in the other kind their principal rector, although even herein subject to the sovereign dominion of Moses.     BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 4.  For which cause, these two alone are named as the heads and well-springs of all. As for the good which others did in service either of the commonwealth or of the sanctuary, the chiefest glory thereof did belong to the chiefest governors of the one sort and of the other, whose vigilant care and oversight kept them in their due order. Bishops are now as high priests were then, in regard of power over other priests: and in respect of subjection unto high priests [1] , what priests were then, the same now presbyters are by way of their place under bishops. The one’s authority therefore being so profitable, how should the other’s be thought unnecessary? Is there any man professing Christian religion which holdeth it not as a maxim, that the Church of Jesus Christ did reap a singular benefit by apostolical regiment, not only for other respects, but even in regard of that prelacy whereby they had and exercised power of jurisdiction over lower guides of the Church? Prelates are herein the Apostles’ successors, as hath been proved.

Thus we see that prelacy must needs be acknowledged exceedingly beneficial in the Church; and yet for more perspicuity’s sake, it shall not be pains superfluously taken, if the manner how be also declared at large. For this one thing not understood by the vulgar sort, causeth all contempt to be offered unto higher powers, not only ecclesiastical, but civil: whom when proud men have disgraced, and are therefore reproved by such as carry some dutiful affection of mind, the usual apologies which they make for themselves are these: “What more virtue in these great ones than in others? We see no such eminent good which they do above other men.”

We grant indeed, that the good which higher governors do is not so immediate and near unto every of us, as many times the meaner labours of others under them, and this doth make it to be less esteemed. But we must note, that it is in this case as in a ship;     BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 5.  he that sitteth at the stern is quiet, he moveth not, he seemeth in a manner to do little or nothing in comparison of them that sweat about other toil, yet that which he doth is in value and force more than all the labours of the residue laid together. The influence of the heavens above worketh infinitely more to our good, and yet appeareth not half so sensible as the force doth of things below. We consider not what it is which we reap by the authority of our chiefest spiritual governors, nor are likely to enter into any consideration thereof, till we want them; and that is the cause why they are at our hands so unthankfully rewarded.

Authority is a constraining power, which power were needless if we were all such as we should be, willing to do the things we ought to do without constraint. But because generally we are otherwise, therefore we all reap singular benefit by that authority which permitteth no men, though they would, to slack their duty. It doth not suffice, that the lord of an household appoint labourers what they should do, unless he set over them some chief workmen to see they do it. Constitutions and canons made for the ordering of church affairs are dead taskmasters. The due execution of laws spiritual dependeth most upon the vigilant care of the chiefest spiritual governors, whose charge is to see that such laws be kept by the clergy and people under them: with those duties which the law of God and the ecclesiastical canons require in the clergy, lay governors are neither for the most part so well acquainted, nor so deeply and nearly touched. Requisite therefore it is, that ecclesiastical persons have authority in such things; which kind of authority maketh them that have it prelates. If then it be a thing confessed, as by all good men it needs must be, to have prayers read in all churches, to have the sacraments of God administered, to have the mysteries of salvation painfully taught, to have God every where devoutly worshipped, and all this perpetually, and with quietness, bringeth unto the whole Church, and unto every member thereof, inestimable good; how can that authority which hath been proved the ordinance of God for preservation of these duties in the Church, how can it choose but deserve to be held a thing publicly most beneficial?

BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 6, 7.  It were to be wished, and is to be laboured for, as much as can be, that they who are set in such rooms may be furnished with honourable qualities and graces, every way fit for their calling: but be they otherwise, howsoever, so long as they are in authority, all men reap some good by them, albeit not so much good as if they were abler men. There is not any amongst us all, but is a great deal more apt to exact another man’s duty, than the best of us is to discharge exactly his own; and therefore prelates, although neglecting many ways their duty unto God and men, do notwithstanding by their authority great good, in that they keep others at the leastwise in some awe under them. It is our duty therefore in this consideration, to honour them that rule as prelates; which office if they discharge well, the Apostle’s own verdict is [1] , that the honour they have they be worthy of, yea though it were double. And if their government be otherwise, the judgment of sage men hath ever been this, that albeit the dealings of governors be culpable, yet honourable they must be, in respect of that Authority by which they govern. Great caution must be used that we neither be emboldened to follow them in evil, whom for authority’s sake we honour; nor induced in authority to dishonour them, whom as examples we may not follow. In a word, not to dislike sin, though it should be in the highest, were unrighteous meekness; and proud righteousness it is to contemn or dishonour highness, though it should be in the sinfullest men that live.

But so hard it is to obtain at our hands, especially as now things stand, the yielding of honour [2] to whom honour in this case belongeth, that by a brief declaration only what the duties of men are towards the principal guides and pastors of their souls, we cannot greatly hope to prevail, partly for the malice of their open adversaries, and partly for the cunning of such as in a sacrilegious intent work their dishonour under covert, by more mystical and secret means. Wherefore requisite and in a manner necessary it is, that by particular instances we make it even palpably manifest what singular benefit and use public the nature of prelates is apt to yield.

BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 8.  First, no man doubteth but that unto the happy condition of commonweals it is a principal help and furtherance, when in the eye of foreign states their estimation and credit is great. In which respect, the Lord himself commending his own laws unto his people, mentioneth this as a thing not meanly to be accounted of, that their careful obedience yielded thereunto should purchase them a great good opinion abroad [1] , and make them every where famous for wisdom. Fame and reputation groweth especially by the virtue, not of common ordinary persons, but of them which are in each estate most eminent by occasion of their higher place and calling. The mean man’s actions, be they good or evil, they reach not far, they are not greatly inquired into, except perhaps by such as dwell at the next door: whereas men of more ample dignity are as cities on the tops of hills [2] , their lives are viewed afar off; so that the more there are which observe aloof what they do, the greater glory by their well-doing they purchase, both unto God whom they serve, and to the state wherein they live. Wherefore if the clergy be a beautifying unto the body of this commonweal in the eyes of foreign beholders, and if in the clergy the prelacy be most exposed unto the world’s eye, what public benefit doth grow from that order, in regard of reputation thereby gotten to the land from abroad, we may soon conjecture. Amongst the Jews (their kings excepted) who so renowned throughout the world as their high priest? Who so much or so often spoken of as their prelates?

(2.) Which order is not for the present only the most in sight, but for that very cause also the most commended unto posterity. For if we search those records wherein there hath descended from age to age whatsoever notice and intelligence we have of those things which were before us, is there any thing almost else, surely not any thing so much, kept in memory, as the successions, doings, sufferings, and affairs of prelates. So that either there is not any public use of that light which the Church doth receive from antiquity; or if this be absurd to think, then must we necessarily acknowledge ourselves beholding more unto prelates than unto others their inferiors, for that good of direction which ecclesiastical actions recorded do always bring.     BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 9.

Thirdly, But to call home our cogitations, and more inwardly to weigh with ourselves what principal commodity that order yieldeth, or at leastwise is of its own disposition and nature apt to yield: kings and princes, partly for information of their own consciences, partly for instruction what they have to do in a number of most weighty affairs, entangled with the cause of religion, having, as all men know, so usual occasion of often consultations and conferences with their clergy; suppose we, that no public detriment would follow upon the want of honourable personages ecclesiastical to be used in those cases? It will be haply said, “That the highest might learn to stoop, and not to disdain the advice of some circumspect, wise and virtuous minister of God, albeit the ministry were not by such degrees distinguished.” What princes in that case might or should do, it is not material. Such difference being presupposed therefore, as we have proved already to have been the ordinance of God, there is no judicious man will ever make any question or doubt, but that fit and direct it is for the highest and chiefest order in God’s clergy to be employed before others about so near and necessary offices as the sacred estate of the greatest on earth doth require. For this cause Joshua had Eleazar; David, Abiathar; Constantine, Hosius, bishop of Corduba; other emperors and kings their prelates, by whom in private (for with princes this is the most effectual way of doing good) to be admonished, counselled, comforted, and if need were, reproved. Whensoever sovereign rulers are willing to admit these so necessary private conferences for their spiritual and ghostly good, inasmuch as they do for the time while they take advice grant a kind of superiority unto them of whom they receive it, albeit haply they can be contented even so far to bend to the gravest and chiefest persons in the order of God’s clergy; yet this of the very best being rarely and hardly obtained, now that there are whose greater and higher callings do somewhat more proportion them unto that ample conceit and spirit wherewith the minds of so powerable persons are possessed; what should we look for, in case God himself not authorizing any by miraculous means, as of old he did his prophets, the equal meanness of all did leave, in respect of calling, no more place of decency for one than for another to be admitted?     BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 10.  Let unexperienced wits imagine what pleaseth them, in having to deal with so great personages these personal differences are so necessary that there must be regard had of them.

Fourthly, Kingdoms being principally (next unto God’s Almightiness, and the sovereignty of the highest under God) upheld by wisdom and by valour, as by the chiefest human means to cause continuance in safety with honour (for the labours of them who attend the service of God, we reckon as means divine, to procure our protection from heaven); from hence it riseth, that men excelling in either of these, or descending from such as for excellency either way have been ennobled, or possessing howsoever the rooms of such as should be in politic wisdom or in martial prowess eminent, are had in singular recommendation. Notwithstanding, because they are by the state of nobility great, but not thereby made inclinable to good things; such they oftentimes prove even under the best princes, as under David certain of the Jewish nobility were. In polity and counsel the world had not Achitophel’s equal, nor hell his equal in deadly malice. Joab the general of the host of Israel, valiant, industrious, fortunate in war, but withal headstrong, cruel, treacherous, void of piety towards God; in a word, so conditioned, that easy it is not to define, whether it were for David harder to miss the benefit of his warlike ability, or to bear the enormity of his other crimes. As well for the cherishing of those virtues therefore, wherein if nobility do chance to flourish, they are both an ornament and a stay to the commonwealth wherein they live; as also for the bridling of those disorders, which if they loosely run into, they are by reason of their greatness dangerous; what help could there ever have been invented more divine, than the sorting of the clergy into such degrees, that the chiefest of the prelacy being matched in a kind of equal yoke, as it were, with the higher, the next with the lower degree of nobility, the reverend authority of the one might be to the other as a courteous bridle, a mean to keep them lovingly in awe that are exorbitant, and to correct such excesses in them, as whereunto their courage, state and dignity maketh them over-prone? O that there were for encouragement of prelates herein, that inclination of all Christian kings and princes towards them, which sometime a famous king of this land either had, or pretended to have, for the countenancing of a principal prelate under him in the actions of spiritual authority!     BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 11.  “Let my lord archbishop know [1] ,” saith he, “that if a bishop, or earl, or any other great person, yea if my own chosen son, shall presume to withstand or to hinder his will and disposition, whereby he may be withheld from performing the work of the embassage committed unto him; such a one shall find, that of his contempt I will shew myself no less a persecutor and revenger, than if treason were committed against mine own very crown and dignity.” Sith therefore by the fathers and first founders of this commonweal it hath upon great experience and forecast being judged most for the good of all sorts, that as the whole body politic wherein we live should be for strength’s sake a threefold cable, consisting of the king as a supreme head over all, of peers and nobles under him, and of the people under them; so likewise, that in this conjunction of states, the second wreath of that cable should, for important respects, consist as well of lords spiritual as temporal: nobility and prelacy being by this mean twined together, how can it possibly be avoided, but that the tearing away of the one must needs exceedingly weaken the other, and by consequent impair greatly the good of all?

(Fifthly.) The force of which detriment there is no doubt but that the common sort of men would feel to their helpless woe, how goodly a thing soever they now surmise it to be, that themselves and their godly teachers did all alone without controlment of their prelate. For if the manifold jeopardies whereto a people destitute of pastors is subject be unavoidable without government; and if the benefit of government, whether it be ecclesiastical or civil,     BOOK VII. Ch. xviii. 12.  do grow principally from them who are principal therein, as hath been proved out of the prophet, who albeit the people of Israel had sundry inferior governors, ascribeth not unto them the public benefit of government, but maketh mention of Moses and Aaron only, the chief prince and chief prelate, because they were the wellspring of all the good which others under them did: may we not boldly conclude, that to take from the people their prelate is to leave them in effect without guides, as leastwise without those guides which are the strongest hands that God doth direct them by? “Thou didst lead thy people like sheep,” saith the Prophet [1] , “by the hands of Moses and Aaron.”

If now there arise any matter of grievance between the pastor and the people that are under him, they have their ordinary, a judge indifferent to determine their causes, and to end their strife. But in case there were no such appointed to sit and to hear both, what would then be the end of their quarrels? They will answer perhaps, “That for such purposes their synods shall serve.” Which is as if in the commonwealth the higher magistrates being removed, every township should be a state, altogether free and independent; and the controversies which they cannot end speedily within themselves, to the contentment of both parties, should be all determined by solemn parliaments. Merciful God! where is the light of wit and judgment, which this age doth so much vaunt of and glory in, when unto these such odd imaginations so great not only assent, but also applause is yielded?

(Sixthly.) As for those in the clergy whose place and calling is lower, were it not that their eyes are blinded lest they should see the thing that of all others is for their good most effectual, somewhat they might consider the benefit which they enjoy by having such in authority over them as are of the selfsame profession, society and body with them; such as have trodden the same steps before; such as know by their own experience the manifold intolerable contempts and indignities which faithful pastors, intermingled with the multitude, are constrained every day to suffer in the exercise of their spiritual charge and function, unless their superiors, taking their causes even to heart, be by a kind of sympathy drawn to relieve and aid them in their virtuous proceedings, no less effectually than loving parents their dear children.     BOOK VII. Ch. xix. 1.

Thus therefore prelacy, being unto all sorts so beneficial, ought accordingly to receive honour at the hands of all; but we have just cause exceedingly to fear that those miserable times of confusion are drawing on, wherein [1] “the people shall be oppressed one of another;” inasmuch as already that which prepareth the way thereunto is come to pass, “children presume against the ancient, and the vile against the honourable:” Prelacy, the temperature of excesses in all estates, the glue and soder of the public weal, the ligament which tieth and connecteth the limbs of this body politic each to other, hath instead of deserved honour, all extremity of disgrace. The foolish every where plead, that unto the wise in heart [2] they owe neither service, subjection, nor honour.

What kinds of honour be due unto Bishops.  XIX. Now that we have laid open the causes for which honour is due unto prelates, the next thing we are to consider is, what kinds of honour be due. The good government either of the Church or the commonwealth dependeth scarcely on any one external thing so much as on the public marks and tokens, whereby the estimation that governors are in is made manifest to the eyes of men. True it is, that governors are to be esteemed according to the excellency of their virtues; the more virtuous they are, the more they ought to be honoured, if respect be had unto that which every man should voluntarily perform unto his superiors. But the question is now, of that honour which public order doth appoint unto church-governors, in that they are governors; the end whereof is, to give open sensible testimony, that the place which they hold is judged publickly in such degree beneficial, as the marks of their excellency, the honours appointed to be done unto them do import. Wherefore this honour we are to do them, without presuming ourselves to examine how worthy they are, and withdrawing it if by us they be thought unworthy. It is a note of that public judgment which is given of them; and therefore not tolerable that men in private should by refusal to do them such honour reverse as much as in them lieth the public judgment. If it deserve such grievous punishment, when any particular person adventureth to deface those marks whereby is signified what value some small piece of coin is publickly esteemed at;     BOOK VII. Ch. xix. 2.  is it sufferable that honours, the characters of that estimation which publickly is had of public estates and callings in the Church or commonwealth, should at every man’s pleasure be cancelled?

Let us not think that without most necessary cause the same have been thought expedient. The first authors thereof were wise and judicious men; they knew it a thing altogether impossible, for each particular in the multitude to judge what benefit doth grow unto them from their prelates, and thereupon uniformly to yield them convenient honour. Wherefore that all sorts might be kept in obedience and awe, doing that unto their superiors of every degree, not which every man’s special fancy should think meet, but which being beforehand agreed upon as meet, by public sentence and decision, might afterwards stand as a rule for each in particular to follow; they found that nothing was more necessary, than to allot unto all degrees their certain honour, as marks of public judgment concerning the dignity of their places; which mark when the multitude should behold, they might be thereby given to know, that of such or such estimation their governors are, and in token thereof do carry those notes of excellency. Hence it groweth, that the different notes and signs of honour do leave a correspondent impression in the minds of common beholders. Let the people be asked who are the chiefest in any kind of calling? who most to be listened unto? who of greatest account and reputation? and see if the very discourse of their minds lead them not unto those sensible marks, according to the difference whereof they give their suitable judgment, esteeming them the worthiest persons who carry the principal note and public mark of worthiness. If therefore they see in other estates a number of tokens sensible, whereby testimony is given what account there is publickly made of them, but no such thing in the clergy; what will they hereby, or what can they else conclude, but that where they behold this, surely in that commonwealth, religion and they that are conversant about it are not esteemed greatly beneficial? Whereupon in time the open contempt of God and godliness must needs ensue: “Qui bona fide Deum colit, amat et sacerdotes [1] ,” saith Papinius. In vain doth that kingdom or commonwealth pretend zeal to the honour of God, which doth not provide that his clergy also may have honour.     BOOK VII. Ch. xix. 3. xx. 1.

Now if all that are employed in the service of God should have one kind of honour, what more confused, absurd, and unseemly? Wherefore in the honour which hath been allotted unto God’s clergy, we are to observe, how not only the kinds thereof, but also in every particular kind, the degrees do differ. The honour which the clergy of God hath hitherto enjoyed, consisteth especially in the preeminence of Title, Place, Ornament, Attendance, Privilege, Endowment. In every of which it hath been evermore judged meet, that there should be no small odds between prelates and the inferior clergy.

Honour in Title, Place, Ornament, Attendancy, and Privilege.  XX. Concerning title, albeit even as under the law all they whom God hath severed to offer him sacrifice were generally termed priests, so likewise the name of pastor or presbyter be now common unto all that serve him in the ministry of the gospel of Jesus Christ; yet both then and now the higher orders, as well of the one sort as of the other, have by one and the same congruity of reason their different titles of honour, wherewith we find them in the phrase of ordinary speech exalted above others. Thus the heads of the twenty-four companies of priests are in Scripture termed [1] arch-priests; Aaron and the successors of Aaron being above those arch-priests, themselves are in that respect further entitled high and great. After what sort antiquity hath used to style Christian bishops, and to yield them in that kind honour more than were meet for inferior pastors, I may the better omit to declare, both because others have sufficiently done it already, and in so slight a thing it were but a loss of time to bestow further travel. The allegation of Christ’s prerogative to be named an arch-pastor [2] simply, in regard of his absolute excellency over all,     BOOK VII. Ch. xx. 2.  is no impediment but that the like title in an unlike signification may be granted unto others besides him, to note a more limited superiority, whereof men are capable enough without derogation from his glory, than which nothing is more sovereign. To quarrel at syllables, and to take so poor exceptions at the first four letters in the name of an archbishop, as if they were manifestly stolen goods whereof restitution ought to be made to the civil magistrate [1] toucheth no more the prelates that now are, than it doth the very blessed Apostle, who giveth unto himself the title of an archbuilder.

As for our Saviour’s words alleged against the title of lordship and grace, we have before sufficiently opened how far they are drawn from their natural meaning, to bolster up a cause which they nothing at all concern. Bishops Theodoret [2] entitleth “most honourable.” Emperors writing unto bishops, have not disdained to give them their appellations of honour, “Your holiness [3] ,” “Your blessedness,” “Your amplitude,” “Your highness,” and the like: such as purposely have done otherwise are noted of insolent singularity and pride.

Honour done by giving preeminence of place unto one sort before another, is for decency, order, and quietness’ sake so needful, that both imperial laws [4] and canons ecclesiastical [5] have made their special provisions for it. Our Saviour’s invective against the vain affectation of superiority, whether in title or in place [1] , may not hinder these seemly differences usual in giving and taking honour, either according to the one or the other.     BOOK VII. Ch. xx. 3, 4.

Something there is even in the ornaments of honour also; otherwise idle it had been for the wise man speaking of Aaron, to stand so much upon the circumstance of his priestly attire, and to urge it as an argument of such dignity and greatness in him [2] : “An everlasting covenant God made with Aaron, and gave him the priesthood among the people, and made him blessed through his comely ornament, and clothed him with the garment of honour.” The robes of a judge do not add to his virtue; the chiefest ornament of kings is justice; holiness and purity of conversation do much more adorn a bishop, than his peculiar form of clothing. Notwithstanding, both judges, through the garments of judicial authority, and through the ornaments of sovereignty, princes; yea bishops through the very attire of bishops, are made blessed, that is to say, marked and manifested they are to be such as God hath poured his blessing upon, by advancing them above others, and placing them where they may do him principal good service. Thus to be called is to be blessed, and therefore to be honoured with the signs of such a calling must needs be in part a blessing also; for of good things even the signs are good.

Of honour, another part is attendancy; and therefore in the visions of the glory of God, angels are spoken of as his attendants. In setting out the honour of that mystical queen, the prophet mentioneth the virgin ladies which waited on her. Amongst the tokens of Solomon’s honourable condition, his servants and waiters the sacred history omitteth not.

This doth prove attendants a part of honour: but this as yet doth not shew with what attendancy prelates are to be honoured. Of the high-priest’s retinue amongst the Jews, somewhat the Gospel itself doth intimate. And albeit our Saviour came to minister, and not, as the Jews did imagine their Messias should, to be ministered unto in this world,     BOOK VII. Ch. xx. 4.  yet attended on he was by his blessed Apostles, who followed him not only as scholars, but even as servants about him. After that he had sent them, as himself was sent of God, in the midst of that hatred and extreme contempt which they sustained at the world’s hands, by saints and believers this part of honour was most plentifully done unto them. Attendants they had provided in all places where they went; which custom of the Church was still continued in bishops their successors [1] , as by Ignatius it is plain to be seen. And from hence no doubt those Acolythes took their beginning [2] , of whom so frequent mention is made; the bishop’s attendants, his followers they were: in regard of which service the name of Acolythes seemeth plainly to have been given. The custom for bishops to be attended upon by many is as Justinian [3] doth shew ancient: the affairs of regiment, wherein prelates are employed, make it necessary that they always have many about them whom they may command, although no such thing did by way of honour belong unto them.

Some men’s judgment is, that if clerks, students, and religious persons were more, common serving men and lay retainers fewer than they are in bishops’ palaces, the use and the honour thereof would be much more suitable than now. But these things, concerning the number and quality of persons fit to attend on prelates, either for necessity, or for honour’s sake, are rather in particular discretion to be ordered, than to be argued of by disputes.     BOOK VII. Ch. xx. 5.

As for the vain imagination of some [1] , who teach the original hereof to have been a preposterous imagination of Maximinus the emperor, who being addicted unto idolatry, chose of the choicest magistrates to be priests, and to the end they might be in great estimation, gave unto each of them a train of followers; and that Christian emperors, thinking the same would promote Christianity which promoted superstition, endeavoured to make their bishops encounter and match with those idolatrous priests: such frivolous conceits, having no other ground than conceit, we weigh not so much as to frame any answer unto them; our declaration of the true original of ancient attendancy on bishops being sufficient. Now if that which the light of sound reason doth teach to be fit, have upon like inducements reasonable, allowable, and good, approved itself in such wise as to be accepted, not only of us, but of pagans and infidels also; doth conformity with them that are evil in that which is good, make that thing which is good evil? We have not herein followed the heathens, nor the heathens us, but both we and they one and the selfsame divine rule, the light of a true and sound understanding, which sheweth what honour is fit for prelates, and what attendancy convenient to be a part of their honour.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxi. 1.

Touching privileges granted for honour’s sake, partly in general unto the clergy, and partly unto prelates the chiefest persons ecclesiastical in particular; of such quality and number they are [1] , that to make but rehearsal of them we scarce think it safe, lest the very entrails of some of our godly brethren, as they term themselves, should thereat haply burst in sunder.

Honour by endowment with Lands and Livings.  XXI. And yet of all these things rehearsed, it may be there never would have grown any question, had bishops been honoured only thus far forth. But the honouring of the clergy with wealth, this is in the eyes of them which pretend to seek nothing but mere reformation of abuses, a sin that can never be remitted.

How soon, O how soon might the Church be perfect, even without any spot or wrinkle, if public authority would at the length say Amen unto the holy and devout requests of those godly brethren, who as yet with outstretched necks groan in the pangs of their zeal to see the houses of bishops rifled, and their so long desired livings gloriously divided amongst the righteous! But there is an impediment, a let, which somewhat hindereth those good men’s prayers from taking effect: they in whose hands the sovereignty of power and dominion over this Church doth rest, are persuaded there is a God; for undoubtedly either the name of Godhead is but a feigned thing, or if in heaven there be a God, the sacrilegious intention of Church robbers,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxi. 2. xxii. 1.  which lurketh under this plausible name of Reformation, is in his sight a thousand times more hateful than the plain professed malice of those very miscreants, who threw their vomit in the open face of our blessed Saviour.

They are not words of persuasion by which true men can hold their own, when they are over beset with thieves. And therefore to speak in this cause at all were but labour lost, saving only in respect of them, who being as yet unjoined unto this conspiracy, may be haply somewhat stayed, when they shall know betimes what it is to see thieves and to run on with them, as the Prophet in the Psalm speaketh [1] ; “When thou sawest a thief, then thou consentedst with him, and hast been partaker with adulterers.”

For the better information therefore of men which carry true, honest and indifferent minds, these things we will endeavour to make most clearly manifest: First, That in goods and livings of the Church none hath propriety but God himself. Secondly, That the honour which the clergy therein hath, is to be, as it were, God’s Receivers; the honour of prelates, to be his chief and principal Receivers. Thirdly, That from him they have right, not only to receive, but also to use such goods, the lower sort in smaller, and the higher in larger measure. Fourthly, That in case they be thought, yea, or found to abuse the same, yet may not such honour be therefore lawfully taken from them, and be given away unto persons of other calling.

That of ecclesiastical goods, and consequently of the lands and livings which Bishops enjoy, the propriety belongeth unto God alone.  XXII. Possessions, lands and livings spiritual, the wealth of the clergy, the goods of the Church, are in such sort the Lord’s own, that man can challenge no propriety in them. His they are, and not ours; all things are his, in that from him they have their being [2] . “My corn, and my wine, and mine oil,” saith the Lord. All things his, in that he hath absolute power to dispose of them at his pleasure. “Mine (saith he [3] ) are the sheep and oxen of a thousand hills.” All things his, in that when we have them, we may say with Job [4] , “God hath given;” and when we are deprived of them, “The Lord,” whose they are, hath likewise “taken them away” again. But these sacred possessions are his by another tenure; his, because those men who first received them from him have unto him returned them again by way of religious gift or oblation: and in this respect it is,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxii. 2, 3.  that the Lord doth term those houses [1] wherein such gifts and oblations were laid, “his treasuries.”

The ground whereupon men have resigned their own interests in things temporal, and given over the same unto God, is that precept which Solomon borroweth from the law of nature [2] , “Honour the Lord out of thy substance, and of the chiefest of all thy revenue: so shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and with new wine the fat of thy press shall overflow.” For although it be by one most fitly spoken against those superstitious persons that only are scrupulous in external rites [3] ; “Wilt thou win the favour of God? be virtuous: they best worship him that are his followers:” it is not the bowing of your knees, but of your hearts; it is not the number of your oblations, but the integrity of your lives; not your incense, but your obedience, which God is delighted to be honoured by: nevertheless, we must beware, lest simply understanding this, which comparatively is meant; that is to say, whereas the meaning is, that God doth chiefly respect the inward disposition of the heart; we must take heed we do not hereupon so worship him in spirit, that outwardly we take all worship, reverence and honour from him.

Our God will be glorified both of us himself, and for us by others: to others because our hearts are [not?] known, and yet our example is required for their good, therefore it is not sufficient to carry religion in our hearts, as fire is carried in flint-stones, but we are outwardly, visibly, apparently, to serve and honour the living God; yea to employ that way, as not only our souls but our bodies, so not only our bodies but our goods, yea, the choice, the flower, the chiefest of all thy revenue, saith Solomon. If thou hast any thing in all thy possessions of more value and price than other, to what use shouldest thou convert it, rather than this? Samuel was dear unto Hannah his mother: the child that Hannah did so much esteem, she could not but greatly wish to advance;     BOOK VII. Ch. xxii. 4.  and her religious conceit was, that the honouring of God with it was the advancing of it unto honour. The chiefest of the offspring of men are the males which be first born: and for this cause, in the ancient world they all were by right of their birth priests to the Most High. By these and the like precedents, it plainly enough appeareth, that in what heart soever doth dwell unfeigned religion, in the same there resteth also a willingness to bestow upon God that soonest which is most dear. Amongst us the law is, that sith gold is the chiefest of metals, if it be any where found in the bowels of the earth, it belongeth in right of honour, as all men know, to the King: whence hath this custom grown but only from a natural persuasion, whereby men judge it decent for the highest persons always to be honoured with the choicest things? “If ye offer unto God the blind,” saith the Prophet Malachi [1] , “it is not evil; if the lame and sick, it is good enough. Present it unto thy prince, and see if he will content himself, or accept thy person, saith the Lord of hosts.” When Abel presented God with an offering, it was the fattest of all the lambs in his whole flock; he honoured God not only out of his substance, but out of the very chiefest therein; whereby we may somewhat judge how religiously they stand affected towards God, who grudge that any thing worth the having should be his.

Long it were to reckon up particularly what God was owner of under the Law [2] : for of this sort was all which they spent in legal sacrifices; of this sort their usual oblations and offerings; of this sort tithes and firstfruits; of this sort that which by extraordinary occasions they vowed unto God; of this sort all that they gave to the building of the tabernacle; of this sort all that which was gathered amongst them for the erecting of the temple, and the adorning of it erected [3] ; of this sort whatsoever their Corban contained, wherein that blessed widow’s deodate was laid up. Now either this kind of honour was prefiguratively altogether ceremonial, and then our Saviour accepteth it not;     BOOK VII. Ch. xxii. 5, 6.  or if we find that to him also it hath been done, and that with divine approbation given for encouragement of the world, to shew by such kind of service their dutiful hearts towards Christ, there will be no place left for men to make any question at all whether herein they do well or no.

Wherefore to descend from the synagogue unto the Church of Christ: albeit sacrifices, wherewith sometimes God was highly honoured, be not accepted [1] as heretofore at the hands of men; yet forasmuch as “Honour God with thy riches” is an edict of the unseparable law of nature, so far forth as men are therein required by such kind of homage to testify their thankful minds, this sacrifice [2] God doth accept still. Wherefore as it was said of Christ, that [3] “all kings should worship him, and all nations do him service;” so this very kind of worship or service was likewise mentioned, lest we should think that our Lord and Saviour would allow of no such thing [4] . “The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall bring gifts.” And as it maketh not a little to the praise of those sages mentioned in the Gospel, that the first amongst men which did solemnly honour our Saviour on earth were they; so it soundeth no less to the dignity of this particular kind, that the rest by it were prevented; “They fell down and worshipped him, and opened their treasures [5] , and presented unto him gifts; gold, and incense, and myrrh.” Of all those things which were done to the honour of Christ in his lifetime there is not one whereof he spake in such sort, as when Mary to testify the largeness of her affection, seemed to waste away a gift upon him, the price of which gift might, as they thought who saw it, much better have been spent in works of mercy towards the poor: “Verily [6] I say unto you, Wheresoever this Gospel shall be preached throughout all the world, there shall also this that she hath done be spoken of for memorial of her.”

Of service to God, the best works are they which continue longest [7] : and for permanency what like Donation, whereby things are unto him for ever dedicated? That the ancient lands and livings of the Church were all in such sort given into the hands of God by the just lords and owners of them,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxii. 6.  that unto him they passed over their whole interest and right therein, the form of sundry the said donations [1] as yet extant most plainly sheweth. And where time hath left no such evidence as now remaining to be seen, yet the same intention is presumed in all donors, unless the contrary be apparent. But to the end it may yet more plainly appear unto all men under what title the several kinds of ecclesiastical possessions are held, “Our Lord himself,” saith St. Augustine [2] , “had coffers to keep those things which the faithful offered unto him. Then was the form of the church treasury first instituted, to the end that withal we might understand that in forbidding to be careful for tomorrow, his purpose was not to bar his saints from keeping money, but to withdraw them from doing God service for wealth’s sake, and from forsaking righteousness through fear of losing their wealth.” The first gifts consecrated unto Christ after his departure out of the world were sums of money, in process of time other moveables were added, and at length goods unmoveable, churches and oratories hallowed to the honour of his glorious name, houses and lands for perpetuity conveyed unto him, inheritance given to remain his as long as the world should endure. “The Apostles,” saith Melchiades [3] , “they foresaw that God would have his Church amongst the Gentiles, and for that cause in Judea they took no lands but price of lands sold.” This he conjectureth to have been the cause why the Apostles did that which the history reporteth of them.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxii. 7.  The truth is, that so the state of those times did require, as well otherwhere as in Judea. Wherefore when afterwards it did appear much more commodious for the Church to dedicate such inheritances, than the value and price of them being sold; the former custom was changed for this, as for the better. The devotion of Constantine herein all the world even till this very day admireth. They that lived in the prime of the Christian world thought no testament Christianly made, nor any thing therein well bequeathed [1] , unless something were thereby added unto Christ’s patrimony.

Touching which men, what judgment the world doth now give I know not; perhaps we deem them to have been herein but blind and superstitious persons. Nay, we in these cogitations are blind; they contrariwise did with Solomon [2] plainly know and persuade themselves, that thus to diminish their wealth was not to diminish but to augment it, according to that which God doth promise to his own people by the Prophet Malachi [3] , and which they by their own particular experience [4] found true. If Wickliff therefore were of that opinion which his adversaries ascribe unto him (whether truly or of purpose to make him odious I cannot tell, for in his writings I do not find it) namely, “That Constantine and others following his steps did evil, as having no sufficient ground whereby they might gather that such donations are acceptable to Jesus Christ;” it was in Wickliff a palpable error. I will use but one only argument to stand in the stead of many. Jacob taking his journey unto Haran made in this sort his solemn vow [1] : “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this journey which I go, and will give me bread to eat, and clothes to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in safety; then shall the Lord be my God, and this stone which I have set up a pillar shall be the house of God, and of all that thou shalt give me will I give the tenth unto thee.” May a Christian man desire as great things as Jacob did at the hands of God? may he desire them in as earnest manner? may he promise as great thankfulness in acknowledging the goodness of God?     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 1.  may he vow any certain kind of public acknowledgment beforehand; or though he vow it not, perform it after in such sort that men may see he is persuaded how the Lord hath been his God? Are these particular kind of testifying thankfulness to God, the erecting of oratories, the dedicating of lands and goods to maintain them, forbidden any where? Let any mortal man living shew but one reason wherefore in this point to follow Jacob’s example should not be a thing both acceptable unto God, and in the eyes of the world for ever most highly commendable. Concerning goods of this nature, goods whereof when we speak we term them τὰ τῳ̑ Θεῳ̑ ἀϕιερωθέντα, the goods that are consecrated unto God, and as Tertullian speaketh [1] , deposita pietatis, things which piety and devotion hath laid up as it were in the bosom of God; touching such goods, the law civil following mere light of nature defineth them to be no man’s [2] , because no mortal man, or community of men, hath right of propriety in them.

That ecclesiastical persons are receivers of God’s rents; and that the honour of Prelates is, to be thereof his chief receivers; not without liberty from him granted, of converting the same unto their own use, even in large manner.  XXIII. Persons ecclesiastical are God’s stewards, not only for that he hath set them over his family, as the ministers of ghostly food, but even for this very cause also, that they are to receive and dispose his temporal revenues, the gifts and oblations which men bring him. Of the Jews it is plain [3] that their tithes they offered unto the Lord, and those offerings the Lord bestowed upon the Levites. When the Levites gave the tenth of their tithes, this their gift the Law doth term the Lord’s heave-offering [3] , and appoint that the high-priest should receive the same. Of spoils taken in war [4] , that part which they were accustomed to separate unto God, they brought it before the priest of the Lord, by whom it was laid up in the tabernacle of the congregation, for a memorial of their thankfulness towards God, and his goodness towards them in fighting for them against their enemies. As therefore the Apostle [5] magnifieth the honour of Melchisedec, in that he being an high-priest, did receive at the hands of Abraham the tithes which Abraham did honour God with; so it argueth in the Apostles themselves great honour, that at their feet [6] the price of those possessions was laid, which men thought good to bestow on Christ.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 2.  St. Paul commending the churches which were in Macedonia for their exceeding liberality this way, saith of them that he himself would bear record, they had declared their forward minds according to their power, yea, beyond their power, and had so much exceeded his expectation of them, that “they seemed as it were even to give away themselves first to the Lord,” saith the Apostle [1] , “and then by the will of God unto us:” to him, as the owner of such gifts; to us, as his appointed receivers and dispensers. The gift of the Church of Antioch, bestowed unto the use of distressed brethren which were in Judea, Paul and Barnabas did deliver unto the presbyters of Jerusalem [2] ; and the head of those presbyters was James [3] , he therefore the chiefest disposer thereof. Amongst those canons which are entitled Apostolical, one is this, “We appoint that the Bishop have care of those things which belong to the Church [4] ;” the meaning is, of church goods, as the reason following sheweth: “For if the precious souls of men must be committed unto him of trust, much more it behoveth the charge of money to be given him, that by his authority the presbyters and deacons may administer all things to them that stand in need.” So that he which hath done them the honour to be, as it were, his treasurers, hath left them also authority and power to use these treasures, both otherwise, and for the maintenance even of their own estate: the lower sort of the clergy according unto a meaner, the higher after a larger proportion.

The use of spiritual goods and possessions hath been a matter much disputed of; grievous complaints there are usually made against the evil and unlawful usage of them, but with no certain determination hitherto, on what things and persons, with what proportion and measure they being bestowed, do retain their lawful use.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 3, 4.  Some men condemn it as idle, superfluous, and altogether vain, that any part of the treasure of God should be spent upon costly ornaments appertaining unto his service: who being best worshipped, when he is served in spirit and truth [1] , hath not for want of pomp and magnificence rejected at any time those who with faithful hearts have adored him. Whereupon the heretics [2] , termed Henriciani and Petrobrusiani, threw down temples and houses of prayer erected with marvellous great charge, as being in that respect not fit for Christ by us to be honoured in.

We deny not, but that they who sometime wandered as pilgrims on earth, and had no temples, but made caves and dens to pray in [3] , did God such honour as was most acceptable in his sight: God did not reject them for their poverty and nakedness’ sake; their sacraments were not abhorred for want of vessels of gold.

Howbeit, let them who thus delight to plead, answer me: when Moses first, and afterwards David, exhorted the people of Israel unto matter of charge about the service of God; suppose we it had been allowable in them to have thus pleaded: “Our fathers in Egypt served God devoutly, God was with them in all their afflictions, he heard their prayers, pitied their case, and delivered them from the tyranny of their oppressors; what house, tabernacle, or temple had they?” Such argumentations are childish and fond; God doth not refuse to be honoured at all where there lacketh wealth; but where abundance and store is, he there requireth the flower thereof, being bestowed on him, to be employed even unto the ornament of his service. In Egypt the state of his people was servitude, and therefore his service was accordingly. In the desert they had no sooner aught of their own, but a tabernacle is required; and in the land of Canaan a temple [4] . In the eyes of David it seemed a thing not fit, a thing not decent, that himself should be more richly seated than God.

But concerning the use of ecclesiastical goods bestowed this way, there is not so much contention amongst us, as what measure of allowance is fit for ecclesiastical persons to be maintained with.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 4.  A better rule in this case to judge things by we cannot possibly have than the wisdom of God himself: by considering what he thought meet for each degree of the clergy to enjoy in time of the Law, what for Levites, what for priests, and what for high priests, somewhat we shall be the more able to discern rightly what may be fit, convenient, and right for the Christian clergy likewise. Priests for their maintenance had those first fruits [1] of cattle [2] , corn, wine, oil, and other [3] commodities of the earth, which the Jews were accustomed yearly to present God with. They had the price [4] which was appointed for men to pay in lieu of the first-born of their children, and the price of the first-born also amongst cattle which were unclean: they had the vowed gifts [5] of the people, or the prices, if they were redeemable by the donors after vow, as some things were: they had the free [6] and unvowed oblations of men: they had the remainder of [7] things sacrificed: with tithes the Levites [8] were maintained; and with the tithe of their tithes [9] the high-priest. In a word, if the quality of that which God did assign to his clergy be considered, and their manner of receiving it without labour, expense, or charge, it will appear that the tribe of Levi, being but the twelfth part of Israel, had in effect as good as four twelfth parts of all such goods as the holy land did yield: so that their worldly estate was four times as good as any other tribe’s in Israel besides. But the high-priests’ condition, how ample! to whom belonged the tenth of all the tithe of this land, especially the law providing also, that as the people did bring the best of all things unto the priests and Levites, so the Levites should deliver the choice and flower of all their commodities to the high-priest, and so his tenth part by that mean be made the very best part amongst ten: by which proportion, if the Levites were ordinarily in all not above thirty thousand men, (whereas when David numbered them [10] , he found almost thirty-eight thousand above the age of thirty years,) the high-priest, after this very reckoning, had as much as three or four thousand others of the clergy to live upon.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 5.

Over and besides all this, lest the priests of Egypt, holding lands [1] , should seem in that respect better provided for than the priests of the true God, it pleased him further to appoint unto them [2] forty and eight whole cities with territories of land adjoining, to hold as their own free inheritance for ever. For to the end they might have all kind of encouragement, not only to do what they ought, but to take pleasure in that they did; albeit they were expressly forbidden [3] to have any part of the land of Canaan laid out whole to themselves, by themselves, in such sort as the rest of the tribes had; forasmuch as the will of God was rather that they should throughout all tribes be dispersed, for the easier access of the people unto knowledge; yet were they not barred altogether to hold a land [hold land?] [i] , nor yet otherwise the worse provided for, in respect of that former restraint [4] ; for God by way of special preeminence undertook to feed them at his own table, and out of his own proper treasury to maintain them, that want and penury they might never feel, except God himself did first receive injury.

A thing most worthy our consideration is the wisdom of God herein; for the common sort being prone unto envy and murmur, little considereth of what necessity, use and importance the sacred duties of the clergy are, and for that cause hardly yieldeth them any such honour without repining and grudging thereat; they cannot brook it, that when they have laboured and come to reap, there should so great a portion go out of the fruit of their labours, and be yielded up unto such as sweat not for it. But when the Lord doth challenge this as his own due, and require it to be done by way of homage unto him, whose mere liberality and goodness had raised them from a poor and servile estate, to place them where they had all those ample and rich possessions; they must be worse than brute beasts if they would storm at any thing which he did receive at their hands. And for him to bestow his own on his own servants (which liberty is not denied unto the meanest of men), what man liveth that can think it other than most reasonable?     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 6.  Wherefore no cause there was, why that which the clergy had should in any man’s eye seem too much, unless God himself were thought to be of an over-having disposition. [1] This is the mark whereat all those speeches drive, “Levi hath no part nor inheritance with his brethren, the Lord is his inheritance;” again, “ [2] To the tribe of Levi he gave no inheritance, the sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel an inheritance of Levi;” again, “ [3] The tithes of the which they shall offer as an offering unto the Lord, I have given the Levites for an inheritance;” and again, “ [4] All the heave offerings of the holy things which the children of Israel shall offer unto the Lord, I have given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, to be a duty for ever; it is a perpetual covenant of salt before the Lord.”

Now that if such provision be possible to be made, the Christian clergy ought not herein to be inferior unto the Jewish, what sounder proof than the Apostle’s own kind of argument? “ [5] Do ye not know that they which minister about the holy things eat of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? so, even so, hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” Upon which words I thus conclude, that if the people of God do abound, and abounding can so far forth find in their hearts to shew themselves towards Christ their Saviour thankful as to honour him with their riches (which no law of God or nature forbiddeth) no less than the ancient Jewish people did honour God; the plain ordinance of Christ appointeth as large and as ample proportion out of his own treasure unto them that serve him in the gospel as ever the priests of the law did enjoy. What further proof can we desire? It is the blessed Apostle’s testimony, That “even so the Lord hath ordained.” Yea, I know not whether it be sound to interpret the Apostle otherwise than that, whereas he judgeth [6] the presbyters “which rule well in the Church of Christ to be worthy of double honour,” he means double unto that which the priests of the law received; “ [7] For if that ministry which was of the letter were so glorious, how shall not the ministry of the spirit be more glorious?”     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 7, 8.  If the teachers of the Law of Moses, which God delivered written with letters in tables of stone, were thought worthy of so great honour, how shall not the teachers of the gospel of Christ be in his sight most worthy, the Holy Ghost being sent from heaven to engrave the gospel on their hearts who first taught it, and whose successors they that teach it at this day are? So that according to the ordinance of God himself, their estate for worldly maintenance ought to be no worse than is granted unto other sorts of men, each according to that degree they were placed in.

Neither are we so to judge of their worldly condition, as if they were servants of men, and at men’s hands did receive those earthly benefits by way of stipend in lieu of pains whereunto they are hired; nay, that which is paid unto them is homage and tribute due unto the Lord Christ. His servants they are, and from him they receive such goods by way of stipend. Not so from men: for at the hands of men, he himself being honoured with such things, hath appointed his servants therewith according to their several degrees and places to be maintained. And for their greater encouragement who are his labourers he hath to their comfort assured them for ever, that they are in his estimation [1] “worthy the hire” which he alloweth them; and therefore if men should withdraw from him the store which those his servants that labour in his work are maintained with, yet he in his word shall be found everlastingly true, their labour in the Lord shall not be forgotten; the hire he accounteth them worthy of, they shall surely have either one way or other answered.

In the prime of the Christian world, that which was brought and laid down at the Apostles’ feet [1] , they disposed of by distribution according to the exigence of each man’s need.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 9.  Neither can we think that they who out of Christ’s treasury made provision for all others, were careless to furnish the clergy with all things fit and convenient for their estate: and as themselves were chiefest in place of authority and calling, so no man doubteth but that proportionably they had power to use the same for their own decent maintenance. The Apostles with the rest of the clergy in Jerusalem lived at that time according to the manner of a fellowship or collegiate society, maintaining themselves and the poor of the Church with a common purse, the rest of the faithful keeping that purse continually stored. And in that sense it is that the sacred history saith [2] , “All which believed were in one place, and had all things common.” In the histories of the Church, and in the writings of the ancient Fathers for some hundreds of years after, we find no other way for the maintenance of the clergy but only this, the treasury of Jesus Christ furnished through men’s devotion, bestowing sometimes goods, sometimes lands that way, and out of his treasury the charge of the service of God was defrayed, the bishop and the clergy under him maintained, the poor in their necessity ministered unto. For which purpose, every bishop had some one of the presbyters under him to be [3] treasurer of the church, to receive, keep, and deliver all; which office in churches cathedral remaineth even till this day, albeit the use thereof be not altogether so large now as heretofore.

The disposition of these goods was by the appointment of the bishop. Wherefore Prosper [4] speaking of the bishop’s care herein saith, “It was necessary for one to be troubled therewith, to the end that the rest under him might be the freer to attend quietly their spiritual businesses.” And lest any man should imagine that bishops by this means were hindered themselves from attending the service of God, “Even herein,” saith he, “they do God service; for if those things which are bestowed on the Church be God’s, he doth the work of God, who not of a covetous mind, but with purpose of most faithful administration, taketh care of things consecrated unto God.”

And forasmuch as the presbyters of every church could not all live with the bishop, partly for that their number was great, and partly because the people being once divided into parishes, such presbyters as had severally charge of them were by that mean more conveniently to live in the midst each of his own particular flock, therefore a competent number being fed at the same table with the bishop, the rest had their whole allowance apart [1] , which several allowances were called sportulæ, and they who received them, sportulantes fratres.

Touching the bishop, as his place and estate was higher, so likewise the proportion of his charges about himself being for that cause in all equity and reason greater, yet forasmuch as his stint herein was no other than it pleased himself to set, the rest (as the manner of inferiors is to think that they which are over them always have too much) grudged many times at the measure of the bishop’s private expense, perhaps not without cause. Howsoever, by this occasion there grew amongst them great heart-burning, quarrel and strife: where the bishops were found culpable, as eating too much beyond their tether, and drawing more to their own private maintenance than the proportion of Christ’s patrimony being not greatly abundant could bear, sundry constitutions hereupon were made to moderate the same, according to the Church’s condition in those times. Some before they were made bishops having been owners of ample possessions, sold them and gave them away to the poor: thus did Paulinus [1] , Hilary [2] , Cyprian [3] , and sundry others. Hereupon they who entering into the same spiritual and high function held their secular possessions still were hardly thought of: and even when the case was fully resolved, that so to do was not unlawful, yet it grew a question, “whether they lawfully might then take any thing out of the public treasury of Christ:” a question, “whether bishops, holding by civil title sufficient to live of their own, were bound in conscience to leave the goods of the Church altogether to the use of others.” Of contentions about these matters there was no end, neither appeared there any possible way for quietness, otherwise than by making partition of church-revenues, according to the several ends and uses for which they did serve, that so the bishop’s part might be certain. Such partition being made [4] , the bishop enjoyed his portion several to himself;     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 10.  the rest of the clergy likewise theirs; a third part was severed to the furnishing and upholding of the church; a fourth to the erection and maintenance of houses wherein the poor might have relief. After which separation made, lands and livings began every day to be dedicated unto each use severally, by means whereof every of them became in short time much greater than they had been for worldly maintenance, the fervent devotion of men being glad that this new opportunity was given of shewing zeal to the house of God in more certain order.

By these things it plainly appeareth what proportion of maintenance hath been ever thought reasonable for a bishop; sith in that very partition agreed on to bring him unto his certain stint, as much is allowed unto him alone as unto all the clergy under him, namely, a fourth part of the whole yearly rents and revenues of the church. Nor is it likely, that before those temporalities which now are such eyesores were added unto the honour of bishops, their state was so mean as some imagine: for if we had no other evidence than the covetous and ambitious humour of heretics, whose [1] impotent desires of aspiring thereunto, and extreme discontentment as oft as they were defeated, even this doth shew that the state of bishops was not a few degrees advanced above the rest. Wherefore of grand apostates which were in the very prime of the primitive Church, thus Lactantius above thirteen hundred years sithence testified [2] , “Men of a slippery faith they were,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiii. 11.  who feigning that they knew and worshipped God, but seeking only that they might grow in wealth and honour, affected the place of the highest priesthood; whereunto when their betters were chosen before them, they thought it better to leave the Church, and to draw their favourers with them, than to endure those men their governors, whom themselves desired to govern.”

Now whereas against the present estate of bishops, and the greatness of their port, and the largeness of their expenses at this day, there is not any thing more commonly objected than those ancient canons [1] , whereby they are restrained unto a far more sparing life, their houses, their retinue, their diet limited within a far more narrow compass than is now kept; we must know, that those laws and orders were made when bishops lived of the same purse which served as well for a number of others as them, and yet all at their disposing. So that convenient it was to provide that there might be a moderate stint appointed to measure their expenses by, lest others should be injured by their wastefulness. Contrariwise there is now no cause wherefore any such law should be urged, when bishops live only of that which hath been peculiarly allotted unto them. They having therefore temporalities and other revenues to bestow for their own private use, according to that which their state requireth, and no other having with them any such common interest therein, their own discretion is to be their law for this matter; neither are they to be pressed with the rigour of such ancient canons as were framed for other times, much less so odiously to be upbraided with unconformity unto the pattern of our Lord and Saviour’s estate, in such circumstances as himself did never mind to require that the rest of the world should of necessity be like him. Thus against the wealth of the clergy they allege [1] how meanly Christ himself was provided for; against bishops’ palaces [2] , his want of a hole to hide his head in; against the service done unto them, that “he came to minister, not to be ministered unto in the world [3] .” Which things, as they are not unfit to control covetous, proud or ambitious desires of the ministers of Christ, and even of all Christians, whatsoever they be; and to teach men contentment of mind, how mean soever their estate is, considering that they are but servants to him, whose condition was far more abased than theirs is, or can be; so to prove such difference in state between us and him unlawful, they are of no force or strength at all. If one convented before their consistories, when he standeth to make his answer, should break out into invectives against their authority, and tell them that Christ, when he was on earth, did not sit to judge, but stand to be judged; would they hereupon think it requisite to dissolve their eldership,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 1, 2.  and to permit no tribunals, no judges at all, for fear of swerving from our Saviour’s example? If those men, who have nothing in their mouths more usual than the Poverty of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, allege not this as Julian sometime did Beati pauperes [1] unto Christians, when his meaning was to spoil them of that they had; our hope is then, that as they seriously and sincerely wish that our Saviour Christ in this point may be followed, and to that end only propose his blessed example; so at our hands again they will be content to hear with like willingness the holy Apostle’s exhortation made unto them of the laity also [2] , “Be ye followers of us, even as we are of Christ; let us be your example, even as the Lord Jesus Christ is ours, that we may all proceed [3] by one and the same rule.”

That for their unworthiness to deprive both them and their successors of such goods, and to convey the same unto men of secular calling, were extreme sacrilegious injustice.  XXIV. But beware we of following Christ as thieves follow true men, to take their goods by violence from them. Be it that bishops were all unworthy, not only of living, but even of life, yet what hath our Lord Jesus Christ deserved, for which men should judge him worthy to have the things that are his given away from him unto others that have no right unto them? For at this mark it is that the head lay-reformers do all aim. Must these unworthy prelates give place? What then? Shall better succeed in their rooms? Is this desired, to the end that others may enjoy their honours, which shall do Christ more faithful service than they have done? Bishops are the worst men living upon earth; therefore let their sanctified possessions be divided: amongst whom? O blessed reformation! O happy men, that put to their helping hands for the furtherance of so good and glorious a work!

Wherefore albeit the whole world at this day do already perceive, and posterity be like hereafter a great deal more plainly to discern, not that the clergy of God is thus heaved at because they are wicked, but that means are used to put it into the heads of the simple multitude that they are such indeed, to the end that those who thirst for the spoil of spiritual possessions may till such time as they have their purpose be thought to covet nothing but only the just extinguishment of unreformable persons;     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 3.  so that in regard of such men’s intentions, practices, and machinations against them, the part that suffereth these things may most fitly pray with David [1] , “Judge thou me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and according unto mine innocency: O let the malice of the wicked come to an end, and be thou the guide of the just:” notwithstanding, forasmuch as it doth not stand with Christian humility otherwise to think, than that this violent outrage of men is a rod in the ireful hands of the Lord our God, the smart whereof we deserve to feel; let it not seem grievous in the eyes of my reverend lords the Bishops, if to their good consideration I offer a view of those sores which are in the kind of their heavenly function most apt to breed, and which being not in time cured, may procure at the length that which God of his infinite mercy avert.

Of bishops in his time St. Jerome complaineth, that they took it in great disdain to have any fault great or small found with them. Epiphanius likewise before Jerome noteth [2] their impatiency this way to have been the very cause of a schism in the Church of Christ; at what time one Audius, a man of great integrity of life, full of faith and zeal towards God, beholding those things which were corruptly done in the Church, told the bishops and presbyters their faults in such sort as those men are wont, who love the truth from their hearts, and walk in the paths of a most exact life.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 4.  Whether it were covetousness or sensuality in their lives, absurdity or error in their teaching; any breach of the laws and canons of the Church wherein he espied them faulty, certain and sure they were to be thereof most plainly told. Which thing they whose dealings were justly culpable could not bear; but instead of amending their faults bent their hatred against him who sought their amendment, till at length they drove him by extremity of infestation, through weariness of striving against their injuries, to leave both them and with them the Church.

Amongst the manifold accusations, either generally intended against the bishops of this our Church, or laid particularly to the charge of any of them, I cannot find that hitherto their spitefullest adversaries have been able to say justly, that any man for telling them their personal faults in good and Christian sort hath sustained in that respect much persecution. Wherefore notwithstanding mine own inferior estate and calling in God’s Church, the consideration whereof assureth me, that in this kind the sweetest sacrifice which I can offer unto Christ is meek obedience, reverence and awe unto the prelates which he hath placed in seats of higher authority over me, emboldened I am, so far as may conveniently stand with that duty of humble subjection, meekly to crave, my good lords, your favourable pardon, if it shall seem a fault thus far to presume; or if otherwise, your wonted courteous acceptation.

- —“Sine me hæc haud mollia fatu

- “Sublatis aperire dolis.”

- Æneid. lib. xii. [25.]

First, In government, be it of what kind soever, but especially if it be such kind of government as prelates have over the Church, there is not one thing publicly more hurtful than that an hard opinion should be conceived of governors at the first: and a good opinion how should the world ever conceive of them for their after-proceedings in regiment, whose first access and entrance thereunto giveth just occasion to think them corrupt men, which fear not that God in whose name they are to rule? Wherefore a scandalous thing it is to the Church of God, and to the actors themselves dangerous, to have aspired unto rooms of prelacy by wicked means. We are not at this day troubled much with that tumultuous kind of ambition wherewith the elections of Damasus [1] in St. Jerome’s age, and of Maximus in Gregory’s [2] time, and of others, were long sithence stained. Our greatest fear is rather the evil which Leo [3] and Anthemius did by imperial constitution endeavour as much as in them lay to prevent. He which granteth, or he which receiveth the office and dignity of a bishop, otherwise than beseemeth a thing divine and most holy; he which bestoweth, and he which obtaineth it after any other sort than were honest and lawful to use, if our Lord Jesus Christ were present himself on earth to bestow it even with his own hands, sinneth a sin by so much more grievous than the sin of Belshazzar, by how much offices and functions heavenly are more precious than the meanest ornaments or implements which thereunto appertain. If it be as the Apostle saith, that the Holy Ghost doth make bishops, and that the whole action of making them is God’s own deed, men being therein but his agents; what spark of the fear of God can there possibly remain in their hearts, who representing the person of God in naming worthy men to ecclesiastical charge, do sell that which in his name they are to bestow; or who standing as it were at the throne of the living God do bargain for that which at his hands they are to receive? Woe worth such impious and irreligious profanations! The Church of Christ hath been hereby made, not “a den of thieves,” but in a manner the very dwelling-place of foul spirits; for undoubtedly such a number of them have been in all ages who thus have climbed into seat of episcopal regiment.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 5, 6, 7.

Secondly, Men may by orderly means be invested with spiritual authority and yet do harm by reason of ignorance how to use it to the good of the Church. “It is,” saith Chrysostom, “πολλου̑ μὲν ἀξιώματος, δύσκολον δὲ, ἐπισκοπει̑ν; a thing highly to be accounted of, but an hard thing, to be that which a bishop should be.” Yea a hard and a toilsome thing it is for a bishop to know the things that belong unto a bishop. A right good man may be a very unfit magistrate. And for discharge of a bishop’s office, to be well-minded is not enough, no not to be well learned also. Skill to instruct is a thing necessary, skill to govern much more necessary in a bishop. It is not safe for the Church of Christ, when bishops learn what belongeth unto government, as empirics learn physic by killing of the sick. Bishops were wont to be men of great learning in the laws both civil and of the Church; and while they were so, the wisest men in the land for counsel and government were bishops.

Thirdly, Know we never so well what belongeth unto a charge of so great moment, yet can we not therein proceed but with hazard of public detriment, if we rely on ourselves alone, and use not the benefit of conference with others. A singular mean to unity and concord amongst themselves, a marvellous help unto uniformity in their dealings, no small addition of weight and credit unto that which they do, a strong bridle unto such as watch for occasions to stir against them, finally, a very great stay unto all that are under their government, it could not choose but be soon found, if bishops did often and seriously use the help of mutual consultation.

These three rehearsed are things only preparatory unto the course of episcopal proceedings. But the hurt is more manifestly seen which doth grow to the Church of God by faults inherent in their several actions, as when they carelessly ordain, when they institute negligently, when corruptly they bestow church-livings, benefices, prebends, and rooms especially of jurisdiction, when they visit for gain’s sake rather than with serious intent to do good, when their courts erected for the maintenance of good order, are disordered, when they regard not the clergy under them, when neither clergy nor laity are kept in that awe for which this authority should serve, when any thing appeareth in them rather than a fatherly affection towards the flock of Christ,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 7.  when they have no respect to posterity, and finally when they neglect the true and requisite means whereby their authority should be upheld. Surely the hurt which groweth out of these defects must needs be exceeding great. In a minister, ignorance and disability to teach is a maim; nor is it held a thing allowable to ordain such, were it not for the avoiding of a greater evil which the church must needs sustain, if in so great scarcity of able men, and unsufficiency of most parishes throughout the land to maintain them, both public prayer and the administration of sacraments should rather want, than any man thereunto be admitted lacking dexterity and skill to perform that which otherwise was most requisite. Wherefore the necessity of ordaining such is no excuse for the rash and careless ordaining of every one that hath but a friend to bestow some two or three words of ordinary commendation in his behalf. By reason whereof the Church groweth burdened with silly creatures more than need, whose noted baseness and insufficiency bringeth their very order itself into contempt [1] .

It may be that the fear of a Quare impedit [2] doth cause institutions to pass more easily than otherwise they would [3] . And to speak plainly the very truth,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 8.  it may be that writs of Quare non impedit were for these times most necessary in the other’s place: yet where law will not suffer men to follow their own judgment, to shew their judgment they are not hindered. And I doubt not but that even conscienceless and wicked patrons, of which sort the swarms are too great in the church of England, are the more emboldened to present unto bishops any refuse, by finding so easy acceptation thereof. Somewhat they might redress this sore, notwithstanding so strong impediments, if it did plainly appear that they took it indeed to heart, and were not in a manner contented with it.

Shall we look for care in admitting whom others present, if that which some of yourselves confer be at any time corruptly bestowed? A foul and an ugly kind of deformity it hath, if a man do but think what it is for a bishop to draw commodity and gain from those things whereof he is left a free bestower, and that in trust, without any other obligation than his sacred order only, and that religious integrity which hath been presumed on in him. Simoniacal corruption I may not for honour’s sake suspect to be amongst men of so great place. So often they do not I trust offend by sale, as by unadvised gift of such preferments, wherein that ancient canon [1] should specially be remembered, which forbiddeth a bishop to be led by human affection in bestowing the things of God. A fault no where so hurtful, as in bestowing places of jurisdiction, and in furnishing cathedral churches, the prebendaries and other dignities whereof are the very true successors of those ancient presbyters which were at the first as counsellors unto bishops.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 9, 10.  A foul abuse it is, that any one man should be loaded as some are with livings in this kind, yea some even of them who condemn utterly the granting of any two benefices unto the same man, whereas the other is in truth a matter of far greater sequel, as experience would soon shew, if churches cathedral being furnished with the residence of a competent number of virtuous, grave, wise and learned divines, the rest of the prebends of every such church were given within the diocess unto men of worthiest desert, for their better encouragement unto industry and travel; unless it seem also convenient to extend the benefit of them unto the learned in universities, and men of special employment otherwise in the affairs of the Church of God. But howsoever, surely with the public good of the Church it will hardly stand, that in any one person such favours be more multiplied than law permitteth in those livings which are with cure.

Touching bishops’ visitations, the first institution of them was profitable, to the end that the state and condition of churches being known, there might be for evils growing convenient remedies provided in due time. The observation of church laws, the correction of faults in the service of God and manners of men, these are things that visitors should seek. When these things are inquired of formally, and but for custom’s sake, fees and pensions being the only thing which is sought, and little else done by visitations; we are not to marvel if the baseness of the end doth make the action itself loathsome. The good which bishops may do not only by these visitations belonging ordinarily to their office, but also in respect of that power which the founders of colleges have given them of special trust, charging even fearfully their consciences therewith: the good, I say, which they might do by this their authority, both within their own diocess, and in the well-springs themselves, the universities, is plainly such as cannot choose but add weight to their heavy accounts in that dreadful day if they do it not.

In their courts, where nothing but singular integrity and justice should prevail, if palpable and gross corruptions be found, by reason of offices so often granted unto men who seek nothing but their own gain, and make no account what disgrace doth grow by their unjust dealings unto them under whom they deal, the evil hereof shall work more than they which procure it do perhaps imagine.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 11, 12, 13.

At the hands of a bishop the first thing looked for is a care of the clergy under him, a care that in doing good they may have whatsoever comforts and encouragements his countenance, authority and place may yield. Otherwise what heart shall they have to proceed in their painful course, all sorts of men besides being so ready to malign, despise and every way oppress them? Let them find nothing but disdain in bishops; in the enemies of present government, if that way they list to betake themselves, all kind of favourable and friendly helps; unto which part think we it likely that men having wit, courage and stomach, will incline?

As great a fault is the want of severity when need requireth, as of kindness and courtesy in bishops. But touching this, what with ill usage of their power amongst the meaner, and what with disusage amongst the higher sort, they are in the eyes of both sorts as bees that have lost their sting. It is a long time sithence any great one hath felt, or almost any one much feared the edge of that ecclesiastical severity, which sometime held lords and dukes in a more religious awe than now the meanest are able to be kept.

A bishop, in whom there did plainly appear the marks and tokens of a fatherly affection towards them that are under his charge, what good might he do ten thousand ways more than any man knows how to set down? But the souls of men are not loved, that which Christ shed his blood for is not esteemed precious. This is the very root, the fountain of all negligence in church-government.

Most wretched are the terms of men’s estate when once they are at a point of wretchedness so extreme, that they bend not their wits any further than only to shift out the present time, never regarding what shall become of their successors after them. Had our predecessors so loosely cast off from them all care and respect to posterity, a Church Christian there had not been about the regiment whereof we should need at this day to strive. It was the barbarous affection of Nero [1] , that the ruin of his own imperial seat he could have been well enough contented to see, in case he might also have seen it accompanied with the fall of the whole world:     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 14.  an affection not more intolerable than theirs, who care not to overthrow all posterity, so they may purchase a few days of ignominious safety unto themselves and their present estates; if it may be termed a safety which tendeth so fast unto their very overthrow that are the purchasers of it in so vile and base manner. Men whom it standeth upon to uphold a reverend estimation of themselves in the minds of others, without which the very best things they do are hardly able to escape disgrace, must before it be over late remember how much easier it is to retain credit once gotten, than to recover it being lost. The executors of bishops are sued if their mansion-house be suffered to go to decay: but whom shall their successors sue for the dilapidations which they make of that credit, the unrepaired diminutions whereof will in time bring to pass, that they which would most do good in that calling shall not be able, by reason of prejudice generally settled in the minds of all sorts against them?

By what means their estimation hath hitherto decayed, it is no hard thing to discern. Herod and Archelaus are noted [1] to have sought out purposely the dullest and most ignoble that could be found amongst the people, preferring such to the high priest’s office, thereby to abate the great opinion which the multitude had of that order, and to procure a more expedite course for their own wicked counsels, whereunto they saw the high priests were no small impediment, as long as the common sort did much depend upon them. It may be there hath been partly some show and just suspicion of like practice in some, in procuring the undeserved preferments of some unworthy persons, the very cause of whose advancement hath been principally their unworthiness to be advanced.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 15.  But neither could this be done altogether without the inexcusable fault of some preferred before, and so oft we cannot imagine it to have been done, that either only or chiefly from thence this decay of their estimation may be thought to grow. Somewhat it is that the malice of their cunning adversaries, but much more which themselves have effected against themselves.

A bishop’s estimation doth grow from the excellency of virtues suitable unto his place. Unto the place of a bishop those high divine virtues are judged suitable, which virtues being not easily found in other sorts of great men, do make him appear so much the greater in whom they are found. Devotion and the feeling sense of religion are not usual in the noblest, wisest, and chiefest personages of state, by reason their wits are so much employed another way, and their minds so seldom conversant in heavenly things. If therefore wherein themselves are defective they see that bishops do blessedly excel, it frameth secretly their hearts to a stooping kind of disposition, clean opposite to contempt. The very countenance of Moses was glorious after that God had conferred with him. And where bishops are, the powers and faculties of whose souls God hath possessed, those very actions, the kind whereof is common unto them with other men, have notwithstanding in them a more high and heavenly form, which draweth correspondent estimation unto it, by virtue of that celestial impression, which deep meditation of holy things, and as it were conversation with God doth leave in their minds. So that bishops which will be esteemed of as they ought, must frame themselves to that very pattern from whence those Asian bishops unto whom St. John writeth were denominated, even so far forth as this our frailty will permit; shine they must as angels of God in the midst of perverse men. They are not to look that the world should always carry the affection of Constantine [1] , to bury that which might derogate from them, and to cover their imbecilities. More than high time it is that they bethink themselves of the Apostle’s admonition, Attende tibi [1] , “Have a vigilant eye to thyself.” They err if they do not persuade themselves that wheresoever they walk or sit, be it in their churches or in their consistories, abroad and at home, at their tables or in their closets, they are in the midst of snares laid for them. Wherefore as they are with the prophet every one of them to make it their hourly prayer unto God, “Lead me O Lord in thy righteousness, because of enemies [2] ;” so it is not safe for them, no not for a moment, to slacken their industry in seeking every way that estimation which may further their labours unto the Church’s good. Absurdity, though but in words, must needs be this way a maim, where nothing but wisdom, gravity and judgment is looked for. That which the son of Sirach hath concerning the writings of the old sages, “Wise sentences are found in them [3] ,” should be the proper mark and character of bishops’ speeches, whose lips, as doors, are not to be opened, but for egress of instruction and sound knowledge. If base servility and dejection of mind be ever espied in them, how should men esteem them as worthy the rooms of the great ambassadors of God? A wretched desire to gain by bad and unseemly means standeth not with a mean man’s credit, much less with that reputation which Fathers of the Church should be in. But if besides all this there be also coldness in works of piety and charity, utter contempt even of learning itself, no care to further it by any such helps as they easily might and ought to afford, no not as much as that due respect unto their very families about them, which all men that are of account do order as near as they can in such sort that no grievous offensive deformity be therein noted; if there still continue in that most reverend order such as, by so many engines, work day and night to pull down the whole frame of their own estimation amongst men,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 16.  some of the rest secretly also permitting others their industrious opposites every day more and more to seduce the multitude; how should the Church of God hope for great good at their hands?

What we have spoken concerning these things, let not malicious accusers think themselves therewith justified, no more than Shimei was by his sovereign’s most humble and meek acknowledgment even of that very crime which so impudent a caitiff’s tongue upbraided him withal; the one in the virulent rancour of a cankered affection, took that delight for the present, which in the end did turn to his own more tormenting woe; the other in the contrite patience even of deserved malediction had yet this comfort [1] , “It may be the Lord will look on mine affliction, and do me good for his cursing this day.” As for us over whom Christ hath placed them to be the chiefest guides and pastors of our souls, our common fault is, that we look for much more in our governors than a tolerable sufficiency can yield, and bear much less than humanity and reason do require we should. Too much perfection over rigorously exacted in them, cannot but breed in us perpetual discontentment, and on both parts cause all things to be unpleasant. It is exceedingly worth the nothing, which Plato hath about the means whereby men fall into an utter dislike of all men with whom they converse [2] : “This sourness of mind which maketh every man’s dealings unsavoury in our taste, entereth by an unskilful overweening, which at the first we have of one, and so of another, in whom we afterwards find ourselves to have been deceived, they declaring themselves in the end to be frail men, whom we judged demigods. When we have oftentimes been thus beguiled, and that far besides expectation, we grow at the length to this plain conclusion, that there is nothing at all sound in any man.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 17.  Which bitter conceit is unseemly, and plain to have risen from lack of mature judgment in human affairs; which if so be we did handle with art, we would not enter into dealings with men, otherwise than being beforehand grounded in this persuasion, that the number of persons notably good or bad is but very small; that the most part of good have some evil, and of evil men some good in them.” So true our experience doth find those aphorisms of Mercurius Trismegistus [1] , Ἀδύνατον τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐνθάδε καθαρεύειν τη̑ς κακίας, “to purge goodness quite and clean from all mixture of evil here is a thing impossible.” Again, Τὸ μὴ λίαν κακὸν ἐνθάδε τὸ ἀγαθόν ἐστι, “when in this world we term a thing good, we cannot by exact construction have any other true meaning, than that the said thing so termed is not noted to be a thing exceedingly evil.” And again, Μόνον, ὡ̑ Ἀσκλήπιε, τὸ ὄνομα του̑ ἀγαθου̑ ἐν ἀνθρώποις, τὸ δὲ ἔργον οὐδαμου̑, “Amongst men, O Æsculapius, the name of that which is good we find, but no where the very true thing itself.” When we censure the deeds and dealings of our superiors, to bring with us a fore-conceit thus qualified, shall be as well on our part as theirs a thing available unto quietness.

But howsoever the case doth stand with men’s either good or bad quality, the verdict which our Lord and Saviour hath given, should continue for ever sure; “Quæ Dei sunt, Deo;” let men bear the burden of their own iniquity; as for those things which are God’s, let not God be deprived of them. For if only to withhold that which should be given be no better than [2] to rob God, if to withdraw any mite of that which is but in propose [purpose?] [k] only bequeathed, though as yet undelivered into the sacred treasure of God, be a sin for which Ananias [3] and Sapphira felt so heavily the dreadful hand of divine revenge; quite and clean to take that away which we never gave, and that after God hath for so many ages therewith been possessed, and that without any other shew of cause, saving only that it seemeth in their eyes who seek it to be too much for them which have it in their hands,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 18.  can we term it or think it less than most impious injustice, most heinous sacrilege? Such was the religious affection of Joseph [1] , that it suffered him not to take that advantage, no not against the very idolatrous priests of Egypt, which he took for the purchasing of other men’s lands to the king; but he considered, that albeit their idolatry deserved hatred, yet for the honour’s sake due unto priesthood, better it was the king himself should yield them relief in public extremity, than permit that the same necessity should constrain also them to do as the rest of the people did.

But it may be men have now found out, that God hath proposed the Christian clergy as a prey for all men freely to seize upon; that God hath left them as the fishes of the sea, which every man that listeth to gather into his net may; or that there is no God in heaven to pity them, and to regard the injuries which man doth lay upon them: yet the public good of this church and commonwealth doth, I hope, weigh somewhat in the hearts of all honestly disposed men. Unto the public good no one thing is more directly available, than that such as are in place, whether it be of civil or of ecclesiastical authority, be so much the more largely furnished even with external helps and ornaments of this life, [by?] how much the more highly they are in power and calling advanced above others. For nature is not contented with bare sufficiency unto the sustenance of man, but doth evermore covet a decency proportionable unto the place which man hath in the body or society of others. For according unto the greatness of men’s calling, the measure of all their actions doth grow in every man’s secret expectation, so that great men do always know that great things are at their hands expected. In a bishop great liberality, great hospitality, actions in every kind great are looked for: and for actions which must be great, mean instruments will not serve. Men are but men, what room soever amongst men they hold. If therefore the measure of their worldly abilities be beneath that proportion which their calling doth make to be looked for at their hands, a stronger inducement it is than perhaps men are aware of unto evil and corrupt dealings for supply of that defect. For which cause we must needs think it a thing necessary unto the common good of the Church,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 19, 20.  that great jurisdiction being granted unto bishops over others, a state of wealth proportionable should likewise be provided for them. Where wealth is had in so great admiration, as generally in this golden age it is, that without it angelical perfections are not able to deliver from extreme contempt, surely to make bishops poorer than they are, were to make them of less account and estimation than they should be. Wherefore if detriment and dishonour do grow to religion, to God, to his Church, when the public account which is made of the chief of the clergy decayeth, how should it be but in this respect for the good of religion, of God, of his Church, that the wealth of bishops be carefully preserved from further diminution?

The travels and crosses wherewith prelacy is never unaccompanied, they which feel them know how heavy and how great they are. Unless such difficulties therefore annexed unto that estate be tempered by co-annexing thereunto things esteemed of in this world, how should we hope that the minds of men, shunning naturally the burdens of each function, will be drawn to undertake the burden of episcopal care and labour in the Church of Christ? Wherefore if long we desire to enjoy the peace, quietness, order and stability of religion, which prelacy (as hath been declared) causeth, then must we necessarily, even in favour of the public good, uphold those things, the hope whereof being taken away, it is not the mere goodness of the charge, and the divine acceptation thereof, that will be able to invite many thereunto.

What shall become of that commonwealth or church in the end, which hath not the eye of learning to beautify, guide and direct it? At the length what shall become of that learning, which hath not wherewith any more to encourage her industrious followers? And finally, what shall become of that courage to follow learning, which hath already so much failed through the only diminution of her chiefest rewards, bishoprics? Surely wheresoever this wicked intendment of overthrowing cathedral churches, or of taking away those livings, lands and possessions which bishops hitherto have enjoyed, shall once prevail, the handmaids attending thereupon will be paganism and extreme barbarity.

In the Law of Moses, how careful provision is made that goods of this kind might remain to the Church for ever [1] :     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 21.  “Ye shall not make common the holy things of the children of Israel, lest ye die, saith the Lord.” Touching the fields annexed unto Levitical cities, the law was plain, they might not be sold; and the reason of the law, this [2] , “for it was their possession for ever:” He which was Lord and owner of it, his will and pleasure was, that from the Levites it should never pass to be enjoyed by any other. The Lord’s own portion, without his own commission and grant, how should any man justly hold? They which hold it by his appointment had it plainly with this condition [3] , “They shall not sell of it, neither change it, nor alienate the first-fruits of the land; for it is holy unto the Lord.” It falleth sometimes out, as the prophet Habakkuk noteth, that the very [4] “prey of savage beasts becometh dreadful unto themselves.” It did so in Judas, Achan, Nebuchadnezzar; their evil-purchased goods were their snare, and their prey their own terror; a thing no where so likely to follow, as in those goods and possessions, which being laid where they should not rest, have by the Lord’s own testimony his most bitter curse [5] their undividable companion.

These persuasions we use for other men’s cause, not for theirs with whom God and religion are parts of the abrogated law of ceremonies. Wherefore not to continue longer in the cure of a sore desperate, there was a time when the clergy had almost as little as these good people wish. But the kings of this realm and others whom God had blest, considered devoutly with themselves, as David in like case sometimes had done, “Is it meet that we at the hands of God should enjoy all kinds of abundance, and God’s clergy suffer want?” They considered that of Solomon, “ [6] Honour God with thy substance, and the chiefest of all thy revenue; so shall thy barns be filled with corn, and thy vessels shall run over with new wine.” They considered how the care which Jehosaphat had [7] , in providing that the Levites might have encouragement to do the work of the Lord cheerfully, was left of God as a fit pattern to be followed in the Church for ever.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 22.  They considered what promise our Lord and Saviour had made unto them, at whose hands his prophets should receive but the least part of the meanest kind of friendliness, though it were but a draught of water; which promise seemeth [l] not [now?] to be taken, as if Christ had made them of any higher courtesy uncapable, and had promised reward not unto such as give them but that, but unto such as leave them but that. They considered how earnest the Apostle is, that if the ministers of the law were so amply provided for, less care then ought not to be had of them, who under the gospel of Jesus Christ possess correspondent rooms in the Church. They considered how needful it is that they who provoke all others unto works of mercy and charity should especially have wherewith to be examples of such things, and by such means to win them, with whom other means without those do commonly take very small effect. In these and the like considerations, the Church revenues were in ancient times augmented, our Lord thereby performing manifestly the promise made to his servants, that they which did “leave either father, or mother, or lands, or goods, for his sake, should receive even in this world an hundred fold.” For some hundreds of years together, they which joined themselves to the Church were fain to relinquish all worldly emoluments and to endure the hardness of an afflicted estate. Afterward the Lord gave rest to his Church, kings and princes became as fathers thereunto, the hearts of all men inclined towards it, and by his providence there grew unto it every day earthly possessions in more and more abundance, till the greatness thereof bred envy, which no diminutions are able to satisfy.

For as those ancient nursing Fathers thought they did never bestow enough; even so in the eye of this present age, as long as any thing remaineth, it seemeth to be too much. Our fathers we imitate in perversum, as Tertullian [1] speaketh; like them we are, by being in equal degree the contrary unto that which they were. Unto those earthly blessings which God as then did with so great abundance pour down upon the ecclesiastical state, we may in regard of most near resemblance apply the selfsame words which the prophet hath [1] , “God blessed them exceedingly, and by this very mean turned the hearts of their own brethren to hate them, and to deal politicly with his servants.” Computations are made [2] , and there are huge sums set down, for princes to see how much they may amplify and enlarge their own treasure; how many public burdens they may ease; what present means they may have to reward their servants about them, if they please but to grant their assent, and to accept of the spoil of bishops, by whom church goods are but abused unto pomp and vanity. Thus albeit they deal with one whose princely virtue giveth them small hope to prevail in impious and sacrilegious motions, yet shame they not to move her royal majesty even with a suit not much unlike unto that wherewith the Jewish high priest [priests?] tried Judas, whom they solicited unto treason against his Master, and proposed unto him a number of silver pence in lieu of so virtuous and honest a service. But her sacred majesty disposed to be always [3] like herself, her heart so far estranged from willingness to gain by pillage of that estate, the only awe whereof under God she hath been unto this present hour, as of all other parts of this noble commonwealth, whereof she hath vowed herself a protector till the end of her days on earth, which if nature could permit, we wish, as good cause we have, endless: this her gracious inclination is more than a seven times sealed warrant, upon the same assurance whereof, touching [m] any action so dishonourable as this, we are on her part most secure, not doubting but that unto all posterity it shall for ever appear, that from the first to the very last of her sovereign proceedings there hath not been one authorized deed other than consonant with that Symmachus saith [4] , “Fiscus bonorum principum, non sacerdotum damnis, sed hostium spoliis augeatur:” consonant with that imperial law [5] , “Ea quæ ad beatissimæ ecclesiæ jura pertinent, tanquam ipsam sacrosanctam et religiosam ecclesiam, intacta convenit venerabiliter custodiri;     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 23, 24.  ut sicut ipsa religionis et fidei mater perpetua est, ita ejus patrimonium jugiter servetur illæsum.”

As for the case of public burdens, let any politician living make it appear, that by confiscation of bishops’ livings, and their utter dissolution at once, the commonwealth shall ever have half that relief and ease which it receiveth by their continuance as now they are, and it shall give us some cause to think, that albeit we see they are impiously and irreligiously minded, yet we may esteem them at least to be tolerable commonwealth’s-men. But the case is too clear and manifest, the world doth but too plainly see it that no one order of subjects whatsoever within this land doth bear the seventh part of that proportion which the clergy beareth in the burdens of the commonwealth. No revenue of the crown like unto it, either for certainty or for greatness. Let the good which this way hath grown to the commonwealth by the dissolution of religious houses, teach men what ease unto public burdens there is like to grow by the overthrow of the clergy. My meaning is not hereby to make the state of bishoprick [1] and of those dissolved companies alike, the one no less unlawful to be removed than the other. For those religious persons were men which followed only a special kind of contemplative life in the commonwealth, they were properly no portion of God’s clergy (only such amongst them excepted as were also priests), their goods (that excepted which they unjustly held through the pope’s usurped power of appropriating ecclesiastical livings unto them) may in part seem to be of the nature of civil possessions, held by other kinds of corporations, such as the city of London hath divers. Wherefore as their institution was human, and their end for the most part superstitious, they had not therein merely that holy and divine interest which belongeth unto bishops, who being employed by Christ in the principal service of his Church, are receivers and disposers of his patrimony, as hath been shewed, which whosoever shall withhold or withdraw at any time from them, he undoubtedly robbeth God himself.

If they abuse the goods of the Church unto pomp and vanity, such faults we do not excuse in them. Only we wish it to be considered whether such faults be verily in them, or else but objected against them by such as gape after spoil,     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 25.  and therefore are no competent judges what is moderate and what excessive in them, whom under this pretence they would spoil. But the accusation may be just. In plenty and fulness it may be we are of God more forgetful than were requisite. Notwithstanding men should remember how not to the clergy alone it was said by Moses in Deuteronomy [1] , “Ne cum manducaveris et biberis et domos optimas ædificaveris.” If the remedy prescribed for this disease be good, let it unpartially be applied. “Interest reipub. ut re sua quisque bene utatur [2] .” Let all states be put to their moderate pensions, let their livings and lands be taken away from them whosoever they be, in whom such ample possessions are found to have been matters of grievous abuse: were this just? would noble families think this reasonable? The title which bishops have to their livings is as good as the title of any sort of men unto whatsoever we account to be most justly held by them; yea in this one thing the claim of bishops hath preeminence above all secular titles of right, in that God’s own interest is the tenure whereby they hold, even as also it was to the priests of the law an assurance of their spiritual goods and possessions, whereupon, though they many times abused greatly the goods of the Church, yet was not God’s patrimony therefore taken away from them, and made saleable unto other tribes. To rob God, to ransack the Church, to overthrow the whole order of Christian bishops, and to turn them out of land and living, out of house and home, what man of common honesty can think it for any manner of abuse to be a remedy lawful or just? We must confess that God is righteous in taking away that which men abuse: but doth that excuse the violence of thieves and robbers?

Complain we will not with St. Jerome [3] , “That the hands of men are so straitly tied, and their liberal minds so much bridled and held back from doing good by augmentation of the Church patrimony.” For we confess that herein mediocrity may be and hath been sometime exceeded. There did want heretofore a Moses to temper men’s liberality, to say unto them who enriched the Church, Sufficit [1] , Stay your hands, lest fervour of zeal do cause you to empty yourselves too far. It may be the largeness of men’s hearts being then more moderate, had been after more durable; and one state by too much overgrowing the rest, had not given occasion unto the rest to undermine it. That evil is now sufficiently cured: the Church treasury, if then it were over full, hath since been reasonable [reasonably?] well emptied. That which Moses spake unto givers, we must now inculcate unto takers away from the Church, Let there be some stay, some stint in spoiling. If “grape-gatherers came unto them,” saith the prophet, “would they not leave some remnant behind [2] ?” But it hath fared with the wealth of the Church as with a tower, which being built at the first with the highest, overthroweth itself after by its own greatness; neither doth the ruin thereof cease with the only fall of that which hath exceeded mediocrity, but one part beareth down another, till the whole be laid prostrate. For although the state ecclesiastical, both others and even bishops themselves, be now fallen to so low an ebb, as all the world at this day doth see; yet because there remaineth still somewhat which unsatiable minds can thirst for, therefore we seem not to have been hitherto sufficiently wronged. Touching that which hath been taken from the Church in appropriations known to amount to the value of one hundred twenty-six thousand pounds yearly, we rest contentedly and quietly without it, till it shall please God to touch the hearts of men, of their own voluntary accord, to restore it to him again; judging thereof no otherwise than some others did of those goods which were by Sylla taken away from the citizens of Rome [3] , that albeit they were in truth male capta, unconscionably taken away from the right owners at the first, nevertheless, seeing that such as were after possessed of them held them not without some title, which law did after a sort made good, repetitio eorum proculdubio labefactabat compositam civitatem. What hath been taken away as dedicated unto uses superstitious, and consequently not given unto God, or at the leastwise not so rightly given, we repine not thereat.     BOOK VII. Ch. xxiv. 26.  That which hath gone by means secret and indirect, through corrupt compositions or compacts, we cannot help. What the hardness of men’s hearts doth make them loth to have exacted, though being due by law, even thereof the want we do also bear. Out of that which after all these deductions cometh clearly unto our hands, I hope it will not be said that towards the public charge we disburse nothing. And doth the residue seem yet excessive? The ways whereby temporal men provide for themselves and their families are fore-closed unto us. All that we have to sustain our miserable life with, is but a remnant of God’s own treasure, so far already diminished and clipped, that if there were any sense of common humanity left in this hard-hearted world, the impoverished estate of the clergy of God would at the length even of very commiseration be spared. The mean gentleman that hath but an hundred pound land to live on, would not be hasty to change his worldly estate and condition with many of these so over abounding prelates; a common artisan or tradesman of the city, with ordinary pastors of the Church.

It is our hard and heavy lot, that no other sort of men being grudged at, how little benefit soever the public weal reap by them, no state complained of for holding that which hath grown unto them by lawful means; only the governors of our souls, they that study night and day so to guide us, that both in this world we may have comfort and in the world to come endless felicity and joy (for even such is the very scope of all their endeavours, this they wish, for this they labour, how hardly soever we use to construe of their intents): hard, that only they should be thus continually lifted at for possessing but that whereunto they have by law both of God and man most just title. If there should be no other remedy but that the violence of men in the end must needs bereave them of all succour, further than the inclination of others shall vouchsafe to cast upon them, as it were by way of alms for their relief but from hour to hour; better they are not than their fathers, which have been contented with as hard a portion at the world’s hands: let the light of the sun and moon, the common benefit of heaven and earth be taken from bishops, if the question were whether God should lose his glory, and the safety of his Church be hazarded, or they relinquish the right and interest which they have in the things of this world. But sith the question in truth is whether Levi shall be deprived of the portion of God or no, to the end that Simeon or Reuben may devour it as their spoil, the comfort of the one in sustaining the injuries which the other would offer, must be that prayer poured out by Moses the prince of prophets, in most tender affection to Levi, “Bless, O Lord, his substance, accept thou the work of his hands; smite through the loins of them that rise up against him, and of them which hate him, that they rise no more [1] .”

BOOK VIII. [*] : [a] THEIR SEVENTH ASSERTION, THAT UNTO [b] NO CIVIL PRINCE OR GOVERNOR THERE MAY BE GIVEN SUCH POWER OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOMINION AS BY THE LAWS OF THIS LAND BELONGETH UNTO THE SUPREME REGENT THEREOF.

- [THE MATTER CONTAINED IN THIS EIGHTH BOOK.

- I. State of the Question between the Church of England and its Opponents regarding the King’s Supremacy.

- II. Principles on which the King’s modified Supremacy is grounded.

- III. Warrant for it in the Jewish Dispensation.

- IV. Vindication of the Title, Supreme Head of the Church within his own Dominions.

- V. Vindication of the Prerogative regarding Church Assemblies.

- VI. Vindication of the Prerogative regarding Church Legislation.

- VII. Vindication of the Prerogative regarding Nomination of Bishops.

- VIII. Vindication of the Prerogative regarding Ecclesiastical Courts.

- IX. Vindication of the Prerogative regarding Exemption from Excommunication [†] .]

BOOK VIII. Ch. i. 1.  I. WE come now to the last thing whereof there is controversy moved, namely the power of supreme jurisdiction, which for distinction’s sake we call the power of ecclesiastical dominion.

It was not thought fit in the Jews’ commonwealth, that the exercise of supremacy ecclesiastical should be denied unto him, to whom the exercise of chiefty civil did appertain; and therefore their kings were invested with [c] both. This power they gave unto Simon [1] , when they consented that he should be “their prince,” not only “to set men over the [d] works, and [e] over the country, and [e] over the weapons, [e] and over the fortresses,” but also “to provide for the holy things;” “and that he should be obeyed of every man, and that [f] all the writings in the country should be made in his name, and that it should not be lawful for any of the people or priests to withstand his words, or to call any congregation in the country without him [2] .”

And if it be haply [g] surmised, that thus much was given unto [h] Simon, as being both prince and high priest; which otherwise, being only [i] their civil governor, he could not lawfully have enjoyed: we must note, that all this is no more than the ancient kings of that people had, being kings and not priests. By this power David, Asa, Jehosaphat, Ezekias [k] , Josias, and the rest, made those laws and orders which the [l] Sacred History speaketh of, concerning matter [m] of mere religion, the affairs [n] of the temple, and service of God. Finally, had it not been by the virtue of this power, how should it possibly have come to pass, that the piety or impiety of the king [o] did always accordingly change the public face of religion, which thing [p] the priests [q] by themselves never did, neither [r] could at any time [s] hinder from being done? Had the priests alone been possessed of [t] all power in spiritual affairs, how should any law [u] concerning matter of religion have been made but only by them? In them it had been, and not in the king, to change the face of religion at any time.     BOOK VIII. Ch. i. 2.  The altering of religion, the making of ecclesiastical laws, with other the like actions belonging unto the power of dominion, are still termed the deeds of the king; to shew that in him was placed [x] supremacy of power even [y] in this kind over all, and that unto their high [z] priests the same was never committed, saving only at such times as their [a] priests were also kings or [b] princes over them.

According to the pattern of which example, the like power in causes ecclesiastical is by the laws of this realm annexed unto the crown. And there are which imagine [c] , that [1] kings, being mere lay persons, do by this means exceed the lawful bounds of their calling [d] . Which thing to the end that they may persuade, they first make a necessary separation perpetual and personal between the Church and the [e] commonwealth. Secondly [2] , they so tie all kind of power ecclesiastical unto the Church, as if it were in every degree their only right which [f] are by proper spiritual function [g] termed Church-governors, and might not unto Christian princes in [h] any wise appertain.

To lurk under shifting ambiguities and equivocations of words in matters [i] of principal weight is childish. A church and a commonwealth we grant are things in nature the [k] one distinguished from the other. A commonwealth is one way, and a church another way, defined. In their opinion kk the church and the [l] commonwealth are corporations, not distinguished only in nature and definition, but in subsistence ll perpetually severed; so that they which [m] are of the one can neither appoint nor execute, in whole nor in part, the duties which belong unto them which are of the other, without open breach of the law of God, which hath divided them, and doth require that being so [n] divided they should distinctly and [o] severally work, as depending both upon God, and not hanging one upon the other’s approbation for that which either hath to do.

We say that the care of religion being common unto all societies politic, such societies as do embrace the true religion have the name of the Church given unto every [p] of them for distinction from the rest; so that every body politic hath some religion, but the Church that religion which is only true. Truth of religion is that proper difference whereby a church is distinguished from other politic societies of men. We here mean true religion in gross, and not according to every particular: for they which in some particular points of religion do swerve [q] from the truth, may nevertheless most [r] truly, if we compare them to men of an heathenish religion, be said to hold and profess that religion which is true. For which cause, there being of old so many politic societies established throughout [s] the world, only the commonwealth of Israel, which had the truth of religion, was in that respect the Church of God: and the Church of Jesus Christ is every such politic society of men, as doth in religion hold that truth which is proper to Christianity. As a politic society it doth maintain religion; as a church, that religion which God hath revealed by Jesus Christ.

With us therefore the name of a church importeth only a society of men, first united into some public form of regiment, and secondly distinguished from other societies by the exercise of Christian [t] religion. With them on the other side the name of the Church in this present question importeth not only a multitude of men so united and so distinguished, but also further the same divided necessarily and perpetually from the body of the commonwealth: so that even in such a politic society as consisteth of none but Christians, yet the Church of Christ and the commonwealth are two corporations, independently each subsisting by itself [u] .

We hold, that seeing there is not any man of the Church of England but the same man is also a member of the commonwealth; nor any man a [x] member of the commonwealth, which is not also of the Church of England; therefore as in a figure triangular [y] the base doth differ from the sides thereof, and yet one and the selfsame line is both a base and also a side; a side simply, a base if it chance to be the bottom and underlie the rest: so, albeit properties and actions of one kind [z] do cause the name of a commonwealth, qualities and functions of another sort the name of a Church [a] to be given unto [b] a multitude, yet one and the selfsame multitude may in such sort be both, [c] and is so with us, that no person appertaining to the one can be denied to be also [d] of the other. Contrariwise, unless they against us should hold, that the Church and the commonwealth are two, both distinct and separate societies, of which two, the [e] one comprehendeth always persons not belonging to the other; that which they do ee they could not conclude out of the difference between the Church and the commonwealth; namely, that [f] bishops may not meddle with the affairs of the commonwealth, because they are governors of another corporation, which is the Church; nor kings with making laws for the Church, because they have government not of this corporation, but of another divided from it, the commonwealth; and the walls of separation between these two must for ever be upheld. They hold the necessity of personal separation, which clean excludeth the power of one man’s dealing in [g] both; we of natural, which doth not hinder [h] but that one and the same person may in both bear a [i] principal sway [1] .

The causes of common received error [k] in this point seem to have been especially two:     BOOK VIII. Ch. i. 3.  one, that they who embrace true religion living in such commonwealths as are opposite thereunto, and in other public affairs retaining civil communion with such, [l] are constrained, for the exercise of their religion, to have a several communion with those who are of the same religion with them. This was the state of the Jewish Church both in Egypt and in [m] Babylon, the state of Christian Churches a long time after Christ. And in this case, because the proper affairs and actions of the Church, as it is the Church, have [n] no dependence [o] upon the laws, or upon the governors [p] of the civil state, an opinion hath thereby grown, that even so it should be always [1] . This was it which deceived Allen in the writing of his Apology: “The Apostles,” saith he [2] , “did govern the church in Rome when Nero bare [q] rule,     BOOK VIII. Ch. i. 4.  even as at this day in all the Turk’s [r] dominions, the Church hath a spiritual regiment without dependence, and so ought she to have, live she [s] amongst heathens, or with Christians.”

Another occasion of which misconceit is, that things appertaining unto religion are both distinguished from other affairs, and have always had in the Church special [t] persons chosen to be exercised about them. By which distinction of spiritual affairs and persons therein employed from temporal, the error of personal separation always necessary between the Church and the [u] commonwealth hath strengthened itself. For of every politic society that being true which Aristotle hath [1] , [x] namely, “that the scope thereof is not simply to live, nor the duty so much to provide for life [y] , as for means of living well:” and that even as the soul is the worthier part of man, so human societies are much more to care for that which tendeth properly unto the soul’s estate, than for such temporal things as this life doth stand in [z] need of: other proof there needs zz none to shew that as by all men the kingdom of God is first to be sought [2] for [a] , so in all commonwealths things spiritual ought above temporal to be provided [b] for. And of things spiritual, the chiefest is religion [3] . For this cause, persons and things employed peculiarly about the affairs of religion, are by an excellency termed spiritual. The heathen [c] themselves had their spiritual laws, causes, and offices [d] , [4] always severed from their temporal; neither did this make two independent estates among [e] them. God by revealing true religion doth make them that receive it his Church. Unto the Jews he so revealed the truth of religion, that he gave them in special consideration [f] laws, not only for the administration of things spiritual, but also temporal. The Lord himself appointing both the one and the other in that commonwealth, did not thereby distract it into several independent communities, but institute several functions of one and the same [g] community. Some reason [h] therefore must [i] be alleged [k] why it should be otherwise in the Church of Christ.

Three kinds of proofs for confirmation of the foresaid separation between the Church and commonwealth, the first taken from difference of affairs and offices in each  [l] . I shall not need to spend any great store of words in answering that which is brought out of kk holy Scripture to shew that secular and ecclesiastical affairs and offices are distinguished; neither that which hath been borrowed from antiquity, using by phrase of speech to oppose the commonwealth ll to the Church of Christ; nor yet the [m] reasons which are wont to be brought forth as witnesses, that the Church and commonwealth are [n] always distinct. For whether a church and a [o] commonwealth do differ, is not the question we strive for; but our controversy is concerning the kind of distinction, whereby they are severed the one from the other; whether as under heathen kings the Church did deal with her own affairs within herself, without depending at all upon any in civil authority, and the commonwealth in hers, altogether without the privity of the Church; so it ought to continue still, even in such commonwealths as have now publicly embraced the truth of Christian religion; whether they ought to be [p] evermore two societies, in such sort, several and distinct.

I ask therefore, what society that was, that was [q] in Rome, whereunto the Apostle did give the name of the Church of Rome in his time? If they answer, as needs they must, that the Church of Rome in those days was that whole society of men which in Rome professed the name of Christ, and not that religion which the laws of the commonwealth did then authorize; we say as much, and therefore grant that the commonwealth of Rome was one society, and the Church of Rome another, in such sort as [r] there was between them no mutual dependency [s] . But when whole Rome became Christian, when they all embraced the gospel, and made laws in the [t] defence thereof, if it be held that the church and the tt commonwealth of Rome did then remain as before; there is no way how this could be possible, save only one, and that is, they must restrain the name of the [u] Church in a Christian commonwealth to the clergy, excluding all the residue [x] of believers, both prince and people. For if all that believe be contained [y] in the name of the Church, how should the Church remain by personal subsistence [z] divided from the commonwealth, when the whole commonwealth doth believe?

The Church and the commonwealth therefore [a] are in this case personally one society, which society being termed a commonwealth as it liveth under whatsoever form of secular law and regiment, a church as it hath [b] the spiritual law of Jesus Christ [c] ; forasmuch [d] as these two laws contain so many and so [e] different offices, there must of necessity be appointed in it some to one charge, and some to another, yet without dividing the whole, and making it two several impaled societies.

The difference therefore either of affairs or offices ecclesiastical from secular [1] , is no argument that the Church and the commonwealth are always separate and independent the one on [f] the other: which thing even Allen himself considering somewhat better, doth in this point a little [g] correct his former judgment before mentioned [2] , and confesseth in his Defence of English Catholics, that “the power political hath her princes, laws, tribunals;     BOOK VIII. Ch. i. 5.  the spiritual, her prelates, canons, councils, judgments; and those (when the [h] princes are pagans) wholly separate, but in Christian commonwealths joined though not confounded [1] .” Howbeit afterwards his former sting appeareth again; for in a Christian [i] commonwealth he holdeth, that the Church ought not to depend at all upon the authority of any civil person whatsoever, as in England he saith it doth.

2. Proofs of separation between the Church and commonwealth  [k] , taken from the speeches of the Fathers opposing the one to the other. It will be objected, that “the Fathers do oftentimes mention the commonwealth and the Church of God by way of opposition [2] . Can the same thing be opposite [l] unto itself? If one and the same society be both [m] , what sense can there be in that speech which saith [n] , that ‘they suffer and flourish together [3] ?’ What sense in that which maketh one thing [o] adjudged to the Church, another [p] to the commonwealth [4] ? Finally, in that which putteth a difference between the causes of the province and of [q] the Church? Doth [r] it not hereby appear that the Church and the commonwealth are things evermore personally separate [5] ?”

No, it doth not hereby appear that there is rr perpetually any such separation; we may [s] speak of them as two, we may sever the rights and causes of the one well enough from the other, in regard of that difference which we grant there [t] is between them, albeit we make no personal difference. For the truth is, that the Church and the commonwealth are names which import things really different; but those things are accidents tt , and such accidents as may and should always [u] dwell lovingly [x] together in one subject. Wherefore the real difference between the accidents signified by those names, doth not prove different subjects for them always to reside in. For albeit the subjects wherein they are [y] resident be sometime yy different, as when the people of God have their being [z] among infidels; yet the nature of them is not such but that their subject may be one, and therefore it is but a changeable accident, in those accidents [a] , when the subjects they are in be diverse.

There can be no error in our conceit concerning this point, if we remember still what accident that aa is, for which a society hath the name of a commonwealth, and what accident that which doth cause it to be termed a Church. A commonwealth we name it simply in regard of some regiment or policy under which men live; a church for the truth of that religion which they profess. Now names betokening accidents unabstracted, do betoken [b] not only those [c] accidents, but also together with them the [d] subjects whereunto they cleave. As when we name a schoolmaster and a physician, these [e] names do not only betoken two accidents, teaching and curing, but also some person or persons in whom these accidents are. For there is no impediment but both may be one man [f] , as well as they are for the most part diverse [g] . The commonwealth and the Church therefore being such names, they do not only betoken those accidents of civil government and Christian religion which we have mentioned, but also together with them such multitudes as are the subjects of those [h] accidents. Again, their nature being such that [i] they may well enough dwell together in one subject, it followeth that their names, though always implying that difference of accidents which [k] hath been set down, yet do not always imply different subjects also. When we oppose the Church [l] therefore and the commonwealth in a [m] Christian society, we mean by the commonwealth that society with relation unto all the public affairs thereof, only the matter of true religion excepted; by the Church, the same society with only reference unto the matter of true religion, without any other [n] affairs besides: when that society which is both a church and a commonwealth doth flourish in those things which belong unto it as a commonwealth, we then say, “the commonwealth doth flourish;” when [o] in those things which concern it as a church, “the Church doth flourish;” when in both, then [p] “the Church and commonwealth flourish together.”

The Prophet Esay, to note corruptions in the commonwealth, complaineth, “ [1] That where judgment and justice [q] had lodged now were murderers; princes were become companions of thieves; every one loved gifts and rewards; but the fatherless was not judged, neither did the widow’s cause come before them.” To shew abuses in the Church, Malachy doth make his complaint [2] : “Ye offer unclean bread upon mine altar: if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, it is not amiss [r] as ye [s] think; if the lame and the sick, nothing is amiss.” The treasures [t] which David [3] did bestow [u] upon the temple do [x] argue the love which he bare to the Church: the pains that [y] Nehemias [4] yy took for building the walls of the city are tokens of his care for the commonwealth. Causes of the commonwealth, or province, are still as Gallio was content to be judge of [5] : “If it were a matter of wrong, or an evil deed, O ye Jews, I would according to reason maintain you.” Causes of the Church are such as Gallio there [6] rejecteth [z] : “If it be a question of your law, look you unto it, I will be no judge of those things [a] .” In respect of these differences [b] therefore the Church and the commonwealth may in speech be compared or opposed aptly enough the one to the other;     BOOK VIII. Ch. i. 6.  yet this is no argument that they are two independent societies.

3. Proofs of perpetual separation and independency between the commonwealth and the Church  [c] , taken from the effects of punishments inflicted and released [d] by the one or the other. Some other reasons there are, which seem a little more nearly to make for the purpose, as long as they are but heard and not sifted. For what though a man being severed by excommunication from the Church, be not thereby deprived of freedom in the city; nor [e] being there discommoned, is thereby [f] forthwith excommunicated and excluded from [g] the Church [1] ? what though the Church be bound to receive them upon repentance, whom the commonwealth may refuse again to admit gg if it chance the same men to be shut out of both? That division [h] of the church and commonwealth, which they contend for, will very hardly hereupon follow.

For we must note that members of a Christian commonwealth have a triple state; a natural, a civil, and a spiritual. No man’s natural estate is cut off otherwise than by that capital execution, after hh which he that is gone from [i] the body of the commonwealth doth not, I think, remain still [k] in the body of the [l] visible Church.

And concerning a [m] man’s civil estate [n] , the same is subject partly to inferior abatements of liberty, and partly unto diminution in the very [o] highest degree, such as banishment is; which [p] , sith it casteth out quite and clean from the body of the commonwealth, must [q] needs also consequently cast the banished party even out of the very Church he was of before, because that Church and the commonwealth he was of were both one and the same society: so that whatsoever doth separate utterly [r] a man’s person from the one, it separateth also from the other [s] . As for such abatements of civil state as take away only some privilege, dignity, or other benefit which a man enjoyeth in the commonwealth, they reach only unto our dealing with public affairs, from which what should [t] let but that men may be excluded and thereunto restored again, without diminishing or augmenting the number of persons in whom either church or commonwealth consisteth? He that by way of punishment loseth his voice in a public election of magistrates, ceaseth not thereby to be a citizen. A man disfranchised may notwithstanding enjoy as a subject the common benefit of protection under laws and magistrates. So that these inferior diminutions which touch men civilly, but neither do clean extinguish their estate as they belong to the commonwealth, nor impair a whit their condition as they are of the Church of God: these I say clearly do [u] prove a difference of the affairs of [x] the one from the other, but such a difference as maketh nothing for their surmise of distracted societies.

And concerning excommunication, it cutteth off indeed from the Church, and yet not from the commonwealth; howbeit so, that the party excommunicate is not thereby severed from one body which subsisteth in itself, and retained of [y] another in like sort subsisting; but he that [z] before had fellowship with that society whereof he was a member, as well touching things spiritual as civil, is now by force of excommunication, although not severed from the same [a] body in civil affairs, nevertheless for the time cut off from it as touching communion in those things which belong to the said [b] body, as it is the Church.

A man which hath [c] both been excommunicated by the Church, and deprived of civil dignity in the commonwealth, is upon his repentance necessarily readunited [d] into the one, but not of necessity into the other. What then? that which he is adunited [e] unto is a communion in things divine, whereof saints [f] are partakers; that from which he is withheld is the benefit of some human privilege or right which other citizens haply enjoy.     BOOK VIII. Ch. i. 7. ii. 1.  But are not those [g] Saints and Citizens one and the same people? are they not one and the same society? doth it hereby appear that the Church which receiveth [h] an excommunicate man [i] , can have no dependency of [k] any person which is of kk chief authority and power, in those things of [l] the commonwealth whereunto the same [m] party is not admitted?

Wherefore to end this point, I conclude: First, that under [n] dominions of infidels, the Church of Christ, and their commonwealth, were two societies independent. Secondly, that in those commonwealths where the bishop of Rome beareth sway, one society is both the Church and the commonwealth; but the bishop of Rome doth divide the body into two diverse bodies, and doth not suffer the Church to depend upon the power of any civil prince or [o] potentate. Thirdly, that within this realm of England the case is neither as in the one, nor as in the other of the former two: but from the state of pagans we differ, in that with us one society is both the Church and commonwealth, which with them it was not; as also from the state of those nations which subject [p] themselves to the bishop of Rome, in that our Church hath dependency upon [q] the chief in our commonwealth, which it hath not under him [r] . In a word, our estate is according to the pattern of God’s own ancient elect people, which people was not part of them the commonwealth, and part of them the Church of God, but the selfsame people whole and entire were both under one chief Governor, on whose supreme authority they did all [s] depend.

II. Now the drift of all that hath been alleged to prove perpetual separation and independency between the Church and the commonwealth is, that this being held necessary, it might consequently be thought [t] , that in a Christian kingdom he whose power is greatest over the commonwealth may not lawfully have supremacy of power also over the Church, as it is a church [u] ;     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 2.  that is to say, so far as to order [x] and dispose [y] of spiritual affairs, [z] as the highest uncommanded commander in them. Whereupon it is grown a question, whether power [a] ecclesiastical over the Church [b] , power [c] of dominion in such degree [d] as the laws dd of this land do grant unto the sovereign governor thereof, may by the said supreme Head and [e] Governor lawfully be enjoyed and held? For resolution wherein, we are, first, to define what the power of dominion is: [f] then to shew by what right: after what sort: in what measure: with what conveniency [g] : according unto whose example Christian kings may have it. And when these generalities [h] are opened, to examine afterwards how lawful that is which we in regard of dominion do attribute unto our own: namely, the title of headship over the Church, so far as the bounds of this kingdom do reach: [i] the prerogative of calling and dissolving greater [k] assemblies, about spiritual affairs public: the right of assenting unto all those orders concerning religion, which must after be in force as laws [l] : the advancement of principal church-governors to their rooms of prelacy: judicial authority higher than others are capable of: and exemption from being punishable with such kind of censures as the platform of reformation doth teach that they ought to be subject unto.

What the power of dominion is.  Without order there is no living in public society, because the want thereof is the mother of confusion, whereupon division of necessity followeth, and out of division, inevitable [m] destruction [1] . The Apostle [2] therefore giving instruction to public societies, requireth that all things be orderly done. Order can have no place in things, unless [n] it be settled amongst the persons that shall by office be conversant about them. And if things or [o] persons be ordered, this doth imply that they are distinguished by degrees.     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 3.  For order is a gradual disposition.

The whole world consisting of parts so many, so different, is by this only thing upheld; he which framed them hath set them in order. Yea [p] , the very Deity itself both keepeth and requireth for ever this to be kept as a law, that wheresoever there is a coagmentation pp of many, the lowest be knit to the highest by that which being interjacent may cause each to cleave unto other [q] , and so all to continue one.

This order of things and persons in public societies is the work of polity [r] , and the proper instrument thereof in every degree is power; power being that ability which we have of ourselves, or receive from others, for performance of any action. If the action which we are [s] to perform be conversant about matter [t] of mere religion, the power of performing it is then spiritual; and if that power be such as hath not any other to overrule it, we term it dominion, or power supreme, so far as the bounds thereof do extend [u] .

When therefore Christian kings are said to have spiritual dominion or supreme power in ecclesiastical affairs and causes, the meaning is, that within their own precincts and territories they have [x] authority and power to command even in matters of Christian religion, and that there is no higher nor greater that can in those causes [y] over-command them, where they are placed to reign as kings. But withal we must likewise note that their power is termed supremacy, as being the highest, not simply without exception of any thing. For what man is there [z] so brain-sick, as not to except in such speeches God himself, the King of all the kings of the earth? [a] Besides, where the law doth give him dominion [b] , who doubteth but that the king who receiveth it must hold it of and under [c] the law? according to that cc axiom, “Attribuat rex legi, quod lex attribuit ei, potestatem et dominium [d] :” and again, “Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege [1] .” Thirdly, whereas it is not [e] altogether without reason,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 4, 5.  “that kings are judged to have by virtue of their dominion, although greater power than any, yet not than all the states [f] of those societies conjoined, wherein such sovereign rule is given them;” there is not hereunto any thing contrary [g] by us affirmed, no, not when we grant supreme authority unto kings, because supremacy is no [h] otherwise intended or meant [i] than to exclude partly foreign powers, and partly the power which belongeth in several unto others, contained as parts [k] within that politic body over which those kings have supremacy. “Where the king hath power of dominion, or supreme power, there no foreign state or potentate, no state or potentate domestical, whether it consist [l] of one or [m] of many, can possibly have in the same affairs and causes authority higher than the king.”

Power of spiritual dominion therefore is in causes ecclesiastical that ruling authority, which neither any foreign state, nor yet any part of that politic body at home, wherein the same is established, can lawfully overrule [n] .

By what right, namely, such as though men do give, God doth ratify  [o] . Unto which supreme power in kings two kinds of adversaries there are that [p] have opposed themselves: one sort defending, “that supreme power in causes ecclesiastical throughout the world appertaineth of divine right to the bishop of Rome:” another sort, “that the said power belongeth in every national church unto the clergy thereof assembled.” We which defend as well against the one as against the other [q] , “that kings within their own precincts may have it,” must shew by what right it may [r] come unto them.

First, unto me it seemeth almost out of doubt and controversy, that every independent multitude, before any certain form of regiment established, hath, under God’s [s] supreme authority, full dominion over itself, even as a man not tied with the bond [t] of subjection as yet unto any other, hath over himself the like power.     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 5.  God creating mankind did endue it naturally with [u] full power to guide itself [1] , in what kind [x] of societies [y] soever it [z] should choose to live. A man which is born lord of himself may be made another’s servant: and that power which naturally whole societies have, may be derived into [a] many, few, or one, under whom the rest shall then live in subjection.

Some multitudes are brought into subjection by force, as they who being subdued are fain to submit their necks unto what yoke it pleaseth their conquerors to lay upon them; which conquerors by just and lawful wars do hold their power over such multitudes as a thing descending unto them, divine providence itself so disposing. For it is God who giveth victory in the day of war. And unto whom dominion in this sort is derived, the same they enjoy according unto that [b] law of nations, which law authorizeth conquerors to reign as absolute lords over them whom they vanquish.

Sometimes [c] it pleaseth God himself by special appointment to choose out and nominate such as to whom dominion shall be given, which thing he did often in the commonwealth of Israel. They who [d] in this sort receive power have it [e] immediately from God, by mere divine right; they by human, on whom the same is bestowed according unto men’s discretion, when they are left free [f] by God to make choice of their own governor [g] . By which of these means soever it happen that kings or governors be advanced unto their states [h] , we must acknowledge both their lawful choice to be approved of God, and themselves to be [i] God’s lieutenants [2] , and confess their power [k] his [3] .

BOOK VII. Ch. ii. 6.  As for supreme power in ecclesiastical affairs, the word of God doth no where appoint that all kings should have it, neither that any should not have it; for which cause it seemeth to stand altogether by human right, that unto Christian kings there is such dominion given.

Again, on whom the same is bestowed even [l] at men’s discretion, they likewise do hold it by divine right. If God in his own [m] revealed word have [n] appointed such power to be, although himself extraordinarily bestow it not, but leave the appointment of the [o] persons unto men; yea, albeit God do neither appoint the thing [p] nor assign the person; nevertheless when men have [q] established both, who doth doubt but that sundry duties and offices [r] depending thereupon are prescribed in [s] the word of God, and consequently by that very right to be exacted?

For example’s sake, the power which the [t] Roman emperors had over foreign provinces was not a thing which the law of God did ever institute, neither was Tiberius Cæsar by special commission from heaven therewith invested; and yet the [u] payment of tribute unto Cæsar being [x] made emperor is the plain law of Jesus Christ. Unto kings by human right, honour by very divine right, is due; man’s ordinances are many times presupposed [y] as grounds in the statutes of God.     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 7.  And therefore of what kind soever the means be whereby governors are lawfully advanced unto their seats [z] , as we by the law [a] of God stand bound meekly to acknowledge them for God’s lieutenants, and to confess their power his, so they by the same law [b] are both authorized and required to use that power as far as it may be in any sort [c] available to his honour. The law appointeth no man to be an husband, but if a man have [d] betaken himself unto that condition, it giveth him then [e] authority over his own wife. That the Christian world should be ordered by [f] kingly regiment, the law of God doth not any where command; and yet the law of God doth give them right [g] , which once are exalted to that [h] estate, to exact [i] at the hands of their subjects general obediences in whatsoever affairs their power may serve to command. So [j] God doth ratify the [k] works of that sovereign authority which kings have received by men.

After what sort  [l] . This is therefore the right whereby kings do hold their power; but yet in what sort the same doth rest and abide in them it somewhat further behoveth [m] to search. Wherein, that we be not enforced to make over-large discourses about the different conditions of sovereign or supreme power, that which we speak of kings shall be with [n] respect to [o] the state and according to the nature of this kingdom, where the people are in no subjection, but such as willingly themselves have condescended unto, for their own most behoof and security. In kingdoms therefore of this quality the highest governor hath indeed universal dominion, but with dependence upon that whole entire body, over the several parts whereof he hath dominion; so that it standeth for an axiom in this case, The king is “major singulis, universis minor [1] .”

BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 8.  The king’s dependency we do not construe as some have done, who are of opinion that no man’s birth can make him a king, but every particular person advanced unto such authority hath at his entrance into his reign the same bestowed upon him, as an estate in condition, by the voluntary deed of the people, in whom it doth lie to put by any one, and to prefer some other before him, better liked of, or judged fitter for the place, and that the party so rejected hath herein [p] no injury [q] , no not [r] although this [s] be done in a place where the crown doth go κατὰ [t] γένος, by succession, and to a person which being capable [u] hath apparently, if blood be respected, the nearest right. They plainly affirm [1] , that [x] “in all well-appointed kingdoms, the custom evermore hath been, and is, that children succeed not their deceased [y] parents till the people after a sort have created them anew, neither that they grow to their fathers as natural and proper heirs, but are then to be reckoned for kings, when at the hands of such as represent the people’s [z] majesty they have by a sceptre and diadem [a] received as it were the investiture of kingly power.” Their very words are [1] , “That where such power is settled into a family or kindred, the stock itself is thereby chosen, but not the twig that springeth of it. The next of the stock unto him which [b] reigneth are not through nearness of blood made kings, but rather set forth to stand for the kingdom. Where regal dominion is hereditary, it is notwithstanding if ye [c] look to the persons themselves [d] which have it altogether elective.” To this purpose are alleged [e] [2] heaps of Scriptures concerning the solemn coronation or inauguration of Saul, of David, of Solomon, of [f] others, by the nobles, ancients, and people of the commonwealth of Israel; as if these solemnities were a kind of deed, whereby the right of dominion is given [3] . Which ff strange, untrue, and unnatural conceits, set abroad by seedsmen of rebellion, only to animate unquiet spirits, and to feed them with a possibility of aspiring unto thrones and sceptres [g] ,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 9.  if they can win the hearts of the people, what hereditary title soever any other before them may have, I say, these gg unjust and insolent positions I would not mention, were it not thereby to make the countenance of truth more orient: for unless we will openly proclaim defiance unto all law, equity, and reason, we must (there is no remedy) acknowledge, that in kingdoms hereditary birth giveth right unto sovereign dominion; and the death of the predecessor putteth the successor by blood in seisin. Those public solemnities before mentioned [h] do but either [i] serve for an open testification of the inheritor’s right, or belong to the form of inducting him into possession of that thing he hath right unto. And [k] therefore in case it do [l] happen that without right of blood a man in such wise be possessed, all those things [m] are utterly void, they make him no indefeasible estate, the inheritor by blood may dispossess him as an usurper.

The case thus standing, albeit we judge it a thing most true, that kings, even inheritors, do hold their right to [n] the power of dominion, with dependency upon the whole entire [o] body politic over which they rule [p] as kings; yet so it may not be understood, as if such dependency did grow, for that every supreme governor doth personally take from thence his power by way of gift, bestowed of their own free accord upon him at the time of his entrance into his [q] said place of sovereign [r] government. But the cause of dependency is in [s] that first original conveyance, when power was derived by [t] the whole into one; to pass from him unto [u] them, whom out of him nature by lawful birth [x] should produce, and no natural or legal inability make uncapable [y] . Neither can any man with reason think, but that the first institution of kings is [z] a sufficient consideration wherefore their power should always depend on that from which it did then flow [1] . Original [a] influence of power from the body into the king, is cause of the king’s [b] dependency in power upon the body.

BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 10, 11.  By dependency we mean subordination and subjection. A manifest token of which dependency may be this: as there is no more certain argument that lands are held under any as lord [c] , than if we see that such lands in defect of heirs do fall by escheat unto him [d] ; in like manner it doth rightly follow [e] , that seeing dominion, when there is none to inherit it, returneth unto the body, therefore they which before were inheritors thereof did hold it with dependency upon the body. So that by comparing the body with the head, as touching power, it seemeth always to reside in both; fundamentally or [f] radically in the one, in the other derivatively; in the [g] one the habit, in the other the act of power.

May then a body politic [h] at all times withdraw in whole or in part that [i] influence of dominion which passeth from it, if inconvenience doth [k] grow thereby? It must be presumed, that supreme governors will not in such case oppose themselves, and be stiff in detaining that, the use whereof is with public detriment: but surely without their consent I see not how the body should be able by any just means [l] to help itself, saving when dominion doth escheat. Such things therefore must be thought upon beforehand, that power may be limited ere it be granted; which is the next thing we are to consider.

In what measure.  In power of dominion, all kings have not an equal latitude. Kings by conquest make their own charter: so that how large their power, either civil or spiritual, is, we cannot with any certainty define, further than only to set them in general [m] the law of God and nature for bounds. Kings by God’s own special appointment have also that largeness of power, which he doth assign or permit with approbation. Touching kings which were first instituted by agreement and composition made with them over whom they reign, how far their power may lawfully [n] extend, the articles of compact between them must [o] shew: not the articles only [p] of compact at the first beginning, which for the most part are either clean worn out of knowledge,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 12.  or else known unto very few, but whatsoever hath been after in free and voluntary manner condescended unto, whether by express consent, whereof positive laws are witnesses, or else by silent allowance famously notified through custom reaching beyond the memory of man. By which means of after-agreement, it cometh many times to pass in kingdoms, that they whose ancient predecessors were by violence and force made subject, do grow even by little and little [q] into that most [r] sweet form of kingly government which philosophers define to be [s] “ [1] regency willingly sustained ss and endured, with chiefty of power in the greatest things.”

Many of the ancients in their writings do speak of kings with such high and ample terms, as if universality of power, even in regard of things and not of persons only, did appertain to the very being of a king [2] . The reason is, because their speech concerning kings they frame according to the state of those monarchs to whom unlimited authority was given: which some not observing, imagine that all kings, even in that they are kings, ought to have whatsoever power they find [t] any sovereign ruler lawfully to have enjoyed. But the [u] most judicious philosopher, whose eye scarce any thing did escape [x] which was to be found in the bosom of nature, he considering how far the power of one sovereign ruler may be different from another’s [y] regal authority, noteth in Spartan kings [3] , “that of all others lawfully reigning they had [z] the most restrained power [a] .” A king which hath not supreme power in the greatest things, is rather entitled a king, than invested with real sovereignty. We cannot properly term him a king, of whom it may not be said, at the leastwise, as touching certain the very [b] chiefest affairs of state [c] , αὐτῳ̑ μὲν [d] ἄρχειν, ἄρχεσθαι [1] δὲ ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς, “his right in them is to have rule, not subject to any other predominant [e] .” I am not of opinion that simply always [f] in kings the most, but the best limited power is best [g] : the most limited is, that which may deal in fewest things; the best, that which in dealing is tied unto the soundest, perfectest, and most indifferent rule; which rule is the law; I mean not only the law of nature and of God, but very national or municipal law consonant thereunto [h] . Happier that people whose law is their king in the greatest things, than that whose king is himself their law. Where the king doth guide the state, and the law the king, that commonwealth is like an harp or melodious instrument, the strings whereof are tuned and handled all by one hh , following as laws the rules and canons of musical science hhh . Most divinely therefore Archytas maketh unto public felicity these four steps [i] , every later whereof [j] doth spring from the former, as from a mother [k] cause; ὁ μὲν [l] βασιλεὺς νόμιμος, ὁ δὲ ἄρχων ἀκόλουθος, ὁ δὲ ἀρχόμενος ἐλεύθερος [m] , ἁ δ’ ὅλα [n] κοινωνία εὐδαίμων [2] ; adding on the contrary side, that “where this order is not, it cometh by transgression thereof to pass that the king [o] groweth [p] a tyrant; he that ruleth under him abhorreth to be guided and commanded by him [q] ;     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 13, 14.  the people subject under [r] both, have freedom under neither; and the whole community is wretched [1] .”

In which respect, I cannot choose but commend highly their wisdom, by whom the foundations of this [s] commonwealth have been laid; wherein though no manner person [t] or cause be unsubject to the king’s power, yet so is the power of the king over all and in all limited, that unto all his proceedings the law itself is a rule. The axioms of our regal government are these: “Lex facit regem:” the king’s grant of any favour made contrary to the [u] law is void; “Rex nihil potest nisi quod jure potest.” Our kings therefore, when they take [x] possession of the room [y] they are called unto, have it painted [z] out before their eyes, even by the very solemnities and rites of their inauguration, to what affairs by the said [a] law their supreme authority and power [b] reacheth. Crowned we see they are, and [c] enthronized, and anointed: the crown a sign of military [d] ; the throne, of sedentary or [e] judicial; the oil, of religious or sacred power.

It is not on any side denied, that kings may have such [f] authority in secular affairs. The question then is, “What power they lawfully may [g] have, and exercise in causes of God.” “A prince, a magistrate, or community,” saith D. Stapleton [2] , “may have power to lay corporal punishment [h] on them which are teachers of perverse things; power to make laws for the peace of the Church; power to proclaim, to defend, and even by revenge to preserve from violation [i] dogmata, very [j] articles of religion themselves.” Others [3] in affection no less devoted unto the papacy,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 14.  do likewise yield, that “the civil magistrate may by his edicts and laws keep all ecclesiastical persons within the bounds of their duties, and constrain them to observe the canons of the Church, to follow the rules [k] of ancient discipline.” That “if Joas kk were [l] commended for his care and provision concerning so small a part of religion as the church-treasury [m] ; it must needs be both unto Christian kings themselves greater honour, and to Christianity a larger benefit, when the custody of religion whole [n] and of [o] the worship of God in general is their charge.” If therefore all these things mentioned be most properly the affairs of God, and ecclesiastical [p] causes; if the actions specified be works of power; and if that power be such as kings may use of themselves, without the leave [q] of any other power superior in the same things [r] : it followeth necessarily, that kings may have supreme power, not only in civil, but also in ecclesiastical affairs; and consequently, that they may withstand what bishop or pope soever shall, under the pretended claim of higher spiritual authority, oppose himself [s] against their proceedings. But they which have made us the former grant, will hereunto never [t] condescend. What they yield that princes may do, it is with secret exception always understood, if the bishop of Rome give leave, if he interpose no prohibition: wherefore somewhat it is in shew, in truth nothing, which they grant.

Our own reformers do the very like. When they make their discourses [u] in general concerning the authority which magistrates may have, a man would think them far [x] from withdrawing any jot of that which with reason may be thought due.     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 15.  “The prince and civil magistrate [1] ,” saith one of them, “hath to see that [y] the laws of God touching his worship, and touching all matters and orders [z] of the Church be [a] executed, and duly observed; and to see that [b] every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed, and to punish those which fail in their office accordingly.” Another acknowledgeth [2] , that “the magistrate may lawfully uphold all truth by his sword, punish all persons, enforce all to do [c] their duties unto [d] God and men; maintain by his laws every point of God’s word, punish all vice in all men; see into all causes, visit the ecclesiastical estate, and correct the abuses thereof; finally, to look to his subjects, that under him they may lead their lives in all godliness and honesty.” A third more frankly professeth [3] , that in case their church-discipline were established, so little it shorteneth the arms of sovereign dominion in causes ecclesiastical, that her gracious Majesty, for any thing which [e] they teach or hold to the contrary, may no less than now “remain still over all persons, in all things supreme governess, even with that full and royal authority, superiority, preeminence [f] , supremacy, and prerogative, which the laws already established do give her, and her Majesty’s injunctions, and the articles of the Convocation-house, and other writings apologetical of her royal authority and supreme dignity, do declare and explain.”

Posidonius was wont to say of the Epicure, “That he thought there were no gods, but that those things which he spake concerning the gods were only given out for fear of growing odious amongst men; and therefore that in words he left gods remaining, but in very deed overthrew them, inasmuch [g] as he gave them no kind of motion [h] , no kind of action [4] .” After the very selfsame manner, when we come unto those particular effects and [k] prerogatives of dominion which the laws of this land do grant unto the kings thereof,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 16.  it will appear how these [l] men, notwithstanding their large and liberal speeches, abate such parcels out of the fore-alleged grand [m] and flourishing sum [n] , that a man comparing the one with the other may half stand in doubt, lest their opinions [o] in very truth be against that authority which by their speeches they seem mightily to uphold, partly for the avoiding of public obloquy, envy, and hatred; partly to the intent they may both in the end, by establishment [p] of their discipline, extinguish the force of supreme power which princes have, and yet in the meanwhile by giving forth these smooth discourses, obtain that their favourers may have somewhat to allege for them by way of apology, and that in such words as sound towards all kind of fulness in power [q] . But for myself, I had rather construe such their contradictions in the better part, and impute their general acknowledgment of the lawfulness of kingly power unto the force of truth, presenting itself before them sometimes alone [r] ; their particular contrarieties, oppositions, denials, unto that error which having so fully possessed their minds, casteth things inconvenient upon them; of which things in their due place.

Touching that which is now in hand, we are on all sides fully agreed; first, that there is not any restraint or limitation of matter for regal authority and power to be conversant in, but of religion whole [s] , and of whatsoever cause thereto [t] appertaineth, kings may lawfully have charge, they lawfully may therein exercise dominion, and use the temporal sword: secondly, that some kinds [u] of actions conversant about such affairs are denied unto kings; as, namely, actions of the power of order [x] , and of that power of jurisdiction, which is [y] with it unseparably [z] joined;     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 17.  power to administer the word and sacraments, power to ordain, to judge as an ordinary, to bind and loose, to excommunicate, and such like: thirdly, that even in these [a] very actions which are proper unto dominion, there must be some certain rule, whereunto kings in all their proceedings ought to be strictly tied; which rule for proceedings [b] in ecclesiastical affairs and causes by regal power, hath not hitherto been agreed upon with so [c] uniform consent and certainty as might be wished [d] . The different sentences of men herein I will not [e] now go about to examine, but it shall be enough to propose what rule doth seem in this case most reasonable.

By what rule  [f] . It hath been declared already [1] in general, how “the best established dominion is where the law doth most rule the king:” the true effect whereof particularly is found as well in ecclesiastical as in [g] civil affairs. In these the king, through his supreme power, may do great things and sundry [h] himself, both appertaining unto peace and war, both at home, by commandment [i] and by commerce with states abroad, because so much the law doth [j] permit. Some things [k] on the other side, the king [l] alone hath no power [m] to do without consent of the lords and commons assembled in parliament [n] : the king of [o] himself cannot change the nature of pleas, nor courts, no not so much as restore blood; because the law is a bar unto him; not any law divine [p] or natural [q] , for against neither it were though kings of themselves [r] might do both, but [s] the positive laws of the realm have abridged therein [t] and restrained [u] the king’s power; which positive laws, whether by custom or otherwise established without repugnancy unto the law [x] of God and nature, ought no [y] less to be of [z] force even in the spiritual [a] affairs of the Church. Wherefore [b] in regard of ecclesiastical laws, we willingly embrace that of Ambrose, “Imperator bonus [1] intra ecclesiam, non supra ecclesiam, est; kings have dominion to exercise in ecclesiastical causes, but according to the laws of the Church.” Whether it be therefore the nature of courts, or the form of pleas, or the kind of governors, or the order of proceedings [c] in whatsoever spiritual [d] businesses [e] ; for the received laws and liberties [f] of the [g] Church the king hath supreme authority and power, but against them, none [h] .

What such positive laws have appointed to be done by others than the king, or by others with the king, and in what form they have appointed the doing of it, the same of necessity must be kept, neither is the king’s sole authority to alter it.

Yea [i] even as it were a thing unreasonable, if in civil affairs the king (albeit the whole universal body did join with him) should do any thing by their absolute supreme power [j] for the ordering of their state at home, in prejudice of any of [k] those ancient laws of nations which are of force throughout [l] the world, because the necessary commerce of kingdoms dependeth on them; so in principal matters belonging to Christian religion, a thing very scandalous and offensive it must needs be thought, if either kings or laws should dispose of the affairs [m] of God, without any respect had to that which of old hath been reverently thought of throughout the world, and wherein there is no law of God which forceth us to swerve from the way [n] wherein so many and so [o] holy ages have gone.

Wherefore not without good consideration the very law itself hath provided, “That judges ecclesiastical appointed under the king’s commission shall not adjudge for heresy any thing but that which heretofore hath been so [p] adjudged by the authority of the canonical scriptures,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ii. 18.  or by the first four general councils, or by some other general council wherein the same hath been declared heresy by the express words of the said canonical scriptures, or such as hereafter shall be termed [q] heresy by the high court of parliament of this realm, with the assent of the clergy in the convocation [1] .” By which words of the law who doth not plainly see, how in that [r] one branch of proceeding by virtue of the king’s supreme authority, the credit which those four [s] general councils have throughout all churches evermore [t] had, was judged by the makers [u] of the foresaid act a just cause wherefore they [x] should be mentioned in that case, as a requisite part of the [y] rule wherewith dominion was to be limited [2] . But of this we shall further consider, when we come unto that which sovereign power may do in making ecclesiastical laws.

With what conveniency  [z] . The cause zz of deriving supreme power from a whole entire multitude unto [a] some special part thereof, is partly the necessity of expedition in public affairs; partly the inconveniency of [b] confusion and trouble, where a multitude of equals dealeth; and partly the dissipation which must needs ensue in companies, where every man wholly seeketh his own particular (as we all would do, even with other men’s hurt [c] ) and haply the very overthrow of ourselves [d] in the end also, if for procurement [e] of the common good of all men, by keeping every several man in order, some were not armed [f] with authority over all, and encouraged with prerogatives of honour [g] to sustain the weighty burden of that charge. The good which is proper unto each man belongeth to the common good of all, as a part of the whole’s perfection [h] ; but yet [i] these two are things different;     BOOK VIII. Ch. iii. 1.  for men by that which is proper are severed, united they are by that which is common. Wherefore, besides that which moveth each man in particular to seek his private, there must [k] of necessity in all public societies be also a general mover, directing unto the [l] common good, and framing every man’s particular to it. The end whereunto all government was instituted, was bonum publicum, the universal or common good. Our question is of dominion, for that end and purpose derived into one [1] . Such as in [m] one public state have agreed that the supreme charge of all things should be committed unto one, they I say, considering what inconveniences [n] may grow where states are subject unto sundry supreme authorities, were [o] for fear of those [p] inconveniences withdrawn from liking to establish many; οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη, the multitude of supreme commanders is troublesome. “No man,” saith our Saviour, “can serve two masters:” surely two supreme masters would make any one [q] man’s service somewhat uneasy in such cases as might fall out. Suppose that to-morrow the power which hath dominion in justice require thee at the court; that which in war, at the field; that which in religion, at the temple: all have equal authority over thee, and impossible it is, that thou shouldest be in such case [r] obedient to all: by choosing any one whom thou wilt obey, certain thou art for thy disobedience to incur the displeasure of the other two.

According unto what example or pattern  [s] . [III.] But there is nothing for which some colourable [t] reason or other may not be found. Are we able to shew any commendable state of government, which by experience and practice hath felt the benefit of being in all causes subject unto the supreme authority of one? Against the polity [u] of Israel [x] , I hope there will no man except, where Moses deriving so great a part of his burden in government unto others, did notwithstanding retain to himself universal supremacy.     BOOK VIII. Ch. iii. 1.  Jehosaphat appointing one to be chief [y] in the affairs of God, and another in the king’s affairs, did this as having himself [z] dominion over them in both. If therefore, with [a] approbation from [b] heaven, the kings of God’s own chosen people had in the affairs of Jewish religion supreme power, why not Christian kings the like power [c] also in Christian religion? Unless [d] men will answer, as some have done [1] , “that touching the Jews, first their religion [e] was of far less  Hooker1888: 1.  perfection and dignity than ours is [f] , ours being that truth whereof theirs was but a shadowish prefigurative resemblance.” Secondly [2] , “That all parts of their religion,  Hooker1888: 2.  their laws, their sacrifices, their [g] rites and ceremonies, being fully set down to their hands, and needing no more but only to be put in execution, the kings might well have highest authority to see that done: whereas with us there are a number of mysteries even in belief, which were not so generally [h] for them, as for us, necessary to be with sound express acknowledgment understood; a number of things belonging unto external regiment [i] , and one [k] manner of serving God, not set down by particular ordinances, and delivered unto us in writing; for which cause the state of the Church doth now require that the spiritual authority of ecclesiastical persons be large, absolute, and not subordinate  Hooker1888: 3.  to regal power.” Thirdly [1] , “that whereas God armeth religion Jewish, with [l] temporal, Christian, with a [m] sword but of spiritual punishment; the one with power to imprison, to scourge, and [n] to put to death, the other with bare authority to censure and excommunicate; there is no reason that the Church, which now [o] hath no visible sword, should in regiment be subject unto any other power, than only unto theirs which have authority to bind and  Hooker1888: 4.  loose.” Fourthly [2] , “that albeit while [p] the Church was restrained unto [q] one people, it seemed not incommodious to grant their kings [r] the general chiefty of power; yet now, the Church having spread itself over all nations, great inconveniency [s] might [t] thereby grow, if every Christian king in his several territory should have the like power.” Of all these differences, there is not one which doth prove it a thing repugnant unto the law either of God or nature [u] , that all supremacy of external power be in Christian kingdoms granted unto the [x] kings thereof, for preservation of quietness, unity, order, and peace, in such manner as hath been shewed.

BOOK VIII. Ch. iii. 2.  [y] The service which we do unto the true God who made heaven and earth is far different from that which heathens have done unto their supposed gods, though nothing else were respected but only the odds between their hope and ours. The offices of piety or true religion sincerely performed have the promises both of this life and of the life to come: the practices of superstition have neither. If notwithstanding the heathens, reckoning upon no other reward for all which they did but only protection and favour in the temporal estate and condition of this present life, and perceiving how great good did hereby publicly grow, as long as fear to displease (they knew not what) divine power was some kind of bridle unto them, did therefore provide that the highest degree of care for their religion should be the principal charge of such as having otherwise also the greatest and chiefest power were by so much the more fit to have custody thereof: shall the like kind of provision be in us thought blameworthy?

[Ad primum.]  A gross error it is, to think that regal power ought to serve for the good of the body, and not of the soul; for men’s temporal peace, and not for [z] their eternal safety: and if God had ordained kings for no other end and purpose but only to fat up men like hogs, and to see that they have their mast [1] ? Indeed, to lead men unto salvation by the hand of secret, invisible, and ghostly regiment, or by the external administration of things belonging unto priestly order, (such as the word and sacraments are,) this is denied unto Christian kings: no cause in the world to think them uncapable of supreme authority in the outward government which disposeth the affairs of religion so far forth as the same are disposable by human authority, and to think them uncapable thereof, only for that the said religion is everlastingly beneficial to them that faithfully continue in it. And even as little cause there is, that being admitted thereunto amongst the Jews, they should amongst the Christians of necessity be delivered from ever exercising any such power, for the dignity and perfection which is in our religion more than in theirs [1] .     BOOK VIII. Ch. iii. 3, 4.

Ad secundum  [2] . It may be a question, whether the affairs of Christianity require more wit, more study, more knowledge of divine things in him which shall order them, than the Jewish religion did. For although we deny not the form of external government, together with all other rites and ceremonies, to have been in more particular manner set down: yet withal it must be considered also, that even this very thing did in some respects make the burthen of their spiritual regiment the harder to be borne; by reason of infinite doubts and difficulties which the very obscurity and darkness of their law did breed, and which being not first decided, the law could not possibly have due execution.

Besides, inasmuch as their law did also dispose even of all kind of civil affairs; their clergy, being the interpreters of the whole law, sustained not only the same labour which divines do amongst us, but even the burthen of our lawyers too. Nevertheless, be it granted that moe things do now require to be publicly deliberated and resolved upon with exacter judgment in matters divine than kings for the most part have: their personal inability to judge, in such sort as professors do, letteth not but that their regal authority may have the selfsame degree or sway which the kings of Israel had in the affairs of their religion, to rule and command according to the manner of supreme governors.

Ad tertium.  As for the sword, wherewith God armed his Church of old, if that were a reasonable cause why kings might then have dominion, I see not but that it ministreth still as forcible an argument for the lawfulness and expediency of their continuance therein now. As we degrade and excommunicate, even so did the Church of the Jews both separate offenders from the temple, and depose the clergy also from their rooms, when cause required. The other sword of corporal punishment is not by Christ’s own appointment in the hands of the Church of Christ, as God did place it himself in the hands of the Jewish Church. For why? He knew that they whom he sent abroad to gather a people unto him only by persuasive means,     BOOK VIII. Ch. iii. 4.  were to build up his Church even within the bosom of kingdoms, the chiefest governors whereof would be open enemies unto it every where for the space of many years. Wherefore such commission for discipline he gave them, as they might any where exercise in quiet and peaceable manner; the subjects of no commonwealth being touched in goods or person, by virtue of that spiritual regiment whereunto Christian religion embraced did make them subject.

Now when afterwards it came to pass, that whole kingdoms were made Christian, I demand whether that authority, which [a] served before for the furtherance of religion, may not as effectually serve [b] to the maintenance of Christian religion. Christian religion hath the sword of spiritual discipline. But doth that suffice? The Jewish which had it also, did nevertheless stand in need to be aided with the power of the civil sword. The help whereof, although when Christian religion cannot have, it must without it sustain itself as far as the other which it hath will serve; notwithstanding, where both may be had, what forbiddeth the Church to enjoy the benefit of both? Will any man deny that the Church doth need the rod of corporal punishment to keep her children in obedience withal? Such a law as Macabeus [1] made amongst the Scots, that he which continued an excommunicate two years together, and reconciled not himself to the church, should forfeit all his goods and possessions.

Again, the custom which many Christian churches have to fly to the civil magistrate for coercion of those that will not otherwise be reformed,—these things are proof sufficient that even in Christian religion, the power wherewith ecclesiastical persons were endued at the first is unable to do of itself so much as when secular power doth strengthen it; and that, not by way of ministry or service, but of predominancy, such as the kings of Israel in their time exercised over the Church of God.     BOOK VIII. Ch. iii. 5, 6.

Ad quartum.  Yea, but the Church of God was then restrained more narrowly to one people and one king, which now being spread throughout all kingdoms, it would be a cause of great dissimilitude in the exercise of Christian religion if every king should be over the affairs of the church where he reigneth supreme ruler.

Dissimilitude in great things is such a thing which draweth great inconvenience after it, a thing which Christian religion must always carefully prevent. And the way to prevent it is, not as some do imagine, the yielding up of supreme power over all churches into one only pastor’s hands; but the framing of their government, especially for matter of substance, every where according to the rule of one only Law, to stand in no less force than the law of nations doth, to be received in all kingdoms, all sovereign rulers to be sworn no otherwise unto it than some are to maintain the liberties, laws, and received customs of the country where they reign. This shall cause uniformity even under several dominions, without those woeful inconveniences whereunto the state of Christendom was subject heretofore, through the tyranny and oppression of that one universal Nimrod [1] who alone did all.

And, till the Christian world be driven to enter into the peaceable and true consultation about some such kind of general law concerning those things of weight and moment wherein now we differ, if one church hath not the same order which another hath: let every church keep as near as may be the order it should have, and commend the just defence thereof unto God, even as Juda did, when it differed in the exercise of religion from that form which Israel followed.

Concerning therefore the matter whereof we have hitherto spoken, let it stand for our final conclusion, that in a free Christian state or kingdom, where one and the selfsame people are the Church and the commonwealth, God through Christ directing that people to see it for good and weighty considerations expedient that their sovereign lord and governor in causes civil have also in ecclesiastical affairs a supreme power;     BOOK VIII. Ch. iii. 6.  forasmuch as the light of reason doth lead them unto it, and against it God’s own revealed law hath nothing: surely they do not in submitting themselves thereunto any other than that which a wise and religious people ought to do.

It was but a little overflowing of wit in Thomas Aquinas [1] , so to play upon the words of Moses [2] in the Old, and of Peter [3] in the New Testament, as though because the one did term the Jews “a priestly kingdom,” the other us “a kingly priesthood,” those two substantives “kingdom” and “priesthood” should import, that Judaism did stand through the kings’ superiority over priests, Christianity through the priests’ supreme authority over kings. Is it probable, that Moses and Peter had herein so nice and curious conceits? Or else more likely that both meant one and the same thing; namely that God doth glorify and sanctify his, even with full perfection in both; which thing St. John doth in plainer sort express, saying that “Christ hath made us both kings and priests [4] .”

BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 1, 2.  [IV. 1.] These things being thus first considered [c] , it will be the easier [d] to judge concerning our own estate, whether by force of ecclesiastical dominion [e] with us [f] kings have any other kind of prerogative than they may lawfully hold and enjoy. It is as some do imagine too much, that kings of England should be termed Heads, in relation to the Church.     To be entitled, Heads of the Church under Christ within their own dominions [from D].  That which we understand [g] by headship, is their only supreme power in ecclesiastical affairs or [h] causes. That which lawfully [i] princes are, what should make it unlawful for men by [k] special [l] styles or titles to signify? If the having of supreme power be allowed, why is the expressing thereof by the title of head condemned? They seem in words, at the [m] leastwise some of them, now at the length to acknowledge that kings may have supreme [n] government even over all, both persons and causes. We in terming our princes heads of the Church, do but testify that we acknowledge them such governors.

Against [o] this peradventure it will [p] be replied [1] , that howsoever we interpret ourselves, it is not fit for a mortal man, and therefore not fit [q] for a civil magistrate, to be entitled head of the Church.     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 2.  Why so? First “this title, Head of the Church [r] , was given unto our Saviour Christ [1] , to lift him above all powers, rules, and dominions [s] , either in heaven or in earth. Where if this title belong also to the civil magistrate [t] , then it is manifest that there is a power in earth whereunto our Saviour Christ is not in this point superior. Again, if the civil magistrate may have this title, he may be also termed [u] the first-begotten of all creatures, the first-begotten of [x] the dead, yea the Redeemer of his people. For these are alike given him as dignities whereby he is lifted up above all creatures. Besides this, the whole argument of the Apostle in both places doth lead to shew that this title, Head of the Church, cannot be said of any creature. And further, the very demonstrative article [y] , among the Hebrews especially, whom S. Paul doth follow, serveth to tie that which is verified of one, unto himself alone: so that when the apostle doth say that Christ is ἡ κεϕαλὴ, the Head;     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 3.  it is as much as [z] if he should say, Christ, and no [a] other, is the Head of the Church.”

Thus have we against the entitling of the highest magistrates [b] , Head, with relation unto the Church, four several arguments, gathered by strong surmise out of words marvellous unlikely to have been written for [c] any such purpose as that whereunto they are now urged [d] . To the Ephesians, the apostle writeth [1] , “That Christ, God hath seated on his [e] own right hand in the heavenly places, above all regency, and authority, and power, and dominion, and whatsoever name is named, not in this world only, but in that which shall be also: and hath under his feet set all things, and hath given him head above all things unto the Church, which is his body, even the complement [f] of him which accomplished all in all.” To the Colossians in like manner [2] , “That He is the head of the body of the Church, who is a first-born regency out of the dead, to the end he might be made amongst them all such an one as hath the chiefty:” he meaneth, amongst all them whom before he mentioned [g] , saying [3] , “In [h] him all things that are, were made; the things in the heavens, and the things in [i] the earth, the things that are visible, and the things that are invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominations [k] , or regencies,” c.

Unto the fore-alleged arguments therefore we answer: first, that it is not simply the title of Head, which lifteth our Saviour above all powers, but the title of Head [l] in such sort understood, as the apostle himself meant it: so that the same being imparted in another sense unto others, doth not any way [m] make those others therein [n] his equals; inasmuch as diversity of things is usual [o] to be understood, even when of words there is no diversity; and it is only the adding of one and the selfsame [p] thing unto diverse persons, which doth argue equality in them. If I term Christ and Cæsar lords, yet this is no equalling of [q] Cæsar with Christ, because it is not thereby intended.     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 4.  “To term the emperor Lord,” saith Tertullian [1] , “I for mine own part will not refuse, so that I be not required to term [r] him Lord in the same sense that God is so termed.”

Neither doth it follow, which is objected in the second place, that if the civil magistrate may be entitled an Head, he may also as well be [s] termed, “the first-begotten of all creatures,” “the first-begotten of the dead,” and “the Redeemer of his people.” For albeit the former dignity do [t] lift him up no less than these, yet these terms are not appliable and apt to signify any other inferior dignity, as the former term of Head was.

The argument or matter which the Apostle followeth hath small evidence for [u] proof, that his meaning was to appropriate unto Christ [x] the foresaid title, otherwise than only in such sense as doth make it, being so understood, too high to be given to any creature.

As for the force of the article, whereby [y] our Lord and Saviour is named [z] the Head, it serveth to tie that unto him by way of excellency, which in a meaner degree [a] is common to others; it doth not exclude any other utterly from being termed Head, but from being entitled as Christ is, the Head, by way of the very highest degree of excellency. Not in the communication of names, but in the [b] confusion of things, is [c] error.

Howbeit, if Head were a name which well could not be [d] , or [e] never had been used to signify that which a magistrate may be in relation unto some church, but were by continual use of speech appropriated unto that [f] only thing which [g] it signifieth, being applied unto Jesus Christ; then, although we might [h] carry in ourselves a right understanding, yet ought we otherwise rather to speak, unless we interpret our own meaning by some clause of [i] plainer speech; because we are else in manifest danger to be understood according to that construction and sense wherein such words are usually taken [k] . But here the rarest construction, and most removed from common sense, is that which the word doth import being applied unto Christ; that which we signify by it in giving it unto the magistrate, is a great deal more familiar in the common conceit of men. The word is so fit to signify [1] all kinds of superiority, preeminence, and chiefty, that no one thing [l] is more ordinary than so to use it even [m] in vulgar speech, and in common understanding so to take it. If therefore a Christian king [n] may have any preeminence or chiefty above all other [o] in the Church, (albeit it were [p] less than [q] Theodore Beza [2] giveth, who placeth kings amongst the principal members whereunto public function in the Church belongeth, and denieth not, but that of them which have public function, the civil magistrate’s power hath all the rest at commandment [r] , in regard of that part of his office, which is to procure that peace and good order be especially kept in things concerning the first Table;) even [s] hereupon to [t] term him the Head of that [u] Church which is his kingdom, should not [v] seem so unfit a thing: which title surely we would [x] not communicate to any other, no not although it should at our hands be exacted with torments, but that our meaning herein is made known to the whole [y] world, so that no man which will understand can easily be ignorant, that we do not impart to kings, when we term them Heads, the honour which properly is [z] given to our Lord and Saviour Christ, when the blessed Apostles in Scripture do [b] term him the Head of the Church.     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 5.

Differences between Christ’s Headship and that which we give to kings  [c] . The power which we signify by that name, differeth in three things plainly from that which Christ doth challenge.

It differeth in order, measure, and kind. In order, because [d] God hath given him to his Church for the Head, ὑπὲρ πάντα, above all [e] , ὑπεράνω πάσης τη̑ς [f] ἀρχη̑ς, “far [1] above all principality, and power [g] , and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not in this world only, but also in that which is to come:” whereas the power which others have is subordinate [h] unto his.

Again [i] , as he differeth in order, so in measure of power also; because God hath given unto him [2] the ends of the earth for his possession; unto him, dominion from sea to sea; unto him, all power [k] in heaven and in earth; unto him, such sovereignty, as doth not only reach over all places, persons, and things, but doth rest in his one [l] only person, and is not by any succession continued: He reigneth as Head and King for ever [m] , nor is there any kind of law which tieth him, but his own proper will and wisdom: his power is absolute, the same jointly over all which it is severally over each; not so the power of any other’s [n] headship. How kings are restrained, and in what sort their authority [o] is limited, we have shewed before. So that unto him is given by the title of Headship over the Church, that largeness of power, wherein neither man nor angel can be matched or compared with him.

The last [p] and the weightiest [q] difference between him and them, is in the very kind of their power. The head being of all other parts of man’s [r] body the [s] most divine [3] , hath dominion over all the rest: it is the fountain of sense, of motion; the throne where the guide of the soul doth reign; the court from whence direction of all things human proceedeth.     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 6.  Why Christ is called Head of his Church [q] , these causes they [r] themselves do yield. As the head is the highest [s] part of a man, above which there is none, always joined with the body: so Christ is [t] the highest in his Church, inseparably knit with it [u] . Again, as the head giveth sense and moving to [x] all the body, so he quickeneth [y] , and together with understanding of heavenly things, giveth strength to walk therein. Seeing therefore, that they cannot affirm Christ sensibly present, or always visibly joined unto his body the Church which is on earth, inasmuch as his corporal residence is in heaven; again, seeing they do not affirm (it were intolerable if they should) that Christ doth personally administer the external regiment of outward actions in the Church, but by the secret inward influence of his grace, giveth spiritual life and the strength of ghostly motions thereunto: impossible it is, that they should so close up their eyes, as not to discern what odds there is between that kind of operation which we imply in the headship of princes, and that which agreeth to our Saviour’s dominion over the Church. The headship which we give unto kings is altogether visibly exercised, and ordereth only the external frame of the Church’s affairs [z] here amongst us; so that it plainly differeth from Christ’s, even in very nature and kind. To be in such sort united unto the Church as he is; to work as he worketh, either on the whole Church, or on any particular assembly, or in any one man; doth neither agree, nor hath possibility [a] of agreeing, unto any besides [b] him.

Opposition against the first difference, whereby, Christ being Head simply, princes are said to be Heads under Christ  [c] . Against the first distinction or difference it is objected [1] , that to entitle a magistrate Head of the Church, although it be under Christ, is most [d] absurd. For Christ hath a twofold superiority; a superiority over his Church, and a superiority over kingdoms [e] : according to the one, he “hath a superior, which is his Father; according to the other, none but immediate authority with his Father:” that is to say, of the Church he is Head and Governor only as the Son of man; Head and Governor over [f] kingdoms only as the Son of God. In the Church, as man, he hath officers under him, which officers are ecclesiastical persons: as for the civil magistrate, his office belongeth unto kingdoms, and commonwealths [g] , neither is he therein [h] an under or subordinate head of Christ [i] ; “considering that his authority cometh from God, simply and immediately, even as our Saviour Christ’s doth [1] .”

Whereunto the sum of our answer is, first, that as Christ being Lord or Head over all, doth by virtue of that sovereignty rule all; so he hath no more a superior in governing his Church, than in exercising sovereign dominion upon the rest of the world besides. Secondly, that all authority, as well civil as ecclesiastical, is subordinate unto his [j] . And thirdly, that [k] the civil magistrate being termed Head, by reason of that authority in ecclesiastical affairs which it [l] hath been already declared that themselves do in word [m] acknowledge to be lawful; it followeth that he is an Head even subordinated of [n] , and to Christ.

For more plain explication whereof, first [o] , unto God we acknowledge daily [2] , that kingdom, power, and glory, are his; that he is [3] the immortal and invisible [p] King of ages, as well the future which shall be, as the present which now is. That which the Father doth work as Lord and king over all, he worketh not without, but by the Son, who through coeternal generation receiveth of the Father that power which the Father hath of himself. And for that cause our Saviour’s words concerning his own dominion are, “To me all power both in heaven and in [q] earth is given.” The Father by the Son both [r] did create, and doth guide all; wherefore Christ hath supreme dominion over the whole universal world.

Christ is God, Christ is Λόγος, the consubstantial Word of God, Christ is also that consubstantial Word made [s] man. As God, he saith of himself [1] , “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end: he which was, which is, and which is to come; even the very Omnipotent.” As the consubstantial Word of God, he had [s] with God before the beginning of the world, that glory which as man [t] he requesteth [u] to have [2] ; “Father, glorify thy Son now [x] with that glory which with thee I [y] enjoyed before the world was.” For there is no necessity [z] that all things spoken of Christ should agree unto him either as God, or else as man; but some things as he is the consubstantial Word of God, some things as he is that Word incarnate. The works of supreme dominion which have been since the first beginning wrought by the power of the Son of God, are now most truly and properly [a] the works of the Son of man: the Word made flesh doth sit for ever, and reign as sovereign Lord over all. Dominion belongeth unto the kingly office of Christ, as propitiation and mediation unto his priestly; instruction, unto his pastoral or [b] prophetical office. His works of dominion are in sundry degrees or [c] kinds, according to the different condition [d] of them which are subject unto it: he presently doth govern, and hereafter shall judge the world, entire and whole [e] , therefore [f] his regal power cannot be with truth restrained unto a portion [g] of the world only. Notwithstanding forasmuch as all do not shew and acknowledge with dutiful submission that obedience which they owe unto him; therefore such as do, their Lord he is termed by way of excellency, no otherwise than the Apostle doth term God [3] , the Saviour [h] generally of all, but especially of the faithful: these being brought to the obedience of faith, are every where spoken of as men translated into that kingdom, wherein whosoever is comprehended, Christ is [4] the author of eternal salvation unto them; they have a high kind of ghostly [i] fellowship [5] with God, and Christ, and saints; or as the Apostle in more ample manner speaketh [6] , “Aggregated they are unto Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the celestial Jerusalem, and to the company of innumerable angels, and to the congregation of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just and perfect men, and to Jesus the Mediator of the New Testament.” In a word, they are of that mystical body, which we term the Church of Christ. As for the rest, we find them accounted [k] “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, men that lay [l] in the kingdom of darkness, and that are in this present world without God.” Our Saviour’s dominion is therefore over these, as over rebels; over them as dutiful subjects [m] .

Which things being in holy Scriptures so plain, I somewhat muse at those [n] strange positions, that Christ [1] in the government of the [o] Church, and superiority over the officers of it, hath himself a superior, which is his [p] Father; but in the government [q] of [r] kingdoms and commonwealths, and in the superiority which he hath over kings [s] , no superior. Again [2] , “that the civil magistrate [t] cometh from God immediately, as Christ [u] doth, and is not subordinate [x] unto Christ.” In what evangelist, apostle, or prophet, is it found, that Christ, supreme governor of the Church, should be so unequal to himself, as he is supreme governor of kingdoms? The works of his providence for preservation [y] of mankind by upholding of [z] kingdoms, not only obedient unto, but even [a] rebellious and obstinate [b] against him, are such as proceed from divine power; and are not the works of his providence for safety of God’s elect, by gathering, inspiring, comforting, and every way preserving his Church, such as proceed from the same power likewise? Surely, if Christ [3] “as God and man have ordained certain means for the gathering and keeping of his Church,” seeing this doth belong to the government of his [c] Church; it must in reason follow, I think, that as God and man he worketh in church regiment, and consequently hath no more therein [g] any superior [h] , than in the government of commonwealths [i] .

Again, to “be in the midst of his, wheresoever they are assembled in his name,” and to be “with them till [k] the world’s end,” are comforts which Christ doth perform to his Church as Lord and Governor; yea, such as he cannot perform but by that very power wherein he hath no superior.

Wherefore, unless it can be proved, that all the works of our Saviour’s government in the Church are done by the mere and only force of his human nature, there is no remedy but to acknowledge it a manifest error, that Christ in the government of the world is equal unto the Father, but not in the government of the Church. Indeed, to the honour of this dominion it cannot be said that God did exalt him otherwise than only according to that human nature wherein he was made low: for as the Son of God, there could no advancement or exaltation grow unto him: and yet the dominion, whereunto he was in his human nature lifted up, is not without divine power exercised. It is by divine power, that the Son of man who sitteth in heaven, doth work as king and lord upon us which are on earth.

The exercise of his dominion over the Church militant cannot choose but cease, when there is no longer any militant Church in the world. And therefore as generals of armies when they have finished their work, are wont to yield up such commissions as were given them [l] for that purpose, and to remain in the state of subjects and not of [m] lords, as concerning their former authority; even so, when the end of all things is come, the Son of man, who till then reigneth, shall do the like, as touching regiment over the militant Church on earth [n] . So that between the Son of man and his brethren, over whom he now reigneth [o] in this their warfare, there shall be then, as touching the exercise of that regiment, no such difference; they not warfaring under him any longer [p] , but he together with them under God receiving the joys of everlasting triumph, that so God may be all in all; all misery in all the wicked through his justice; in all the righteous, through his love, all felicity and bliss. In the meanwhile he reigneth over this [q] world as king, and doth those things wherein none is superior unto him, whether we respect the works of his providence over kingdoms [r] , or of his regiment over the Church.

The cause of error in this point doth seem to have been a misconceit, that Christ, as Mediator, being inferior unto his Father, doth, as Mediator, all works of regiment over the Church [1] ; when in truth, government [s] doth belong to his kingly office, mediatorship, to his priestly. For, as the high priest both offered sacrifice [t] for expiation of the people’s sins, and entered into the holy place, there to make intercession for them: so Christ [2] , having finished upon the cross that part of his priestly office which wrought the propitiation for our sins, did afterwards enter into very heaven, and doth there as mediator of the New Testament appear in the sight of God for us. A like slip [u] of judgment it is, when they hold [3] that civil authority is from God, but not mediately [x] through Christ, nor with any subordination unto Christ. For “there is no power,” saith the Apostle, “but from God [4] ;” nor doth any thing come from God but by the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ [y] .

They deny it not to be said of Christ in the Old Testament [5] , “By me kings reign, and princes decree justice [z] ; by me princes rule, and the nobles, and all the judges of the earth.” In the New as much is taught [6] , “That Christ is the Prince of the kings of the earth.” Wherefore to the end it may more plainly appear how all authority of man is derived from God through Christ, and must by Christian men be acknowledged to be no otherwise held than of and under him; we are to note, that because whatsoever hath necessary being, the Son of God doth cause it to be, and those things without which the world cannot well continue, have necessary being in the world; a thing of so great use as government amongst men, and human dominion in government [a] , cannot choose but be originally from him, and have reference also of subordination unto him [b] . Touching that authority which civil magistrates have in ecclesiastical affairs, it being from God by Christ, as all other good things are, cannot choose but be held as a thing received at his hands; and because such power as [c] is of necessary use [d] for the ordering of religion, wherein the essence and very being of the Church consisteth, can no otherwise flow from him, than according to that special care which he hath to guide and govern [e] his own people: it followeth that the said authority is of and under him after a more peculiar [f] manner, namely [g] , in that he is Head of the Church, and not in respect of his general regency over the world. “All things,” (saith the Apostle [1] speaking unto the Church) “are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.” Kings are Christ’s, as saints; and kings are Christ’s, as kings: as saints, because they are of the Church; as kings, because they are in authority over the Church, if not collectively [h] , yet divisively understood; that [i] is over each particular person within that Church where they are kings. Such [k] authority, reaching [l] both unto all men’s persons, and unto all kinds of causes also, it is not denied but that they lawfully may have and exercise [m] ; such authority it is, for which, and for no other in the world, we term them heads; such authority they have under Christ, because he in all things is Lord over all. And even of Christ it is that they have received such authority, inasmuch as of him all lawful powers are: therefore the civil magistrate is, in regard of this power, an under and subordinate head of Christ’s people.

BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 7.  It is but idle [o] when they plead [1] , “that although for several companies of men there may be several heads or governors, differing in the measure of their authority from the chiefest who is head of [p] all; yet so [q] it cannot be in the Church, for that the reason why head-magistrates appoint others for such several places is,     Against the second difference, whereby Christ is said to be universally head, the king no further than within his own dominions  [n] . because they cannot be present every where to perform the office of a head. But Christ is never from his body, nor from any part of it, and therefore needeth not to substitute any, which may be heads, some over one church and some over another.” Indeed the consideration of man’s imbecillity, which maketh many hands [r] necessary where the burden is too great for one, moved Jethro to be a persuader of Moses, that a [s] number of heads or rulers might be instituted for discharge of that duty by parts, which in whole he saw was troublesome. Now although there be not in Christ any such defect or weakness, yet other causes there may [t] be diverse, moe [u] than we are able to search into, wherefore it might seem to him expedient to divide his kingdom into many portions [v] , and to [w] place many heads over it, that the power which each of them hath in particular with restraint, might illustrate the greatness of his unlimited authority. Besides, howsoever Christ be spiritually always united unto every part of his body, which is the Church; nevertheless we do all know, and they themselves who allege this will, I doubt not, confess also, that from every church here visible, Christ, touching visible and corporal presence, is removed as far as heaven from earth [x] is [y] distant. Visible government is a thing necessary for the Church; and it doth not appear how the exercise of visible government over such multitudes every where dispersed throughout the world should consist without sundry visible governors; whose power being the greatest in that kind so far as it reacheth, they are in consideration thereof termed so far heads. Wherefore, notwithstanding that [z] perpetual conjunction, by virtue whereof our Saviour remaineth always [a] spiritually united unto the parts of his mystical body; Heads endued [b] with supreme power, extending unto a certain compass, are for the exercise of visible [c] regiment not unnecessary.

Some other reasons there are belonging unto this branch, which seem to have been objected, rather for the exercise of men’s wits in dissolving sophisms, than that the authors of them could think in likelihood thereby to strengthen their cause. For example [1] , “If the magistrate be head of the Church within his own dominion, then is he none of the Church; for all that Church maketh [d] the body of Christ, and every one of the Church fulfilleth the place of one member of the body. By making the magistrate therefore head [2] , we do exclude him from being a member subject to the head, and so leave him no place in the Church.” By which reason, the name of a body politic is supposed to be always taken of the inferior sort alone, excluding the principal guides and governors; contrary to all men’s custom [e] of speech. The error riseth by misconstruing [f] of some scripture sentences, where Christ as the head, and the Church as the body, are compared or opposed the one to the other: and because in such comparisons and [g] oppositions, the body is taken for [h] those only parts which are subject to the head, they imagine that whoso is head [i] of any church, he is even thereby [k] excluded from being a part of that church: that the magistrate can be none of the Church, if so be [l] we make him the head of the church in his own dominions. A chief and principal part of the Church [m] , therefore no part; this is [n] surely a strange conclusion. A church doth indeed make the body of Christ, being wholly taken together; and every one in the same church fulfilleth the place of a member in the body, but not the place of an inferior member, he [o] which hath supreme authority and power over all the rest. Wherefore, by making the magistrate head in his own dominions, we exclude him from being a member subject unto any other person which may visibly there rule in place of an head or governor [p] over him; but so far are we off from leaving him by this means no place in the Church, that we grant [q] him the chiefest [r] place. Indeed the heads of those visible bodies, which are many, can be but parts inferior in that spiritual body which is but one; yea, they may from this be excluded clean, who notwithstanding ought to be honoured, as possessing in the other [s] the highest rooms: but for the magistrate to be termed, one way, within [t] his own [u] dominions, an head, doth not bar him from being either [v] way a part or member of the Church of God.

As little to the purpose are those other cavils: “A Church which hath the magistrate for head, is a [x] perfect man without Christ. So that the knitting of our Saviour thereunto should be an addition of that which is too much.” Again, “If the Church be the body of Christ, and of the civil magistrate, it shall have two heads, which being monstrous, is to the great dishonour of Christ and his Church [1] .” Thirdly, “If the Church be planted in a popular estate, then, forasmuch as all govern in common, and all have authority, all shall be head [y] there, and no body at all; which is another monster [1] .” It might be feared what this birth of so many monsters [z] might portend, but that we know how things natural enough in themselves may seem monstrous through misconceit; which error of mind is indeed a monster, and so the skilful in nature’s mysteries have used to term it. The womb [a] of monsters, if any be, is [b] that troubled understanding, wherein, because things lie confusedly mixed together, what they are it appeareth not [c] .

A Church perfect without Christ, I know not which way [d] a man should [e] imagine; unless there may be either Christianity without Christ, or else a Church without Christianity. If magistrates be heads of the Church, they are of necessity Christians; if Christians [f] , then is their Head Christ.

The adding of Christ the [g] universal Head over all unto the [g] magistrate’s particular headship, is no more superfluous in any church than in other societies it [h] is to be both severally each [i] subject unto some head, and to have also a head [k] general for them all to be subject unto. For so in armies and [l] in civil corporations we see it fareth.     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 8.  A body politic in such respects is not like to a natural body; in this, moe [m] heads than one are [n] superfluous; in that, not.

It is neither monstrous nor as much as uncomely [o] for a church to have different heads: for if Christian churches be in number many, and every of them a body perfect [p] by itself, Christ being Lord and Head over all; why should we judge it a thing more monstrous for one body to have two heads, than one head so many bodies? Him God [q] hath made the supreme Head of the whole Church; the Head, not only of that mystical body which the eye of man is not able to discern, but even of every Christian politic society, of every visible Church in the world.

And whereas, lastly, it is thought so strange, that in popular states a multitude should to itself [r] be both body and head, all this wonderment doth grow from a little oversight, in deeming that the subject wherein headship is [s] to reside, should be evermore some one person; which thing is not necessary. For in a [t] collective body that hath not derived as yet the principality of power into some one or few, the whole of necessity must be head over each part; otherwise it could not possibly have power [u] to make any one certain person head; inasmuch as the very power of making a head belongeth unto headship. These supposed monsters therefore we see [x] are no such giants, that [y] there should need any Hercules to tame them.

[1] [z] For the title or style [a] itself, although the laws of this land have annexed it to the crown, yet so far we would [b] not strive, if so be men were nice and scrupulous in this behalf only, because they do wish that for reverence unto Christ Jesus, the civil magistrate did rather use some other form of speech wherewith to express that sovereign authority which he lawfully hath over all, both persons and causes of the Church. But I see that hitherto they which condemn utterly the name so applied, do it because they mislike that any [c] such power should be given unto civil governors. The greatest [d] exception that Sir Thomas More took against that title, who suffered death for denial of it [1] , was “for that it maketh a lay, or secular [e] person, the head of the state [2] spiritual or ecclesiastical;” as though God himself did not name even [f] Saul the head of all the tribes of Israel; and consequently of that tribe also among the rest, whereunto the state spiritual or ecclesiastical belonged. When the authors of the Centuries reprove it in kings and civil governors, the reason is [3] , “istis non competit iste primatus;” “such kind of power is too high for them, they fit it not.” In excuse of Mr. Calvin [4] , by whom this realm is condemned of blasphemy for entitling Henry the Eighth Supreme Head of this Church under Christ, a charitable conjecture is made, that he spake by misinformation, and thought we had meant thereby far otherwise than we do [g] ; howbeit, as he professeth utter dislike of that name, so whether the name be used or no, the very power itself which we give unto civil magistrates he much complaineth of, and testifieth [h] , “That their power over all things was it which had ever wounded him deeply; that unadvised persons had made them too spiritual; that throughout [i] Germany this fault did reign; that in those very parts where Calvin himself was, it prevailed more than were [j] to be wished; that rulers, by imagining themselves so spiritual, have taken away ecclesiastical regiment [k] ; that they think they cannot reign unless they abolish all authority [l] of the Church, and be themselves the chief judges, as well in doctrine, as in the whole spiritual regency.” So that in truth the question is, whether the magistrate, by being head in such sense as we term him, do use or exercise any part of that authority, not which belongeth unto Christ, but which other men ought to have [m] .

Opposition against the difference in kind  [n] . The last difference which we have made [o] between the title of head when we gave it unto Christ, and when we gave [p] it to other governors, is, that the kind of dominion which it importeth is not the same in both. Christ is head as being the fountain of life and ghostly nutriment, the well-spring of spiritual blessings poured into the body of the Church; they [q] heads, as being [r] his principal instruments for the Church’s outward government: He head, as founder of the house; they, as his chiefest overseers [1] . Against this there [s] is exception [t] especially taken, and our purveyors are herein said to have their provision from the popish shambles: for by Pighius and Harding, to prove that Christ alone is not head of the Church, this distinction they say is brought, that according to the inward influence of grace, Christ only is head; but according to outward [u] government the being head [x] is a thing common with him to [y] others [1] .

To raise up falsehoods of old condemned, and to [z] bring that [a] for confirmation of any thing doubtful, which hath already [b] been sufficiently [c] proved an error, and is worthily so taken, this would justly deserve censuring. But shall manifest truth be therefore [d] reproached, because men in some things convicted [e] of manifest untruth have at any time taught [f] or alleged it? If too much eagerness against their adversaries had not made them forget themselves, they might remember where being charged as maintainers of those very things, for which others before them have been condemned of heresy, yet lest the name of any such heretic holding the same which they do should make them odious, they stick not frankly to profess [g] , “ [2] that they are not afraid to consent in some points with Jews and Turks.” Which defence, for all that, were a very weak buckler for such as should consent with Jews and Turks, in that which they have been abhorred and hated for of [h] the Church.

But as for this distinction of headship, spiritual and mystical in [i] Jesus Christ, ministerial and outward in others besides Christ; what cause is [k] to dislike [l] either Harding, or Pighius, or any other besides for it? That which they have been reproved for is, not because they did herein [m] utter an untruth, but such a truth as was not sufficient to bear up the cause which they did thereby seek to maintain. By this distinction they have both truly and sufficiently proved that the name of head, importing power of [n] dominion over the Church, might be given unto others besides Christ, without prejudice unto any part of his honour. That which they should have made manifest was,     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 10.  that [o] the name of Head, importing the power of universal dominion over the whole Church of Christ militant, doth, and that by divine right, appertain unto the Pope of Rome. They did prove it lawful to grant unto others besides Christ the power of headship in a different kind from his; but they should have proved it lawful to challenge, as they did to the bishop of Rome, a power universal in that different kind. Their fault was therefore in exacting wrongfully so great power as they challenged in that kind, and not in making two kinds of power, unless some reason [p] can be shewed for which this distinction of power should be thought erroneous and false.

A little they stir, although in vain, to prove that we cannot with truth make any [q] such distinction of power, whereof the one kind should agree unto Christ only, and the other be [r] further communicated. Thus therefore they argue [1] : “If there be no head but Christ, in respect of the [s] spiritual government, there is no head but he in respect of the word, sacraments, and discipline, administered by those whom he hath appointed, forasmuch as that is also [t] his spiritual government.” Their meaning is, that whereas we make two kinds of power, of which two, the one being spiritual is proper unto Christ; the other men are capable of, because it is visible and external: we do amiss altogether, they think, in so distinguishing [u] , forasmuch as the visible and external power of regiment over the Church, is only in relation unto the word, the sacraments, and discipline, administered by such as Christ hath appointed thereunto, and the exercise of this power is also his spiritual government: therefore we do but vainly imagine a visible and external power in the Church differing from his spiritual power.

Such disputes as this do [x] somewhat resemble the wonted [y] practising of well-willers upon their friends in the pangs of death, whose manner is even then to put smoke in their nostrils, and so to fetch them again, although they know it a matter impossible to keep them living. The kind affection [z] which the favourers of this labouring cause bear towards it will not suffer them to see it die, although by what means they should be able to [a] make it live, they do not see. But they may see that these wrestlings will not help. Can they be ignorant how little it booteth to overcast so clear a light with some mist of ambiguity in the name of spiritual regiment?

To make things therefore so plain that henceforth [b] a child’s capacity may serve rightly to conceive our meaning: we make the spiritual regiment of Christ to be generally that whereby his Church is ruled and governed in things spiritual. Of this general we make two distinct kinds; the one invisibly exercised [c] by Christ himself in his own person; the other outwardly administered by them whom Christ doth allow to be the [d] rulers and guiders of his Church. Touching the former of these two kinds, we teach that Christ in regard thereof is peculiarly [e] termed the Head of the Church of God; neither can any other creature in that sense and meaning be termed head besides him, because it importeth the conduct and government of our souls by the hand of that blessed Spirit wherewith we are sealed and marked, as being peculiarly his. Him only therefore we do acknowledge [f] to be that [g] Lord, which dwelleth, liveth and reigneth in our hearts; him only to be that Head, which giveth salvation and life unto his body; him only to be that fountain, from whence the influence of heavenly grace [h] distilleth, and is derived into all parts, whether the word, or sacraments [i] , or discipline, or whatsoever be the mean [k] whereby it floweth. As for the power of administering these [l] things in the Church of Christ, which power we call the power of order, it is indeed both Spiritual and His; Spiritual, because such duties properly concern [m] the Spirit; His, because by him it was instituted. Howbeit neither spiritual, as that which is inwardly and invisibly exercised; nor his, as that which he himself in person doth exercise.

Again, that power of dominion which is indeed the point of this controversy, and doth also belong to the second kind of spiritual government [n] namely unto that regiment which is external and visible;     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 11.  this likewise being spiritual in regard of the matter about which it dealeth, and being his, inasmuch as he approveth whatsoever is done by it, must notwithstanding be distinguished also from that power whereby he himself in person administereth the former kind of his own spiritual regiment, because he himself in person doth not administer this. We do not, therefore, vainly imagine, but truly and rightly discern a power external and visible in the Church, exercised by men, and severed in nature from that spiritual power of Christ’s own regiment, which power is termed spiritual, because it worketh secretly, inwardly, and invisibly; his, because none doth or [o] can it personally exercise, either besides or together with him. So [p] that him only we may name our Head, in regard of this [q] , and yet, in regard of that other power differing [r] from this, term others also besides him heads, without any contradiction at all.

Which thing may very well serve for answer unto that also which they further allege against the foresaid distinction, namely [1] , “that even in [s] the outward society [t] and assemblies of the Church, where one or two are gathered [u] in his name, either for hearing of the word, or for prayer, or any other church-exercise, our Saviour Christ being in the midst of them as Mediator, must needs be there as head [x] : and if he be there not [y] idle, but doing the office of the head fully, it followeth that even in the outward society [z] and meetings of the Church, no mere man can be called the head of it, seeing that our Saviour Christ doing the whole office of the head himself alone, leaveth nothing to men by doing whereof they may obtain that title.”

Which objection I take as being made for nothing but only to maintain argument. For they are not so far gone as to argue thus in sooth and right good earnest. “God standeth,” saith the Psalmist, “in the midst of gods;” if God be there present, he must undoubtedly be present as a God [a] ; if he be there not [b] idle, but doing the office of a God fully, it followeth, that God himself alone doing the whole office of a God,     BOOK VIII. Ch. iv. 12.  leaveth nothing in such assemblies unto any other, by doing whereof they may obtain so high a name. The Psalmist therefore hath spoken amiss, and doth ill to call judges gods. Not so; for as God hath his office differing from theirs, and doth fully discharge it even in the very [c] midst of them, so they are not thereby [d] excluded from all kind of duty for which that name should be given unto them also, but in that duty for which it was given them they are encouraged religiously and carefully to order themselves. After the selfsame manner, our Lord and Saviour being in the midst of his Church as Head, is [e] our comfort, without the [f] abridgment of any one duty, for performance whereof others are termed heads in another kind than he is.

If there be of the ancient Fathers which say, “There [g] is but one Head of the Church, Christ; and that the minister which [h] baptizeth cannot be the head of him which [i] is baptized, because Christ is the head of the whole Church: and that Paul could not be the [k] head of the Churches [l] which he planted, because Christ is Head [m] of the whole body [1] ;” they understand the name of head in such sort as we grant that it [n] is not appliable to any other, no not in relation to the least part of the whole Church:     BOOK VIII. Ch. v. 1, 2.  he which baptizeth, baptizeth into Christ: he which converteth, converteth unto [o] Christ; he which ruleth, ruleth for Christ. The whole Church can have but one to be head as lord and owner of all: wherefore if Christ be Head in that kind, it followeth, that no other can be so [p] else either to the whole or to any part [q] .

* * * * * *

To call and dissolve all solemn assemblies about the public affairs of the Church.  V. [r] The consuls of Rome Polybius affirmeth [1] to have had a kind of regal authority, in that they might call together the senate and people whensoever it pleased them. Seeing therefore the affairs of the Church and Christian religion are public affairs, for the ordering whereof more solemn assemblies sometimes are of as great importance and use, as they are for secular affairs; it seemeth no less an act of supreme authority to call the one than the other. Wherefore amongst sundry other [s] prerogatives of Simon’s dominion over the Jews, this [t] is reckoned as [2] not the least, “that no man might gather any great assembly in the land without him.” For so the manner of Jewish regiment had always been, that whether the cause for which men assembled themselves in peaceable, good, and orderly course [u] , were ecclesiastical or civil, supreme authority should assemble them. David gathered all Israel together unto Jerusalem, when the ark was to be removed; he assembled the sons of Aaron and the Levites [3] . Solomon did the like at such time as the temple was to be dedicated [4] : when the Church was to be reformed, Asa in his time did the same: the same upon like occasions done afterwards by Joas, Ezekias, Josias, and others [5] .

[x] The ancient imperial law [6] forbiddeth such assemblies as the emperor’s authority did not cause to be made.     BOOK VIII. Ch. v. 2.  Before emperors became Christian [y] , the Church had never any synod general [z] ; their greatest meetings [a] consisted [b] of bishops and others the gravest in each province. As for the civil governor’s authority, it suffered them only as things not regarded or accounted [c] of, at such times as it did suffer them. So that what right a Christian king hath as touching assemblies of that kind we are not able to judge, till we come unto later times, when religion had won the hearts of the highest powers. Constantine (as Pighius [1] doth grant) was not only the first that ever did call any general council together, but even the first that devised the calling of them for consultation about the business [d] of God. After he had once given the example, his successors [2] a long time followed the same; insomuch that S. Jerome, to disprove the authority of a synod which was pretended to be general, useth [e] this as a forcible argument [3] , “Dic quis imperator hanc synodum jusserit convocari.” Their answer hereunto is no answer, which say, “that [f] emperors did not this without conference had with [t] bishops:” for to our purpose it is enough, if the clergy alone did it not otherwise than by the leave or [g] appointment of their sovereign lords and kings.

Whereas therefore it is on the contrary side alleged, that Valentinian the elder [1] being requested by Catholic bishops to grant that there might be a synod for the ordering of matters called in question by the Arians, answered, that he being one of the laity might not meddle with such affairs [h] , and thereupon wished [i] , that the priests and bishops, to whom the care of those things belonged [k] , should meet and consult thereof [l] by themselves wheresoever [m] they thought good: we must together [n] with the emperor’s speech weigh the occasion and the [o] drift thereof. Valentinian and Valens, the one a Catholic, the other an Arian, were emperors together: Valens the governor of the east, Valentinian [p] of the west empire. Valentinian therefore taking his journey from the east part into the west [q] , and passing for [r] that intent through Thracia, the bishops there [s] which held the soundness of Christian belief, because they knew that Valens was their professed enemy, and therefore it the other were [t] once departed out of those quarters, the Catholic cause was like to find small [u] favour, moved presently Valentinian about a council to be assembled under the countenance of his authority; who by likelihood considering what inconvenience might thereby grow [x] , inasmuch as it could not be but a mean [y] to incense Valens the more against them, refused himself to be author of, or present at any such assembly; and of this his denial gave them a colourable reason, to wit, that he was although an emperor, yet a secular person, and therefore not able in matters of so great obscurity to sit as a competent judge; but, if they which were bishops and learned men did think good to consult thereof together, they might. Whereupon when they could not obtain that which they most desired, yet that which was [z] granted them [a] they took, and forthwith had a council. Valentinian went on towards Rome, they remaining in consultation till Valens which accompanied him returned back; so that now there was no remedy, but either to incur a manifest contempt, or else at the hands even [b] of Valens himself to seek approbation of that they had done. To him, therefore, they became suitors: his answer was short, “Either Arianism, or else [c] exile, which they would;” whereupon their banishment ensued. Let reasonable men therefore now [d] be judges, how much this example of Valentinian doth make against the authority, which we say that sovereign rulers may lawfully have as concerning synods and meetings ecclesiastical.

[e] The clergy, in such wise gathered together, is an ecclesiastical senate, which with us, as in former times the chiefest prelate at his discretion did use to assemble, so [f] afterwards in such considerations as have been before specified, it seemed [g] more meet to annex the said prerogative unto the crown. The plot of reformed discipline not liking hereof [h] so well, taketh order that every former assembly before it break [i] up should itself appoint both the time and place of their after meeting again. But because I find not any thing on that side particularly alleged against us herein, a longer disputation about so plain a cause shall not need.

BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 1, 2.  VI. The natural subject of power [l] civil all men confess to be the body of the commonwealth: the good or evil estate whereof dependeth so much upon the power of making laws, that in all well settled states, yea though they be monarchies, yet diligent care is evermore had that the commonwealth do not clean resign up herself and make over this power wholly into the hands of any one.     Their power in making ecclesiastical laws  [k] . For this cause William, whom we call the Conqueror, making war against England in right of his title to the crown, and knowing that as inheritor thereof he could not lawfully change the laws of the land by himself, for that the English commonwealth had not invested their [m] kings before with the fulness of so great power; therefore he took the style and title of a conqueror. Wherefore, as they themselves cannot choose but grant that the natural subject of power to make laws civil is the commonwealth; so we affirm that in like congruity the true original subject of power also to make church-laws is the whole entire body of that church for which they are made. Equals cannot impose laws and [n] statutes upon their equals. Therefore neither may any one man indifferently impose canons ecclesiastical upon another, nor yet one church upon another. If they go about at any time to do it, they must either shew some commission sufficient for their warrant, or else be justly condemned of presumption in the sight both of God and men. But nature itself doth abundantly authorize the Church to make laws and orders for her children that are within her. For every whole thing, being naturally of greater power than is any part thereof, that which a whole church will appoint may be with reason exacted indifferently of any within the compass of the same church, and so bind all unto strict obedience.

The greatest agents of the bishop of Rome’s inordinate sovereignty strive against no one point with such earnestness as against this, that jurisdiction (and in the name of jurisdiction they also comprehend the power of dominion spiritual) should be thought originally to be the right of the whole Church; and that no person hath or can have the same, otherwise than derived from the body of the Church.     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 3.

The reason wherefore they can in no wise brook this opinion is, as friar Soto confesseth [1] , because they which make councils above popes do all build upon this ground, and therefore even with teeth and all they that favour the papal throne must hold the contrary. Which thing they do. For, as many as draw the chariot of the pope’s preeminence, the first conclusion which they contend for is [2] : The power of jurisdiction ecclesiastical doth not rest derived from Christ immediately into the whole body of the Church, but into the prelacy. Unto the prelacy alone it belongeth; as ours also do imagine, unto the governors of the Church alone it was first given, and doth appertain, even of very divine right, in every church established to make such laws concerning orders and ceremonies as occasion doth require.

Wherein they err, for want of observing as they should, in what manner the power whereof we speak was instituted. One thing it is to ordain a power, and another thing to bestow the same being ordained: or, to appoint the special subject of it, or the person in whom it shall rest. Nature hath appointed that there should be in a civil society power to make laws; but the consent of the people (which are that society) hath instituted the prince’s person to be the subject wherein supremacy of that power shall reside. The act of instituting such power may and sometimes doth go in time before the act of conferring or bestowing it.     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 4.  And for bestowing it there may be order two ways taken: namely, either by appointing thereunto some certain person, one or many; or else, without any personal determination, and with appointment only of some determinate condition touching the quality of their persons (whosoever they be that shall receive the same), and for the form or manner of taking it.

Now God himself preventeth sometimes these communities, himself nominateth and appointeth sometimes the subject wherein their power shall rest, and by whom either in whole or in part it shall be exercised; which thing he did often in the commonwealth of Israel. Even so Christ having given unto his Church the power whereof we speak, what she doth by her appointed agents, that duty though they discharge, yet is it not theirs peculiarly, but hers; her power it is which they do exercise. But Christ hath sometimes prevented his Church, conferring that power and appointing it unto certain persons himself, which otherwise the Church might have done. Those persons excepted which Christ himself did immediately bestow such power upon, the rest succeeding have not received power as they did, Christ bestowing it upon their persons; but the power which Christ did institute in the Church they from the Church do receive, according to such laws and canons as Christ hath prescribed, and the light of nature or Scripture taught men to institute.

But in truth the whole body of the Church being the first original subject of all mandatory and coercive power within itself, in case a monarch of the world together with his whole kingdom under him receive Christianity, the question is whether the monarch of that commonwealth may without offence or breach of the law of God have and exercise power of dominion ecclesiastical within the compass of his own territories, in such ample sort as the kings of this land may do by the laws thereof.

* * * * * *

[1] [4.] [o] The case [p] is not [q] like when such assemblies are gathered together by supreme authority concerning other affairs of the Church, and when they meet about the making of [r] ecclesiastical laws or statutes.     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 5.  For in the one they are only to advise, in the other they are [s] to decree. The persons which are of the one, the King doth voluntarily assemble, as being in respect of gravity [t] fit to consult withal; them which are of the other he calleth by prescript of law, as having right to be thereunto called. Finally, the one are but themselves, and their sentence hath but the weight of their own judgment; the other represent the whole clergy, and their voices are as much as if all did give personal verdict. Now the question is, Whether the clergy alone so assembled ought to have the whole power of making ecclesiastical laws, or else consent of the laity may thereunto be made necessary, and the King’s assent so necessary, that his sole denial may be of force to stay them from being laws.

What laws may be made for the affairs of the Church, and to whom the power of making them appertaineth.  If they with whom we dispute were uniform, strong and constant in that which they say, we should not need to trouble ourselves about their persons to whom the power of making laws for the Church belongeth [u] . For they are sometimes very vehement in contention, that from the greatest thing unto the least about the Church, all must needs be immediately from God. And to this they apply [1] the pattern of the ancient tabernacle which God delivered unto Moses, and was therein so exact, that there was not left so [x] much as the least pin for the wit of man to devise in the framing of it. To this they often [y] apply that strict [z] and severe charge [1] which God so often gave concerning his own law, “Whatsoever I command you, take heed ye [a] do it;     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 5.  thou shalt put nothing thereunto, thou shalt take nothing from it;” nothing, whether it be great or small. Yet sometime bethinking themselves better, they speak as acknowledging that it doth suffice to have received in such sort the principal things from God, and that for other matters the Church hath [b] sufficient authority to make laws. Whereupon they now have made it a question, what persons they are whose right it is to take order for the Church’s affairs, when the institution of any new thing therein is requisite.

Laws [c] may be requisite to be made either concerning things that are only to be known and believed in, or else touching that which is to be done by the Church of God. The law of nature and the law of God are sufficient [2] for declaration in both what belongeth unto each man separately, as his soul is the spouse of Christ, yea so sufficient, that they plainly and fully shew whatsoever God doth require by way of necessary introduction unto the state of everlasting bliss. But as a man liveth joined with others in common society, and belongeth unto the outward politic body of the Church, albeit the same [d] law of nature and scripture [e] have in this respect also made manifest the things that are of greatest necessity; nevertheless, by reason of new occasions still arising which the Church having care of souls must take [f] order for as need requireth, hereby it cometh to pass, that there is and ever will be [g] great use even of human laws and ordinances, deducted by way of discourse as conclusions [h] from the former divine and natural, serving for [i] principles thereunto.

No man doubteth, but that for matters of action and practice in the affairs of God, for the manner of [k] divine service, for order in ecclesiastical proceedings about the regiment of the Church, there may be oftentimes cause very urgent to have laws made:     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 6.  but the reason is not so plain wherefore human laws should appoint men what to believe. Wherefore in this we must note two things: First, That in matter of opinion, the law doth not make that to be truth which before was not, as in matter of action it causeth that to be duty [l] which was not before, but it [m] manifesteth only and giveth men notice of that to be truth, the contrary whereunto they ought not before to have believed. Secondly, That as [n] opinions do cleave to the understanding, and are in heart assented unto, it is not in the power of any human law to command them, because to prescribe what men shall think belongeth only unto God. “Corde creditur, ore fit confessio,” saith the Apostle [1] . As opinions are either fit or inconvenient to be professed, so man’s law hath [o] to determine of them. It may for public unity’s sake require men’s professed assent, or prohibit contradiction [p] to special articles, wherein, as there haply hath been controversy what is true, so the same were like to continue still, not without grievous detriment to a number of souls, except law to remedy that evil should set down a certainty which no man is [q] to gainsay. Wherefore as in regard of divine laws, which the Church receiveth from God, we may unto every man apply those words of Wisdom [r] in Solomon [2] , Conserva, fili mi, præcepta patris tui [s] : “My son, keep thou thy father’s precepts;” even so concerning the statutes and ordinances which the Church itself maketh [t] , we may add thereunto the words that follow, Et ne dimittas legem matris tuæ, “And forsake not thou [u] thy mother’s law [2] .”

It is undoubtedly [x] a thing even natural, that all free and independent societies should themselves make their own laws, and that this power should belong to the whole, not to any certain part of a politic body, though haply some one part may have greater sway in that action than the rest: which thing being generally fit and expedient in the making of all laws, we see no cause why to think otherwise in laws concerning the service of God; which in all well-ordered [y] states and commonwealths is the first thing that law hath care to provide for [1] .     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 7.  When we speak of the right which naturally belongeth to a commonwealth, we speak of that which needs must [z] belong to the Church of God. For if the commonwealth be Christian, if the people which are of it do publicly embrace the true religion, this very thing doth make it the Church, as hath been shewed. So that unless the verity and purity of religion do take from them which embrace it, that power wherewith otherwise they are possessed; look, what authority, as touching laws for religion, a commonwealth hath simply [a] , it must of necessity being Christian, have the same as touching laws for Christian religion [b] .

It will be therefore perhaps alleged, that a part of the verity of Christian religion is to hold the power of making ecclesiastical laws a thing appropriated unto the clergy in their synods; and that [c] whatsoever is by their only voices agreed upon, it needeth no further approbation to give unto it the strength of a law: as may plainly appear by the canons of that first most venerable assembly [2] , where those things which [d] the Apostles and James had concluded, were afterward [e] published and imposed upon the churches of the Gentiles abroad as laws, the records thereof remaining still in the book of God for a testimony, that the power of making ecclesiastical laws belongeth to the successors of the Apostles [3] , the bishops and prelates [f] of the Church of God.

To this we answer, that the council of Jerusalem is no argument for the power of the clergy alone [g] to make laws. For first, there hath [h] not been sithence [i] any council of like authority to that in Jerusalem: secondly, the cause why that was of such authority came by a special accident: thirdly, the reason why other councils being not like unto that in nature, the clergy in them should have no power to make laws by themselves alone, is in truth so forcible, that except some commandment of God to the contrary can be shewed, it ought notwithstanding the foresaid example to prevail.

The decrees of the council of Jerusalem were not as the canons of other ecclesiastical assemblies, human, but very divine ordinances: for which cause the churches were far and wide commanded [1] every where to see them kept, no otherwise than if Christ himself had personally on earth been the author of them.

The cause why that council was of so great authority and credit above all others which have been sithence [k] , is expressed in those words of principal observation [2] , “Unto the Holy Ghost and to us it hath seemed good:” which form of speech, though other councils have likewise used, yet neither could they themselves mean, nor may we so understand them, as if both were in equal sort assisted with the power of the Holy Ghost; but the later had the favour of that general assistance and presence which Christ doth promise [3] unto all his, according to the quality of their several estates and callings; the former, that [l] grace of special, miraculous, rare, and extraordinary illumination, in relation whereunto the Apostle, comparing the Old Testament and the New together, termeth [4] the one a Testament of the letter, for that God delivered it written in stone, the other a Testament of the Spirit, because God imprinted it in the hearts and declared it by the tongues of his chosen Apostles through the power of the Holy Ghost, framing both their conceits and speeches in most [m] divine and incomprehensible manner. Wherefore inasmuch as the council of Jerusalem did chance to consist of men so enlightened, it had authority greater than were meet for any other council besides to challenge, wherein no [n] such kind of persons are.     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 8.

As now [o] the state of the Church doth stand, kings being not then that which now they are, and the clergy not now that which then they were: till it be proved that some special law of Christ hath for ever annexed unto the clergy alone the power to make ecclesiastical laws, we are to hold it a thing most consonant with equity and reason, that no ecclesiastical law [p] be made in a Christian commonwealth, without consent as well of the laity as of the clergy, but least of all without consent of the highest power.

For of this thing no man doubteth, namely, that in all societies, companies, and corporations, what severally each shall be bound unto, it must be with all their assents [1] ratified. Against all equity it were that a man should suffer detriment at the hands of men, for not observing that which he never did either by himself or by others, mediately or immediately, agree unto; much more that a king should constrain all others unto the strict observation of any such human ordinance as passeth without his own approbation. In this case therefore especially that vulgar axiom is of force [2] , “Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus tractari et approbari debet.” Whereupon Pope Nicholas, although otherwise not admitting lay-persons, no not emperors themselves to be present at synods, doth notwithstanding seem to allow of their presence when matters of faith are determined, whereunto all men must stand bound [1] : “Ubinam legistis imperatores, antecessores vestros, synodalibus conventibus interfuisse; nisi forsitan in quibus de fide tractatum est, quæ universalis est, quæ omnibus communis est [q] , quæ non solum ad clericos, verum etiam ad laicos et omnes pertinet Christianos?” A law, be it civil or ecclesiastical, is as [r] a public obligation, wherein seeing that the whole standeth charged, no reason it should pass without his privity and will, whom principally the whole doth depend upon. “Sicut laici jurisdictionem clericorum perturbare, ita clerici jurisdictionem laicorum non debent imminuere [s] ;” saith Innocent [2] , “As the laity should not hinder the clergy’s jurisdiction, so neither is it reason that the laity’s right should be abridged by the clergy [t] .” But were it so that the clergy alone might give laws unto all the rest, forasmuch as every estate doth desire to enlarge the bounds of their own liberties, is it not easy to see how injurious this might prove unto men of other condition [u] ? Peace and justice are maintained by preserving unto every order their rights [x] , and by keeping all estates as it were in an even balance. Which thing is no way better done, than if the king, their common parent, whose care is presumed to extend most indifferently over all, do bear the chiefest sway in the making of laws [y] which all must be ordered by.

BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 9.  Wherefore, of them which in this point attribute most to the clergy, I would demand what evidence there is, which way [z] it may clearly be shewed, that, in ancient kingdoms Christian, any canon devised by the clergy alone in their synods, whether provincial, national, or general, hath by mere force of their agreement taken place as a law, making all men constrainable to be obedient thereunto, without any other approbation from the king before or afterwards required in that behalf? But what speak we of ancient kingdoms, when at this day, even in [a] the papacy itself, the very Tridentine [b] council hath not every where as yet obtained to have in all points the strength of ecclesiastical law [c] . Did not Philip, king of Spain, publishing that council in the Low Countries, add thereunto [1] an express clause of special provision, that the same should in no wise prejudice, hurt, or diminish any kind of privilege which the king or his vassals aforetime had enjoyed, either touching [d] possessory judgments of ecclesiastical livings, or concerning nominations thereunto, or belonging to whatsoever rights [e] they had else in such affairs? If therefore the king’s exception [2] taken against [f] some part of the canons contained in that council, were a sufficient bar to make them of none effect within his territories;     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 10.  it followeth [g] that the like exception against any other part had been also of like efficacy, and so consequently that no part thereof had obtained the strength of a law, if he which excepted against a part had so done against the whole: as, what reason was there but that the same authority which limited might quite and clean have refused that council? Whoso alloweth the said act of the Catholic King [h] for good and lawful, must grant that the canons even of general councils have but the force [i] of wise men’s opinions concerning that whereof they treat, till they be publicly assented unto, where they are to take place as laws; and that, in giving such public assent, as maketh a Christian kingdom subject unto those laws, the king’s authority is the chiefest. That which an University of men, a Company or Corporation [k] doth without consent of their Rector, is as nothing. Except therefore we make the king’s authority over the clergy less in the greatest things, than the power of the meanest governor is in all things over the college or society which is under him; how should we think it a matter decent, that the clergy should impose laws, the supreme governor’s assent not asked [l] ?

There are which wonder that we should count [m] any statute a law, which the high court of parliament in England hath established about the matter of church regiment; the prince and court of parliament having, as they suppose, no more lawful means to give order to the Church and clergy in these [n] things, than they have to make laws for the hierarchies of angels in heaven [1] : that the parliament being a mere temporal court, can neither by the law of nature, nor of God, have competent power to define of such matters [1] ;     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 11.  that supremacy of power [o] in this kind cannot belong unto kings, as kings, because pagan emperors, whose princely power was notwithstanding [p] true sovereignty, never challenged thus [q] much over the [2] Church: that power, in this kind, cannot be the right of any earthly crown, prince, or state, in that they be Christian, forasmuch as if they be Christians, they all owe subjection unto the pastors of their souls [3] : that the prince therefore not having it himself cannot communicate it unto the parliament, and consequently cannot make laws, hear [r] , or determine of the Church’s regiment by himself, parliament, or any other court in such sort [s] subjected unto him [4] .

The parliament of England together with the convocation annexed thereunto, is that whereupon the very essence of all government within this kingdom doth depend; it is even the body of the whole realm; it consisteth of the king, and of all that within the land are subject unto him: for they all are there present, either in person or by such as they voluntarily have derived their very personal right unto [t] . The parliament is a court not so merely temporal as if it might meddle with nothing but only leather and wool [1] . Those days of Queen Mary are not yet forgotten, wherein the realm did submit itself unto the legate of Pope Julius [u] : at which time had they been persuaded as this man seemeth now to be, had they thought that there is no more force in laws made by parliament concerning the [x] Church affairs, than if men shall xx take upon them to make orders for the hierarchies of angels in heaven, they might have taken all former statutes in [y] that kind as cancelled, and by reason of nullity abrogated in themselves [z] . What need was there that they should bargain with the cardinal, and purchase their pardon by promise made beforehand, that what laws they had made, assented unto, or executed against the bishop of Rome’s supremacy, the same they would in that present parliament effectually abrogate and repeal? Had they power to repeal laws made, and none to make laws concerning the regiment of the Church?

Again, when they had by suit obtained his confirmation for such foundations [a] of bishoprics, cathedral churches, hospitals, colleges, and schools; for such marriages before made, for such institutions unto [b] livings ecclesiastical, and for all such judicial processes, as having been ordered according to laws [c] before in force, but contrary to the canons and orders of the church of Rome, were in that respect thought defective; although the cardinal in his letters of dispensation did give validity unto those acts, even apostolicæ firmitatis robur, “the very strength of apostolical solidity;” what had all this been without those grave [d] authentical words [1] , “Be it enacted by the authority of this present parliament, that all and singular articles and clauses contained in the said dispensation, shall remain and be reputed and taken to all intents and constructions in the laws of this realm, lawful, good and effectual to be alleged and pleaded in all courts ecclesiastical and temporal, for good and sufficient matter either for the plaintiff or defendant, without any allegation or objection to be made against the validity of them by pretence of any general council, canon, or decree to the contrary.” Somewhat belike they thought there [e] was in this mere temporal court, without which the pope’s own mere ecclesiastical legate’s dispensation had taken small effect in the Church of England; neither did they or the cardinal himself, as then, imagine [f] any thing committed against the law of nature or of God, because they took order for the Church’s affairs, and that even in the court of parllament.

The most natural and religious course in making of [g] laws is, that the matter of them be taken from the judgment of the wisest in those things which they are to concern. In matters of God, to set down a form of public [h] prayer, a solemn confession of the articles of Christian [i] faith, rites [j] and ceremonies meet for the exercise of religion; it were unnatural not to think the pastors and bishops of our souls a great deal more fit, than men of secular trades and callings: howbeit, when all which the wisdom of all sorts can do is done for devising [k] of laws in the Church, it is the general consent of all that giveth them the form and vigour of laws, without which they could be no more unto us than the counsels of physicians to the sick: well might they seem as wholesome admonitions and instructions, but laws could they never be without consent of the whole Church, which is the only thing that bindeth each member of the Church [l] , to be guided by them. Whereunto both nature and the practice of the Church of God set down in Scripture, is found every way so fully consonant, that God himself would not impose, no not his own laws upon his people by the hand of Moses, without their free and open consent. Wherefore to define and determine even of the church’s affairs by way of assent and approbation, as laws are defined of in that right of power, which doth give them the force of laws; thus to define of our own church’s regiment, the parliament of England hath competent authority.

Touching the [l] supremacy of power which our kings have in this case of making laws, it resteth principally in the strength of a negative voice; which not to give them, were to deny them that without which they were but kings [m] by mere title, and not in exercise of dominion. Be it in states of [n] regiment popular, aristocratical, or regal, principality resteth in that person, or those persons, unto whom is given the [o] right of excluding any kind of law whatsoever it be before establishment. This doth belong unto kings, as kings; pagan emperors even Nero himself had not [p] less, but much more than this in the laws of his own empire. That he challenged not any interest in [q] giving voice in the laws of the church, I hope no man will so construe, as if the cause were conscience, and fear to encroach upon the Apostles’ right.

If then it be demanded by what right from Constantine downward, the Christian emperors did so far intermeddle with the church’s affairs, either we must herein condemn them utterly [r] , as being over presumptuously bold, or else judge that by a law which is termed Regia, that is to say royal [s] , the people having derived into [t] the emperor their whole power for making of laws, and by that mean [u] his edicts being made laws [1] , what matter soever they did concern, as imperial dignity endowed [x] them with competent authority and power to make laws for religion, so they were taught [y] by Christianity to use their power, being Christians, unto the benefit of the Church of Christ. Was there any Christian bishop in the world which did then judge this repugnant unto the dutiful subjection which Christians do owe to the pastors of their souls? to whom, in respect of their sacred order,     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 12.  it is not by us, neither may be denied, that kings and princes are as much as the very meanest that liveth under them, bound in conscience to shew themselves gladly and willingly obedient, receiving the seals of salvation, the blessed sacraments, at their hands, as at the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ, with all reverence, not disdaining to be taught and admonished by them, not [z] withholding from them as much as the least part of their due and decent honour. All which, for any thing that hath been alleged, may stand very well without resignation of supremacy of power in making laws, even laws concerning the most spiritual affairs of the Church.

Which laws being made amongst us, are not by any of us so taken or interpreted, as if they did receive their force from power which the prince doth communicate unto the parliament, or to any other court under him, but from power which the whole body of this [a] realm being naturally possessed with, hath by free and deliberate assent derived unto him that ruleth over them, so far forth as hath been declared. So that our laws made concerning religion, do take originally their essence from the power of the whole realm and church of England, than which nothing can be more consonant unto the law of nature and the will of our Lord Jesus Christ.

To let these go, and to [b] return to our own men; “Ecclesiastical governors,” they say [1] , “may not meddle with the [c] making of civil laws, and of laws for the commonwealth; nor the civil magistrate, high or low, with making of orders for the Church.” It seemeth unto me very strange, that those [d] men which are in no cause more vehement and fierce, than where they plead that ecclesiastical persons may not κυριεύειν, be lords [e] , should hold that the power of making ecclesiastical laws, which thing is of all other [f] most proper unto dominion, belongeth to none but persons ecclesiastical [g] only.     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 13.  Their oversight groweth herein for want of exact observation, what it is to make a law. Tully, speaking of the law of nature, saith, “That thereof God himself was inventor, disceptator, lator, the deviser, the discusser, the [h] deliverer [1] :” wherein he plainly alludeth unto the chiefest parts [i] which then did appertain to this [k] public action. For when laws were made, the first thing was to have them devised; the second, to sift them with as much exactness of judgment as any way might be used; the next, by solemn voice of sovereign authority to pass them, and give them the force of laws. It cannot in any reason seem otherwise than most fit, that unto ecclesiastical persons the care of devising ecclesiastical laws be committed, even as the care of civil unto them which are in those affairs most skilful. This taketh not away from ecclesiastical persons all right of giving voice with others, when civil laws are proposed for regiment of that [l] commonwealth, whereof themselves, (howsoever [m] now the world would have them annihilated,) are notwithstanding as yet a part: much less doth it cut off that part of the power of princes, whereby, as they claim, so we know no reasonable cause wherefore we may not grant them, without offence to Almighty God, so much authority in making of [n] all manner of laws within their own dominions, that neither civil nor ecclesiastical do pass without their royal assent. In devising and discussing of laws, wisdom is specially [o] required: but that which establisheth [p] and maketh them, is power, even power of dominion; the chiefty whereof, amongst us, resteth in the person of the king. Is there any law of Christ’s which forbiddeth kings and rulers of the earth to have such sovereign and supreme power in the making of laws, either civil or ecclesiastical? If there be, our controversy hath an end.

Christ in his church hath not appointed any such law concerning temporal power, as God did of old deliver [q] unto the commonwealth of Israel; but leaving that to be at the world’s free choice, his chiefest care was [s] that [t] the spiritual law of the Gospel might be published far and wide.

They that received the law of Christ, were for a long time people scattered in sundry kingdoms, Christianity not exempting them from the laws which they had been subject unto, saving only in such cases as those laws did enjoin that which the religion of Christ forbade [u] . Hereupon grew their manifold persecutions throughout all places where they lived: as oft as it thus came to pass, there was no possibility that the emperors and kings under whom they lived, should meddle any whit at all with making laws for the Church. From Christ therefore having received power, who doubteth, but as they did, so they might bind themselves [x] to such orders as seemed fittest for the maintenance of their religion, without the leave of high or low in the commonwealth; forasmuch as in religion it was divided utterly from them, and they from it?

But when the mightiest began to like of the Christian faith; by their means whole free states and kingdoms became obedient unto Christ. Now the question is, whether kings by embracing Christianity do therein [y] receive any such law, as taketh from them the weightiest part of that sovereignty which they had even when they were heathens: whether being infidels they might do more in causes of religion, than now they can by the law [z] of God, being true believers. For whereas in regal states, the king or supreme head of the commonwealth, had before Christianity a supreme stroke in the [a] making of laws for religion: he must by embracing Christian religion utterly thereof deprive himself [b] , and in such causes become a [c] subject to his own [d] subjects, having even within his own dominions them whose commandment he must obey; unless this [e] power be placed in the hand ee of some foreign spiritual potentate: so that either a foreign or domestical commander upon [f] earth he must needs [g] admit, more now than before he had, and that in the chiefest things whereupon commonwealths do stand. But apparent it is unto all men which are not strangers in [h] the doctrine of Jesus Christ, that no state in [i] the world receiving Christianity is by any law therein contained bound to resign the power which they lawfully held before: but over what persons and in what causes soever the same hath been in force, it may so remain and continue still.     BOOK VIII. Ch. vi. 14.  That which as kings they might do in matter [k] of religion, and did in matter of false religion, being idolaters [l] or [m] superstitious kings, the same they are now even in every respect as [n] fully authorized to do in all affairs pertinent unto the state of true Christian [o] religion.

[p] And concerning their [q] supreme power of [r] making laws for all persons in all causes to be guided by, it is not to be let pass, that the head enemies of this headship are constrained to acknowledge [1] the king endowed [s] even with this very power, so that he may and ought to exercise the same, taking order for the Church and her affairs of what nature or kind soever, in case of necessity: as when there is no lawful ministry, which they interpret then to be (and this surely is a point very markable [t] ), whensoever [u] the ministry is wicked. A wicked ministry no [x] lawful ministry [y] ; and in such sort no lawful ministry, that what doth belong to them as ministers by right of their calling, the same to be annihilated in respect of their bad qualities [z] ; their wickedness in itself a deprivation of right to deal in the affairs of the Church, and a warrant for others to deal in them which are held to be of a clean other society, the members whereof have been before so peremptorily for ever excluded from power of dealing with the affairs [a] of the Church.

They which have once throughly learned this lesson, will quickly be capable perhaps of another equivalent unto it. For if the wickedness of the ministry transfer [b] their right unto the king; in case the king be as wicked as they, to whom then shall the right descend? There is no remedy, all must come by devolution at the [c] length, even as the family of Brown will have it [1] , unto the godly among the people; for confusion unto [d] the wise and the [e] great, the poor and the simple [f] , some Knipperdoling [2] with his retinue, must take the [g] work of the Lord in hand; and the making of church laws and orders [h] must prove to be their right in the end. If not for love of the truth, yet for very [i] shame of so [k] gross absurdities, let these contentions [l] and shifting [m] fancies be abandoned.

The cause which moved them for a time to hold a wicked ministry no lawful ministry; and in this defect of a lawful ministry, kings authorized [n] to make laws and orders for the affairs of the Church, till the Church be well [o] established, is surely this: First, they see that whereas the continual dealing of the kings of Israel in the affairs of the Church doth make now very strongly [p] against them, the burden thereof [q] they shall in time well enough shake off, if it may be obtained that it is for kings lawful indeed [r] to follow those [s] holy examples, howbeit no longer than during the foresaid [t] case of necessity, while the wickedness, and in respect thereof the unlawfulness of the ministry doth continue. Secondly, they perceive right well, that unless they should yield authority unto kings in case of such supposed necessity, the discipline they urge were clean excluded, as long as the clergy of England doth thereunto remain opposite. To open therefore a door for her entrance, there is no remedy [u] but the tenet must be this: that now when the ministry of England is universally wicked, and, in that respect, hath lost all authority, and is become no lawful ministry, no such ministry as hath the right which otherwise should belong unto them, if they were virtuous and godly as their adversaries are; in this necessity the king may do somewhat for the church: that which we do imply in the name of headship, he may both have and exercise till they be entered which will disburden and ease him of it; till they come, the king is licensed to hold that power which we call headship. But what afterwards? In a church [well?] ordered, that which the supreme magistrate hath [1] , is “to see that the laws of God touching his worship, and touching all matters and orders of the Church, be executed and duly observed; to see that every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed; to punish those that fail in their office [x] .” In a word, (that which Allen himself acknowledgeth [2] ,) unto the earthly power which God hath given him it doth belong to defend the laws of the Church, to cause them to be executed, and to punish the transgressors [y] of the same.

On all sides therefore it is confessed, that to the king belongeth power of maintaining laws [z] made for church [a] regiment, and of causing them to be observed; but principality of power in making them, which is the thing that [z] we attribute unto kings, this both the one sort and the other do [a] withstand [1] : although [2] not both in such sort but that still it is granted by the one that albeit ecclesiastical councils consisting of church officers did frame the laws whereby the church affairs were ordered in ancient times, yet no canon, no not of any council, had the force of a law in the Church, unless it were ratified and confirmed by the emperor being Christian. Seeing therefore it is acknowledged [3] , that it was then the manner of the emperor to confirm the ordinances which were made by the ministers, which is as much in effect to say that the emperor had in church ordinances a voice negative;     BOOK VIII. Ch. vii. 1, 2.  —and that without his confirmation they had not the strength of public ordinances;—why are we condemned as giving more unto kings than the Church did in those times, we giving them no more but that supreme power which the emperor did then exercise with much larger scope than at this day any Christian king either doth or possibly can use it over the Church [b] ?

The Prince’s power in the advancement of Bishops unto the rooms of prelacy  [c] . VII. Touching the advancement of prelates unto their rooms by the king; whereas it seemeth in the eyes of many a thing very strange that prelates, the officers of God’s own sanctuary, than which nothing is more sacred, should be made by persons secular; there are [1] that will not have kings be altogether of the laity, but to participate that sanctified power which God hath endued his clergy with, and that in such respect they are anointed with oil. A shift vain and needless. For as much as, if we speak properly, we cannot say kings do make, but that they only do place, bishops. For in a bishop there are these three things to be considered; the power whereby he is distinguished from other pastors; the special portion of the clergy and people [d] over whom he is to exercise that bishoply power; and the place of his seat or throne, together with the profits, preeminences, honours thereunto belonging. The first every bishop hath by consecration; the second his [e] election investeth him with; the third he receiveth of the king alone.

With consecration the king intermeddleth not further than only by his letters to present such an elect bishop as shall be consecrated. Seeing therefore that none but bishops do consecrate, it followeth that none but they only [f] do give unto every bishop his being. The manner of uniting bishops as heads, unto the flock and clergy under them, hath often altered.     BOOK VIII. Ch. vii. 2.  For, if some be not deceived, this thing was sometime [g] done even without any election at all. At the first (saith he to whom the name of Ambrose is given [1] ) the first created in the college of presbyters was still the bishop. He dying, the next senior did succeed him. “Sed quia cœperunt sequentes presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos immutata est ratio, prospiciente concilio; ut non ordo sed meritum crearet episcopum multorum sacerdotum judicio [h] constitutum, ne indignus temere usurparet et esset multis scandalum.”

In elections at the beginning the clergy and the people both had to do, although not both after one sort. The people gave their testimony, and shewed their affection, either of desire or dislike, concerning the party which was to be chosen. But the choice was wholly in the sacred college of presbyters. Hereunto it is that those usual speeches of the ancient do commonly allude: as when Pontius concerning S. Cyprian’s election saith, he was chosen “judicio Dei et populi favore,” “by the judgment of God and favour [i] of the people [2] ,” the one branch alluding to the voices of the ecclesiastical senate which with religious sincerity choose [k] him, the other to the people’s affection, who earnestly desired to have him chosen their bishop.

Again, Leo [3] ; “Nulla ratio sinit, ut inter episcopos habeantur qui nec a clericis sunt electi nec a plebibus expetiti.” “No reason doth grant that they should be reckoned amongst bishops, whom neither clergy hath elected nor laity coveted.” In like sort Honorius [4] ; “Let him only be established bishop in the see of Rome whom Divine judgment and universal consent hath chosen.”     BOOK VIII. Ch. vii. 3.

That difference, which is between the form of electing bishops at this day with us, and that which was usual in former ages, riseth from the ground of that right which the kings of this land do claim in furnishing the place [l] where bishops, elected and consecrated, are to reside as bishops. For considering the huge charges which the ancient famous princes of this land have been at, as well in erecting episcopal sees, as also in endowing them with ample possessions; sure of their religious magnificence [m] and bounty we cannot think but to have been most deservedly honoured with those royal prerogatives, [of] taking the benefit which groweth out of them in their vacancy, and of advancing alone unto such dignities what persons they judge most fit for the same. A thing over and besides even therefore the more reasonable [n] ; for that, as the king most justly hath preeminence to make lords temporal which are not such by right of birth, so the like preeminence of bestowing where pleaseth him the honour of spiritual nobility also, cannot seem hard, bishops being peers of the realm, and by law [o] itself so reckoned.

Now, whether we grant so much unto kings in this respect, or in the former consideration whereupon the laws have annexed it unto the crown [1] , it must of necessity being granted, both make void whatsoever interest the people aforetime hath had towards the choice of their own bishop, and also restrain the very act of canonical election usually made by the dean and chapter; as with us in such sort it doth, that they neither can proceed unto [p] any election till leave be granted [1] , nor elect any person [2] but that is named unto them. If they might do the one, it would be in them to defeat the king of his profits; if the other, then were the king’s preeminences of granting those dignities nothing. And therefore, were it not for certain canons requiring canonical election to be before consecration [3] , I see no cause but that the king’s letters patents alone might suffice well enough to [q] that purpose, as by law they do in case those electors should happen not to satisfy the king’s pleasure.     BOOK VIII. Ch. vii. 4.  Their election is now but a matter of form: it is the king’s mere grant which placeth, and the bishop’s consecration which maketh, bishops.

Neither do the kings of this land use herein any other than such prerogatives as foreign nations have been accustomed unto.

About the year of our Lord 425 [1] , pope Boniface solicited most earnestly the emperor Honorius to take some order that the bishops of Rome might be created without ambitious seeking of the place. A needless petition, if so be the emperor had no right at all in the placing of bishops there. But from the days of Justinian the emperor, about the year 553, Onuphrius [2] himself doth grant that no man was bishop in the see of Rome whom first the emperor by his letters patents did not license to be consecrated. Till in Benedict’s [3] time it pleased the emperor to forego that right; which afterwards was restored to Charles with augmentation [1] , and continued in his successors till such time as Hildebrand took it from Henry IV [2] , and ever since the cardinals have held it as at this day.

Had not the right of giving them belonged to the emperors of Rome within the compass of their dominions, what needed [r] pope Leo the fourth to trouble Lotharius and Lodowick with those his letters [3] , whereby, having done them to understand that the church called Reatina was without a bishop, he maketh suit that one Colonus might have the room, or, if that were otherwise disposed of [s] , his next request was, “Tusculanam ecclesiam, quæ viduata existit, illi vestra serenitas dignetur concedere, ut consecratus a nostro præsulatu Deo Omnipotenti vestroque imperio grates peragere valeat.”     BOOK VIII. Ch. vii. 5.  “May it please [t] your clemencies to grant unto him the church of Tusculum now likewise void; that by our episcopal authority he being after consecrated may be to Almighty God and your highness [u] therefore thankful.”

Touching other bishopricks, extant there is a very short but a plain discourse [1] , written almost 500 years since, by occasion of that miserable contention raised between the emperor Henry IVth and pope Hildebrand, named otherwise Gregory the VIIth, not, as Platina [2] would bear men in hand, for that the bishop of Rome would not brook the emperor’s simoniacal dealings [x] , but because the right, which Christian kings and emperors had to invest bishops, hindered so much his ambitious designments, that nothing could detain him from attempting to wrest it violently out of their hands.

This treatise I mention, for that it shortly comprehendeth not only the fore-alleged right of the emperor of Rome acknowledged by six several popes [3] , even with bitter execration against whomsoever of their successors that should by word or deed at any time go about to infringe the same, but also further [y] these other [z] specialties appertaining thereunto [a] : First [4] , that the bishops likewise of Spain, England, Scotland, Hungary, had by ancient institution always been invested by their kings, without opposition or disturbance. Secondly, that such was their [b] royal interest, partly [1] for that they were founders of bishopricks, partly because they undertook [c] the defence of them against all ravenous oppressions and wrongs, partly [2] in as much that it was not safe that rooms of so great power and consequence in their estate should without their appointment be held by any under them. And therefore [3] that bishops even then did homage and took their oaths of fealty unto the kings which invested them. Thirdly [4] , that what solemnity or ceremony kings do use in this action it skilleth not, as namely whether they do it by word, or by precept set down in writing, or by delivery of a staff and a ring, or by any other means whatsoever, only that use and custom would, to avoid all offence, be kept. Some base canonists there are, which contend that neither kings nor emperors had ever any right hereunto, saving [d] only by the pope’s either grant or toleration. Whereupon not to spend any further labour, we leave their folly to be controlled by men of more ingenuity and judgment even among themselves, Duarenus [1] , Papon [2] , Choppinus [3] , Ægidius [4] , Magister [5] , Arnulphus Rusæus [6] , Costlius [7] , Philippus Probus [8] , and the rest, by whom the right of Christian kings and princes herein is maintained to be such as the bishop of Rome cannot lawfully either withdraw or abridge or hinder.

But of this thing there is with us no question, although with them there be. The laws and customs of the realm approving such regalities, in case no reason thereof did appear, yet are they hereby abundantly warranted unto us, except some law of God or nature to the contrary could be shewed. How much more, when they have been every where thought so reasonable that Christian kings throughout the world use and exercise, if not altogether, yet surely with very little odds the same. So far that Gregory the Tenth [9] forbidding such regalities to be newly begun where they were not in former times,     BOOK VIII. Ch. vii. 6.  if any do claim those rights from the first foundation of churches, or by ancient custom, of them he only requireth that neither they nor their agents damnify the Church of God by using the said prerogatives [n] .

Now as there is no doubt but the church of England by this means is much eased of some inconveniences, so likewise a special care there is requisite to be had, that other evils no less dangerous may not grow. By the history of former times it doth appear, that when the freedom of elections was most large, men’s dealings and proceedings therein were not the [o] least faulty.

Of the people S. Jerome complaineth [1] that their judgments many times went much awry, and that in allowing of their bishops every man favoured his own quality; every one’s desire was, not so much to be under the regiment of good and virtuous men, as of them which were like himself. What man is there whom it doth not exceedingly grieve to read the tumults, tragedies, and schisms, which were raised by occasion of the clergy at such time as, diverse of them standing for some one place, there was not any kind of practice, though never so unhonest [p] or vile, left unassayed whereby men might supplant their competitors and the one side foil the other. Sidonius, speaking of a bishoprick void in his time [2] , “The decease of the former bishop,” saith he, “was an alarum to such as would labour for the room: whereupon the people, forthwith betaking themselves unto parts, storm on each side: few there are that make suit for the advancement of any other man; many who not only offer, but enforce themselves. All things light, variable, counterfeit: what should I say? I see not any thing plain and open but impudence only.”

BOOK VIII. Ch. vii. 7.  In the church of Constantinople about the election of S. Chrysostom [1] , by reason that some strove mightily for him and some for Nectarius, the troubles growing had not been small, but that Arcadius the emperor interposed himself: even as at Rome the emperor Valentinian, whose forces were hardly [2] able to establish Damasus bishop, and to compose the strife between him and his competitor Ursicinus, about whose election the blood of a hundred and thirty-seven was already shed. Where things did not break out into so manifest and open flames, yet between them which obtained the place and such as before withstood their promotion, that secret heart burning often grew [3] , which could not afterwards be easily slaked. Insomuch that Pontius doth note [4] it as a rare point of virtue in Cyprian, that whereas some were against his election, he notwithstanding dealt ever after in most friendly manner with them, all men wondering that so good a memory was so easily able to forget.

These and other the like hurts accustomed to grow from ancient elections we do not feel. Howbeit, lest the Church in more hidden sort should sustain even as grievous detriment by that order which is now of force, we are most humbly to crave at the hands of our [q] sovereign kings and governors, the highest patrons which this church of Christ hath on earth, that it would please them to be advertised thus much.

Albeit these things which have been sometimes done by any sort may afterwards appertain unto others, and so the kind of agents vary as occasions daily growing shall require; yet sundry unremovable and unchangeable burthens of duty there are annexed unto every kind of public action, which burthens in this case princes must know themselves to stand now charged with in God’s sight no less than the people and the clergy, when the power of electing their prelates did rest fully and wholly in them. A fault it had been if they should in choice have preferred any [1] whom desert of most holy life and the gift of divine wisdom did not commend; a fault, if they had permitted long [2] the rooms of the principal pastors of God to continue void; not to preserve the church patrimony as good to each successor as any predecessor did enjoy the same, had been in them a most odious and grievous fault. Simply good and evil do not lose their nature: that which was, is the one or the other, whatsoever the subject of either be. The faults mentioned are in kings by so much greater, for that in what churches they exercise those regalities whereof we do now entreat, the same churches they have received into their special care and custody, with no less effectual obligation of conscience than the tutor standeth bound in for the person and state of that pupil whom he hath solemnly taken upon him to protect and keep. All power is given unto edification, none to the overthrow and destruction of the Church.

Concerning therefore the first [3] branch of spiritual dominion thus much may suffice;     BOOK VIII. Ch. viii. 1, 2.  seeing that they with whom we contend do not directly oppose themselves against regalities, but only so far forth as generally they hold that no church-dignity should be granted without consent of the common people, and that there ought not to be in the Church of Christ any episcopal rooms for princes to use their regalities in. Of both which questions we have sufficiently spoken before.

Their  [r] power to command all persons, and to be over all causes ecclesiastical, whatsoever [s] . VIII. Touching [t] the king’s supereminent authority in commanding, and in judging [u] of causes ecclesiastical; First, to explain therein our meaning, It hath been taken as if we did hold, that kings may prescribe what themselves think good to be done in the service of God; how the word shall be taught, how sacraments [x] administered: that kings may personally sit in the consistory where bishops [y] do, hearing and determining what causes soever do appertain unto those courts [z] : that kings and queens in their own proper persons are by judicial sentence to decide the questions which rise [a] about matters [b] of faith and Christian religion: that kings may excommunicate: finally, that kings may do whatsoever is incident unto the office and duty of an ecclesiastical judge. Which opinion because we count [c] as absurd as they who have fathered the same upon us, we do them to wit that thus [d] our meaning is, and no otherwise: There is not within this realm any [e] ecclesiastical officer, that may by the authority of his own place command universally throughout the king’s dominions; but they of his [f] people whom one may command, are to another’s commandment unsubject: only the king’s royal power is of so large compass, that no man commanded by him according to order [g] of law, can plead himself to be without the bounds and limits of that authority; I say, according to order of law, because with us the highest have thereunto so tied themselves, that otherwise than so they take not upon them to command any.

And, that kings should be in such sort supreme commanders over all men, we hold it requisite, as well for the ordering of spiritual as of [h] civil affairs; inasmuch as without universal authority in this kind, they should not be able when need is [i] , to do as virtuous kings have done.     BOOK VIII. Ch. viii. 3.  Joas [k] [1] , purposing to renew the “house of the Lord, assembled the Priests and Levites, and when they were together, gave them their charge, saying, Go out [l] unto the cities of Judah, and gather of all [m] Israel money to repair the house of your God [n] from year to year, and haste the things: but the Levites hasted not. Therefore the king called Jehoiada, the chief, and said unto him, Why hast thou not required of the Levites to bring in out of Judah and Jerusalem, the tax of Moses, the servant of the Lord, and of the congregation of Israel, for the tabernacle of the testimony? For wicked Athaliah and her children brake up the house of God [o] , and all the things that were dedicated for the house of the Lord did they bestow upon Baalim oo . Therefore the king commanded, and they made a chest, and set it at the gate of the house of the Lord without; and they made a proclamation through Judah and Jerusalem, to bring unto the Lord the tax of Moses the servant of God [p] , laid upon Israel in the wilderness.” Could either he have done this, or after him [2] Ezechias the like concerning the celebration of the passover, but that all sorts of men in all things did owe unto those [q] their sovereign rulers the same obedience which sometime [r] Josua had them by solemn [s] vow and promise bound unto [3] ? “Whosoever shall rebel against thy commandments, and [t] will not obey thy words in all that [u] thou commandest him, let him be put to death; only be strong and of a good courage.”

Furthermore, judgment ecclesiastical we say is necessary for decision of controversies rising between man and man, and for correction of faults committed in the affairs of God; unto the due execution whereof there are three things necessary, laws [x] , judges, and a supreme governor [y] of judgments.

BOOK VIII. Ch. viii. 4.  What courts there shall be, and what causes shall belong to each court, and what judges shall determine of every cause, and what order in all judgments shall be kept; of these things the laws have sufficiently disposed: so that his duty which [z] sitteth in every [a] such court is to judge, not of, but after, the said laws [b] : “Imprimis [1] illud observare debet judex, ne aliter judicet quam legibus, aut [c] constitutionibus, aut moribus proditum est [d] .” Which laws (for we mean the positive laws of our own [e] realm concerning ecclesiastical affairs) if they otherwise dispose of any such thing than according to the law of reason and of God, we must both acknowledge them to be amiss, and endeavour to have them reformed: but touching that point what may be objected shall after appear.

Our judges in causes ecclesiastical are either ordinary or commissionary: ordinary, those whom we term Ordinaries; and such by the laws of this [f] land are none but prelates only, whose power to do that which they do is in themselves, and belongeth unto [g] the nature of their ecclesiastical calling. In spiritual causes, a lay person may be no ordinary; a commissionary judge there is no let but that he may be: and that our laws do evermore refer the ordinary judgment of spiritual causes unto spiritual persons, such as are termed Ordinaries, no man which knoweth any thing in [h] the practice of this realm can easily be ignorant.

Now, besides them which are authorized to judge in several territories, there [i] is required an universal power which reacheth over all, importing [k] supreme authority of government over all courts, all judges, all causes; the operation of which power is as well to strengthen, maintain and uphold particular jurisdictions, which haply might else be of small effect; as also to remedy that which they are not able to help, and to redress that wherein they at any time do otherwise than they ought to do. This power being sometime in the bishop of Rome, who by sinister practices had drawn it into his hands, was for just considerations by public consent annexed unto the king’s royal seat and crown.     BOOK VIII. Ch. viii. 5.  From thence the authors of reformation would translate it into their national assemblies or [l] synods; which synods are the only help which [m] they think lawful to use against such evils in the Church as particular jurisdictions are not sufficient to redress. In which case [n] our laws have provided [1] that the king’s supereminent authority and power shall serve. As namely, when the whole ecclesiastical state, or the principal persons therein, do need visitation and reformation; when, in any part of the Church, errors, heresies, schisms [o] , abuses, offences, contempts, enormities, are grown, which men in their several jurisdictions either do not or cannot help: whatsoever any spiritual authority or [p] power (such as legates from the see of Rome did sometimes exercise) hath done or might heretofore have done for the remedy of those evils in lawful sort (that is to say, without violation [q] of the law [r] of God or nature in the deed done), as much in every degree our laws have fully granted that the king for ever may do, not only by setting ecclesiastical synods on work, that the thing may be their act and the king their motioner [s] unto it, (for so much perhaps the masters of reformation will grant;) but by commissionaries [t] few or many, who having the king’s letters patents, may in the virtue thereof execute the premises as agents in the right, not of their own peculiar and ordinary but of his superemiment power.

When men are wronged by inferior judges, or have any just cause to take exception against them, their way for redress is to make their appeal. An [u] appeal is a present delivery of him which maketh it out of the hands of their power and jurisdiction [x] from whence it is made. Pope Alexander [2] having sometime [y] the king of England at the [z] advantage, caused him, amongst other things, to agree, that as many of his subjects as would, might appeal [a] to the court of Rome. “And thus,” saith one [1] , “that whereunto a mean person at this day would scorn to submit himself, so great a king was content to be subject.     BOOK VIII. Ch. viii. 6.  Notwithstanding even when the pope,” saith he, “had so great authority amongst princes which were far off, the Romans he could not frame to obedience, nor was able to obtain that himself might abide at Rome, though promising not to meddle with other than ecclesiastical affairs.” So much are things that terrify more feared by such as behold them aloof off than at hand.

Reformers I doubt not in some cases [a] will admit appeals [b] , made unto their synods; even as the church of Rome doth allow of them so they be made to the bishop of Rome. As for that kind of appeal which the English laws [2] do approve, from the judge of any [c] particular court unto the king, as the only supreme governor on earth, who by his delegates may give a final definitive sentence, from which no further appeal can be made; will their platform allow of this? Surely, forasmuch as in that estate which they all dream of, the whole Church must be divided into parishes, of [d] which none can have greater or less authority and power than another; again, the king himself must be but as a common member in the body of his own parish, and the causes of that only parish must be by the officers thereof determinable; in case the king had so much preferment [e] , as to be made one of those officers (for otherwise by their positions he were not to meddle any more than the meanest amongst his [f] subjects with the judgment of any ecclesiastical cause), how is it possible they should allow of appeals to be made from any other abroad to the king?

To receive appeals from all other judges, belongeth unto the highest in power over [g] all; and to be in power over all, as touching the judgment of [h] ecclesiastical causes, this as they think belongeth only unto synods. Whereas therefore with us, kings do exercise over all kinds of persons [o] and causes, power oo both of voluntary and litigious jurisdiction [p] ; so that according to the one they visit [q] , reform, and command; according to the other, they judge universally, doing both in far other sort than such as have ordinary spiritual power: oppugned herein we are [r] by some colourable shew of argument, as if to grant thus much unto any secular person it were unreasonable. “For sith it is,” say they [1] , “apparent out of the Chronicles, that judgment in church matters pertaineth unto God; seeing likewise it is evident out of the Apostle [s] , that the high priest is set over those matters in God’s behalf; it must needs follow that the principality or direction of the judgment of them is by God’s ordinance appertaining unto the high [t] priest, and consequently to the ministry of the Church: and if it be by God’s ordinance appertaining unto them, how can it be translated from them unto the civil magistrate?” Which argument, briefly drawn into form, lieth thus: That which belongeth unto God, may not be translated unto any other than [u] whom he hath appointed to have it in his behalf: but principality of judgment in church matters appertaineth unto God, which hath appointed the high priest, and consequently the ministry of the Church alone, to have it in this [x] behalf; therefore [y] , it may not from them be translated to the civil magistrate. The first of which three [z] propositions we grant; as also in the second that branch which ascribeth unto God principality in church [a] matters. But that either he did appoint none but only the high priest to exercise the said principality for him; or that the ministry of the Church may in reason from thence be concluded to have alone the same principality by his appointment: these two points we deny utterly.

For concerning the high priest, there is first no such ordinance of God to be found. “Every high priest,” saith the Apostle [2] , “is taken from among men, and is ordained for men in things pertaining to God:” whereupon it may well be gathered, that the priest was indeed ordained of God to have power in things pertaining unto God.     BOOK VIII. Ch. viii. 7.  For the Apostle doth there mention the power of offering gifts and sacrifices for sins [b] ; which kind of power was not only given of God unto priests, but restrained unto priests only. The power of jurisdiction and ruling authority, this also God gave them, but not them alone [c] . For it is held, as all men know, that others of the laity were herein joined by the law with them. But concerning principality in church affairs (for of this our question is, and of no other) the priests neither had it alone, nor at all; but (as hath been already shewed) principality in spiritual affairs [d] was the royal prerogative of kings [e] .

Again, though it were so, that God had appointed the high priest to have the said principality of government in those matters; yet how can they who allege this, enforce thereby that consequently the ministry of the Church, and no other, ought to have the same, when they are so far off from allowing as [f] much to the ministry of the Gospel, as the priesthood of the Law had by God’s appointment, that we but collecting thereout a difference in authority and jurisdiction amongst the Clergy, to be for the policy ff of the Church not inconvenient, they forthwith think to close up our mouths by answering, “That the Jewish high priests [g] had authority above the rest, only in that they prefigured the sovereignty of Jesus Christ; as for the ministers of the Gospel, it is,” they say [h] , “altogether unlawful to give them as much as the least title, any syllable that any way [i] may sound towards [k] principality?” And of the regency which may be granted, they hold others even of the laity no less capable than pastors [1] themselves. How shall these things cleave together?

The truth is, that they have some reason to think it not all of the fittest for kings to sit as ordinary judges in matters of faith and religion. An ordinary judge must be of that [m] quality which in a supreme judge is not necessary: because the person of the one is charged with that which the other’s authority dischargeth, without employing personally himself herein. It is an error to think that the king’s authority can have no force or [n] power in the doing of that which himself may not personally do. For first, impossible it is, that at one and the same time the king in person should order so many and so different affairs, as by his power every where present are wont to be ordered both in peace and in war [o] , at home and abroad. Again, the king, in regard of his nonage or minority, may be unable to perform that thing wherein years of discretion are requisite for personal action; and yet his authority even then be of force. For which cause we say, that the king’s authority dieth not, but is, and worketh, always alike. Sundry considerations there may be, effectual to withhold the king’s person from being a doer of that which his power must notwithstanding [p] give force unto. Even [q] in civil affairs, where nothing doth either more [r] concern the duty, or better beseem the majesty of kings, than personally to administer justice unto their people, as most famous princes have done: yet, if it be in case of felony or treason, the learned in [s] the laws of this realm do plainly [t] affirm [1] , that well may the king commit his authority unto another to judge between him and the offender; but the king being himself here [u] a party, he cannot personally sit to give judgment [x] .

As therefore the person of the king may, for just considerations [y] , even where the cause is civil, be notwithstanding withdrawn from occupying the seat of judgment, and others under his authority be fit, he unfit himself to judge; so the considerations for which it were haply not convenient for kings to sit and give sentence in spiritual courts, where causes ecclesiastical are usually debated, can be no bar to that force and efficacy which their sovereign power hath over those very consistories, and for which, we hold without any exception that all courts are the king’s. All men are not for all things sufficient;     BOOK VIII. Ch. viii. 8.  and therefore public affairs being divided, such persons must be authorized judges in each kind, as common reason may presume to be most fit: which cannot of kings and princes ordinarily be presumed in causes merely ecclesiastical; so that even common sense doth rather adjudge this burden unto other men. We see it hereby a thing necessary, to put a difference, as well between that ordinary jurisdiction which belongeth to the clergy alone, and that commissionary wherein others are for just considerations [z] appointed to join with them; as also between both these jurisdictions, and a third, whereby the king hath a transcendent [a] authority, and that in all causes, over both. Why this may not lawfully be granted unto him, there is no reason.

A time there was when kings were not capable of any such power, as namely, while [b] they professed themselves open adversaries [c] unto Christ and Christianity. A time there followed, when they, being capable, took sometimes more sometimes less to themselves, as seemed best in their own eyes, because no certainty touching their right was as yet determined. The bishops, who alone were before accustomed to have the ordering of such affairs, saw very just cause of grief, when the highest, favouring heresy, withstood by the strength of sovereign authority religious proceedings. Whereupon they oftentimes, against this new unresistible [d] power, pleaded that [e] use and custom which had been to the contrary; namely, that the affairs of the Church should be dealt in by the clergy, and by no other: unto which purpose, the sentences that then were uttered in defence of unabolished orders and laws, against such as did of their own heads contrary thereunto, are now altogether impertinently brought in opposition against them who use but the [f] power which laws have given them, unless men can shew that there is in those laws some manifest iniquity or injustice.

Whereas therefore against the force judicial and imperial, which supreme authority hath, it is alleged, how Constantine [1] termeth church-officers, “Overseers of things within the Church [1] ,” himself, “of those without the Church:” how Augustine [2] witnesseth, that the emperor not daring to judge of the bishops’ cause, committed it unto the bishops; and was to crave pardon of the bishops, for that by the Donatists’ importunity, which made no end of appealing unto him, he was, being weary of them, drawn to give sentence in a matter of theirs [3] : how Hilary [4] beseecheth the emperor Constance to provide that the governors of his provinces should not presume to take upon them the judgment of ecclesiastical causes, to whom commonwealth matters only [r] belonged: how Ambrose [5] affirmeth, that palaces belong unto the emperor, churches to the minister; that the emperor hath authority [s] over the common walls of the city, and not in holy things [1] ; for which cause [2] he never would yield to have “the causes of the Church [3] debated in the prince’s consistory [t] ,” but “excused himself to the emperor Valentinian, for that being convented to answer concerning church matters in a civil court, he came not [u] :” we may by these testimonies drawn from antiquity, if we list to consider them, discern how requisite it is that authority should always follow received laws in the manner of proceeding. For inasmuch as there was at the first no certain law, determining what force the principal civil magistrate’s authority should be of, how far it should reach, and what order it should observe; but Christian emperors from time to time did what themselves thought most reasonable in those affairs; by this mean [x] it cometh to pass that they in their practice vary, and are not uniform.

Virtuous emperors, such as Constantine the Great was, made conscience to swerve unnecessarily from the customs [y] which had been used in the Church, even when it lived under infidels. Constantine, of reverence to bishops and their spiritual authority, rather abstained from that which himself might lawfully do, than was willing to claim a power not fit or decent [z] for him to exercise. The order which had [a] been before, he ratified [b] , exhorting bishops [c] to look to the Church, and promising that he would do the office of a bishop over the commonwealth: which very Constantine notwithstanding, did not thereby so renounce all authority in judging of spiritual [d] causes, but that sometime he took, as St. Augustine witnesseth [1] , even personal cognition of them; howbeit whether as purposing to give therein judicially any sentence, I stand in doubt. For if the other, of whom St. Augustine elsewhere speaketh, did in such sort judge, surely there was cause why he should excuse it as a thing not usually done. Otherwise there is no let, but that any such great person may hear those causes to and fro debated, and deliver in the end his own opinion of them, declaring on which side himself doth judge that the truth is. But this kind of sentence bindeth no side to stand thereunto; it is a sentence of private persuasion, and not of solemn jurisdiction, albeit a king or an emperor pronounce it.

Again, on the contrary part, when governors infected with heresy were possessed of the highest power, they thought they might use it as pleased [e] themselves, to further by all means therewith [f] that opinion which they desired should prevail; they not respecting at all what was meet, presumed to command and judge all men in all causes, without either care of orderly proceeding, or regard to such laws and customs as the Church had been wont to observe. So that the one sort feared to do even that which they might; and that which the other ought not they boldly presumed upon; the one sort of modesty [g] , excused themselves where they scarce needed; the other, though doing that which was [h] inexcusable, bare it out with main power, not enduring to be told by any man how far they roved beyond their bounds. So great odds [i] between them whom before we mentioned, and such as the younger Valentinian, by whom St. Ambrose being commanded to yield up one of the churches under him unto the Arians, whereas they which were sent on the [k] message alleged, that the emperor did but use his own right, forasmuch as all things were in his power: the answer which the holy bishop gave them was [2] , “That the Church is the house of God, and that those things which be [l] God’s are not to be yielded up,     BOOK VIII. Ch. viii. 9.  and disposed of at the emperor’s will and pleasure; his palaces he might grant unto whomsoever [m] , but God’s own habitations [n] not so.” A cause why many times emperors did [o] more by their absolute authority than could very well stand with reason, was the over great importunity of heretics [p] , who being enemies to peace and quietness, cannot otherwise than by violent means be supported.

In this respect therefore we must needs think the state of our own church much better settled than theirs was; because our laws have with far more certainty prescribed bounds unto each kind of power. All decisions [q] of things doubtful, and corrections of things amiss, are proceeded in by order of law, what person soever he be unto whom the administration of judgment belongeth. It is neither permitted unto prelate [r] nor prince to judge and [s] determine at their own discretion, but law hath prescribed what both shall do. What power the king hath he hath it by law, the bounds and limits of it are known; the entire community giveth general order by law how all things publicly are to be done, and the king as head [t] thereof, the highest in authority over all, causeth according to the same law every particular to be framed and ordered thereby. The whole body politic maketh laws, which laws give tt power unto the king, and the king having bound himself to use according unto law that power, it so falleth out, that the execution of the one is accomplished by the other in most religious and peaceable sort. There is no cause given unto any to make supplication, as Hilary did, that civil governors, to whom commonwealth-matters only belong, might [u] not presume to take upon them the judgment of ecclesiastical causes. If the cause be spiritual, secular courts do not meddle with it: we need not excuse ourselves with Ambrose, but boldly and lawfully we may refuse to answer before any civil judge in a matter which is not civil,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ix. 1.  so that we do not mistake the nature either [x] of the cause or of the court, as we easily may do both, without some better direction than can be had [y] by the rules of this new-found discipline. But of this most certain we are, that our laws do neither suffer a spiritual court [1] to entertain those causes which by law [z] are civil, nor yet if the matter be indeed spiritual, a mere civil court to give judgment of it.

Touching supreme power therefore to command all men, in all [a] manner of causes of judgment to be highest, let thus much suffice as well for declaration of our own meaning, as for defence of the truth therein [b] .

The king’s exemption from censure and other judicial power  [c] . IX. The last thing of all which concerns the king’s supremacy is, whether thereby he may be exempted from being subject to that judicial power which ecclesiastical consistories have over men. It seemeth, first, in most men’s judgments to be requisite that on earth there should not be any alive altogether without standing in awe of some by whom they may be controlled and bridled.

The good estate of a commonwealth within itself is thought on nothing to depend more than upon these two special affections, fear and love: fear in the highest governor himself; and love, in the subjects that live under him. The subject’s love for the most part continueth as long as the righteousness of kings doth last;     BOOK VIII. Ch. ix. 2.  in whom virtue decayeth not as long as they fear to do that which may alienate the loving hearts of their subjects from them. Fear to do evil groweth from the harm which evildoers are to suffer. If therefore private men, which know the danger they are subject unto, being malefactors, do notwithstanding so boldly adventure upon heinous crimes, only because they know it is possible for some transgressor sometimes to escape the danger of law: in the mighty upon earth, (which are not always so virtuous and holy that their own good minds will bridle them,) what may we look for, considering the frailty of man’s nature, if the world do once hold it for a maxim that kings ought to live in no subjection: that, how grievous disorders [d] soever they fall into, none may have coercive power over them? Yet so it is that this we must necessarily admit, as a number of right well learned men are persuaded.

Let us therefore set down first, what there is which [e] may induce men so to think; and then consider their several inventions or ways, who judge it a thing necessary, even for kings themselves, to be punishable, and that by men. The question itself we will not determine. The reasons of each opinion being opened, it shall be best for the wise to judge which of them is likeliest to be true. Our purpose being not to oppugn any save only that which reformers hold; and of the rest, rather to inquire than to give sentence. Inducements leading men to think the highest magistrate should not be judged of any, saving God alone, are specially these. 1. First, as there could be in natural bodies no motion of any thing, unless there were some which moveth [f] all things and continueth unmoveable [g] ; even so in politic societies there must be some unpunishable, or else no man shall suffer punishment. For sith punishments proceed always from superiors, to whom the administration of justice belongeth, which administration must have necessarily a fountain that deriveth it to all others, and receiveth it [h] not from any; because otherwise the course of justice should go infinitely in a circle, every superior having his superior without end, which cannot be: therefore a well-spring it followeth there is, and a supreme head of justice, whereunto all are subject,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ix. 3.  but itself in subjection to none. Which kind of preeminence if some ought to have in a kingdom, who but the king should have it? Kings therefore no man can have lawfully power and authority to judge. If private men offend, there is the magistrate over them, which judgeth. If magistrates, they have their prince. If princes, there is Heaven, a tribunal, before which they shall appear: on earth they are not accountable to any.

2. Which thing likewise the very original of kingdoms [i] doth shew.

* * * * * *

“His second point, whereby he would make us odious, is, that we think the prince may be subject to excommunication; that is, that he is a brother [1] , that he is not without but within the Church [2] . If this be dangerous, why is it printed and allowed in the famous writings of bishop Jewel [3] : ‘In that the high priest [4] doth his office when he excommunicates and cuts off a dead member from the body, so far forth the prince, be he never so mighty, is inferior to him. Yea not only to a bishop, but to a simple priest?’ Why is it suffered which Mr. Nowell hath written [5] , ‘The prince ought patiently to abide excommunication at the bishop’s hands?’ Why are not the worthy examples of emperors rased [6] out of the histories, seeing they have been subject to his [this] censure [7] ?”

The Jews were forbidden to choose an alien king over them; inasmuch as there is not any thing more natural than that the head and the body subject thereunto should always, if it were possible, be linked in that bond of nearness also which birth and breeding as it were in the bowels of one common mother usually causeth. Which being true did not greatly need to be alleged for proof that kings are in the Church of God of the same spiritual fraternity with their subjects: a thing not denied nor doubted of.

Indeed the king is a brother; but such a brother as unto whom all the rest of the brethren are subject. He is a sheaf of the Lord’s field as the rest are; howbeit, a sheaf which is so far raised up above the rest [1] that they all owe reverence unto it. The king is a brother which hath dominion over all his brethren. A strange conclusion to gather hereby, that therefore some of his brethren ought to have the authority of correcting him. We read that God did say unto David, “If Solomon thy son forget my laws, I will punish his transgressions with a rod.” But that he gave dominion unto any of Solomon’s brethren to chastise Solomon, we do not read.

It is a thing very much alleged, that the church of the Jews had the sword of excommunication. Is any man able to allege where the same was ever drawn forth against the king? Yet how many of their kings how notoriously spotted?

Our Saviour’s words are, “If thy brother offend thee.” And St. Paul’s, “Do ye not judge them that are within?” Both which speeches are but indefinite. So that neither the one nor the other is any let but some brother there may be whose person is exempt from being subject to any such kind of proceeding: some within, yet not therefore under, the jurisdiction of any other. Sentences, indefinitely uttered, must sometimes universally be understood: but not where the subject or matter spoken of doth in particulars admit that difference which may in reason seclude any part from society with the residue of that whole, whereunto one common thing is attributed. As in this case it clearly fareth where the difference between kings and others of the Church is a reason sufficient to separate the one from the other in that which is spoken of brethren, albeit the name of brethren itself do agree to both. Neither doth our Saviour nor the Apostle speak in more general sort [1] of ecclesiastical punishments than Moses in his law doth of civil: “If there be found men or the man “amongst you that hath served other gods [2] .” Again, “The man that committeth adultery.” The punishment of both which transgressions being death, what man soever did offend therein, why was not Manasses for the one, for the other why not David accordingly executed? “Rex judicat, non judicatur,” saith one. The king is appointed a judge of all men that live under him; but not any of them his judge.

[a] The king [3] is not subject unto laws; that is to say, the punishment which breach of laws doth bring upon inferiors taketh not hold on the king’s person;     BOOK VIII. Ch. ix. 4.  although the general laws which all mankind is bound unto do tie no less the king than others, but rather more. For the grievousness of sin is aggravated by the greatness of him that committeth it: for which cause it also maketh him by so much the more obnoxious unto Divine revenge, by how much the less he feareth human.

Touching Bishop Jewel’s opinion hereof [1] , there is not in the place alleged any one word or syllable against the king’s prerogative royal to be free from the coercive power of all spiritual, both persons and courts, within the compass of his own dominions. “In that,” saith he, “the priest doeth his office, in that he openeth God’s word, or declareth his threats, or rebuketh sin, or excommunicateth and cutteth off a dead member from the body; so far forth the prince, be he never so mighty, is inferior unto him. But in this respect the prince is inferior not only to the pope or bishop, but also to any other simple priest.” He disputeth earnestly against that supremacy which the bishop of Rome did challenge over his sovereign lord the emperor: and by many allegations he laboureth to shew that popes have been always subject unto his supreme dominion, not he to theirs; he supreme judge over them, not they over him. Now whereas it was objected, that within the Church, when the priest doth execute his office, the very prince is inferior to him; so much being granted by Mr. Jewel, he addeth that this doth no more prove the pope than the simplest priest in the Church to be lord and head over kings. For although it doth hereby appear that in those things which belong to his priestly office the pope may do that which kings are not licensed to meddle with; in which respect it cannot be denied but that the emperor himself hath not only less power than the chiefest bishop, but even less than the meanest priest within his empire, and is consequently every priest’s inferior that way: nevertheless, sith this appertaineth nothing at all to judicial authority and power, how doth this prove kings and emperors to be by way of subjection inferior to the pope as to their ecclesiastical judge? Impertinently therefore is the answer, which to such effect that admirable prelate maketh,     BOOK VIII. Ch. ix. 5.  brought by way of evidence to shew that in his opinion the king may not be exempted from the coercive authority and power of his own Clergy, but ought for his faults to be as punishable in their courts as any other subject under him.

The excommunication, which good Mr. Nowell thinketh that princes ought patiently to suffer at the bishop’s hands, is no other than that which we also grant may be exercised on such occasions and in such manner as those two alleged examples out of antiquity do enforce.

“It is reported,” saith Eusebius [1] , “that one of the Philips which succeeded Gordian, came, being a Christian, to join with the rest of the people in prayer, the last festival day of Easter. At which time he which governed the Church there whither the emperor did resort, would in no case admit him, unless he first made confession, and were contented afterwards to stay his time in the place appointed for penitents,” (according to the manner of Church discipline in those days, whereof we have spoken in the fifth [sixth?] book sufficiently); “because he was known to be many ways faulty. To this he readily condescended, making manifest by his deeds his true and religious affection to Godwards.”

Another example there is, of the emperor Theodosius, who understanding that violence in the city of Thessalonica had been offered unto certain magistrates, sent in great rage a band of men; and, without any examination had to know where the fault was, slew mel-pell both guilty and innocent, to the number of 7000 [2] . It chanced afterwards, that the emperor coming to Milan, and intending to go to the Church as his accustomed manner was, St. Ambrose the bishop of that city, who before had heard of the emperor’s so cruel and bloody an act, met him before the gate of the church, and in this wise forbade him to enter: “Emperor, it seemeth that how great the slaughter is which thyself hast made thou weighest not; nor, as I think, when wrath was settled did reason ever call to account what thou hadst committed. Peradventure thine imperial royalty hindreth the acknowledgment of thy sin; and thy power is a let to reason. Notwithstanding know thou shouldst what our nature is, how frail a thing and how fading; and that the first original from whence we have all sprung was the very dust whereunto we must slide again. Neither is it meet that being inveigled with the show of thy glistering robes thou shouldst forget the imbecility of that flesh which is covered therewith. Thy subjects (O emperor) are in nature thy colleagues: yea even in her vice [service?] thou art also joined as a fellow with them. For there is one Lord and Emperor, the Maker of this whole assembly of all things. With what eyes therefore wilt thou look upon the habitation of that common Lord? With what feet wilt thou tread upon that sacred floor? How wilt thou stretch forth those hands from which the blood as yet of unrighteous slaughter doth distil? The body of our Lord all holy how wilt thou take into such hands? How wilt thou put his honourable blood unto that mouth, the wrathful word whereof hath caused against all order of law the pouring out of so much blood? Depart therefore, and go not about by after deeds to add to thy former iniquity. Receive that bond wherewith from heaven the Lord of all doth give consent that thou shouldst be tied; a bond which is medicinable, and procureth health.” Hereunto the king submitted himself; (for being brought up in religion he knew very well what belonged unto priests, what unto kings;) and with sobbing tears returned to the court again. Some eight months after, came the feast of our Saviour’s Nativity; but yet the king sat still at home, mourning and emptying the lake of tears: which when Rufinus beheld, being at that time commander over the king’s house, and by reason of usual access the bolder to speak; he came and asked the cause of those tears. To whom the king, with bitter grief and tears more abundantly gushing out, answered; “Thou, O Ruffin, dalliest, for mine evils thou feelest not: I mourn and bewail mine own wretchedness, considering that servants and beggars go freely to the house of God, and there present themselves before their Lord: whereas both from thence and from heaven also I am excluded. For in my mind I carry that voice of our Lord which saith with express terms, ‘Whomsoever ye shall bind on earth, he in heaven shall be bound also.’ ” The rest of the history, which concerneth the manner of the emperor’s admission after so earnest repentance, needeth not to be here set down.

It now remaineth to be examined whether these alleged examples prove that which they should do, yea or no. The thing which they ought to confirm is, that no less Christian kings than other persons under them ought to be subject to the selfsame coercive authority of Church-governors, and for the same kinds of transgressions, to receive at their hands the same spiritual censure of excommunication judicially inflicted by way of punishment. But in the aforesaid examples, whether we consider the offence itself of the excommunicate, or the persons excommunicating, or the manner of their proceeding; which three comprehend the whole substance of that which was done; it doth not by any of these appear that kings in suchwise should be subject. For, concerning the offences of men, there is no breach of Christian charity, whether it be by deed or by word; no excess, no lightness of speech or behaviour; no fault for which a man in the course of his life is openly noted as blameable; but the same being unamended through admonition ought, (as they say,) with the spiritual censure of excommunication to be punished. Wherefore unless they can shew, that in some such ordinary transgression, kings and princes, upon contempt of the Church’s more mild censure, have been like other men in ancient times excommunicated, what should hinder any man to think but that the rare and unwonted crimes of those two emperors did cause their bishops to try what unusual remedy would work in so desperate diseases? Which opinion is also made more probable, inasmuch as the very histories, which have recorded them, propose them for strange and admirable patterns; the bishops, of boldness; the emperors, of meekness and humility. The [they?] wonder at the one, for adventuring to do it unto emperors; at the other, for taking it in so good part at the hands of bishops. What greater argument that all which was herein done proceeded from extraordinary zeal on both sides, and not from a settled judicial authority which the one was known to have over the other by a common received order in the Church. For at such things who would wonder?

Furthermore, if ye consider their persons, whose acts these excommunications were; he which is said to have excommunicated Philip emperor of Rome was Babylas the bishop of Antioch: and he which Theodosius emperor of Constantinople, Ambrose the bishop of Milan. Neither of which two bishops (as I suppose) was ordinary unto either of the two emperors.     BOOK VIII. Ch. ix. 6.  And therefore they both were incompetent judges, and such as had no authority to punish whom they excommunicated: except we will grant the emperor to have been so much the more subject than his subjects, that whereas the meanest of them was under but some one diocesan, any that would might be judge over him. But the manner of proceeding doth as yet more plainly evict that these examples make less than nothing for proof that ecclesiastical governors had at that time judicial authority to excommunicate emperors and kings. For what form of judgment was there observed, when neither judges nor parties judged did once dream of any such matter; till the one by chance repaired unto the place where the others were, and at that very instant suffered a sudden repulse; not only besides their own expectation, but also without any purpose beforehand in them who gave it? Judicial punishment hath at the leastwise sentence going always before execution, whereas all which we read of here is, that the guilty being met in the way were presently turned back, and not admitted to be partakers of those holy things whereof they were famously known unworthy.

I therefore conclude, that these excommunications have neither the nature of judicial punishments, nor the force of sufficient arguments to prove that ecclesiastical judges should have authority to call their own sovereign to appear before them into their consistories, there to examine, to judge, and by excommunication to punish them, if so be they be found culpable.

But concerning excommunication, such as is only a dutiful, religious, and holy refusal to admit notorious transgressors in so extreme degree unto the blessed communion of saints, especially the mysteries of the Body and Blood of Christ, till their humbled penitent minds be made manifest: this we grant every king bound to abide at the hands of any minister of God wheresoever through the world. As for judicial authority to punish malefactors, if the king be as the kings of Israel were, and as every of ours is, a supreme Lord, than whom none under God is by way of ruling authority and power higher, where he reigneth, how should any man there have the high place of a judge over him? He must be more than thine equal that hath a chastising power over thee: so far is it off that any under thee should be thy judge. Wherefore, sith the kings of England are within their own dominions the most high, and can have no peer, how is it possible that any, either civil or ecclesiastical person under them should have over them coercive power, when such power would make that person so far forth his superior’s superior, ruler, and judge? It cannot therefore stand with the nature of such sovereign regiment that any subject should have power to exercise on kings so highly authorized the greatest censure of excommunication, according to the platform of Reformed Discipline: but if this ought to take place, the other is necessarily to give place. For which cause, till better reason be brought, to prove that kings cannot lawfully be exempted from subjection unto ecclesiastical courts, we must and do affirm their said exemption lawful.

* * * * * *

APPENDIX, No. I.

[ Supposed Fragment of a Sermon on Civil Obedience, hitherto printed as part of the Eighth Book. ]

* * * * * * * * *

BOOK VIII. Appendix, No. 1.  Yea that [1] which is more, the laws thus made, God himself doth in such sort authorize, that to despise them, is to despise in them him. It is a loose and licentious opinion, which the Anabaptists have embraced, holding that a Christian man’s liberty is lost, and the soul which Christ hath redeemed unto himself injuriously drawn into servitude under the yoke of human power, if any law be now imposed besides the Gospel of Christ, in obedience whereunto the Spirit of God, and not the constraint of men, is to lead us, according to that of the blessed Apostle [2] , “Such as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,” and not such as live in thraldom unto men. Their judgment is therefore that the Church of Christ should admit [a] no lawmakers but the evangelists, no courts but presbyteries, no punishments but ecclesiastical censures.

As against this sort, we are to maintain the use of human laws, and the continual necessity of making them from time to time, as long as this present world doth last; so likewise the authority of laws so made doth need much more by us to be strengthened against another sort, who, although they do not utterly condemn the making of laws in the Church, yet make they a great [b] deal less account of them than they should do. There are which think simply of human laws, that they can in no sort touch the conscience; that to break and transgress them cannot make men in the sight of God culpable as sin doth; only when we violate such laws, we do thereby make ourselves obnoxious unto external punishment in this world, so that the magistrate may in regard of such offence committed justly correct the offender, and cause him without injury to endure such pain as the law [c] doth appoint; but further it reacheth not. For first, the conscience is the proper court of God, the guiltiness thereof is sin, and the punishment eternal death: men are not able to make any law that shall command the heart, it is not in them to make the [d] inward conceit a crime, or to appoint for any crime other punishment than corporal: their laws therefore can have no power over the soul, neither can the heart of man be polluted by transgressing them. St. Austine [1] rightly defineth sin to be that which is spoken, done or desired, not against any law [e] , but against the law of the living God. The law of God is proposed unto men, as a glass wherein to behold the stains and spots [f] of their sinful souls. By it they are to judge themselves, and when they find [g] themselves to have transgressed against it, then to bewail their offences with David [2] , “Against thee only, O Lord, have I sinned, and done wickedly in thy sight;” that so our present tears may extinguish the flames, which otherwise we are to feel, and which God in that day shall condemn the wicked unto, when they shall render account of the evil which they have done, not by violating statute laws and canons, but by disobedience unto his law and word [h] .

For our better instruction therefore concerning [i] this point, first we must note, that the law of God himself [k] doth require at our hands subjection. “Be ye subject [3] ,” saith St. Peter; and St. Paul, “ [4] Let every soul be subject; subject all unto such powers as are set over us.” For if such as are not set over us require our subjection, we by denying it are not disobedient to the law of God, or undutiful unto higher powers; because though they be such in regard of them over whom they have lawful dominion, yet having not so over us, unto us they are not such [5] .

Subjection therefore we owe, and that by the law of God; we are in conscience bound to yield it even unto every of them that hold the seats of authority and power in relation unto us. Howbeit, not all kind [l] of subjection unto every such kind of power. Concerning Scribes and Pharisees, our Saviour’s precept was [1] , “Whatsoever they shall tell you [m] , do it;” was it his meaning, that if they should at any time enjoin the people to levy an army, or to sell their lands and goods for the furtherance of so great an enterprize; and in a word, that simply whatsoever [n] it were which they did command, they ought without any exception forthwith to be obeyed? No, but “whatsoever they shall tell you,” must be understood in pertinentibus ad Cathedram, it must be construed with limitation, and restrained unto things of that kind which did belong to their place and power. For they had not power general, absolutely given them to command in [o] all things.

The reason why we are bound in conscience to be subject unto all such power [p] is, because all “powers are of God [2] .” They are of God either instituting or permitting them. Power is then of divine institution, when either God himself doth deliver, or men by light of nature find out the kind thereof. So that the power of parents over children, and of husbands over their wives, the power of all sorts of superiors, made by consent of commonwealths within themselves, or grown from agreement amongst nations, such power is of God’s own institution in respect of the kind thereof. Again, if respect be had unto those particular persons to whom the same is derived, if they either receive it immediately from God, as Moses and Aaron did; or from nature, as parents do; or from men by a natural and orderly course, as every governor appointed in any commonwealth, by the order [q] thereof, doth: then is not the kind of their power only of God’s institution [r] , but the derivation thereof also into their persons, is from him. He hath placed them in their rooms, and doth term them his ministers; subjection therefore is due unto all such powers, inasmuch as they are of God’s own institution, even then when they are of man’s creation, omni humanæ creaturæ [s] : which things the heathens themselves do acknowledge:

Σκηπτου̑χος βασιλεὺς, ᾠ̑τε Ζεὶς κυ̑δος ἔδωκεν [1] [s] .

As for them that exercise power altogether against order, although the kind of power which they have may be of God, yet is their exercise thereof against God, and therefore not of God, otherwise than by permission, as all injustice is.

Touching such acts as are done by that power which is according to his institution, that God in like sort doth authorize them, and account them to be his; though it were not confessed, it might be proved undeniable [t] . For if that be accounted our deed, which others do, whom we have appointed to be our agents, how should God but approve those deeds, even as his own, which are done by virtue of that commission and power which he hath given. “Take heed,” saith Jehoshaphat unto his judges [2] , “be careful and circumspect what ye do; ye do not execute the judgments of men, but of the Lord.” The authority of Cæsar over the Jews, from whence was it? Had it any other ground than the law of nations, which maketh kingdoms, subdued by just war, to be subject unto their conquerors? By this power Cæsar exacting tribute, our Saviour confesseth it to be his right, a right which could not be withheld without injury; yea disobedience herein unto him had been [u] rebellion against God. Usurpers of power, whereby we do not mean them that by violence have aspired unto places of highest authority, but them that use more authority than they did ever receive in form and manner beforementioned: (for so they may do, whose title unto the rooms of authority which they possess, no man can deny to be just and lawful: even as contrariwise some men’s proceedings in government have been very orderly, who notwithstanding did not attain to be made governors without great violence and disorder;) such usurpers therefore [x] , as in the exercise of their power do more than they have been authorized to do, cannot in conscience bind any man unto obedience.

That subjection which we owe unto lawful powers, doth not only import that we should be under them by order of our state, but that we shew all submission towards them both by honour and obedience. He that resisteth them, resisteth God:     BOOK VIII. Appendix, No. 2.  and resisted they are [y] , if either the authority itself which they exercise be denied, as by Anabaptists all secular jurisdiction is [z] ; or if resistance be made but only so far forth as doth touch their persons which are invested with power (for they which said, Nolumus hunc regnare, did not utterly exclude regiment; nor did they wish all kind of government clean [a] removed, which would not at the first have David govern [b] ): or if that which they do by virtue of their power, namely, their laws, edicts, sentences [c] , or other acts of jurisdiction, be not suffered to take effect, contrary to the blessed Apostle’s most holy precept [d] , “Obey them that have the oversight of you [1] .” Or if they do take effect, yet is not the will of God thereby satisfied neither, as long as that which we do is contemptuously or repiningly done, because we can do no otherwise. In such sort the Israelites in the desert obeyed Moses, and were notwithstanding deservedly plagued for disobedience. The Apostle’s precept therefore is, “Be subject even for God’s cause; be subject, not for fear, but for [e] mere conscience, knowing, that he which resisteth them, purchaseth unto himself condemnation.” Disobedience therefore unto laws which are made by men [f] is not a thing of so small account as some would make it.

Howbeit, too rigorous it were, that the breach of every human law should be held a deadly sin: a mean there is between those extremities, if so be we can find it out.

* * * * * * * * *

APPENDIX, No. II.

A Discovery of the Causes of the Continuance of these Contentions concerning Church Government, out of the Fragments of Richard Hooker [2] .

CONTENTION ariseth, either through error in men’s judgments, or else disorder in their affections.

When contention doth grow by error in judgment, it ceaseth not till men by instruction come to see wherein they err, and what it is that did deceive them. Without this, there is neither policy nor punishment that can establish peace in the Church.

The Moscovian emperor [1] , being weary of the infinite strifes and contentions amongst preachers, and by their occasion amongst others, forbad preaching utterly throughout all his dominions; and instead thereof commanded certain sermons of the Greek and Latin Fathers to be translated, and them to be read in public assemblies, without adding a word of their own thereunto upon pain of death. He thought by this politic devise to bring them to agreement, or at least to cover their disagreement. But so bad a policy was no fit salve for so great a sore.

We may think perhaps, that punishment would have been more effectual to that purpose. For neither did Solomon speak without book in saying [1] , that when “folly is bound up in the heart of a child, the rod of correction must drive it out;” and experience doth shew, that when error hath once disquieted the minds of men and made them restless, if they do not fear they will terrify. Neither hath it repented the Church at any time to have used the rod in moderate severity for the speedier reclaiming of men from error, and the reuniting [u] such as by schism have sundered themselves. But we find by trial, that as being taught and not terrified, they shut their ears against the word of truth, and soothe themselves in that wherewith custom or sinister persuasion hath inured them: so contrariwise, if they be terrified and not taught, their punishment doth not commonly work their amendment.

As Moses therefore, so likewise Aaron; as Zerubabel, so Jehoshua; as the prince which hath laboured by the sceptre of righteousness and sword of justice to end strife, so the prophets which with the book and doctrine of salvation have soundly and wisely endeavoured to instruct the ignorant in those litigious points wherewith the Church is now troubled: whether by preaching, as Apollos among the Jews; or by disputing, as Paul at Athens, or by writing, as the learned in their several times and ages heretofore, or by conferring in synods and councils, as Peter, James, and others at Jerusalem, or by any the like allowable and laudable means; their praise is worthily in the gospel [2] , and their portion in that promise which God hath made by his prophet [3] , “They that turn many unto “righteousness shall shine as the stars for ever and ever;” I say, whosoever have soundly and wisely endeavoured by those means to reclaim the ignorant from their error, and to make peace.

Want of sound proceeding in church controversies hath made many more stiff in error now than before.

Want of wise and discreet dealing, hath much hindered the peace of the Church. It may be thought, and is, that Arius had never raised those tempestuous storms which we read he did; if Alexander, the first that withstood the Arians’ heresy, had borne himself with greater moderation, and been less eager [1] in so good a cause. Sulpitius Severus doth note as much in the dealings of Idacius [2] against the favourers of Priscillian, when that heresy was but green and new sprung up. For by overmuch vehemency against Jactantius [y] and his mates, a spark was made a flame: insomuch that thereby the seditious waxed rather more fierce than less troublesome. In matters of so great moment, whereupon the peace or disturbance of the Church is known to depend, if there were in us that reverend care which should be; it is not possible we should either speak at any time without fear, or ever write but with a trembling hand. Do they consider whereabout they go, or what it is they have in hand, who taking upon them the causes of God, deal only or chiefly against the persons of men?

We cannot altogether excuse ourselves in this respect, whose home controversies and debates at this day, although I trust they be as the strife of Paul with Barnabas and not with Elymas, yet because there is a truth, which on the one side being unknown hath caused contention, I do wish it had pleased Almighty God, that in sifting it out, those offences had not grown, which I had rather bewail with secret tears than public speech.

Nevertheless as some sort of people is reported to have bred a detestation of drunkenness in their children by presenting the deformity thereof in servants, so it may come to pass (I wish it might) that we beholding more foul deformity [z] in the face and countenance of a common adversary, shall be induced to correct some smaller blemishes in our own. Ye are not ignorant of the Demands [3] , Motives [1] , Censures [2] , Apologies [3] , Defences, and other writings, which our great enemies have published under colour of seeking peace; promising to bring nothing but reason and evident remonstrance of truth. But who seeth not how full gorged they are with virulent, slanderous, and immodest speeches, tending much to the disgrace, to the disproof nothing, of that cause which they endeavour to overthrow? “Will you speak wickedly for God’s defence [4] ?” saith Job. Will you dip your tongues in gall and your pens in blood, when you [a] write and speak in his cause? Is the truth confirmed, are men convicted of their error when they are upbraided with the miseries of their condition and estate? When their understanding, wit, and knowledge is depressed? When suspicions and rumours, without respect how true or how false, are objected to diminish their credit and estimation in the world? Is it likely that Invectives, Epigrams, Dialogues, Epistles, Libels, laden with contumelies and criminations, should be the means to procure peace? Surely they which do take this course, “the way of peace they have not known [5] .” If they did but once enter into a stayed consideration with themselves what they do, no doubt they would give over and resolve with Job [6] , “Behold I am vile, what shall I answer? I will lay my hand upon my mouth. If I have spoken once amiss, I will speak no more; or if twice, I will proceed no further.”

II. But how sober and how sound soever our proceeding be in these causes; all is in vain which we do to abate the errors of men, except their unruly affections be bridled. Self-love, vainglory, impatience, pride, pertinacy, these are the bane of our peace. And these are not conquered or cast out, but by prayer. Pray for Jerusalem, and your prayer shall cause “the hills to bring forth peace [7] :” peace shall distil and “come down like the rain upon the mown grass, and as the showers that water the earth.” We have used all other means, and behold we are frustrate, we have laboured in vain. In disputations, whether it be because men are ashamed to acknowledge their errors before many witnesses, or because extemporality doth exclude mature and ripe advice without which the truth cannot soundly and thoroughly be demonstrated, or because the fervour of contention doth so disturb men’s understanding, that they cannot sincerely and effectually judge:     BOOK VIII. Appendix, No. 3.  in books and sermons, whether it be because we do speak and write with too little advice, or because you do hear and read with too much prejudice: in all human means which have hitherto been used to procure peace; whether it be because our dealings have been too feeble, or the minds of men with whom we have dealt too too implacable, or whatsoever the cause or causes have been: forasmuch as we see that as yet we fail in our desires, yea the ways which we take to be most likely to make peace, do but move strife; O that we would now hold our tongues, leave contending with men, and have our talk and treaty of peace with God. We have spoken and written enough of peace [b] : there is no way [c] left but this one [1] , “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.”

APPENDIX, No. III.

A Table, shewing how the several portions of the Eighth Book in Dobson’s edition, 1825, Vol. II. are distributed in the present.

I.

“We come now,” p. 379, to “lawfully overrule,” p. 391.

See above, c. i. 1-ii. 3.

II.

“It hath been declared,” p. 391, to “ecclesiastical laws,” p. 393.

See above, c. ii. 17.

III.

“Unto which supreme,” p. 393, to “most reasonable,” p. 402.

See above, c. ii. 4-16.

IV.

“The cause of deriving,” p. 402, to “hath been shewed,” p. 404.

See above, c. ii. 18. iii. 1.

V.

“For the title or style,” p. 404, to “ought to have,” p. 405.

See above, c. iv. 8.

VI.

“These things being first,” p. 405, to “Hercules to tame them,” p. 418.

See above, c. iv. 1-7.

VII.

“The last difference,” p. 418, to “or to any part,” p. 422.

See above, c. iv. 9-12.

VIII.

“Among sundry prerogatives,” p. 422, to “and others,” p. 423.

See above, c. v. 1. latter part.

IX.

“The consuls of Rome,” p. 423, to “than the other,” ibid.

See above, c. v. 1. former part.

X.

“Wherefore the clergy,” ibid. to “shall not need,” ibid.

See above, c. v. 2. last paragraph.

XI.

“The ancient imperial,” ibid. to “meetings ecclesiastical,” p. 425.

See above, c. v. 2. former part.

XII.

“There are which wonder,” p. 425, to “do withstand,” p. 432.

See above, c. vi. 10-14. former part.

XIII.

“Touching the king’s,” p. 432, to “of the truth therein,” p. 443.

See above, c. viii. 1-9.

XIV.

“The case is not like,” p. 443, to “assent not asked,” p. 449.

See above, c. vi. 4-9.

XV.

“Yea, that which is more,” p. 449, to “can find it out,” p. 453.

See above, Appendix to B. VIII. No. I.

A Table, shewing the arrangement of the fragments in Bernard’s Clavi Trabales, as compared with the present Edition.

P. 65.

“The service which we do,” to “kings and priests,” p. 71.

See above, c. iii. 2-6.

P. 71.

“Wherein it is,” to “unto kings,” p. 72.

See above, c. vi. 14. note 1, p. 418.

P. 72.

“Although not both,” to “over the Church,” ibid.

See above, c. vi. 14. latter part.

P. 73.

“The case is not like,” to “commonwealth hath simply,” p. 76.

See above, c. vi. 4-6.

P. 77.

“Touching the advancement,” to “sufficiently spoken before,” p. 86.

See above, c. vii. 1-7.

P. 86.

“As therefore the person” to “he came not,” p. 87.

See above, c. viii. 7, 8.

P. 88.

“Besides these testimonies,” to “bear rule,” ibid.

See above, c. viii. 8. note 3, p. 440.

P. 88.

“We may by these testimonies,” to “the truth therein,” p. 92.

See above, c. viii. 9.

P. 92.

“The last thing,” to “accountable to any,” p. 94.

See above, c. ix. 1, 2.

APPENDIX, No. IV.

The following are detached notes in the Dublin MS. which occur,     BOOK VIII. Appendix, No. 4.  with an interval of one blank page, immediately after the dissertation on the making of laws, p. 419. The words “one man,” at the top, probably refer to some passage intended to be produced for refutation.

“ One man. Then could not any of them be under another’s authority so far as thereby to be either licensed or hindered in those things which he doth by the said power, but God alone should himself on earth authorize and disauthorize all that bare rule in the Church. Wherefore, to set down briefly that which we hold for truth. Power ecclesiastical itself is originally God’s ordinance: he hath appointed it to be; and therefore in that respect on him only they all which have it are most rightly said to depend. The derivation of that power into the several persons which have it is the proper deed of the Church, and of those high ministers which are in that case appointed to ordain and consecrate such as from time to time shall exercise and use the same.

“Furthermore, sith when they have that power, it resteth nevertheless unexercised, except some part of the people of God be permitted them to work upon; they must of necessity for the peaceable and quiet practice of their authority upon the persons of men, where all are subject to a Christian king, depend in that respect on him also. By holding therefore this dependency whereof we speak, it is not meant that either the king did first institute, or that he doth confer and give, the grace of ecclesiastical presidency; but only add unto it exercise by the furtherance of his supereminent authority and power, without the predominant concurrency whereof spiritual jurisdiction could take no effect, men’s persons could not in open and orderly sort be subject thereunto. A bishop, whose calling is authorized wholly from God, and received by imposition of sacred hands, can execute safely no act of episcopal authority on any one of the king’s liege people, otherwise than under him who hath sovereignty over them all.”

The election of Bishops.

At the first, the first created in the College of Presbyters was still the Bishop [1] : he dying, the next senior did succeed him. “Sed quia cœperunt sequentes Presbyteri indigni inveniri ad primatus tenendos, immutata est ratio; prospiciente Concilio ut non ordo sed meritum crearet Episcopum, multorum sacerdotum judicio constitutum, ne indignus temere usurparet, et esset multis scandalum.” Ambr. in 4. ad Eph.

“Apud nos Apostolorum locum episcopi tenent. Bishops, the Apostles’ successors. Hieron. Epist. 54.” (al. 41. tom. i. 187. ed. Vallars.) “ad Marcell.” “Absit ut de his quicquam sinistrum loquar, qui Apostolico gradui succedentes Christi Corpus sacro ore conficiunt.” “Speech against the clergy of God irreligious. Hieron. Ep. 1. ad Heliodor.” (al. 14. § 8. t. i. 33.)

“Privileges granted unto the Clergy. A law in general, to make good all such privileges as by way of honour had been granted to the clergy before, the Roman emperor thought himself bound in conscience to ratify.” L. xii. c. De Sacr. Eccl. [Cod. i. tit. ii. lex 12. AD 454. “Privilegia, quæ generalibus constitutionibus universis sacrosanctis ecclesiis orthodoxæ religionis retro Principes præstiterunt, firma et illibata in perpetuum decernimus custodiri.”] “Again, whereas Church lands did before stand charged with ordinary burdens even of the meanest kind, this the law imperial taketh away as a thing contumelious unto religion, and giveth for the time to come a privilege of immunity from such burdens.” “Prima illius usurpationis contumelia depellenda est, ne prædia usibus cœlestium secretorum dedicata, sordidorum munerum fæce vexentur.” L. v. c. De Sacr. Eccles. [ AD 412.] “Imprimis concessimus Deo, et hac præsenti charta nostra confirmavimus, pro nobis et hæredibus nostris in perpetuum, quod Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit, et habeat omnia jura sua integra, et libertates suas illæsas.” Magn. Chart. cap. 1.

A LEARNED AND COMFORTABLE SERMON OF THE CERTAINTY AND PERPETUITY OF FAITH IN THE ELECT.

ESPECIALLY OF THE PROPHET HABAKKUK’S FAITH [1] .

HABAK. i. 4.

[“Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth.”]

Whether the Prophet Habakkuk [2] , by admitting this cogitation into his mind, “The law doth fail,” did thereby shew himself an unbeliever.

SERM. 1.  WE have seen in the opening of this clause which concerneth the weakness of the prophet’s faith, first what things they are whereunto the faith of sound believers doth assent: secondly, wherefore all men assent not thereunto: and thirdly, why they that do, do it many times with small assurance. Now because nothing can be so truly spoken, but through misunderstanding it may be depraved; therefore to prevent, if it be possible, all misconstruction in this cause, where a small error cannot rise but with great danger, it is perhaps needful, ere we come to the fourth point, that something be added to that which hath been already spoken concerning the third.

That mere natural men do neither know nor acknowledge the things of God, we do not marvel, because they are spiritually to be discerned; but they in whose hearts the light of grace doth shine, they that are taught of God, why are they so weak in faith? Why is their assenting to the law so scrupulous, so much mingled with fear and wavering? It seemeth strange that ever they should imagine the law to fail. It cannot seem strange if we weigh the reason. If the things which we believe be considered in themselves, it may truly be said that faith is more certain than any science. That which we know either by sense, or by infallible demonstration, is not so certain as the principles, articles, and conclusions of Christian faith. Concerning which we must note, that there is a Certainty of Evidence and a Certainty of Adherence. Certainty of Evidence we call that, when the mind doth assent unto this or that, not because it is true in itself, but because the truth is clear, because it is manifest to us. Of things in themselves most certain, except they be also most evident, our persuasion is not so assured as it is of things more evident, although in themselves they be less certain. It is as sure, if not surer, that there be spirits, as that there be men; but we be more assured of these than of them, because these are more evident. The truth of some things is so evident, that no man which heareth them can doubt of them: as when we hear that “a part of any thing is less than the whole,” the mind is constrained to say, this is true. If it were so in matters of faith, then, as all men have equal certainty of this, so no believer should be more scrupulous and doubtful than another. But we find the contrary. The angels and spirits of the righteous in heaven have certainty most evident of things spiritual: but this they have by the light of glory. That which we see by the light of grace, though it be indeed more certain; yet is it not to us so evidently certain, as that which sense or the light of nature will not suffer a man to doubt of. Proofs are vain and frivolous except they be more certain than is the thing proved: and do we not see how the Spirit every where in the Scripture proveth matters of faith, laboureth to confirm us in the things which we believe, by things whereof we have sensible knowledge? I conclude therefore that we have less certainty of evidence concerning things believed, than concerning sensible or naturally perceived. Of these who doth doubt at any time? Of them at some time who doubteth not? I will not here allege the sundry confessions of the perfectest that have lived upon earth concerning their great imperfections this way; which if I did, I should dwell too long upon a matter sufficiently known by every faithful man that doth know himself.

The other, which we call the Certainty of Adherence, is when the heart doth cleave and stick unto that which it doth believe. This certainty is greater in us than the other. The reason is this: the faith of a Christian doth apprehend the words of the law, the promises of God, not only as true, but also as good; and therefore even then when the evidence which he hath of the truth is so small that it grieveth him to feel his weakness in assenting thereto, yet is there in him such a sure adherence unto that which he doth but faintly and fearfully believe, that his spirit having once truly tasted the heavenly sweetness thereof, all the world is not able quite and clean to remove him from it; but he striveth with himself to hope against all reason of believing, being settled with Job upon this unmoveable resolution, “Though God kill me, I will not give over trusting in him [1] .” For why? this lesson remaineth for ever imprinted in him, “It is good for me to cleave unto God [2] .”

Now the minds of all men being so darkened as they are with the foggy damp of original corruption, it cannot be that any man’s heart living should be either so enlightened in the knowledge, or so established in the love of that wherein his salvation standeth, as to be perfect, neither doubting nor shrinking at all. If any such were, what doth let why that man should not be justified by his own inherent righteousness? For righteousness inherent, being perfect, will justify. And perfect faith is a part of perfect righteousness inherent; yea a principal part, the root and the mother of all the rest: so that if the fruit of every tree be such as the root is, faith being perfect, as it is if it be not at all mingled with distrust and fear, what is there to exclude other Christian virtues from the like perfections? And then what need we the righteousness of Christ? His garment is superfluous: we may be honourably clothed with our own robes, if it be thus. But let them beware who challenge to themselves a strength which they have not, lest they lose the comfortable support of that weakness which indeed they have.

Some shew, although no soundness of ground, there is, which may be alleged for defence of this supposed perfection in certainty touching matters of our faith; as, first, that Abraham did believe and doubted not: secondly, that the Spirit which God hath given us to no other end, but only to assure us that we are the sons of God, to embolden us to call upon him as our Father, to open our eyes, and to make the truth of things believed evident unto our minds, is much mightier in operation than the common light of nature, whereby we discern sensible things: wherefore we must needs be more sure of that we believe, than of that we see; we must needs be more certain of the mercies of God in Christ Jesus, than we are of the light of the sun when it shineth upon our faces.

To that of Abraham, “He did not doubt [1] ;” I answer, that this negation doth not exclude all fear, all doubting; but only that which cannot stand with true faith. It freeth Abraham from doubting through infidelity, not from doubting through infirmity; from the doubting of Unbelievers, not of weak Believers; from such a doubting as that whereof the prince of Samaria is attainted, who hearing the promise of sudden plenty in the midst of extreme dearth, answered, “Though the Lord would make windows in heaven, were it possible so to come to pass [2] ?” But that Abraham was not void of all doubtings, what need we any other proof than the plain evidence of his own words [3] ?

The reason which is taken from the power of the Spirit were effectual, if God did work like a natural agent, as the fire doth inflame, and the sun enlighten, according to the uttermost ability which they have to bring forth their effects. But the incomprehensible wisdom of God doth limit the effects of his power to such a measure as seemeth best unto himself. Wherefore he worketh that certainty in all, which sufficeth abundantly to their salvation in the life to come; but in none so great as attaineth in this life unto perfection. Even so, O Lord, it hath pleased thee; even so it is best and fittest for us, that feeling still our own infirmities, we may no longer breathe than pray, Adjuva, Domine; “Help, Lord, our incredulity [1] .” Of the third question, this I hope will suffice, being added unto that which hath been thereof already spoken. The fourth question resteth, and so an end of this point.

That which cometh last of all in this first branch to be considered concerning the weakness of the Prophet’s faith, “Whether he did by this very thought, The law doth fail, quench the Spirit, fall from faith, and shew himself an unbeliever or no?” The question is of moment; the repose and tranquillity of infinite souls doth depend upon it. The Prophet’s case is the case of many; which way soever we cast for him, the same way it passeth for all others. If in him this cogitation did extinguish grace, why the like thoughts in us should not take the like effect, there is no cause. Forasmuch therefore as the matter is weighty, dear, and precious, which we have in hand, it behoveth us with so much the greater chariness to wade through it, taking special heed both what we build, and whereon we build: that if our building be pearl, our foundation be not stubble; if the doctrine we teach be full of comfort and consolation, the ground whereupon we gather it be sure; otherwise we shall not save but deceive both ourselves and others. In this we know we are not deceived, neither can we deceive you, when we teach that the faith whereby ye are sanctified cannot fail; it did not in the Prophet, it shall not in you. If it be so, let the difference be shewed between the condition of unbelievers and his, in this or in the like imbecility and weakness. There was in Habakkuk that which St. John doth call “the seed of God [2] ,” meaning thereby the first grace which God poureth into the hearts of them that are incorporated into Christ; which having received, if because it is an adversary unto sin, we do therefore think we sin not, both otherwise, and also by distrustful and doubtful apprehending of that which we ought steadfastly to believe, surely we do but deceive ourselves. Yet they which are of God do not sin either in this, or in any thing, any such sin as doth quite extinguish grace, clean cut them off from Christ Jesus; because the “seed of God” abideth in them, and doth shield them from receiving any irremediable wound. Their faith, when it is at the strongest, is but weak; yet even then when it is at the weakest, so strong, that utterly it never faileth, it never perisheth altogether, no not in them who think it extinguished in themselves. There are for whose sakes I dare not deal slightly in this cause, sparing that labour which must be bestowed to make it plain. Men in like agonies unto this of the Prophet Habakkuk’s are through the extremity of grief many times in judgment so confounded, that they find not themselves in themselves. For that which dwelleth in their hearts they seek, they make diligent search and inquiry. It abideth, it worketh in them, yet still they ask where? Still they lament as for a thing which is past finding: they mourn as Rachel, and refuse to be comforted, as if that were not, which indeed is, and as if that which is not, were; as if they did not believe when they do, and as if they did despair when they do not. Which in some I grant is but a melancholy passion, proceeding only from that dejection of mind, the cause whereof is the body, and by bodily means can be taken away. But where there is no such bodily cause, the mind is not lightly in this mood, but by some of these three occasions. One, that judging by comparison either with other men, or with themselves at some other time more strong, they think imperfection to be a plain deprivation, weakness to be utter want of faith.

Another cause is, they often mistake one thing for another. St. Paul wishing well to the Church of Rome prayeth for them after this sort: “The God of hope fill you with all joy of believing [1] .” Hence an error groweth, when men in heaviness of spirit suppose they lack faith, because they find not the sugared joy and delight which indeed doth accompany faith, but so as a separable accident, as a thing that may be removed from it; yea, there is a cause why it should be removed. The light would never be so acceptable, were it not for that usual intercourse of darkness. Too much honey doth turn to gall; and too much joy even spiritually would make us wantons. Happier a great deal is that man’s case, whose soul by inward desolation is humbled, than he whose heart is through abundance of spiritual delight lifted up and exalted above measure. Better it is sometimes to go down into the pit with him, who, beholding darkness, and bewailing the loss of inward joy and consolation, crieth from the bottom of the lowest hell, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me [1] ?” than continually to walk arm in arm with angels, to sit as it were in Abraham’s bosom, and to have no thought, no cogitation, but “I thank my God it is not with me as it is with other men [2] .” No, God will have them that shall walk in light to feel now and then what it is to sit in the shadow of death. A grieved spirit therefore is no argument of a faithless mind.

A third occasion of men’s misjudging themselves, as if they were faithless when they are not, is, they fasten their cogitations upon the distrustful suggestions of the flesh, whereof finding great abundance in themselves, they gather thereby, Surely unbelief hath full dominion, it hath taken plenary possession of me; if I were faithful, it could not be thus: not marking the motions of the Spirit and of faith, because they lie buried and overwhelmed with the contrary: when notwithstanding as the blessed Apostle doth acknowledge [3] , that “the spirit groaneth,” and that God heareth when we do not; so there is no doubt, but that our faith may have and hath her privy operations secret to us in whom, yet known to him by whom, they are.

Tell this to a man that hath a mind deceived by too hard an opinion of himself, and it doth but augment his grief: he hath his answer ready, Will you make me think otherwise than I find, than I feel in myself? I have thoroughly considered and exquisitely sifted all the corners of my heart, and I see what there is; never seek to persuade me against my knowledge; “I do not, I know I do not believe.”

Well, to favour them a little in their weakness; let that be granted which they do imagine; be it that they are faithless and without belief. But are they not grieved for their unbelief? They are. Do they not wish it might, and also strive that it may, be otherwise? We know they do. Whence cometh this, but from a secret love and liking which they have of those things that are believed? No man can love things which in his own opinion are not. And if they think those things to be, which they shew that they love when they desire to believe them; then must it needs be, that by desiring to believe they prove themselves true believers. For without faith, no man thinketh that things believed are. Which argument all the subtilty of infernal powers will never be able to dissolve.

The faith therefore of true believers, though it have many and grievous downfalls, yet doth it still continue invincible; it conquereth and recovereth itself in the end. The dangerous conflicts whereunto it is subject are not able to prevail against it. The Prophet Habakkuk remained faithful in weakness, though weak in faith.

It is true, such is our weak and wavering nature, we have no sooner received grace, but we are ready to fall from it: we have no sooner given our assent to the law, that it cannot fail, but the next conceit which we are ready to embrace is, that it may, and that it doth fail. Though we find in ourselves a most willing heart to cleave unseparably unto God, even so far as to think unfeignedly with Peter, “Lord, I am ready to go with thee into prison and to death [1] ;” yet how soon and how easily, upon how small occasions are we changed, if we be but a while let alone and left unto ourselves? The Galatians [2] to-day, for their sakes which teach them the truth in Christ, content, if need were, to pluck out their own eyes [3] , and the next day ready to pluck out theirs which taught them. The love of the Angel of [4] the Church of Ephesus, how greatly inflamed, and how quickly slacked [5] .

The higher we flow, the nearer we are unto an ebb, if men be respected as mere men, according to the wonted course of their alterable inclination, without the heavenly support of the Spirit.

Again, the desire of our ghostly enemy is so uncredible, and his means so forcible to overthrow our faith, that whom the blessed Apostle knew betrothed and made hand-fast unto Christ, to them he could not write but with great trembling: “I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I have prepared you to one husband to present you a pure virgin unto Christ: but I fear, lest as the Serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity which is in Christ [6] .” The simplicity of faith which is in Christ taketh the naked promise of God, his bare word, and on that it resteth. This simplicity the serpent laboureth continually to pervert, corrupting the mind with many imaginations of repugnancy and contrariety between the promise of God, and those things which sense or experience or some other fore-conceived persuasion hath imprinted.

The word of the promise of God unto his people is, “I will not leave thee nor forsake thee [1] :” upon this the simplicity of faith resteth, and it is not afraid of famine. But mark how the subtilty of Satan [2] did corrupt the minds of that rebellious generation, whose spirits were not faithful unto God. They beheld the desolate state of the desert in which they were, and by the wisdom of their sense concluded the promise of God to be but folly: “Can God prepare a table in the wilderness [3] ?”

The word of the promise to Sara was, “Thou shalt bear a son.” Faith is simple, and doubteth not of it: but Satan, to corrupt the simplicity of faith, entangleth the mind of the woman with an argument drawn from common experience to the contrary: “A woman that is old! Sara now to be acquainted again with forgotten passions of youth [4] !”

The word of the promise of God by Moses and the prophets made the Saviour of the world so apparent unto Philip, that his simplicity could conceive no other Messias than Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph. But to stay Nathanael, lest being invited to come and see, he should also believe, and so be saved, the subtilty of Satan casteth a mist before his eyes, putteth in his head against this the common-conceived persuasion of all men concerning Nazareth: “Is it possible that a good thing should come from thence [5] ?”

This stratagem he doth use with so great dexterity, the minds of all men are so strangely ensorceled [6] with it, that it bereaveth them for the time of all perceivance of that which should relieve them and be their comfort; yea it taketh all remembrance from them, even of things wherewith they are most familiarly acquainted. The people of Israel could not be ignorant, that he which led them through the sea was able to feed them in the desert: but this was obliterated and put out by the sense of their present want. Feeling the hand of God against them in their food, they remembered not his hand in the day that he delivered them from the hand of the oppressor. Sara was not then to learn, that “with God all things were possible [1] .” Had Nathanael never noted how “God doth choose the base things of this world to disgrace them that are most honourably esteemed [2] ?”

The prophet Habakkuk knew that the promises of grace, protection, and favour, which God in the law doth make unto his people, do not grant them any such immunity as can free and exempt them from all chastisements: he knew that as God said, “I will continue my mercy for ever towards them;” so he likewise said, “Their transgressions I will punish with a rod [3] :” he knew that it cannot stand with any reason we should set the measure of our own punishments, and prescribe unto God how great or how long our sufferings shall be: he knew that we were blind, and altogether ignorant what is best for us; that we sue for many things very unwisely against ourselves, thinking we ask fish when indeed we crave a serpent: he knew that when the thing we ask is good, and yet God seemeth slow to grant it, he doth not deny but defer our petitions, to the end we might learn to desire great things greatly: all this he knew. But, beholding the land which God had severed for his own people, and seeing it abandoned unto heathen nations; viewing how reproachfully they did tread it down, and wholly make havock of it at their pleasure; beholding the Lord’s own royal seat made a heap of stones, his temple defiled, the carcasses of his servants cast out for the fowls of the air to devour, and the flesh of his meek ones for the beasts of the field to feed upon; being conscious to himself how long and how earnestly he had cried, “Succour us, O God of our welfare, for the glory of thine own name [4] ;” and feeling that their sore was still increased: the conceit of repugnancy between this which was object to his eyes, and that which faith upon promise of the law did look for, made so deep an impression and so strong, that he disputeth not the matter; but without any further inquiry or search inferreth, as we see, “The law doth fail.”

Of us who is here which cannot very soberly advise his brother? Sir, you must learn to strengthen your faith by that experience which heretofore you have had of God’s great goodness towards you: Per ea quæ agnoscas præstita, discas sperare promissa; “By those things which you have known performed, learn to hope for those things which are promised.” Do you acknowledge to have received much? Let that make you certain to receive more: Habenti dabitur; “To him that hath more shall be given.” When you doubt what you shall have, search what you have had at God’s hands. Make this reckoning, that the benefits, which he hath bestowed, are bills obligatory and sufficient sureties that he will bestow further. His present mercy is still a warrant of his future love, because, “whom he loveth, he loveth unto the end [1] .” Is it not thus?

Yet if we could reckon up as many evident, clear, undoubted signs of God’s reconciled love towards us as there are years, yea days, yea hours, past over our heads; all these set together have not such force to confirm our faith, as the loss, and sometimes the only fear of losing a little transitory goods, credit, honour, or favour of men, a small calamity, a matter of nothing to breed a conceit, and such a conceit as is not easily again removed, that we are clean crost out of God’s book, that he regards us not, that he looketh upon others, but passeth by us like a stranger to whom we are not known. Then we think, looking upon others, and comparing them with ourselves, Their tables are furnished day by day; earth and ashes are our bread: they sing to the lute, and they see their children dance before them; our hearts are heavy in our bodies as lead, our sighs beat as thick as a swift pulse, our tears do wash the beds wherein we lie: the sun shineth fair upon their foreheads; we are hanged up like bottles in the smoke, cast into corners like the sherds of a broken pot: tell not us of the promises of God’s favour, tell such as do reap the fruit of them; they belong not to us, they are made to others. The Lord be merciful to our weakness, but thus it is.

Well, let the frailty of our nature, the subtilty of Satan, the force of our deceivable imaginations be, as we cannot deny but they are, things that threaten every moment the utter subversion of our faith; faith notwithstanding is not hazarded by these things. That which one sometimes told the senators of Rome [1] , Ego sic existimabam, P. C. uti patrem sæpe meum prædicantem audiveram, qui vestram amicitiam diligenter colerent, eos multum laborem suscipere, cæterum ex omnibus maxime tutos esse; “As I have often heard my father acknowledge, so I myself did ever think, that the friends and favourers of this state charged themselves with great labour, but no man’s condition so safe as theirs;” the same we may say a great deal more justly in this case: our Fathers and Prophets, our Lord and Master hath full often spoken, by long experience we have found it true; as many as have entered their names in the mystical Book of Life, Eos maximum laborem suscipere, they have taken upon them a laboursome, a toilsome, a painful profession, sed omnium maxime tutos esse, but no man’s security like to theirs. “ [2] Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to winnow thee as wheat;” here is our toil: “but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not;” this is our safety. No man’s condition so sure as ours: the prayer of Christ is more than sufficient both to strengthen us, be we never so weak; and to overthrow all adversary power, be it never so strong and potent. His prayer must not exclude our labour. Their thoughts are vain who think that their watching can preserve the city which God himself is not willing to keep. And are not theirs as vain, who think that God will keep the city, for which they themselves are not careful to watch? The husbandman may not therefore burn his plough, nor the merchant forsake his trade, because God hath promised “I will not forsake thee.” And do the promises of God concerning our stability, think you, make it a matter indifferent for us to use or not to use the means whereby, to attend or not to attend to reading, to pray or not to pray that we “fall not into temptation?” Surely if we look to stand in the faith of the sons of God, we must hourly, continually, be providing and setting ourselves to strive. It was not the meaning of our Lord and Saviour in saying [3] , “Father, keep them in thy name,” that we should be careless to keep ourselves. To our own safety, our own sedulity is required. And then blessed for ever and ever be that mother’s child whose faith hath made him the child of God. The earth may shake, the pillars of the world may tremble under us, the countenance of the heaven may be appalled [1] , the sun may lose his light, the moon her beauty, the stars their glory; but concerning the man that trusteth in God, if the fire have proclaimed itself unable as much as to singe a hair of his head, if lions, beasts ravenous by nature and keen with hunger, being set to devour, have as it were religiously adored the very flesh of the faithful man; what is there in the world that shall change his heart, overthrow his faith, alter his affection towards God, or the affection of God to him? If I be of this note, who shall make a separation between me and my God? “Shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword [2] ?” No; “I am persuaded that neither tribulation, nor anguish, nor persecution, nor famine, nor nakedness, nor peril, nor sword, nor death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,” shall ever prevail so far over me. “I know in whom I have believed;” I am not ignorant whose precious blood hath been shed for me; I have a Shepherd full of kindness, full of care, and full of power: unto him I commit myself; his own finger hath engraven this sentence in the tables of my heart, “Satan hath desired to winnow thee as wheat, but I have prayed that thy faith fail not.” Therefore the assurance of my hope I will labour to keep as a jewel unto the end; and by labour, through the gracious mediation of his prayer, I shall keep it.

TO THE CHRISTIAN READER [1] .

WHEREAS many, desirous of resolution in some points handled in this learned discourse, were earnest to have it copied out; to ease so many labours, it hath been thought most worthy and very necessary to be printed: that not only they might be satisfied, but the whole Church also hereby edified. The rather, because it will free the author from the suspicion of some errors, which he hath been thought to have favoured. Who might well have answered with Cremutius in Tacitus, “Verba mea arguuntur; adeo factorum innocens sum [2] .” Certainly, the event of that time, wherein he lived, shewed that to be true, which the same author spake of a worse, “Cui deerat inimicus, per amicos oppressus [3] ;” and that there is not “minus periculum ex magna fama, quam ex mala.” But he hath so quit himself, that all may see how, as it was said of Agricola, “Simul suis virtutibus, simul vitiis aliorum, in ipsam gloriam præceps agebatur [4] .” Touching whom I will say no more, but that which my author said of the same man, “Integritatem, c. in tanto viro referre, injuria virtutum fuerit.” But as of all other his writings, so of this I will add that, which Velleius spake in commendation of Piso, “Nemo fuit, qui magis quæ agenda erant curaret, sine ulla ostentatione agendi [5] .” So not doubting, good Christian reader, of thy assent herein, but wishing thy favourable acceptance of this work, (which will be an inducement to set forth others of his learned labours,) I take my leave; from Corpus Christi College in Oxford, the 6th of July, 1612.

Thine in Christ Jesus,

HENRY JACKSON.

A LEARNED DISCOURSE OF JUSTIFICATION, WORKS, AND HOW THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH IS OVERTHROWN [1] .

HABAK. i. 4.

“The wicked doth compass about the righteous: therefore perverse judgment doth proceed.”

SERM. II. 1.  FOR better [a] manifestation of the prophet’s meaning in this place, we are, first, to consider “the wicked,” of whom he saith, that they “compass about the righteous:” secondly, “the righteous” that are compassed about by them: and thirdly, that which is inferred; “therefore [b] perverse judgment proceedeth.” Touching the first, there are two kinds of wicked men, of whom in the fifth of the former to the Corinthians [c] , the blessed Apostle speaketh thus [2] : “Do ye not judge them that are within?     SERM. II. 2.  but God judgeth them that are without.” There are wicked, therefore, whom the Church may judge, and there are wicked whom God only judgeth; wicked within, and wicked without, the walls of the Church. If within the Church particular persons, being apparently such, cannot [d] otherwise be reformed, the rule of apostolical [e] judgment is this [1] , “Separate them from among [f] you:” if whole assemblies, this, “Separate yourselves from among [f] them: for what society hath light with darkness?” But the wicked, whom the prophet meaneth, were Babylonians, and therefore without. For which cause we have heard at large heretofore in what sort he urgeth God to judge them.

2. Now concerning the righteous, there neither is, nor ever [h] was, any mere natural man absolutely righteous in himself: that is to say, void of all unrighteousness, of all sin. We dare not except, no not the blessed Virgin herself; of whom although we say with St. Augustine [2] , for the honour’s [i] sake which we owe to our Lord and Saviour Christ, we are not willing, in this cause, to move any question of [k] his mother; yet forasmuch as the schools of Rome have made it a question, we must [l] answer with Eusebius Emissenus [3] , who speaketh of her, and to her to [m] this effect: “Thou didst by special prerogative nine months together entertain within the closet of thy flesh the hope of all the ends of the earth, the honour of the world, the common joy of men. He, from whom all things had their beginning,     SERM. II. 3.  hath [n] had his own [o] beginning from thee; of thy body he took the blood which was to be shed for the life of the world; of thee he took that which even for thee he paid. ‘ A peccati enim veteris nexu, per se non est immunis nec ipsa genitrix Redemptoris [1] :’ The mother of the Redeemer herself, otherwise than by redemption, is not loosed from the band [p] of that ancient sin [q] [2] .” If Christ have paid a ransom for all, even for her, it followeth, that all without exception were captives. If one have died for all, all [r] were dead, dead in sin [s] ; all sinful, therefore none absolutely righteous in themselves; but we are absolutely righteous in Christ. The world then must shew a Christian [t] man, otherwise it is not able to shew a man that is perfectly righteous: “Christ is made unto us wisdom, justice, sanctification, and redemption [3] :” wisdom, because he hath revealed his Father’s will; justice, because he hath offered himself [u] a sacrifice for sin; sanctification, because he hath given us of [x] his Spirit; redemption, because he hath appointed a day to vindicate his children out of the bands of corruption into liberty which is glorious [4] . How Christ is made wisdom, and how redemption, it may be declared when occasion serveth; but how Christ is made the righteousness of men, we are now to declare.

3. There is a glorifying righteousness of men in the world to come: and [y] there is a justifying and a sanctifying righteousness here. The righteousness, wherewith we shall be clothed in the world to come, is both perfect and inherent. That whereby here we are justified is perfect, but not inherent. That whereby we are sanctified, inherent [z] , but not perfect. This openeth a way to the plain [z] understanding of that grand question,     SERM. II. 4, 5.  which hangeth yet in controversy between us and the Church of Rome, about the matter of justifying righteousness.

4. First, although they imagine that the mother of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ were, for his honour, and by his special protection, preserved clean from all sin, yet touching the rest, they teach as we do, that all have sinned [a] ; that infants which did never [b] actually offend, have their natures defiled, destitute of justice, and averted from God. They teach as we do, that God doth justify the soul of man alone, without any other coefficient cause of justice [c] ; that in making man righteous, none do work efficiently [d] with God, but God [1] . They teach as we do, that unto justice no man ever attained, but by the merits of Jesus Christ. They teach as we do, that although Christ as God be the efficient, as man the meritorious cause of our justice; yet in us also there is something [e] required. God is the cause of our natural life; in him we live: but he quickeneth not the body without the soul in the body. Christ hath merited to make us just: but as a medicine which is made for health, doth not heal by being made, but by being applied; so, by the merits of Christ there can be no justification, without the application of his merits. Thus far we join hands with the Church of Rome.

The difference betwixt the Papists and us about Justification.  5. Wherein then do we disagree? We disagree about the nature of the very essence [f] of the medicine whereby Christ cureth our disease; about the manner of applying it; about the number and the power of means, which God requireth in us for the effectual applying thereof to our soul’s comfort. When they are required to shew, what the righteousness is whereby a Christian man is justified, they answer [1] , that it is a divine spiritual quality;     SERM. II. 5.  which quality received into the soul, doth first make it to be one of them who are born of God: and, secondly, endue it with power to bring forth such works, as they do that are born of him; even as the soul of man being joined unto [g] his body, doth first make him to be in [h] the number of reasonable creatures, and secondly enable [i] him to perform the natural functions which are proper to his kind; that it maketh the soul gracious and amiable [k] in the sight of God, in regard whereof it is termed Grace; that it purgeth, purifieth, washeth out [l] , all the stains and pollutions of sin [m] ; that by it, through the merit of Christ we are delivered as from sin, so from eternal death and condemnation, the reward of sin. This grace they will have to be applied by infusion; to the end, that as the body is warm by the heat which is in the body, so the soul might be righteous by the inherent grace: which grace they make capable of increase; as the body may be more and more warm, so the soul more and more justified [2] , according as grace shall be augmented; the augmentation whereof is merited by good works [1] , as good works are made meritorious by it [2] . Wherefore, the first receipt of grace is in their divinity [n] the first justification; the increase thereof, the second justification [3] . As grace may be increased by the merit of good works; so it may be diminished by the demerit of sins venial [4] ; it may be lost by mortal sin [5] . Inasmuch, therefore, as it is needful in the one case to repair, in the other to recover, the loss which is made; the infusion of grace hath her sundry after-meals; for which [o] cause they make many ways to apply the infusion of grace. It is applied to infants [6] through baptism, without either faith or works, and in them really it taketh away original sin, and the punishment due unto it; it is applied to infidels and wicked men in their first [p] justification through baptism, without works [7] , yet not without faith; and it taketh away both sins actual and original, together with all whatsoever punishments, eternal or temporal, thereby deserved [8] . Unto such as have attained the first justification, that is to say, the first receipt of grace, it is applied farther by good works to the increase of former grace, which is the second justification. If they work more and more, grace doth more and more increase, and they are more and more justified. To such as have diminished [q] it by venial sins, it is applied by holy water, Ave Maries, crossings, papal salutations [1] , and such like, which serve for reparations of grace decayed. To such as have lost it through mortal sin, it is applied by the sacrament (as they term it) of penance; which sacrament hath force to confer grace anew [2] , yet in such sort, that being so conferred, it hath not altogether so much power [3] as at the first. For [r] it only cleanseth out the stain or guilt of sin committed, and changeth the punishment eternal into a temporal satisfactory punishment, here, if time do serve, if not, hereafter to be endured, except it be either [s] lightened by masses, works of charity, pilgrimages, fasts, and such like; or else shortened by pardon for term, or by plenary pardon quite removed and taken away [4] . This is the mystery of the Man of sin. This maze the Church of Rome doth cause her followers to tread, when they ask her the way of justification [t] . I cannot stand now to unrip this building,     SERM. II. 6.  and to sift it piece by piece; only I will set a frame of apostolical erection by it in few words [u] , that it [x] may befall Babylon, in presence [y] of that which God hath builded, as it [z] happened unto Dagon before the ark.

6. “Doubtless,” saith the Apostle [1] , “I have counted all things loss [a] , and I do [b] judge them to be dung, that I may win Christ; and be found [c] in him, not having mine own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith.” Whether they speak of the first or second justification, they make the essence of it [d] a divine quality inherent, they make it righteousness which is in us. If it be in us, then it is [e] ours, as our souls are ours, though we have them from God, and can hold them no longer than pleaseth him; for if he withdraw the breath of our nostrils, we fall to dust: but the righteousness wherein we must be found, if we will be justified, is not our own; therefore we cannot be justified by any inherent quality. Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in him. In him God findeth us, if we be faithful; for by faith we are incorporated into him [f] . Then, although in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man which in himself is impious [g] , full of iniquity, full of sin; him being found in Christ through faith, and having his sin in hatred [h] through repentance; him God beholdeth [i] with a gracious eye; putteth away his sin by not imputing it [k] ; taketh quite away the punishment due thereunto, by pardoning it; and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly righteous, as if he had fulfilled all that is [l] commanded him in the law: shall I say more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole law? I must take heed what I say: but the Apostle saith [2] , “God made him which knew no sin, to be sin for us [m] ; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Such we are in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God himself. Let it be counted folly, or phrensy, or fury, or [n] whatsoever.     SERM II. 7.  It is our wisdom, and our comfort [o] ; we care for no knowledge in the world but this, That man hath sinned, and God hath suffered; that God hath made himself the sin [p] of men [q] , and that men are made the righteousness of God.

You see therefore that the church of Rome, in teaching justification by inherent grace, doth pervert the truth of Christ; and that by the hands of his [r] Apostles we have received otherwise than she teacheth. [s] Now concerning the righteousness of sanctification, we deny it not to be inherent; we grant, that unless [t] we work, we have it not; only we distinguish it as [u] a thing in nature different from [v] the righteousness of justification: we are righteous the one way, by the faith of Abraham; the other way, except we do the works of Abraham, we are not righteous. Of the one, St. Paul [1] , “To him that worketh not, but believeth, faith is counted for righteousness.” Of the other, St. John [2] , “Qui facit justitiam, justus est:—He is righteous which worketh righteousness.” Of the one, St. Paul [3] doth prove by Abraham’s example, that we have it of faith without works. Of the other, St. James [4] by Abraham’s example, that by works we have it, and not only by faith. St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts of Christian righteousness one from the other. For in the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth [5] , “Being freed from sin, and made servants to [w] God, ye [x] have your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life.” “Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto God;” this is the righteousness of justification: “Ye have your fruit in holiness;” this is the righteousness of sanctification. By the one we are interessed in the right of inheriting; by the other we are brought to the actual possessing [y] of eternal bliss, and so the end of both is everlasting life.

7. The Prophet Habakkuk [z] doth here term the Jews “righteous men,” not only because being justified by faith they were free from sin; but also for that [a] they had their measure of fruit [b] in holiness. According to whose example of charitable judgment, which leaveth it to God to discern what men [b] are, and speaketh of them according to that which they do profess [c] themselves to be, although they be not holy [d] whom men do think, but whom God doth know indeed to be such; yet let every Christian man know, that in Christian equity, he standeth bound so [e] to think and speak of his brethren, as of men that have a [f] measure in the fruit of holiness, and a right unto the titles wherewith God, in token of special favour and mercy, vouchsafeth to honour his chosen servants. So we see the Apostles of our Saviour Christ do use every where the name of saints; so the prophet the name of righteous. But let us all endeavour to [g] be such as we desire to be termed: Reatus impii est pium nomen, saith Salvianus [1] ; “Godly names do not justify godless men.” We are but upbraided, when we are honoured with names and titles whereunto our lives and manners are not suitable. If we have indeed [h] our fruit in holiness, notwithstanding we must note, that the more we abound therein [i] , the more need we have to crave that we may be strengthened and supported. Our very virtues may be snares unto us. The enemy that waiteth for all occasions to work our ruin, hath ever [j] found it harder to overthrow an humble sinner, than a proud saint. There is no man’s case so dangerous as his, whom Satan hath persuaded that his own righteousness shall present him pure and blameless in the sight of God. If we could say, “we are [k] not guilty of any thing at all in our own [l] consciences,” (we know ourselves far from this innocency; we cannot say, we know nothing by ourselves; but if we could,) should we therefore plead not guilty in [m] the presence of our Judge, that sees further [n] into our hearts than we ourselves are able to see [o] ? If our hands did never offer violence to our brethren, a bloody thought doth prove us murderers before him: if we had never opened our mouths [p] to utter any scandalous, offensive, or hurtful word, the cry of our secret cogitations is heard in the ears of God. If we did [q] not commit the evils which we do daily and hourly, either in deeds, words, or thoughts [r] , yet in the good things which we do, how many defects are there intermingled! God, in that which is done, respecteth specially [s] the mind and intention of the doer. Cut off then all those things wherein we have regarded our own glory, those things which we [t] do to please men, or [u] to satisfy our own liking, those things which we do with any by-respect [w] , not sincerely, and purely for the love of God; and a small score will serve for the number of our righteous deeds. Let the holiest and best thing we do be considered. We are never better affected unto God than when we pray; yet when we pray, how are our affections many times distracted! How little reverence do we shew to the grand majesty of that [x] God, unto whom we speak! How little remorse of our own miseries! How little taste of the sweet influence of his tender mercy [y] do we feel! Are we not as unwilling many times to begin, and as glad to make an end, as if God [z] in saying, “Call upon me,” had [a] set us a very burdensome task?

It may seem somewhat extreme, which I will speak; therefore let every man [b] judge of it, even as his own heart shall tell him, and no otherwise; I will but only make a demand: If God should yield to us, not as unto Abraham, if fifty, forty, thirty, twenty, yea, or if ten good persons could be found in a city, for their sakes that [c] city should not be destroyed; but, if God [d] should make us an offer thus large, Search all the generations of men sithence the fall of your [e] father Adam, find one man, that hath done any [f] one action, which hath past from him [g] pure, without any stain or blemish at all; and for that one man’s one [h] only action, neither man nor angel shall feel the torments which are prepared for both: do you think that this ransom, to deliver men and angels, would be found [i] among the sons of men? The best things we do [j] have somewhat in them to be pardoned. How then can we do any thing meritorious, and [k] worthy to be rewarded? Indeed, God doth liberally promise whatsoever appertaineth to a blessed life, unto as many as sincerely keep his law, though they be not able exactly [l] to keep it.     SERM. II. 8, 9.  Wherefore, we acknowledge a dutiful necessity of doing well; but the meritorious dignity of well doing [m] we utterly renounce. We see how far we are from the perfect righteousness of the law; the little fruit which we have in holiness, it is, God knoweth [n] , corrupt and unsound: we put no confidence at all in it, we challenge nothing in the world for it, we dare not call God to a reckoning [o] , as if we had him in our debt-books: our continual suit to him is, and must be, to bear with our infirmities, to [p] pardon our offences.

8. But the people of whom the Prophet speaketh, were they all, or were the most part of them, such as had care to walk uprightly? did they thirst after righteousness? did they wish, did they long with the righteous Prophet [1] , “O that our ways were made so direct that we might keep thy statutes?” did they lament with the righteous Apostle [2] , “Miserable men, the good which we wish and purpose, and strive to do, we cannot?” No; the words of other prophets [q] concerning this people do shew the contrary. How grievously doth Esay mourn over them [3] ! “Ah sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, wicked seed, corrupt children!” All which notwithstanding, so wide are the bowels of his compassion enlarged, that he denieth us not, no not when we are [r] laden [s] with iniquity, leave to commune familiarly with him, liberty to crave and entreat, that what plagues soever we have deserved, we may not be in worse case than unbelievers, that we may not be hemmed in by pagans and infidels. Jerusalem is a sinful polluted city; but Jerusalem compared with Babylon is righteous. And shall the righteous be overborne, shall they be compassed about by the wicked? But the prophet doth not only complain; Lord, how cometh it to pass that thou handlest us so hardly, over [t] whom thy name is called, and bearest with the heathen nations, that despise thee? no, he breaketh out through extremity of grief, and inferreth thus [u] violently, This proceeding is perverse; the righteous are thus handled, “therefore perverse judgment doth proceed.”

9. Which illation containeth many things, whereof it were better much both for you [x] to hear, and me to speak,     SERM. II. 9.  if necessity did not draw me to another task [y] . Paul and Barnabas being requested [1] to preach the same things again which once they had preached, thought it their duties to satisfy the godly desires of men sincerely affected towards [z] the truth. Nor may it seem burdenous to me, or for you [a] unprofitable, that I follow their example, the like occasion unto theirs being offered me. When we had last the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews in our hands [b] , and of that epistle these words [2] , “In these last days he hath spoken unto us by his Son;” after we had thence collected the nature of the visible Church of Christ, and had defined it to be a community of men [3] sanctified through the profession of that truth which God hath taught the world by his Son; and had declared, that the scope of Christian doctrine is the comfort of them whose hearts are overcharged with the burden of sin; and had proved that the doctrine professed in the church of Rome doth bereave men of comfort, both in their lives, and at [c] their deaths: the conclusion in the end, whereunto we came [d] , was this; “The church of Rome, being in faith so corrupted, as she is, and refusing to be reformed, as she doth, we are to sever ourselves from her: the example of our fathers may not retain us in communion and fellowship [e] with that church, under hope that we so continuing, might [f] be saved as well as they. God, I doubt not, was merciful to save thousands of them, though they lived in popish superstitions, inasmuch as they sinned ignorantly: but the truth is now laid open [g] before our eyes.” The former part of this last sentence, namely, these words, “I doubt not but God was merciful to save thousands of our fathers living in popish superstitions, inasmuch as they sinned ignorantly: ” this sentence I beseech you to mark, and to sift it with the strict [h] severity of austere judgment, that if it be found as gold [i] , it may stand, suitable [k] to the precious foundation whereupon it was then laid;     SERM. II. 10.  for I protest, that if it prove to [r] be hay or stubble, my own hand shall set fire to it [s] . Two questions have risen by occasion of the [t] speech before alleged: the one, “Whether our fathers, infected with popish errors and superstitions, might [u] be saved:” the other, “Whether their ignorance be a reasonable inducement to make us think that [x] they might.” We are therefore [y] to examine, first, what possibility, and [z] then, what probability there is, that God might be merciful unto so many of our fathers.

10. So many of our fathers living in popish superstitions, yet by the mercy of God to be saved? No; this could not be: God hath spoken by his angel from heaven unto his people concerning Babylon (by Babylon we understand the church of Rome) [1] : “Go out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues [a] .” For answer whereunto, first, I do not take the words to be meant only of temporal plagues, of the corporal death, sorrow, famine, and fire, whereunto God in his wrath had [b] condemned Babylon; and that to save his chosen people from these plagues, he saith, “Go out;” with like intent, as in the Gospel, speaking of Hierusalem’s desolations, he saith [2] , “Let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains, and them which are in the midst thereof depart out;” or, as in former times unto Lot [3] , “Arise, take thy wife and thy daughters which are here, lest thou be destroyed in the punishment of the city:” but forasmuch as here it is said, “Go out of Babylon, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and by consequence of her plagues;” plagues eternal being due to the sins of Babylon [c] ; no doubt [d] , their everlasting destruction, which are partakers herein, is either principally meant, or necessarily implied in this sentence. How then was it possible for so many of our fathers to be saved, sith they were so far from departing out of Babylon, that they took her for their mother, and in her bosom yielded up the ghost?

SERM. II. 11.  11. First, the plagues [e] being threatened unto them that are partakers in the sins of Babylon, we can define nothing concerning our fathers out of this sentence; unless we shew what the sins of Babylon be, and who [f] they be that [g] are such partakers in [h] them, that their everlasting plagues are inevitable. The sins which may be common both to them of the church of Rome, and to [i] others departed thence, must be severed from this question. He which saith, “Depart out of Babylon, lest you be partakers of her sins,” sheweth plainly, that he meaneth such sins, as except we separate ourselves, we have no power in the world to avoid [j] ; such impieties, as by law [k] they have established, and whereunto all that are among [l] them, either do indeed assent, or else are by powerable means forced in show and in [m] appearance to subject themselves. As for example, in the church of Rome, it is maintained, that the same [1] credit and reverence which [n] we give to the Scriptures of God, ought also to be given to unwritten verities; that the pope is supreme head ministerial [2] over the universal Church militant; that the bread in the Eucharist is transubstantiated [3] into Christ; that it is to be adored [4] , and to be offered up unto God as a sacrifice propitiatory [1] for quick and dead;     SERM. II. 12.  that images are to be worshipped, saints to be called upon as intercessors [2] , and such like. Now, because some heresies do concern things only believed, as transubstantiating of [n] sacramental elements in the Eucharist; some concern things which are practised also [o] and put in ure, as adoration [p] of the elements transubstantiated: we must note that erroneously the practice of that is sometime received, whereof the doctrine which [q] teacheth it is not heretically maintained. They are all partakers in the maintenance of heresies, who by word or deed allow them, knowing them, although not knowing them to be heresies; as also they, and that most dangerously of all others, who knowing heresy to be heresy, do notwithstanding, in worldly respects, make semblance of allowing that, which in heart and in [r] judgment they condemn: but heresy is heretically maintained, by such as obstinately hold it after wholesome admonition. Of the last sort, as also [s] of the next before, I make no doubt, but that their condemnation, without actual [t] repentance, is inevitable. Lest any man therefore should think, that in speaking of our fathers, I speak [u] indifferently of them all; let my words, I beseech you, be well noted [x] , “I doubt not but God was merciful to save thousands of our fathers;” which thing I will now by God’s assistance set more plainly before your eyes.

12. Many are partakers of the error, which are not of [y] the heresy of the church of Rome. The people following the conduct of their guides, and observing as they did,     SERM. II. 13.  exactly that which was prescribed them [y] , thought they did God good service, when indeed they did dishonour him. This was their error: but the heresies [z] of the Church of Rome, their dogmatical positions opposite unto Christian truth, what one man amongst ten thousand did ever understand? Of them, which understand Roman heresies, and allow them, all are not alike partakers in the action of allowing. Some allow them as the first founders and establishers of them [a] ; which crime toucheth none but their Popes and Councils: the people are clear and free [b] from this. Of them which maintain popish heresy [c] not as authors, but receivers of it from others, all maintain it not as Masters. In this are not the people partakers neither, but only their Predicants and their [d] Schoolmen. Of them which have been partakers in the [e] sin of teaching popish heresy, there is also a difference; for they have not all been teachers of all popish heresies. “Put a difference,” saith St. Jude [1] ; “have compassion upon some.” Shall we lap [f] up all in one condition? shall we cast them all headlong, shall we plunge them all in [g] that infernal and ever-flaming [h] lake? them that have been partakers in [i] the error [j] of Babylon, together with them within [k] the heresy? them which have been the authors of heresy, with them that by terror and violence have been forced to receive it? them which have taught it, with them [l] whose simplicity hath by sleights and conveyances of false teachers been seduced to believe it? them which have been partakers in one, with them which [m] have been partakers in many? them which in many, with them which in all?

13. Notwithstanding I grant, that although the condemnation of one [n] be more tolerable than of another [o] ; yet from the man that laboureth at the plough, to him that sitteth in the Vatican; to all partakers in the sins of Babylon, our fathers [p] , though they did but erroneously practise that which their guides did heretically teach [q] ; to all without exception, plagues worldly [r] were due. The pit is ordinarily the end, as well of the guided as the guide [s] in blindness.     SERM. II. 14.  But woe worth the hour wherein we were born, except we might persuade [t] ourselves better things; things that accompany men’s [u] salvation, even where we know that worse and such as accompany condemnation are due. Then must we shew some way how possibly they might escape. What way is there for sinners to [x] escape the judgment of God, but only by appealing to the seat of his saving mercy? Which mercy we do not with Origen extend to devils and damned spirits. God hath mercy upon thousands, but there be thousands also which he hardened [y] . Christ hath therefore set the bounds, he hath fixed the limits of his saving mercy, within the compass of these two [z] terms. In the third [a] of St. John’s Gospel, mercy is restrained to believers [1] : “God sent not his Son [b] to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” “ [2] He that believeth shall not be condemned: he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he believed not in the Son of God.” In the second of the Revelation, mercy is restrained to the penitent. For of Jezebel and her sectaries thus he speaketh [3] : “I gave her space to repent, and she repented not. Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit fornication with her, into a great affliction, except they repent them of their works; and I will kill her children with death.” Our hope therefore of the fathers is vain, if they were altogether faithless and impenitent [c] .

14. They be [d] not all faithless that are either [e] weak in assenting to the truth, or stiff in maintaining things any way [f] opposite to the truth of Christian doctrine. But as many as hold the foundation which is precious, though they hold it but weakly, and as it were by [g] a slender thread, although they frame many base and unsuitable things upon it, things that cannot abide [h] the trial of the fire; yet shall they pass the fiery [i] trial and be saved, which indeed have builded themselves upon the rock, which is the foundation of the Church. If then our fathers did not hold the foundation of faith,     SERM. II. 15, 16.  there is no doubt but they were faithless. If many of them held it, then is there herein [k] no impediment, but that [1] many of them might be saved. Then let us see what the foundation of faith is, and whether we may think that thousands of our fathers living [m] in popish superstitions, did notwithstanding hold the foundation.

15. If the foundation of faith do import the general ground whereupon we rest when we do believe, the writings of the Evangelists and the Apostles are the foundation of the Christian faith: “Credimus quia legimus,” saith St. Jerome [1] . O that the church of Rome did as [2] soundly interpret those [n] fundamental writings whereupon we build our faith, as she doth willingly hold and embrace them!

16. But if the name Foundation [o] do note the principal thing which is believed, then is that the foundation of our faith which St. Paul hath unto Timothy: “God manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit,” c. [3] : that of Nathaniel, “Thou art the Son of the living God: thou art the king of Israel [4] :” that of the inhabitants of Samaria, “This is Christ the Saviour of the world:” he that directly denieth this, doth utterly raze [p] the very foundation of our faith. I have proved heretofore, that although the church of Rome hath played the harlot worse than ever did Israel, yet are they not, as now the synagogue of the Jews, which plainly denieth [q] Christ Jesus, quite and clean excluded from the new covenant. But as Samaria compared with Hierusalem is termed Aholath, a church or tabernacle of her own; contrariwise, Jerusalem Aholibath, the resting place of the Lord: so, whatsoever we term the church of Rome, when we compare her to [r] reformed churches, still we put a difference, as then between Babylon and Samaria, as now between Rome and heathenish [s] assemblies.     SERM. II. 17.  Which opinion I must and will recall; I must grant, and will, that the church of Rome, together with all her children, is clean excluded; there is no difference in the world between our fathers and Saracens, Turks, or [t] Painims, if they did directly deny Christ crucified for the salvation of the world.

17. But how many millions of them are [u] known so to have ended their mortal [x] lives, that the drawing of their breath hath ceased with the uttering of this faith, “Christ my Saviour, my Redeemer Jesus!” And shall we say that such did not hold the foundation of Christian faith [y] ?

Answer is made, that this they might unfeignedly confess, and yet be far enough from salvation. For behold, saith the Apostle, “I, Paul, say unto you, that if ye [z] be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing [1] .” Christ, in the work of man’s salvation, is alone: the Galatians were cast away by joining circumcision and other [a] rites of the law with Christ: the church of Rome doth teach her children to join other things likewise with him; therefore their faith, their belief, doth not profit them any thing at all.

It is true, they [b] do indeed join other things with Christ; but how? Not in the work of redemption itself, which they grant that Christ alone hath performed sufficiently for the salvation of the whole world; but in the application of this inestimable treasure, that it may be effectual to their salvation: how demurely soever they confess that they seek remission of sins no otherwise than by the blood of Christ, using humbly the means appointed by him to apply the benefit of his holy blood; they teach, indeed, so many things pernicious to [c] Christian faith, in setting down the means whereof they speak, that the very foundation of faith which they hold, is thereby plainly overthrown [2] , and the force of the blood of Jesus Christ extinguished.     SERM. II. 18.  We may therefore dispute with them, press them, urge [c] them even with as dangerous sequels as the Apostle doth the Galatians. But I demand, if some of those Galatians, heartily embracing the Gospel of Christ, sincere and sound in faith, this only [d] error excepted, had ended their lives before they were ever taught how perilous an opinion they held; shall we think that the damage of this error did so overweigh the benefit of their faith, that the mercy of God, his mercy [e] , might not save them? I grant they overthrew the very foundation of faith by consequent: doth not that so likewise which the [1] Lutheran churches do at this day so stiffly and so fiercely [f] maintain? For mine [g] own part, I dare not hereupon [h] deny the possibility of their salvation, which have been the chiefest instruments of ours, albeit they carried to their grave a persuasion so greatly repugnant to the truth. Forasmuch therefore, as it may be said of the church of Rome, she hath yet “a little strength [2] ,” she doth not directly deny the foundation of Christianity: I may, I trust without offence, persuade myself, that thousands of our fathers in former times, living and dying within her walls, have found mercy at the hands of God.

18. What although they repented not of their errors? God forbid that I should open my mouth to gainsay that which Christ himself hath spoken: “Except ye repent, ye shall all perish [3] .” And if they did not repent, they perished. But withal note, that we have the benefit of a double repentance: the least sin which we commit in deed, word, or thought [i] , is death, without repentance.     SERM. II. 10.  Yet how many things do escape us in every of these, which we do not know, how many, which we do not observe to be sins! and without the knowledge, without the observation of sin, there is no actual repentance. It cannot then be chosen, but that for as many as hold the foundation, and have all known sin and error [j] in hatred, the blessing of repentance for unknown sins and errors [k] is obtained at the hands of God, through the gracious mediation of Christ Jesus, for such suitors as cry with the prophet David, “Purge me, O Lord, from my secret sins [l] .”

19. But we wash a wall of loam; we labour in vain; all this is nothing; it doth not prove, it cannot justify, that which we go about to maintain. Infidels and heathen men are not so godless, but that they may, no doubt, cry God mercy, and desire in general to have their sins forgiven them. To such as deny the foundation of faith, there can be no salvation, according to the ordinary course which God doth use in saving men, without a particular repentance of that error. The Galatians, thinking that except [1] they were circumcised, they could not be saved, overthrew the foundations of faith directly: therefore if any of them did die so persuaded, whether before or after they were [m] told of their error [n] , their case [o] is dreadful; there is no way with them but one, death and condemnation. For the Apostle speaketh nothing of men departed, but saith generally of all, “If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. Ye are abolished from Christ, whosoever are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace [2] .” Of them in the church of Rome the reason is the same. For whom Antichrist hath seduced, concerning them did not St. Paul speak long before, “That because [p] they received not the love of the truth [q] , that they might be saved; therefore God would send them strong delusions to believe lies, that all they might be damned which believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness [3] ?” And St. John, “All that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life [1] ?”     SERM. II. 20.  Indeed many of them [r] in former times, as their books and writings do yet shew, held the foundation, to wit, salvation by Christ alone, and therefore might be saved. For [s] God hath always had a Church amongst them, which firmly kept his saving truth. As for such as hold with the church of Rome, that we cannot be saved by Christ alone without works; they do not only by a circle of consequence, but directly, deny the foundation of faith [2] ; they hold it not, no not so much as by a slender [t] thread.

20. This, to my remembrance, being all that hath been as yet [u] opposed with any countenance or shew of reason, I hope, if this be answered, the cause in question is at an end. Concerning general repentance, therefore: what? a murderer, a blasphemer, an unclean person, a Turk, a Jew, any sinner to escape the wrath of God by a general [x] “God forgive me?” Truly, it never came within my heart, that a general repentance doth serve for all sins or for all sinners [y] : it serveth only for the common oversights [z] of our sinful life, and for faults [a] which either we do not mark, or do not know that they are faults. Our fathers were actually penitent for sins, wherein they knew they displeased God: or else they come [b] not within the compass of my first speech. Again, that otherwise they could not be saved, than holding the foundation of Christian faith, we have not only affirmed, but proved. Why is it not then confessed, that thousands of our fathers, although they lived [c] in popish superstitions, might yet, by the mercy of God, be saved? First, if they had directly denied the very foundation [d] of Christianity, without repenting them particularly of that sin, he which saith, there could be no salvation for them, according to the ordinary course which God doth use in saving men, granteth plainly, or at the leastwise [e] closely insinuateth, that an extraordinary privilege of mercy might deliver their souls from hell; which is more than I required. Secondly, if the foundation be denied, it is denied by force [f] of some heresy which the church of Rome maintaineth. But how many were there amongst our fathers, who being seduced by the common error of that church, never knew the meaning of her heresies! So that if [g] all popish heretics did perish, thousands of them which lived in popish superstitions might be saved. Thirdly, seeing all that held popish heresies did not hold all the heresies of the pope: why might not thousands which were infected with other leaven, live and [h] die unsoured by [i] this, and so be saved? Fourthly, if they all had held [k] this heresy, many there were that held it no doubt only [l] in a general form of words, which a favourable interpreter [m] might expound in a sense differing far enough from the poisoned conceit of heresy. As for example; did they hold that we cannot be saved by Christ without works [n] [1] ? We ourselves do, I think, all say as much, with this construction, salvation being taken as in that sentence, “Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore fit confessio ad salutem;” except infants, and men cut off upon the point of their conversion, of the rest none shall see God, but such as seek peace and holiness, though not as a cause of their salvation, yet as a way through [o] which they must walk that [p] will be saved. Did they hold, that without works we are not justified? Take justification so that [q] it may also imply sanctification, and St. James doth say as much. [r] For except there be an ambiguity in some [s] term, St. Paul and St. James do contradict each other [t] ; which cannot be. Now, there is no ambiguity in the name either of faith or of works, both [x] being meant by them both in one and the same sense.     SERM. II. 21.  Finding therefore that justification is spoken of by St. Paul without implying sanctification, when he proveth that a man is justified by faith without works; finding likewise that justification doth sometimes imply sanctification also with it; I suppose nothing more sound [y] , than so to interpret St. James as [z] speaking not in that sense, but in this.

21. [a] We have already shewed, that there are [b] two kinds of Christian righteousness: the one without us, which we have by imputation; the other in us, which consisteth of faith, hope, charity [c] , and other Christian virtues; and St. James doth prove that Abraham had not only the one, because the thing he [d] believed was imputed unto him for righteousness; but also the other, because he offered up his son. God giveth us both the one justice and the other: the one by accepting us for righteous in Christ; the other by working Christian righteousness in us. The proper and most immediate efficient cause in us of this latter, is, the spirit of adoption which [e] we have received into our hearts. That whereof it consisteth, whereof it is really and formally made, are those infused virtues proper and particular unto saints; which the Spirit, in that [f] very moment when first it is given of God, bringeth with it: the effects thereof [g] are such actions as the Apostle doth call the fruits, the works [h] , the operations of the Spirit; the difference of which [i] operations from the root whereof they spring, maketh it needful to put two kinds likewise of sanctifying righteousness, Habitual and Actual. Habitual, that holiness, wherewith our souls are inwardly endued, the same instant when first we begin to be the temples of the Holy Ghost; Actual, that holiness which afterward beautifieth all the parts and actions of our life, the holiness for which Enoch, Job, Zachary, Elizabeth, and other saints, are in Scriptures [k] so highly commended. If here it be demanded, which of these we do first receive; I answer, that the Spirit, the virtues of the Spirit, the habitual justice, which is ingrafted, the external justice of Christ Jesus [l] which is imputed, these we receive all at one and the same time; whensoever we have any of these, we have all; they go together. Yet sith no man is justified except he believe, and no man believeth except he have [m] faith, and no man hath faith, unless [n] he have [o] received the Spirit of Adoption [p] , forasmuch as these [q] do necessarily infer justification, but [r] justification doth of necessity presuppose them; we must needs hold that imputed righteousness, in dignity being the chiefest, is notwithstanding in order the last [s] of all these, but actual righteousness, which is the righteousness of good works, succeedeth all, followeth after all, both in order and in [t] time. Which thing [u] being attentively marked, sheweth plainly how the faith of true believers cannot be divorced from hope and love; how faith is a part of sanctification, and yet unto justification necessary; how faith is perfected by good works, and yet no works of ours good without faith [x] : finally, how our fathers might hold, We [y] are justified by faith alone, and yet hold truly that without good [z] works we are not justified. Did they think that men do merit rewards in heaven by the works they perform on earth? The ancient Fathers [a] use meriting for obtaining, and in that sense they of Wittenberg have in their Confession: “We teach that good works commanded of God are necessarily to be done, and that [b] by the free kindness of God they merit their certain rewards [1] .” Others [c] therefore, speaking as our fathers did, and we taking their speech in a sound meaning, as we may take our fathers’, and ought [d] , forasmuch as their meaning is doubtful, and charity doth always interpret doubtful things favourably; what should induce us to think that rather the damage of the worse [e] construction did light upon them all, than that the blessing of the better was granted unto thousands?     SERM. II. 22.

Fifthly, if in the worst construction that can [f] be made, they had generally all embraced it living, might not many of them dying utterly renounce it? Howsoever men, when they sit at ease, do vainly tickle their own [g] hearts with the wanton conceit of I know not what proportionable correspondence between their merits and their rewards, which, in the trance of their high speculations, they dream that God hath measured, weighed, and laid up, as it were, in bundles for them; notwithstanding we see by daily experience, in a number even of them, that when the hour of death approacheth, when they secretly hear themselves summoned forthwith to appear, and stand at the bar of that [h] Judge, whose brightness causeth the eyes of angels [i] themselves to dazzle, all those [k] idle imaginations do then begin to hide their faces; to name merits then, is [l] to lay their souls upon the rack, the memory of their own deeds is loathsome unto them, they forsake all things wherein they have put any trust and [m] confidence; no staff to lean upon, no ease, no rest, no comfort then, but only in Christ Jesus [n] .

22. Wherefore if this proposition were true, “To hold in such wise, as the church of Rome doth, that we cannot be saved by Christ alone without works, is directly to deny the foundation of faith;” I say, that if this proposition were true, nevertheless so many ways I have shewed, whereby we may hope that thousands of our fathers living [o] in popish superstitions [p] might be saved [1] . But what [q] if it be not true?     SERM. II. 23.  What if neither that of the Galatians concerning circumcision, nor this of the church of Rome about [r] works, be any direct denial of the foundation, as it is affirmed that both are? I need not wade so far as to discuss this controversy, the matter which first was brought into question being so cleared [s] , as I hope it is. Howbeit, because I desire that the truth even in this [t] also may [u] receive light, I will do mine [x] endeavour to set down somewhat more plainly: first, the foundation of faith, what it is: secondly, what it is directly to deny the foundation: thirdly, whether they whom God hath chosen to be heirs of life, may fall so far as directly to deny it: fourthly, whether the Galatians did so by admitting the error about circumcision and the law: last of all, whether the church of Rome, for this one opinion of works, may be thought to do the like, and thereupon to be no more a Christian church, than are the assemblies of Turks or [y] Jews.

What the foundation of faith is.  23. This word foundation being figuratively used, hath always reference to somewhat which resembleth a material building, as both the doctrine of the Christianity [z] [of Christianity] and the community of Christians do. By the Masters of civil policy nothing is so much inculcated, as that commonwealths are founded upon laws; for that a multitude cannot be compacted into one body otherwise than by a common acceptation [a] of laws, whereby they are to be kept in order [1] . The ground of all civil laws is this; “No man ought to be hurt or injured by another:” take away this persuasion, and you [b] take away all laws [c] ; take away laws, and what shall become of commonwealths? So it is in our spiritual Christian community: I do not now [d] mean that body mystical [2] whereof Christ is the only [e] head, that building undiscernible by mortal eyes, wherein Christ is the chief corner-stone: but I speak of the visible church; the foundation whereof is the doctrine [3] of [f] the Prophets and Apostles profest. The mark whereunto their doctrine tendeth, is pointed at in those [g] words of Peter unto Christ, “Thou hast the words of eternal life:” in those of [h] Paul to Timothy, “The holy Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation.” It is the demand of nature itself [i] , “What shall we do to have eternal life [4] ?” The desire of immortality and of [k] the knowledge of that whereby it may be attained [l] , is so natural unto all men, that even they which [m] are not persuaded that they shall, do [n] notwithstanding wish that they might, know a way how to see no end of life. And because natural means are not able still [o] to resist the force of death, there is no people in the earth so savage, which hath not devised some supernatural help or other, to fly unto for aid and succour in extremities, against the enemies of their lives [p] . A longing therefore to be saved, without understanding the true way how, hath been the cause of all the superstitions in the world. O that the miserable state of others, which wander in darkness, and wot not whither they go, could give us understanding hearts, worthily to esteem the riches of the mercies [q] of God towards us, before whose eyes the doors of the kingdom of heaven are set wide open! Should we not [r] offer violence unto it? It offereth violence to us, and we gather strength to withstand it.

But I am besides my purpose when I fall to bewail the cold affection which we bear towards that whereby we should be saved; my purpose being only to set down what the ground of salvation is. The doctrine of the Gospel proposeth salvation as the end: and doth it not teach the way of attaining thereunto? Yes [s] , the damosel possest [t] with a spirit of divination spake the truth: “These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation:” “A new and living way, which Christ hath prepared for us through the vail, that is, his flesh [1] ;” salvation purchased by the death of Christ. By this foundation the children of God, before the time of the written [u] law, were distinguished from the sons of men; the reverend patriarchs both profest [x] it living, and spake expressly [2] of it at the hour of their death. It comforted Job [3] in the midst of grief; it was afterwards likewise [y] the anchor-hold of all the righteous in Israel, from the writing of the law to the time of grace. Every prophet maketh mention of it. It was so [z] famously spoken of, about the time, when the coming of Christ to accomplish the promises, which were made long before [a] , drew near, that the sound thereof was heard even amongst the Gentiles. When he was come, as many as were his acknowledged that he was their salvation; he, that long-expected hope of Israel; he, that “seed, in whom all the nations of the world [b] should [c] be blest [d] .” So that now his name is a name [e] of ruin, a name of death and condemnation, unto such as dream of a new Messias, to as many as look for salvation by any other than [f] by him: “For amongst men there is given no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved [4] .” Thus much St. Mark doth intimate by that which he putteth [g] in the very [h] front of his book,     SERM. II. 24.  making his entrance with these words: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” His doctrine he termeth the Gospel, because it teacheth salvation; the Gospel of Jesus Christ [i] , the Son of God, because it teacheth salvation by him. This is then the foundation, whereupon the frame of the Gospel is erected; that very Jesus whom the Virgin conceived of the Holy Ghost, whom Simeon embraced in his arms [1] , whom Pilate condemned, whom the Jews crucified, whom the Apostles preached, he is Christ, the Lord, the only Saviour of the world: “other foundation can no man lay [2] .” Thus I have briefly opened that principle in Christianity, which we call the foundation of our faith. It followeth now that I declare unto you, what it [j] is directly to overthrow it. This will better appear [k] , if first [l] we understand, what it is to hold the foundation of faith.

24. There are which defend, that many of the Gentiles, who never heard the name of Christ, held the foundation of Christianity: and why? they acknowledged many of them the providence of God, his infinite wisdom, strength, and [m] power; his goodness, and his mercy towards the children of men; that God hath judgment in store for the wicked, but for the righteous that seeks [n] him, rewards, c. In this which they confessed, that lieth covered which we believe; in the rudiments of their knowledge concerning God, the foundation of our faith concerning Christ lieth secretly wrapt [o] up, and is virtually contained: therefore they held the foundation of faith, though they never heard [p] it. Might we not with as good colour [q] of reason defend, that every ploughman hath all the sciences, wherein philosophers have excelled? For no man is ignorant of the [r] first principles, which do virtually contain whatsoever by natural means either [s] is or can be known. Yea, might we not with as good [t] reason affirm, that a man may put three mighty oaks wheresoever three acorns may be put? For virtually an acorn is an oak. To avoid such paradoxes, we teach plainly, that to hold the foundation is, in express terms to acknowledge it.     SERM. II. 25.

25. Now, because the foundation is an affirmative proposition, they all overthrow it, who deny it; they directly overthrow it, who deny it directly; and they overthrow it by consequent, or indirectly, which hold any one assertion whatsoever, whereupon the direct denial thereof may be necessarily concluded. What is the question between the Gentiles and us, but this, Whether salvation be by Christ? What between the Jews and us, but this, Whether by this Jesus, whom we call Christ, yea, or no? This to be the main point whereupon Christianity standeth, it is clear by that one sentence of Festus concerning Paul’s accusers: “They brought no crime of such things as I supposed, but had certain questions against him of their own [u] superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive [1] .” Where we see that Jesus, dead and raised for the salvation of the world, is by Jews [w] denied, despised by a Gentile, and by a Christian apostle maintained. The Fathers therefore in the primitive church when they wrote; Tertullian, the book which he calleth [x] Apologeticus; Minutius Felix, the book which he entitleth [y] Octavius; Arnobius, his [z] seven books against the Gentiles; Chrysostom, his orations against the Jews; Eusebius his ten books of Evangelical Demonstration: they stood [a] in defence of Christianity [b] against them, by whom the foundation thereof was directly denied. But the writings of the Fathers against Novatians, Pelagians, and other heretics of the like note, refel positions, whereby the foundation of Christian faith was overthrown by consequent only. In the former sort of writings the foundation is proved; in the latter, it is alleged as a proof, which to men that had been known directly to deny it, must needs have seemed a very beggarly kind of disputing. All infidels therefore deny the foundation of faith directly: by consequent, many a Christian man, yea whole Christian churches, have [c] denied it, and do deny it at this present day. Christian churches denying [d] the foundation of Christianity? Not [e] directly, for then they cease to be Christian churches;     SERM. II. 26.  but by consequent, in respect whereof we condemn them as erroneous, although, for holding the foundation, we do and must hold them Christian.

26. We see what it is to hold the foundation; what directly, and what by consequent, to deny it. The next thing which followeth is, whether they whom God hath chosen to obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, may, being [f] once effectually called, and through faith truly justified [g] , afterwards fall so far, as directly to deny the foundation which their hearts have before embraced with joy and comfort in the Holy Ghost; for such is the faith, which indeed doth justify. Devils know the same things which we believe, and the minds of the most ungodly may be fully persuaded of the truth; which knowledge in the one and persuasion [h] in the other, is sometimes termed faith, but equivocally, being indeed no such faith as that whereby a Christian man is justified. It is the spirit of adoption which worketh faith in us, in them not; the things which we believe, are by us apprehended, not only as true, but also as good, and that to us: as good, they are not by them apprehended; as true, they are. Whereupon followeth a third [i] difference; the Christian man the more he increaseth in faith, the more his joy and comfort aboundeth: but they, the more sure they are of the truth, the more they quake and tremble at it. This begetteth another effect, wherein [k] the hearts of the one sort have a different disposition from the other. Non ignoro plerosque conscientia meritorum, nihil se esse post [1] mortem magis optare quam credere; malunt enim exstingui penitus, quam ad supplicia reparari [l] . I am not ignorant, saith Minutius, that there are too many [m] , who being conscious what they are to look for, do rather wish that they might, than think that they shall, cease to be [n] , when they cease to live; because they hold it better that death should consume them unto nothing, than God revive [o] them unto [p] punishment. So it is in other articles of faith, whereof wicked men think, no doubt, many times they are too true: on the contrary side, to the other, there is no grief nor [p] torment greater, than to feel their persuasion weak in things, whereof, when they are persuaded, they reap such comfort and joy of spirit: such is the faith whereby we are justified; such, I mean, in respect of the quality. For touching the principal object of faith, longer than it holdeth that [q] foundation whereof we have spoken, it neither justifieth, nor is; but ceaseth to be faith when it ceaseth to believe, that Jesus Christ is the only Saviour of the world. The cause of life spiritual in us, is Christ, not carnally or corporally inhabiting, but dwelling in the soul of man, as a thing which (when the mind apprehendeth it) is said to inhabit and [r] possess the mind. The mind conceiveth Christ by hearing the doctrine of Christianity. As the light of nature doth cause the mind to apprehend those truths which are merely rational; so that saving truth, which is far above the reach of human reason, cannot otherwise, than by the Spirit of the Almighty, be conceived. All these are implied, wheresoever any one [s] of them is mentioned as the cause of spiritual [t] life. Wherefore when we read [u] , that [1] “the Spirit is our life;” or [2] , “the Word our life;” or [3] , “Christ our life:” we are in every of these to understand, that our life is Christ, by the hearing of the Gospel apprehended as a Saviour, and assented unto by [x] the power of the Holy Ghost. The first intellectual conceit and comprehension of Christ so embraced, St. Peter calleth [4] the seed whereof we be new born: our first embracing of Christ, is our first reviving [5] from the state of death and condemnation. “He that hath the Son hath life,” saith St. John [6] , “and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life.” If therefore he which once hath the Son, may cease to have the Son, though it be but [y] a moment, he ceaseth for that moment to have life. But the life of them which [z] live by the Son of God [a] , is everlasting, not only for that it shall be everlasting [7] in the world to come [b] , but because [1] as “Christ being raised from the dead dieth [c] no more, death hath no more power over him;” so the [d] justified man, being alive [e] to God in Jesus Christ our Lord, doth as necessarily from that time forward always live, as Christ, by whom he hath life, liveth always [2] .

I might, if I had not otherwhere largely done it already, shew by sundry [f] manifest and clear proofs, how the motions and operations of life are sometimes so undiscernible, and secret [g] , that they seem stone-dead, who notwithstanding are still alive unto God in Christ.

For as long as that abideth in us, which animateth, quickeneth, and giveth life, so long we live; and we know that the cause of our life [h] abideth in us for ever. If Christ, the fountain of life, may flit and leave the habitation where once he dwelleth, what shall become of his promise, “I am with you to the world’s end?” If the seed of God, which containeth Christ, may be first conceived and then cast out; how doth St. Peter [3] term it immortal? How doth St. John [4] affirm it abideth? If the Spirit, which is given to cherish and preserve the seed of life, may be given and taken away, how is it the earnest [5] of our inheritance until redemption; how doth it continue [6] with us for ever? If therefore the man which is once just by faith, shall live by faith, and live for ever, it followeth, that he which once doth believe the foundation must needs believe the foundation for ever. If he [i] believe it for ever, how can he ever directly deny it [7] ? Faith holding the direct affirmation; the direct negation, so long as faith continueth, is excluded.

[k] But ye [l] will say, “That as he which to-day [m] is holy, may to-morrow forsake his holiness, and become impure; as a friend may change his mind, and become [n] an enemy; as hope may wither: so faith may die in the heart of man, the Spirit may be quenched, Grace may be extinguished, they which believe may be quite turned away from the truth.”

The [n] case [o] is clear, long experience hath made this manifest, it needs no proof. I grant we are apt, prone, and ready, to forsake God [1] ; but is God as ready to forsake us? Our minds are changeable; is his so likewise? Whom God hath justified, hath not Christ assured, that it is “his Father’s will to give them a kingdom?” Which kingdom [p] , notwithstanding, shall not [q] otherwise be [r] given them, than “ [2] if they continue grounded and stablished in the faith, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel;” “ [3] if they abide in love and holiness.” Our Saviour therefore, when he spake of the sheep effectually called, and truly gathered into his fold [4] , “I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of my hands;” in promising to save them, promised [s] , no doubt, to preserve them in that without the which there can be no salvation, as also from that whereby salvation is [t] irremediably [u] lost. Every error in things appertaining to [v] God is repugnant unto faith; every fearful cogitation, unto hope; unto love, every straggling inordinate desire; unto holiness, every blemish whereby [x] either the inward thoughts of our minds, or the outward actions of our lives, are stained. But heresy, such as that of Ebion, Cerinthus, and others, against whom the Apostles were forced to bend themselves, both by word and also by writing; that repining discouragement of heart which tempteth God, whereof we have Israel in the desert for a pattern; coldness, such as that in the angel [y] of Ephesus; foul sins, known to be expressly against the first or second table of the law, such as Noah, Manasses, David, Salomon, and Peter, committed: these are each in their kind so opposite to the former virtues, that they leave no place for salvation without an actual repentance. But infidelity, extreme despair, hatred of God and all godliness [z] , obduration in sin, cannot stand where there is the least [a] spark of faith, hope, love, or [b] sanctity; even as cold in the lowest degree cannot be, where heat in the first [c] degree is found.

Whereupon I conclude, that although in the first kind, no man liveth that [d] sinneth not; and in the second, as perfect as any do live, may sin: yet sith the man which is born of God hath a promise, that in him “the seed of God shall abide [1] ;” which seed is a sure preservative against the sins of [e] the third suit; greater and clearer assurance we cannot have of any thing, than of this, that from such sins God shall preserve the righteous, as the apple of his eye, for ever. Directly to deny the foundation of faith, is plain infidelity; where faith is entered, there infidelity is for ever excluded: therefore by him which hath once sincerely believed in Christ, the foundation of Christian faith can never be directly denied. Did not Peter, did not Marcellinus [2] , did not many others, both directly deny Christ after they [f] had believed, and again believe after they had denied? No doubt, as they may [g] confess in word [h] , whose condemnation nevertheless is [i] their not believing (for example we have Judas); so likewise, they may believe in heart, whose condemnation, without repentance, is their not confessing. Although therefore Peter and the rest, for whose faith Christ had [j] prayed that it might not fail, did not by denial sin the sin of infidelity, which is an inward abnegation of Christ (for [k] if they had done this, their faith had clearly failed): yet, because they sinned notoriously and grievously, committing that which they knew to be so [l] expressly forbidden by the law, which saith, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve:” necessary it was, that he which purposed to save their souls, should, as he did, touch their hearts with true unfeigned repentance, that his mercy might restore them again to life, whom sin had made the children of death and condemnation. Touching this point therefore, I hope I may safely set it [m] down, that if the justified err, as he may, and never come to understand his error, God doth save him through general repentance: but if he fall into heresy, he calleth him [n] either at [o] one time or other by actual repentance; but from infidelity, which is an inward direct denial of the foundation, preserveth [p] him by special providence for ever. Whereby we may easily know what to think of those Galatians, whose hearts were so possest with love [q] of the truth, that, if it had been possible, they would have plucked out their very [r] eyes, to bestow upon their teachers. It is true, that they were afterwards [s] greatly [1] changed, both in persuasion and affection; so that the Galatians, when St. Paul wrote unto them, were not now the Galatians which they had been in former times [s] , for that through error they wandered, although they were his sheep. I do not deny, but I [t] should deny, that they were his sheep, if I should grant, that through error they perished. It was a perilous opinion which they held, in them [u] which [v] held it only as an error, because it overthroweth the foundation by consequent. But in them which obstinately maintained [w] it, I cannot think it less [x] than a damnable heresy.

We must therefore put a difference between them which err of ignorance, retaining nevertheless a mind desirous to be instructed in the [y] truth, and them which, after the truth is laid open, persist in stubborn [z] defence of their blindness. Heretical defenders, froward and stiffnecked teachers of circumcision, the blessed Apostle calleth [a] dogs: silly men, that were seduced to think they taught [b] the truth, he pitieth, he taketh up in his arms, he lovingly embraceth, he kisseth, and with more than fatherly tenderness doth so temper, qualify, and [c] correct the speech he useth towards them, that a man cannot easily discern, whether did most abound, the love which he bare to their godly affection, or the grief which the danger of their opinion bred him [d] . Their opinion was dangerous; was not theirs so [e] likewise who thought that [f] the kingdom of Christ should be earthly? was not theirs which thought that [g] the gospel should be preached [h] only to the Jews? What more opposite to prophetical doctrine, concerning the coming of Christ, than the one? concerning the catholic Church, than the other? Yet they which had these fancies, even when they had them, were not the worst men in the world. The heresy of freewill was a millstone about the Pelagians’ neck [i] ; shall we therefore give sentence of death inevitable [k] against all those Fathers in the Greek church, which being mispersuaded, died in the error of freewill [1] ?

Of those [l] Galatians, therefore, which first were justified [1] , and then deceived, as I can see no cause, why as many as died before admonition might not by mercy be saved [m] , [2] even in error; so I make no doubt, but as many as lived till they were admonished, found the mercy of God effectual in converting them from their error [3] , lest any one that is Christ’s should perish. Of this, as [n] I take it, there is no controversy: only against the salvation of them which died, though before admonition, yet in error, it is objected, that their opinion was a very plain direct denial of the foundation. If Paul and Barnabas had been so persuaded, they would haply have used their [o] terms otherwise, speaking of the masters themselves, who did first set that error abroach, “certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed [4] .” What difference was there between these Pharisees [p] and other, from whom by a special description they are distinguished, but this? They [q] which came to Antioch, teaching the necessity of circumcision, were Christians; the other, enemies of Christianity. Why then should these be termed so distinctly believers, if they did directly deny the foundation of our belief; besides which, there was none [r] other thing, that made the rest to be unbelievers [s] ? We need go no farther than St. Paul’s very reasoning against them, for proof of this matter [5] , “Seeing ye [t] know God, or rather are known of God, how turn you again unto impotent rudiments? [6] The law engendereth servants, her children are in bondage: they which are begotten [u] by the gospel, are free. [7] Brethren, we are not children of the servant, but of the free woman, and will ye yet be under the law?” That they thought it unto salvation necessary, for the Church of Christ to observe days, and months, and times, and years, to keep the ceremonies and the sacraments of the law, this was their error [1] . Yet he which condemneth their error, confesseth notwithstanding [w] , that they knew God [2] , and were known of him; he taketh not the honour from them to be termed sons begotten of [x] the immortal seed of the gospel. Let the heaviest words which [y] he useth be weighed; consider the drift of those dreadful conclusions [3] : “If ye [z] be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing: as many as are justified by the law, ye [a] are fallen from grace.” It had been to no purpose in the world so to urge them, had not the Apostle been persuaded, that at the hearing of such sequels, “No benefit by Christ,” “a defection from grace,” their hearts would tremble and quake within them: and why? because they [b] knew, that in Christ, in grace [c] , their salvation lay, which is a plain [d] direct acknowledgment of the foundation.

Lest I should herein seem to hold that which no one godly and learned [e] hath done, let these words be considered, which import as much as I affirm [4] . “Surely those brethren which, in St. Paul’s time, thought that God did lay a necessity upon them to make choice of days and meats, spake as they believed, and could not but in words condemn that liberty, which they supposed to be brought in against the authority of divine Scripture. Otherwise it had been needless for St. Paul to admonish them, not to condemn such as eat, without scrupulosity, whatsoever was set before them. This error, if you weigh what it is of itself, did at once overthrow all Scriptures, whereby we are taught salvation by faith in Christ, all that ever the prophets did foretell, all that ever the Apostles did preach of Christ; it drew with it the denial of Christ utterly: insomuch that [f] St. Paul complaineth, that his labour was lost upon the Galatians [g] , unto whom this error was obtruded; affirming that Christ, if so be they were circumcised, should not profit them any thing at all. Yet so far was St. Paul from striking their names out of Christ’s book, that he commanded others to entertain them, to accept them with singular humanity, to use them like brethren; he knew man’s imbecillity, he had a feeling of our blindness which are mortal men, how great it is, and being sure that they are the sons of God, whosoever be endued with his fear, would not have them counted enemies of that whereunto they could not as yet frame themselves to be friends, but did even of [h] a very religious affection to the truth, unwittingly [i] reject and resist [k] the truth. They acknowledged [1] Christ to be their only and their [l] perfect Saviour, but saw not how repugnant their believing the [m] necessity of Mosaical ceremonies was to their faith in Jesus Christ.”

Hereunto [n] reply [o] is made, that if they had not directly denied the foundation, they might have been saved; but saved they could not be; therefore their opinion was, not only by consequent, but directly, a denial of the foundation. When the question was about the possibility of their salvation, their denying of the foundation was brought for proof [p] that they could not be saved: now that the question is about their denial [q] , the impossibility of their salvation is alleged to prove they denied the foundation. Is there nothing which excludeth men from salvation, but only the foundation of faith denied? I should have thought, that beside [r] this, many other things are death, except they be actually repented of: as indeed this opinion of theirs was death [s] , unto as many as, being given to understand [t] that to cleave thereunto was to fall from Christ, did notwithstanding cleave unto it. But of this enough. Wherefore I come to the last question, “Whether the [u] doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning the necessity of works unto salvation, be a direct denial of the foundation of [x] our faith?”

SERM. II. 27.  27. I seek not to obtrude unto you any private opinions [y] of mine own. The best learned [1] in our profession are of this judgment, that all the heresies and [z] corruptions of the Church of Rome do not prove her to deny the foundation directly; if they did, they should prove [a] her simply to be no Christian church. “But I suppose,” saith one [2] , “that in the papacy some church remaineth, a church crazed, or, if you will, broken quite in pieces, forlorn, misshapen, yet some church:” his reason is this, “Antichrist must sit in the temple of God.” Lest any man should think such sentences as this [b] to be true only in regard of them whom that church is supposed to have kept by the special providence of God, as it were, in the secret corners of his bosom, free from infection, and as sound in the faith, as we trust, by his mercy, we ourselves are; I permit it to your [c] wise considerations, whether it be not [d] more likely, that as frensy, though itself take away the use of reason, doth notwithstanding prove them reasonable creatures which have it, because none can be frantic but they; so Antichristianity being the bane and plain overthrow of Christianity, may nevertheless argue the church wherein [e] Antichrist sitteth to be Christian [3] . Neither have I ever [f] hitherto heard or read any one word alleged of force to warrant, that God doth otherwise than so as hath been in the two next questions before declared [g] , bind himself to keep his elect from worshipping the Beast, and from receiving his mark in their foreheads; but he hath preserved, and will preserve, them from receiving any deadly wound at the hands of the Man of sin, whose deceit hath prevailed over none unto death, but only such [h] as never loved the truth, such as took pleasure [i] in unrighteousness: they in all ages, whose hearts have delighted in the principal truth, and whose souls have thirsted after righteousness, if they received the mark of error, the mercy of God, even erring, and dangerously erring, might save them; if they received the mark of heresy, the same mercy did, I doubt not, convert them [1] . How far Romish heresies may prevail over God’s elect, how many God hath kept from falling into them, how many have been converted from them, is not the question now in hand: for if heaven had not received any one of that coat for these thousand years, it may still be true [2] , that the doctrine which at [k] this day they do profess, doth not directly deny the foundation, and so prove them simply to be no Christian church. One I have alleged, whose words, in my ears, sound that way; shall I add another, whose speech is plainer [l] ? “I deny her not the name of a church,” saith another [3] , “no more than to a man the name of a man, as long as he liveth, what sickness soever he hath.” His reason is this: “Salvation in Jesus Christ, which is the mark that joineth the Head with the body, Jesus Christ with His [m] Church, it [n] is so cut off by man’s [o] merits, by the merits of saints, by the pope’s pardons, and such other wickedness, that the life of the Church holdeth by a very little [p] thread,” yet still the life of the Church holdeth. A third hath these words [4] : “I acknowledge the church of Rome, even at this present day, for a church of Christ, such a church as Israel under [q] Jeroboam, yet a church.”     SERM. II. 28.  His reason is this: “Every man seeth, except he willingly hoodwink himself, that as always, so now, the church of Rome holdeth firmly and steadfastly the doctrine of truth concerning God, and the Person of our Lord Jesus [r] Christ; and baptizeth in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; confesseth and avoucheth Christ for [s] the only [1] Redeemer of the world, and the Judge that shall sit upon quick and dead, receiving true believers into endless joy, faithless and godless men being cast with Satan and his angels into flames unquenchable.”

28. I may, and will, rein the question shorter than they do. Let the Pope take down his top, and captivate no more men’s souls by his papal jurisdiction; let him no longer count himself Lord Paramount over the princes of the earth [t] , no longer use [u] kings as his tenants [v] paravaile [2] ; let his stately senate submit their necks to the yoke of Christ, and cease to dye their garments, like Edom, in blood; let them, from the highest to the lowest, hate and forsake their idolatry, abjure all their errors and heresies, wherewith they have any way perverted the truth; let them strip their church, till they leave no polluted rag, but only this one about her; “By Christ alone, without works [3] , we cannot be saved:”     SERM. II. 29.  it is enough for me, if I shew, that the holding of this one thing doth not prove the foundation of faith directly denied in the Church of Rome.

29. Works are an addition to the foundation [x] : be it so, what then? the foundation is not subverted by every kind of addition. Simply to add unto those fundamental words, is not to mingle wine with puddle [y] , heaven with earth, things polluted with the sanctified blood of Christ: of which crime indict them, which [z] attribute those operations in whole or in part to any creature, which in the work of our salvation are wholly [a] peculiar unto Christ: and, if I open my mouth to speak in their defence, if I hold my peace, and plead not against them as long as breath is in [b] my body, let me be [c] guilty of all the dishonour that ever hath been done to the Son of God. But the more dreadful a thing it is to deny salvation by Christ alone, the more slow and fearful I am, except it be too too manifest [d] to lay a thing so grievous unto any man’s charge. Let us beware, lest if we make too many ways of denying Christ, we scarce leave any way for ourselves truly and soundly to confess him. Salvation only by Christ is the true foundation whereupon indeed Christianity standeth. But what if I say, ye [e] cannot be saved only by Christ, without this addition, Christ believed in heart, confessed with mouth, obeyed in life and conversation? Because I add, do I therefore deny that which directly I did [f] affirm? There may be an additament of explication, which overthroweth not, but proveth and concludeth the proposition whereunto it is annexed. He that [g] saith, Peter was a chief Apostle, doth prove that Peter was an Apostle: he which saith [1] , Our salvation is of the Lord, through sanctification of the Spirit, and faith of the truth, proveth that our salvation is of the Lord. But if that which is added, be such a privation as taketh away the very essence of that whereunto it is adjoined [h] , then by sequel [i] it overthroweth. He which saith, Judas is a dead man, though in word he grant [k] Judas to be a man, yet in effect he proveth him by that very speech no man, because death depriveth him of his being [l] . In like sort, he that should say, Our election is of grace for our works’ sake,     SERM. II. 30.  should grant in sound of words, but indeed by consequent deny, that our election is of grace; for the grace which electeth us is no grace [1] , if it elect us for our works’ sake.

30. Now whereas the church of Rome addeth works, we must note farther, that the adding works [m] [2] is not like the adding of circumcision unto Christ. Christ came not to abrogate and to take away [n] good works [3] : he did, to change circumcision; for we see that in place thereof he hath substituted holy baptism. To say, ye cannot be saved by Christ except ye be circumcised, is to add a thing excluded, a thing not only not necessary to be kept, but necessary not to be kept [4] by them that will be saved. On the other side, to say, ye cannot be saved by Christ without works [5] , is to add things not only not excluded, but commanded, as being in their [o] place and in their kind necessary, and therefore subordinated unto Christ, even [p] by Christ himself, by whom the web of salvation is spun [6] : “Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye [q] shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [7] .” They were rigorous exacters of things not utterly to be neglected and left undone [8] , washings and tithings [r] , c. As they were in these things [s] , so must we be in judgment and the love of God. Christ, in works ceremonial, giveth more liberty, in moral much less [9] , than they did. Works of righteousness therefore are not so repugnantly [1] added in the one proposition; as in the other circumcision is.     SERM. II. 31.

31. But we say, our salvation is by Christ alone; therefore howsoever, or whatsoever, we add unto Christ in the matter of salvation, we overthrow Christ. Our case were very hard, if this argument, so universally meant as it is proposed, were sound and good. We ourselves do not teach Christ alone, excluding our own faith [2] , unto justification; Christ alone, excluding our own works, unto sanctification; Christ alone, excluding the one or the other as [x] unnecessary unto salvation. It is a childish cavil wherewith in the matter of justification our adversaries do so greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian virtues under our [y] feet, and require nothing in Christians but faith; because we teach that faith alone justifieth: whereas we by this speech [z] never meant to exclude either hope and [a] charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with faith in the man that is justified; or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man: but to shew that faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification; and Christ the only garment, which being so put on, covereth the shame of our defiled natures, hideth the imperfections of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of God, before whom otherwise the very [b] weakness of our faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us out [c] from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute can enter. That our dealing with them be not as childish as theirs with us; when we hear of salvation by Christ alone, considering that (“alone” is [d] an) exclusive particle, we are to note what it doth exclude, and where. If I say, “Such a judge only ought to determine such a cause [e] ,” all things incident to the determination thereof, besides the person of the judge, as laws, depositions, evidences, c. are not hereby excluded; persons are, yet not [f] from witnessing herein, or assisting, but only from determining and giving sentence. How then is our salvation wrought by Christ alone? is it our meaning [g] , that nothing is requisite to man’s salvation, but Christ to save, and he to be saved quietly without any more to do [h] ? No, we acknowledge no such foundation [i] .     SERM. II. 32.  As we have received, so we teach that besides the bare and naked work [1] , wherein Christ, without any other associate, finished all the parts of our redemption, and purchased salvation himself alone; for conveyance of this eminent blessing unto us, many things are required [j] , as, to be known and chosen of God before the foundations of the world; in the world to be called, justified, sanctified: after we have left the world, to be received into [k] glory; Christ in every of these hath somewhat which he worketh alone. Through him, according to the eternal purpose of God before the foundation of the world [2] , born, crucified, buried, raised, c., we were in a gracious acceptation [l] known unto God long before we were seen of men: God knew us, loved us, was kind towards us [m] in Christ Jesus [n] , in him we were elected to be heirs of life. Thus far God through Christ hath wrought in such sort alone, that ourselves are mere patients, working no more than dead and senseless matter, wood, or stone, or iron, doth in the artificer’s hand [o] , no more than the clay, when the potter appointeth it to be framed for an honourable use; nay, not so much. For the matter whereupon the craftsman worketh he chooseth, being moved by [p] the fitness which is in it to serve his turn; in us no such thing. Touching the rest, that [q] which is laid for the foundation of our faith, importeth [r] farther, that by him we be [s] called, that we have redemption, remission of sins through his blood, health by his stripes; justice by him; that he doth sanctify his Church, and make it glorious to himself; that entrance into joy shall be given us by him; yea, all things by him alone. Howbeit, not so by him alone, as if in us, to our vocation, the hearing of the gospel; to our justification, faith; to our sanctification, the fruits of the spirit; to our entrance into rest, perseverance in hope, in faith, in holiness, were not necessary.

32. Then what is the fault of the church of Rome? Not that she requireth works at their hands that will be saved: but that she attributeth unto works a power of satisfying God for sin; and [t] a virtue to merit both grace here, and in heaven glory. That this overthroweth the foundation of faith, I grant willingly; that it is a direct [1] denial thereof, I utterly deny. What it is to hold, and what directly [2] to deny, the foundation of faith, I have already opened. Apply it particularly to this cause, and there needs no more ado. The thing which is handled, if the form under which it is handled be added thereunto, it sheweth the foundation of any doctrine whatsoever. Christ is the matter whereof the doctrine of the gospel treateth; and it treateth of Christ as of a Saviour. Salvation therefore by Christ is the foundation of Christianity: as for works, they are a thing subordinate, no otherwise necessary [u] than because our sanctification cannot [3] be accomplished without them. The doctrine concerning them is a thing builded upon the foundation; therefore the doctrine which addeth unto them power [w] of satisfying, or of meriting, addeth unto a thing subordinated, builded upon the foundation, not to [x] [4] the very foundation itself; yet is the foundation consequently by this addition [y] overthrown, forasmuch as out of this addition it may negatively be [z] concluded, He which maketh any work good and acceptable in the sight of God, to proceed from the natural freedom of our will; he which giveth unto any good work [a] of ours the force of satisfying the wrath of God for sin, the power of meriting either earthly or heavenly rewards; he which holdeth works going before our vocation, in congruity to merit our vocation; works following our first, to merit our second justification, and by condignity our last reward in the kingdom of heaven, pulleth up the doctrine of faith by the roots; for out of every of these the plain direct denial thereof may be necessarily concluded. Nor [b] this only, but what other heresy is there which [c] doth not raze the very foundation of faith by consequent? Howbeit, we make a difference of heresies; accounting them in the next degree to infidelity, which [d] directly deny any one thing to be, which is expressly acknowledged in the articles of our belief; for out of any one article so denied, the denial of the very foundation itself is straightway [e] inferred [1] . As for example; if a man should say, “There is no catholic Church,” it followeth immediately hereupon [f] , that this Jesus whom we call the Saviour, is not the Saviour of the world; because all the prophets bear [g] witness, that the true Messias should “shew light unto the Gentiles [2] ;” that is to say, gather such a Church as is catholic, not restrained any longer unto one circumcised nation. In a [h] second rank we place them, out of whose positions the denial of any of [i] the foresaid articles may be with like facility concluded; such are [j] they which have denied, either the divinity of Christ, with Hebion, or with Marcion, his humanity; an example whereof may be that of Cassianus defending the incarnation of the Son of God against Nestorius bishop of Antioch [3] , which [k] held, that the Virgin, when she brought forth Christ, did not bring forth the Son of God, but a sole and a mere man. Out of which heresy the denial of the articles of Christian [l] faith he deduceth thus [4] : “If thou dost deny our Lord Jesus Christ to be God [m] , in denying the Son, thou canst not choose but deny the Father; for, according to the voice of the Father himself, ‘He that hath not the Son, hath not the Father.’ Wherefore denying him that [n] is begotten, thou deniest him which doth beget. Again, [o] denying the Son of God to have been born in the flesh, how canst thou believe him to have suffered? believing not his passion, what remaineth, but that thou deny his resurrection? For we believe him not raised, except we first believe him dead: neither can the reason of his rising from the dead stand, without the faith of his death going before. The denial of his death and passion inferreth the denial of his rising from the depth [p] . Where upon it followeth, that thou also deny his ascension into heaven: the Apostle affirming [q] , ‘That he which ascended, did first descend.’ So that, as much as lieth in thee, our Lord Jesus Christ hath neither risen from the depth [r] , nor is ascended into heaven, nor sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, neither shall he come at the day of final account, which is looked for, nor shall judge the quick and dead. And darest thou yet set foot in the Church? Canst thou think thyself a bishop, when thou hast denied all those things whereby thou didst [s] obtain a bishoply calling?” Nestorius confessed all the articles of the creed, but his opinion did imply the denial of every part of his confession. Heresies there are of a third [t] sort, such as the church of Rome maintaineth, which being [u] removed by a greater distance from the foundation, although indeed they overthrow it; yet because of that weakness, which the philosopher [1] noteth in men’s capacities when he saith, that the common sort cannot see things which follow in reason,     SERM. II. 33.  when they follow, as it were, afar off by many deductions; therefore the repugnancy between [x] such heresy and the foundation is not so quickly nor [y] so easily found, but that an heretic of this, sooner than of the former kind, may directly grant, and consequently nevertheless deny, the foundation of faith.

33. If reason be suspected, trial will shew that the church of Rome doth no [z] otherwise, by teaching the doctrine she doth teach concerning works [a] . Offer them the very fundamental words, and what one [b] man is there that will refuse to subscribe unto them? Can they directly grant, and deny directly [c] one and the very selfsame thing? Our own proceedings in disputing against their works satisfactory and meritorious do shew, not only that they hold, but that we acknowledge them to hold, the foundation, notwithstanding their opinion. For are not these our arguments against them? “Christ alone hath satisfied and appeased his Father’s wrath: Christ hath merited salvation alone.” We should do fondly to use such disputes, neither could we think to prevail by them, if that whereupon we ground, were a thing which we know they do not hold [d] , which we are assured they will not grant. Their very answers to all such reasons, as are in this controversy brought against them, will not permit us to doubt whether they hold the foundation or no. Can any man, which [e] hath read their books concerning this matter, be ignorant how they draw all their answers unto these heads? “That the remission of all our sins, the pardon of all whatsoever punishments thereby deserved, the rewards which God hath laid up in heaven, are by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ purchased, and obtained sufficiently for all men: but for no man effectually for his benefit in particular, except the blood of Christ be applied particularly unto him by such means as God hath appointed it [f] to work by: That those means of themselves being but dead things, only the blood of Christ is that which putteth life, force, and efficacy in them to work, and to be available, each in his kind, to our salvation: Finally, that grace being purchased for us by the blood of Christ, and freely without any merit or desert at the first bestowed upon us, the good things which we do, after grace received, are [g] thereby made satisfactory and meritorious.” Some of their sentences to this effect I must allege for mine own warrant. If we desire to hear foreign judgments, we find in one this confession: “He that could reckon how many the virtues and merits of our Saviour Jesus Christ have [h] been, might likewise understand how many the benefits have been that are come [i] unto us by him, forasmuch [k] as men are made partakers of them all by the mean [l] of his passion: by him is given unto us remission of our sins, grace, glory, liberty, praise, [peace,] salvation, redemption, justification [1] , justice, sanctification [m] , sacraments, merits, doctrine [n] , and all other things which we [he] had, and were behoveful [o] for our salvation [2] .” In another we have these oppositions and answers made unto them: “All grace is given by Christ Jesus. True; but not except Christ Jesus be applied. He is the propitiation for our sins [p] ; by his stripes we are healed; he hath offered up himself [q] for us: all this [us all: this? [r] ] is true, but apply it. We put all satisfaction in the blood of Jesus Christ; but we hold, that the means which [s] Christ hath appointed for us in this case to apply it, are our penal works [3] .” Our countrymen in Rhemes make the like answer [1] , that they seek salvation no other way than by the blood of Christ; and that humbly they do use prayers, fasting [t] , alms, faith, charity, sacrifice, sacraments, priests, only as the means appointed by Christ, to apply the benefit of his holy blood unto them: touching our good works, that in their own natures they are not meritorious, nor answerable unto the joys of heaven; it cometh by the grace of Christ, and not of the work itself, that we have by well-doing a right to heaven, and deserve it worthily. If any man think that I seek to varnish their opinions, to set the better foot of a lame cause foremost; let him know, that since [u] I began throughly to understand their meaning, I have found their halting in this doctrine [x] greater than perhaps it seemeth to them which know not the deepness of Satan, as the blessed Divine speaketh [2] . For, although this be proof sufficient, that they do not directly deny the foundation of faith; yet, if there were no other leaven in the whole lump of their doctrine but this, this were sufficient to prove, that their doctrine is not agreeable with [y] the foundation of Christian faith. The Pelagians, being over-great friends unto nature, made themselves enemies unto grace, for all their confessing, that men have their souls, and all the faculties thereof, their wills and the ability [z] of their wills, from God. And is not the church of Rome still an adversary unto Christ’s merits, because of her acknowledging, that we have received the power of meriting by the blood of Christ? Sir Thomas More setteth down the odds between us and the church of Rome in the matter of works thus: “Like as we grant them, that no good work of man is rewardable in heaven of his [b] own nature, but through the mere goodness of God, that list [c] to set so high a price upon so poor a thing; and that this price God setteth through Christ’s passion, and for that also that they be [d] his own works with us; (for good works to God-ward worketh no man, without God work in him:) and as we grant them also, that no man may be proud of his works, for his own [e] imperfect [f] working; and for that in all that man may do, he can do no good [g] , but is a servant unprofitable, and doth but his bare duty: as we, I say, grant unto them these things, so this one thing or twain do they grant us again, that men are bound to work good works, if they have time and power; and that whoso worketh in true faith most, shall be most rewarded: but then set they thereto, that all his rewards shall be given him for his faith alone, and nothing for his works at all, because his faith is the thing, they say, that forceth him to work well [1] .” I see by this of sir Thomas More, how easy it is for men of great [h] capacity and judgment [i] to mistake things written or spoken, as well on one side as on another [k] . Their doctrine, as he thought, maketh the works [l] of man rewardable in the world to come through the mere [m] goodness of God, whom it pleaseth to set so high a price upon so poor a thing; and ours, that a man doth receive that eternal and high reward, not for his works, but for his faith’s sake, by which he worketh: whereas in truth our doctrine is no other than that which [n] we have learned at the feet of Christ; namely, that God doth justify the believing man, yet not for the worthiness of his belief, but for his worthiness [o] which is believed; God rewardeth abundantly every one which worketh, yet not for any meritorious dignity which is, or can be, in the work, but through his mere mercy, by whose commandment he worketh. Contrariwise, their doctrine is [2] , that as pure water of itself hath no savour, but if it pass through a sweet pipe, it taketh a pleasant smell of the pipe through which it passeth;     SERM. II. 34.  so, although before grace received, our works do neither satisfy nor merit; yet after, they do both the one and the other. Every virtuous action hath then power in such sort [p] to satisfy; that if we ourselves commit no mortal sin, no heinous crime, whereupon to spend this treasure of satisfaction in our own behalf, it turneth to the benefit of other men’s release, on whom it shall please the steward of the house of God to bestow it; so that we may satisfy for ourselves and others, but merit only for ourselves. In meriting, our actions do work with two hands: with the [q] one, they get their morning stipend, the increase of grace; with the other, their evening hire, the everlasting crown of glory. Indeed they teach, that our good works do not these things as they come from us, but as they come from grace in us; which grace in us is another thing in their divinity, than is the mere goodness of God’s mercy toward [r] us in Christ Jesus.

34. If it were not a strong deluding spirit which hath possession of their hearts; were it possible but that they should see how plainly they do herein gainsay the very ground [s] of apostolic faith? Is this that salvation by grace, whereof so plentiful mention is made in the sacred [t] Scriptures of God? was this their meaning, which first taught the world to look for salvation only by Christ? By grace, the Apostle saith, and by grace in such sort as a gift; a thing that cometh not of ourselves, not of our works, lest any man should boast and say, “I have wrought out mine own salvation [1] .”     SERM. II. 35.  By grace they confess; but by grace in such [u] sort, that as many as wear the diadem of bliss, they wear nothing but what they have won. The Apostle, as if he had foreseen how the church of Rome would abuse the world in time by ambiguous terms, to declare in what sense the name of grace must be taken, when we make it the cause of our salvation, saith, “He saved us according to his mercy;” which mercy, although it exclude not the washing of our new birth, the renewing of our hearts by the Holy Ghost, the means, the virtues, the duties, which God requireth at [w] their hands which shall be saved; yet it is so repugnant unto merits, that to say, we are saved for the worthiness of any thing which is ours, is to deny we are saved by Grace. Grace bestoweth freely; and therefore justly requireth the glory of that which is bestowed. We deny the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ; we imbase [x] , disannul, annihilate [y] the benefit of his bitter passion, if we rest in those [z] proud imaginations, that life everlasting [a] is deservedly ours, that we merit it, and that we are worthy of it.

35. Howbeit, considering how many virtuous and just men, how many saints, how many martyrs, how many of the ancient Fathers of the church, have had their sundry perilous opinions; and among sundry of their [b] opinions this, that they hoped to make God some part of amends for their sins, by the voluntary punishments [c] which they laid upon themselves; because by a consequent it may follow hereupon, that they were injurious unto [d] Christ, shall we therefore make such deadly epitaphs, and set them upon their graves, “They denied the foundation of faith directly, they are damned, there is no salvation for them?” St. Augustine hath said [e] of himself, Errare possum, hæreticus esse nolo [2] . And, except we put a difference between them that err, and them that obstinately persist in error, how is it possible that ever any man should hope to be saved? Surely, in this case, I have no respect of any person alive or dead. Give me a man, of what estate or condition soever, yea, a cardinal or a pope, whom at [f] the extreme point of his life affliction hath made to know himself; whose heart God hath touched with true sorrow for all his sins, and filled with love toward the Gospel of Christ; whose eyes are opened to see the truth, and his mouth to renounce all heresy and error any way [g] opposite thereunto, this one opinion of merits excepted; which [h] he thinketh God will require at his hands, and because he wanteth, therefore, trembleth, and is discouraged; it may be I am forgetful, or [i] unskilful, not furnished with things new and old, as a wise and [k] learned scribe should be, nor able to allege that, whereunto, if it were alleged, he doth bear a mind most willing to yield, and so to be recalled, as well from this, as from other errors: and shall I think, because of this only error, that such a man toucheth not so much as the hem of Christ’s garment? If he do, wherefore should not I have hope, that virtue may proceed from Christ to save him? Because his error doth by consequent overthrow his faith, shall I therefore cast him off, as one which hath utterly cast off Christ? one which [l] holdeth not so much as by a slender thread? No; I will not be afraid to say unto a cardinal or to a pope [m] in this plight, Be of good comfort, we have to do with a merciful God, ready to make the best of that little [n] which we hold well, and not with a captious sophister, which gathereth the worst out of every thing wherein we err. Is there any reason that I should be suspected, or you offended, for this speech? Let all affection be laid aside; let the matter be indifferently [o] considered [p] . Is it a dangerous thing to imagine, that such men may find mercy? The hour may come, when we shall think it a blessed thing to hear, that if our sins were as [q] the sins of the pope [r] and cardinals, the bowels of the mercy of God are larger. I do not propose unto you a pope with the neck of an emperor under his foot [s] ; a cardinal riding his horse to the bridle in the blood of saints; but a pope or a cardinal sorrowful, penitent, disrobed, stript [t] , not only of usurped power, but also delivered and recalled from error and [u] Antichrist, converted and lying prostrate at the feet [w] of Christ; and shall I think that Christ will [x] spurn at him? shall [y] I cross and gainsay the merciful promises of God, generally made unto penitent sinners, by opposing the name of a pope or [z] cardinal? What difference is there in the world between a pope and a cardinal, and John a Style [a] [1] , in this case? If we think it impossible for them, after they be once come within that [b] rank, to be afterwards touched with any such remorse, let that be granted. The Apostle saith, “If I, or an angel from heaven, preach unto you,” c. Let it be as likely, that St. Paul or an angel from heaven should [c] preach heresy, as that a pope or a [d] cardinal should be brought so far forth to acknowledge the truth; yet if a pope or cardinal should, what find we in their persons why they might not be saved? It is not their [e] persons, you will say, but the error wherein I suppose them to die, which excludeth them from hope [f] of mercy; the opinion of merits doth take away all possibility of salvation from them. What, although [g] they hold it only as an error? although they hold the truth soundly [h] and sincerely in all other parts of Christian faith? although they have in some measure all the virtues and graces of the Spirit, all other tokens of God’s elect children in them? although they be far from having any proud presumptuous opinion, that they shall be saved for [i] the worthiness of their deeds? although the only thing which troubleth and molesteth them be but a little too much dejection, somewhat too great a fear, rising from an erroneous conceit that God will require a worthiness in them, which they are grieved to find wanting in themselves? although they be not obstinate in this persuasion? although they be willing, and would be glad to forsake it, if any one reason were brought sufficient to disprove it? although the only let, why they do not forsake it ere they die, be the ignorance of the mean [k] whereby [l] it might be disproved? although the cause why the ignorance in this point is not removed, be the want of knowledge in such as should be able, and are not, to remove it?     SERM. II. 36.  Let me die, if ever it be proved, that simply an error doth exclude a pope or a cardinal, in such a case, utterly from hope of life. Surely, I must confess unto you, if it be an error to think [m] , that God may be merciful to save men even when they err [1] , my greatest comfort is my error; were it not for the love I bear unto this error, I would neither [n] wish to speak nor to live.

36. Wherefore to resume that mother-sentence, whereof I little thought that so much trouble would have grown, “I doubt not but God was merciful to save thousands of our fathers living in popish superstitions, inasmuch as they sinned ignorantly:” alas! what bloody matter is there contained in this sentence, that it should be an occasion of so many hard censures? Did I say, “That thousands of our fathers might be saved?” I have shewed which way it cannot be denied. Did I say, “I doubt it [o] not but they were saved?” I see no impiety in this persuasion, though I had no reason in the world [p] for it. Did I say, “Their ignorance doth make me hope they did find mercy, and so were saved?” What doth hinder [q] salvation but sin? Sins are not equal; and ignorance, though it do [r] not make sin [s] to be no sin, yet seeing it did make their sin the less, why should it not make our hope concerning their life the greater? We pity the most, and I [t] doubt not but God hath most compassion over them that sin for want of understanding. As much is confessed by sundry others, almost in the selfsame words which I have used. It is but only my ill [u] hap, that the same sentences which favour [x] verity in other men’s books, should seem to bolster heresy when they are once by me recited. If I be deceived in this point, not they, but the blessed Apostle hath deceived me [2] . What I said of others, the same he saith [y] of himself, “I obtained [z] mercy [3] , for I did it ignorantly.”     SERM. II. 37, 38.  Construe his words, and ye [a] cannot misconstrue mine. I speak no otherwise, I meant no otherwise [b] .

37. Thus have I brought the question concerning our fathers at the length unto an end. Of whose estate, upon so fit an occasion as was offered me, handling the weighty causes of separation between the church of Rome and us, and the weak motives which commonly are [c] brought to retain men in that society; amongst which motives the example [d] of our fathers deceased is one; although I saw it convenient to utter that sentence which I did, to the end that all men might thereby understand, how untruly we are said to condemn as many as have been before us otherwise persuaded than we ourselves are: yet more than that one sentence I did not think it expedient to utter, judging it a great deal meeter for us to have regard to our own estate, than to sift over curiously what is become of other men; and fearing, lest that such questions as this [e] , if voluntarily they should be too far waded in, might seem worthy of that rebuke which our Saviour thought needful in a case not unlike, “What is this unto thee [1] ?” When as [f] I was forced, much besides mine [g] expectation, to render a reason of my speech, I could not but yield at the call of others, to [h] proceed as [i] duty bound me, for the fuller satisfaction of men’s minds [k] . Wherein I have walked, as with reverence, so with fear: with reverence, in regard of our fathers, which lived in former times; not without fear, considering them that are alive.

38. I am not ignorant how ready men are to feed and soothe up themselves in evil. Shall I (will the man say, that loveth the [l] present world more than he loveth Christ), shall I incur the high displeasure of the mightiest upon earth? shall I hazard my goods, endanger my estate [m] , put my life in [n] jeopardy, rather than yield to that which so many of my fathers have [o] embraced, and yet found favour in the sight of God? “Curse Meroz,” saith the Lord, “curse her inhabitants, because they help [p] not the Lord, they help [q] him not against the mighty [1] .”     SERM. II. 38.  If I should not only not [r] help the Lord against the mighty, but help to strengthen them that are mighty against the Lord; worthily might I fall under the burden of that curse, worthy I were to bear my own judgment. But if the doctrine which I teach be a flower gathered in the garden of the Lord, a part of the saving truth of the Gospel, from whence notwithstanding poisoned [s] creatures do suck venom; I can but wish it were otherwise, and content myself with the lot that hath befallen me, the rather, because it hath not befallen me alone. St. Paul did preach [t] a truth, and a comfortable truth, when he taught, that the greater our misery is in respect of our iniquities, the readier is the mercy of our [u] God for our release, if we seek unto him; the more we have sinned, the more praise, and glory [w] , and honour unto him that pardoneth our sin. But mark what lewd collections were made hereupon by some [2] : “Why then am I condemned for a [x] sinner?” And, saith the Apostle, “as we are blamed, and as some affirm that we say, ‘Why do we not evil that good may come of it?’ ” He was accused to teach that which ill-disposed men did gather by his teaching, though it were clean not only beside [y] , but against his meaning. The Apostle addeth, “Their condemnation which thus do is just.” I am not hasty to apply sentences of condemnation: I wish from my heart their conversion, whosoever are thus perversely affected. For I must needs say, their case is fearful, their estate dangerous, which harden themselves, presuming on [z] the mercy of God towards others. It is true, that God is merciful, but let us beware of presumptuous sins. God delivered Jonah from the bottom of the sea; will you therefore cast yourselves headlong from the tops of rocks, and say in your hearts, God shall deliver us? He pitieth the blind that would gladly see; but will God [a] pity him that may see, and hardeneth himself in blindness? No; Christ hath spoken too much unto you, for you [b] to claim the privilege of your fathers.

SERM. II. 39.  39. As for us that have handled this cause concerning the condition of our fathers, whether it be this thing or any other which we bring unto you, the counsel is good which the Wise Man giveth [1] , “Stand thou fast in thy sure understanding, in the way and knowledge of the Lord, and have but one manner of word, and follow the word of peace and righteousness.” As a loose tooth is a great [c] grief unto him that eateth, so doth a wavering and unstable word, in speech that tendeth to instruction, offend. “Shall a wise man speak words of the wind [2] ,” saith Eliphaz; light, unconstant, unstable words? Surely the wisest may speak words of the wind: such is the untoward constitution of our nature, that we neither do [d] so perfectly understand the way and knowledge of the Lord, nor so steadfastly embrace it, when it is understood; nor so graciously utter it, when it is embraced; nor so peaceably maintain it, when it is uttered; but that the best of us are overtaken sometimes through blindness, sometimes through hastiness, sometimes through impatience, sometime through other passions of the mind, whereunto (God doth know) we are too subject. We must therefore be contented both to pardon others, and to crave that others may [e] pardon us for such things. Let no man, which [f] speaketh as a man, think himself (whilest [g] he liveth) always freed from scapes and oversights in his speech. The things themselves which I have spoken unto you I hope [h] are sound, howsoever they have seemed otherwise unto some; at whose hands if [i] I have, in that respect, received injury, I willingly forget it; although, in truth [j] , considering the benefit which I have reaped by this necessary search [k] of truth, I rather incline unto that of the Apostle [3] , “They have not injured me at all.” I have cause to wish, and I do wish [l] , them as many blessings in the kingdom of heaven, as they have forced me to utter words and syllables in this cause; wherein I could not be more sparing in [m] speech than I have been. “It becometh no man,” saith St. Jerome [4] , “to be patient in the crime of heresy.”     SERM. II. 40.  Patient, as I take it, we should be always, though the crime of heresy were intended; but silent in a thing of so great consequence, I could not, beloved, I durst not be; especially the love, which I bear to the truth in [n] Christ Jesus, being hereby somewhat called in question. Whereof I beseech them, in the meekness of Christ, that have been the first original cause, to consider that a watchman may cry “An enemy!” when indeed a friend cometh. In which case [o] , as I deem [p] such a watchman more worthy to be loved for his care, than misliked for his error; so I have judged it my own part in this case [q] , as much as in me lieth, to take away all suspicion of any unfriendly intent or meaning against the truth, from which, God doth know, my heart is free.

40. Now to you, beloved, which have heard these things, I will use no other words of admonition, than those which are offered me by St. James [1] , “My brethren, have not the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ [r] , in respect of persons.” Ye are not now to learn, that as of itself it is not hurtful, so neither should it be to any man [s] scandalous and offensive, in doubtful cases, to hear the different [t] judgment [u] of men. Be it that Cephas hath one interpretation, and Apollos hath another; that Paul is of this mind, and [x] Barnabas of that; if this offend you, the fault is yours. Carry peaceable minds, and ye [y] may have comfort by this variety.

Now the God of peace give you peaceable minds, and turn it to your everlasting comfort.

A SUPPLICATION MADE TO THE COUNCIL

BY MASTER WALTER TRAVERS [1] .

RIGHT HONOURABLE,

TRAVERS’ SUPPLICATION.  THE manifold benefits which all the subjects within this dominion do at this present, and have many years [2] enjoyed, under her Majesty’s most happy and prosperous reign, by your godly wisdom and careful watching over this estate night and day, I truly and unfeignedly acknowledge, from the bottom of my heart, ought worthily to bind us all to pray continually to Almighty God for the continuance and increase of the life and good estate of your honours, and to be ready, with all good duties, to satisfy and serve the same to our power. Besides public benefits common unto all, I must needs, and do willingly, confess myself to stand bound by most special obligation, to serve and honour you more than any [a] other, for the honourable favour it hath pleased you to vouchsafe both oftentimes heretofore, and also now of late [3] , in a matter more dear unto me than any earthly commodity, that is, the upholding and furthering of my service in the ministering of the gospel of Jesus Christ. For which cause, as I have been always careful so to carry myself as I might by no means give occasion to be thought unworthy of so great a benefit, so do I still, next unto her majesty’s gracious countenance, hold nothing more dear and precious unto me, than that I may always remain in your honours’ favour, which hath oftentimes been helpful and comfortable unto me in my ministry, and to all such as reaped any fruit of my simple and faithful labour. In which dutiful regard I humbly beseech your honours to vouchsafe to do me this grace, to conceive nothing of me otherwise than according to the duty wherein I ought to live, by any information against me, before your honours have heard my answer, and been thoroughly informed of the matter. Which, although it be a thing that your wisdoms, not in favour, but in justice, yield to all men, yet the state of the calling unto the ministry, whereunto it hath pleased God of his goodness to call me, though unworthiest of all, is so subject to misinformation, as, except we may find this favour with your honours, we cannot look for any other, but that our unindifferent parties may easily procure us to be hardly esteemed of; and that we shall be made like the poor fisher-boats in the sea, which every swelling wave and billow raketh and runneth over. Wherein my estate is yet harder than any others of my rank and calling, who are indeed to fight against flesh and blood in what part soever of the Lord’s host and field they shall stand marshalled to serve, yet many of them deal with it naked, and unfurnished of weapons: but my service was in a place where I was to encounter with it well appointed and armed with skill and with authority: whereof as I have always thus deserved, and therefore have been careful by all good means to entertain still your honours’ favourable respect of me, so have I special cause at this present, wherein misinformation to the lord archbishop of Canterbury, and other of the High Commission, hath been able so far to prevail against me, that by their letter they have inhibited me to preach, or execute any act of ministry in the Temple or elsewhere [1] , having never once called me before them, to understand by mine answer the truth of such things as had been informed against me. We have a story in our books, wherein the Pharisees proceeding against our Saviour Christ without having heard him is reproved by “an honourable counsellor [2] ,” as the Evangelist doth term him, saying, “Doth our law judge a man before it hear him, and know what he hath done [3] ?” Which I do not mention, to the end that by an indirect and covert speech I might so compare those who have, without ever hearing me, pronounced a heavy sentence against me; for notwithstanding such proceedings, I purpose by God’s grace to carry myself towards them in all seeming duty agreeable to their places: much less do I presume to liken my cause to our Saviour Christ’s, who hold it my chiefest honour and happiness to serve him, though it be but among the hinds and hired servants that serve him in the basest corners of his house. But my purpose in mentioning it is, to shew, by the judgment of a prince and great man in Israel, that such proceeding standeth not with the law of God, and in a princely pattern to shew it to be a noble part of an honourable counsellor, not to allow of indirect dealings, but to love [b] and affect such a course in justice as is agreeable to the law of God. We have also a plain rule in the word of God, not to proceed any otherwise against any elder of the Church; much less against one that laboureth in the word and in teaching. Which rule is delivered with this most earnest charge and obtestation, “I beseech and charge thee in the sight of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou keep these [c] rules [d] without preferring one before another, doing nothing of partiality, or inclining to either part [1] ;” which apostolical and most earnest charge, I refer [e] to your honours’ wisdom how it hath been regarded in so heavy a judgment against me, without ever hearing my cause; and whether, as having God before their eyes, and the Lord Jesus, by whom all former judgments shall be tried again; and, as in the presence of the elect angels, witnesses and observers of the regiment of the Church, they have proceeded thus to such a sentence. They allege indeed two reasons in their letters, whereupon they restrain my ministry; which, if they were as strong against me as they are supposed, yet I refer to your honours’ wisdoms, whether the quality of such an offence as they charge me with, which is in effect but an indiscretion, deserve so grievous a punishment both to the Church and me, in taking away my ministry, and that poor little commodity which it yieldeth for the necessary maintenance of my life; if so unequal a balancing of faults and punishments should have place in the commonwealth, surely we should shortly have no actions upon the case, nor of trespass, but all should be pleas of the crown, nor any man amerced, or fined, but for every light offence put to his ransom. I have credibly heard, that some of the ministry [1] have been convicted of [f] grievous transgressions of the laws of God and men, being of no ability to do other service in the Church than to read; yet hath it been thought charitable, and standing with Christian moderation and temperancy, not to deprive such of ministry and benefice [g] , but to inflict some more tolerable punishment. Which I write not because such, as I think, were to be favoured, but to shew how unlike their dealing is with me, being through the goodness of God not to be touched with any such blame; and one who according to the measure of the gift of God have laboured now some years painfully, in regard of the weak estate of my body, in preaching the gospel, and as I hope not altogether unprofitably in respect of the Church. But I beseech your honours to give me leave briefly to declare the particular reasons of their letter [h] , and what answer I have to make unto it.

The first is, that, as they say, “I am not lawfully called to the function of the ministry, nor allowed to preach, according to the laws of the Church of England.”

For answer to this, I had need to divide the points. And first to make answer to the former; wherein leaving to shew what by the holy Scriptures is required in a lawful calling, and that all that is to be found in mine, that I be not too long for your other weighty affairs, I rest in this answer [i] .

My calling to the ministry was such as in the calling of any thereunto is appointed to be used by the orders agreed upon in the national synods of the Low Countries [2] , for the direction and guidance of their churches; which orders are the same with those whereby the French and Scottish churches are governed; whereof I have shewed such sufficient testimonial to my lord the Archbishop of Canterbury, as is requisite in such a matter: whereby it must needs fall out, if any man be lawfully called to the ministry in those churches, then is my calling, being the same with theirs, also lawful. But I suppose, notwithstanding they use this general speech, they mean only, my calling is not sufficient to deal in the ministry within this land, because I was not made minister according to that order, which in this cause is ordained by our laws. Whereunto I beseech your honours to consider throughly of mine answer, because exception now again is taken to my ministry, whereas, having been heretofore called in question for it [1] , I so answered the matter, as I continued in [j] my ministry, and, for any thing I discerned, looked to hear that no more objected unto me. The communion of saints (which every Christian man professeth to believe) is such as, that the acts which are done in any true church of Christ’s according to his word, are held as lawful being done in one church, as in another. Which, as it holdeth in other acts of ministry, as baptism, marriage, and such like, so doth it in the calling to the ministry; by reason whereof, all churches do acknowledge and receive him for a minister of the word, who hath been lawfully called thereunto in any church of the same profession. A Doctor created in any university in Christendom, is acknowledged sufficiently qualified to teach in any country. The church of Rome itself, and the canon law holdeth it, that being ordered in Spain, they may execute that that belongeth to their order, in Italy, or in any other place. And the churches of the Gospel never made any question of it: which if they shall now begin to make doubt of, and deny such to be lawfully called to the ministry, as are called by another order than our own; then may it well be looked for, that other churches will do the like: and if a minister called in the Low Countries be not lawfully called in England, then may they say to our preachers which are there, that being made by another order than theirs, they cannot suffer them to execute any act of ministry amongst them; which in the end must needs breed a schism, and dangerous division in the churches. Further, I have heard of those that are learned in the laws of this land, that by express statute to that purpose, anno 13 of her majesty’s reign [1] , upon subscription to the articles agreed upon, anno 1562, that they who pretend to have been ordered by another order than that which is now established, are of like capacity to enjoy any place of ministry within the land, as they which have been ordered according to that which is now by law in this [k] established. Which comprehending manifestly all, even such as were made priests according to the order of the Church of Rome, it must needs be, that the law of a Christian land, professing the Gospel, should be as favourable for a minister of the word, as for a popish priest; which also was so found in Mr. Whittingham’s case [2] , who, notwithstanding such replies against him [3] , enjoyed still the benefit he had by his ministry, and might have done until this day, if God had spared him life so long; which if it be understood so, and practised in others, why should the change of the person alter the right which the law giveth to all other?

The place of ministry whereunto I was called was not presentative: and if it had been so, surely they would never have presented any man whom they never knew; and the order of this church is agreeable herein to the Word of God, and the ancient and best canons, that no man should be made a minister sine titulo: therefore having none, I could not by the orders of this church have entered into the ministry, before I had a charge [l] to tend upon. When I was at Antwerp, and to take a place of ministry among the people of that nation, I see no cause why I should have returned again over the seas for orders here; nor how I could have done it, without disallowing the orders of the churches provided in the country where I was to live. Whereby I hope it appeareth, that my calling to the ministry is lawful, and maketh me, by our law, of capacity to enjoy any benefit or commodity, that any other, by reason of his ministry, may enjoy. But my case is yet more easy, who reaped no benefit of my ministry by law, receiving only a benevolence and voluntary contribution; and the ministry I dealt with being preaching only, which every deacon here may do being licensed, and certain that are neither [1] ministers nor deacons. Thus I answer the former of these two points, whereof, if there be yet any doubt, I humbly desire, for a final end thereof, that some competent judges in law may determine of it [m] ; whereunto I refer and submit myself with all reverence and duty.

The second is, “That I preached without license.” Whereunto this is my answer: I have not presumed, upon the calling I had to the ministry abroad, to preach or deal with any part of the ministry within this church, without the consent and allowance of such as were to allow me unto it. My allowance was from the bishop of London, testified by his two several letters to the Inner Temple, who, without such testimony, would by no means rest satisfied in it: which letters being by me produced, I refer it to your honours’ wisdom, whether I have taken upon me to preach, without being allowed (as they charge) according to the orders of the realm. Thus having answered the second point also, I have done with the objection, “Of dealing without calling or license.”

The other reason they allege is, concerning a late action, wherein I had to deal with Mr. Hooker, Master of the Temple. In the handling of which cause, they charge me with an indiscretion, and want of duty, “in that I inveighed,” as they say, “against certain points of doctrine taught by him, as erroneous, not conferring with him, nor complaining of it to them.” My answer hereunto standeth, in declaring to your honours the whole course and carriage of that cause, and the degrees of proceeding in it, which I will do as briefly as I can, and according to the truth, God be my witness, as near as my best memory, and notes of remembrance, may serve me thereunto. After that I have taken away that which seemed to have moved them to think me not charitably minded to Mr. Hooker; which is, because he was brought into Mr. Alvey’s place, wherein this church desired that I might have succeeded: which place, if I would have made suit to have obtained, or if I had ambitiously affected and sought, I would not have refused to have satisfied, by subscription, such as the matter then seemed to depend upon: whereas contrariwise, notwithstanding I would not hinder the church to do that they thought to be the most for their edification and comfort, yet did I, neither by speech nor letter, make suit to any for the obtaining of it, following herein that resolution, which I judge to be most agreeable to the word and will of God; that is, that labouring and suing for places and charges in the church is not lawful. Further, whereas [n] , at the suit of the church, some of your honours entertained the cause, and brought it to a near issue, that there seemed nothing to remain, but the commendation of my lord the archbishop of Canterbury, when as he could not be satisfied, but by my subscribing to his late articles [1] ; and that my answer (agreeing to subscribe according to any law, and to the statute provided in that case, but praying to be respited for subscribing to any other, which I could not in conscience do, either for the Temple (which otherwise he said he would not commend me to), nor for any other place in the Church) did so little please my lord archbishop, as he resolved that otherwise I should not be commended to it: I had utterly here no cause of offence against Mr. Hooker, whom I did in no sort esteem to have prevented or undermined me, but that God disposed of me as it pleased him, by such means and occasions as I have declared.

Moreover, as I have [o] taken no cause of offence at Mr. Hooker for being preferred, so there were many witnesses, that I was glad that the place was given him, hoping to live in all godly peace and comfort with him, both for acquaintance and good-will which hath been between us, and for some kind [p] of affinity in the marriage of his nearest kindred and mine [2] . Since his coming, I have so carefully endeavoured to entertain all good correspondence and agreement with him, as I think he himself will bear me witness of many earnest disputations and conferences with him about the matter; the rather, because that, contrary to my expectation, he inclined from the beginning but smally thereunto, but joined rather with such as had always opposed themselves to any good order in this church [q] , and made themselves to be thought [r] indisposed to this [s] present state and proceedings. For, both knowing that God’s commandment charged me with such duty, and discerning how much our peace might further the good service of God and his Church, and the mutual comfort of us both [t] , I had resolved constantly to seek for peace; and though it should fly from me (as I saw it did by means of some, who little desired to see the good of our church), yet according to the rule of God’s word, to follow after it. Which being so (as hereof I take God to witness, who searcheth the heart and reins, and who by his Son will judge the world, both quick and dead), I hope no charitable judgment can suppose me to have stood evilaffected towards him for his place, or desirous to fall into any controversy with him.

Which my resolution I so [u] pursued, that, whereas I discovered sundry unsound matters in his doctrine (as many of his sermons tasted of some sour leaven or other), yet thus I carried myself towards him. Matters of smaller weight, and so covertly delivered [x] , that no great offence to the Church was to be feared in them, I wholly passed by, as one that discerned nothing of them, or had been unfurnished of replies; others [y] of great moment, and so openly delivered, as there was just cause of fear lest the truth and Church of God should be prejudiced and perilled by it, and such as the conscience of my duty and calling would not suffer me altogether to pass over, this was my course; to deliver, when I should have just cause by my text, the truth of such doctrine as he had otherwise taught, in general speeches, without touch of his person in any sort, and further at convenient opportunity to confer with him on such points.

According to which determination, whereas he had taught certain things concerning predestination otherwise than the Word of God doth, as it is understood by all churches professing the gospel, and not unlike that wherewith Corranus [1] sometime troubled this [z] church, I both delivered the truth of such points in a general doctrine, without any touch of him in particular, and conferred with him also privately upon such articles. In which conference, I remember, when I urged the consent of all churches and good writers against him that I knew; and desired, if it were otherwise, to understand [a] what authors he had seen of [b] such doctrine: he answered me, that his best author was his own reason; which I wished him to take heed of, as a matter standing more [c] with Christian modesty and wisdom in a doctrine not received by the Church, not to trust to his own judgment so far as to publish it before he had conferred with others of his profession labouring by daily prayer and study to know the will of God, as he did, to see how they understood such doctrine. Notwithstanding, he, with wavering, replied [d] , that he would some other time deal more largely in the matter. I wished him, and prayed him not so to do, for the peace of the Church, which, by such means, might be hazarded; seeing he could not but think, that men, who make any conscience of their ministry, will judge it a necessary duty in them to teach the truth, and to convince the contrary.

Another time, upon like occasion of this doctrine of his, “That the assurance of that we believe by the word, is not so certain, as of that we perceive by sense [1] ;” I both taught the doctrine otherwise, namely, the assurance of faith to be greater, which assured [e] both of things above, and contrary to all sense and human understanding, and dealt with him also privately upon that point: according to which course of late, when as he had taught, “That the church of Rome is a true Church of Christ, and a sanctified Church by profession of that truth, which God hath revealed unto us by his Son, though not a pure and perfect Church;” and further, “That he doubted not, but that thousands of the Fathers, which lived and died in the superstitions of that church, were saved, because of their ignorance, which excused [f] them;” misalleging to that end a text of Scripture to prove it [2] : the matter being of set purpose openly and at large handled by him, and of that moment, that might prejudice the faith of Christ, encourage the ill-affected to continue still in their damnable ways, and others weak in faith to suffer themselves easily to be seduced to the destruction of their souls; I thought it my most bounden duty to God and to his Church, whilst I might have opportunity to speak with him, to teach the truth in a general speech in such points of doctrine.

At which time I taught, “That such as die, or have died at any time in the church of Rome, holding in their ignorance that faith which is taught in it, and namely, justification in part by works, could not be said by the Scriptures to be saved.” In which matter, foreseeing that if I waded not warily in it, I should be in danger to be reported (as hath fallen out since notwithstanding) to condemn all the fathers, I said directly and plainly to all men’s understanding, “That it was not indeed to be doubted, but many of the fathers were saved; but the means,” said I, “was not their ignorance, which excuseth no man with God, but their knowledge and faith of the truth, which, it appeareth, God vouchsafed them, by many notable monuments and records extant of it in all ages.” Which being the last point in all my sermon, rising so naturally from the text I then propounded [g] , as would have occasioned me to have delivered such matter, notwithstanding the former doctrine had been sound; and being dealt in by a general speech, without touch of his particular; I looked not that a matter of controversy would have been made of it, no more than had been of my like dealing in former time. But, far otherwise than I looked for, Mr. Hooker, shewing no grief or [h] offence taken at my speech all the week long, the next Sabbath, leaving to proceed upon his ordinary text, professed to preach again that he had done the day before, for some question that his doctrine was drawn into, which he desired might be examined with all severity.

So proceeding, he bestowed his whole time, in that discourse, confirming [i] his former doctrine, and answering the places of Scripture which I had alleged [1] to prove that a man dying in the church of Rome [k] is not to be judged by the Scriptures to be saved. In which long speech, and utterly impertinent to his text, under colour of answering for himself, he impugned directly and openly to all men’s understanding, the true doctrine which I had delivered; and, adding [l] to his former points some other like (as willingly one error followeth another), that is, “That the Galathians joining, with faith in Christ, circumcision, as necessary to salvation, might [m] be saved; and that they of the church of Rome may be saved by such a faith of Christ as they had, with a general repentance of all their errors, notwithstanding their opinion of justification in part by their works and merits:” I was necessarily, though not willingly, drawn to say something to the points he objected against sound doctrine; which I did in a short speech in the end of my sermon, with protestation of so doing not of any sinister affection to any man, but to bear witness to the truth according to my calling; and wished, if the matter should needs further be dealt in, some other more convenient way might be taken for it. Wherein, I hope, my dealing was manifest to the consciences of all indifferent hearers of me that day, to have been according to peace, and without any uncharitableness, being duly considered.

For that I conferred not [n] with him the first day, I have shewed that the cause requiring of me the duty at the least not to be altogether silent in it, being a matter of such consequence, the time also being short wherein I was to preach after him, the hope of the fruit of our communication being small upon experience of former conferences, and my expectation being that the Church should be no further troubled with it, upon the motion I made of taking some other course of dealing; I suppose my deferring to speak with him till some fit opportunity, cannot in charity be judged uncharitable.

The second day, his unlooked-for opposition with the former reasons, made it to be a matter that required of necessity some public answer; which being so temperate as I have shewed, if notwithstanding it be censured as uncharitable, and punished so grievously as it is, what should have been my punishment, if (without all such cautions and respects as qualified my speech) I had before all, and in the understanding of all, so reproved him offending openly, that others might have feared to do the like? which yet, if I had done, might have been warranted by the rule and charge of the [1] Apostle [o] , “Them that offend openly, rebuke openly, that the rest may also fear;” and by his example, who, when Peter in this very case which is now between us, had, not in preaching, but in a matter of conversation, not “gone with a right foot, as was fit for the truth of the Gospel [2] ,” conferred not privately with him, but, as his own rule required, reproved him openly before all, that others might hear, and fear, and not dare to do the like. All which reasons together weighed, I hope, will shew the manner of my dealing to have been charitable, and warrantable in every sort.

The next Sabbath day after this, Mr. Hooker kept the way he had entered into before, and bestowed his whole hour [3] and more only upon the questions he had moved and maintained; wherein he so set forth the agreement of the church of Rome with us, and their disagreement from us, as if we had consented in the greatest and weightiest points, and differed only in certain smaller matters: which agreement noted by him in two chief points, is not such as he would have made men believe. The one, in that he said, “They acknowledge all men sinners, even the blessed Virgin, though some of them freed her from sin;” for the council of Trent holdeth [1] , that she was free from sin. Another, in that he said, “They teach Christ’s righteousness to be the only meritorious cause of taking away sin, and differ from us only in the applying it:” for Thomas Aquinas their chief schoolman [2] , and archbishop Catherinus [3] , teach, “That Christ took away only original sin, and that the rest are to be taken away by ourselves;” yea, the council of Trent teacheth, “That righteousness whereby we are righteous in God’s sight, is an inherent righteousness;” which must needs be of our own works, and cannot be understood of the righteousness inherent only in Christ’s person, and accounted unto us. Moreover he taught the same time, “That neither the Galathians, nor the church of Rome, did directly overthrow the foundation of justification by Christ alone, but only by consequent, and therefore might well be saved; or else neither the churches of the Lutherans, nor any which hold any manner of error could be saved; because,” saith he, “every error by consequent overthroweth the foundation.” In which discourses, and such like, he bestowed his whole time and more; which, if he had affected either the truth of God, or the peace of the Church, he would truly not have done.

Whose example could not draw me to leave the Scripture I took in hand, but standing about an hour to deliver the doctrine of it, in the end, upon just occasion of the text, leaving sundry other his unsound speeches, and keeping me still to the principal, I confirmed the believing the doctrine of justification by Christ only, to be necessary to the justification of all that should be saved, and that the church of Rome directly denieth, that a man is saved by Christ, or by faith alone, without the works of the law. Which my answer, as it was most necessary for the service of God and the Church, so was it without any immodest or reproachful speech [p] to Mr. Hooker: whose unsound and wilful dealings in a cause of so great importance to the faith of Christ, and salvation of the Church, notwithstanding I knew well what speech it deserved, and what some zealous earnest man of the spirit of John and James [1] , surnamed Boanerges, Sons of Thunder, would have said in such case; yet I chose rather to content myself in exhorting him to revisit his doctrine, as Nathan [2] the prophet did the device, which, without consulting with God, he had of himself given to David, concerning the building of the temple: and, with Peter the Apostle [3] , to endure to be withstood in such a case, not unlike unto this. This in effect was that which passed between us concerning this matter, and the invectives I made against him, wherewith I am charged. Which rehearsal, I hope, may clear me (with all that shall indifferently consider it) of the blames laid upon me for want of duty to Mr. Hooker in not conferring with him, whereof I have spoken sufficiently already; and to the High Commission, in not revealing the matter to them, which yet now I am further to answer. My answer is, that I protest, no contempt nor wilful neglect of any lawful authority stayed me from complaining unto them, but these reasons following:

First, I was in some hope, that Mr. Hooker, notwithstanding he had been over-carried, with a show of charity, to prejudice the truth, yet when it should be sufficiently proved, would have acknowledged it, or at the least induced with peace, that it might be offered without [q] any offence to him, to such as would receive it; either of which would have taken away any cause of just complaint. When neither of these fell out according to my expectation and desire, but that he replied to the truth, and objected against it, I thought he might have some doubts and scruples in himself; which yet, if they were cleared, he would either embrace sound [r] doctrine, or at least suffer it to have its course: which hope of him I nourished so long, as the matter was not bitterly and immodestly handled between us.

Another reason was the cause itself, which, according to the parable of the tares, (which are said to be sown among the wheat,) sprung up first in his grass: therefore, as the servants in that place are not said to have come to complain to the Lord, till the tares came to shew their fruits in their kind; so I, thinking it yet but a time of discovering of [s] what it was, desired not their sickle to cut it down.

For further answer, it is to be considered, that the conscience of my duty to God, and to his Church, did bind me at the first, to deliver sound doctrine in such points as had been otherwise uttered in that place, where I had now some years taught the truth; otherwise the rebuke of the Prophet [1] had fallen upon me, for not going up to the breach, and standing in it, and the peril of answering for [t] the blood of the city, in whose watch-tower I sate; if it had been surprised by my default. Moreover, my public protestation, in being willing [u] , that if any were not yet satisfied, some other more convenient way might be taken for it. And, lastly, that I had resolved (which I uttered before to some, dealing with me about the matter) to have protested the next sabbath day, that I would no more answer in that place any objections to the doctrine taught by any means, but some other way satisfy such as should require it.

These, I trust, may make it appear, that I failed not in duty to authority, notwithstanding I did not complain, nor give over so soon dealing in the case. If I did, how is he clear, which can allege none of all these for himself? who leaving the expounding of the Scriptures, and his ordinary calling, voluntarily discoursed upon school points and questions, neither of edification nor of truth? Who after all this, as promising to himself, and to untruth, a victory by my silence, added yet in the next sabbath day, to the maintenance of his former opinions, these which follow:

“That no additament taketh away the foundation, except it be a privative; of which sort neither the works added to Christ by the church of Rome, nor circumcision by the Galathians, were; as one denieth him not to be a man, that saith, he is a righteous man, but he that saith he is a dead man:” whereby it might seem, that a man might, without hurt, add works to Christ, and pray also that God and St. Peter would save them.

“That the Galathians’ case is harder than the case of the church of Rome, because the Galathians joined circumcision with Christ, which God had forbidden and abolished; but that which the church of Rome joined with Christ, were good works, which God had commanded.” Wherein he committed a double fault: one, in expounding all the questions of the Galathians, and consequently of the Romans, and other Epistles, of circumcision only, and the ceremonies of the law (as they do, who answer for the church of Rome in their writings), contrary to the clear meaning of the Apostle, as may appear by many strong and sufficient reasons; the other, in that he said, “The addition of the church of Rome was of works commanded of God.” Whereas the least part of the works whereby they looked to merit, was of such works; and most were works [x] of supererogation, and [y] works which God never commanded, but was highly displeased with, as of masses, pilgrimages, pardons, pains of purgatory, and such like. Further, “That no one sequel urged by the Apostle against the Galathians for joining circumcision with Christ, but might be as well enforced against the Lutherans; that is, that for their ubiquity it may be as well said to them, If ye hold the body of Christ to be in all places, you are fallen from grace, you are under the curse of the law, saying, ‘Cursed be he that fulfilleth not all things written in this Book,’ ” with such like. He added yet further, “That to a bishop of the church of Rome, to a cardinal, yea, to the pope himself, acknowledging Christ to be the Saviour of the world, denying other errors, and being discomforted for want of works whereby he might be justified, he would not doubt, but use this speech; Thou holdest the foundation of Christian faith, though it be but by a slender thread; thou holdest Christ, though but by the hem of his garment; why shouldest thou not hope that virtue may pass from Christ to save thee? That which thou holdest of justification by thy works, overthroweth indeed by consequent the foundation of Christian faith; but be of good cheer, thou hast not to do with a captious sophister, but with a merciful God, who will justify thee for that thou holdest, and not take the advantage of doubtful construction to condemn thee. And if this (said he) be an error, I hold it willingly; for it is the greatest comfort I have in the world, without which I would not wish either to speak or live.” Thus far, being not to be answered in it any more, he was bold to proceed, the absurdity of which speech I need not to stand upon. I think the like to this, and other such in this sermon, and the rest of this matter, hath not been heard in public places within this land since Queen Mary’s days. What consequence this doctrine may be of, if he be not by authority ordered to revoke it, I beseech your honours, as the truth of God and his gospel is dear and precious unto you, according to your godly wisdom to consider.

I have been bold to offer to your honours a long and tedious discourse of these matters; but speech being like to tapestry, which, if it be folded up, sheweth but part of that which is wrought, and being unlapt and laid open, sheweth plainly to the eye all the work that is in it; I thought it necessary to unfold this tapestry, and to hang up the whole chamber of it in your most honourable senate, that so you may the more easily discern of all the pieces, and the sundry works and matters contained in it. Wherein my hope is, your honours may see I have not deserved so great a punishment as is laid upon the Church for my sake, and also upon myself, in taking from me the exercise of my ministry. Which punishment, how heavy it may seem to the Church, or fall out indeed to be, I refer it to them to judge, and spare to write what I fear, but to myself it is exceeding grievous, for that it taketh from me the exercise of my calling. Which I do not say is dear unto me, as the means of that little benefit whereby I live (although this be a lawful consideration, and to be regarded of me in due place, and of the authority under whose protection I most willingly live, even by God’s commandment both unto them and unto me); but which ought to be more precious unto me than my life, for the love which I should bear to the glory and honour of Almighty God, and to the edification and salvation of his Church, for that my life cannot any other way be of like service to God, nor of such use and profit to men by any means. For which cause, as I discern how dear my [z] ministry ought to be unto me, so it is my hearty desire, and most humble request unto God, to your honours, and to all the authority I live under, to whom any dealing herein belongeth, that I may spend my life (according to his example [1] , who in a word of like sound, but [a] of fuller sense, comparing by it the bestowing of his life to the offering poured out) upon the sacrifice of the faith of God’s people, and especially of this church, whereupon I have already poured out a great part thereof in the same calling, from which I stand now restrained. And if your honours shall find it so, that I have not deserved so great a punishment, but rather performed the duty which a good and faithful servant ought, in such case, to do to his Lord and the people he putteth him in trust withal carefully to keep; I am a most humble suitor by these presents to your honours, that, by your godly wisdom, some good course may be taken for the restoring of me to my ministry and place again. Which so great a favour, shall bind me yet in a greater obligation of duty (which is already so great, as it seemed nothing could be added unto it to make it greater) to honour God daily for the continuance and increase of your good estate, and to be ready, with all the poor means God hath given me, to do your honours that faithful service I may possibly perform. But if, notwithstanding my cause be never so good, your honours can by no means pacify such as are offended, nor restore me again, then am I to rest in the good pleasure of God, and to commend to your honours’ protection, under her Majesty’s, my private life, while it shall be led in duty; and the Church to him, who hath redeemed to himself a people with his precious blood, and is making ready to come to judge both the quick and dead, to give to every one according as he hath done in this life, be it good or evil; to the wicked and unbelievers, justice unto death; but to the faithful, and such as love his truth, mercy and grace to life everlasting.

Your Honours’ most bounden, and

Most humble Supplicant [b] ,

WALTER TRAVERS,

MINISTER OF THE GOSPEL [c] .

MR. HOOKER’S ANSWER TO THE SUPPLICATION THAT MR. TRAVERS MADE TO THE COUNCIL.

TO MY LORD OF CANTERBURY HIS GRACE [1] .

ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 1. MY duty in most humble wise remembered, may it please your Grace to understand, that whereas there hath been a late controversy raised in the Temple, and pursued by Mr. Travers, upon conceit taken at some words by me uttered with a most simple and harmless meaning; in the heat of which pursuit, after three public invectives [2] , silence being enjoined him by authority, he hath hereupon for defence of his proceedings, both presented the right honourable Lords and other [a] of her Majesty’s privy council with a writing, and also caused or suffered the same to be copied out and spread through the hands of so many, that well nigh all sorts of men have it now [b] in their bosoms [3] ; the matters wherewith I am therein charged being of such quality as they are, and myself being better known to your Grace than to any other of their Honours besides, I have chosen to offer to your Grace’s hands a plain declaration of my innocency, in all those things wherewith I am so hardly and heavily [c] charged, lest if I still remain silent, that which I do for quietness’ sake, be taken as an argument that I lack what to speak truly and justly in mine own defence.     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 2, 3, 4.

2. First, because Mr. Travers thinketh it expedient [d] to breed an opinion in men’s minds, that the root of all inconvenient events which are now sprung out, is the surly and unpeaceable disposition of the man with whom he hath to do; therefore the first in the rank of accusations laid against me, is my inconformity, which have so little inclined to so many and so earnest exhortations and conferences, as myself, he saith, can witness to have been spent upon me, for my better fashioning unto good correspondence and agreement.

3. Indeed when at the first, by means of special well-willers, without any suit of mine, as they very well know, (although I do not think it had been a mortal sin, in a reasonable sort to have shewed a moderate desire that way [1] ,) yet when by their endeavour without instigation of mine, some reverend and honourable, favourably affecting me, had procured her Majesty’s grant of the place; at the very point of my entering thereinto, the evening before I was first to preach, he came, and two other gentlemen joined with him in the charge of this [e] church, (for so he gave me to understand,) though not in the same kind of charge with him [f] : the effect of his conference then was, that he thought it his duty to advise me not to enter with a strong hand, but to change my purpose of preaching there the next day, and to stay till he had given notice of me to the congregation, that so their allowance might seal my calling. The effect of mine [g] answer was, that as in place where such order is, I would not break it; so here where it never was, I might not of mine own head take upon me to begin it: but liking very well the motion, for the opinion which I had of his good meaning who made it, requested him not to mislike my answer, though it were not correspondent to his mind.

4. When this had so displeased some, that whatsoever was afterwards done or spoken by me, it offended their taste, angry informations were daily sent out, intelligence given far and wide, what a dangerous enemy was crept in;     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 5. the worst that jealousy could imagine was spoken and written to so many, that at the length some knowing me well, and perceiving how injurious the reports were, which grew daily more and more unto my discredit, wrought means to bring Mr. Travers and me to a second conference. Wherein when a common friend unto us both had quietly requested him to utter those things wherewith he found himself any way aggrieved [h] , he first renewed the memory of my entering into this charge by virtue only of a human creature (for so the want of that formality [1] of popular allowance was then censured); and unto this was annexed a catalogue, partly of causeless surmises, as that I had conspired against him, and that I sought superiority over him; and partly of faults, which to note, I should have thought it a greater offence than to commit, if I did account them faults, and had heard them so curiously observed in any other than myself, they are such silly things; as praying in the entrance of my sermons only, and not in the end [2] , naming bishops in my prayer, kneeling when I pray, and kneeling when I receive the Communion, with such like, which I would be as loth to recite, as I was sorry to hear them objected, if the rehearsal thereof were not by him thus wrested from me. These are the conferences wherewith I have been wooed to entertain peace and good agreement.

5. As for the vehement exhortations he speaketh of, I would gladly know some reason wherefore he thought them needful to be used. Was there any thing found in my speeches or dealings, which [i] gave them occasion, who are studious of peace, to think that I disposed [k] myself to some unquiet kind of proceedings? Surely the special providence of God I do now see it was, that the first words I spake in this place should make the first thing whereof I am accused to appear not only untrue, but improbable, to as many as then heard me [l] with indifferent ears, and do I doubt not in their consciences clear me of this suspicion. Howbeit, I grant this were nothing, if it might be shewed, that my deeds following were not suitable to my words. If I had spoken of peace at the first, and afterwards sought to molest and grieve him, by crossing him in his function, by storming if my pleasure were not asked and my will obeyed in the least occurrences [m] , by carping needlessly sometimes at the manner of his teaching, sometimes at this, sometimes [n] at that point of his doctrine; I might then with some likelihood have been blamed, as one disdaining a peaceable hand when it hath been offered. But if I be able (as I am) to prove that myself have now a full year together borne the continuance of such dealings, not only without any manner of resistance, but also without any such complaint as might let or hinder him in his course; I see no cause in the world, why of this I should be accused, unless it be, lest I should accuse, which I meant not. If therefore I have given him occasion to use conferences [o] and exhortations unto peace, if when they were bestowed upon me I have despised them, it will not be hard to shew some one word or deed wherewith I have gone about to work disturbance: one is not much, I require but one. Only I require if any thing be shewed, it may be proved, and not objected only, as this is, “That I have joined with such as have always opposed to any good order in this church, and made themselves to be thought indisposed to the present estate and proceedings.” The words have reference, as it seemeth, unto some such things, as being attempted before my coming to the Temple, went not so effectually perhaps forward as he which devised them would have wished. An order, as I learn, there was tendered, that communicants should neither kneel, as in the most places of the realm [1] ; nor sit, as in this place the custom is; but walk to the one side of the table, and there standing till they had received, pass afterward away round about by the other [2] . Which being on a sudden begun to be practised in the church, some sat wondering what it should mean, others [p] deliberating what to do: till such time as at length by name one of them being openly called [q] thereunto, requested that they might do as they had been accustomed; which was granted, and as Mr. Travers had ministered his way to the rest, so a curate was sent to minister to them after their way. Which unprosperous beginning of a thing (saving only for the inconvenience of needless alterations, otherwise harmless) did so disgrace that order in their conceit who had to allow or disallow it, that it took no place. For neither they could ever induce themselves to think it good, and it so much offended Mr. Travers, who supposed it to be the best, that he since that time, although contented himself to receive it as they do at the hands of others, yet hath not thought it meet they [r] should ever receive it out of his, which would not admit that order of receiving it, and therefore in my time hath been always present not to minister but only to be ministered unto.

6. Another order there was likewise devised, an order [s] of much more weight and importance. This soil, in respect of certain immunities and other specialties belonging unto it, seemed likely to bear that which in other places of the realm of England doth not take. For which cause request was made to some of her majesty’s privy council, that whereas it is provided by a statute there should be collectors and sidemen in churches, which thing, or somewhat correspondent unto it, this place did greatly want, it would please their Honours to motion such a matter to the Ancients of the Temple. And, according to their honourable manner of helping forward all motions [t] so grounded, they wrote their letters, as I am informed, to that effect. Whereupon, although these Houses never had use of such collectors and sidemen as are appointed in other places, yet they both erected a box to receive men’s devotion for the poor, appointing the treasurer of both Houses to take care for bestowing it where need is; and granted [u] further, that if any could be intreated (as in the end some were) to undertake the labour of observing men’s slackness in divine duties, they should be allowed, their complaints heard at all times, and the faults they complained of, if Mr. Travers’ [x] private admonition did not serve, then by some other means redressed, but according to the old received orders of both Houses [y] .     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 6. Whereby the substance of their Honours’ letters was [z] indeed fully satisfied. Yet because Mr. Travers intended not this, but as it seemeth [a] , another thing; therefore notwithstanding the orders which have been taken, and for any thing I know, do stand still in as much force in this church now as at any time heretofore, he complaineth much that [b] the good orders which he doth mean have been withstood. Now it were hard, if as many as any where [c] oppose unto these and the like orders, in his persuasion good, do thereby make themselves to be thought dislikers of the present state and proceedings. If they whom he aimeth at have any otherwise made themselves to be thought such, it is likely he doth know wherein, and will I hope disclose to whom it [d] appertaineth, both the persons whom he thinketh and the causes why he thinketh them so ill-affected. But whatsoever the men be, do their faults make me faulty? They do, if I join myself with them. I beseech him therefore to declare wherein I have joined with them. Other joining than this with any man here, I cannot imagine: it may be I have talked, or walked, or eaten, or interchangeably used the duties of common humanity, with some such as he is hardly persuaded of. For I know no law of God or man, by force whereof they should be as heathens and publicans unto me, that are not gracious in the eyes of another man, perhaps without cause, or if with cause, yet such cause as he is privy unto, and not I. Could he or any reasonable man think it a charitable course in me, to observe them that shew by external courtesies a favourable inclination towards him, and if I spy out any one amongst them of whom I think not well, hereupon to draw such an accusation as this against him, and to offer it where he hath given up his against me? which notwithstanding I will acknowledge to be just and reasonable, if he or any man living shall shew, that I use as much as the bare familiar company but of one, who by word or deed hath ever given me cause to suspect or conjecture him such as here they are termed, with whom complaint is made that I join myself. This being spoken therefore and written without all possibility of proof, doth not Mr. Travers give me over-great cause to stand in some fear lest he make too little conscience how he useth his tongue or pen?     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 7, 8. These things are not laid against me for nothing; they are to some purpose if they take place. For in a mind persuaded that I am as he deciphereth me, one which refuse to be at peace with such as embrace the truth, and side myself with men sinisterly affected thereunto, any thing that shall be spoken concerning the unsoundness of my doctrine cannot choose but be favourably entertained. This presupposed, it will have likelihood enough which afterwards followeth, that “many of my sermons have tasted of some sour leaven or other,” that in them he hath “discovered sundry unsound matters.” A thing greatly [e] to be lamented, that such a place as this, which might have been so well provided for, hath fallen into the hands of one no better instructed in the truth. But what if in the end it be found that he judgeth my words, as they do colours, which look upon them with green spectacles, and think that which they see is green, when indeed that is green whereby they see.

7. Touching the first point of his [f] discovery, which is about the matter of predestination, to set down that I spake, (for I have it written,) to declare and confirm the several branches thereof, would be tedious now in this writing, where I have so many things to touch that I can but touch them only. Neither is it herein so needful for me to justify my speech, when the very place and presence where I spake, doth itself speak sufficiently for my clearing. This matter was not broached in a blind alley, or uttered where none was to hear it, that had skill with authority to control, or covertly insinuated by some gliding sentence.

8. That which I taught was at Paul’s Cross; it was not huddled in amongst other matters, in such sort that it could pass without noting; it was opened, it was proved, it was some reasonable time stood upon. I see not which way my Lord of London [1] , who was present and heard it, can excuse so great a fault, as patiently, without rebuke or controlment afterwards, to hear any man there teach otherwise than “the word of God doth,” not as it is understood by the private interpretation of some one or two men, or by a special construction received in some few books, but as it is understood “by all the [g] churches professing the gospel;”     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS 9, 10. by them all, and therefore even by our own also amongst others. A man that did mean to prove that he speaketh, would surely take the measure of his words shorter.

9. The next thing discovered, is an opinion about the assurance of men’s persuasion [h] in matters of faith. I have taught, he saith, “That the assurance of things which we believe by the word, is not so certain as of that we perceive by sense.” And is it as certain? Yea, I taught, as he himself I trust will [i] not deny, that the things which God doth promise in his word are surer unto us than any thing we touch, handle, or see; but are we so sure and certain of them? if we be, why doth God so often prove his promises unto us, as he doth, by arguments taken from our sensible experience [k] ? We must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved, otherwise it is no proof. How is it, that if ten men do all look upon the moon, every one of them knoweth it as certainly to be the moon as another; but many believing one and the same promises, all have not one and the same fulness of persuasion? How falleth it out, that men being assured of any thing by sense, can be no surer of it than they are; whereas the strongest in faith that liveth upon the earth, hath always need to labour, and strive, and pray, that his assurance concerning heavenly and spiritual things may grow, increase, and be augmented?

10. The sermon wherein I have spoken somewhat largely of this point, was, long before this late controversy rose between him and me, upon request of some of my friends seen and read by many, and amongst many, some who are [l] thought able to discern; and I never heard that any one of them hitherto hath condemned it as containing unsound matter. My case were very hard, if as oft as any thing I speak displeaseth [m] one man’s taste [n] my doctrine upon his only word should be taken for sour leaven.     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 11, 12.

11. The rest of this discovery is all about the matter now in question, wherein he hath two faults predominant, which would tire out any that should answer unto every point severally: unapt speaking of school-controversies; and of my words sometimes so untoward a reciting, that he which should promise to draw a man’s countenance, and did indeed express the parts, at leastwise the most of them, truly, but perversely place them, could not represent a more offensive visage, than unto me mine own speech seemeth in some places, as he hath ordered it. For answer whereunto, that writing is sufficient, wherein I have set down both my words and meaning in such sort, that where this accusation doth deprave the one, and either misinterpret, or without just cause mislike the other, it will appear so plainly, that I may spare very well to take upon me a new and a needless labour here.

12. Only at one thing which is there to be found, because Mr. Travers doth here seem to take such a special advantage, as if the matter were unanswerable, he constraineth me either to detect his oversight, or to confess mine own in it. In setting [o] the question between the church of Rome and us about grace and justification, lest I should give them an [p] occasion to say, as commonly they do, that when we cannot refute their opinions, we propose to ourselves such instead of theirs, as we can refute; I took it for the best and most perspicuous way of teaching, to declare first, how far we do agree, and then to shew our disagreement; not generally (as Mr. Travers his words [1] would carry it, for the easier fastening of [q] that upon me, wherewith, saving only by him, I was never in my life touched);     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 13. but about the matter of justification only [r] ; for farther I had no cause to meddle at that time. What was then mine offence in this case? I did, as he saith, so set it out as if we had consented in the greatest and weightiest points, and differed only in smaller matters. It will not be found, when it cometh to the balance, a light difference when we disagree, as I did acknowledge that we do, about the very essence of the medicine, whereby Christ cureth our disease. Did I go about to make a shew of agreement in the weightiest points, and was I so fond as not to conceal our disagreement about this? I do wish that some indifferency were used by them that have taken the weighing of my words.

13. Yea, but our agreement is not such in two of the chiefest points, as I would have men believe it is: and what are they? The one is, I said, “They acknowledge all men sinners, even the Blessed Virgin, though some of them free her from sin.” Put the case I had affirmed, that only some of them free her from sin, and had delivered it as the most current opinion amongst them, that she was conceived in sin: doth not Bonaventure [1] say plainly, “omnes fere,” in a manner all men do hold this? doth he not bring many reasons wherefore all men should hold it? were their voices since that time ever counted, and their number found smaller which hold it, than theirs that hold the contrary? Let the question then be, whether I might say, the most of them “acknowledge [s] all men sinners, even the Blessed Virgin herself.” To shew that their general received opinion is the contrary, the Tridentine council is alleged, peradventure not altogether so considerately. For if that council have by resolute determination freed her, if it hold, as Mr. Travers saith it doth, that she was free from sin, then must the church of Rome needs condemn them that hold the contrary. For what that council holdeth, the same they all do and must hold. But in the church of Rome, who knoweth not, that it is a thing indifferent to think and defend the one or the other? So that this [t] argument, the council of Trent holdeth the Virgin free from sin, ergo, it is plain that none of them may, and therefore untrue that most of them do, acknowledge her a sinner, were forcible [u] to overthrow my supposed assertion, if it were true that the council did hold this. But to the end it may clearly appear, how it neither holdeth this nor the contrary, I will open what many [x] do conceive of the canon that concerneth this matter. The fathers of Trent perceived, that if they should define of this matter, it would be dangerous howsoever it were determined. If they freed [y] her from original [z] sin, the reasons against them are unanswerable, which Bonaventure and others do allege, but especially Thomas [1] , whose line as much as may be they follow. Again if they did resolve the other way, they should control themselves in another thing, which in no case might be altered. For they profess to keep no day holy in the honour of an unholy thing; and the Virgin’s conception they honour with a feast [2] , which they could not abrogate without cancelling a constitution of Xystus Quartus. And that which is worse, the world might perhaps hereupon suspect, that if the church of Rome did amiss before in this, it is not impossible for her to fail in other things. In the end, they did wisely cut [a] out their canon by a middle thread, establishing the feast of the Virgin’s conception, and leaving the other question doubtful as they found it; giving only a caveat, that no man should take the decree which pronounceth [b] all mankind originally sinful, for a definitive sentence concerning the Blessed Virgin. This in my sight is plain by their own words, “Declarat hæc ipsa sancta Synodus [1] ,” c. Wherefore our countrymen at Rhemes, mentioning this point, are marvellous wary, how they speak; they touch it as though it were a hot coal [2] : “Many godly devout men judge that our blessed lady was neither born nor conceived in sin.” It is not their wont to speak so nicely of things definitively set down in that council.

[c] In like sort we find that the rest which have since the [d] time of the Tridentine synod written of original sin, are in this point for the most part either silent or very sparing in their [e] speech; and when they speak, either doubtful what to think, or whatsoever they think themselves, fearful to set down any certain determination. If I be thought to take the canon of that [f] council otherwise than they themselves do, let him expound it whose sentence was neither last asked nor his pen least occupied in setting it down; I mean Andradius [g] , whom Gregory the Thirteenth hath allowed plainly to confess [1] , that it is a matter which neither express evidence of Scripture [h] , nor the tradition of the Fathers, nor the sentence of the Church hath determined; that they are too surly and self-willed, which, defending either opinion, are displeased with them by whom the other is maintained; finally that the Fathers of Trent have not set down any certainty about this question, but left it doubtful and indifferent.

Now whereas my words, which I had set down in writing before I uttered them, were indeed these, “Although they imagine that the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ were for his honour and by his special protection preserved clean from all sin, yet concerning the rest they teach as we do, that all have sinned:” against my words they might with more pretence take exception, because so many of them think she had sin, which exception notwithstanding, the proposition being indefinite and the matter contingent, they cannot take, because they grant that many whom they count grave and devout amongst them think that she was clear from all sin.     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 14. But whether Mr. Travers did note my words himself, or take them upon the credit of some other man’s [i] noting, the tables were faulty wherein it was noted, “All men sinners, even the Blessed Virgin;” when my speech was rather, All men except the Blessed Virgin.”

To leave this; another fault he findeth, that I said, “They teach Christ’s righteousness to be the only meritorious cause of taking away sin, and differ from us only in the applying of it.” I did say and do, “They teach as we do [k] , that although Christ be the only meritorious cause of our justice, yet as a medicine, which is made for health, doth not heal by being made, but by being applied; so, by the merits of Christ, there can be no life nor [l] justification, without the application of his merits: but about the manner of applying Christ, about the number and power of means whereby he is applied, we dissent from them.” This of our dissenting from them is acknowledged.

14. Our agreement in the former is denied to be such as I pretend. Let their own words therefore and mine concerning them be compared. Doth not Andradius plainly confess [1] ; “Our sins doth [m] shut, and only the merits of Christ open the entering into [n] blessedness?” And Soto [2] , “It is put for a ground, that all, since the fall of Adam, obtain salvation only by the Passion of Christ: howbeit as no cause can be effectual without applying, so neither can any man be saved, to whom the suffering of Christ is not applied.” In a word, who not? when the council of Trent [3] reckoning up the causes of our first justification, doth name no end but God’s glory and our felicity; no efficient but his mercy; no instrumental but baptism; no meritorious but Christ; whom to have merited the taking away of no sin but original is not their opinion: which himself will find, when he hath well examined his witnesses, Catharinus [1] and Thomas. Their Jesuits are marvellous angry with the men out of whose gleanings Mr. Travers seemeth to have taken this; they openly disclaim it, they say plainly, “Of all the catholics there is no one that did ever so teach,” they make solemn protestation, “We believe and profess that Christ upon the cross hath altogether satisfied for all sins, as well original as actual [2] .” Indeed they teach, that the merit of Christ doth not take away actual sin in such sort as it doth original; wherein if their doctrine had been understood, I for my speech had never been accused. As for the council of Trent concerning inherent righteousness, what doth it here? No man doubteth but they make another formal cause of justification than we do.     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 15, 16. In respect whereof, I have shewed already that we disagree about the very essence of that which cureth our spiritual disease. Most true it is which the grand philosopher hath, “Every man judgeth well of that which [o] he knoweth [1] ;” and therefore, till we know the things throughly whereof we judge, it is a point of judgment to stay our judgment.

15. Thus much labour being spent in discovering the unsoundness of my doctrine, some pains he taketh further to open faults in the manner of my teaching, as that “I bestowed my whole hour and more, my time and more than my time, in discourses utterly impertinent to my text.” Which if I had done, it might have past without complaining of to the privy-council.

16. But I did worse, as he saith; “I left the expounding of the Scriptures, and my ordinary calling, and discoursed upon school-points and questions, neither of edification, nor of truth.” I read no lecture in the law or in physic. And except the bounds of ordinary calling may be drawn like a purse, how are they so much wider unto him than to me, that he within the limits of his ordinary calling should reprove that in me which he understood not, and I labouring that both he and others might understand, could not do this without forsaking my calling? The matter whereof I spake was such, as being at the first by me but lightly touched, he had in that place openly contradicted [p] , and solemnly taken upon him to disprove. If therefore it were a school-question, and unfit to be discoursed of [q] there, that which was in me but a proposition only at the first, wherefore made he a problem of it? Why took he first upon him to maintain the negative of that which I had affirmatively spoken, only to shew mine own opinion, little thinking that ever it would have made [r] a question? Of what nature soever the question were, I could do no less than there explain myself to them, unto whom I was accused of unsound doctrine; wherein if to shew what had been through ambiguity mistaken in my words, or misapplied by him in this cause against me, I used the distinctions and helps of schools, I trust that herein I have committed no unlawful thing. These school-implements are acknowledged [1] by grave and wise men not unprofitable to have been invented. The most approved for learning and judgment do use them without blame; the use of them hath been well liked in some that have taught even in this very place before me; the quality of my hearers is such, that I could not but think them of capacity very sufficient for the most part to conceive harder [s] than I used any; the cause I had in hand did in my judgment necessarily require them which were then used; when my words spoken generally without distinctions had been perverted, what other way was there for me, but by distinctions to lay them open in their right meaning, that it might appear to all men whether they were consonant to truth or no? And although Mr. Travers be so inured with the city, that he thinketh it unmeet to use any speech which savoureth of the school, yet his opinion is no canon. Though unto him, his mind being troubled, my speech did seem like fetters and manacles, yet there might be some more calmly affected which thought otherwise; his private judgment will hardly warrant his bold words, that the things which I spake [t] “were neither of edification nor truth.” They might edify some other, for any thing he knoweth, and be true for any thing he proveth to the contrary. For it is no proof to cry, “Absurdities, the like whereunto have not been heard in public places within this land since Queen Mary’s days.” If this came [u] in earnest from him, I am sorry to see him so much offended without cause; more sorry, that his fit should be so extreme, to make him speak he knoweth not what. That I neither “affected the truth of God, nor the peace of the Church,” mihi pro minimo est. It doth not much move me when Mr. Travers doth say that, which I trust a greater than Mr. Travers will gainsay.

ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 17. 17. Now let all this which hitherto he hath said be granted him, let it be as he would have it, let my doctrine and manner of teaching be as much disallowed by all men’s judgments [x] as by his, what is all this to his purpose? He himself [y] allegeth this to be the cause why he bringeth it in; the High Commissioners “charge him with an indiscretion and want of duty in that he inveighed against certain points of doctrine taught by me as erroneous, not conferring first with me, nor complaining of it to them.” Which faults, a sea of such matter as he hath hitherto waded in will never be able to scour from him. For the avoiding of schism and disturbance in the Church, which must needs grow if all men might think what they list and speak openly what they think; therefore by a decree [1] agreed upon by the Bishops and confirmed by her Majesty’s authority [2] , it was ordered that erroneous doctrine, if it were taught publickly, should not be publickly refuted;     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 18. but that notice thereof should be given unto such as are by her Highness appointed to hear and to determine such causes. For breach of which order, when he is charged with lack of duty, all the faults that can be heaped upon me will make but a weak defence for him: as surely his defence is not much stronger, when he allegeth for himself, that “he was in some hope his speech in proving [z] the truth, and clearing those scruples which I had in myself, might cause me either to embrace sound doctrine, or suffer it to be embraced of others, which if I did he should not need to complain;” that “it was meet he should first discover [a] what I had sown, and make it manifest to be tares, and then desire their scythe to cut it down;” that conscience did bind him to do otherwise than the foresaid order requireth;” that “he was unwilling [b] to deal in that public manner, and wished a more convenient way were taken for it;” that “he had resolved to have protested the next sabbath-day, that he would some other way satisfy such as should require it, and not deal more in that place.” Be it imagined, (let me not be taken as if I did compare the offenders, when I do not, but their answers only,) be it imagined that a libeller did make this apology for himself; “I am not ignorant that if I have just matter against any man the law is open, there are judges to hear it, and courts where it ought to be complained of; I have taken another course against such or such a man, yet without breach of duty, forasmuch as I am able to yield a reason of my doing; I conceived [c] some hope that a little discredit amongst men would make him ashamed of himself, and that his shame would [d] work his amendment; which if it did, other accusation there should not need:” could his answer be thought sufficient, could it in the judgment of discreet men free him from all blame? No more can the hope which Mr. Travers conceived [e] to reclaim me by public speech, justify his fault [f] against the established order of the church.

18. His thinking it meet “he should first openly discover to the people the tares that had been sown amongst them, and then require the hand of authority to mow them down,” doth only make it a question whether his opinion that this was meet, may be a privilege or protection against that lawful constitution which had before determined of it as of a thing unmeet.     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 19, 20. Which question I leave for them to discuss whom it most concerneth. If the order be such that it cannot be kept without hazarding a thing so precious as a good conscience, the peril whereof could be no greater to him than it needs must be to all others whom it toucheth in like causes [g] ; when this is evident, it will be a most effectual motive not only for England, but also for other reformed churches, even Geneva itself, (for they have the like,) to change or take that away which cannot but with great inconvenience be observed. In the meanwhile, the breach of it may in such consideration be pardoned, (which truly I wish, howsoever it be), yet hardly defended as long as it standeth in force uncancelled.

19. Now whereas he confesseth another way had “been more convenient,” and that he found in himself secret [h] unwillingness to do that which he did, doth he not plainly say in effect that the light of his own understanding proved the way he took perverse and crooked; reason was so plain and pregnant against it, that his mind was alienated, his will averted to another course? yet somewhat there was which so far overruled, that it must needs be done even against the very stream: what doth this [i] bewray? Finally, his purposed protestation, whereby he meant openly to make it known, that he did not allow this kind of proceeding, and therefore would satisfy men otherwise, “and deal no more in this place,” sheweth his good mind in this, that he meant to stay himself from further offending; but it serveth [k] not his turn. He is blamed because the thing he had done was amiss, and his answer is, That which I would have done afterward had been well, if so be I had done it.

20. But as in this he standeth persuaded that he hath done nothing besides duty, so he taketh it hardly that the High Commissioners should charge him with indiscretion. Whereof [1] as if he could so wash his hands, he maketh a long and a large declaration concerning the carriage of himself; how he waded in matters “of smaller weight,” and how in things of greater “moment;”     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 20. how warily he dealt; how “naturally he took his [m] things rising from the text;” how closely he kept himself “to the Scripture he took in hand;” how much pains he “took to confirm the necessity of believing justification by Christ only,” and to shew how “the church of Rome denieth that a man is saved by faith alone without works of the law;” what “the Sons of Thunder would have done” if they had been in his case; that his “answer was very temperate, without immodest or reproachful speech;” that when he might “before all have reproved me,” he did not, “but contented himself with exhorting me” before all “to follow Nathan’s example and revisit my doctrine;” when he might have followed St. Paul’s example in “reproving” Peter, he did not, but exhorted me with Peter to “endure to be withstood.” This testimony of his discreet carrying himself in the handling of his matter, being more agreeably framed and given him by another than by [n] himself, might make somewhat for the praise of his person; but for defence of his action unto them by whom he is thought undiscreet for not conferring privately before he spake, will it serve to answer that when he spake he did it considerately? He perceiveth it will not, and therefore addeth reasons such as they are. As namely how he purposed at the first to take another course, and that was this, “publicly to deliver the truth of such doctrine as I had otherwise taught, and at convenient opportunity to confer with me upon such points.” Is this the rule of Christ, If thy brother offend openly in his speech [o] , control it first with contrary speech openly, and confer with him afterwards upon it, when convenient opportunity serveth? Is there any law of God or of man whereupon [p] to ground such a resolution, any Church extant in the world where teachers are allowed thus to do or to be done unto? He cannot but see how weak an allegation it is, when he bringeth in his following this course, first in one matter and so afterwards in another, to approve himself now following it again. For if the very purpose of doing [q] a thing so uncharitable [r] be a fault, the deed is a greater fault; and doth the doing of it twice make it the third time fit and allowable to be done? The weight of the cause, which is his third defence, relieveth him as little.     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 21. The weightier it was the more it required conference, advice [s] , and consultation, the more it stood him upon to take good [t] heed that nothing were rashly done or spoken in it. But he meaneth “weighty” in regard of the wonderful danger, except he had presently withstood me, without expecting a time of conference. “This cause being of such moment that might prejudice the faith of Christ, encourage the ill-affected to continue still in their damnable ways, and other weak in faith to suffer themselves to be seduced to the destruction of their souls, he thought it his bounden duty to speak before he talked with me.” A man that should read this and not know what I had spoken might imagine that I had at the least denied the divinity of Christ. But they which were present at my speech, and can testify that nothing passed my lips more than is contained in their writings, whom for soundness of doctrine, learning, and judgment, Mr. Travers himself doth, I dare say, not only allow, but honour; they which heard and do know, that the doctrine here signified in so fearful manner, the doctrine that was so dangerous to the faith of Christ, that was so likely to “encourage ill-affected men to continue still in damnable ways,” that gave so great cause to tremble for fear of the present “destruction of souls,” was only this; “I doubt not but God was merciful to save thousands of our fathers living heretofore in popish superstitions, inasmuch as they sinned ignorantly;” and this spoken in a sermon, the greatest part whereof was against popery; they will hardly be able to discern how Christianity should herewith be so grievously shaken.

21. Whereby his fourth excuse is also taken from him. For what doth it boot him to say, “The time was short wherein he was to preach after me,” when his preaching of this matter perhaps ought, surely might have been either very well omitted, or at the least more conveniently for a while deferred, even by their judgments that cast the most favourable aspect towards these his hasty proceedings. The poison which men had taken at my hands was not so quick and strong in operation as in eight days to make them past cure; by eight days’ delay there was no likelihood that the force and power of his speech could die;     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 22. longer meditation might bring better and stronger proofs to mind than extemporal dexterity could furnish him with; and who doth know whether time, the only mother of sound judgment and discreet dealing, might have given that action of his some better ripeness, which by so great festination hath, as a thing born out of time, brought small joy unto him that begat it? Doth he think it had not been better that neither my speech had seemed in his eyes as an arrow sticking in a thigh of flesh [1] , nor his own as a child whereof he must needs be delivered by an hour? His last way of disburdening himself is, by casting his load upon my back, as if I had brought him by former conferences out of hope that any fruit would ever come of conferring with me. Loth I am to rip up those conferences, whereof he maketh but a slippery and loose relation. In one of them the question between us was, whether the persuasion of faith concerning remission of sins, eternal life, and whatsoever God doth promise unto man, be as free from doubting as the persuasion which we have by sense concerning things tasted, felt, and seen. For the negative I mentioned their example, whose faith in Scripture is most commended, and the experience, which all faithful men have continually had of themselves. For proof of the affirmative which he held I desiring [u] to have [x] some reason, heard [y] nothing but “all good writers” oftentimes inculcated. At the length, upon request to see some one of them, Peter Martyr’s Common Places were brought, where the leaves were turned down at a place sounding to this effect, “That the Gospel doth make true [z] Christians more virtuous than moral philosophy did [a] make heathens [2] :” which came not near the question by many miles.

22. In the other conference he questioned about the matter of reprobation, misliking first that I had termed God a permissive, and no positive cause of the evil, which the schoolmen do call malum culpæ; secondly that to their objection who say, “If I be elected, do what I will, I shall be saved,” I had answered, that the will of God in this thing is not absolute but conditional, to save his elect believing, fearing, and obediently serving him;     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 23. thirdly that to stop the mouths of such as grudge and repine against God for rejecting castaways, I had taught that they are not rejected no not in the purpose and counsel of God, without a foreseen worthiness of rejection going though not in time yet in order before. For if God’s electing do in order (as needs it must) presuppose the foresight of their being that are elected, though they be elected before they be; nor only the positive foresight of their being, but also the permissive of their being miserable, because election is through mercy, and mercy doth always [b] presuppose misery: it followeth, that the very chosen of God acknowledge to the praise of the riches of his exceeding free compassion, that when he in his secret determination set [c] it down, “Those shall live and not die,” they lay as ugly spectacles before him, as lepers covered with dung and mire, as ulcers putrefied in their fathers’ loins, miserable, worthy to be had in detestation; and shall any forsaken creature be able to say unto God, Thou didst plunge me into the depth [d] and assign me unto endless torments only to satisfy thine own will, finding nothing in me for which I could seem in thy sight so well worthy to feel everlasting flames?

23. When I saw that [e] Mr. Travers carped at these things, only because they lay not open, I promised at some convenient time to make them clear as light both to him and to [f] all others [1] . Which if they that reprove me will not grant me leave to do, they must think that they are for some cause or other more desirous to have me reputed an unsound man, than willing that my sincere meaning should appear and be approved. When I was farther asked what my grounds were, I answered that St. Paul’s words concerning this cause were my grounds. His next demand, what author [g] I did follow in expounding St. Paul and gathering the doctrine out of his words, against the judgment, he saith, “of all churches and all good writers.” I was well assured that to control this overreaching speech, the sentences which I might have cited out of Church Confessions, together with the best learned monuments of former times, and not the meanest of our own, were mo in number than perhaps he would willingly have heard of;     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 24. but what had this booted me? For although he himself in generality do much use those formal speeches, “all churches,” and “all good writers:” yet as he holdeth it in the pulpit lawful to say in general, the Painims think this, or the Heathen [h] that, but utterly unlawful to cite any sentence [i] of theirs that say it; so he gave me at that time great cause to think, that my particular alleging of other men’s words to shew their agreement with mine, would as much have displeased his mind, as the thing itself for which they [k] had been alleged. For he knoweth how often he hath in public place bitten me for this, although I did never in any sermon use many of the sentences of other writers, and do make [l] most without any; having always thought it meetest neither to affect nor to contemn the use of them.

24. He is not ignorant, that in the very entrance to the talk which we had privately at that time, to prove it unlawful altogether in preaching, either for confirmation, declaration, or otherwise, to cite any thing but mere canonical scripture, he brought in, “The Scripture is given by inspiration, and is profitable to teach, to [m] improve,” c. urging much the vigour of these two clauses, “the man of God,” and “every good work.” If therefore the work were good which he required at my hands, if privately to shew why I thought the doctrine I had delivered to be according to St. Paul’s meaning were a good work, can they which take the place before alleged for a law condemning every man of God who in doing the work of preaching any way useth human authority, like it in me, if in the work of strengthening that which I had preached, I should bring forth the testimonies and the sayings of mortal men? I alleged therefore that which might under no pretence in the world be disallowed, namely reason [n] ; not meaning thereby mine [o] own reason as now it is reported, but true, sound, divine reason; reason whereby those conclusions might be out of St. Paul demonstrated, and not probably discoursed of only; reason proper to that science whereby the things of God are known; theological reason, which out of [p] principles in Scripture that are plain, soundly deduceth more doubtful inferences, in such sort that being heard they neither can [q] be denied, nor any thing repugnant unto them received,     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 25. but whatsoever was before otherwise by miscollecting gathered out of darker [r] places, is thereby forced to yield itself, and the true consonant meaning of sentences not understood is brought to light. This is the reason which I intended. If it were possible for me to escape the ferula in any thing I do or speak, I had undoubtedly escaped it in this. In this I did that which by some is enjoined as the only allowable, but granted by all as the most sure and safe way whereby to resolve things doubted of, in matters appertaining to faith and Christian religion. So that Mr. Travers had here small cause given him to be weary of conferring, unless it were in other respects than that poor one which is here pretended, that is to say, the little hope he had of doing me any good by conference.

25. Yet behold his first reason of not complaining to the High Commission is, that sith I offended only through an overcharitable inclination, he conceived good hope, when I should see the truth cleared and some scruples which were in my mind removed by his diligence, I would yield. But what experience soever he had of former conferences, how small soever his hope was that fruit would come of it if he should have conferred, will any man judge this a cause sufficient why to open his mouth in public without any one word privately spoken? He might have considered that men do sometimes reap where they sow but with small hope; he might have considered that although unto me (whereof he was not certain neither) but if to me his labour should be as water spilt or poured into a torn dish, yet to him it could not be fruitless to do that which order in Christian churches, that which charity among Christian men, that which at any man’s hands [s] even common humanity itself, at his many other things besides did require. What fruit could there come of his [t] open contradicting in so great haste with so small advice, but such as must needs be unpleasant and mingled with much acerbity? Surely he which will take upon him to defend that in this there was no oversight, must beware lest by such defences he leave an opinion dwelling in the minds of men that he is more stiff to maintain what he hath done, than careful to do nothing but that which may justly be maintained.     ANSWER  TO TRAVERS. 26.

26. Thus have I, as near as I could, seriously answered things of weight: with smaller I have dealt as I thought their quality did require. I take no joy in striving, I have not been nuzzled [u] or trained up in it. I would to Christ they which have at this present enforced me hereunto, had so ruled their hands in any reasonable time, that I might never have been constrained to strike so [x] much as in mine own defence. Wherefore to prosecute this long and tedious contention no further, shall I wish that your Grace and their Honours (unto whose intelligence the dutiful regard which I have of their judgments maketh me desirous that as accusations have been brought against me, so this [y] my answer thereunto may likewise come) did both with the one and the other, as Constantine with the [z] books containing querulous matter [1] . Whether this be convenient to be wished or no, I cannot tell. But sith there can come nothing of contention but the mutual waste of the parties contending, till a common enemy dance in the ashes of them both, I do wish heartily that the grave advice which Constantine gave for reuniting of his clergy, so many times upon so small occasions in so lamentable sort divided, or rather the strict commandment of Christ unto his that they should not be divided at all, may at length [a] if it be his blessed will, prevail so far at the least in this corner of the Christian world, to the burying and quite forgetting of strife, together with the causes which have either bred it or brought it up; that things of small moment never disjoin them, whom one God, one Lord, one Faith, one Spirit, one Baptism, bands of great [b] force, have linked; that a respective eye towards things wherewith we should not be disquieted make us not, as through infirmity the very patriarchs themselves sometimes were, full gorged, unable to speak peaceably to their own brother; finally that no strife may ever be heard of again but this, who shall hate strife most, who shall pursue peace and unity with swiftest paces.

A LEARNED SERMON OF THE NATURE OF PRIDE [1] .

HABAK. [a] ii. 4.

His mind swelleth, and is not right in him: but the just by his faith shall live.

SERM. III.  THE nature of man, being much more delighted to be led than drawn, doth many times stubbornly resist authority, when to persuasion it easily yieldeth. Whereupon the wisest law-makers have endeavoured always, that those laws might seem most reasonable, which they would have most inviolably kept. A law simply commanding or forbidding, is but dead in comparison of that which expresseth the reason wherefore it doth the one or the other. And, surely, even in the laws of God, although that he hath given commandment be in itself a reason sufficient to exact all obedience at the hands of men, yet a forcible inducement it is to obey with greater alacrity and cheerfulness of mind, when we see plainly that nothing is imposed more than we must needs yield unto, except we will be unreasonable. In a word, whatsoever we be taught, be it precept for direction of our manners, or article for instruction of our faith, or document any way for information of our minds, it then taketh root and abideth, when we conceive not only what God doth speak, but why. Neither is it a small thing which we derogate, as well from the honour of his truth, as from the comfort, joy, and delight which we ourselves should take by it, when we loosely slide over his speech as though it were, as our own is commonly, vulgar and trivial [b] . Whereas he uttereth nothing but it hath, besides the substance of doctrine delivered, a depth of wisdom in the very choice and frame of words to deliver it in. The reason whereof being not perceived, but by greater intention of brain than our nice minds for the most part can well away with, fain we would bring the world, if we might, to think it but a needless curiosity to rip up any thing further than extemporal readiness of wit doth serve to reach unto. Which course if here we did list to follow, we might tell you, that in the first branch of this sentence God doth condemn the Babylonian’s pride; and in the second, teach what happiness of [c] state shall grow to the righteous by the constancy of their faith, notwithstanding the troubles which now they suffer; and, after certain notes of wholesome instruction hereupon collected, pass over without detaining your minds in any further removed speculation. But, as I take it, there is a difference between the talk that beseemeth nurses [d] amongst children, and that which men of capacity and judgment do or should receive instruction by.

The mind of the Prophet being erected with that which hath been hitherto spoken, receiveth here for full satisfaction a short abridgment of that which is afterwards more particularly unfolded. Wherefore, as the question before disputed of doth concern two sorts of men, the wicked flourishing as the bay, and the righteous like the withered grass, the one full of pride, the other cast down with utter discouragement; so the answer which God doth make for resolution of doubts hereupon arisen, hath reference unto both sorts, and this present sentence, containing a brief abstract thereof, comprehendeth summarily as well the fearful estate of iniquity over-exalted, as the hope laid up for righteousness opprest. In the former branch of which sentence, let us first examine what this rectitude or straightness importeth, which God denieth to be in the mind of the Babylonian. All things which God did create, he made them at the first true, good, and right: true, in respect of correspondence unto that pattern of their being, which was eternally drawn in the counsel of God’s foreknowledge; good, in regard of the use and benefit which each thing yieldeth unto other; right, by an apt conformity of all parts with that end which is outwardly proposed for each thing to tend unto. Other things have ends proposed, but have not the faculty to know, judge, and esteem of them; and therefore as they tend thereunto unwittingly, so likewise in the means whereby they acquire their appointed ends, they are by necessity so held that they cannot divert from them. The end [e] why the heavens do move, the heavens themselves know not, and their motions they cannot but continue. Only men in all their actions know what it is which they seek for, neither are they by any such necessity tied naturally unto any certain determinate mean to obtain their end by, but that they may, if they will, forsake it. And therefore, in the whole world, no creature but only man, which hath the last end of his actions proposed as a recompense and reward, whereunto his mind directly bending itself, is termed right or straight, otherwise perverse.

To make this somewhat more plain, we must note, that as they, which travel from city to city, inquire ever for the straightest way, because the straightest is that which soonest bringeth them unto their journey’s end; so we, “having here,” as the Apostle speaketh [1] , “no abiding city,” but being always in travel towards that place of joy, immortality, and rest, cannot but in every of our deeds, words, and thoughts, think that to be best, which with most expedition leadeth us thereunto, and is for that very cause termed right. That sovereign good, which is the eternal fruition of all good, being our last and chiefest felicity, there is no desperate despiser of God and godliness living which doth not wish for. The difference between right and crooked minds, is in the means which the one or the other do eschew or follow. Certain it is, that all particular things which are naturally desired in the world, as food, raiment, honour, wealth, pleasure, knowledge, they are subordinated in such wise unto that future good which we look for in the world to come, that even in them there lieth a direct way tending unto this. Otherwise we must think, that God, making promises of good things in this life, did seek to pervert men and to lead them from their right minds. Where is then the obliquity of the mind of man? His mind is perverse, kam [f] [2] , and crooked, not when it bendeth itself unto any of these things, but when it bendeth so, that it swerveth either to the right hand or to [g] the left, by excess or defect, from that exact rule whereby human actions are measured. The rule to measure and judge them by, is the law of God. For this cause, the Prophet doth make so often and so earnest suit, “O direct me in the way of thy commandments”: as long as I have respect to thy statutes, I am sure not to tread amiss. Under the name of the Law, we must comprehend not only that which God hath written in tables and leaves, but that which nature hath [h] engraven in the hearts of men. Else how should [i] those heathen [k] , which never had books but heaven and earth to look upon, be convicted of perverseness? “But the Gentiles, which had not the law in books, had,” saith the Apostle [1] , “the effect of the law written in their hearts.”

Then seeing that the heart of man is not right exactly, unless it be found in all parts such, that God examining and calling it unto account with all severity of rigour, be not able once to charge it with declining or swerving aside (which absolute perfection when did God ever find in the sons of mere mortal men?) doth it not follow, that all flesh must of necessity fall down and confess, We are not dust and ashes, but worse; our minds from the highest to the lowest are not right; if not right, then undoubtedly not capable of that blessedness which we naturally seek, but subject unto that which we most abhor, anguish, tribulation, death, woe, endless misery. For whatsoever misseth the way of life, the issue thereof cannot be but perdition. By which reason, all being wrapped up in sin, and made thereby the children of death, the minds of all men being plainly convicted not to be right; shall we think that God hath endued them with so many excellencies, moe [l] not only than any, but than all the creatures in the world besides, to leave them in [m] such estate, that they had been happier if they had never been? Here cometh necessarily in a new way unto salvation, so that they which were in the other perverse, may in this be found straight and righteous. That the way of nature, this the way of grace. The end of that way, salvation merited, presupposing the righteousness of men’s works; their righteousness, a natural ability [n] to do them; that ability [n] , the goodness of God which created them in such perfection. But the end of this way, salvation bestowed upon men as a gift, presupposing, not their righteousness, but the forgiveness of their unrighteousness, justification; their justification, not their natural ability [o] to do good, but their hearty sorrow for not [p] doing, and unfeigned belief in Him, for whose sake not doers are accepted, which is their vocation; their vocation, the election of God, taking them out from the number of lost children; their election, a mediator in whom to be elect; this mediation, inexplicable mercy; his mercy, their misery, for whom he vouchsafed to make himself a mediator. The want of exact distinguishing between these two ways, and observing what they have common, what peculiar, hath been the cause of the greatest part of that confusion whereof Christianity at this day laboureth. The lack of diligence in searching, laying down, and inuring men’s minds with those hidden grounds of reason, whereupon the least particulars in each of these are most firmly and strongly builded, is the only reason of all those scruples and uncertainties, wherewith we are in such sort entangled, that a number despair of ever discerning what is right or wrong in any thing. But we will let this matter rest, whereinto we stepped to search out a way, how some minds may be and are right truly even in the sight of God, though they be simply in themselves not right.

Howbeit, there is not only this difference between the just and impious, that the mind of the one is right in the sight of God, because his obliquity is not [q] imputed; the other perverse, because his sin is unrepented of: but even as lines that are drawn with a trembling hand, but yet to the point which they should, are though [r] ragged and uneven, nevertheless direct in comparison of them which run clean another way; so there is no incongruity in terming them right-minded men, whom though God may charge with many things amiss, yet they are not as those dismal [s] and ugly [t] monsters, in whom, because there is nothing but wilful opposition of mind against God, a more than tolerable deformity is noted in them, by saying, that their minds are not right. The angel of the church of Thyatira, unto whom the Son of God sendeth this greeting, “I know thy works, and thy love, and service, and faith; notwithstanding, I have a few things against thee [1] ,” was not as he unto whom St. Peter, “Thou hast no fellowship in this business; for thy heart is not right in the sight of God [2] .” So that whereas the orderly disposition of the mind of man should be this; perturbations and sensual appetites all kept in awe by a moderate and sober will; will in all things framed by reason; reason directed by the law of God and nature; this Babylonian had his mind, as it were, turned upside down. In him unreasonable cecity and blindness trampled all laws, both of God and nature, under feet; wilfulness tyrannized over reason, and brutish sensuality over will: an evident token that his outrage would work his overthrow, and procure his speedy ruin. The mother whereof was that which the Prophet in these words signifieth, “His mind doth swell.”

Immoderate swelling, a token of very imminent [u] breach, and of inevitable destruction: pride, a vice which cleaveth so fast unto the hearts of men, that if we were to strip ourselves of all faults one by one, we should undoubtedly find it the very last and hardest to put off. But I am not here to touch that [x] secret itching humour of vanity, wherewith men are generally touched. It was a thing more than meanly inordinate, wherewith the Babylonian did swell. Which that we may both the better conceive, and the more easily reap profit by, [y] the nature of this vice, which setteth the whole world out of course, and hath put so many even of the wisest besides themselves, is first of all to be inquired into: secondly, the dangers to be discovered which it draweth inevitably [z] after it, being not cured: and, last of all, the way [a] to cure it.

Whether we look upon the gifts of nature or of grace, or whatsoever is in the world admired as a part of man’s excellency, adorning his body, beautifying his mind, or externally any way commending him in the account and opinion of men, there is in every kind somewhat possible which no man hath, and somewhat had which few [b] can attain unto. By occasion whereof there groweth disparagement necessarily; and by occasion of disparagement, pride through men’s ignorance. First, therefore, although men be not proud of any thing which is not at the least in opinion good; yet every good thing they are not proud of, but only of that which neither is common unto many, and being desired of all causeth them which have it to be honoured above the rest. Now there is no man so void of brain, as to suppose that pride consisteth in the bare possession of such things; for then to have virtue were a vice, and they should be the happiest men who are wretchedest [c] , because they have least of that which they would have. And though in speech we do intimate a kind of vanity to be in them of whom we say, “They are wise men and they know it;” yet this doth not prove, that every wise man is proud which doth not think himself to be blockish. What we may have, and know that we have it without offence, do we then make offensive when we take joy and delight in having it? What difference between men enriched with all abundance of earthly and [d] heavenly blessings, and idols gorgeously attired, but this, “The one take [e] pleasure in that which they have, the other none?” If we may be possessed with beauty, strength, riches, power, knowledge, if we may be privy what we are every way, if glad and joyful for our own welfare, and in all this remain unblameable; nevertheless, some there are, who, granting thus much, doubt whether it may stand with humility, to accept [f] those testimonies of praise and commendation, those titles, rooms, and other honours, which the world yieldeth, as acknowledgments of some men’s excellency [g] above others. For, inasmuch as Christ hath said unto those that are his, “The kings of the Gentiles reign over them, and they that bear rule over them, are called gracious lords; be ye [h] not so [1] ;” the Anabaptist hereupon urgeth equality among Christians, as if all exercise of authority were nothing else but heathenish pride. Our Lord and Saviour had no such meaning. But his disciples feeding themselves with a vain imagination for the time, that the Messias of the world should in Jerusalem erect his throne, and exercise dominion with great pomp and outward stateliness, advanced in honour and terrene power above all the princes of the earth, began to think how with their Lord’s condition their own would also rise; that having left and forsaken all to follow him, their place about him should not be mean; and because they were many, it troubled them much, which of them should be the greatest man. When suit was made for two by name, that of them “one might sit at his right hand, and the other at his left [1] ,” the rest began to stomach, each taking it grievously that any should have what all did affect [i] : their Lord and Master, to correct this humour, turneth aside their cogitations from these vain and fanciful conceits [k] , giving them plainly to understand, that they did but deceive themselves; his coming was not to purchase an earthly, but to bestow an heavenly kingdom, wherein they, if any, shall be greatest, whom unfeigned humility maketh in this world lowest, and least amongst others: “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations, therefore I leave unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed me, that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on seats, and judge the twelve tribes of Israel [2] .” But my kingdom no [l] such kingdom as ye dream of: and therefore these hungry ambitious contentions seemlier [m] in heathens than in you. Wherefore from Christ’s intent and purpose nothing further removed than dislike of distinction in titles and calling [n] , annexed for order’s sake unto authority, whether it be ecclesiastical or civil. And when we have examined throughly what the nature of this vice is, no man knowing it can be so simple, as not to see an uglier [o] shape thereof apparent many times in rejecting honours offered, than in the very exacting of them at the hands of men. For, as Judas his care for the poor was mere covetousness; and that frank-hearted wastefulness spoken of in the gospel, thrift; so there is no doubt but that going in rags may be pride, and thrones be challenged with unfeigned humility.

We must go further, therefore, and enter somewhat deeper, before we can come to the closet wherein this poison lieth. There is in the heart of every proud man, first, an error of understanding, a vain opinion whereby he thinketh his own excellency, and by reason thereof his worthiness of estimation, regard, and honour, to be greater than in truth it is. This maketh him in all his affections accordingly to raise up himself; and by his inward affections his outward acts are fashioned. Which if you list to have exemplified [p] , you may, either by calling to mind things spoken of them whom God himself hath in Scripture especially [q] noted with this fault; or by presenting to your secret cogitations that which you daily behold in the odious lives and manners of high-minded men. It were too long to gather together so plentiful an harvest of examples in this kind as the sacred Scripture affordeth. That which we drink in at our ears doth not so piercingly [r] enter, as that which the mind doth conceive by sight. Is there any thing written concerning the Assyrian monarch in the tenth of Esay, of his swelling mind, his haughty looks, his great and presumptuous vaunts; “By the power of mine own hand I have done all things, and by mine own wisdom I have subdued the world [1] ;” any thing concerning the dames of Sion, in the third of the prophet Esay, of their stretched-out necks, their immodest eyes, their pageant-like, stately and pompous gait; any thing concerning the practices of Core [s] , Dathan, and Abiron, of their impatience to live in subjection, their mutinous repining [t] at lawful authority, their grudging against their superiors, ecclesiastical and civil; any thing concerning pride in any sort or sect, which the present face of the world doth not, as a [u] glass, represent to the view of all men’s beholding? So that if books, both profane and holy, were all lost, as long as the manners of men retain the estate [x] they are in; for him which observeth, how after that [y] men have once conceived an over-weening of themselves, it maketh them in all their affections to swell; how deadly their hatred, how heavy their displeasure, how unappeasable their indignation and wrath is above other men’s, in what manner they compose themselves to be as Heteroclites, without the compass of all such rules as the [z] common sort are measured by; how the oaths which religious hearts do tremble at, they affect as principal graces of speech; what felicity they take to see the enormity of their crimes above the reach of laws and punishments; how much it delighteth them when they are able to appal [a] with the cloudiness of their look; how far they exceed the terms wherewith man’s nature should be limited; how high they bear their heads over others; how they browbeat all men which do not receive their sentences as oracles, with marvellous applause and approbation; how they look upon no man but with an indirect countenance, nor hear any thing, saving their own praises [b] with patience, nor speak without scornfulness and disdain; how they use their servants as if they were beasts, their inferiors as servants, their equals as inferiors, and as for superiors, acknowledge none; how they admire themselves as venerable, puissant, wise, circumspect, provident, every way great, taking all men besides themselves for ciphers, poor inglorious silly creatures, needless burthens of the earth, off-scourings, nothing: in a word, for him which marketh how irregular and exorbitant they are in all things, it can be no hard thing hereby to gather, that pride is nothing but an inordinate elation of the mind, proceeding from a false conceit of men’s excellency in things honoured, which accordingly frameth also their deeds and behaviour, unless there be cunning to conceal it. For a foul scar may be covered with a fair cloth. And as proud as Lucifer may be in outward appearance lowly.

No man expecteth grapes of thistles; nor from a thing of so bad a nature can other than suitable fruits be looked for. What harm soever in private families there groweth by disobedience of children, stubbornness of servants, untractableness in them, who, although they otherwise may rule, yet should in consideration of the imparity of their sex be also subject; whatsoever, by strife [c] amongst men combined in the fellowship of greater societies, by tyranny of potentates, ambition of nobles, rebellion of subjects in civil states; by heresies, schisms, divisions in the Church; naming pride, we name the mother which brought them forth, and the only nurse that feedeth them. Give me the hearts of all men humbled; and what is there that can overthrow or disturb the peace of the world? wherein many things are cause [d] of much evil; but pride of all.

To declaim of the swarms of evils issuing out of pride, is an easy labour. I rather wish that I could exactly prescribe and persuade effectually the remedies, whereby a sore so grievous might be cured the [e] means how the pride of swelling minds might be taken down. Whereunto so much we have already gained, that the evidence of the cause which breedeth it, pointeth directly unto the likeliest and fittest help [f] to take it away. Diseases that come of fulness, emptiness must remove. Pride is not cured but by abating the error which causeth the mind to swell. Then seeing that they swell by misconceit of their own excellency: for this cause, all which tendeth [g] to the beating down of their pride, whether it be advertisement from men, or from God himself chastisement, it then maketh them cease to be proud, when it causeth them to see their error in overseeing the thing they were proud of. At this mark Job, in his apology unto his eloquent friends, aimeth. For perceiving how much they delighted to hear themselves talk, as if they had given their poor afflicted familiar a schooling of marvellous deep and rare instruction, as if they had taught him more than all the world besides could acquaint him with; his answer was to this effect: Ye swell as though ye had conceived some great matter; but as for that which ye are delivered of, who knoweth it not? Is any man ignorant of these things? At the same mark the blessed apostle driveth [1] : “Ye abound in all things, ye are rich, ye reign, and would to Christ we did reign with you:” but boast not: for what have ye, or are ye of yourselves? To this mark all those humble confessions are referred, which have been always frequent in the mouths of saints, truly wading in the trial of themselves; as that of the prophet [2] : “We are nothing but soreness, and festered corruption;” our very light is darkness, and our righteousness itself unrighteousness [h] : that of Gregory, “Let no man ever put confidence in his own deserts; sordet in conspectu Judicis, quod fulget in conspectu operantis [3] : in the sight of that [i] dreadful Judge, it is noisome, which in the doer’s judgment maketh a beautiful show:” that of Anselm, “I adore thee, I bless thee, Lord God of heaven and Redeemer of the world, with all the power, ability [k] , and strength of my heart and soul, for thy goodness so unmeasurably extended; not in regard of my merits, whereunto only torments were due, but of thy mere unprocured benignity.” If these Fathers should be raised again from the dust, and have the books laid open before them, wherein such sentences are found as this: “Works, no other than the value, desert, price, and worth of the joys of the kingdom of heaven; heaven, in relation to our works, as the very stipend, which the hired labourer covenanteth to have of him whose work [l] he doth, a thing equally and justly answering unto the time and weight of his travails, rather than a voluntary [m] or bountiful gift [1] ”—if, I say, those reverend fore-rehearsed Fathers, whose books are so full of sentences witnessing their Christian humility, should be raised from the dead, and behold with their eyes such things written; would they not plainly pronounce of the authors of such writ, that they were fuller of Lucifer than of Christ, that they were proud-hearted men, and carried more swelling minds than sincerely and feelingly known Christianity can tolerate?

But as unruly children, with whom wholesome admonition prevaileth little, are notwithstanding brought to fear that ever after which they have once well smarted for; so the mind which falleth not with instruction, yet under the rod of divine chastisement ceaseth to swell. If, therefore, the prophet David, instructed by good experience, have acknowledged, Lord I was even at the point of clean forgetting myself, and of [n] [1] straying from my right mind, but thy rod hath been my reformer; it hath been good for me, even as much as my soul is worth, that I have been with sorrow troubled: if the blessed Apostle did need the corrosive of sharp and bitter strokes, lest his heart should swell with too great abundance of heavenly revelations [2] : surely, upon us whatsoever God in this world doth or shall inflict, it cannot seem more than our pride doth exact, not only by way of revenge, but of remedy. So hard it is to cure a sore of such quality as pride is, inasmuch as that which rooteth out other vices, causeth this; and (which is even above all conceit) if we were clean from all spot and blemish both of other faults and of pride, the fall of angels doth make it almost a question, whether we might not need a preservative still, lest we should haply [o] wax proud, that we are not proud. What is virtue but a medicine, and vice but a wound? Yet we have so often deeply wounded ourselves with medicines, that God hath been fain to make wounds medicinable [p] ; to cure by vice where virtue hath stricken; to suffer the just man to fall, that, being raised, he may be taught what power it was which upheld him standing. I am not afraid to affirm it boldly, with St. Augustine [3] , that men puffed up through a proud opinion of their own sanctity and holiness, receive a benefit at the hands of God, and are assisted with his grace, when with his grace they are not assisted, but permitted, and that grievously, to transgress; whereby, as they were in over-great liking of themselves supplanted, so the dislike of that which did supplant them may establish them afterwards the surer. Ask the very soul of Peter, and it shall undoubtedly make you itself this answer: My eager protestations, made in the glory of my ghostly strength, I am ashamed of; but those crystal [q] tears, wherewith my sin and weakness was bewailed, have procured my endless joy; my strength hath been my ruin, and my fall my stay [1] .

Now what we did at the first observe, the same we must here repeat unto you. As that complaint, which heretofore the prophet Abakuk hath made unto God in the person of the afflicted people of God, had two principal respects; the one to the flourishing estate of impious and cruel persecutors, the other to the woful and hard condition of saints persecuted by their cruelty; so this short abridgment of answer thereunto made hath likewise a double relation. It threateneth the one sort that their swelling pride doth prognosticate their speedy ruin: the other, which counted themselves the children of death, it reviveth, and with the hope of life laid up in store for them, it causeth their bruised hearts to rejoice. So that, whereas before, they mourned in the presence of God, and made their moan, saying [2] , “For thy sake we are continually slain, and are counted as sheep for the slaughter; why sleepest thou, O Lord? wake, and be not far off for ever: wherefore hidest thou thy face, wherefore dost thou forget our misery and affliction? our souls are beaten down to the dust, they cleave even to the very ground. O Lord, rise up for our succour, and redeem us for thy mercy’s sake:” all these their tears are here wiped away, and such abundance of grace consolatory ministred unto them, that they may now put off sackcloth, and anoint their heads with oil, change their doleful tunes into songs of cheerful melody, shake off that over [r] -depressing heaviness, and resume their wonted joys; forestalling as it were, and preoccupating that of the blessed Apostle, “Like dead men, yet behold alive [3] .” “For the just by his faith shall live.” For explication whereof the words themselves do offer occasion to speak, first of the promise of life; secondly, of their quality to whom life is promised; and in the last place, of that dependency whereby the life of the just is here said to hang on their faith.

In nature those things are properly said to live which do move, having in them that which giveth them their motion; as plainly appeareth to be seen in all those creatures which are commonly termed living: for they move as long as they are said to live. Neither are they moved by any external impulsive force, but a certain divine vigour, which nature hath imbreathed them with, moveth them. Touching men, of all creatures living the chiefest and most eminent, they have their natural life which the soul in the body causeth; and correspondent thereunto some amongst them a life ghostly, wrought by a force much diviner inhabiting the soul. Wherein we are to consider, first the fountain, the cause original and beginning, whereof spiritual life proceedeth: then, in what manner we do here live the life of God: and thirdly, how this life shall in the world to come be perfected.

“I have set before you,” saith Moses, “life and death. Choose life therefore, that both thou and thy seed may live by loving the Lord thy God, by obeying his voice, and by cleaving unto him, for he is thy life and the length of thy days [1] .” Again, “the children of men,” saith the Prophet, “they shall repose themselves under the shadow of thy wings: they shall be satisfied with the fatness of thy house, and thou shalt give them drink of the river of thy pleasures; for with thee is the well of life [2] .”

Now “as the Father hath life in himself, so to the Son he hath given to have life in himself also [3] .” Not so in himself, but that others are, by his quickening force and virtue made alive. For which cause Peter, in the third of the Apostles’ Acts, termeth him “the Lord of life.” He is the life of the world; partly, because for the world he hath suffered death, to procure it eternal life: and partly, for that the world, being really quickened by him, liveth that life which his death hath purchased. The soul which quickeneth the body is in the body. And it must be in the soul, which the soul of man liveth by. Except therefore Christ be truly in you, through him ye cannot be made alive. Hereunto all those sentences apostolic and evangelical have relation. That in the eighth to the Romans, “If Christ be in you, then is the body dead unto sin, but the spirit life for righteousness’ sake.” That in the thirteenth of the second to them of Corinth, “Know ye not how Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be castaways?” That in the second to the Galatians, “Christ Jesus liveth in me.” That in the third to the Ephesians, “For this cause bow I my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that he may grant you according to the riches of his glory to be strengthened in the inner man, that Christ may dwell in your hearts.” That in St. John, “He that is in you is greater than he that is in the world.”

Somewhat strange it seemeth, that a thing in Scripture so often inculcated should be so hardly understood. Granted it is and agreed upon, that he which hath not the Son of God in him hath not life. But how to construe this, we are to seek: some thinking it to be a point inexplicable, a mystery which all must hold, but none is able to open or understand. Others considering, that forasmuch as the end of all speech is to impart unto others the mind of him that speaketh, the words which God so often uttereth concerning this point must needs be frivolous and vain, if to conceive the meaning of them were a thing impossible, have therefore expounded our conjunction with Christ to be a mutual participation whereby each is blended with other, his flesh and blood with ours, and ours in like sort with his, even as really materially and naturally as wax melted and blended with wax into one lump; no other difference but that this mixture may be sensibly perceived, the other not. Which gross conceit doth fight openly against reason. For are not we and Christ personally distinguished? Are we not locally divided and severed each from other? “My little children,” saith the Apostle [1] , “of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.” Did the blessed Apostle mean materially and really to create Christ in them, flesh and blood, soul and body? No: Christ is in us, saith Gregory Nazianzene, not κατὰ τὸ ϕαινόμενον but κατὰ τὸ νοούμενον: not according to that natural substance which visibly was seen on earth: but according to that intellectual comprehension which the mind is capable of. So that the difference between Christ on earth and Christ in us is no less than between a ship on the sea and in the mind of him that builded it: the one a sensible thing, the other a mere shape of a thing sensible. That whereby the Apostle therefore did form Christ, was the Gospel. So that Christ was formed when Christianity was comprehended. As things which we know and delight in are said to dwell in our minds and possess our hearts; so Christ knowing his sheep and being known of them, loving and being loved, is not without cause said to be in them, and they in him. And for as much as we are not on our parts hereof by our own inclination capable, God hath given unto his that Spirit which, teaching their hearts to acknowledge and tongues to confess Christ the Son of the living God, is for this cause also said to quicken. Concerning the fountain of life therefore, this may suffice.

Touching the manner of life spiritual, here begun: Of them that walk in the blind vanity of their own minds, that have their cogitations darkened through ignorance, that have hardened their hearts, that are conscienceless, that have resigned themselves over unto wantonness, that are greedily set upon all uncleanness and sin; of such it is plainly determined, they be dead. Strangers they are from the life of God. Which life is nothing else but a spiritual and divine kind of being, which men by regeneration attain unto, Christ and his spirit dwelling in them, and as the soul of their souls moving them unto such both inward and outward actions as in the sight of God are acceptable. As they that live naturally have their natural nourishment, wherewith they are sustained; so he to whom the spirit of Christ giveth life, hath whereon he also delighteth to feed. He hungereth after righteousness: it is meat and drink unto him to be exercised in doing good: “the hart is not after the rivers of water so thirsty as my soul,” saith the Prophet, “is thirsty after thee, O God.” They that live the life of God, what they delight to taste, let it by those words spoken unto Christ in the Song of Salomon be conjectured, “Honey and milk are under thy tongue;” what to smell, by those, “My beloved is as a bundle of myrrh, as a cluster of camphor:” what to hear, by those, “O let me hear thy voice, thy voice is delectable:” what to see, by those, “Shew me thy countenance, thy sight is comely.” And as the sense, so the motion, of him that liveth the life of God hath a peculiar kind of excellency. His hands are not stretched out towards his enemies, except it be to give them alms: his feet are slow, save only when he travelleth for the benefit of his brethren. When he is railed upon by the wicked, his voice is not otherwise heard than the voice of Stephen, “Lord, lay not this thing to their charge.” Though we could triple the years of Methusalem or live as long as the moon doth endure; our natural life without this what were it? This altereth and changeth our corrupt nature: by this we are continually stirred up unto good things: by this we are brought to loathe and abhor the gross defilements of the wicked world; constantly and patiently to suffer whatsoever doth befall us, though as sheep we be led by flocks unto the slaughter: this dispelleth the clouds of darkness, easeth the heart of grief, abateth hatred, composeth strife, appeaseth anger, ordereth our affections, ruleth our thoughts, guideth our lives and conversations. Whence is it that we find in Abel such innocency, in Enoch such piety, in Noah such equity, in Abraham such faith, in Isaac such simplicity, such longanimity in Jacob, such chastity in Joseph, such meekness and tenderness of heart in Moses, in Samuel such devotion, in Daniel such humility, in Elias such authority, in Elizeus such zeal, such courage in Prophets, in Apostles such love, such patience in martyrs, such integrity in all true saints? did they not all live the life of God?

Which life, here begun, (to come to the last point,) shall be in the world to come finished. Whereof we have heretofore spoken largely. And when we have spoken all we can speak, all which we can speak is but this; he which hath it hath more than speech can possibly express, and as much as his heart can wish: he doth abound and hath enough. For the words of the promise of life, in the tenth of John, are these; “I came that my sheep might have life, and might abound.” Seeing therefore we are taught that life is the lot of our inheritance, and that when we have it we have enough, wherefore struggle we so much for other things which we may very well want and yet abound? When we leave the world, this hope leaves not us: it doth not forsake us, no not in the grave. Sundry are the casualties of this present world, the trials many and fearful which we are subject unto. But in the midst of all, this must be the chiefest anchor unto our souls, “The just shall live.” Wherefore this God setteth before the eyes of his poor afflicted people, as having in it force sufficient to countervail whatsoever misery they either did or might sustain. Those dreadful names of troubles, wars, invasions, the very mention whereof doth so much terrify; weigh them with hearts resolved in this, that “the just shall live,” and what are they but panical terrors? If they promise great things, which are not of power and habilitie to perform the least thing promised, what wise man amongst you is there whom such presumptuous promises do not make rather to laugh than to hope? Yet behold at the threatenings of men we tremble, though we know that their rage is limited, that they cannot do what they list, that the hairs of our heads are numbered, that of so many there falleth not one to the ground without the privity and will of our heavenly Father. How often hath God turned those very purposes, counsels, and enterprises, wherewith the death of his saints hath been sought, both to the safety of their lives, and increase also of their honours! Was it not thus in Joseph, in Moses, in David, in Daniel? If cruelty, oppression, and tyranny do so far forth prevail, that they have their desires and prosper in that which they take in hand: the utmost of that evil which they can do is but that very good which the blessed Apostle doth wish, “Cupio dissolvi.” Thrice happy therefore are those men, whom, whatsoever misery befalleth in this present world, it findeth them settled in a sure expectation of that which here God promised the just, felicity and life in the world to come. Whereof God the Father make you partakers through the merits of his only-begotten Son our blessed Saviour, unto whom, with the Holy Ghost, three persons, one eternal and everliving God, be honour, glory, and praise for ever.

II.

There never was that man so carelessly affected towards the safety of his own soul, but knowing what salvation and life doth mean, though his own ways were the very paths of endless destruction, yet his secret natural desire must needs be, not to perish but to live. “What man is he,” saith the prophet David [1] , “which desireth, or rather what man is there which doth not desire life, and delight in days wherein he may see everlasting good? Let that man keep his tongue from harm, his lips from guile: let him shun evil, embrace good, pursue peace and follow after it. For the eyes of the Lord [are] upon the righteous, and his ears unto their cry. Their cry he heareth, and delivereth them from all their troubles: near he is unto them that are contrite in heart: men afflicted in spirit he will save: the troubles of the righteous [are] great, but he delivereth out of all: their very bones so charily kept that not as much as one of them broken: such as hate them malice shall slay: the Lord redeemeth the souls of his servants, and none that trust in him shall perish.” What the prophet David largely unfoldeth, the same we have here by way of abridgment comprehended in small room. So that hearing how the just shall live, you hear no less in weight, though in sound much less be spoken. For whatsoever the watchful eye of God, whatsoever his attentive ear; whatsoever deliverance out of trouble; whatsoever in trouble nearness of ghostly assistance; whatsoever salvation, custody, redemption, safe preservation of their souls and bodies and very bones from perishing, doth import: the promise of life includeth all. And those sundry rehearsed specialties, harmlessness and sincerity in speech, averseness from evil, inclination unto good things, pursuit of peace, continuance in prayer, contrition of heart, humility of spirit, integrity, obedience, trust and affiance in God; what import they more than this one only name of justice doth insinuate? which name expresseth fully their quality unto whom God doth promise life.

Slightly to touch a thing so needful most exactly to be known, were towards justice itself to be unjust. Wherefore I cannot let slip so fit an occasion to wade herein somewhat further than perhaps were expedient, unless both the weightiness and the hardness of the matter itself did urgently press thereunto. Justice, that which flourishing upholdeth, and not prevailing disturbeth, shaketh, threateneth with utter desolation and ruin the whole world: justice, that whereby the poor have their succour, the rich their ease, the potent their honour, the living their peace, the souls of the righteous departed their endless rest and quietness: justice, that which God and angels and men are principally exalted by: justice, the chiefest matter contended for at this day in the Christian world: in a word, justice, that whereon not only all our present happiness, but in the kingdom of God our future joy dependeth. So that, whether we be in love with the one or with the other, with things present or things to come, with earth or with heaven; in that which is so greatly available to both, none can but wish to be instructed. Wherein the first thing to be inquired of is, the nature of justice in general: the second, that justice which is in God: the last, that whereby we ourselves being just are in expectancy of life here promised in this sentence of the prophet, “By faith the just shall live.”

God hath created nothing simply for itself: but each thing in all things, and of every thing each part in other hath such interest, that in the whole world nothing is found whereunto any thing created can say, “I need thee not.” The prophet Osee, to express this, maketh by a singular grace of speech the people of Israel suitors unto corn and wine and oil, as men are unto men which have power to do them good; corn and wine and oil supplicants unto the earth; the earth to the heavens; the heavens to God. “In that day, saith the Lord, I will hear the heavens, and the heavens shall hear the earth, and the earth shall hear the corn and wine and oil, and the corn and wine and oil shall hear Israel.” They are said to hear that which we ask; and we to ask the thing which we want, and wish to have. So hath that supreme commander disposed it, that each creature should have some peculiar task and charge, reaching furder than only unto its own preservation. What good the sun doth, by heat and light; the moon and stars, by their secret influence; the air, and wind, and water, by every their several qualities: what commodity the earth, receiving their services, yieldeth again unto her inhabitants: how beneficial by nature the operations of all things are; how far the use and profit of them is extended; somewhat the greatness of the works of God, but much more our own inadvertency and carelessness, doth disable us to conceive. Only this, because we see, we cannot be ignorant of, that whatsoever doth in dignity and preeminence of nature most excel, by it other things receive most benefit and commodity. Which should be a motive unto the children of men to delight by so much more in imparting that good which they may, by how much their natural excellency hath made them more to abound with habilitie and store of such good as may be imparted. Those good things therefore which be communicable; those which they that have do know they have them, and do likewise know that they may be derived unto others; those which may be wanting in one, and yet not without possibility to be had from some other; such are matter for exercise of justice.

And such things are of two kinds; good and desirable either simply unto him which receiveth them, as counsel in perplexity, succour in our need, comfort when we are in sorrow and grief; or, though not desired where they are bestowed, yet good in respect of a further end: so punishments, trembled at by such as suffer them, yet in public nothing more needful.

Now forasmuch as God hath so furnished the world, that there is no good thing needful but the same is also possible to be had; justice is the virtue whereby that good which wanteth in ourselves we receive inoffensively at the hands of others. I say, inoffensively: for we must note, that although the want of any be a token of some defect in that mutual assistance which should be; yet howsoever to have such want supplied were far from equity and justice. If it be so, then must we find out some rule which determineth what every one’s due is, from whom, and how, it must be had.

For this cause justice is defined, a virtue whereby we have our own in such sort as law prescribeth [1] . So that neither God, nor angels, nor men, could in any sense be termed just, were it not for that which is due from one to another in regard of some received law between them: some law either natural and immutable, or else subject unto change, otherwise called positive law. The difference between which two undiscerned hath not a little obscured justice. It is no small perplexity which this one thing hath bred in the minds of many, who, beholding the laws which God himself hath given, abrogated and disannulled by human authority, imagine that justice is hereby conculcated; that men take upon them to be wiser than God himself; that unto their devices his ordinances are constrained to give place: which popular discourses, when they are polished with such art and cunning as some men’s wits are well acquainted with, it is no hard matter with such tunes to enchant most religiously affected souls. The root of which error is a misconceit that all laws are positive which men establish, and all laws which God delivereth, immutable. No it is not the author which maketh, but the matter whereon they are made, that causeth laws to be thus distinguished. Those Roman laws [1] , “Hominem indemnatum ne occidito,” “Patronus [2] si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto,” were laws unchangeable, though by men established. All those Jewish ordinances for civil punishment of malefactors, “the prophet that enticeth unto idolatry shall be slain [3] ,” a false witness shall suffer the same hurt which his testimony might have brought upon another, life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; all canons apostolical touching the form of church government, though received from God himself, yet positive laws and therefore alterable. Herein therefore they differ: a positive law is that which bindeth them that receive it in such things as might before have been either done or not done without offence, but not after, during the time it standeth in force. Such were those church constitutions concerning strangled and blood. But there is no person whom, nor time wherein, a law natural doth not bind. If God had never spoken word unto men concerning the duty which children owe unto their parents, yet from the firstborn of Adam unto the last of us, “Honour thy father and thy mother,” could not but have tied all. For this cause, to dispense with the one can never possibly be justice; nor other than injustice sometimes not to dispense with the other. These things therefore justice evermore doth imply; first, some good thing which is from one person due to another; secondly, a law either natural or positive which maketh it due; thirdly, in him from whom it is due a right and constant will of doing it as law prescribeth.

The several kinds of justice, distributive, commutative, and corrective, I mean not presently to dwell upon. Only before we come to speak of the justice of God, this one thing generally I note concerning justice amongst men. Almost the only complaint in all men’s mouths, and that not without great cause, is, “There is no justice.” The cure of which evil, because all men do even give over in utter despair that ever any remedy can be devised to help a sore so far gone: seeing there is no hope that men will cease to offer, it remaineth that we study with patience how to suffer wrongs and injuries being offered.

And although the fault of injustice be too general, yet whom particularly we do charge with so heavy a crime, it standeth us upon to be wary and circumspect, lest our reproving do make us reprovable. What more injurious than undeservedly to accuse of injury? It cannot be denied but that cause on all sides hath been and is daily given, for each to blame other in this respect. Howbeit, patience, quietness, contentment, wise and considerate meditation, might surely cut off much from those scandalous accusations which are so often and so grievously, without regard what beseemeth either place or person, poured out in the ears of men. Wherein perhaps our kindled affection were better slaked with sober advice, than overmuch liberty taken to feed our displeased minds. No man thinketh the injuries light which himself receiveth. But first, when we seem to receive injury, how do we know that injury is done us? Whereby discern we that we have not the thing which is due? Doth not every man measure his due for the most part by his own desire? When we have not what we would, we think we should have that which we have not, and that therefore we are wronged. Might not Daniel be thus condemned for being unjust to the Babylonian: the Jews towards the Persian: our Lord and Saviour Christ himself towards the high priest Annas, before whom he stood in judgment? No man can be a competent judge of his own right. Wherefore upon our own only bare conceit to say of any man, we find him unjust, must needs be rashness: which being abated, many accusations of injustice would be answered before they be made. Again; be it that we claim nothing as to ourselves or to others due more than by law we seem to have warrant for, and that in the judgment of mo than one besides ourselves. Do we think it so easy for men to define what law doth warrant?

One example I will propose unto you instead of many, to the end it may appear that there are now and then great likelihoods inducing to think that in equity warrantable which in the end proveth otherwise. A law there was sometime amongst the Grecians, that whosoever did kill a tyrant, should appoint his own reward, and demanding receive it at the hands of the chief magistrate. Another law, that a tyrant, being slain, his five nearest in blood should also be put to death. Alexander Phereus exercising tyranny was by his own wife treacherously murdered [1] . In lieu of this act she requireth the life of a son both hers and his, which son the same law commandeth to be executed because of his father’s tyranny, and not executed by reason of his mother’s request. The question is, whether the grant or denial of her demand, being such, were justice. On the one side, sith all commonweals do stand no less by performance of promised rewards than by taking appointed revenge, let their hope, who in such cases hazard themselves, be once defrauded, and who will undertake so dangerous attempts? Again, if in this case law have provided that none might revenge the death of tyrants by appointing so many of their nearest to die, how much more likely that such a benefit should make the son to his country ever afterwards dutiful, than his father’s deserved punishment kindle in him a desire of revenge? Besides that punishments are, if any thing, to be abridged, rewards always to be received with largest extent, what if the son had done this which the mother did, should his act by law rewardable be punished because of his near conjunction in blood? And that the father’s offence should more disadvantage the son than his mother’s deserts profit him, it seemeth hard. A bridle undoubtedly it would be to stay men from affecting tyranny for ever, if they might see that enmity with them could not in any case go unrewarded. On the contrary side there is either greater or no less appearance of justice. For first, when two laws do by an unexpected casualty each control other, so that both cannot possibly be kept; what remaineth, but to keep that which cannot but with most public harm be broken? which in this case seemeth not greatly hard to discern; the one being needful unto the common safety of all, the other one body’s only benefit. Secondly, fathers being often much more careful of their children than of themselves, more afraid of the overthrow of their progeny than of their own estate and condition, they could not but be the bolder to tyrannize, if they did hope that their offspring any way might wind itself out of the evil which law inflicteth. Thirdly, were it not a thing intolerable, that so monstrous an act, as a woman to murder her husband unto whom she is so nearly linked, should not only not receive punishment, but receive what reward soever she will herself? Finally, the law bidding first generally any thing that should be demanded in way of reward to be granted, and afterwards commanding the death of the five next in blood, doth by this specialty abridge as it seemeth the former generality, and grant anything, but so that this thing be not demanded. Otherwise, what letteth but that license to exercise tyranny might be required as a reward for taking tyrants out of the way? Not therefore simply what men will ask, but what they ask with reason and without contradiction to law, that only by law doth seem granted.

This may suffice to shew how hard it is oftentimes even for the wisest and skilfullest, to see what is justice and what not. So that not only to ourselves but to others we may seem to take injury when we do not. Howbeit, even when we have not the thing which in truth and in right we should have, it may be notwithstanding that they who do us hurt, do us not that injury for which we may blame them as unjust. There is no injustice, but where wrong is wilfully offered. Is it not a rule of equity and justice, “Nullum crimen patitur is qui non prohibet quod prohibere non potest?” “we are towards them unjust, whose injustice we make complaint of for not doing that which to do they want not will but habilitie.” And when we do not receive as we should at the hands of men, it may be so much even against their wills whom in such cases we think most hardly of, that their infelicity is rather to be sorrowed for, than their iniquity is to be accused.

But let it be, that men of very set purpose and malice bend themselves against us; in this case to abate the keen edge of our indignation at wrong which we suffer, it were not nothing if we did consider the wrong which we do. God we are not able to answer one of a thousand; and of a thousand if but one be unanswered us by men, we are unable to bear it.

To conclude: though we had ourselves never injured God or man, the patience and meekness of Christ in putting up injuries were worthy our imitation. His meekness were sufficient to meeken us, were the wrongs which be offered us never so grievous and unsufferable. If therefore men will not be persuaded not to do, let these persuasions induce us to take wrong with all patience, and to show ourselves just men in bearing the cross which men’s injustice doth lay upon us. Which wisdom God the Father for his Son’s sake grant; unto whom with the Holy Ghost, three Persons, one eternal and everliving God, be honour, glory, and praise, for ever.

III.

As we have spoken of the nature of justice in general, so now we must speak of the justice of God. Wherein lest any man should imagine that we term God just, not because in himself he is so, but because the liking which we have of, and love which we bear unto, ourselves, maketh us to think God such as we ourselves are; it shall not be unexpedient, first, to prove unto you that in God there is this divine virtue called Justice: secondly, to show in what sort God doth exercise that virtue in the regiment of his creatures: thirdly, what injury we do to God for want of right understanding how he doth justice unto us: last of all, what honour unto him, and us what benefit, the true knowledge of his justice addeth.

I should have a large and scopious field to walk in, if I did here endeavour with exactness either to collect so many reasons as might forcibly demonstrate, or to reckon up the numbers of particularities effectual to make plain and evident, that in the thirty-third of Exodus which God himself doth insinuate, terming himself “all good.” For that mystical suit of his servant Moses, “I beseech thee, show me thy glory,” thus he answereth; “I will make all goodness to go before thee.” As therefore there can be no particular warmth which universal heat containeth not, so the infinite being of God comprehending all goodness, if justice be any part thereof, God necessarily is just. Secondly, who doth not yield unto justice more than the meanest place of reckoning and account amongst good things? Put therefore the case, that angels and men were just, God not: should they not in this part of goodness excel God, and so be better than He to whom the title, as of “greatest,” so of “best,” is confessed due? Besides, God himself being the supreme cause which giveth being unto all things that are, and every effect so resembling the cause whereof it cometh, that such as the one is the other cannot choose but be also; it followeth that either men are not made righteous by him, or if they be, then surely God himself is much more that which he maketh us; just, if a [He] be the author, fountain, and cause of our justice. Finally, seeing that we cannot conceive God without correspondence between him and creatures receiving from him whatsoever they have or are, either we must think that God cannot choose but impart good things, and then what creature would give him thanks, ever invocate, adore, and worship him? or if he distribute his graces advisedly, knowing upon whom what and wherefore he doth bestow, this being the proper function of justice, doth it not follow that God is just?

Only this doubt there is. We have already declared justice to be that virtue whereby we yield and receive good things in such sort as law prescribeth. Now God hath no superior; there is not that can lay commandment upon him; he is not subject; he standeth not bound to any higher authority and power. How then should there be any justice in his doing that which no superior’s authority or law can bind him to do? To this we could make no answer at all, if we did hold as they do who peremptorily avouch that there is no manner why to be rendered of any thing which God doth, but only this, It was his absolute will to do it. True it is that thus the prophet speaketh in the Psalm [1] , “Our God is in heaven; and whatsoever he will, he doth.” Thus our Saviour in the Gospel [2] , “I give thee thanks, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and men of understanding, and hast opened them unto babes. Even so, O Father, because such was thy good pleasure.” Thus the blessed Apostle often [3] , “God predestinateth, calleth, saveth, worketh all things, according unto the purpose of his own will.” But what infer we hereupon? That there is no other cause in any of all the works of God to be either searched or rendered but this? If so, then it seemeth that when the people do ask this question, in the fifth of Jeremy’s prophecy, “Wherefore hath the Lord our God done these things?” God should rather have closed up their mouths with sharp reproof for making any such demand, than have commanded the prophet to content and satisfy their minds by yielding a reason of his actions: Thou shalt answer them, “like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye also serve strangers in a land that is not yours.” Again, let those very alleged sentences be seen into; and by sifting them it will soon appear that they rather exclude the rendering of some one cause which we are specially to beware of than import an impossibility of any reason at all to be rendered of the works of God. Our nature is prone unto haughty conceits: and when we see those blessings abundantly poured upon us, which God hath withheld from sundry others, we easily imagine that what we have more we are more worthy of than others are. To take down this proud opinion, it is so often inculcated, that whatsoever we have, the reason wherefore we have it is not our dignity, but his mercy; not the worthiness of our merit, but the goodness of his will. Yea, even in that very place where the blessed Apostle setteth down our predestination and adoption thorow Christ to have been according unto the pleasure of God’s only will, doth not himself yield a cause of this will in God, by immediately adding, “unto the praise of the glory of his grace [1] ?”

Then seeing God doth work nothing but for some end, which end is the cause of that he doth, what letteth to conclude that God doth all things even in such sort as law prescribeth? Is not the end of his actions as a law? Doth it not strictly require them to be such as always they are, so that if they were otherwise they could not be apt, correspondent, suitable unto their set and appointed end? There is no impediment therefore but that we may set it down, God is truly and properly just.

Touching the next point, how God doth exercise justice in the world, justice exhibiteth all good which congruity and right would have imparted unto equals, inferiors, or betters. Superiority and equality being excluded from all things as they are in relation unto God, at his hands we are to expect only that which justice yieldeth unto inferiors. In which consideration he taketh upon him the person of a Judge, a Lord, a Father. “He shall judge nations,” saith the prophet in the seventh Psalm. But because those future comminations seem to imply some truce and respect for the time, the wicked man through freedom from present sense of evil emboldeneth himself, taketh heart and courage, hates to be reformed, casteth the words of God behind him, runneth on his race with lost companions, for this refraineth not a whit the more, avoideth no one deed, keepeth not in any one word or syllable which his heart delighteth to utter, for fear of this; “God will judge the world,” is little cared for, though Christ our Saviour and his Apostles divinely inspired describe it in never so fearful manner. For which cause the prophet in the same Psalm addeth, that God not only shall judge nations, but is the judger of the just and of despisers of God daily. So that what criminals openly convicted are to look for from such a judge as respecteth no man’s person, standeth in awe of no man’s countenance, hateth sin extremely, knoweth every action and circumstance of action that sinners do, be it never so closely conveyed; what criminals convicted are to look for from such a judge, thereon let impenitent malefactors make their certain reckoning: for as verily as God is just, his justice will show itself upon them soon or sine [1] , in the greatness of that judgment, which if they feel before they fear, woe worth them. God their judge, but your Lord. Wherefore, if unfeignedly ye do your endeavour to serve and please him, ye have your presidents to claim the benefit by, of protection, care, maintenance, and whatsoever good thing righteous dominion doth answer dutiful service withal. The Church, in the thirty-third of Esay, concludeth hereupon boldly and plainly, “He is our king, therefore he will save us.” Is it not much that free leave is given you to plead your causes as Ezechias pleadeth his [2] , “Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth with a perfect heart; and have done that which is good in thy sight?” As David his [3] , “Preserve my soul, O Lord, thou art of great kindness unto all that serve thee: save me, for I am thy servant: O Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant: judgment for thine enemies and them that hate thee, I am the son of thine handmaid, thy servant; O bruise not my bones, suffer not my soul to descend into hell.” Or, if the name of a Lord do not seem sufficiently gracious, unto whom God hath already imparted a spirit that giveth them cheerful courage boldly to call upon him as children upon their father, let them enlarge their hearts, and what good thing can they invent which his fatherly indulgence doth not abundantly warrant them to expect? If they thirst after consolation; behold to them it is said [4] , “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you.” If they wish endless continuance of hearty affection; to them [5] , “I have loved you with everlasting love:” if a prosperous and flourishing estate; of them [6] , “I will be unto them as the dew, they shall grow as the lily, and fasten their roots like the trees of Lebanon; their branches shall spread, and their beauty like the olive-tree; they shall revive as the corn, and flourish like the pleasant vine.” It is not with God as it is with men, whose titles show rather what they should be than what they are. God will not be termed that which he is not. His name doth show his nature. Were not his affection most fatherly, the appellation of a Father would offend him. Fathers lay up treasure for their children: and shall not your heavenly Father provide sufficient for you? O minds void of faith, full of distrustfulness! Fathers spend out the day in travail, and continue the night in pensiveness, ever studying how to better their children’s estate: and have the sons of God a father careless whether they think [sink] or swim? “The eye of the Lord is over the righteous.” “If a mother forget her child, (O love inexplicable!) art thou my son? of thee I will never be unmindful.” Fathers, if they be provoked unto anger, conceive not unappeasable wrath: do not the tears of their children confessing faults and craving pardon wring out oftentimes tears from their eyes? And, that which should cause even hearts of stone and iron to relent, we do not find God in Scripture so often rejoicing over the righteous, as shedding forth tears of kindness in the bosom of sinners penitent. Thus God is righteous; and his righteousness thus he showeth.

It followeth in the next place, concerning this matter of divine justice, that we consider how, for want of right understanding the reason how God doth justice unto us, injury is done unto him many ways. For by this it cometh to pass, that some beholding the present not only impunity but prosperity of sin in the world, repine at it as at a thing repugnant unto divine justice. Some, noting a difference between men departing this mortality immediately after great and grievous sin repented of, and others always leading an honest, holy, virtuous and upright life, upon conceit of inconformity with justice in God, if both ending their lives should enter forthwith and immediately into bliss, have imposed upon the souls of faithful men a kind of after-punishments satisfactory. Some, considering how God as a just and righteous judge shall hereafter reward their works, glory in them, as if, unless in themselves they were worthy of reward, they could not in justice be rewarded. These err by thinking that to be against God’s justice which is not: on the contrary side, others by thinking that not to be against it which is. These not weighing how opposite it is to the justice of God either actually to condemn, or in purpose to determine condemnation, without a cause thereof presupposed in the party so condemned, have by misconstruction of some Scripture sentences with no small hazard, as well of God’s honour as men’s comfort, over-easily been led to define that so many were fore-appointed unto endless torments, only for that the will of God was to have them endlessly tormented.

IV.

What injury men do to God for want of right understanding in what sort and manner he doth administer equity and justice unto them, in no way plainlier appeareth, than first by those repining accusations wherewith the hard and heavy casualties of the righteous, contrariwise the impunity and prosperity of godless persons hath been from time to time complained of. With such kind of pleas books both profane and sacred are fraught. The motives especially inducing their minds to deem an incongruity herein, and to the justice of God a kind of repugnancy, are these. First, to that justice which we call distributive, and define to be a virtue yielding unto each person that which is due according to the difference of their quality; unto this virtue nothing more opposite than the parity of their condition in the quality of whose persons there is inequality. For which cause from God Abraham putteth off that unevenness, which blendeth these two, and maketh the one’s estate such as the other’s should be [1] . “Far be it from thee to slay the righteous with the wicked: that as the wicked are so the righteous should be also, far be it from thee.” If then it be a thing most unequal and unconsonant unto justice, that they which excel in virtue should not be exalted in all parts of happiness above them that are of contrary note: if it do argue an uneven hand, to bestow upon the one sort as upon the other; what may be thought, when they, whose virtues all men do admire, are in respect of the hard condition of their lives for outward things not only as the worst, which notwithstanding were greatly to be complained of, but in so far more miserable and wretched case, that these living in all abundance of whatsoever their hearts can wish; they, if they perish not, as oftentimes they do, at their enemies’ will and pleasure, are found not seldom in such sort to live that their deadliest adversaries could hardly wish them greater woe than to continue as they are; doth it not stand even with reason to conclude, surely this is not that which equity and justice requireth?

Wherein, secondly, the judgment of the world doth universally so agree, that imprisonments, banishments, restraint of liberty, deprivation of honour, diminution of goods, loss of limme or life, any thing penal and unpleasant to be suffered, is by authority no where laid upon other than dangerous and pernicious malefactors. So that when contrariwise the supreme guide and governor of heaven and earth taketh a clean other course of regiment, impoverishing, depressing, and by all means keeping down the good and virtuous, but crowning the heads of malignants with honour, and heaping terrene felicity upon them, this can hardly seem just or according to righteousness. It is not therefore without cause, nor of nothing, that those so usual oppositions have in this case and question risen, some concluding if God indeed did with justice order the course of human affairs, it should be bonis benè, malis malè; well with the good, with the bad still otherwise: others crying out, Posse contra innocentiam quæ sceleratus quisque conceperit; impiety to prevail against innocency, even as far as it listeth, God himself looking on, who can but wonder and be amazed?

The state of good and bad thus continuing, what construction shall we make of God’s own promises unto the one sort, and to the other of his so heavily pronounced sentences, which he uttereth as it were emptying upon them vessels full of wrath and execration? To the one, “If thou wilt walk in my ways, and keep mine ordinances and commandments, I will lengthen and prolong thy days [1] :” to the other, “Thou, O God, shalt bring them down, thou shalt humble them unto the pit of corruption: bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half the time which they might by nature [2] .” To the one, not only long life promised, but with life prosperity and peace: to the other, not only unseasonable death, but before death woe and all kinds of misery threatened. To the one, “What man is he that feareth the Lord? his soul shall dwell at ease, and his seed shall inherit the land [1] .” “The earth shall yield him increase of fruit; it shall be fat for his sake as oil; his cattle shall feed in large pastures [2] .” To the other, “Cursed shalt thou be in field, town, and city; in person, in goods, in children: the Lord shall send upon thee trouble and shame: in all that ever thou settest thy hand to, thou shalt never but suffer wrong and violence: the strangeness of those calamities which thine eyes shall behold shall take even wit and sense from thee; because thou wilt not serve the Lord thy God with a cheerful and true heart, that so thou mightest be in all things happy. Hunger and thirst, and nakedness, and want of all things necessary shall be thy undividable companions; misery shall hunt and pursue thee for ever: no peace, no prosperity for the wicked [3] .” These being the words of God’s own mouth, how are they performed when the righteous are hourly led as sheep to the slaughter, their goods taken from them by extortion, their persons subject unto violence, nothing about them but that which they cannot look or think upon without tears: impious despisers of God in the meanwhile rejoicing pleasantly upon their beds, living long, waxing old, increasing in honour, authority, and wealth, their houses peaceable without fear, the rod of God not upon them nor near them. Can these things cleave together, God true in his word, and we such in our estate?

This we might happily either answer with more ease, or with better contentment endure, if to the harm that such interchangeable mixture of states in the world breedeth any countervailable good did grow. But there doth not, for ought that any man living can see. The damages, losses, and inconveniences which this confusion draweth after it, they are apparent. For as the benefit but even of one man’s virtue, taking root, continuing and flourishing in the world, is invaluable not only in respect of the courage which thereby all others well inclined do take, exulting in the conscience of their own most holy resolutions to serve the Lord, when they are therein confirmed by visible assurance, that with as many as fear him from their hearts it shall undoubtedly go well; but furder also in regard of the singular delight which itself doth take in being most largely beneficial, and in watching for occasions to do good, whereby it cometh to pass that the hearts of all men bless them as common fathers, and wish them, if it were possible, the very possession of heaven on earth: so on the other side, there can be no greater plague than improbity, if it come once to have any long continuance in the world, and be furnished with habilitie to annoy; because it doth not only hereby take occasion to scorn the better endeavours of more virtuously disposed minds, thinking with itself what profit have they by serving the Almighty; but maketh it even a recreation and a kind of sporting exercise, to try what wit can do in devising, and force in executing, vile, barbarous, and cruel acts, such as future ages may most wonder at and the present most rue. Sith therefore nothing doth more agree with the nature of God than to better the state of all things, what more effectual way to fill the mouths of his saints with hymns of everlasting thankfulness, to augment their joy, to illustrate his glory, to put his foes for ever to silence, and to manifest unto all generations the care which he hath of righteousness, than by making always an apparent separation between men in state according to their good or evil quality?

These are the principal inducements whereby men, as long as they do not conceive the course of divine proceedings in justice, imagine all to be out of square, because the righteous are afflicted when the contrary sort doth prosper. First, it seemeth against the rule of distributive justice, that men’s condition should not be suitable unto the quality of their persons. Secondly, the general opinion and judgment of all men disliketh to have it otherwise. Thirdly, God himself often and openly hath protested that so it should be. Finally, if it be not so, the inconveniences thereupon growing unto the world are more than mean, the virtuous not encouraged as they might be, but put out of heart, infinite good undone whereby thousands would reap benefit, impiety corroborated and made bold, no less unto God’s own dishonour than unto men’s discomfort.

It cannot be thought a labour needless that we do our endeavour to free this cause from all scruple, and to make it so expedite as may suffice for our reasonable satisfaction; the minds of so many being entangled with such perplexities when they enter into these alleged considerations, through an opinion of discoherence thereby conceived between the justice of God and the state of men in this world. First therefore, touching the rule of distributive justice, which requireth that whose quality is best, their condition be not like and much less inferior unto theirs which are worst qualified, how understand we this rule of justice? Doth it require that the righteous have every desirable thing, the unrighteous nothing which is naturally good permitted them? Then that which never as yet any man was so senseless as to imagine notwithstanding must needs be; to wit, that if only the just be not beautiful, if they only be not strong, if any be healthful besides them, if they alone do not see the fruit of their bodies increased unto the third and fourth generation, God doth deal unjustly with them. How unjustly therefore with Christ, our blessed Saviour, and his only begotten Son, who, being so much more righteous than angels, saw creatures far beneath men in dignity, in some parts of outward felicity so far above him, that birds having nests, and foxes holes to hide themselves, the Son of God and man had scarce where to lay his head! Know we not that God is by nature good and gracious unto all the works of his hands? Wicked men, although they be their own workmanship as they are wicked, yet as they are men being his handywork, are not we rather injurious unto them than God to us, if so be we envy them all participation even in those things which they are capable of as men? For the favours which God extendeth towards just men, not as they are men but as they are just; such favours are so peculiarly theirs, that they neither are nor can be imparted to any other. Judge thereby therefore their estate, and is it not clear as the light, that the foresaid rule of justice is no way violated? Judge according unto this, and most evident it is that God doth not deal with the righteous as with the wicked, but always better. What should I mention him that preferred imprisonment with Cato before some other’s imperial sublimity [1] ? It had been more than childishness in Moses to choose a fellowship in the bitter afflictions of the people of God [1] , refusing the offered pleasures of sin, if the just man’s estate, be it whatsoever, were not by infinite degrees happier than the wicked’s in their chiefest ruff. He that sitteth at this day in Rome, kings of nations falling down before him, is his glittering estate so glorious in the eye of any good and spiritually wise man’s judgment, doth his tripled diadem adorn him as those honourable robes and garments dyed in the blood of martyrdom did beautify his first most reverend predecessors, disgraced, discountenanced, banished, murdered, rent asunder, devoured by wild beasts, put to most sharp and cruel deaths, exercised with all extremity of torture, for the name of Christ? There was not the meanest of them that would have changed his comforts in the midst of greatest woe, with all the joys and honours worldly which the flourishing rank of their successors hath acquired.

When we think otherwise, the reason of our misconceit herein is, that because all suffering is grievous, even as the contrary pleasant and acceptable unto the flesh; by occasion of this common accident, the just and unjust suffering materially the same kind of grief, by hunger, pestilence, sword, or the like, imagine that they suffer simply the same: whereas in truth their sufferings formally, and even essentially, are different. The end of God is never the same in both, howsoever upon both he seemeth to lay the same burthens. But being both in the same furnace, the one are as stubble, the other as gold: being stricken with the same rod, the one receive the torment of a judge, the other the chastisement of a father: though both seem equally forsaken, they are never equally forsaken; but the one by dereliction of probation only, the other by dereliction of reprobation. The righteous therefore may have their phancies; they may, being carried away with grief or distempered with passionate affections, conceive worse of their own estate than reason giveth: but surely there never was yet that hour, wherein, if mortal eyes could discern the things that belong unto solid happiness, the hearts of the most unhappy would not wish, as Balaam’s did, “O that we were as the just and righteous!” So that the rule of distributive justice is not violated. As for the judgment of all the world, supposing yes, what should we weigh it, when we have the judgment of him who created the world, to the contrary?

Howbeit, we err, if we take the casual and unadvised sentences of men, uttering rashly that which indignation hath put in their mouths and not sound reason established their minds in, for the judgment of the whole world: whereof the wisest and skilfullest part is so far from judging God when his saints are most roughly dealt with, to give them the portion of malefactors, that they plainly and peremptorily avouch the evils which they suffer to be rather seals assuring them of everlasting bliss, than tokens arguing unto others, that God doth put no difference between them and the children of malediction.

In the words of our Saviour there is no enigmatical obscurity. “When men revile you, sclaunder you, hate you, when they cast you out of their synagogues, when they speak and practise all manner of evil against you, say not in your hearts, this lot should have fallen upon the wicked that know not God. Such sufferings do not argue your infelicity, for when ye suffer these things ye are happy, yea because you suffer them happy are you. Men shall woonder that serving a God so able to protect you, ye should be enfeebled and die daily: but ignorant they are how it cometh by the mighty hand of God to pass, that there is even in imbecility strength, and gain in the very loss of your lives.” Nor doth any thing done or suffered in this present world prejudice a whit the grand authority, or impair the sacred credit either of the promises of God containing the good things of this life which are proposed to them that serve him, or of the contrary threatenings denounced against the children of rebellion and disobedience. That which befalleth us maketh no way vain and frustrate what God speaketh. But that which is spoken and meant conditionally must be conditionally understood. The life of the just shall be long and fortunate; they shall see many and happy days; their prosperity is a sequel of their piety; but with exception, unless it be far better for them to be otherwise. That this may be far better for them, there needeth no other proof, than the very acknowledgment of men touching the fruit of their own afflictions. Minds which prosperity would make wanton, experience of hard events do keep in subjection and awe. Affliction is the mother of hearty devotion. “When God humbled their hearts with heaviness,” saith the prophet, speaking of Israel, “then they cried unto the Lord.” When they loathed and abhorred their food, then they poured out their very souls in supplication unto God. Affliction is both a medicine if we sin, and a preservative that we sin not. Again, if sentence of death and temporal calamity be given against such as hate to be reformed, the certain performance thereof we must count upon; but with this caution, so far as may stand with that woonted patience which God useth ordinarily towards sinners, and so far as it may be without let and hinderance unto any greater intended good than can grow by their speedier revenge. In which considerations, if God do suffer with unweariable toleration vessels concinnate unto death, shall this, than which nothing doth more show his mercy and love towards men, by men be alleged to implead his righteousness?

“But good whereunto this tendeth, we say we discern none, sundry inconveniences being apparent.” Truth, they say, is the daughter of time [1] : and in time who doubteth but God may discover that, which, because we presently see not, must we needs therefore presently deny? Into the heart of Joseph, at what time his brethren made gain of his person by merchandise; into the heart of Daniel, at the hour wherein he left his native soil; hardly could it have sunk [2] what good so unpleasant accidents in the end would grow unto. “The end of all things,” saith the Apostle, “is at hand.” And if till then it should lie buried in the bosom of God alone, unto what good these things in outward appearance so confused for the time may tend; yet we to be less advised than that heathen Platonic, uninstructed in the mysteries of our faith? “In that I understand concerning the works of God,” saith Plotin, “therein will I praise him; and admire him even in those things which I know no reason of [3] .” Do not we ourselves many times that whereof our servants do see no cause? neither dare they therefore argue and dispute against our actions, because our intentions are hidden from them. As for the wicked that hereby take occasion to harden themselves, it is to their own greater woe in the end. The time is not gained; divine revenge shall come upon them so much the heavier, by how much the slower. If the virtuous do fail in courage, it is through error and misconceit. “There was a time,” saith the prophet David, “when beholding fools in prosperity, I fretted at it in my heart, saying, ‘Lo, these are wicked, yet prosper they alway, and increase in riches: surely in vain have I cleansed my heart; that I have washed my hands in innocency, to what purpose is it?’ Such was my ignorance, such my folly [1] .”

V.

Another sort of men, injurious unto the God of heaven for want of understanding how towards them God is righteous, are they who abridge his mercy towards sinners penitent, tormenting their minds with a fearful expectation of future anguish, tribulation, and woe; as if, how merciful soever God be in remitting, pardoning, forgiving all their transgressions, nevertheless so unappeasable is the rigour and dirity of his corrective justice, that till transgressors have endured, either in this world or another, vexation proportionable unto the pleasure which they have taken in doing evil, there is no possible rest for their souls. Upon which opinion because much dependeth, I will first endeavour to lay before you, how the favourers and defenders thereof do ground it upon a supposed exigence in the justice of God; and secondly, make manifest unto you how weakly and ungroundedly they have erected it: how the nature of divine justice doth not only not require it, but is by it plainly oppugned, denied utterly, and overthrown.

Their grounds, unto such as cast but a slight view over them, may seem to be strong and forcible, they are with such art and cunning laid. The parts of their doctrine concerning the point which now we treat of, are by their greatest masters thus cemented and set together. First, most true it is, they say, and of all Christian comfort the very root, that the death of our Lord and Saviour hath duly and sufficiently paid for the sins of all the world, by that abundant price of redemption upon the cross. Which solemn entrance being such as cannot but have the full and ready approbation of all men Christian without any pause or furder deliberation gladly yielded, they smoothly proceed, adding hereunto that which cannot reasonably neither be denied; to wit, that no man was ever partaker of this benefit but in the knot and unity of his body mystical, which is the Church: that to them the streams of the holy blood of Christ and beams of his grace are in sundry manners conveyed: that upon all men, at their first incorporation into the household of the faithful, the merits of the death of Christ are so largely carried down for the remission of their sins, that were their lives before never so loaden with the most enormous offences that in this misery man may commit, yet they are not only pardoned of the same, but also perfectly acquitted for ever of all pain and punishment, which his offences by any means committed might deserve: that if men received into the favour of God and fellowship of his Church do, by sin committed after baptism, again pollute the temple of God, their estate is not such as Novatus would have it, irrecoverable, but even they may also be repaired through repentance; God most largely and mercifully promising unto his children which have erred and gone astray, if they return, if they be penitent, full remission of all their sins.

Whom we have found in so many things and so weighty true of their word, we do not easily suspect of deceit. Wherefore, as having now full possession of their hearers’ minds, they slip into that, which, being in truth utterly repugnant unto the verdicts hitherto given, they notwithstanding adjoin as consonant and agreeable thereunto. Sin, they say, committed draweth after it a double evil: First, it polluteth [1] , defileth, staineth the purity and dignity of our nature: secondly, it maketh the soul that sinneth obnoxious unto punishment deserved by sin. Now God remitteth indeed the manifold sins of his children upon their hearty repentance, yea acquitteth them from that great pain, death and endless condemnation, which their iniquities justly deserved: howbeit doth not always, together with the remission of deadly sins and eternal punishment, exempt offenders received to his grace from all correction due [1] for sin. That justice exacteth punishment for offending, even after their offences be forgiven them, there is, as it seemeth, proof sufficient mo ways than one. For first, have not just and holy men in this respect taken most sharp revenge upon themselves? Hath not the Church, for the satisfying of God’s most heavy indignation, from the very first spring of Christian religion, perpetually enjoined transgressors certain penal works of correction, either before, as the old usage was, or after the release of their offences, which now of late for grave causes hath been more used? When men do neither chastise themselves, nor are by the Church’s rod chastised, so inevitable [2] is the punishment of sin, that it is a kind of constraint unto God himself to punish, yea to punish them whose sin he hath pardoned and received them into favour. Was it not thus in our first progenitors, whose grievous transgression though pardoned, yet both they did and we do smart for? For this cause the blessed Apostle plainly to them of Corinth [3] , “See ye not how many there are amongst you weak and feeble, how many fallen asleep:” some stricken with sickness, some with death? This we might help, if we were not careless. If we did judge ourselves, we should not be judged of God: now we are, that with the world we might not perish. It cannot therefore be doubted of, but there is pain due for sin after sin be remitted. And if any debt or recompense remain to be discharged by the offender after reconcilement, it must needs rise by proportion, weight, continuance, number, and quantity of the faults committed before. Which debt we cannot say all men do fully discharge in this world. How many thousands do live at ease, secure, and altogether careless thereof? How many, by reason of their late conversion, taken out of the world before they can fully discharge this debt? So that if there were not in the next life pains satisfactory for them to endure, the case of grievous sinners till the very hower of death were much better than of small offenders converted long before: a thing not seemly to God’s justice. Unless perhaps we think that God shall be forced of necessity to remit his debt, for lack of means to punish it in another world. The punishments, which God hath reserved for his children after this life, are of two kinds [1] : the one, want of perfect felicity and bliss; the other, sense of fearful and grievous torments. In the former of these two Adam and all the fathers [2] before Christ, till Christ’s coming, were for so many worlds together detained, to satisfy for the punishment due to the sins the guilt whereof was in this life forgiven them. Nor did only the holy patriarchs feel in this respect the lack of the abundant fruition of the majesty of God, but all the souls of the just, excepting some, who by peculiar prerogative have already received their bodies, being now in rest and unspeakable felicity, do nevertheless for sin want the increase of joy and bliss, that by receipt of their bodies lying as yet in the dust, they are hereafter undoubtedly sure of. This they term pœnam damni [3] . The other punishment, which hath in it not only loss of joy but also sense of grief, vexation, and woe, is that whereunto they give the name of purgatory pains, in nothing different [1] from those very infernal torments which the souls of castaways, together with damned spirits, do endure, saving only in this, there is an appointed term to the one, to the other none; but for the time they last, they are equal. Nor may we therefore think ourselves quite and clean discharged of all such punishment, though we do never so carefully beware of heinous offences. For the common infirmities [2] and daily trespasses which defile the works of the virtuous, as immoderate laughter, excessive jesting, smaller exceedings in meats, drinks, attire, and the like, distractions of mind, wandering cogitations in holy exercise; these, though easily pardonable and venial oversights, yet deserving temporal pain, the same unforgiven here must have of necessity afterward the punishment which justice requireth. This taught in Scripture, this determined in councils general, this believed by the ancient fathers, this by the very heathens acknowledged. The doctrine which maketh either denial or doubt of this, giveth license unto evil livers, and is the very mother of presumption.

The whole sum of all this we may reduce unto these two grounds. First, the justice of God requireth, that after unto the penitent sin is forgiven, a temporal satisfactory punishment be notwithstanding for sin inflicted by God or man. Secondly, the same doth also require, that such punishment being not inflicted in this world, it be in the world to come endured; that so to the justice of God full and perfect satisfaction may be made. For each of these, we have with sincerity and care touched the very principal flower of that which the wisest and learnedest on that part have hitherto alleged as proofs to stand upon. So that if this be answered unto the full contentment of reasonable men, I hope we shall not be thought unreasonable for withholding our assent from that which they urge upon the world with greater eagerness than weight of speech [1] .

* * * * * * *

A REMEDY AGAINST SORROW AND FEAR: DELIVERED IN A FUNERAL SERMON.

JOHN xiv. 27.

Let not your hearts be troubled, nor fear.

SERM. IV.  THE holy Apostles having gathered themselves together by the special appointment of Christ, and being in expectation to receive from him such instructions as they had been accustomed with, were told that which they least looked for, namely, that the time of his departure out of the world was now come. Whereupon they fell into consideration, first, of the manifold benefits which his absence should bereave them of; and secondly, of the sundry evils which themselves should be subject unto, being once bereaved of so gracious a Master and Patron. The one consideration overwhelmed their souls with heaviness, the other with fear. Their Lord and Saviour, whose words had cast down their hearts, raiseth them presently again with chosen sentences of sweet encouragement. “My dear, it is for your own sakes that I leave the world. I know the affections of your hearts are tender, but if your love were directed with that advised and staid judgment which should be in you, my speech of leaving the world, and going unto my Father, would not a little augment your joy. Desolate and comfortless I will not leave you; in spirit I am with you to the world’s end: whether I be present or absent, nothing shall ever take you out of these hands; my going is to take possession of that, in your names, which is not only for me but also for you prepared; where I am, you shall be. In the mean while, ‘My peace I give; not as the world giveth, give I unto you: let not your hearts be troubled, nor fear.’ ” The former part of which sentence having otherwhere already been spoken of, this unacceptable occasion to open the latter part thereof here I did not look for. But so God disposeth the ways of men. Him I heartily beseech, that the thing which he hath thus ordered by his providence, may through his gracious goodness turn unto your comfort.

Our nature coveteth preservation from things hurtful. Hurtful things being present do breed heaviness, being future do cause fear. Our Saviour to abate the one speaketh thus unto his disciples, “Let not your hearts be troubled;” and to moderate the other, addeth, “Fear not.” Grief and heaviness in the presence of sensible evils cannot but trouble the minds of men. It may therefore seem that Christ required a thing impossible. Be not troubled. Why, how could they choose? But we must note, this being natural and therefore simply not reprovable, is in us good or bad according to the causes for which we are grieved, or the measure of our grief. It is not my meaning to speak so largely of this affection, as to go over all particulars whereby men do one way or other offend in it; but to teach [touch?] it so far only as it may cause the very Apostles’ equals to swerve. Our grief and heaviness therefore is reprovable sometime in respect of the cause from whence, sometime in regard of the measure whereunto it groweth.

When Christ the life of the world was led unto cruel death, there followed a number of people and women, which women bewailed much his heavy case. It was natural compassion which caused them, where they saw undeserved miseries, there to pour forth unrestrained tears. Nor was this reproved. But in such readiness to lament where they less needed, their blindness in not discerning that for which they ought much rather to have mourned, this our Saviour a little toucheth, putting them in mind that the tears which were wasted for him might better have been spent upon themselves; “ [1] Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, weep for yourselves and for your children.” It is not, as the Stoics have imagined, a thing unseemly for a wise man to be touched with grief of mind; but to be sorrowful when we least should, and where we should lament there to laugh, this argueth our small wisdom. Again, when the Prophet David confesseth thus of himself, “ [1] I grieved to see the great prosperity of godless men, how they flourish and go untouched;” himself hereby openeth both our common and his peculiar imperfection, whom this cause should not have made so pensive. To grieve at this is to grieve where we should not, because this grief doth rise from error. We err when we grieve at wicked men’s impunity and prosperity, because their estate being rightly discerned they neither prosper nor go unpunished. It may seem a paradox, it is a truth, that no wicked man’s estate is prosperous, fortunate, or happy. For what though they bless themselves and think their happiness great? Have not frantic persons many times a great opinion of their own wisdom? It may be that such as they think themselves, others also do account them. But what others? Surely such as themselves are. Truth and reason discerneth far otherwise of them. Unto whom the Jews wish all prosperity, unto them the phrase of their speech is to wish peace. Seeing then the name of peace containeth in it all parts of true happiness, when the Prophet saith plainly [2] , that the wicked have no peace, how can we think them to have any part of other than vainly imagined felicity? What wise man did ever account fools happy? If wicked men were wise they would cease to be wicked. Their iniquity therefore proving their folly, how can we stand in doubt of their misery? They abound in those things which all men desire. A poor happiness to have good things in possession. “ [3] A man to whom God hath given riches and treasures and honour, so that he wanteth nothing for his soul of all that it desireth, but yet God giveth him not the power to eat thereof;” such a felicity Salomon esteemeth but as a vanity, a thing of nothing. If such things add nothing to men’s happiness where they are not used, surely wicked men that use them ill, the more they have, the more wretched. Of their prosperity therefore we see what we are to think. Touching their impunity, the same is likewise but supposed. They are oftener plagued than we are aware of. The pangs they feel are not always written in their foreheads. Though wickedness be sugar in their mouths, and wantonness as oil to make them look with cheerful countenance; nevertheless if their hearts were disclosed, perhaps their glittering estate would not greatly be envied. The voices that have broken out from some of them, “O that God had given me a heart senseless, like the flint in the rocks of stone,” which as it can taste no pleasure so it feeleth no woe; these and the like speeches are surely tokens of the curse which Zophar in the Book of Job poureth upon the head of the impious man, “ [1] He shall suck the gall of asps, and the viper’s tongue shall slay him.” If this seem light because it is secret, shall we think they go unpunished because no apparent plague is presently seen upon them? The judgments of God do not always follow crimes as thunder doth lightning, but sometimes the space of many ages coming between. When the sun hath shined fair the space of six days upon their tabernacle, we know not what clouds the seventh may bring. And when their punishment doth come, let them make their account in the greatness of their sufferings to pay the interest of that respect which hath been given them. Or if they chance to escape clearly in this world, which they seldom do; in the day when the heavens shall shrivel as a scroll and the mountains move as frighted men out of their places, what cave shall receive them? what mountain or rock shall they get by entreaty to fall upon them? what covert to hide them from that wrath, which they shall be neither able to abide nor to [2] avoid? No man’s misery therefore being greater than theirs whose impiety is most fortunate; much more cause there is for them to bewail their own infelicity, than for others to be troubled with their prosperous and happy estate, as if the hand of the Almighty did not or would not touch them. For these causes and the like unto these therefore be not troubled.

Now though the cause of our heaviness be just, yet may not our affections herein be yielded unto with too much indulgency and favour. The grief of compassion whereby we are touched with the feeling of other men’s woes is of all other least dangerous. Yet this is a let unto sundry duties; by this we are [apt?] to spare sometimes where we ought to strike. The grief which our own sufferings do bring, what temptations have not risen from it? What great advantage Satan hath taken even by the godly grief of hearty contrition for sins committed against God, the near approaching of so many afflicted souls, whom the conscience of sin hath brought unto the very brink of extreme despair, doth but too abundantly shew. These things wheresoever they fall cannot but trouble and molest the mind. Whether we be therefore moved vainly with that which seemeth hurtful and is not; or have just cause of grief, being pressed indeed with those things which are grievous, our Saviour’s lesson is, touching the one, Be not troubled, nor over-troubled for the other. For, though to have no feeling of that which merely concerneth us were stupidity, nevertheless, seeing that as the Author of our salvation was himself consecrated by affliction, so the way which we are to follow him by is not strewed with rushes [1] , but set with thorns, be it never so hard to learn, we must learn to suffer with patience even that which seemeth almost impossible to be suffered; that in the hour when God shall call us unto our trial, and turn this honey of peace and pleasure wherewith we swell into that gall and bitterness which flesh doth shrink to taste of, nothing may cause us in the troubles of our souls to storm and grudge and repine at God, but every heart be enabled with divinely inspired courage to inculcate unto itself, Be not troubled; and in those last and greatest conflicts to remember it, that nothing may be so sharp and bitter to be suffered, but that still we ourselves may give ourselves this encouragement, Even learn also patience, O my soul.

Naming patience I name that virtue which only hath power to stay our souls from being over-excessively troubled: a virtue, wherein if ever any, surely that soul had good experience, which extremity of pains having chased out of the tabernacle of this flesh, angels, I nothing doubt, have carried into the bosom of her father Abraham. The death of the saints of God is precious in his sight. And shall it seem unto us superfluous at such times as these are to hear in what manner they have ended their lives? The Lord himself hath not disdained so exactly to register in the book of life after what sort his servants have closed up their days on earth, that he descendeth even to their very meanest actions, what meat they have longed for in their sickness, what they have spoken unto their children, kinsfolk, and friends, where they have willed their dead carcasses to be laid, how they have framed their wills and testaments, yea the very turning of their faces to this side or that, the setting of their eyes, the degrees whereby their natural heat hath departed from them, their cries, their groans, their pantings, breathings, and last gaspings, he hath most solemnly commended unto the memory of all generations. The care of the living both to live and to die well must needs be somewhat increased, when they know that their departure shall not be folded up in silence, but the ears of many be made acquainted with it. Again when they hear how mercifully God hath dealt with others in the hour of their last need, besides the praise which they give to God, and the joy which they have or should have by reason of their fellowship and communion of saints, is not their hope also much confirmed against the day of their own dissolution? Finally, the sound of these things doth not so pass the ears of them that are most loose and dissolute of life, but it causeth them sometime or other to wish in their hearts, “ [1] Oh that we might die the death of the righteous, and that our end might be like his!” Howbeit because to spend herein many words would be to strike even as many wounds into their minds whom I rather wish to comfort: therefore concerning this virtuous gentlewoman only this little I speak, and that of knowledge, “She lived a dove, and died a lamb.” And if amongst so many virtues, hearty devotion towards God, towards poverty tender compassion, motherly affection towards servants, towards friends even serviceable kindness, mild behaviour and harmless meaning towards all; if, where so many virtues were eminent, any be worthy of special mention, I wish her dearest friends of that sex to be her nearest followers in two things: Silence, saving only where duty did exact speech; and Patience even then when extremity of pains did enforce grief. “ [1] Blessed are they which die in the Lord.” And concerning the dead which are blessed let not the hearts of any living be overcharged, with grief over-troubled.

Touching the latter affection of fear which respecteth evils to come, as the other which we have spoken of doth present evils; first in the nature thereof it is plain that we are not of every future evil afraid. Perceive we not how they whose tenderness shrinketh at the least rase of a needle’s point, do kiss the sword that pierceth their souls quite through? If every evil did cause fear, sin, because it is sin, would be feared; whereas properly sin is not feared as sin, but only as having some kind of harm annexed. To teach men to avoid sin, it had been sufficient for the Apostle to say, “Fly it [2] .” But to make them afraid of committing sin, because the naming of sin sufficed not, therefore he addeth further, that it is as a “serpent which stingeth the soul.” Again, be it that some nocive or hurtful thing be towards us, must fear of necessity follow hereupon? Not except that hurtful things do threaten us either with destruction or vexation, and that such as we have neither a conceit of ability to resist, nor of utter impossibility to avoid. That which we know ourselves able to withstand we fear not; and [3] that which we know we are unable to defer or diminish, or any way avoid, we cease to fear, we give ourselves over to bear and sustain it. The evil therefore which is feared must be in our persuasion unable to be resisted when it cometh, yet not utterly impossible for a time in whole or in part to be shunned. Neither do we much fear such evils, except they be imminent and near at hand; nor if they be near, except we have an opinion that they be so. When we have once conceived an opinion or apprehended an imagination of such evils prest and ready to invade us; because they are hurtful unto our nature, we feel in ourselves a kind of abhorring; because they are, though [1] near yet not present, our nature seeketh forthwith how to shift and provide for itself; because they are evils which cannot be resisted, therefore she doth not provide to withstand but to shun and avoid. Hence it is that in extreme fear the mother of life contracting herself, avoiding as much as may be the reach of evil, and drawing the heat together with the spirits of the body to her, leaveth the outward parts cold, pale, weak, feeble, unapt to perform the functions of life; as we see in the fear of Belthasar king of Babel [2] . By this it appeareth that fear is nothing else but a perturbation of the mind through an opinion of some imminent evil threatening the destruction or great annoyance of our nature, which to shun it doth contract and deject itself.

Now because not in this place only but otherwhere often we hear it repeated, “Fear not,” it is by some made a long question, Whether a man may fear destruction or vexation without sinning? First, the reproof wherewith Christ checketh his disciples more than once, “O men of little faith, wherefore are ye afraid?” Secondly, the punishment threatened in the 21. of Revelations [3] , to wit, the lake, and fire, and brimstone, not only to murderers, unclean persons, sorcerers, idolaters, liars, but also to the fearful and faint-hearted: this seemeth to argue that fearfulness cannot but be sin. On the contrary side we see that he which never felt motion unto sin had of this affection more than a slight feeling. How clear is the evidence of the Spirit that “ [4] in the days of his flesh he offered up prayers and supplications with strong cries and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was also heard in that which he feared!” Whereupon it followeth that fear in itself is a thing not sinful. For is not fear a thing natural and for men’s preservation necessary, implanted in us by the provident and most gracious Giver of all good things, to the end that we might not run headlong upon those mischiefs wherewith we are not able to encounter, but use the remedy of shunning those evils which we have not ability to withstand? Let that people therefore which receive a benefit by the length of their prince’s days, that father or mother that rejoiceth to see the offspring of their flesh grow like green and pleasant plants, let those children that would have their parents, those men that would gladly have their friends and brethren’s days prolonged on earth, (as there is no natural-hearted man but gladly would,) let them bless the Father of lights, as in other things, so even in this, that he hath given man a fearful heart, and settled naturally that affection in him which is a preservation against so many ways of death. Fear then in itself being mere nature cannot in itself be sin, which sin is not nature, but thereof an accessary deprivation.

But in the matter of fear we may sin, and do, two ways. If any man’s danger be great, theirs greatest that have put the fear of danger farthest from them. Is there any estate more fearful than that Babylonian [1] strumpet’s, that sitteth upon the tops of the [2] seven hills glorying and vaunting, “ [3] I am a queen?” c. How much better and happier they whose estate hath been always as his who speaketh after this sort of himself, “Lord, from my youth have I borne thy yoke [4] !” They which sit at continual ease, and are settled in the lees of their security, look upon them, view their countenance, their speech, their gesture, their deeds: “Put them in fear, O God,” saith the Prophet, “that so they may know themselves to be but men [5] ,” worms of the earth, dust and ashes, frail, corruptible, feeble things. To shake off security therefore, and to breed fear in the hearts of mortal men, so many admonitions are used concerning the power of evils which beset them, so many threatenings of calamities, so many descriptions of things threatened, and those so lively, to the end they may leave behind them a deep impression of such as have [6] force to keep the heart continually waking. All which do shew, that we are to stand in fear of nothing more than the extremity of not fearing.

When fear hath delivered us from that pit wherein they are sunk that have put far from them the evil day, that have made a league with death and have said, “Tush, we shall feel no harm;” it standeth us upon to take heed it cast us not into that wherein souls destitute of all hope are plunged. For our direction, to avoid as much as may be both extremities, that we may know as a ship-master by his card, how far we are wide, either on the one side or on the other, we must note that in a Christian man there is, first, Nature; secondly, Corruption, perverting Nature; thirdly, Grace correcting, and amending Corruption. In fear all these have their several operations. Nature teacheth simply, to wish preservation and avoidance of things dreadful; for which cause our Saviour himself prayeth, and that often, “ [1] Father, if it be possible.” In which cases corrupt nature’s suggestions are, for the safety of temporal life not to stick at things excluding from eternal; wherein how far even the best may be led, the chiefest Apostle’s frailty teacheth. Were it not therefore for such cogitations as on the contrary side grace and faith ministereth, such as that of Job, “ [2] Though God kill me;” that of Paul [3] , “ Scio cui credidi, I know him on whom I do rely;” small evils would soon be able to overwhelm even the best of us. “A wise man,” saith Salomon [4] , “doth see a plague coming, and hideth himself.” It is nature which teacheth a wise man in fear to hide himself, but grace and faith doth teach him where. Fools care not where they hide their heads. But where shall a wise man hide himself when he feareth a plague coming? Where should the frighted child hide his head, but in the bosom of his loving father? Where a Christian, but under the shadow of the wings of Christ his Saviour? “Come, my people,” saith God in the Prophet [5] , “enter into thy chamber, hide thyself,” c. But because we are in danger like chased birds, like doves that seek and cannot see the resting holes that are right before them, therefore our Saviour giveth his disciples these encouragements beforehand, that fear might never so amaze them, but that always they might remember, that whatsoever evils at any time did beset them, to him they should still repair, for comfort, counsel, and succour. For their assurance whereof his “peace he gave them, his peace he left unto them, not such peace as the world offereth,” by whom his name is never so much pretended as when deepest treachery is meant; but “peace which passeth all understanding,” peace that bringeth with it all happiness, peace that continueth for ever and ever with them that have it.

This peace God the Father grant, for his Son’s sake; unto whom, with the Holy Ghost, three Persons, one eternal and everliving God, be all honour, glory, and praise, now and for ever. Amen.

DEDICATION PREFIXED TO THE FIRST EDITION OF TWO SERMONS ON PART OF ST. JUDE.

To the Worshipful M. GEORGE SUMMASTER, Principal of Broad-Gates Hall, in Oxford, HENRY JACKSON wisheth all happiness.

SIR,

JACKSON’S Dedication. YOUR kind acceptance of a former testification of that respect I owe you, hath made me venture to shew the world these godly sermons under your name. In which, as every point is worth observation, so some especially are to be noted. The first, that as the spirit of prophecy is from God himself, who doth inwardly heat and enlighten the hearts and minds of his holy penmen, (which if some would diligently consider, they would not puzzle themselves with the contentions of Scot and Thomas, Whether God only, or his ministering spirits, do infuse into men’s minds prophetical revelations “per species intelligibiles,”) so God framed their words also. Whence the holy father St. Augustine religiously observeth [1] , “That all those which understand the sacred writers, will also perceive that they ought not to use other words than they did, in expressing those heavenly mysteries which their hearts ‘conceived,’ as the blessed Virgin did our Saviour, ‘by the Holy Ghost.’ ” The greater is Castellio’s [a] offence, [2] who hath laboured to teach the Prophets to speak otherwise than they have already. Much like to that impious king of Spain, Alphonsus the Tenth [b] , who found fault with God’s works [3] , “Si,” inquit, “creationi affuissem, mundum melius ordinassem;” If he had been with God at the creation of the world, the world had gone better than now it doth. As this man found fault with God’s works, so did the other with God’s words; but, because “we have a most sure word of the Prophets [1] ,” to which we must “take heed,” I will let his words pass with the wind, having elsewhere [2] spoken to you more largely of his errors, whom, notwithstanding, for his other excellent parts, I much respect.

You shall moreover from hence understand, how Christianity consists not in formal and seeming “purity,” (under which who knows not notorious villainy to mask?) but in the heart-root. Whence the author truly teacheth, that mockers, which use religion as a cloak, to put off and on as the weather serveth, are worse than pagans and infidels. Where I cannot omit to shew how justly this kind of men hath been reproved by that renowned martyr of Jesus Christ, Bishop Latimer; both because it will be apposite to this purpose, and also free that Christian worthy from the slanderous reproaches of him [3] , who was, if ever any, a “mocker” of God, religion, and all good men. But first I must desire you, and in you all readers, not to think lightly of that excellent man, for using [c] this and the like witty similitudes in his sermons. For whosoever will call to mind with what riff-raff God’s people were fed in those days, when their priests, “ [4] whose lips should have preserved knowledge,” preached nothing else but dreams and false miracles of counterfeit saints, enrolled in that sottish Legend [5] , coined and amplified by a drowsy head between sleeping and waking: he that will consider this, and also how the people were delighted with such toys, (God sending them strong delusions that they should believe lies,) and how hard it would have been for any man wholly, and upon the sudden, to draw their minds to another bent, will easily perceive, both how necessary it was to use symbolical discourse, and how wisely and moderately it was applied by that religious father, to the end he might lead their understanding so far, till it were so convinced, informed, and settled, that it might forget the means and way by which it was led, and think only of that it had acquired. For in all such mystical speeches, who knows not that the end for which they are used is only to be thought upon?

This then being first considered, let us hear the story, as it is related by Master [d] Fox [1] : “Master [d] Latimer,” saith he, “in his sermon [sermons], gave the people certain cards out of the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Saint Matthew. For the chief triumph in the cards he limited the heart, as the principal thing that they should serve God withal, whereby he quite overthrew all hypocritical and external ceremonies, not tending to the necessary furtherance of God’s holy word and sacraments.” By this “he exhorted all men to serve the Lord with inward heart and true affection, and not with outward ceremonies; adding moreover to the praise of that triumph, that though it were never so small, yet it would take up the best coat-card beside in the bunch, yea, though it were the king of clubs, c., meaning thereby, how the Lord would be worshipped and served in simplicity of the heart, and verity, wherein consisteth true Christian religion,” c. Thus Master [d] Fox.

By which it appears, that the holy man’s intention was to lift up the people’s hearts to God, and not that he made “a sermon of playing at cards, and taught them how to play at triumph, and played” (himself) “at cards in the pulpit,” as that base companion [2] Parsons reports the matter in his wonted scurrilous vein of railing, whence he calleth it [3] a Christmas sermon. Now he that will think ill of such allusions, may out of the abundance of his folly jest at [4] Demosthenes for his story of the sheep, wolves, and dogs; and at Menenius, for his fiction of the belly [5] . But, hinc illæ lacrymæ, the good bishop meant that the Romish religion came not from the heart, but consisted in outward ceremonies: which sorely grieved Parsons, who never had the least warmth or spark of honesty. Whether Bishop Latimer compared the bishops to the knaves of clubs, as the fellow interprets him, I know not: I am sure Parsons, of all others, deserved those colours; and so I leave him.

We see then, what inward purity is required of all Christians, which if they have, then in prayer, and all other Christian duties, they shall lift up pure hands, as the Apostle [1] speaks, not as [2] Baronius would have it, “washed from sins with holy water;” but pure, that is, holy, free from the pollution of sin, as the Greek word ὁσίους doth signify.

You may see also here refuted those calumnies of the papists, that we abandon all religious rites and godly duties; as also the confirmation of our doctrine touching certainty of faith, (and so of salvation,) which is so strongly denied by some of that faction, that they have told the world, “ [3] St. Paul himself was uncertain of his own salvation.” What then shall we say, but pronounce a woe to the most strict observers of St. Francis’ rule and his canonical discipline, (though they make him even [4] equal with Christ,) and the most meritorious monk that ever was registered in their

calendar of saints? But we for our comfort are otherwise taught out of the Holy Scripture, and therefore exhorted to build ourselves in our most holy faith, that so, “when our earthly house of this tabernacle shall be destroyed, we may have a building given of God, a house not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens [1] .”

This is that, which is most piously and feelingly taught in these few leaves, so that you shall read nothing here, but what, I persuade myself, you have long practised in the constant course of your life. It remaineth only, that you accept of these labours tendered to you by him, who wisheth you the long joys of this world, and the eternal of that which is to come.

Oxon. from Corp. Christi college, this 13 of January, 1613.

TWO SERMONS UPON PART OF ST. JUDE’S EPISTLE [1] .

SERMON I.

EPIST. JUDE, vers. 17-21.

But ye, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ:

How that they told you, that there should be mockers in the last time, which should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

These are makers of Sects, fleshly, having not the Spirit.

But ye, beloved, edify yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost.

And keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto eternal life.

SERM. V. 1.  THE occasion [2] whereupon, together with the end wherefore, this Epistle was written, is opened in the front and entry of the same. There were then, as there are now, many evil and wickedly disposed persons, not of the mystical body, yet within the visible bounds of the Church, “men which were of old ordained to condemnation, ungodly men, which turned the grace of our God into wantonness, and denied the Lord Jesus.” For this cause the Spirit of the Lord is in the hand of “Jude the servant of Jesus and brother of James,” to exhort them that are called, and sanctified of God the Father, that they would earnestly “contend to maintain the faith, which was once delivered unto the saints.” Which faith because we cannot maintain, except we know perfectly, first, against whom; secondly, in what sort it must be maintained: therefore in the former three verses of that parcel of Scripture which I have read, the enemies [a] of the cross of Christ are plainly described;     SERM. V. 2.  and in the later two, they that love the Lord Jesus have a sweet lesson given them how to strengthen and stablish themselves in the faith. Let us first therefore examine the description of these reprobates concerning faith; and afterwards come to the words of the exhortation, wherein Christians are taught how to rest their hearts on God’s eternal and everlasting truth. The description of these godless persons is twofold, general and special. The general doth point them out, and shew what manner of men they should be. The particular pointeth at them, and saith plainly, these are they. In the general description we have to consider of these things; First, when they were described; “They were told of before:” Secondly, the men by whom they were described; “They were spoken of by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ:” Thirdly, the days when they should be manifested unto the world; they told you they “should be in the last time:” Fourthly, their disposition and whole demeanour; Mockers and walkers after their own ungodly lusts.”

2. In the third to the Philippians [1] , the Apostle describeth certain; “They are men,” saith he, “of whom I have told you often, and now with tears I tell you of them, their god is their belly, their glorying and rejoicing is in their own shame, they mind earthly things.” These were enemies [a] of the cross of Christ, enemies [a] whom he saw, and his eyes gushed out with tears to behold them. But we are taught in this place how the Apostles spake also of enemies [a] , whom as yet they had not seen, described a family of men as yet unheard of, a generation reserved for the end of the world, and for the last time; they had not only declared what they heard and saw in the days wherein they lived, but they have prophesied also of men in time to come. And “you do well,” saith St. Peter [2] , “in that ye take heed to the words of prophecy, so that ye first know this, that no prophecy in the Scripture cometh of any man’s own resolution.” No prophecy in Scripture cometh of any man’s own resolution. For all prophecy, which is in Scripture, came by the secret inspiration of God. But there are prophecies which are no Scripture; yea, there are prophecies against the Scripture:     SERM. V. 3, 4.  my brethren, beware of such prophecies, and take heed you heed them not. Remember the things that were spoken of before; but spoken of before by the Apostles of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Take heed to prophecies, but to prophecies which are in Scripture; for both the manner and the matter of those prophecies do shew plainly that they are of God.

Of the spirit of prophecy received from God himself.  3. Touching the manner, how men by the spirit of prophecy in holy Scripture have spoken and written of things to come, we must understand, that as the knowledge of that they spake, so likewise the utterance of that they knew, came not by these usual and ordinary means, whereby we are brought to understand the mysteries of our salvation, and are wont to instruct others in the same. For whatsoever we know, we have it by the hands and ministry of men, which lead us along like children, from a letter to a syllable, from a syllable to a word, from a word to a line, from a line to a sentence, from a sentence to a side, and so turn over. But God himself was their instructor, he himself taught them, partly by dreams and visions in the night, partly by revelations in the day, taking them aside from amongst their brethren, and talking with them as a man would talk with his neighbour in the way. Thus they became acquainted even with the secret and hidden counsels of God. They saw things which themselves were not able to utter, they beheld that whereat men and angels are astonished. They understood in the beginning, what should come to pass in the last days.

Of the Prophets’ manner of speech.  4. God, which lightened thus the eyes of their understanding, giving them knowledge by unusual and extraordinary means, did also miraculously himself frame and fashion their words and writings; insomuch that a greater difference there seemeth not to be between the manner of their knowledge, than there is between the manner of their speech and ours. When we have conceived a thing in our hearts, and throughly understand it, as we think within ourselves, ere we can utter it in such sort that our brethren may receive instruction or comfort at our mouths, how great, how long, how earnest meditation are we forced to use! And after much travail and much pains, when we open our lips to speak of the wonderful works of God, our tongues do falter within our mouths, yea many times we disgrace the dreadful mysteries of our faith, and grieve the spirit of our hearers by words unsavoury, and unseemly speeches:     SERM. V. 4.  “ [1] Shall a wise man fill his belly with the eastern wind?” saith Eliphaz; “shall a wise man dispute with words not comely? or with talk that is not profitable?” Yet behold, even they that are wisest amongst us living, compared with the prophets, seem no otherwise to talk of God, than as if the children which are carried in arms should speak of the greatest matters of state. They whose words do most shew forth their wise understanding, and whose lips do utter the purest knowledge, so long as they understand and speak as men, are they not fain sundry ways to excuse themselves? Sometimes acknowledging with the wise man [2] , “Hardly can we discern the things that are on earth, and with great labour find we out the things that are before us; who can then seek out the things that are in heaven?” Sometimes confessing with Job the righteous, “intreating of things too wonderful for us, we have spoken we wist not what [3] .” Sometimes ending their talk, as doth the history of the Maccabees [4] : “If we have done well, and as the cause required, it is that we desire; if we have spoken slenderly and barely, we have done what we could.” But “God hath made my mouth like a sword,” saith Esay [5] . And “we have received,” saith the Apostle [6] , “not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that we might know the things which are given to us of God; which things also we speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost doth teach.” This is that which the prophets mean by those books written full within and without; which books were so often delivered them to eat, not because God fed them with ink and paper, but to teach us, that so oft as he employed them in this heavenly work, they neither spake nor wrote any word of their own, but uttered syllable by syllable as the Spirit put it into their mouths, no otherwise than the harp or the lute doth give a sound according to the discretion of his hands that holdeth and striketh it with skill. The difference is only this: an instrument, whether it be a pipe or harp, maketh a distinction in the times and sounds, which distinction is well perceived of the hearer, the instrument itself understanding not what is piped or harped.     SERM. V. 5.  The prophets and holy men of God not so. “I opened my mouth,” saith Ezekiel [1] , “and God reached me a scroll, saying, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this I give thee. I ate [b] it, and it was sweet in my mouth as honey,” saith the prophet. Yea, sweeter, I am persuaded, than either honey or the honeycomb. For herein they were not like harps or lutes, but they felt, they felt the power and strength of their own words. When they spake of our peace, every corner of their hearts was filled with joy. When they prophesied of mournings, lamentations, and woes, to fall upon us, they wept in the bitterness and indignation of spirit [2] , the arm of the Lord being mighty and strong upon them.

5. On this manner were all the prophecies of holy Scripture. Which prophecies, although they contain nothing which is not profitable for our instruction, yet as one star differeth from another in glory, so every word of prophecy hath a treasure of matter in it, but all matters are not of like importance, as all treasures are not of equal price. The chief and principal matter of prophecy is the promise of righteousness, peace, holiness, glory, victory, immortality, unto “every soul which believeth that Jesus is Christ, of the Jew first, and of the Gentile [3] .” Now because the doctrine of salvation to be looked for by faith in Him, who was in outward appearance as it had been a man forsaken of God; in him who was numbered, judged, and condemned with the wicked; in him whom men did see buffeted on the face, scoffed at by soldiers, scourged by tormentors, hanged on the cross, pierced to the heart; in him whom the eyes of many witnesses did behold, when the anguish of his soul enforced him to roar as if his heart had rent in sunder [4] , “O my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” I say, because the doctrine of salvation by him is a thing improbable to a natural man, that whether we preach it to the Gentile, or to the Jew, the one condemneth our faith as madness, the other as blasphemy; therefore, to establish and confirm the certainty of this saving truth in the hearts of men,     SERM. V. 6.  the Lord, together with their preachings whom he sent immediately from himself to reveal these things unto the world, mingled prophecies of things both civil and ecclesiastical, which were to come in every age from time to time, till the very last of the latter days, that by those things, wherein we see daily their words fulfilled and done, we might have strong consolation in the hope of things which are not seen, because they have revealed as well the one as the other. For when many things are spoken of before in Scripture, whereof we see first one thing accomplished, and then another, and so a third, perceive we not plainly, that God doeth nothing else but lead us along by the hand, till he have settled us upon the rock of an assured hope, that no one jot or tittle of his word shall pass till all be fulfilled? It is not therefore said in vain, that these godless wicked ones “were spoken of before.”

6. But by whom? By them whose words if men or angels from heaven gainsay, they are accursed; by them whom whosoever despiseth, “despiseth not them but me [1] ,” saith Christ. If any man therefore doth love the Lord Jesus, (and woe worth him that loveth not the Lord Jesus!) hereby we may know that he loveth him indeed, if he despise not the things that are spoken of by his Apostles, whom many have despised even for the baseness and simpleness of their persons.     A natural man perceiveth not heavenly things.  For it is the property of fleshly and carnal men to honour and dishonour, credit and discredit the words and deeds of every man, according to that he wanteth or hath without. “ [2] If a man with gorgeous apparel come amongst us,” although he be a thief or a murderer, (for there are thieves and murderers in gorgeous apparel,) be his heart whatsoever, if his coat be of purple, or velvet, or tissue, every one riseth up, and all the reverend solemnities we can use are too little. But the man that serveth God is contemned and despised amongst us for his poverty. Herod speaketh in judgment, and the people cry out, “ [3] The voice of God, and not of man.” Paul preacheth Christ, they term him a trifler. “ [4] Hearken, beloved, hath not God chosen the poor of this world, that they should be rich in faith?” Hath he not chosen the refuse of the world to be heirs of his kingdom, which he hath promised to them that love him? Hath he not chosen the offscourings of men to be the lights of the world, and the Apostles of Jesus Christ?     SERM. V. 7.  Men unlearned, yet how fully replenished with understanding? few in number, yet how great in power? contemptible in shew, yet in spirit how strong? how wonderful? “I would fain learn the mystery of the eternal generation of the Son of God,” saith Hilary [1] . “Whom shall I seek? Shall I get me to the schools of the Grecians? Why? I have read, Ubi sapiens? ubi scriba? ubi conquisitor hujus sæculi? These wise men in the world must needs be dumb in this, because they have rejected the wisdom of God. Shall I beseech the scribes and interpreters of the law to become my teachers? How can they know this, sith they are offended at the cross of Christ? It is death for me to be ignorant of the unsearchable mystery of the Son of God: of which mystery, notwithstanding I should have been ignorant, but that a poor fisherman, unknown, unlearned, new come from his boat with his clothes wringing wet, hath opened his mouth and taught me, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ ” These poor silly creatures have made us rich in the knowledge of the mysteries of Christ.

7. Remember therefore that which is spoken of by the Apostles. Whose words if the children of this world do not regard, is it any marvel? They are the Apostles of our Lord Jesus; not of their Lord, but of our. It is true which one hath said in a certain place, Apostolicam fidem sæculi homo non capit. “A man sworn to the world is not capable of that faith which the Apostles do teach.” What mean the children of this world then to tread in the courts of our God?     We must not halt between two opinions.  What should your bodies do at Bethel, whose hearts are at Bethaven? The god of this world, whom ye serve, hath provided Apostles and teachers for you, Chaldeans, wizards, soothsayers, astrologers, and such like: hear them. Tell not us that ye will sacrifice to the Lord our God, if we will sacrifice to Ashtaroth or Melcom; that ye will read our Scriptures, if we will listen to your traditions; that if ye may have a Mass by permission, we shall have a Communion with good leave and liking; that ye will admit the things that are spoken of by the Apostles of our Lord Jesus, if your Lord and Master may have his ordinances observed, and his statutes kept. Salomon [c] took it (as well he might) for an evident proof, that she did not bear a motherly affection to her child, which yielded to have it cut in divers parts. He cannot love the Lord Jesus with his heart, which lendeth one ear to his Apostles, and another [d] to false apostles; which can brook to see a mingle-mangle [1] of religion and superstition, Ministers and Massing-priests, light and darkness, truth and error, traditions and scriptures. No, we have no Lord but Jesus; no doctrine but the gospel; no teachers but his Apostles. Were it reason to require at the hands of an English subject, obedience to the laws and edicts of the Spaniard? I do marvel, that any man bearing the name of a servant of the servants of Jesus Christ, will go about to draw us from our allegiance. We are his sworn subjects; it is not lawful for us to hear the things that are not told us by his Apostles. They have told us, that in “the last days there shall be mockers,” therefore we believe it; Credimus quia legimus [2] , We are so persuaded, because we read it must be so. If we did not read it, we would not teach it: Nam quæ libro legis non continentur, ea nec nosse debemus, saith Hilary [1] ;     SERM. V. 8, 9.  “Those things that are not written in the book of the law, we ought not so much as to be acquainted with them.” “Remember the words which were spoken of before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Mockers in the last time.  8. The third thing to be considered in the description of these men of whom we speak, is the time wherein they should be manifested to the world. They told you there should be mockers “in the last time.” Noah at the commandment of God built an ark, and there were in it beasts of all sorts, clean and unclean. A husbandman planteth a vineyard, and looketh for grapes, but when they come to the gathering, behold, together with grapes there are found also wild grapes. A rich man prepareth a great supper, and biddeth many; but when he sitteth him down, he findeth amongst his friends here and there a man whom he knoweth not. This hath been the state of the Church sithence the beginning. God always hath mingled his saints with faithless and godless persons; as it were the clean with the unclean, grapes with sour grapes, his friends and children with aliens and strangers. Marvel not then, if in the last days also ye see the men, with whom you live and walk arm in arm, laugh at your religion, and blaspheme that glorious name whereof you are called. Thus it was in the days of the patriarchs and prophets, and are we better than our fathers? Albeit we suppose that the blessed Apostles, in foreshewing what manner of men were set out for the last days, meant to note a calamity special and peculiar to the ages and generations which were to come. As if he should have said, as God hath appointed a time of seed for the sower, and a time of harvest for him that reapeth; as he hath given unto every herb and every tree his own fruit and his own season, not the season nor the fruit of another (for no man looketh to gather figs in the winter, because the summer is the season for them; nor grapes of thistles, because grapes are the fruit of the vine): so the same God hath appointed sundry for every generation of men, other men for other times, and for the last times the worst men, as may appear by their properties; which is the fourth point to be considered of in this description.

Mockers.  9. “They told you that there should be mockers. ” He meaneth men that shall use religion as a cloak, to put off and on, as the weather serveth [1] ;     SERM. V. 9.  such as shall with Herod hear the preaching of John Baptist to-day, and to-morrow condescend to have him beheaded; or with the other Herod say they will worship Christ, when they purpose a massacre in their hearts; kiss Christ with Judas, and betray Christ with Judas. These are mockers. For as Ishmael the son of Hagar laughed at Isaac, which was heir of the promise; so shall these men laugh at you as the maddest people under the sun, if ye be like Moses, “choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.” And why? God hath not given them eyes to see, nor hearts to conceive that exceeding recompense of your reward. The promises of salvation made to you are matters wherein they can take no pleasure, even as Ishmael took no pleasure in that promise wherein God had said unto Abraham [2] , “In Isaac shall thy seed be called,” because the promise concerned not him, but Isaac. They are termed for their impiety towards God, “mockers;” and for the impurity of their life and conversation, “walkers after their own ungodly lusts.” St. Peter in his Second Epistle and third chapter soundeth the very depth of their impiety; shewing first, how they shall not shame at the length to profess themselves profane and irreligious, by flat denying the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and deriding the sweet and comfortable promises of his appearing: secondly, that they shall not be only deriders of all religion, but also disputers against God, using truth to subvert the truth; yea Scriptures themselves to disprove Scriptures. Being in this sort “mockers,” they must needs be also “followers of their own ungodly lusts.” Being atheists in persuasion, can they choose but be beasts in conversation? For why remove they quite from them the fear of God? Why take they such pains to abandon and put out from their hearts all sense, all taste, all feeling of religion? but only to this end and purpose, that they may without inward remorse and grudging of conscience give over themselves to all uncleanness.     Mockers worse than Pagans and infidels.  Surely the state of these men is more lamentable than is the condition of Pagans and Turks. For at the bare beholding of heaven and earth the infidel’s heart by and by doth give him, that there is an eternal, infinite, immortal, and ever-living God, whose hands have fashioned and framed the world; he knoweth that every house is builded of some man, though he see not the man which built the house, and he considereth that it must be God which hath built and created all things; although because the number of his days be few, he could not see when God disposed his works of old, when he caused the light of his clouds first to shine, when he laid the corner stone of the earth, and swaddled it with bands of water and darkness; when he caused the morning star to know his place, and made bars and doors to shut up the sea within his house, saying [1] , “Hitherto shalt thou come, but no farther;” he hath no eyewitness of these things. Yet the light of natural reason hath put this wisdom in his reins, and hath given his heart thus much understanding. Bring a Pagan to the schools of the Prophets of God; prophesy to an infidel, rebuke him, lay the judgments of God before him, make the secret sins of his heart manifest, and he shall fall down and worship God. They that crucified the Lord of glory were not so far past recovery, but that the preaching of the Apostles was able to move their hearts and to bring them to this, “Men and brethren, what shall we do [2] ?” Agrippa, that sat in judgment against Paul for preaching, yielded notwithstanding thus far unto him, “Almost thou persuadest me to become a Christian [3] .” Although the Jews for want of knowledge have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God; yet “I bear them record,” saith the Apostle [4] , “that they have a zeal.” The Athenians, a people having neither zeal nor knowledge, yet of them also the same Apostle [5] beareth witness, “Ye men of Athens, I perceive ye are δεισιδαιμονέστεστεροι, some way religious.” But mockers, walking after their own ungodly lusts, they have smothered every spark of that heavenly light, they have stifled even their very natural understanding. O Lord, thy mercy is over all thy works, thou savest man and beast! yet a happy case it had been for these men if they had never been born; and so I leave them.

SERM. V. 10, 11.  10. St. Jude having his mind exercised in the doctrine of the Apostles of Jesus Christ, concerning things to come in the last time, became a man of a wise and staied [e] judgment. Grieved he was to see the departure of many, and their falling away from the faith which before they did profess;     Judas vir sapiens et certi judicii.  grieved, but not dismayed. With the simpler and weaker sort it was otherwise: their countenance began by and by to change, they were half in doubt they had deceived themselves in giving credit to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. St. Jude, to comfort and refresh these silly lambs, taketh them up in his arms, and sheweth them the men at whom they were offended. Look upon them that forsake this blessed profession wherein you stand: they are now before your eyes; view them, mark them, are they not carnal? are they not like to noisome carrion cast out upon the earth? is there that Spirit in them which crieth, “Abba, Father,” in your bosoms? Why should any man be discomforted? Have you not heard that there should be “mockers in the last time?” These verily are they that now do separate themselves.

11. For your better understanding what this severing and separating of themselves doth mean, we must know that the multitude of them which truly believe (howsoever they be dispersed far and wide each from other) is all one body, whereof the Head is Christ; one building, whereof he is the corner-stone, in whom they as the members of the body being knit, and as the stones of the building being coupled, grow up to a man of perfect stature, and rise to an holy temple in the Lord. That which linketh Christ to us, is his mere mercy and love towards us. That which tieth us to him, is our faith in the promised salvation revealed in the word of truth. That which uniteth and joineth us amongst ourselves, in such sort that we are now as if we had but one heart and one soul, is our love. Who be inwardly in heart the lively members of this body, and the polished stones of this building, coupled and joined to Christ, as flesh of his flesh, and bones of his bones, by the mutual bond of his unspeakable love towards them, and their unfeigned faith in him, thus linked and fastened each to other by a spiritual, sincere, and hearty affection of love, without any manner of simulation; who be Jews within, and what their names be;     SERM. V. 12.  none can tell, save he whose eyes do behold the secret disposition of all men’s hearts. We, whose eyes are too dim to behold the inward man, must leave the secret judgment of every servant to his own Lord, accounting and using all men as brethren both near and dear unto us, supposing Christ to love them tenderly, so as they keep the profession of the Gospel, and join in the outward communion of saints. Whereof the one doth warrantize unto us their faith, the other their love, till they fall away, and forsake either the one, or the other, or both; and then it is no injury to term them as they are. When they separate themselves, they are αὐτοκατάκριτοι, not judged by us, but by their own doings. Men do separate themselves either by heresy, schism, or apostasy.     Threefold separation.  If they loose the bond of faith, which then they are justly supposed to do, when they frowardly oppugn any principal point of Christian doctrine, this is to separate themselves by heresy.     1. Heresy.  If they break the bond of unity, whereby the body of the Church is coupled and knit in one, as they do which wilfully forsake all external communion with saints in holy exercises purely and orderly established in the Church, this is to separate themselves by schism.     2. Schism.  If they willingly cast off and utterly forsake both profession of Christ and communion with Christians, taking their leave of all religion, this is to separate themselves by plain apostasy.     3. Apostasy.  And St. Jude, to express the manner of their departure which by apostasy fell away from the faith of Christ, saith, “They separated themselves;” noting thereby, that it was not constraint of others which forced them to depart, it was not infirmity and weakness in themselves, it was not fear of persecution to come upon them, whereat their hearts did fail; it was not grief of torments, whereof they had tasted, and were not able any longer to endure them. No, they voluntarily did separate themselves with a fully settled and altogether determined purpose never to name the Lord Jesus any more, nor to have any fellowship with his saints, but to bend all their counsel and all their strength to raze out their memorial from amongst men.

12. Now because that by such examples, not only the hearts of infidels were hardened against the truth, but the minds of weak brethren also much troubled, the Holy Ghost hath given sentence of these backsliders, that they were carnal men, and had not the Spirit of Christ Jesus, lest any man having an overweening of their persons should be overmuch amazed and offended at their fall.     SERM. V. 13.  For simple men not able to discern their spirits, were brought by their apostasy thus to reason with themselves: If Christ be the Son of the living God, if he have the words of eternal life, if he be able to bring salvation to all men that come unto him, what meaneth this apostasy and unconstrained departure? Why do his servants so willingly forsake him? Babes, be not deceived, his servants forsake him not. They that separate themselves were amongst his servants, but if they had been of his servants, they had not separated themselves. “ [1] They were amongst us, not of us,” saith St. John; and St. Jude proveth it, because they were carnal, and had not the Spirit. Will you judge of wheat by chaff which the wind hath scattered from amongst it? Have the children no bread because the dogs have not tasted it? Are Christians deceived of that salvation they looked for, because they denied the joys of the life to come which were no Christians? What if they seemed to be pillars and principal upholders of our faith? What is that to us, which know that Angels have [2] fallen from heaven? Although if these men had been of us indeed (O the blessedness of a Christian man’s estate!), they had stood surer than the angels, they had never departed from their place. Whereas now we marvel not at their departure at all, neither are we prejudiced by their falling away; because they were not of us, sith they are fleshly, and have not the Spirit. Children abide in the house for ever; they are bondmen and bondwomen which are cast out.

13. It behoveth you therefore greatly every man to examine his own estate, and try whether you be bond or free, children or no children. I have told you already, that we must beware we presume not to sit as gods in judgment upon others, and rashly, as our conceit and fancy doth lead us, so to determine of this man, he is sincere, or of that man, he is an hypocrite; except by their falling away they make it manifest and known what they are. For who art thou that takest upon thee to judge another before the time? Judge thyself. God hath left us infallible evidence, whereby we may at any time give true and righteous sentence upon ourselves.     SERM. V. 14.  We cannot examine the hearts of other men, we may our own.     Infallible evidence in the faithful, that they are God’s children.  “That we have passed from death to life, we know it,” saith St. John, “because we love our brethren [1] :” and, “Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates [2] ?” I trust, beloved, we know that we are not reprobates, because our spirit doth bear us record, that the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ is in us.

14. It is as easy a matter for the spirit within you to tell whose ye are, as for the eyes of your body to judge where you sit, or in what place you stand. For what saith the Scripture? “Ye which were in times past strangers and enemies [f] , because your minds were set on evil works, Christ hath now reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to make you holy and unblamable and without fault in his sight; if you continue grounded and established in the faith, and be not moved away from the hope of the Gospel [3] .” And in the third to the Colossians, “Ye know, that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of that inheritance; for ye serve the Lord Christ [4] .” If we can make this account with ourselves: I was in times past dead in trespasses and sins, I walked after the prince that ruleth in the air, and after the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience; but God, who is rich in mercy, through his great love, wherewith he loved me, even when I was dead, hath quickened me in Christ. I was fierce, heady, proud, high-minded; but God hath made me like the child that is newly weaned [g] . I loved pleasures more than God; I followed greedily the joys of this present world; I esteemed him that erected a stage or theatre, more than Salomon [h] which built a temple to the Lord; the harp, viol, timbrel, and pipe, men-singers and women-singers, were at my feasts; it was my felicity to see my children dance before me [5] ; I said of every kind of vanity, O how sweet art thou unto my soul! All which things now are crucified to me, and I to them: now I hate the pride of life, and pomp of this world: now “I take as great delight in the way of thy testimonies, O Lord, as in all riches [1] ;”     SERM. V. 15.  now I find more joy of heart in my Lord and Saviour, than the worldly-minded man, when “his wheat and oil do much abound;” now I taste nothing sweet but the “bread that came down from heaven, to give life unto the world [2] ;” now mine eyes see nothing but Jesus rising from the dead; now my ear refuseth all kind of melody to hear the song of them that have gotten victory of the beast, and of his image, and of his mark, and of the number of his name, that stand on the sea of glass, “having the harps of God, and singing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty, just and true are thy ways, O King of Saints [3] .” Surely, if the Spirit have been thus effectual in the secret work of our regeneration unto newness of life; if we endeavour thus to frame ourselves anew: then we may say boldly with the blessed Apostle in the tenth to the Hebrews, “We are not of them which withdraw ourselves to perdition, but which follow faith to the conservation of the soul [4] .” For they that fall away from the grace of God, and separate themselves unto perdition, they are fleshly and carnal, they have not God’s holy Spirit. But unto you, “because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts [5] ,” to the end ye might know that Christ hath built you upon a rock unmovable; that he hath registered your names in the Book of Life; that he hath bound himself in a sure and everlasting covenant to be your God, and the God of your children after you; that he hath suffered as much, groaned as oft, prayed as heartily for you, as for Peter, “O Father, keep them in thy name; O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee, but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. I have declared thy name unto them, and will declare it, that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them [6] .” The Lord of his infinite mercy give us hearts plentifully fraught with the treasure of this blessed assurance of faith unto the end!

The papists falsely accuse us of heresy and apostasy.  15. Here I must advertise all men, that have the testimony of God’s holy fear within their breasts, to consider how unkindly and injuriously our own countrymen and brethren have dealt with us by the space of four and twenty years [1] , from time to time, as if we were the men of whom St. Jude here speaketh; never ceasing to charge us, some with schism, some with heresy, some with plain and manifest apostasy, as if we had clean separated ourselves from Christ, utterly forsaken God, quite abjured heaven, and trampled all truth and all religion under our feet. Against this third sort, God himself shall plead our cause in that day, when they shall answer us for these words, not we them. To others, by whom we are accused for schism and heresy, we have often made our reasonable, and in the sight of God, I trust, allowable answers. “For in the way which they call heresy, we worship the God of our fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets [2] .” That which they call schism, we know to be our reasonable service unto God, and obedience to his voice, which crieth shrill in our ears, “Go out of Babylon, my people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues [3] .” And therefore when they rise up against us, having no quarrel but this, we need not seek any farther for our apology, than the words of Abiah to Jeroboam and his army: “O Jeroboam and Israel, hear you me: ought you not to know, that the Lord God of Israel hath given the kingdom over Israel to David for ever, even to him and to his sons, by a covenant of salt [4] ?” that is to say, an everlasting covenant. Jesuits and papists, hear ye me: ought you not to know that the Father hath given all power unto the Son, and hath made him the only head over his Church, wherein he dwelleth as an husbandman in the midst of his vineyard, manuring it with the sweat of his own brows, not letting it forth to others? For, as it is in the Canticle, “Salomon [i] had a vineyard in Baalhamon, he gave the vineyard unto keepers, every one bringing for the fruit thereof a thousand pieces of silver [5] ;” but my vineyard, which is mine, is before me, saith Christ. It is true, this is meant of the mystical head set over the body, which is not seen. But as he hath reserved the mystical administration of the Church invisible unto himself, so he hath committed the mystical government of congregations visible, to the sons of David, by the same covenant; whose sons they are in the governing of the flock of Christ, whomsoever the Holy Ghost hath set over them, to go before them, and to lead them in their several pastures, one in this congregation, another in that; as it is written, “Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock whereof the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood [1] .”     The pope’s usurped supremacy.  Neither will ever any pope or papist under the cope of heaven be able to prove the Romish bishop’s usurped supremacy over all churches by any one word of the covenant of salt, which is the Scripture. For the children in our streets do now laugh them to scorn, when they force, “Thou art Peter,” to this purpose. The pope hath no more reason to draw the charter of his universal authority from hence, than the brethren had to gather by the words of Christ in the last of St. John, that the disciple whom Jesus loved should never die. “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee [2] ?” saith Christ. Straightways a report was raised amongst the brethren, that this disciple should not die. Yet Jesus said not to him, he shall not die; but “if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?” Christ hath said in the sixteenth of St. Matthew’s Gospel to Simon the son of Jonas, “I say to thee, Thou art Peter [3] .” Hence an opinion is held in the world, that the pope is universal head of all churches. Yet Jesus said not, The pope is universal head of all churches; but, Tu es Petrus, “Thou art Peter.” Howbeit, as Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, the servant of Salomon [k] , rose up and rebelled against his Lord, and there were gathered unto him vain men and wicked, which made themselves strong against Roboam [l] , the son of Salomon [k] , because Roboam was but a child, and tenderhearted, and could not resist them; so the son of perdition and Man of Sin, (being not able to brook the words of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, which forbade his disciples to be like princes of nations, “They bear rule, and are called gracious, it shall not be so with you [1] ,”) hath risen up and rebelled against his Lord; and, to strengthen his arm, he hath crept into the houses almost of all the noblest families round about him, and taken their children from the cradle to be his cardinals [2] ; he hath fawned upon the kings and princes of the earth, and by spiritual cozenage [m] hath made them sell their lawful authority and jurisdiction for titles of Catholicus, Christianissimus, Defensor Fidei, and such like; he hath proclaimed sale of pardons, to inveigle the ignorant; built seminaries [3] , to allure young men desirous of learning; erected stews [4] , to gather the dissolute unto him. This is the rock whereupon his church is built. Hereby the Man is grown huge and strong, like the cedars which are not shaken with the wind, because princes have been as children, over tenderhearted, and could not resist.

Hereby it is come to pass, as you see this day, that the Man of Sin doth war against us, not by men of a language which we cannot understand, but he cometh as Jeroboam against Judah, and bringeth the fruit of our own bodies to eat us up, that the bowels of the child may be made the mother’s grave, that [n] hath caused no small number of our brethren to forsake their native country, and with all disloyalty to cast off the yoke of their allegiance to our dread Sovereign, whom God in mercy hath set over them; for whose safeguard, if they carried not the hearts of tigers in the bosoms of men, they would think the dearest blood in their bodies well spent. But now, saith Abiah to Jeroboam, “Ye think ye be able to resist the kingdom of the Lord, which is in the hands of the sons of David. Ye be a great multitude, the golden calves are with you, which Jeroboam made you for gods: have ye not driven away the priests of the Lord, the sons of Aaron, and the Levites, and have made you priests like the people of nations? whosoever cometh with a young bullock and seven rams, the same may be a priest of them that are no gods [1] .” If I should follow the comparison, and here uncover the cup of those deadly and ugly [o] abominations, wherewith this Jeroboam, of whom we speak, hath made the earth so drunk that it hath reeled under us, I know your godly hearts would loath to see them. For my own part, I delight not to rake in such filth, I had rather take a garment upon my shoulders, and go with my face from them to cover them. The Lord open their eyes, and cause them, if it be possible, at the length to see how they are wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. Put it, O Lord, in their hearts to seek white raiment, and to cover themselves, that their filthy nakedness may no longer appear. For, beloved in Christ, we bow our knees, and lift up our hands to heaven in our chambers secretly, and openly in our churches we pray heartily and hourly, even for them also: though the pope hath [p] given out as a judge, in a solemn declaratory sentence of excommunication against this land, that our gracious Lady hath quite abolished prayers within her realm [1] ; and his scholars, whom he hath taken from the midst of us, have in their published writings charged us not only not to have any holy assemblies unto the Lord for prayer, but to “hold a common school of sin and flattery; to hold sacrilege to be God’s service; unfaithfulness, and breach of promise to God, to give it to a strumpet, to be a virtue; to abandon fasting; to abhor confession; to mislike with penance; to like well of usury; to charge none with restitution; to find no good before God in single life, nor in no well-working;” . . . “that all men, as they fall to us, are much worsed, and more than afore corrupted.” I do not add one word or syllable unto that which Master Bristow [2] , a man both born and sworn amongst us, hath taught his hand to deliver [3] to the view of all. I appeal to the conscience of every soul, that hath been truly converted by us, Whether his heart were never raised up to God by our preaching; whether the words of our exhortation never wrung any tear of a penitent heart from his eyes; whether his soul never reaped any joy, any comfort, any consolation in Christ Jesus, by our sacraments, and prayers, and psalms, and thanksgiving; whether he were never bettered, but always worsed by us.

O merciful God! If heaven and earth in this case do not witness with us, and against them, let us be razed out from the land of the living! Let the earth on which we stand swallow us quick, as it hath done Corah, Dathan, and Abiram! But [1] if we belong unto the Lord our God, and have not forsaken him; if our priests, the sons of Aaron, minister unto the Lord, and the Levites in their office; if we offer unto the Lord every morning and every evening the burnt-offerings and sweet incense of prayers and thanksgivings; if the bread be set in order upon the pure table, and the candlestick of gold, with the lamps thereof, to burn every morning; that is to say, if amongst us God’s blessed sacraments be duly administered, his holy word sincerely and daily preached; if we keep the watch of the Lord our God, and if ye have forsaken him: then doubt ye not, this God is with us as a captain, his priests with sounding trumpets must cry alarm against you; “O ye children of Israel, fight not against the Lord God of your fathers, for ye shall not prosper [2] .”

THE SECOND SERMON.

EPIST. JUDE, vers. 17-21.

But ye, beloved, remember the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ:

How that they told you, that there should be mockers in the last time, which should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

These are makers of Sects, fleshly, having not the Spirit.

But ye, beloved, edify yourselves in your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost.

And keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, unto eternal life.

SERM. VI. 1, 2.  1. HAVING otherwhere spoken of the words of St. Jude, going next before, concerning Mockers, which should come in the last time, and backsliders, which even then fell away from the faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; I am now, by the aid of Almighty God, and through the assistance of his good Spirit, to lay before you the words of exhortation which I have read.

2. Wherein first of all, whosoever hath an eye to see, let him open it, and he shall well perceive how careful the Lord is for his children, how desirous to see them profit and grow up to a manly stature in Christ, how loth [a] to have them any way misled, either by examples of the wicked, or by enticements of the world, and by provocation of the flesh, or by any other means forcible to deceive them, and likely to estrange their hearts from God. For God is not at that point with us, that he careth not whether we sink or swim. No, he hath written our names in the palm of his hand, in the signet upon his finger are we graven, in sentences not only of mercy, but of judgment also, we are remembered. He never denounceth judgments against the wicked, but he maketh some Proviso for his children, as it were for some certain privileged persons; “ [1] Touch not mine anointed, do my prophets no harm:     SERM. VI. 3.  Hurt not the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of God in their foreheads.” He never speaketh of godless men, but he adjoineth words of comfort, or admonition, or exhortation, whereby we are moved to rest and settle our hearts on him. In the Second to Timothy, the third chapter [2] , “Evil men,” saith the Apostle, “and deceivers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned.” And in the First to Timothy, the sixth chapter [3] , “Some men lusting after money, have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But thou, O man of God, fly these things, and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness.” In the Second to the Thessalonians, the second chapter [4] , “They that have not received the love of the truth, that they might be saved, God shall send them strong delusions, that they may believe lies. But we ought to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and faith in the truth.” And in this Epistle of St. Jude, “There shall come mockers in the last time, walking after their own ungodly lusts. But, beloved, edify ye yourselves in your most holy faith.”

3. These sweet exhortations, which God putteth every where in the mouths of the prophets and apostles of Jesus Christ, are evident tokens, that God sitteth not in heaven careless and unmindful of our estate. Can a mother forget her child? Surely a mother will hardly forget her child. But if a mother be haply found unnatural, and do forget the fruit of her own womb; yet God’s judgments shew plainly, that he cannot forget the man whose heart he hath framed and fashioned anew in simplicity and truth to serve and fear him. For when the wickedness of man was so great, and the earth so filled with cruelty, that it could not stand with the righteousness of God any longer to forbear, wrathful sentences brake out from him, like wine from a vessel that hath no vent: “My Spirit,” saith he, “can struggle and strive no longer; an end of all flesh is come before me.” Yet then did Noah find grace in the eyes of the Lord:     SERM. VI. 4, 5.  “ [1] I will establish my covenant with thee,” saith God; “thou shalt go into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.”

4. Do we not see what shift God doth make for Lot and for his family, in the nineteenth of Genesis, lest the fiery destruction of the wicked should overtake him? Overnight the angels make inquiry, what sons and daughters, or sons-in-law, what wealth and substance he had. They charge him to carry out all, “ [2] Whatsoever thou hast in the city, bring it out.” God seemeth to stand in a kind of fear, lest something or other would be left behind. And his will was, that nothing of that which he had, not a hoof of any beast, not a thread of any garment, should be singed with that fire. In the morning the angels fail not to call him up, and to hasten him forward; “ [3] Arise, take thy wife and thy daughters which are here, that they be not destroyed in the punishment of the city.” The angels having spoken again and again, Lot for all this lingereth out the time still, till at the length they were forced to take “ [4] both him, his wife, and his daughters, by the arms (the Lord being merciful unto him), and to carry them forth, and set them without the city.”

5. Was there ever any father thus careful to save his child from the flame? A man would think, that now being spoken unto to escape for his life, and not to look behind him, nor to tarry in the plain, but to hasten to the mountain, and there to save himself, he should do it gladly. Yet behold, now he is so far off from a cheerful and willing heart to do whatsoever is commanded him for his own weal, that he beginneth to reason the matter, as if God had mistaken one place for another, sending him to the hill, when salvation was in the city. “ [5] Not so, my Lord, I beseeeh thee; behold, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewed unto me in saving my life. I cannot escape in the mountain, lest some evil take me and I die. Here is a city hard by, a small thing; O, let me escape thither, (is it not a small thing?) and my soul shall live.” Well, God is contented to yield to any conditions.     SERM. VI. 6, 7, 8.  “ [1] Behold, I have received thy request concerning this thing also, I will spare this city for which thou hast spoken; haste thee, save thee there. For I can do nothing till thou come thither.”

6. He could do nothing! Not because of the weakness of his strength (for who is like unto the Lord in power?) but because of the greatness of his mercy, which would not suffer him to lift up his arm against that city, nor to pour out his wrath upon that place, where his righteous servant had a fancy to remain, and a desire to dwell. O the depth of the riches of the mercy and love of [b] God! God is afraid to offend us which are not afraid to displease him; God can do nothing till he have saved us, which can find in our hearts rather to do any thing than to serve him. It contenteth him not to exempt us when the pit is digged for the wicked; to comfort us at every mention which is made of reprobates and godless men; to save us as the apple of his own eye when fire cometh down from heaven to consume the inhabitants of the earth; except every prophet, and every Apostle, and every servant whom he sendeth forth, do come loaden with these and the like exhortations, “O beloved, edify yourselves in your most holy faith. Give yourselves to prayer in the Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God. Look for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.”

7. “Edify yourselves.” The speech is borrowed from material builders, and must be spiritually understood. It appeareth in the sixth of St. John’s Gospel by the Jews, that their mouths did water too much for bodily food: “ [2] Our fathers,” say they, “did eat manna in the desert, as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat; Lord, evermore give us of this bread.” Our Saviour, to turn their appetite another way, maketh them this answer: “ [3] I am the Bread of Life; he that cometh to me shall not hunger; and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.”

8. An usual practice it is of Satan, to cast heaps of worldly baggage in our way, that whilst we desire to heap up gold as dust, we may be brought at the length to esteem vilely that spiritual bliss.     SERM. VI. 9.  Christ, in the sixth of Matthew [1] , to correct this evil affection, putteth us in mind to lay up treasure for ourselves in heaven. The Apostle (1 Tim., third chapter), misliking the vanity of those women, which attired themselves more costly than beseemed the heavenly calling of such as professed the fear of God, willeth them to clothe themselves with [2] shamefastness and modesty, and to put on the apparel of good works. Taliter pigmentatæ, Deum habebitis amatorem, [3] saith Tertullian. Put on righteousness as a garment; instead of civet [c] , have faith, which may cause a savour of life to issue from you, and God shall be enamoured, he shall be ravished with your beauty. These are the ornaments, and bracelets, and jewels, which inflame the love of Christ, and set his heart on fire upon his spouse. We see how he breaketh out in the Canticles at the beholding of this attire: “ [4] How fair art thou, and how pleasant art thou, O my love, in these pleasures!”

9. And perhaps St. Jude exhorteth us here not to build our houses, but ourselves, foreseeing by the Spirit of the Almighty which was with him, that there should be men in the last days like to those in the first, which should encourage and stir up each other to make brick, and to burn it in the fire, to build houses huge as cities, and towers as high as heaven, thereby to get them a name upon earth; men that should turn out the poor, and the fatherless, and the widow, to build places of rest for dogs and swine in their rooms; men that should lay houses of prayer even with the [d] ground, and make them stables where God’s people have worshipped before the Lord. Surely this is a vanity of all vanities, and it is much amongst men; a special sickness of this age. What it should mean I know not, except God have set them on work to provide fuel against that day, when the Lord Jesus shall shew himself from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire. What good cometh unto the owners of these things, saith Salomon [e] , but only the beholding thereof with their eyes? “ [5] Martha, Martha, thou busiest thyself about many things; one thing is necessary.” Ye are too busy, my brethren, with timber and brick; they have chosen the better part, they have taken a better course, that build themselves.     SERM. VI. 10.  “ [1] Ye are the temples of the living God, as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and will walk in them; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.”

10. Which of you will gladly remain or abide in a mishapen, a ruinous, or a broken house? And shall we suffer sin and vanity to drop in at our eyes, and at our ears, at every corner of our bodies, and of our souls, knowing that we are the temples of the Holy Ghost? Which of you receiveth a guest whom he honoureth, or whom he loveth, and doth not sweep his chamber against his coming? And shall we suffer the chamber of our hearts and consciences to lie full of vomiting, full of filth, full of garbage, knowing that Christ hath said, “ [2] I and my Father will come and dwell with you?” Is it meet for your oxen to lie [f] in parlours, and yourselves to lodge in cribs? Or is it seemly for yourselves to dwell in your ceiled [3] houses, and the house of the Almighty to lie waste, whose house ye are yourselves? Do not our eyes behold, how God every day overtaketh the wicked in their journeys, how suddenly they pop down into the pit? how God’s judgments for their crimes [4] come so swiftly upon them, that they have not the leisure to cry, alas? how their life is cut off like a thread in a moment? how they pass like a shadow? how they open their mouths to speak, and God taketh them even in the midst of a vain or an idle word? and dare we for all this lie [f] down, take our rest, eat our meat securely and carelessly in the midst of so great and so many ruins? Blessed and praised for ever and ever be his name, who perceiving of how senseless and heavy metal we are made, hath instituted in his Church a spiritual supper, and an holy communion to be celebrated often, that we might thereby be occasioned often to examine these buildings of ours, in what case they stand.     The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.  For sith God doth not dwell in temples which are unclean, sith a shrine cannot be a sanctuary unto him; and this supper is received as a seal unto us, that we are his house and his sanctuary; that his Christ is as truly united to me, and I to him, as my arm is united and knit unto my shoulder; that he dwelleth in me as verily as the elements of bread and wine abide within me;     SERM. VI. 11, 12.  which persuasion, by receiving these dreadful mysteries, we [1] profess ourselves to have, a due comfort, if truly; and if in hypocrisy, then woe worth us:—therefore ere we put forth our hands to take this blessed sacrament, we are charged to examine and to try our hearts whether God be in us of a truth or no: and if by faith and love unfeigned we be found the temples of the Holy Ghost, then to judge whether we have had such regard every one to our building, that the Spirit which dwelleth in us hath no way been vexed, molested, and grieved: or if it have, as no doubt sometimes it hath by incredulity, sometimes by breach of charity, sometimes by want of zeal, sometimes by spots of life, even in the best and most perfect amongst us: (for who can say, his heart is clean?) O then, to fly unto God by unfeigned repentance, to fall down before him in the humility of our souls, begging of him whatsoever is needful to repair our decays, before we fall into that desolation whereof the Prophet speaketh [2] , saying, “Thy breach is great like the sea, who can heal thee?”

11. Receiving the Sacrament of the Supper of the Lord after this sort (you that are spiritual, judge what I speak) is not all other wine like the water of Marah, being compared to the cup which we bless? Is not manna like to gall, and our bread like to manna? Is there not a taste, a taste of Christ Jesus, in the heart of him that eateth? Doth not he which drinketh behold plainly in this cup, that his soul is bathed in the blood of the Lamb? O beloved in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, if ye will taste how sweet the Lord is, if ye will receive the King of Glory, “build yourselves.”

12. Young men, I speak this to you, for ye are his house, because by faith ye are conquerors over Satan, and have overcome that evil. Fathers, I speak it also to you; ye are his house, because ye have known him, which is from the beginning. Sweet babes, I speak it even to you also; ye are his house, because your sins are forgiven you for his name’s sake [g] . Matrons and sisters, I may not hold it from you; ye are also the Lord’s building, and, as St. Peter speaketh [1] , “heirs of the grace of life,” as well as we.     SERM. VI. 13, 14, 15.  Though it be forbidden you to open your mouths in public assemblies, yet ye must be inquisitive in things concerning this building which is of God, with your husbands and friends at home; not as Dalila with Samson [h] , but as Sara with Abraham; whose daughters ye are, whilst ye do well, and build yourselves.

13. Having spoken thus far of the exhortation, as whereby we are called upon to edify and build ourselves; it remaineth now, that we consider the thing prescribed, namely, wherein we must be built. This prescription standeth also upon two points, the thing prescribed, and the adjuncts of the thing. And that is, our most pure and holy faith.

14. The thing prescribed is faith. For as in a chain, which is made of many links, if you pull the first, you draw the rest; and as in a ladder of many staves, if you take away the lowest, all hope of ascending to the highest will be removed: so, because all the precepts and promises in the law and in the Gospel do hang upon this, Believe; and because the last of the graces of God doth so follow the first, that he glorifieth none, but whom he hath justified, nor justifieth any, but whom he hath called to a true, effectual, and lively faith in Christ Jesus; therefore St. Jude exhorting us to build ourselves, mentioneth here expressly only faith, as the thing wherein we must be edified; for that faith is the ground and the glory of all the welfare of this building.

15. “Ye are not strangers and foreigners, but citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,” saith the Apostle [2] , and are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom all the building being coupled together, groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are built together to be the habitation of God by the Spirit.” And we are the habitation of God by the Spirit, if we believe. For it is written [3] , “Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son of God, in him God dwelleth, and he in God.” The strength of this habitation is great, it prevaileth against Satan, it conquereth sin, it hath death in derision; neither principalities nor powers can throw it down;     SERM. VI. 16.  it leadeth the world captive, and bringeth every enemy [i] that riseth up against it to confusion and shame, and all by faith; for “this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is it that overcometh the world, but he which believeth that Jesus is the Son of God [1] ?”

16. The strength of every building, which is of God, standeth not in any man’s arms or legs; it is only in our faith, as the valour of Samson lay only in his hair. This is the reason, why we are so earnestly called upon to edify ourselves in faith. Not as if this bare action of our minds, whereby we believe the Gospel of Christ, were able in itself, as of itself, to make us unconquerable, and invincible, like stones, which abide in the building for ever, and fall not out. No, it is not the worthiness of our believing, it is the virtue of him in whom we believe, by which we stand sure, as houses that are builded upon a rock. He is a wise man which hath builded his house upon a rock; for he hath chosen a good foundation, and no doubt his house will stand. But how shall it stand? Verily, by the strength of the rock which beareth it, and by nothing else [2] . Our fathers, whom God delivered out of the land of Egypt, were a people that had no peers amongst the nations of the earth, because they were built by faith upon the rock, which rock is Christ. “And the rock,” saith the Apostle in the First to the Corinthians, the tenth chapter [3] , “did follow them [k] .” Whereby we learn not only this, that being built by faith on Christ as on a rock, and grafted into him as into an olive, we receive all our strength and fatness from him; but also, that this strength and fatness of ours ought to be no cause why we should be highminded, and not work out our salvation with a reverent [l] trembling, and holy fear. For if thou boastest thyself of thy faith, know this, that Christ chose his Apostles, his Apostles chose not him; that Israel followed not the rock, but the rock followed Israel; and that thou bearest not the root, but the root thee [4] . So that every heart must this think, and every tongue must thus speak, “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us,” nor unto any thing which is within us, but unto thy name only, only to thy name belongeth all the praise of all the treasures and riches of every temple which is of God.     SERM. VI. 17, 18, 19.  This excludeth all boasting and vaunting of our faith.

17. But this must not make us careless to edify ourselves in faith. It is the Lord that delivereth men’s souls from death, but not except they put their trust in his mercy. It is God that hath given us eternal life, but no otherwise than thus, If we believe in the name of the Son of God; for he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life [1] . It was the Spirit of the Lord which came upon Samson, and made him strong to tear a lion, as a man would rent a kind; but his strength forsook him, and he became like other men when the razor had touched his head. It is the power of God whereby the faithful “have subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained the promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword [2] :” but take away their faith, and doth not their strength forsake them? are they not like unto other men?

18. If ye desire yet farther to know how necessary and needful it is that we edify and build up ourselves in faith, mark the words of the blessed Apostles [3] : “Without faith it is impossible to please God.” If I offer unto God all the sheep and oxen that are in the world; if all the temples that were builded since the days of Adam till this hour, were of my foundation; if I break my very heart with calling upon God, and wear out my tongue with preaching; if I sacrifice my body and my soul unto him, “and have no faith,” all this availeth nothing. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”     No pleasing of God without faith.  Our Lord and Saviour therefore being asked in the sixth of St. John’s Gospel, “What shall we do that we might work the works of God?” maketh answer, “This is the work of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath sent [4] .”

19. That no work of ours, no building of ourselves in any thing can be available or profitable unto us, except we be edified and built in faith, what need we to seek about for long proof? Look upon Israel, once the very chosen and peculiar of God, to whom the adoption of the faithful, and the glory of Cherubins, and the covenants of mercy, and the law of Moses, and the service of God, and the promises of Christ were made impropriate, who not only were the offspring of Abraham, father unto all them which do believe, but Christ their offspring, which is God to be blessed for evermore.     SERM. VI. 20.

20. Consider this people, and learn what it is to build yourselves in faith. They were the Lord’s vine: “ [1] He brought it out of Egypt, he threw out the heathen from their places, that it might be planted; he made room for it, and caused it to take root, till it had filled the earth; the mountains were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were as the goodly cedars. She stretched out her branches unto the sea, and her boughs unto the river.” But, when God having sent both his servants and his Son to visit this vine, they neither spared the one, nor received the other, but stoned the prophets, and crucified the Lord of glory which came unto them; then began the curse of God to come upon them, even the curse whereof the prophet David hath spoken [2] , saying, “Let their table be made a snare, and a net, and a stumblingblock, even for a recompense unto them, let their eyes be darkened, that they do not see, bow down their backs for ever,” keep them down. And sithence [m] the hour that the measure of their infidelity was first made up, they have been spoiled with wars, eaten up with plagues, spent with hunger and famine; they wander from place to place, and are become the most base and contemptible people that are under the sun. Ephraim, which before was a terror unto nations, and they trembled at his voice, is now by infidelity so vile, that he seemeth as a thing cast out, to be trampled under men’s feet. In the midst of these desolations they cry, “ [3] Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts, look down from heaven, behold and visit this vine:” but their very prayers are turned into sin, and their cries are no better than the lowing of beasts before him. “Well,” saith the Apostle [4] , “by their unbelief they are broken off, and thou dost stand by thy faith. Behold therefore the bountifulness and severity of God; towards them severity, because they have fallen, bountifulness towards thee, if thou continue in his bountifulness, or else thou shalt be cut off.” If they forsake their unbelief and be grafted in again, and we at any time for the hardness of our hearts be broken off, it will be such a judgment as will amaze all the powers and principalities which are above.     SERM. VI. 21, 22.  Who hath searched the counsel of God concerning this secret? and who doth not see, that Infidelity doth threaten Lo-ammi [1] unto the Gentiles, as it hath brought Lo-ruchama [2] upon the Jews? It may be that these words seem dark unto you. But the words of the Apostle, in the eleventh to the Romans, are plain enough; “ [3] If God have not spared the natural branches, take heed, take heed, lest he spare not thee.” Build thyself in faith. Thus much of the thing which is prescribed, and wherein we are exhorted to edify ourselves. Now consider the conditions and properties which are in this place annexed unto faith. The former of them (for there are but two) is this, Edify yourselves in your faith.

21. A strange and a strong delusion it is wherewith the Man of Sin hath bewitched the world; a forcible spirit of error it must needs be, which hath brought men to such a senseless and unreasonable persuasion as this is, not only that men clothed with mortality and sin, as we ourselves are, can do God so much service, as shall be able to make a full and perfect satisfaction before the tribunal seat of God for their own sins, yea a great deal more than is sufficient for themselves; but also that a man at the hands of a bishop or a pope, for such or such a price, may buy the overplus of other men’s merits, purchase the fruits of other men’s labours, and build his soul by another man’s faith. Is not this man drowned in the gall of bitterness? Is his heart right in the sight of God? Can he have any part or fellowship with Peter, and with the successors of Peter, who thinketh so vilely of building the precious temples of the Holy Ghost? Let his money perish with him, and he with it, because he judgeth that the gift of God may be sold for money.

22. But, beloved in the Lord, deceive not yourselves, neither suffer ye yourselves to be deceived: ye can receive no more ease nor comfort for your souls by another man’s faith, than warmth for your bodies by another man’s clothes, or sustenance by the bread which another doth eat.     SERM VI. 23, 24, 25.  The just shall live by his own faith. “Let a saint, yea a martyr content himself, that he hath cleansed himself of his own sins [1] ,” saith Tertullian. No saint or martyr can cleanse himself of his own sins. But if so be a saint or a martyr can cleanse himself of his own sins, it is sufficient that he can do it for himself. Did ever any man by his death deliver another man from death, except only the Son of God? He indeed was able to safe-conduct [2] a thief from the cross to paradise: for to this end he came, that being himself pure from sin, he might obey for sinners. Thou which thinkest to do the like, and supposest that thou canst justify another by thy righteousness, if thou be without sin, then lay down thy life for thy brother; die for me. But if thou be a sinner, even as I am a sinner, how can the oil of thy lamp be sufficient both for thee and for me? Virgins that are wise, get ye oil, while ye have day, into your own lamps. For out of all peradventure, others, though they would, can neither give nor sell. Edify yourselves in your own most holy faith. And let this be observed for the first property of that wherein we ought to edify ourselves.

23. Our faith being such, is that indeed which St. Jude doth here term faith: namely, a thing most holy. The reason is this; we are justified by faith: for Abraham believed, and this was imputed unto him for righteousness. Being justified, all our iniquities are covered; God beholdeth us in the righteousness which is imputed, and not in the sins which we have committed.

24. It is true we are full of sin, both original and actual; whosoever denieth it is a double sinner, for he is both a sinner and a liar. To deny sin, is most plainly and clearly to prove it; because he that saith he hath no sin, lieth, and by lying proveth that he hath sin.

25. But imputation of righteousness hath covered the sins of every soul which believeth; God by pardoning our sin hath taken it away: so that now, although our transgressions be multiplied above the hairs of our head, yet being justified, we are as free and as clear as if there were no one spot or stain of any uncleanness in us.     SERM. VI. 26, 27, 28.  For it is God that justifieth; “and who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s chosen?” saith the Apostle in the eighth chapter to the Romans.

26. Now sin being taken away, we are made the righteousness of God in Christ. For David speaking of this righteousness, saith [1] , “Blessed is the man whose iniquities are forgiven.” No man is blessed, but in the righteousness of God: every man whose sin is taken away is blessed; therefore every man whose sin is covered, is made the righteousness of God in Christ. This righteousness doth make us to appear most holy, most pure, most unblamable before him.

27. This then is the sum of that which I say: faith doth justify; justification washeth away sin; sin removed, we are clothed with the righteousness which is of God; the righteousness of God maketh us most holy. Every of these I have proved by the testimony of God’s own mouth. Therefore I conclude, that faith is that which maketh us most holy; in consideration whereof, it is called in this place, “Our most holy faith.”

28. To make a wicked and a sinful man most holy through his believing, is more than to create a world of nothing. Our faith most holy! Surely, Salomon [n] could not shew the queen of Saba so much treasure in all his kingdom, as is lapt up in these words. O that our hearts were stretched out like tents, and that the eyes of our understanding were as bright as the sun, that we might throughly know the riches of the glorious inheritance of saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of his power towards us, whom he accepteth for pure, and most holy, through our believing! O that the Spirit of the Lord would give this doctrine entrance into the stony and brazen heart of the Jew [2] , which followeth the law of righteousness, but cannot attain unto the righteousness of the law! Wherefore? saith the Apostle. They seek righteousness, and not by faith. Wherefore they stumble at Christ, they are bruised, shivered to pieces as a ship that hath run herself upon a rock. O that God would cast down the eyes of the proud, and humble the souls of the high-minded,     SERM. VI. 29.  that they might at the length abhor the garments of their own flesh, which cannot hide their nakedness, and put on the faith of Christ Jesus, as he did put it on, which hath said, “ [1] Doubtless I think all things but loss, for the excellent knowledge sake of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have counted all things loss, and do judge them to be dung, that I might win Christ, and might be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, even the righteousness which is of God through faith.” O that God would open the ark of mercy, wherein this doctrine lieth, and set it wide before the eyes of poor afflicted consciences, which fly up and down upon the water of their afflictions, and can see nothing but only the gulf and deluge of their sins, wherein there is no place for them to rest their feet. The God of pity and compassion give you all strength and courage, every day, and every hour, and every moment, to build and edify yourselves in this most pure and holy faith. And thus much both of the thing prescribed in this exhortation, and also of the properties of the thing, “Build yourselves in your most holy faith.” I would come to the next branch, which is of prayer; but I cannot lay this matter out of my hands, till I have added somewhat for the applying of it both to others and to ourselves.

29. For your better understanding of matters contained in this exhortation, “Build yourselves,” you must note, that every church and congregation doth consist of a multitude of believers, as every house is built of many stones. And although the nature of the mystical body of the church be such, that it suffereth no distinction in the invisible members, but whether it be Paul or Apollos, prince or prophet, he that is taught, or he that teacheth, all are equally Christ’s, and Christ is equally theirs: yet in the external administration of the church of God, because God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, it is necessary that in every congregation there be a distinction, if not of inward dignity, yet of outward degree; so that all are saints, or seem to be saints, and should be as they seem. But are all Apostles? If the whole body were an eye, where were then the hearing?     SERM. VI. 30, 31.  God therefore hath given some to be Apostles, and some to be Pastors, c. for the edification of the body of Christ. In which work we are God’s labourers, saith the Apostle, and ye are God’s husbandry, and God’s building.

30. The Church, respected with reference unto administration ecclesiastical, doth generally consist but of two sorts of men, the labourers and the building; they which are ministered unto, and they to whom the work of the ministry is committed; pastors, and the flock over whom the Holy Ghost hath made them overscers. If the guide of a congregation, be his name or his degree whatsoever, be diligent in his vocation, feeding the flock of God which dependeth upon him, caring for it, “ [1] not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;” not as though he would tyrannize over God’s heritage, but as a pattern unto the flock, wisely guiding them: if the people in their degree do yield themselves framable to the truth, not like rough stone or flint, refusing to be smoothed and squared for the building: if the magistrate do carefully and diligently survey the whole order of the work, providing by statutes and laws, and bodily punishments, if need require, that all things may be done according to the rule which cannot deceive, even as Moses provided that all things might be done according to the pattern which he saw in the Mount; there the words of this exhortation are truly and effectually heard. Of such a congregation every man will say, “Behold a people that are wise, a people that walk in the statutes and ordinances of their God, a people full of knowledge and understanding, a people that have skill in building themselves.” Where it is otherwise, there, “as by slothfulness the roof doth decay;” and as by “idleness of hands the house droppeth thorough [o] ,” as it is in the tenth of Ecclesiastes, verse 18, so first one piece, and then another of their building shall fall away, till there be not a stone left upon a stone.

31. We see how fruitless this exhortation hath been to such as bend all their travail only to build and manage a Papacy upon earth, without any care in the world of building themselves in their most holy faith.     SERM. VI. 32, 33.  God’s people have inquired at their mouths, “What shall we do to have eternally [p] life?” Wherein shall we build and edify ourselves? And they have departed home from their prophets, and from their priests, laden with doctrines which are precepts of men; they have been taught to tire out themselves with bodily exercise: those things are enjoined them, which God did never require at their hands, and the things he doth require are kept from them; their eyes are fed with pictures, and their ears filled with melody, but their souls do wither, and starve, and pine away: they cry for bread, and behold stones are offered them; they ask for fish, and see they have scorpions in their hands. Thou seest, O Lord, that they build themselves, but not in faith; they feed their children, but not with food: their rulers say with shame, Bring, and not build. But God is righteous; their drunkenness stinketh, their abominations are known, their madness is manifest, the wind hath bound them up in her wings, and they shall be ashamed of their doings. “ [1] Ephraim,” saith the Prophet, “is joined to idols, let him alone.” I will turn me, therefore, from the priests, which do minister unto idols, and apply this exhortation to them whom God hath appointed to feed his chosen in Israel.

32. If there be any feeling of Christ, and drop of heavenly dew, or any spark of God’s good Spirit within you, stir it up, be careful to build and edify, first yourselves, and then your flocks, in this most holy faith.

33. I say, first yourselves; for, he which will set the hearts of other men on fire with the love of Christ, must himself burn with love. It is want of faith in ourselves, my brethren, which maketh us retchless [2] in building others. We forsake the Lord’s inheritance, and feed it not. What is the reason of this? Our own desires are settled where they should not be. We ourselves are like those women which have a longing to eat coals, and lime, and filth; we are fed, some with honour, some with ease, some with wealth; the gospel waxeth lothsome [q] and unpleasant in our taste; how should we then have a care to feed others with that which we cannot fancy ourselves?     SERM. V. 34.  If faith wax cold and slender in the heart of the prophet, it will soon perish from the ears of the people. The Prophet Amos speaketh of a famine, saying, “ [1] I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word of the Lord. Men shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north unto the east shall they run to and fro, to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.” “ [2] Judgment must begin at the house of God,” saith Peter. Yea, I say, at the sanctuary of God this judgment must begin. This famine must begin at the heart of the prophet. He must have darkness for a vision, he must stumble at noon-day [3] , as at the twilight, and then truth shall fall in the midst [4] of the streets; then shall the people wander from sea to sea, and from the north unto the east shall they run to and fro, to seek the word of the Lord.

34. In the second of Haggai, “ [5] Speak now,” saith God to his prophet, “speak now to Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, prince of Judah, and to Jehoshua, the son of Jehozadak the high priest, and to the residue of the people, saying, Who is left among you that saw this house in her first glory, and how do you see it now? Is not this house in your eyes, in comparison of it, as nothing?” The prophet would have all men’s eyes turned to the view of themselves, every sort brought to the consideration of their present state. This is no place to shew what duty Zerubbabel or Jehoshua doth owe unto God in this respect. They have, I doubt not, such as put them hereof in remembrance. I ask of you, which are a part of the residue of God’s elect and chosen people, Who is there amongst you that hath taken a survey of the house of God, as it was in the days of the blessed Apostles of Jesus Christ? Who is there amongst you that hath seen and considered this holy temple in her first glory? And how do you see it now? Is it not in comparison of the other almost as nothing [6] ? When ye look upon them that have undertaken the charge of your souls, and know how far these are for the most part grown out of kind, how few there be that tread the steps of their ancient predecessors, ye are easily filled with indignation, easily drawn unto these complaints, wherein the difference of present from former times is bewailed, easily persuaded to think of them that lived to enjoy the days which now are gone [1] , “Surely they were happy in comparison of us that have succeeded them:     SERM. VI. 34.  were not their bishops men unreprovable, wise, righteous, holy, temperate, well reported of, even of those which were without? Were not their pastors, guides, and teachers, able and willing to exhort with wholesome doctrine, and to improve [2] which gainsaid the truth? had they priests made of the refuse of the people? were men, like to the children which were in Nineveh [r] , unable to discern between the right hand and the left, presented to the charge of their congregation? did their teachers leave their flocks, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers? did their prophets enter upon holy things as spoils, without a reverend calling? were their leaders so unkindly affected towards them, that they could find in their hearts to sell them as sheep or oxen, not caring how they made them away?” But, beloved, deceive not yourselves. Do the faults of your guides and pastors offend you? It is your fault if they be thus faulty. Nullus, qui malum rectorem patitur, eum accuset; quia sui fuit meriti perversi pastoris subjacere ditioni, saith St. Gregory [3] ; “Whosoever thou art whom the inconvenience of an evil governor doth press, accuse thyself, and not him: his being such is thy deserving.” “ [4] O ye disobedient children, turn again,” saith the Lord, “and then will I give you pastors according to mine own heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.” So that the only way to repair all ruins, breaches, and offensive decays, in others, is to begin reformation at yourselves. Which that we may all sincerely, seriously, and speedily do, God the Father grant for his Son our Saviour Jesus’ sake, unto whom, with the Holy Ghost, three Persons, one eternal and everlasting God, be honour, and glory, and praise, for ever. Amen.

A SERMON, FOUND AMONG THE PAPERS OF BISHOP ANDREWS.

MATTH. vii. 7, 8.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For whosoever asketh, c.

SERM. VII.  AS all the creatures of God, which attain their highest perfection by process of time, are in their first beginning raw; so man, in the end of his race the perfectest, is at his entrance thereunto the weakest, and thereby longer enforced to continue a subject for other men’s compassions to work upon voluntarily, without any other persuader, besides their own secret inclination, moving them to repay to the common stock of humanity such help, as they know that themselves before must needs have borrowed; the state and condition of all flesh being herein alike. It cometh hereby to pass, that although there be in us, when we enter into this present world, no conceit or apprehension of our own misery, and for a long time after no ability, as much as to crave help or succour at other men’s hands; yet through his most good and gracious providence, which feedeth the young, even of feathered fowls and ravens, (whose natural significations of their necessities are therefore termed in Scripture “prayers and invocations [1] ” which God doth hear), we amongst them, whom he values at a far higher rate than millions of brute creatures, do find by perpetual experience daily occasions given unto every of us, religiously to acknowledge with the Prophet David [1] , “Thou, O Lord, from our birth hast been merciful unto us,” we have tasted thy goodness, hanging even at our mothers’ breasts.     SERM. VII. 1.  That God, which during infancy preserveth us without our knowledge, teacheth us at years of discretion how to use our own abilities for procurement of our own good.

“Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” For whosoever doth ask, shall receive; whosoever doth seek, shall find; the door unto every one which knocks shall be opened.

In which words we are first commanded to “ask,” “seek,” and “knock:” secondly, promised grace answerable unto every of these endeavours; asking, we shall have; seeking, we shall find; knocking, it shall be opened unto us: thirdly, this grace is particularly warranted, because it is generally here averred, that no man asking, seeking, and knocking, shall fail of that whereunto his serious desire tendeth.

1. Of asking or praying I shall not need to tell you, either at whose hands we must seek our aid, or to put you in mind that our hearts are those golden censers from which the fume of this sacred incense must ascend. For concerning the one, you know who it is which hath said, “Call upon me [2] ;” and of the other, we may very well think, that if any where, surely first and most of all in our prayers, God doth make his continual claim, Fili, da mihi cor tuum [3] , Son let me never fail in this duty to have thy heart.

Against invocation of any other than God alone, if all arguments else should fail, the number whereof is both great and forcible, yet this very bar and single challenge might suffice; that whereas God hath in Scripture delivered us so many patterns for imitation when we pray, yea, framed ready to our hands in a manner all, for suits and supplications, which our condition of life on earth may at any time need, there is not one, no not one to be found, directed unto angels, saints, or any, saving God alone. So that, if in such cases as this we hold it safest to be led by the best examples that have gone before, when we see what Noah, what Abraham, what Moses, what David, what Daniel, and the rest did; what form of prayer Christ himself likewise taught his Church, and what his blessed Apostles did practise; who can doubt but the way for us to pray so as we may undoubtedly be accepted, is by conforming our prayers to theirs, whose supplications we know were acceptable?

Whoso cometh unto God with a gift, must bring with him a cheerful heart, because he loveth hilarem datorem [1] , a liberal and frank affection in giving. Devotion and fervency addeth unto prayers the same that alacrity doth unto gifts; it putteth vigour and life in them. Prayer proceedeth from want, which being seriously laid to heart, maketh suppliants always importunate; which importunity our Saviour Christ did not only tolerate in the woman of Canaan (Matth. xv.), but also invite and exhort thereunto, as the parable of the wicked judge sheweth (Luke xiii).

Our fervency sheweth us sincerely affected towards that we crave: but that which must make us capable thereof, is an humble spirit; for God doth load with his grace the lowly, when the proud he sendeth empty away: and therefore to the end that all generations of the world might know how much it standeth them upon to beware of all lofty and vain conceits when we offer up our supplications before him, he hath in the Gospel both delivered this caveat, and left it by a special chosen parable exemplified. [2] The Pharisee and publican having presented themselves in one and the same place, the temple of God, for performance of one and the same duty, the duty of prayer, did notwithstanding, in that respect only, so far differ the one from the other, that our Lord’s own verdict of them remaineth as (you know) on record, “They departed home,” the sinful publican, through humility of prayer, just; the just Pharisee, through pride, sinful. So much better doth he accept of a contrite peccavi, than of an arrogant Deo gratias.

Asking is very easy, if that were all God did require: but because there were means which his providence hath appointed for our attainment unto that which we have from him, and those means now and then intricated, such as require deliberation, study, and intention of wit; therefore he which emboldeneth to ask, doth after invocation exact inquisition; a work of difficulty. The baits of sin every where open, ready always to offer themselves; whereas that which is precious, being hid, is not had but by being sought. Præmia non ad magna pervenitur nisi per magnos labores, Bernard: straitness and roughness are qualities incident unto every good and perfect way. What booteth it to others that we wish them well, and do nothing for them? As little ourselves it must needs avail, if we pray and seek not. To trust to labour without prayer, it argueth impiety and profaneness; it maketh light of the providence of God: and although it be not the intent of a religious mind, yet it is the fault of those men whose religion wanteth light of mature judgment to direct it, when we join with our prayer slothfulness and neglect of convenient labour. He which hath said, “If any man lack wisdom, let him ask”—hath in like sort commanded also to seek wisdom, to search for understanding as for treasure. To them which did only crave a seat in the kingdom of Christ, his answer, as you know, in the Gospel, was this [1] ; To sit at my right hand and left hand in the seat of glory is not a matter of common gratuity, but of Divine assignment from God. He liked better of him which inquired, “ [2] Lord, what shall I do that I may be saved?” and therefore him he directeth the right and ready way, “Keep the commandments.”

I noted before unto you certain special qualities belonging unto you that ask: in them that seek there are the like: [in] which we may observe it is with many as with them of whom the Apostle speaketh [3] , they “are alway learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Ex amore non quærunt, saith Bernard; they seek because they are curious to know, and not as men desirous to obey. It was distress and perplexity of mind which made them inquisitive, of whom St. Luke in the Acts [4] reporteth, that sought counsel and advice with urgent solicitation; Men and brethren, sith God hath blessed you with the spirit of understanding above others, hide not from miserable persons that which may do them good; give your counsel to them that need and crave it at your hands, unless we be utterly forlorn; shew us, teach us, what we may do and live. That which our Saviour doth say of prayer in the open streets, of causing trumpets to be blown before us when we give our alms, and of making our service of God a means to purchase the praise of men, must here be applied to you, who never seek what they ought, but only when they may be sure to have store of lookers on. “On my bed,” saith the Canticles [1] , “there did I seek whom my soul doth love.” When therefore thou resolvest thyself to seek, go not out of thy chamber into the streets, but shun that frequency which distracteth; single thyself from thyself, if such sequestration may be attained. When thou seekest, let the love of obedience, the sense and feeling of thy necessity, the eye of singleness and sincere meaning guide thy footsteps, and thou canst not slide.

You see what it is to ask and seek; the next is “knock.” There is always in every good thing which we ask, and which we seek, some main wall, some barred gate, some strong impediment or other objecting itself in the way between us and home; for removal whereof, the help of stronger hands than our own is necessary. As therefore asking hath relation to the want of good things desired, and seeking to the natural ordinary means of attainment thereunto; so knocking is required in regard of hindrances, lets, or impediments, which are doors shut up against us, till such time as it please the goodness of Almighty God to set them open: in the mean while our duty here required is to knock. Many are well contented to ask, and not unwilling to undertake some pains in seeking; but when once they see impediments which flesh and blood doth judge invincible, their hearts are broken. Israel in Egypt, subject to miseries of intolerable servitude, craved with sighs and tears deliverance from that estate, which then they were fully persuaded they could not possibly change, but it must needs be for the better. Being set at liberty, to seek the land which God had promised unto their fathers did not seem tedious or irksome unto them: this labour and travel they undertook with great alacrity, never troubled with any doubt, nor dismayed with any fear, till at the length they came to knock at those brazen gates, the bars whereof, as they have no means, so they had no hopes, to break asunder. Mountains on this hand, and the roaring sea before their faces; then all the forces that Egypt could make, coming with as much rage and fury as could possess the heart of a proud, potent, and cruel tyrant: in these straits, at this instant, Oh, that we had been so happy as to die where before we lived a life, though toilsome, yet free from such extremities as now we are fallen into! Is this the milk and honey that hath been so spoken of? Is this the paradise in description whereof so much glosing and deceiving eloquence hath been spent? Have we after four hundred and thirty years left Egypt to come to this? While they are in the midst of their mutinous cogitations, Moses with all instancy beateth, and God with the hand of his omnipotency casteth open the gates before them, maugre even their own infidelity and despair. It was not strange then; nor that they afterward stood in like repining terms: for till they came to the very brink of the river Jordan, the least cross accident, which lay at any time in their way, was evermore unto them a cause of present recidivation and relapse. They having the land in their possession, being seated in the heart thereof, and all their hardest encounters past, Joshua and the better sort of their governors, who saw the wonders which God had wrought for the good of that people, had no sooner ended their days, but first one tribe, then another, in the end all, delighted in ease; fearful to hazard themselves in following the conduct of God, weary of passing so many strait and narrow gates, [they] condescended to ignominious conditions of peace, joined hands with infidels, forsook Him which had been always the Rock of their salvation, and so had none to open unto them, although their occasions of knocking were great afterward, moe and greater than before. Concerning Issachar, the words of Jacob, the father of all the patriarchs, were these; “Issachar, though bonny and strong enough unto any labour, doth couch notwithstanding as an ass under all burdens; he shall think with himself that rest is good, and the land pleasant; he shall in these considerations rather endure the burden and yoke of tribute, than cast himself into hazard of war [1] .” We are for the most part all of Issachar’s disposition, we account ease cheap, howsoever we buy it. And although we can happily [i.e. haply] frame ourselves sometimes to ask, or endure for a while to seek;     SERM. VII. 2.  yet loth we are to follow a course of life, which shall too often hem us about with those perplexities, the dangers whereof are manifestly great.

But of the duties here prescribed of asking, seeking, knocking, thus much may suffice. The promises follow which God hath made.

2. “Ask and receive, seek and find, knock and it shall be opened unto you.” Promises are made of good things to come; and such, while they are in expectation, have a kind of painfulness with them; but when the time of performance and of present fruition cometh, it bringeth joy.

Abraham did somewhat rejoice in that which he saw would come, although knowing that many ages and generations must first pass: their exultation far greater, who beheld with their eyes, and embraced in their arms, Him which had been before the hope of the whole world. We have found that Messias; have seen the salvation: “Behold here the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world [1] .” These are speeches of men not comforted with the hope of that they desire, but rapt with admiration at the view of enjoyed bliss.

As oft therefore as our case is the same with the prophet David’s; or that experience of God’s abundant mercy towards us doth wrest from our mouths the same acknowledgments which it did from his, “I called on the name of the Lord, and he hath rescued his servant: I was in misery, and he saved me: Thou, Lord, hast delivered my soul from death, mine eyes from tears, and my feet from falling [2] :” I have asked and received, sought and found, knocked and it hath been opened unto me: can there less be expected at our hands, than to take the Cup of Salvation, and bless, magnify, and extol the mercies heaped upon the heads of the sons of men? Are we in the case of them, who as yet do only ask and have not received? It is but attendance a small time, we shall rejoice then; but how? we shall find, but where? it shall be opened, but with what hand? To all which demands I must answer.

Use the words of our Saviour Christ;     SERM. VII. 3.  Quid hoc ad te [1] ? what are these things unto us? Is it for us to be made acquainted with the way he hath to bring his counsel and purposes about? God will not have great things brought to pass, either altogether without means, or by those means altogether which are to our seeming probable and likely. Not without means, lest under colour of repose in God we should nourish at any time in ourselves idleness: not by the mere ability of means gathered together through our own providence, lest prevailing by helps which the common course of nature yieldeth, we should offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving for whatsoever prey we take to the nets which our fingers did weave [2] ; than which there cannot be to Him more intolerable injury offered. Vere et absque dubio, saith St. Bernard, hoc quisque est pessimus, quo optimus, si hoc ipsum quo est optimus adscribat sibi [3] ; the more blest, the more curst, if we make his graces our own glory, without imputation of all to him; whatsoever we have we steal, and the multiplication of God’s favours doth but aggravate the crime of our sacrilege. He, knowing how prone we are to unthankfulness in this kind, tempereth accordingly the means, whereby it is his pleasure to do us good. This is the reason why God would neither have Gideon to conquer without an army, nor yet to be furnished with too great an host. This is the cause why, as none of the promises of God do fail, so the most are in such sort brought to pass, that, if we after consider the circuit, wherein the steps of his providence have gone, the due consideration thereof cannot choose but draw from us the selfsame words of astonishment, which the blessed Apostle hath: “O the depth of the riches of the wisdom of God! how unsearchable are his counsels, and his ways past finding out [4] !” Let it therefore content us always to have his word for an absolute warrant; we shall receive and find in the end; it shall at length be opened unto you: however, or by what means, leave it to God.

3. Now our Lord groundeth every man’s particular assurance touching this point upon the general rule and axiom of his providence, which hath ordained these effects to flow and issue out of these causes; gifts of suits, finding out of seeking, help out of knocking: a principle so generally true, that on his part it never faileth.

For why? it is the glory of God to give; his very nature delighteth in it; his mercies in the current, through which they would pass, may be dried up, but at the head they never fail. Men are soon weary both of granting and of hearing suits, because our own insufficiency maketh us still afraid, lest by benefiting of others we impoverish ourselves. We read of large and great proffers, which princes in their fond and vain-glorious moods have poured forth: as that of Herod; and the like of Ahasuerus in the Book of Hester. “Ask what thou wilt, though it reach to the half of my kingdom, I will give it thee [1] :” which very words of profusion do argue, that the ocean of no estate in this world doth so flow, but it may be emptied. He that promiseth half of his kingdom, foreseeth how that being gone, the remainder is but a moiety of that which was. What we give we leave; but what God bestoweth benefiteth us, and from him it taketh nothing: wherefore in his propositions there are no such fearful restraints; his terms are general in regard of making, “Whatsoever ye ask the Father in my name [2] ;” and general also in respect of persons, “whosoever asketh, whosoever seeketh.” It is true, St. James saith [3] , “Ye ask, and yet ye receive not, because you ask amiss;” ye crave to the end ye might have to spend upon your lusts. The rich man sought heaven, but it was then, when he felt hell. The virgins knocked in vain, because they overslipped their opportunity; and when the time was to knock, they slept: but Quærite Dominum dum inveniri potest [4] , perform these duties in their due time and due sort. Let there, on our part, be no stop, and the bounty of God we know is such, that he granteth over and above our desires. Saul sought an ass, and found a kingdom. Solomon named wisdom, and God gave Solomon wealth also, by way of surpassing. “Thou hast prevented thy servant with blessings [5] ,” saith the prophet David. “He asked life, and thou gavest him long life, even for ever and ever.” God a giver; “He giveth liberally, and upbraideth none in any wise [1] :” and therefore he better knoweth than we the best times, and the best means, and the best things, wherein the good of our souls consisteth.

THE END.

I.

INDEX OF TEXTS.

II.

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES QUOTED.

III.

INDEX OF PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

IV.

GLOSSARY OF WORDS.

GENERAL INDEX OF TEXTS.

asterisks Texts omitted in the following Index are those in the Preface, which are cited by Calvin as mere adaptations. Pref. ii. 3, 6. Three following Rom. xvi. 16 in Pref. iv. 4, which are only verbal parallels to that. Three in Pref. viii. 1, which are adaptations by a Barrowist. Three in Pref. viii. 6, 7, 8, cited by Anabaptists, and two in ib. 12, cited by the same. The Texts marked with an asterisk are either allusions or adaptations or mere illustrations, or else quoted by opponents, the real meaning of which is given elsewhere. The large numerals refer to the book, the smaller to the chapters, and the Arabic figures to the section, of the Ecclesiastical Polity. Other abbreviations used are the following: Ded., Hooker’s Dedication to Whitgift; Suppl., Travers’ Supplication to the Council; Answ., Hooker’s Answer to Travers; Pref., Hooker’s Preface to the Eccl. Polity; Ed. Pref., Editor’s Preface; Jack. Ded., Jackson’s Dedication to “Sermons on S. Jude.”

GENESIS.

i. 29.

I. x. 2.

ii. 17.

I. x. 2.

ii. 18.

I. ii. 3.

ii. 19.*

VII. ii. 2.

ii. 20.

I. x. 12.

iii. 8.

V. xi. 1.

iii. 15.

I. iv. 3.

iv. 2. 26.

I. x. 2.

iv. 3.

V. xi. 1.

iv. 4.

V. lxxix. 2.

iv. 8.

I. x. 3.

iv. 20-22.

I. x. 2.

v.*

I. x. 3.

vi. 3, 13. 8, 18.

Serm. VI. 3.

vi. 5.

I. x. 3.

vi. 5.

V. App. N°. 1. 1.

xiii. 4.

V. xi. 1.

xiv. 20.

V. lxxix. 7.

xvii. 14.

V. lxiv. 4.

xvii. 17.

Serm. I.

xviii. 12.

Serm. I.

xviii. 18.*

III. xi. 9.

xviii. 19.

I. x. 2.

xviii. 25.

Serm. III.

xix. 12, 15, 16.

Serm. VI. 4.

xix. 15.

Serm. ii. 10.

xix. 22.*

VI. vi. 2.

xix. 18-22.

Serm. VI. 5.

xxi. 12.

Serm. V. 9.

xxi. 33.

V. xi. 1.

xxii. 1.

V. xi. 1.

xxiv. 2.

IV. i. 3.

xxviii. 20.

V. lxxix. 7.

xxxvii. 7.*

VIII. ix. 3.

xxxix. 9.

I. viii. 8.

xlvii. 22.

VII. xxiii. 4.

xlvii. 22.

VII. xxiv. 17.

xlviii. 14.

V. lxvi. 1.

xlix.

Serm. II. 23.

xlix. 10.

III. xi. 9.

xlix. 14, 15.

Serm. VII. 1.

EXODUS.

i. 12.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

iii. 2.

V. lvii. 3.

iii. 5.

V. lxix. 3.

iv. 21.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

iv. 24.

V. lx. 7.

iv. 24, 25.

V. lxii. 21.

ix. 34.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

x. 1.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

x. 24.*

V. xix. 3.

xiii. 3.

V. lxxi. 5.

xv. 1, 21.

V. xxxix. 3.

xv. 20.*

V. xli. 1.

xvii. 12.*

IV. xiv. 7.

xviii. 19.*

VII. v. 2.

xviii. 25, 26.

VI. App.

xix. 6.

VIII. iii. 6.

xix. 8.*

V. xxxix. 1.

xxi. 6.

IV. i. 3.

xxii. 1.*

III. x. 3.

xxii. 29, 30.

V. lxxix. 13.

xxiii. 18.

V. xlii. 7.

xxiv. 3.*

V. xxxix. 1.

xxiv. 4.

I. xiii. 1.

xxiv. 7.

V. xxii. 6.

xxiv. 12.

I. xiii. 1.

xxv. 28 (39?)

V. lxxix. 5.

xxvi.

V. xi. 1.

xxvii. 3.

V. xx. 2.

xxviii. 2.*

V. xxix. 5.

xxviii. 4, 43.

II. iv. 4.

xxx. 25, 32.

V. xx. 2.

xxx. 26-28.

V. xx. 2.

xxxii.*

III. i. 8.

xxxii.

V. lxxii. 5.

xxxii. 4.*

V. lxv. 16.

xxxii. 32.

VI. App.

xxxvi. 5-7.*

VII. xxiv. 25.

xxxvii. 24.

V. lxxix. 5.

xxxix.*

II. iv. 4.

xxxix. 27.*

V. xxix. 5.

xl. 9.

V. xii. 3.

xl. 15.

V. xx. 2.

xl. 34.

V. xii. 3.

LEVITICUS.

v. 5.

VI. iv. 4.

vi. 2.

VI. v. 7.

x. 1.*

V. lxii. 13.

xi.

II. iv. 4.

xi.*

IV. vi. 2.

xi.

IV. vi. 3.

xvi.

V. lxxii. 5.

xvi. 2.

V. xii. 4.

xvi. 21.

VI. iv. 4.

xviii.

IV. xi. 7.

xviii. 3.*

IV. vi. 2.

xviii. 3.

IV. xi. 3.

xviii. 21.*

II. vi. 2.

xix. 19.*

IV. vi. 2.

xix. 19.

IV. vi. 3.

xix. 27.*

IV. vi. 2.

xix. 27, 28.

IV. vi. 3.

xix. 32.

VII. xvii. 2.

xx. 3.*

II. vi. 2.

xxi. 1.

V. lxxv. 4.

xxi. 5.

IV. vi. 3.

xxiii.

V. lxxii. 5.

xxiv. 12.

III. xi. 8.

xxv. 33, 34.

VII. xxiii. 4.

xxv. 34.

V. lxxix. 6.

xxv. 34.

VII. xxiv. 20.

xxvi. 2.

V. xii. 5.

xxvii. 11, 14.

VII. xxiii. 4.

xxvii. 25.

V. lxxix. 10.

xxvii. 28.

V. lxxix. 6.

NUMBERS.

iii. 32.

VII. vi. 6.

iv. 27.

VII. vi. 6.

v. 6.

VI. iv. 4.

v. 8.

VI. v. 7.

vi. 23.

V. xxv. 3.

vi. 23.

V. xxvi. 2.

vii. 85, 86.

V. lxxix. 5.

ix.

III. xi. 8.

ix. 13.*

V. lxviii. 1.

x. 2.

V. xx. 2.

xi. 17.

V. lxxvii. 8.

xi. 25.

VI. App.

xi. 33.

V. xlviii. 3.

xii. 14.

VI. v. 4.

xiv.

V. lxxii. 5.

xiv. 22.

VI. v. 4.

xv. 32.

V. lxxi. 8.

xv. 33-35.

III. xi. 8.

xvi. 3.

VI. i. 4.

xvi. 3.*

VII. xvii. 1.

xvi. 10.*

V. lxii. 13.*

xvii. 8.*

V. iii. 4.

xviii. 8-28.

VII. xxiii. 4.

xviii. 19, 24.

VII. xxiii. 5.

xviii. 24-28.

VII. xxiii. 1.

xviii. 32.

VII. xxiv. 20.

xx. 12.

VI. v. 4.

xxi. 8.

V. lx. 4.

xxii. 28.*

V. ix. 1.

xxiii. 10.

V. xlvi. 2.

xxiii. 10.

Serm. IV.

xxiii. 19.*

II. vi. 1.

xxvii.

III. xi. 8.

xxvii. 18.

V. lxvi. 1.

xxvii. 21.*

II. vi. 3.

xxxi. 48-54.

VII. xxiii. 1.

xxxv.

V. lxxix. 6.

xxxv. 7.

VII. xxiii. 4.

DEUTERONOMY.

iv. 2.

III. v. 1.

iv. 2.

VIII. vi. 5.

iv. 5.

III. xi. 6.

iv. 6.*

VII. xviii. 7.

iv. 12, 14.

III. xi. 6.

v. 22.

III. xi. 6.

v. 27.

III. xi. 6.

v. 27.*

V. xxxix. 1.

v. 28-31.

III. xi. 6.

vi. 5.

I. viii. 7.

vii. 15.

V. xlviii. 6.

x. 9.

VII. xxiii. 5.

xii. 2.*

V. xvii. 1.

xii. 2.

V. xvii. 5.

xii. 4, 5.

V. xvii. 5.

xii. 5-7.

V. xi. 1.

xii. 32.

III. v. 1.

xii. 32.

VIII. vi. 5.

xiii.

Serm. III.

xiv. 1.

IV. vi. 3.

xiv. 7.*

IV. vi. 2.

xiv. 7.

IV. vi. 3.

xiv. 22.

V. lxxix. 7.

xvi. 14.

V. lxx. 3.

xvi. 18.

VI. App.

xvii. 2.

VIII. ix. 3.

xvii. 5.

VIII. ix. 3.

xvii. 8.

Pref. vi. 2.

xvii. 8-13.

VI. App.

xvii. 12.

Pref. vi. 4.

xviii. 8.

VII. xxiii. 4.

xviii. 10.*

II. vi. 2.

xix. 15.

II. vii. 2.

xxii. 10, 11.*

III. x. 1.

xxii. 11.*

IV. vi. 2.

xxii. 11.

IV. vi. 3.

xxvi. 17.*

V. xxxix. 1.

xxviii.

Serm. III.

xxviii. 20.

V. xvii. 2.

xxviii. 21, 22, 27.*

V. lxxvi. 4.

xxx. 9.

V. xlviii. 6.

xxx. 15.

V. App. N°. 1. 5.

xxx. 19.

I. vii. 2.

xxx. 19.

Serm. III.

xxxi. 11-13.

V. xxii. 4.

xxxi. 11-13.

V. xxii. 13.

xxxii. 7.

V. vii. 1.

xxxiii.

V. xlvi. 1.

xxxiii. 11.*

VII. xxiv. 26.

JOSHUA.

i. 5.

Serm. I.

i. 18.

VIII. viii. 3.

vii. 19.

V. xlii. 7.

vii. 19.

VI. iv. 4.

ix. 14.

II. vi. 3.

xiii. 14.

VII. xxiii. 5.

xiv. 4.

VII. xxiii. 4.

xxii. 10.

III. xi. 15.

xxii. 10.*

V. lxv. 16.

xxiv.

V. xlvi. 1.

xxiv. 15.*

III. i. 10.

xxiv. 16.*

V. xxxix. 1.

JUDGES.

v. 23.*

Serm. II. 38.

vi. 13.

V. xvii. 2.

xi. 40.

III. xi. 15.

xx. 26.

V. lxxii. 5.

RUTH.

iv. 7.

IV. i. 3.

1 SAMUEL.

i. 19 (9-18).

V. lxxxi. 2.

vii.*

V. lxxii. 5.

viii. 7.

V. xlviii. 3.

xii. 23.*

V. xxiii.

xiii. 11.*

V. lxii. 13.

xiii. 14.

V. i. 4.

xv. 15.*

V. xvii. 1.

xvii. 39.*

III. viii. 4.

xxiii. 11, 12.

V. App. N°. 1.

xxxi. 13.

V. lxxii. 5.

2 SAMUEL.

i. 19.

V. lxxv. 3.

vi. 2.*

V. xli. 1.

vi. 6.*

V. lxii. 13.

vii. 2.

IV. ii. 4.

vii. 2-5.*

Trav. Sup.

xii. 6.*

III. x. 3.

xii. 13.

VI. vi. 8.

xii. 14.

IV. xii. 2.

xii. 14.

VI. v. 4.

xv. 30.*

V. lxxv. 2.

xvi. 12.*

VII. xxiv. 16.

1 KINGS.

ii.

V. xlvi. 1.

iii. 11.*

V. xxxv. 2.

iii. 14.

Serm. III.

iv. 29, 30.*

III. viii. 9.

viii.

V. xii. 4.

viii. 1.

VIII. v. 1.

viii. 11.

V. xii. 3.

x. 1.*

I. x. 12.

xi. 7.

V. lxv. 17.

xix. 18.*

III. i. 8.

2 KINGS.

v. 11.

V. lxvi. 1.

v. 13.

V. lx. 4.

vii. 2.

Serm. I.

xviii. 3, 4.

V. lxv. 12.

xviii. 3, 6.

V. lxv. 17.

xviii. 4.*

III. i. 8.

xxii. 2.

V. lxv. 17.

xxii. 17.*

III. i. 8.

xxiii. 7.*

V. lxv. 19.

xxiii. 13.

V. lxv. 17.

1 CHRONICLES.

x. 12.

V. lxxii. 5.

xiii. 5.*

V. xli. 1.

xv. 3, 4.

VIII. v. 1.

xvii. 2.

II. vi. 3.

xvii. 6.

II. vi. 3.

xix. 2.

V. lxxv. 3.

xxi. 1.

I. iv. 3.

xxii. 14.

V. xi. 1.

xxiii. 3.

VII. xxiii. 4.

xxiii. 31.

V. lxx. 5.

xxviii. 14.

V. xv. 4.

xxix. 2, 3, 6, 9, 14.

V. xv. 4.

xxix. 3.

VII. xxii. 4.

xxix. 3.

VIII. i. 5.

xxix. 3, 4.

V. xi. 1.

xxix. 17.

V. vi. 1.

xxix. 17, 18.

V. xi. 2.

xxix. 18.

V. i. 4.

xxxix. 2-7.

V. lxxix. 5.

2 CHRONICLES.

ii. 5.

IV. ii. 4.

ii. 5.

V. vi. 2.

ii. 5.

V. xv. 4.

iii. 1.

V. xi. 1.

iv. 3.*

V. lxv. 16.

vi. 7.

V. xi. 1.

vi. 20.*

V. xxv. 5.

ix. 1.*

I. x. 12.

xiii. 4, 9, 10, 11.*

III. i. 10.

xiii. 5.

Serm. V. 15.

xiii. 8-12.

Serm. V. 15.

xiv. 3.*

V. xvii. 1.

xv. 9.

VIII. v. 1.

xvii. 6.*

V. xvii. 1.

xix.

VII. xxiv. 21.

xix. 5.

VIII. viii. 6.

xix. 5-11.

VI. App.

xix. 6.*

V. i. 2.

xix. 6.

VIII. App. N°. 1.

xix. 8, 11.*

VIII. i. 4.

xix. 11.

VII. vi. 6.

xx.*

V. lxxii. 5.

xx. 3.*

V. xli. 1.

xx. 7.*

V. iii. 1.

xxiv. 4-9.

VIII. viii. 3.

xxiv. 5.

VIII. v. 1.

xxvi. 16.*

V. lxii. 13.

xxix. 30.*

V. xxv. 5.

xxix. 30.

V. xl. 3.

xxx. 1.

VIII. v. 1.

xxx. 6.

VIII. viii. 3.

xxx. 13.*

V. lxviii. 10.

xxx. 27.

V. xxv. 3.

xxix. (xxxi?)*

V. xvii. 1.

xxxi. 10.

VII. xxii. 7.

iii. (xxiv?)*

V. xvii. 1.

xxxiv. 7.*

V. lxv. 16.

xxxiv. 18, 19, 21.

V. xxii. 4.

xxxiv. 29.

VIII. v. 1.

xxxv. 6.*

V. lxviii. 1.

xxxv. 10. 14.*

V. lxviii. 4.

EZRA.

ii. 68, 69.

V. lxxix. 5.

iii. 12.

V. xi. 1.

vi. 6.

V. xii. 4.

viii.*

V. lxxii. 5.

viii. 26.

V. lxxix. 5.

NEHEMIAH.

ii. 17.

VIII. i. 5.

vii. 70.

V. lxxix. 5.

viii. 3.

V. xxxii. 4.

viii. 3, 12.

V. lxxii. 7.

viii. 9. (10?)

V. lxx. 3.

x. 32.

V. lxxix. 5.

xiii. 15.*

V. lxxi. 8.

ESTHER.

vii. 2.*

Serm. VII. 3.

ix.

V. lxxi. 5.

ix. 27.

V. lxx. 6.

JOB.

i. 5.

V. lxxii. 16.

i. 6.

I. iv. 1.

i. 7.

I. iv. 3.

i. 12.

V. xlviii. 3.

i. 21.

VII. xxii. 1.

ii. 2.

I. iv. 3.

ii. 6.

V. xlviii. 3.

ii. 11.

V. lxxv. 3.

iv. 12.

II. iv. 6.

xii. 12.

V. vii. 1.

xiii. 7.

VIII. App. N°. 11.

xiii. 15.

Serm. I.

xiii. 15.

Serm. IV.

xv. 2.*

Serm. II. 39.

xv. 2, 3.

Serm. V. 4.

xix.

Serm. II. 23.

xx. 16.

Serm. IV.

xxi. 11.*

Serm. V. 14.

xxviii. 26.

I. iii. 2.

xxix. 8.*

V. xlvii. 3.

xxix. 21, 22, 25.*

VII. i. 3.

xxx. 1-9.*

VII. i. 3.

xxxi. 33.*

V. xxxvi. 2.

xxxi. 33.

VI. iv. 4.

xxxii. 6.*

V. xlvii. 3.

xxxiii. 2.

V. xlviii. 9.

xxxiv. 3.

I. xvi. 7.

xxxiv. 20.

V. xlvi. 1.

xxxviii. 7.

I. iv. 1.

xxxviii. 11.*

Serm. V. 9.

xl. 4, 5.

Pref. IX. 2.

xl. 4, 5.*

VIII. App. N°. 11.

xlii. 3.

Serm. V. 4.

PSALMS.

i. 2.

V. xxii. 13.

i. 3.

V. i. 2.

i. 4.

V. xlviii. 6.

ii. 8.

V. xlviii. 5.

ii. 8.

VIII. iv. 5.

v. 5.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

v. 8.*

VII. xxiv. 15.

vi. 6.*

VI. vi. 17.

vii. 6.*

VII. xxiv. 2.

viii. 4.

I. xi. 3.

viii. 6.

V. lv. 8.

ix. 20.

Serm. IV.

xix. 5.*

I. iii. 2.

xix. 8.

II. iv. 1.

xix. 12.*

Serm. II. 18.

xxi. 3, 4.

Serm. VII. 3.

xxii. 1.*

Serm. I.

xxii. 9.

Serm. VII. Intr.

xxii. 23.

V. xlii. 7.

xxv. 13.

Serm. III.

xxvi. 12.*

V. xxiv. 2.

xxvii. 4.*

V. xxiv. 2.

xxx. 4.*

V. xxiv. 2.

xxxii. 1.

Serm. VI. 26.

xxxii. 2.

VI. v. 4.

xxxii. 5.

VI. iv. 16.

xxxii. 11. 7.

V. xlviii. 6.

xxxiv.

Serm. III.

xxxiv. 1.*

V. xxiv. 2.

xxxiv. 13.

V. App. N°. 1. 13.

xxxv. 13.*

V. lxxii. 17.

xxxvi. 7.

Serm. III.

xxxvii. 25.*

V. vii. 1.

xxxvii. 25.*

V. lxxvi. 5.

xxxix. 5.

V. xlvii. 2.

xl. 8.

V. xlviii. 9.

xlii. 4.*

V. xxiv. 2.

xliv. 23-27.

Serm. III.

l. 10.

VII. xxii. 1.

l. 13, 14.

VII. xxii. 5.

l. 15.

Serm. VII. 1.

l. 18.*

VII. xxi. 2.

li. 1.*

VI. vi. 2.

li. 4.

VIII. App. N°. 1.

li. 10-12.*

V. lxvi. 6.

lv. 14.

V. xxxix. 1.

lv. 17.*

V. xxiv. 1.

lv. 23.*

V. lxxvi. 4.

lv. 23.

Serm. III.

lxviii. 18.

V. lxxviii. 9.

lxix. 10.*

V. lxxii. 18.

lxix. 22, 23.

Serm. VI. 20.

lxxii. 3, 6.*

VIII. App. N°. 11.

lxxii. 10, 11.

VII. xxii. 5.

lxxii. 15.

VII. xvii. 3.

lxxiii.

Serm. III.

lxxiii. 3.

Serm. IV.

lxxiii. 3-9.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

lxxiii. 5.*

V. lxxii. 18.

lxxiii. 28.

Serm. I.

lxxvii. 20.

VII. xviii. 3. 11.

lxxviii. 19.

Serm. I.

lxxix. 3.

V. lxxv. 3.

lxxix. 9.*

Serm. I.

lxxx. 8, 9.*

VII. viii. 7.

lxxx. 8-11.

Serm. VI. 20.

lxxx. 14.

Serm. VI. 20.

lxxxi. 13.

V. xvii. 2.

lxxxiv. 1.*

V. xxiv. 2.

lxxxvi.

Serm. III.

lxxxviii. 15.

Serm. IV.

lxxxix. 28, 32.

Serm. I.

xc. 10.

V. lxxix. 17.

xci. 11, 12.

I. iv. 1.

xcv. 7.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

xcvi. 6.

V. xxv. 2.

xcvi. 9.

V. xvi. 2.

xcvi. 9.*

V. xxiv. 2.

cii. 13, 14.*

VII. vii. 2.

civ. 4.

I. iv. 1.

cv. 15.

Serm. VI. 2.

cv. 24, 25.*

VII. xxiv. 22.

cvi. 19, 20.*

III. i. 8.

cvi. 30.*

V. lxii. 21.

cxv. 3.

V. App. N°. 1. 26.

cxv. 3.

Serm. III.

cxv. 8.

V. xvii. 2.

cxvi. 4-8.

Serm. VII. 2.

cxviii. 24.

V. lxix. 3.

cxviii. 24.

V. lxx. 2.

cxix. 5.*

Serm. II. 8.

cxix. 14.

Serm. V. 14.

cxix. 16.

V. xxii. 13.

cxix. 22.*

V. xlviii. 13.

cxix. 33. 35.*

V. xxii. 13.

cxix. 71.*

V. xlviii. 13.

cxix. 71.

Serm. III.

cxix. 98.

I. xv. 4.

cxix. 99.

II. i. 4.

cxxii. 1.*

V. xxiv. 2.

cxxii. 1.*

V. lxviii. 10.

cxxii. 6.

VIII. App. N°. 11.

cxxxii. 3-5.

V. xi. 1.

cxxxii. 9.

V. xxv. 3.

cxxxv. 18.

I. viii. 11.

cxxxvi. 10, 15, 18.

V. App. N°. 1. 44.

cxxxvii. 7.*

V. xvii. 1.

cxxxix. 2.

V. App. N°. 1. 23.

cxxxix. 7, 8.

V. lv. 3.

cxli.

V. App. N°. 1. 13.

cxliv. 2.*

V. i. 2.

cxlv. 15, 16.*

I. xvi. 7.

cxlvii. 9.

Serm. VII. Intr.

cxlvii. 20.

V. App. N°. 1. 40.

cxlviii. 2.

I. iv. 1.

cxlviii. 2.

I. iv. 2.

cxlviii. 7-9.

I. xvi. 5.

cxlix. 2.*

V. xxix. 5.

PROVERBS.

i. 2-4.

V. xxii. 6.

i. 32.*

V. xlviii. 13.

ii. 4.

I. vii. 7.

ii. 9.

II. i. 3, 4.

iii. 9.

V. lxxix. 2.

iii. 9.

VII. xxii. 2.

iii. 9.

VII. xxiv. 21.

iii. 10.

VII. xxxii. 7.

iv.

V. App. N°. 1. 13.

v. 22.

VI. vi. 8.

vi. 20.

III. ix. 3.

vi. 20.*

VIII. vi. 5.

viii. 15.

I. xvi. 2.

viii. 16.

VIII. iv. 6.

viii. 22.

I. ii. 5.

x. 7.*

V. lxxvi. 4.

xi. 29.*

VII. xviii. 12.

xvi. 4.

I. ii. 4.

xxii. 3.

Serm. IV.

xxii. 15.

VIII. App. N°. 11.

xxiii. 22.

VII. xvii. 2.

xxiii. 26.

Serm. VII. 1.

xxviii. 13.

VI. iv. 4.

xxix. 18.

V. xxii. 11.

xxx. 8.*

V. lxxvi. 5.

xxxi. 6.

V. lxxv. 3.

ECCLESIASTES.

iii. 1.

V. lxxiii. 4.

iii. 9, 10.

I. iii. 2.

iv. 9.*

V. viii. 3.

iv. 12.

VI. App.

v. 2.

I. ii. 2.

vi. 2.

Serm. IV.

vii. 2-4.

V. lxxii. 16.

ix. 7.*

V. lxxii. 17.

ix. 8.

V. lxxv. 2.

x. 1.*

Pref. iv. 8.

x. 18.

Serm. VI. 30.

xii. 9, 10.*

V. i. 2.

xii. 13.*

V. lxxii. 15.

CANTICLES.

iii. 1.

Serm. VII. 1.

vii. 6.

Serm. VI. 8.

viii. 11.

Serm. V. 15.

ISAIAH.

i. 4.*

III. i. 8.

i. 4.*

Serm. II. 8.

i. 6.

Serm. III.

i. 13.

V. lxx. 2.

i. 13.

V. lxxii. 15.

i. 18.

VI. v. 4.

i. 21, 23.

VIII. i. 5.

ii. 2.

V. xvii. 2.

iii. 5.*

VII. xviii. 12.

vi. 1-3.

V. xxxix. 3.

vi. 3.

I. iv. 1.

vi. 8.

V. lxxvii. 11.

vi. 10, 11.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

vii. 9.

VIII. iv. 4.

vii. 16.

I. vi. 1.

viii. 20.

V. xxii. 2.

viii. 21.

V. xvii. 2.

ix. 6.

V. li. 1.

x. 1.

I. x. 10.

x. 13.

Serm. III.

xi. 2.

V. liv. 7.

xxvi. 20.

Serm. IV.

xxix. 13.

I. xv. 2.

xxix. 14.*

III. xi. 15.

xxx. 1, 2.

II. vi. 3.

xxx. 2.*

V. xxix. 5.

xxx. 23.

Serm. III.

xxxviii.

Serm. III.

xl. 26.

V. lvi. 5.

xli. 22, 23.

V. App. N°. 1. 23.

xli. 24.

V. xvii. 2.

xliii. 25.

VI. vi. 4.

xliv. 18, 19.

I. viii. 11.

xliv. 20.*

III. viii. 8.

xlv.

VIII. ii. 5.

xlv. 20.

V. xvii. 2.

xlvi. 10.

V. App. N°. 1. 26.

xlviii. 22.

Serm. IV.

xlix. 3.

Serm. V. 4.

xlix. 15.

I. x. 2.

xlix. 23.

VII. xv. 5.

liii.

V. App. N°. 1. 33.

liii. 1.*

V. xxii. 4.

liii. 5.

V. lvi. 11.

liii. 10.

V. xlviii. 10.

liv. 3.

V. l. 1.

lv. 6.

Serm. VII. 3.

lvii. 3.*

III. i. 8.

lviii. 3.

V. lxxii. 15.

lviii. 6, 7.*

V. lxxii. 15.

lx. 15.*

III. i. 8.

lxi. 1.

V. liv. 7.

lxv. 12.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

lxvi.

Serm. III.

lxvi. 21.

V. lxxviii. 3.

JEREMIAH.

ii. 17.*

V. xvii. 2.

iii. 14, 15.

Serm. VI. 34.

v. 3.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

v. 22.

I. iii. 2.

vi. 26.

VI. vi. 17.

xi. 11.*

V. xxv. 3.

xi. 13.*

III. i. 8.

xiii. 11.

III. i. 8.

xv. 1.

V. xlix. 3.

xvi. 7.

V. lxxv. 3.

xvii. 24.

V. xii. 5.

xxiii. 1-4.

V. lxxxi. 2.

xxiii. 6.

V. li. 1.

xxiii. 24.

V. lv. 3.

xxix. 13.

VI. vi. 18.

xxix. 26.

VII. xv. 2.

xxxi.

Serm. III.

xxxvi.*

V. lxxii. 5.

li. 9.*

IV. x. 3.

LAMENTATIONS.

ii. 13.*

VII. i. 1.

ii. 13.

Serm. VI. 10.

ii. 18.

VI. vi. 17.

EZEKIEL.

iii. 2, 3.

Serm. V. 4.

iii. 14.

Serm. V. 4.

viii. 18.*

V. xxv. 3.

ix. 4.

V. lxv. 7.

xviii. 23-32.

V. App. N°. 1. 32.

xxii. 30.*

Trav. Sup.

xxiv. 1, 2.

V. lxxii. 5.

xxxiii. 6.*

Trav. Sup.

xxxiii. 14.

VI. v. 4.

xxxiv. 2, 8, 10.

V. lxxxi. 2.

xxxvi. 20.

IV. xii. 2.

xlv. 1-4.

V. lxxix. 13.

xlviii. 14.

VII. xxiv. 20.

DANIEL.

i. 17.*

III. viii. 9.

ii. 21.

VIII. ii. 5.

iii. 29.*

V. ii. 2.

iv.

VIII. ii. 5.

iv. 13.

I. iv. 1.

v. 6.

Serm. IV.

vii. 10.

I. iv. 1.

ix. 3.*

V. xxiv. 1.

ix. 20.*

V. xxiii.

ix. 23.

I. iv. 1.

x. 2, 3.

V. lxxii. 6.

xii. 3.*

VIII. App. N°. 11.

HOSEA.

i. 6, 9.

Serm. VI. 20.

ii. 8.

VII. xxii. 1.

iv. 6.

V. lxxxi. 2.

iv. 6.

V. App. N°. 1. 39.

iv. 17, 15.*

III. i. 10.

iv. 17.

Serm. VI. 31.

viii. 8.

V. App. N°. 1. 39.

viii. 12.

I. xiii. 1.

ix. 15.

V. App. N°. 1. 39.

xiii. 9.

V. App. N°. 1. 39.

xiv.

Serm. III.

xiv. 2.

V. xxiii.

xiv. 4. (3?)

V. xvii. 2.

JOEL.

ii. 12.

VI. vi. 18.

ii. 15.*

V. xli. 1.

ii. 15.

V. lxxi. 5.

ii. 16.

V. lxxiii. 4.

ii. 17.*

V. xxv. 5.

AMOS.

iii. 6.

V. App. N°. 1. 32.

viii. 11, 12.

Serm. VI. 33.

OBADIAH.

5.

VII. xxiv. 25.

JONAH.

iii. 5.

VI. iii. 2.

iii. 7.

V. lxxii. 6.

iii. 9.

VI. iii. 4.

iv. 11.*

V. xxiv. 1.

MICAH.

i. 8, 9.

VI. vi. 17.

v. 2.

V. xix. 3.

vii. 19.

VI. vi. 8.

HABAKKUK.

i. 4.

Serm. I.

i. 4.

Serm. II.

i. 16.

Serm. VII. 2.

ii. 4.

Serm. III.

ii. 17.

VII. xxiv. 20.

HAGGAI.

ii. 2.

V. xi. 1.

ii. 2, 3.

Serm. VI. 34.

ii. 3.

V. lxxix. 5.

ii. 5, 9.

V. xv. 3.

ZECHARIAH.

iv. 6.*

IV. xiv. 7.

iv. 7.*

V. lxxi. 2.

iv. 10.*

V. lxxi. 2.

viii. 17.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

viii. 19.

V. lxxii. 5.

MALACHI.

i. 7, 8.

VIII. i. 5.

i. 8.

VII. xxii. 3.

i. 8.

V. xv. 4.

i. 8, 14.

V. xxxiv. 3.

ii. 7.

Pref. iii. 2.

ii. 7.

Jack. Ded.

ii. 9.*

Pref. iii. 3.

iii. 8.

V. lxxix. 13.

iii. 8.

VII. xxiv. 17.

iii. 9.

VII. xxiv. 20.

iii. 10.

V. lxxix. 8.

iii. 10.

VII. xxii. 1.

iii. 10.

VII. xxii. 7.

iii. 15.

VI. vi. 8.

APOCRYPHA.

JUDITH.

viii. 6.

V. lxxii. 6.

ESTHER.

xiii. 9.

V. App. N°. 1. 26.

WISDOM.

ii. 21.

V. ii. 1.

iv. 9.*

V. vii. 1.

iv. 11.*

V. lxxvi. 5.

iv. 11.

V. App. N°. 1. 24.

iv. 13.*

IV. xiv. 7.

v. 4.*

Pref. iii. 14.

vi. 10.

V. vi. 1.

vi. 24.*

Pref. viii. 3.

vii. 23.

V. lvi. 5.

vii. 27.

I. v. 3.

viii. 1.

I. ii. 3.

viii. 1.

V. App. N°. 1. 2.

viii. 12.

V. App. N°. 1. 27.

ix. 6.

Serm. V. 4.

ix. 15, 16.

I. vii. 7.

x. 20.

V. xli. 1.

xi. 20.

I. ii. 3.

xiii. 17.

I. viii. 11.

xiv. 15, 16.

I. viii. 11.

xiv. 31.

V. i. 3.

xvi. 7.

V. lvii. 4.

xvii. 11.*

V. i. 2.

xvii. 12.

V. iii. 1.

ECCLESIASTICUS.

v. 10.*

Serm. II. 39.

vii. 6.*

V. lxxvii. 14.

xv. 11.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

xv. 14.

V. App. N°. 1. 28.

xxiii. 19, 20.

V. App. N°. 1. 23.

xxv. 6.

VII. xvii. 2.

xxvi. 28.*

Pref. viii. 3.

xxxiii. 7-12.

V. lxix. 3.

xxxviii. 1.

VII. xvii. 2.

xxxix. 4.

V. xv. 3.

xxxix. 18.

V. App. N°. 1. 46.

xxxix. 19, 20.

V. App. N°. 1. 23.

xlv. 7.

V. xxix. 4.

xlv. 7.

VII. xx. 3.

xlvii. 8, 9.

V. xxxviii. 2.

li. 26, 27.*

V. xxii. 17.

HISTORY OF SUSANNA.

9.*

V. ii. 1.

1 MACCABEES.

ii. 40.*

V. lxxi. 8.

iv. 54.

V. lxx. 6.

iv. 55, 59.

V. lxxi. 7.

xiv. 42.

VIII. i. 1.

xiv. 44.

VIII. v. 1.

2 MACCABEES.

vi. 24.*

V. xlii. 3.

xiii. 12.

V. lxxii. 5.

xv. 36.

V. lxxi. 6.

xv. 38.

Serm. V. 4.

ST. MATTHEW.

i. 25.

V. xlv. 2.

ii. 6.

V. xix. 3.

ii. 11.

VII. xxii. 5.

iii. 6.

VI. iv. 5.

iii. 9.*

V. xxii. 17.

v. 4.

V. lxxii. 16.

v. 6.*

V. xxii. 17.

v. 12.

I. xi. 5.

v. 14.*

III. xi. 20.

v. 14.*

VII. xviii. 7.

v. 20, 21.

Serm. II. 30.

v. 46.

II. viii. 2.

v. 48.

I. v. 3.

vi. 2.

I. vii. 1.

vi. 5, 6.*

V. xxv. 1.

vi. 7.

V. xxxii. 1.

vi. 10.

I. iv. 1.

vi. 13.

VIII. iv. 6.

vi. 16.

V. lxxii. 4.

vi. 20.

Serm. VI. 8.

vi. 24.

V. lxxxi. 2.

vi. 29.

V. xv. 4.

vi. 33.

I. x. 2.

vi. 33.*

VIII. i. 4.

vii. 24.*

III. i. 9.

vii. 25.

Serm. VI. 16.

ix. 2.

VI. vi. 1.

ix. 2.

VI. vi. 4.

ix. 13.

V. lxi. 4.

ix. 14.

V. lxxii. 4.

ix. 14.*

V. lxxii. 15.

ix. 18.

V. lxvi. 1.

ix. 21.*

V. lxvii. 12.

x. 6.

V. App. N°. 1. 41.

x. 11, 12.

V. xlix. 3.

x. 28.

VI. vi. 8.

x. 42.

II. viii. 4.

xi. 20.

VI. iii. 2.

xi. 21.

V. App. N°. 1. 41.

xi. 25.

Serm. III.

xii. 20.*

V. xxii. 17.

xii. 30.*

III. i. 9.

xii. 31.

VI. vi. 15.

xii. 42.*

I. x. 12.

xiii. 24.

III. i. 8.

xiii. 24, 27.

V. lxviii. 6.

xiii. 47.

III. i. 8.

xiii. 52.

III. viii. 9.

xv. 13.

Pref. viii. 6.

xv. 14.*

Pref. iii. 3.

xv. 14.

V. lxxxi. 2.

xv. 19.

VI. vi. 8.

xvi. 16.

V. li. 2.

xvi. 17.

V. xxi. 5.

xvi. 17.*

V. lxiii. 1.

xvi. 18.*

III. i. 9.

xvi. 18.

Serm. V. 15.

xvi. 19.

V. xxii. 12.

xvi. 19.

VI. iv. 1.

xvi. 26.

I. viii. 5.

xvii. 5.*

II. vi. 4.

xvii. 10.

II. vii. 7.

xviii. 6.

IV. xii. 2.

xviii. 10.

I. iv. 1.

xviii. 10.

V. xlii. 7.

xviii. 15.

VIII. ix. 3.

xviii. 16.

II. vii. 2.

xviii. 17, 18.

VI. iv. 1.

xviii. 18.

VI. vi. 2.

xviii. 20.

V. xxiv. 1.

xix. 4-9.*

V. lxxvii. 3.

xix. 13.

V. lxvi. 1.

xix. 14.

V. lxiv. 3.

xix. 16, 17.

Serm. VII. 1.

xix. 17.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

xix. 26.*

Serm. I.

xix. 28.

V. lxxviii. 3.

xix. 28.

VII. vi. 5.

xx. 21.

Serm. III.

xx. 23.

Serm. VII. 1.

xx. 25.

VII. xvi. 9.

xxi. 13.

V. xii. 5.

xxi. 13.

V. xxv. 2.

xxi. 13.

V. lxxix. 13.

xxi. 23, 25, 26.

VII. xi. 9.

xxii. 1, 2.*

V. xix. 4.

xxii. 20.*

V. lxv. 16.

xxii. 30.

I. xi. 3.

xxii. 38.

I. viii. 7.

xxii. 40.

I. viii. 7.

xxii. 43.

III. viii. 17.

xxiii. 3.

VIII. App. N°. 1.

xxiii. 6, 7.

VII. xx. 2.

xxiii. 8, 10.*

II. vi. 4.

xxiii. 23.*

Pref. vi. 5.

xxiii. 23.*

III. iii. 4.

xxiii. 23.*

IV. i. 1.

xxiii. 27.

V. lxxv. 3.

xxiii. 33.

V. lxi. 5.

xxiii. 37.

I. vii. 7.

xxiv. 16.

Serm. ii. 10.

xxv. 34.

V. App. N°. 1. 46.

xxv. 46.

I. xi. 3.

xxvi. 13.

VII. xxii. 5.

xxvi. 26-28.

V. lxvii. 6.

xxvi. 30.

V. xxvi. 2.

xxvi. 39.

V. xlviii. 5.

xxvi. 39.

Serm. IV.

xxvi. 40.

II. viii. 1.

xxvi. 53.

I. iv. 1.

xxvi. 53.

I. iv. 2.

xxvii. 46.

V. xlviii. 9.

xxvii. 46.

V. liv. 6.

xxvii. 46.*

Serm. V. 5.

xxviii. 1.

V. lxxi. 11.

xxviii. 18.

V. lv. 8.

xxviii. 18.

V. lxxvii. 6.

xxviii. 19.*

III. i. 9.

xxviii. 19.

VI. ii. 1.

xxviii. 19.

VII. iv. 4.

xxviii. 20.

VIII. vi. 7.

ST. MARK.

ii. 27.

V. lxxi. 8.

ii. 7.

VI. vi. 1.

ii. 7.

VI. vi. 4.

iii. 17.*

Trav. Sup.

iii. 30.

VI. vi. 15.

v. 21.

VI. vi. 1.

v. 23.

V. lxvi. 1.

vi. 23.*

Serm. VII. 3.

vii. 7, 8.

Serm. VII.

vii. 9.*

V. iii. 4.

viii. 22.

V. lxvi. 1.

ix. 24.

Serm. I.

x. 4.

I. viii. 8.

x. 13.

V. lxvi. 1.

xi. 16.

V. xii. 5.

xii. 6.*

V. xxx. 3.

xii. 42.*

VI. vi. 17.

xiv. 22.

V. lxvii. 6.

xiv. 36.

V. xlviii. 5.

xv. 43.*

Trav. Sup.

xvi. 1.

V. lxxi. 11.

xvi. 5.*

V. xxix. 5.

xvi. 15.

VI. ii. 1.

xvi. 16.

V. lx. 4.

xvi. 17.

V. lxvi. 2.

xvi. 18.

VI. iv. 5.

ST. LUKE.

i. 6.

VII. xi. 10.

i. 23.*

V. iv. 3.

i. 26.

V. lxx. 8.

ii. 8.

V. lxxxi. 2.

ii. 13.

I. iv. 1.

ii. 13.

I. iv. 2.

ii. 14.

V. lxxi. 11.

ii. 21.

V. lxx. 8.

ii. 28.*

Serm. II. 23.

ii. 47.

V. liv. 6.

iii. 22.

V. lvi. 4.

iv. 18.

V. liv. 7.

v. 6, 7.

V. xix. 3.

v. 21.

VI. vi. 1.

v. 21.

VI. vi. 4.

v. 35.

V. lxxii. 8.

vi. 4.*

V. ix. 1.

vi. 39.*

III. xi. 20.

vii. 5.*

V. lxxix. 4.

vii. 8.*

II. viii. 6.

vii. 12.

V. lxxv. 3.

vii. 27. (29?)

VI. vi. 8.

vii. 44-46.*

V. lxv. 5.

vii. 47.

VI. iv. 4.

viii. 32.

V. xlviii. 3.

viii. 39.

V. xviii. 1.

ix. 54.

I. vii. 7.

x. 16.

Serm. V. 6.

x. 41, 42.

Serm. VI. 9.

xi. 1.

V. xxxv. 3.

xi. 17.

VIII. ii. 2.

xi. 31.*

I. x. 12.

xi. 31.*

V. xxii. 17.

xi. 39.*

Serm. II. 30.

xii. 3.

V. xviii. 1.

xii. 5.

VI. vi. 8.

xii. 14.

VII. xv. 11.

xii. 42.

V. lxxvi. 10.

xii. 56, 57.

Pref. iii. 1.

xiii. 3.*

Serm. II. 18.

xiii. 24.

I. vii. 7.

xiv. 23.*

V. lxviii. 10.

xv. 7.

I. iv. 1.

xv. 18.

VI. iii. 4.

xvi. 31.

V. xxii. 4.

xviii. (viii).

VI. vi. 11.

xviii. 1.*

V. xxiii.

xviii. 10-14.

Serm. VII. 1.

xviii. 11.*

Serm. I.

xviii. 12.

V. lxxii. 4.

xviii. 13.*

VI. vi. 2.

xviii. 15.

V. lxvi. 1.

xxi. 21.

Serm. II. 10.

xxii. 25, 26.

Serm. III.

xxii. 25, 26.

Serm. V. 15.

xxi. 27.

V. lv. 8.

xxii. 28, 30.

Serm. III.

xxii. 31, 32.

Serm. I.

xxii. 33.*

Serm. I.

xxii. 42.

V. xlviii. 5.

xxii. 43.

V. xlviii. 11.

xxiii. 28.

Serm. IV.

xxiv. 1.

V. lxxi. 11.

xxiv. 49.

V. lxxvii. 7.

ST. JOHN.

i. 4-9.

V. lvi. 7.

i. 4, 10.

V. lvi. 5.

i. 9.

III. ix. 3.

i. 12, 13.*

V. lxiii. 1.

i. 14.

V. li. 2.

i. 14.

V. lii. 3.

i. 16.

V. lvi. 10.

i. 18.

V. lvi. 2.

i. 25.

VII. xi. 8.

i. 29.

Serm. VII. 2.

i. 46.

Serm. I.

i. 47.*

III. i. 2.

i. 49.

Serm. II. 16.

iii. 2.

VII. xiv. 11.

iii. 3, 5.

V. lx. 1.

iii. 5.

V. lix. 1.

iii. 5.

VI. vi. 10.

iii. 13.

V. liii. 4.

iii. 17, 18.

Serm. II. 13.

iii. 18.

V. lx. 5.

iii. 34, 35.

V. lvi. 4.

iii. 35.

V. liv. 3.

iv. 10.

V. liv. 3.

iv. 24.

V. vi. 1.

iv. 24.*

VII. xxiii. 2.

iv. 34.

V. lxxii. 2.

iv. 39.*

II. vii. 2.

iv. 42.

Serm. II. 16.

v. 4.

V. lvii. 3.

v. 17.

I. ii. 3.

v. 20.

V. lvi. 4.

v. 21.

V. li. 1.

v. 26.

V. liv. 3.

v. 39.

V. xxii. 2 (3).

v. 39.

V. xxii. 10.

vi.

V. App. N°. 1. 33.

vi. 25.*

V. lxvii. 3.

vi. 26.

Serm. III.

vi. 28, 29.

Serm. VI. 18.

vi. 29.

I. xi. 6.

vi. 31-35.

Serm. VI. 7.

vi. 33.

Serm. V. 14.

vi. 39.

V. App. N°. 1. 45.

vi. 46. (45?)

V. xxi. 5.

vi. 53.

V. lxvii. 1.

vi. 57.

V. lvi. 7.

vi. 63.

V. lxvii. 9.

vi. 68.*

Serm. II. 23.

vii. 51.*

Trav. Sup.

viii. 11.

VII. xv. 11.

viii. 44.

I. iv. 3.

viii. 44.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

ix.

VI. vi. 11.

ix. 31.*

V. xxv. 3.

x. 4.

V. lxxxi. 2.

x. 11.*

V. xix. 4.

x. 15.

V. xlviii. 10.

x. 17.

V. lvi. 4.

x. 22.

III. xi. 15.

x. 22.

V. lxx. 6.

x. 28.

III. i. 2.

x. 28.

Serm. II. 26.

x. 38.

II. iv. 1.

xi. 35, 36.*

V. lxxv. 2.

xii. 27.

V. xlviii. 9.

xiii.*

III. vi.

xiii. 1.

Serm. I.

xiii. 13.

III. i. 4.

xiii. 27.

I. iv. 3.

xiv. 2.

V. xlv. 1.

xiv. 6.

I. xi. 6.

xiv. 9.

V. lvi. 7.

xiv. 15.

I. ii. 2.

xiv. 17, 19.

Serm. II. 26.

xiv. 20.

V. lvi. 7.

xiv. 23.

V. lvi. 5.

xiv. 23.

Serm. VI. 10.

xiv. 27.

I. x. 14.

xiv. 27.

Serm. IV.

xiv. 31.

V. lvi. 4.

xv. 4.

V. lvi. 7.

xv. 5, 6.

V. lvi. 7.

xv. 9.

V. lvi. 7.

xv. 10.

V. lvi. 4.

xv. 16.

V. lxxvii. 13.

xv. 16.*

VII. xxii. 6.

xv. 21.*

III. i. 4.

xvi. 2, 4.*

III. i. 4.

xvi. 13-15.

I. ii. 2.

xvi. 15.

V. li. 1.

xvi. 23.

Serm. VII. 3.

xvii. 1, 2.

V. xlviii. 5.

xvii. 5.

VIII. iv. 6.

xvii. 8.

III. xi. 3.

xvii. 9, 20.

V. App. N°. 1. 46.

xvii. 11.

Serm. I.

xvii. 24.

V. xlv. 1.

xvii. 25, 26.

Serm. V. 14.

xviii. 4.

V. xlviii. 8.

xviii. 36, 37.*

III. xi. 11.

xix. 40.

III. xi. 15.

xix. 40.

V. lxxv. 3.

xx. 1.

V. lxxi. 11.

xx. 22.*

V. lxvi. 9.

xx. 22.

V. lxxvii. 6.

xx. 23.

V. lxxvii. 7.

xx. 23.

VI. iv. 1.

xx. 23.

VI. iv. 14.

xx. 23.

VI. vi. 2.

xx. 25.

II. iv. 1.

xx. 27.

V. liv. 8.

xx. 29.

II. iv. 2.

xx. 31.

I. xiv. 4.

xx. 31.

V. xxii. 6.

xxi. 11.

V. xix. 3.

xxi. 15.*

III. i. 2.

xxi. 15.

III. xi. 11.

xxi. 15, 16.

VII. iv. 2.

xxi. 22.*

Serm. II. 37.

xxi. 22.

Serm. VII. 2.

xxi. 22, 23.

Serm. V. 15.

ACTS.

i. 5.

V. lix. 5.

i. 8.*

V. lxvi. 9.

i. 13.

V. xi. 2.

i. 15.*

V. xxx. 4.

i. 20.

VII. xi. 3.

i. 21, 22.

VII. iv. 4.

ii. 1, 46.

V. xi. 2.

ii. 3.

V. lvii. 3.

ii. 3.

V. lix. 5.

ii. 15.*

III. vi.

ii. 15.

V. lxxii. 7.

ii. 34.

III. viii. 16.

ii. 36.

III. i. 4.

ii. 37.

VI. iii. 2.

ii. 37.

Serm. V. 9.

ii. 37.

Serm. VII. 1.

ii. 38.

V. lx. 1.

ii. 38.

VI. vi. 15.

ii. 41.

III. i. 6.

ii. 41, 47.*

V. lxxviii. 4.

ii. 42.*

III. i. 14.

ii. 44.

VII. xxiii. 8.

iii. 21.

V. lv. 8.

iv. 12.

Serm. II. 23.

iv. 27.

V. liv. 7.

iv. 34.

VII. xxiii. 1.

iv. 34, 35.

II. viii. 4.

iv. 35.

VII. xxiii. 8.

iv. 37.

I. viii. 8.

v. 2.

VII. xxiv. 17.

v. 3.

I. iv. 3.

v. 4.

I. viii. 8.

v. 4.*

II. iv. 4.

v. 4.

V. lxxix. 12.

v. 38, 39.*

II. i. 1.

vi. 4.

VII. xv. 12.

vi. 13, 14.

IV. xi. 4.

vii. 22.*

III. viii. 9.

vii. 51.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

vii. 60.

VI. vi. 8.

viii. 12-17.

V. lxvi. 5.

viii. 15, 17.

V. lxvi. 9.

viii. 17, 18.

V. lxvi. 2.

viii. 18.

VI. vi. 11.

viii. 21.

Serm. III.

viii. 22, 23.

VI. vi. 8.

viii. 26.

VII. v. 10.

viii. 31.

V. xxii. 14.

viii. 38.

III. i. 6.

ix. 17.

V. lxxviii. 7.

x. 3.

I. iv. 1.

x. 4.

V. xxiii.

x. 9.*

V. xxiv. 1.

x. 30.*

V. xxiii.

x. 31.*

VI. vi. 17.

xi. 27.

V. lxxviii. 6.

xi. 30.

VII. xxiii. 1.

xii. 2.

VII. iv. 2.

xii. 17.

VII. xxiii. 1.

xii. 22.

Serm. V. 6.

xiii. 2.

VII. iv. 2.

xiii. 2.

VII. v. 10.

xiii. 15.

V. xx. 1.

xiii. 15.

V. xx. 3.

xiii. 36.

III. viii. 16.

xiii. 41-44.*

Serm. II. 9.

xiii. 46.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

xiv. 4.

V. xvii. 2.

xiv. 15.

III. viii. 17.

xiv. 17.

V. App. N°. 1. 40.

xiv. 22.*

V. xlviii. 13.

xiv. 23.

V. lxxx. 2.

xiv. 23.

VII. vi. 3.

xiv. 23.

VII. xiv. 6.

xv.

Pref. vi. 2.

xv.

III. x. 7.

xv.

IV. xi. 4.

xv. 5.

Serm. II. 26.

xv. 7, 13-23.

VIII. vii. 1.

xv. 8.

III. viii. 17.

xv. 20.

I. xvi. 7.

xv. 21.

V. xix. 1.

xv. 21.

V. xx. 1.

xv. 21.

V. xx. 3.

xv. 24.

IV. xi. 4.

xv. 28.

I. x. 14.

xv. 28.

III. x. 2.

xv. 28.

VIII. vi. 7.

xv. 28, 29.

IV. xi. 5.

xv. 36.

V. lxxx. 2.

xvi. 4.

IV. xi. 5.

xvi. 4.

VIII. vi. 7.

xvi. 6.

V. App. N°. 1. 41.

xvi. 6, 7.

VII. v. 10.

xvi. 14.

V. xxi. 5.

xvi. 17.

Serm. II. 23.

xvii. 11.

Pref. iii. 1.

xvii. 18.

Serm. V. 6.

xvii. 22.

Serm. V. 9.

xvii. 26.

V. App. N°. 1. 41.

xvii. 28.

I. iii. 4.

xvii. 28, 29.

V. lvi. 5.

xvii. 31.

V. App. N°. 1. 26.

xviii. 4, 11.

III. viii. 10.

xviii. 14, 15.

VIII. i. 5.

xviii. 24.

V. lxxviii. 7.

xix. 6.

V. lxvi. 2.

xix. 17, 19.

VI. iii. 2.

xix. 18.

VI. iv. 5.

xix. 19.*

Pref. viii. 4.

xx. 2.

V. lxxxi. 2.

xx. 9.

V. xxxii. 4.

xx. 28.

III. xi. 11.

xx. 28.

V. lxxxi. 2.

xx. 34.

V. lxxxi. 8.

xx. 28.

VI. ii. 1.

xx. 28.

VII. ii. 2.

xx. 28.

VII. v. 1.

xx. 28.

Serm. V. 15.

xx. 30.

VII. v. 2.

xx. 36, 37.

VII. v. 1.

xxi. 10.

V. lxxviii. 6.

xxi. 18.

VII. xxiii. 1.

xxi. 20.

IV. xi. 4.

xxi. 25.

IV. xi. 4.

xxii. 3.*

III. viii. 9.

xxii. 16.

III. i. 6.

xxiv. 14.

Serm. V. 15.

xxv. 11.

VII. xiii. 5.

xxv. 19.

III. viii. 6.

xxv. 19.

Serm. II. 25.

xxvi. 23.

Serm. II. 32.

xxvi. 24.*

Pref. iii. 14.

xxvi. 24.

III. viii. 6.

xxvi. 27.

III. viii. 12.

xxvi. 28.

Serm. V. 9.

xxvii. 38.*

V. ix. 1.

xxviii. 8.

VI. iv. 5.

xxviii. 11.

V. xiii. 4.

ROMANS.

i. 8.*

III. i. 10.

i. 9.*

V. xxiii.

i. 14, 21, 24.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

i. 16.

V. xxii. 6.

i. 16.

Serm. V. 5.

i. 19.

III. ix. 3.

i. 21.

I. xvi. 5.

i. 21, 32.

III. viii. 6.

i. 24.

V. xvii. 2.

i. 24.

V. lxxiii. 7.

i. 32.

VII. xi. 10.

ii. 5.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

ii. 5.

VI. v. 4.

ii. 9.

I. ix. 1.

ii. 14.

I. viii. 3.

ii. 14, 15. (?)

VII. iv. 2.

ii. 14, 15.

Serm. III.

ii. 15.

I. xvi. 5.

ii. 15.*

III. ii. 1.

ii. 15.

III. ix. 3.

ii. 23.

II. ii. 3.

ii. 24.

II. ii. 3.

ii. 24.

IV. xii. 2.

iii. 7, 8.

Serm. II. 38.

iii. 17.

Pref. vi. 1.

iii. 17.*

VIII. App. N°. 2.

iv.

Serm. II. 6.

iv. 5.

Serm. II. 6.

iv. 20.

Serm. I.

v. 2.

V. xlvii. 4.

vi. 10.

Serm. II. 26.

vi. 21.*

V. lxv. 6

vi. 22.

Serm. II. 6.

vii. 19, 24.*

Serm. II. 8.

viii. 7.

V. App. N°. 1. 8.

viii. 9.

V. lvi. 11.

viii. 10.

V. lvi. 7.

viii. 10.

Serm. II. 26.

viii. 10.

Serm. III.

viii. 14.*

III. ix. 3.

viii. 14.

VIII. App. N°. 1.

viii. 15.

V. xlvii. 4.

viii. 21.

Serm. II. 2.

viii. 23.

V. lvi. 11.

viii. 26, 27.

Serm. I.

viii. 28.

V. App. N°. 1. 46.

viii. 30.

V. lx. 3.

viii. 30.

V. App. N°. 1. 46.

viii. 33.

V. App. N°. 1. 46.

viii. 35, 38, 39.

Serm. I.

ix. 3.

VI. App.

ix. 3. 8.

V. xlix. 3.

ix. 5.

V. li. 1.

ix. 11-24.

V. App. N°. 1. 43, 44.

ix. 20.

V. App. N°. 1. 25.

ix. 22.

V. App. N°. 1. 31.

ix. 31-33.

Serm. VI. 28.

x. 1.

V. xlix. 3.

x. 2.

Serm. V. 9.

x. 10.

VIII. vi. 5.

x. 14, 15.

V. xxii. 9.

xi. 1, 7.

V. App. N°. 1. 45.

xi. 6.

Serm. II. 29.

xi. 8.

V. App. N°. 1. 26.

xi. 9.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

xi. 9, 10.

Serm. VI. 20.

xi. 17.

III. xi. 4.

xi. 18.

Serm. VI. 16.

xi. 20, 22.

Serm. VI. 20.

xi. 21.

Serm. VI. 20.

xi. 28.*

III. i. 10.

xi. 33.

I. ii. 5.

xi. 33.

V. App. N°. 1. 41.

xi. 33.

Serm. VII. 2.

xi. 33, 34.*

III. xi. 21.

xi. 36.

I. ii. 6.

xii. 1.*

V. iv. 3.

xii. 5.

V. lvi. 11.

xii. 8.*

V. lxxviii. 5.

xiii.

VIII. ii. 5.

xiii. 1.

I. xvi. 5.

xiii. 1.

VIII. iv. 6.

xiii. 1.

VIII. App. N°. 1.

xiii. 7.*

VII. xviii. 7.

xiv. 1.*

V. xxii. 17.

xiv. 2.

V. lxxii. 6.

xiv. 5.

Pref. iii. 1.

xiv. 6, 7.

III. vii. 1.

xiv. 9.

V. lv. 8.

xiv. 10.

IV. xi. 5.

xiv. 17.

V. lxxii. 3.

xiv. 17.*

V. lxxii. 15.

xiv. 20, 15-20.

IV. xii. 6.

xiv. 23.

II. iv. 1.

xv. 1.

IV. xii. 6.

xv. 5.*

V. lxviii. 6.

xv. 6.*

III. i. 10.

xv. 13.

Serm. I.

xvi. 5, 7.*

IV. xiii. 1.

xvi. 5, 7.*

IV. xiii. 9.

xvi. 16, c.

Pref. iv. 4.

1 CORINTHIANS.

i. iii-vi.

III. i. 10.

i. 10.*

V. lxviii. 6.

i. 11.*

II. vii. 2.

i. 19.*

III. viii. 4.

i. 21.

V. xxii. 9.

i. 27.*

Pref. iii. 14.

i. 27, 28.*

Serm. I.

i. 30.

Serm. II. 2.

ii. 4.*

III. viii. 4.

ii. 4, 5.

III. viii. 10.

ii. 8.

V. liii. 4.

ii. 12, 13.

Serm. V. 4.

ii. 14.*

III. viii. 4.

ii. 14.

III. viii. 6.

iii. 6.

V. xxii. 12.

iii. 11.

Serm. II. 23.

iii. 19.*

III. viii. 8.

iii. 22, 23.

VIII. iv. 6.

iv. 1.

V. lxxvi. 10.

iv. 8.

Serm. III.

iv. 12.

V. lxxxi. 8.

v. 1.

IV. xi. 7.

v. 3.

VI. iv. 1.

v. 11.

IV. xi. 7.

v. 11.*

V. lxviii. 1.

v. 11.*

V. lxviii. 5.

v. 12, 13.

VIII. ix. 3.

v. 12, 13.

Serm. II. 1.

vi. 1-7.

VII. xv. 3.

vi. 11.

VI. vi. 8.

vi. 12.

II. iv. 4.

vi. 12.

IV. xii. 6.

vii. 4.

V. lxxiii. 7.

vii. 5.

V. lxxii. 8.

vii. 5.

V. lxxiii. 4.

vii. 8, 26.*

III. viii. 2.

vii. 14.

V. lx. 6.

vii. 24.

V. lxxxi. 2.

vii. 25.

VII. vi. 2.

vii. 39.*

II. v. 6.

viii. 6.

I. iii. 5.

viii. 6.

V. xlii. 9.

viii. 8.

V. lxxii. 3.

ix. 13.

VII. xxiii. 6.

ix. 16.

VII. iv. 2.

x. 4.

Serm. VI. 16.

x. 15.

Pref. iii. 1.

x. 15.

III. viii. 11.

x. 31.

II. ii. 1.

x. 31.

III. vii. 1.

x. 32.

II. ii. 3.

x. 32.

III. vii. 1.

x. 33.

II. ii. 2.

xi.

Serm. III.

xi. 1.*

VII. xxiii. 11.

xi. 10.

I. xvi. 4.

xi. 10.

V. xxv. 2.

xi. 13.

Pref. iii. 1.

xi. 22.

III. ix. 3.

xi. 22.

V. xii. 5.

xi. 24.

VI. ii. 1.

xi. 27.

VI. v. 8.

xii. 3.

V. xxi. 5.

xii. 3, 4, 13.

V. xlii. 9.

xii. 12.

V. lvi. 7.

xii. 13.

III. i. 3.

xii. 27.

V. lvi. 11.

xii. 28.

V. lxxviii. 8.

xii. 28.

VI. App.

xiii. 7.*

V. xlix. 2.

xiv. 15.

V. xxvi. 3.

xiv. 16.

V. xxxvi. 3.

xiv. 16, 23, 24.

V. lxxvii. 2.

xiv. 26.

III. vii. 1.

xiv. 34.

V. lxii. 2.

xiv. 36.*

IV. xiii. 1.

xiv. 36.*

IV. xiii. 9.

xiv. 40.

III. vii. 1.

xiv. 40.

VIII. ii. 2.

xv. 20.

V. xlii. 7.

xv. 21.*

V. lxviii. 12.

xv. 22, 45.

V. lvi. 8.

xv. 24.

V. lv. 8.

xv. 24.

VIII. iv. 6.

xv. 39.*

V. lxxviii. 2.

xv. 47.

V. lvi. 6.

xv. 48.

V. lvi. 7.

xvi. 1.

IV. xiii. 1.

xvi. 1.

IV. xiii. 5.

xvi. 1.

VII. viii. 3.

xvi. 2.

V. lxxi. 11.

xvi. 13.

I. vii. 7.

2 CORINTHIANS.

i. 11.

V. xxiv. 1.

i. 18.

II. iv. 1.

i. 21.

V. liv. 7.

ii. 6.

VI. iv. 1.

ii. 14-16.

V. xxii. 12.

iii. 3, 6.

VIII. vi. 7.

iii. 7, 8.

VII. xxiii. 6.

iii. 7, 8.*

VIII. iii. 2.

iv. 6.

V. xxi. 5.

iv. 17.

I. viii. 5.

v.

V. App. N°. 1. 33.

v. 1.

Jack. Ded.

v. 19.

V. li. 3.

v. 21.

Serm. II. 6.

vi. 5.

V. lxxii. 8.

vi. 9.

Serm. III.

vi. 14-17.

Serm. II. 1.

vi. 16.

Serm. VI. 9.

vii. 11.

VI. v. 6.

viii. 5.

VII. xxiii. 1.

ix. 7.

Serm. VII. 1.

x. 10.

III. viii. 10.

xi. 2, 3.

Serm. I.

xi. 3.

I. vii. 7.

xi. 27.

V. lxxii. 8.

xi. 28.

VII. viii. 3.

xii. 7.

Serm. III.

xii. 7-9.

V. xlviii. 3.

xii. 9.

V. App. N°. 1. 4.

xiii. 5.

Serm. III.

xiii. 5.

Serm. V. 13.

xiii. 7.

V. xlviii. 12.

xiii. 13.

V. lvi. 7.

GALATIANS.

i. 1.

VII. iv. 4.

i. 6.*

III. i. 10.

i. 8.

Pref. vi. 3.

i. 8, 9.

V. xxii. 10.

ii. 8.

VII. iv. 2.

ii. 11, 14.*

Trav. Sup.

ii. 20.

V. lvi. 10.

ii. 20.

Serm. III.

iii. 16.*

II. vi. 4.

iv. 5.*

Serm. I.

iv. 6.

V. lvi. 11.

iv. 6.

Serm. V. 14.

iv. 8.*

V. lxiii. 1.

iv. 9, 10, 24, 31.

Serm. II. 26.

iv. 10.

V. lxx. 7.

iv. 12.*

Serm. II. 39.

iv. 19.

Serm. III.

iv. 26.

V. l. 1.

v. 2.

Serm. II. 17.

v. 2, 4.

Serm. II. 19.

v. 2, 4.

Serm. II. 26.

v. 3.

V. lxiv. 4.

v. 19.

IV. xi. 7.

vi. 8.

I. xi. 1.

EPHESIANS.

i. 1.

V. lx. 3.

i. 3, 4.

V. lvi. 6.

i. 5.

V. liv. 3.

i. 7.

I. ii. 4.

i. 7.

V. lvi. 11.

i. 11.

I. ii. 5.

i. 11.

Serm. II. 31.

i. 11, 6.

Serm. III.

i. 14.

V. lvi. 11.

i. 14.

Serm. II. 26.

i. 20-23.

V. lv. 8.

i. 20-23.

VIII. iv. 3.

i. 21.

VIII. iv. 2.

i. 21, 22.

VIII. iv. 5.

i. 23.

Serm. II. 23.

i. 23.

V. lvi. 10.

ii. 3, 12.

V. lx. 3.

ii. 5.

Serm. II. 26.

ii. 8.

VI. vi. 10.

ii. 10.*

V. lxxii. 15.

ii. 12-16.

III. xi. 4.

ii. 14.*

IV. vi. 2.

ii. 16.

III. i. 3.

ii. 19-22.

Serm. VI. 15.

ii. 20.

Serm. II. 23.

iii. 2.

V. lxxvi. 10.

iii. 5.

V. App. N°. 1. 40.

iii. 6.

III. i. 3.

iii. 10.

I. iv. 1.

iii. 10.

I. xvi. 4.

iii. 10.

V. App. N°. 1. 7.

iii. 14-17.

Serm. III.

iii. 14.*

V. lxvi. 9.

iii. 15.

V. liv. 2.

iv. 5.

III. i. 3.

iv. 5.

I. x. 14.

iv. 5.

V. lxii. 4.

iv. 7, 8, 11, 12.

V. lxxviii. 9.

iv. 9.

V. lv. 8.

iv. 15.

V. lvi. 11.

iv. 15.

Serm. II. 23.

iv. 17, 18.

I. viii. 11.

iv. 23.

I. vii. 1.

iv. 23.

I. viii. 6.

iv. 25.

V. lvi. 11.

v. 8.

V. lx. 3.

v. 12.*

V. lxv. 6.

v. 14.

I. vii. 7.

v. 19.

V. xxvi. 3.

v. 19.

V. xxxix. 4.

v. 19.

V. xliii. 3.

v. 23.

V. lvi. 7.

v. 26.

V. lx. 1.

v. 29.

I. xiv. 3.

v. 29.

I. xvi. 3.

v. 29.

II. viii. 2.

v. 30.

V. lvi. 7.

PHILIPPIANS.

i. 1.

VII. ii. 2.

i. 1.

VII. ix. 3.

i. 1.

VII. xi. 1.

i. 6.*

V. xxii. 17.

ii. 8, 9.

V. lv. 8.

ii. 9.

V. liv. 3.

ii. 16.

Serm. II. 26.

ii. 17.*

Trav. Sup.

iii. 8, 9.

Serm. II. 6.

iii. 8, 9.

Serm. VI. 28.

iii. 11.*

V. lxviii. 12.

iii. 16.*

VII. xxiii. 11.

iii. 18, 19.

Serm. V. 2.

iii. 19.

I. xi. 4.

iv.

V. App. N°. 1.

iv. 12.*

Pref. iv. 3.

iv. 18.

VII. xxii. 5.

iv. 19.

I. ii. 4.

COLOSSIANS.

i. 15-18.

V. li. 3.

i. 16.

VIII. iv. 3.

i. 18.

VIII. iv. 2.

i. 18.

VIII. iv. 3.

i. 19.

V. liv. 3.

i. 21-23.

Serm. V. 14.

i. 23.

Serm. II. 26.

ii. 3.

I. ii. 4.

ii. 3.

V. liv. 7.

ii. 8.*

III. viii. 4.

ii. 8.

III. viii. 7.

ii. 9.

V. li. 1.

ii. 10.

V. lvi. 7.

ii. 16.*

V. lxxii. 15.

ii. 22.*

III. xi. 15.

iii. 4.

Serm. II. 26.

iii. 5.

V. lxxix. 1.

iii. 16.

V. xliii. 3.

iii. 24.

III. i. 4.

iii. 24.

Serm. V. 14.

iv. 1.

III. i. 4.

iv. 3.

V. lxxii. 8.

iv. 16.

V. xxii. 2.

1 THESSALONIANS.

ii. 7, 9.

II. viii. 4.

ii. 9.

V. lxxxi. 8.

ii. 17.

V. lxxxi. 2.

iii. 10.*

V. xxii. 17.

iv. 13.

IV. vi. 3.

iv. 17.*

V. lxviii. 12.

iv. 18.*

V. xxii. 17.

v. 12.*

VIII. i. 4.

v. 17.*

V. xxiii.

v. 21.*

Pref. i. 2.

v. 27.

V. xxii. 2.

2 THESSALONIANS.

ii. 10, 11.

V. App. N°. 1. 42.

ii. 10-12.

Serm. II. 19.

ii. 10, 11, 13.

Serm. VI. 2.

ii. 11.*

Pref. iii. 10.

ii. 13.

Serm. II. 29.

iii. 8.

I. viii. 8.

iii. 8.

V. lxxxi. 8.

1 TIMOTHY.

i. 5.*

V. xxii. 17.

i. 5.*

III. i. 2.

i. 17.

VIII. iv. 6.

i. 18.

VII. v. 10.

i. 20.

VI. iv. 1.

ii. 1.*

V. xxxii. 2.

ii. 3.

V. xlix. 1.

ii. 8.*

V. xxv. 3.

ii. 8.

V. lxxviii. 7.

ii. 8.

Jack. Ded.

ii. 9, 10.

Serm. VI. 8.

ii. 12.

V. lxii. 2.

ii. 15.

Serm. II. 26.

iii. 1.

V. lxxvii. 10.

iii. 1.

V. lxxvii. 13.

iii. 2.

V. lxxxi. 2.

iii. 2.

VI. App.

iii. 5.

VII. xi. 1.

iii. 10.

VII. xiv. 6.

iii. 15.

V. lxxviii. 7.

iii. 16.

V. lxviii. 6.

iii. 16.

Serm. II. 16.

iv. 3, 4, 5.

II. iii. 1.

iv. 8.

V. lxxii. 15.

iv. 10.

V. App. N°. 1. 33.

iv. 10.

VIII. iv. 6.

iv. 12.

V. lxxxi. 2.

iv. 14.

III. xi. 11.

iv. 14.

VII. ix. 3.

iv. 16.

VII. xxiv. 15.

v. 8.

I. x. 2.

v. 8.

II. viii. 2.

v. 9.*

III. xi. 11.

v. 9.

V. lxxviii. 11.

v. 9.

VII. vi. 2.

v. 14.

V. lxxviii. 7.

v. 17.

V. lxxxi. 16.

v. 17.

VI. App.

v. 17.*

VII. xviii. 6.

v. 17.

VII. xxiii. 6.

v. 18.

VII. xxiii. 7.

v. 19.

VI. ii. 1.

v. 19.

VII. vi. 8.

v. 19.

VII. xi. 6.

v. 20, 21.*

Trav. Sup.

v. 21.

I. iv. 3.

v. 21.

I. xvi. 4.

v. 22.

VII. vi. 3.

v. 22.

VII. xiv. 6.

vi. 8.

I. x. 2.

vi. 10, 11.

Serm. VI. 2.

vi. 13, 14.

III. xi. 11.

vi. 20.

III. xi. 11.

2 TIMOTHY.

i. 6. note

VII. ix. 3.

i. 12.

Serm. IV.

ii. 4.

VII. xv. 12.

ii. 13.

I. ii. 6.

ii. 15.

V. xxii. 12.

ii. 15.

V. lxxxi. 2.

ii. 15.

V. lxxxi. 11.

iii. 4.

V. lxiii. 2.

iii. 6.

Pref. iii. 13.

iii. 7.*

Pref. viii. 7.

iii. 7.

Serm. VII. 1.

iii. 8.*

I. xiv. 3.

iii. 12.*

V. xlviii. 13.

iii. 13, 14.

Serm. VI. 2.

iii. 14.

I. xiv. 4.

iii. 15.

I. xiv. 4.

iii. 15.

V. xxi. 3.

iii. 15.

V. xxii. 6.

iii. 15.*

Serm. II. 23.

iii. 16.

V. xxii. 10.

iii. 16.

II. i. 4.

iv. 1.

V. lxxxi. 2.

iv. 1, 2.

III. xi. 11.

iv. 5, 9.

V. lxxviii. 7.

iv. 7, 8.

III. xi. 11.

iv. 8.

I. xi. 3.

TITUS.

i. 5.

V. lxxx. 2.

i. 5.

VII. iv. 2.

i. 5.

VII. vi. 3.

i. 5.

VII. xi. 1.

i. 5.

VII. xi. 6.

i. 7.

V. lxxvi. 10.

i. 12.*

I. xiv. 3.

i. 9.

V. lxxxi. 2.

i. 9.

V. lxxxi. 5.

i. 9, 11.

III. viii. 8.

iii. 5.

V. lx. 1.

iii. 5.

VI. vi. 8.

iii. 11.

III. viii. 8.

PHILEMON.

19.

V. lxxvi. 10.

HEBREWS.

i. 2.

Serm. II. 9.

i. 3.

V. xlii. 7.

i. 3.

V. lvi. 5.

i. 5-13.*

II. vi. 1.

i. 6.

I. iv. 1.

i. 7.

I. iv. 1.

i. 9.

V. liv. 7.

i. 14.

I. iv. 1.

ii. 5-8.*

II. vi. 1.

ii. 8.

V. lv. 8.

ii. 9.

V. lv. 8.

ii. 9.

V. App. N°. 1. 33.

ii. 10.

V. li. 3.

ii. 16.

V. lii. 3.

ii. 17.

V. lxxvii. 2.

iii. 6.

III. xi. 2.

iv. 12.

I. xii. 2.

iv. 12.*

III. viii. 4.

iv. 12.

III. viii. 10.

iv. 12.

V. xxii. 10.

iv. 13.

V. App. N°. 1. 23.

iv. 15.

V. li. 3.

v. 1.*

VIII. i. 4.

v. 1.

VIII. viii. 6.

v. 4.*

V. lxii. 13.

v. 6.

V. lxxvii. 12.

v. 7.

Serm. IV.

v. 9.

VIII. iv. 6.

v. 9.

V. lvi. 7.

vi. 2.

V. lxvi. 4.

vi. 2.

V. lxvi. 9.

vi. 6.

V. App. N°. 1. 45.

vi. 6.

VI. vi. 15.

vi. 16.

Pref. vi. 1.

vi. 17.

I. ii. 6.

vi. 18.*

II. vi. 1.

vii. 3.

VII. xxiii. 1.

vii. 7.

V. lxvi. 6.

ix. 14.

V. lvi. 8.

ix. 25.

VIII. iv. 6.

x. 9.

V. lxxvii. 12.

x. 19.

V. xlvii. 4.

x. 20.

Serm. II. 23.

x. 24.*

V. xxii. 17.

x. 26.

VI. vi. 15.

x. 39.

Serm. V. 14.

xi. 6.

III. viii. 11.

xi. 6.

Serm. VI. 18.

xi. 21.

V. xlvi. 1.

xi. 25.

Serm. III.

xi. 33, 34.

Serm. VI. 17.

xi. 38.*

VII. xxiii. 3.

xii. 1, 12.

I. vii. 7.

xii. 11.*

V. xlviii. 13.

xii. 14.*

V. lxxii. 15.

xii. 22.

I. iv. 1.

xii. 22.

I. iv. 2.

xii. 22, 24.

VIII. iv. 6.

xiii. 4.

IV. xi. 7.

xiii. 5.

Serm. I.

xiii. 14.*

Serm. III.

xiii. 17.

VIII. App. N°. 1.

ST. JAMES.

i. 2, 3.

V. xlviii. 13.

i. 5.

Serm. VII. 3.

i. 13.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

i. 14 (13?)

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

i. 17.

I. xvi. 1.

i. 17.

V. liv. 2.

i. 27.*

V. lxxii. 15.

ii.

Serm. II. 6.

ii. 1.*

Pref. i. 3.

ii. 1.*

Serm. II. 40.

ii. 2, 5.

Serm. V. 6.

iv. 3.

Serm. VII. 3.

v. 14, 16.

VI. iv. 5.

v. 16.

VI. iv. 7.

1 ST. PETER.

i. 12.

I. xvi. 4.

i. 12.

V. App. N°. 7.

i. 23.

Serm. II. 26.

ii. 8.

IV. xii. 2.

ii. 9.

VIII. iii. 6.

ii. 12.

II. ii. 3.

ii. 13.

VIII. App. N°. 1.

ii. 14.

VII. xvii. 2.

ii. 17.

VII. xvii. 2.

iii. 7.

Serm. VI. 12.

iii. 15.

III. viii. 16.

iii. 21.

V. lxiii. 3.

iv. 10.*

V. xxii. 17.

iv. 10.

V. lxxvi. 10.

iv. 17.

Serm. VI. 33.

v. 1.

V. lxxviii. 3.

v. 1, 2.

VII. xi. 1.

v. 2.

V. lxxxi. 2.

v. 2.

Serm. VI. 30.

v. 4.

I. xi. 3.

v. 8.

I. iv. 3.

v. 10.*

V. xxii. 7.

2 ST. PETER.

i. 4.

V. lvi. 7.

i. 19.

Jack. Ded.

i. 19, 20.

Serm. V. 2.

ii. 1.

V. App. N°. 1. 33.

ii. 4.

I. iv. 3.

ii. 4.*

I. xiv. 3.

ii. 5.*

I. x. 3.

ii. 12.*

Pref. iii. 3.

iii. 3.

V. ii. 2.

1 ST. JOHN.

i. 3.

VII. iv. 4.

i. 3.

VIII. iv. 6.

i. 5.

II. vi. 1.

i. 5.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

i. 9.

VI. iv. 5.

ii.

V. App. N°. 1. 33.

ii. 9.

Serm. I.

ii. 16.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

ii. 19.

Serm. V. 12.

ii. 19.

V. lxviii. 6.

ii. 20, 27.

V. liv. 7.

iii. 1.

V. lvi. 6.

iii. 4.

VI. vi. 8.

iii. 7.

Serm. II. 6.

iii. 9.

V. lvi. 11.

iii. 9.

Serm. II. 26.

iii. 14.

Serm. V. 13.

iv. 1.

Pref. iii. 10.

iv. 4.

Serm. III.

iv. 6.*

Pref. iii. 14.

iv. 15.

Serm. VI. 15.

v. 4, 5.

Serm. VI. 15.

v. 11.

V. lvi. 7.

v. 12.

V. lvi. 7.

v. 12.

Serm. VI. 17.

v. 12, 13.

Serm. II. 26.

v. 20.

V. li. 1.

v. 20.

V. liv. 3.

2 ST. JOHN.

i.*

V. lxiv. 3.

ST. JUDE.

6.

I. iv. 3.

6.

V. App. N°. 1. 29.

10.*

Pref. iii. 3.

10.*

I. x. 10.

12.

Pref. iv. 4.

17-21.

Serm. V. VI.

18.

V. ii. 2.

20, 21.*

V. xxii. 17.

22.*

Serm. II. 12.

REVELATION.

i. 3.

V. xxii. 15.

i. 5.

VIII. iv. 6.

i. 6.

VI. v. 3.

i. 6.

VIII. iii. 6.

i. 8.

VIII. iv. 6.

i. 10.

V. lxxi. 11.

i. 11.

I. xiii. 1.

i. 20.

V. lxxx. 2.

ii.*

III. i. 10.

ii.

VII. v. 2.

ii. 1.

VII. xi. 3.

ii. 2, 4.*

Serm. I.

ii. 4.

VI. iii. 3.

ii. 13.

III. i. 5.

ii. 19, 20.

Serm. III.

ii. 21-23.

Serm. II. 13.

ii. 24.*

Serm. II. 33.

iii. 8.*

Serm. II. 17.

iii. 14.

II. iv. 1.

iii. 20.

VI. iii. 2.

iv. 4.

V. lxxviii. 3.

v. 8.

V. xxiii.

v. 12.

V. lv. 8.

vi. 9.*

V. xxiii.

vii. 3.

V. lxv. 7.

vii. 3.

Serm. VI. 2.

viii. 10.*

III. viii. 4.

ix. 4.

V. lxv. 7.

ix. 11.

I. iv. 3.

xiii. 8.

Serm. II. 19.

xiv. 6.

I. xv. 3.

xiv. 13.

I. xiii. 1.

xiv. 13.

Serm. IV.

xv. 2, 3.

Serm. V. 14.

xv. 4.*

Pref. iv. 8.

xv. 6.*

V. xxix. 5.

xviii. 4.

Serm. II. 10.

xviii. 4.

Serm. V. 15.

xviii. 7.

Serm. IV.

xix. 10.

I. xvi. 4.

xx. 8.

I. iv. 3.

xxi. 8.

V. xvii. 2.

xxi. 14.

V. lxxviii. 3.

xxi. 14.

VII. iv. 4.

xxii. 9.

I. iv. 2.

xxii. 18.*

III. v.

GLOSSARY.

Incorporating Mr. Furnivall’s Glossary.

A.

Abate (an opinion), II. vi. 3.

abidden, V. lxxxi. 6.

ableness, V. App. 1. 1.

abroach, to set, V. ii. 2: Serm. II. 26, p. 522.

absolute (= perfect), II. vi. 1: V. lxxvi. 9: Serm. II. 31.

accidents, I. viii. 5; VIII. i. 5.

addle speech, III. viii. 10.

adjoin, I. x. 15.

adunited, VIII. i. 6.

affect, I. v. 2; x. 4.

affiance, V. lxv. 20.

afford, V. lxxv. 3.

after-meal, Serm. II. p. 488.

after-wit, VI. vi. 11.

agnize, V. lxxi. 11.

agree unto, VIII. iv. 6.

ancient, the, V. xxxvii. 2; xxxix. 5; xli. 2; xlii. 13; xlv. 1, etc.

ancient (plural), V. lxi. 1.

ancients = elders, IV. xiii. 9.

antichristianity, IV. iii. 2: Serm. II. 27.

“anvil, strike on this,” V. lxi. 3; lxv. 7.

apostata, III. i. 12 (1st ed.): VI. vi. 15.

appale (? = appal), Serm. I. p. 481: Serm. III. p. 606.

apparance, V. xii. 1; lx. 6 (1st ed.): Serm. II. 11.

apparency, V. lx. 6.

apparent (= manifest), VII. v. 4.

apparently (= manifestly), I. xiv. 1: IV. i. 1: V. xxii. 20.

appendent, III. iii. 4.

appliable, Pref. viii. 7: V. lv. 8.

art, word of, V. xviii. 1.

ascertain, I. xvi. 5: VI. vi. 17.

assay (noun), V. lxxi. 2.

assecure, V. lxii. 19.

assecured, V. lxii. 19: VI. vi. 1.

assoil, VI. vi. 5, 12.

attendance (= waiting), Serm. VII. p. 706.

attendancy, VII. xx. 4.

available, I. x. 8: II. vii. 8.

awe (= protection), VII. xxiv. 22.

B.

Bag and baggage, II. v. 7.

baggage, Serm. VI. p. 684.

bane (verb), V. xv. 2.

battle (adj.), V. iii. 4, vid. note 2.

bear in hand, VI. vi. 13.

beat on, II. iv. 3: V. ii. 1.

befool, V. lxxvii. 5.

behoveful, I. viii. 9; x. 4: III. x. 8.

being, III. xi. 20: V. ii. 1; lxviii. 6.

bent (strain), V. xxxii. 4.

better foot of a lame cause, Serm. II. p. 537.

bishoply, VIII. vii. 1: Serm. II. 32.

blockish, Serm. III. p. 603.

bloom (verb active), V. iii. 4.

bolster, III. viii. 8.

bolt out, V. lxv. 15.

bonny, Serm. VII. p. 705.

bow of two strings, V. lxxx. 9.

brayed, V. xxii. 12.

briars, out of the, IV. iv. 1: VI. vi. 13: VII. viii. 5; xiv. 2.

burdenous, Serm. II. 9.

C.

Cam (or kam), Serm. III. p. 599.

captivate, Serm. II. 28.

card, I. ii. 5: Serm. IV. p. 652.

casteth him therewith in the teeth, IV. ix. 1.

casualties, Pref. vii. 11.

cecity, Serm. III. p. 602.

chair, “imagination, the peculiar chair of memory,” V. lxv. 7.

chariness, Serm. I. p. 473.

check, IV. xi. 3.

chiefty, VII. ii. 3; vi. 6: VIII. ii. 11; vi. 12.

circuitions, V. ix. 2.

circulatory, V. liii. 4.

circumstance of the place (= context), II. v. 3; = qualification, V. xlv. 2.

civet (sp. civit ), Serm. VI. p. 685.

civil, I. xv. 4.

clay colour, IV. xiii. 6.

coaction, V. lxviii. 10.

coagmentation, VIII. ii. 2.

coat, “any of that,” Serm. II. 27, p. 526.

co-efficient (noun subst.), V. App. 1, p. 554; (adj.), Serm. II. 4.

collection, V. lviii. 4.

commander, V. lxxi. 4; lxxix. 14: VIII. ii. 1; vi. 13.

commandress, V. viii. 1.

commissionary, VIII. viii. 3.

common sense, I. vi. 5; viii. 4.

commonwealth’s-men (= citizens), VII. xxiv. 20.

complement, V. lviii. 4; lxiv. 4; lxv. 5: VIII. iv. 3.

conceit = opinion ( passim ), spelled “conceipt,” v. V. xlvii. 2.

conceited (“strongly”), V. i. 3.

concinnate, Serm. III. 4.

condescend (= agree), V. lxxix. 9: Serm. V. p. 668: VII. p. 705: VIII. ii. 7, 11.

conditioned, VII. xviii. 10.

conjuring, V. lxxxi. 2.

conjuring exhortations, V. lxxxi. 2.

conscience = consciousness, II. vii. 2: VI. iv. 6.

consort, V. v. 1.

conster, III. v. 1 (1st ed.): IV. xi. 7; xii. 3.

contentation, I. xi. 4.

continent, V. lxxix. 7.

continent, “of all she possesseth,” V. lxxix. 7.

control, II. vii. 10: V. lxi. 3; lxv. 15; lxxvii. 5: VII. xi. 11.

conveniency, II. iv. 5.

convented, VII. xxiii. 4.

conveyance, III. v. 1; vii. 5.

convocate, VII. viii. 12.

cope, Serm. V. 15.

copesmates, VI. v. 9.

corps, V. lxxx. 11.

corrosive, IV. x. 1.

corse, V. lxxv. 4.

countenance, III. xi. 18.

countervailed, V. ix. 1.

course, words of, III. xi. 7.

crazedness, Pref. iii. 8.

crime = charge, Serm. II. 39.

curry favour, IV. vii. 4.

D.

Dally, VII. xv. 10: VIII. ix. 5.

damnify, V. lxxxi. 16.

decease, III. x. 2.

defeat, I. iii. 2: III. i. 12: V. xxii. 13; lxii. 13.

delicates, IV. vii. 2.

demi-premisses, V. lxxxi. 4.

demurely, Serm. II. 17.

deodate, VII. xxii. 4.

derive, V. lxxvii. 8: VIII. vi. 11.

detecteth, VI. iv. 9.

device, V. Ded. 2.

devolution, VIII. vi. 14.

dint, Pref. iii. 3.

dirity, Serm. III. 5.

disauthorize, vol. iii. p. 467.

dischurch (an “unusual word”), G. Cranmer, vol. iii. p. 111.

dischurched, VI. App. p. 111.

discoherence, vol. iii. p. 633.

discommend, V. xlvi. 1: VII. xv. 6.

discommodious, V. lxxi. 8.

discommoned, VIII. i. 6.

discourse, I. vi. 4; vii. 7; xiv. 1.

discover, I. i. 2; iii. 4.

disgorge, V. lxiv. 6.

disgrace, Pref. iii. 3: I. vii. 7; xvi. 2: II. i. 4: III. viii. 4: V. xxxiv. 3; xxxviii. 3; lxii. 14.

dislike, II. vii. 2.

disparagement, Serm. III. p. 603.

displeasant, Pref. vii. 3.

distract, VIII. i. 4, 6.

disusage, IV. xiv. 3: VII. xxiv. 11.

ditty, V. xxxviii. 1.

dive (= dip), IV. xii. 3.

divinely, I. viii. 1.

divisibly, VIII. iv. 6.

E.

Economy, V. liv. 6.

elevate (= disparage), II. vii. 8: V. lx. 3.

elide, IV. iv. 1.

embase (“imbase,” Serm. II. 34), VII. xi. 9.

emprese, Pref. iv. 3.

enable, III. viii. 10: V. xxvii. 3.

endammage, V. xlii. 12.

ensignes, V. lxiv. 6.

ensorceled (reading of 1st ed.), Serm. I. p. 477.

ensue (transitive), V. lxv. 18.

enthronize, VI. vi. 13: VIII. ii. 13.

epicure, VIII. ii. 15.

every of these, I. xvi. 5: III. xi. 13.

evict (= prove), VIII. ix. 5.

evitable, I. viii. 8.

exagitate, III. xi. 16.

excellency, IV. ix. 3.

exequies, V. lxxv. 4.

exhibit, V. lxiv. 5; lxvii. 6.

exigent, Pref. iv. 7.

exorbitant, III. xi. 8; Serm. III. 1.

exquisite, I. v. 2: Serm. I. p. 475.

extemporality, vol. iii. p. 464.

extraordinancy, VII. xv. 8.

extreme, V. ix. 1.

F.

Fact, III. xi. 15.

fall into (= be incident to), I. xi. 3: III. x. 3.

famously (= notoriously), VI. iv. 10, 13: VIII. ii. 11; ix. 5.

feeling, I. xii. 2: V. xxxix. 1; li. 3 (sense): VII. xxiv. 15.

festination, Answ. to Trav. 21.

flannel, “for gold hath flannel,” V. lxxix. 16.

flit, Serm. II. 26, p. 517.

float, Pref. ix. 4: V. lxxi. 7.

foot, “set the better foot of a lame cause foremost,” Serm. II. 33.

foreceable, V. App. 1. 33.

forcible (= efficacious), V. xxii. 6, cp. V. lxvii. 1; VI. iv. 13: VII. xv. 14.

foreprized, V. lxxi. 4.

foreslow, VI. iii. 4; iv. 6.

forlorn, V. lxv. 17; lxvi. 9.

formal, V. lxiv. 4.

formalize, V. lvi. 11.

formally, Serm. II. 21.

forsaken, III. i. 8: V. xlii. 13: VI. iii. 5: VII. xvi. 9: Answ. to Trav. 22.

forth (“have their forth?”), V. lxii. 8.

fortuned, VII. v. 5.

framable, vol. iii. p. 696.

frankness, V. lxxii. 11.

frequent = crowded, V. lxxx. 7.

frier’s-gray, IV. xiii. 6; opposed to “clay-colour.”

from (= away from), VIII. iv. 7.

fumbling shifts, V. lxii. 14.

fumingly, V. xxii. 7; lxii. 21.

furious (= mad), I. ix. 1: V. lxiv. 4: VI. v. 8.

G.

General (of the whole kind), II. viii. 1: IV. vi. 3: V. lv. 1.

genitive (1) no mark of inflexion, “work sake,” Pref. i. 1; “distinction sake,” V. iv. 3 ( in old edd. ); (2) “his,” “Novatianus his conceit,” V. lxii. 5; “Dionysius his navigation,” lxxix. 15; “Glaucus his charge,” lxxix. 16.

gentility (heathendom), V. ii. 4.

gestured, V. xxvii. 1.

girdler, VII. viii. 11.

glass, Pref. vii. 1.

“Glaucus his change,” V. lxxix. 16.

glorious, V. lxxi. 7.

gloses, V. xxii. 10; lxii. 14.

glosing, V. iv. 2.

gravelled, VI. iv. 12.

grisly, VI. vi. 15.

guard (ward), V. lxiv. 6.

H.

Habilitie, Serm. III. 2 (so passim in original edd.)

handfast, Serm. I. vol. iii. p. 476.

hands, “work with two hands,” Serm. II. 33.

handsel, V. lvi. 11.

happily, for haply, Pref. ii. 3, and passim in 1st edd.

haps, VI. iv. 6.

hardlier, V. lxxxi. 6.

“have their forth” (?), V. lxiii. 1.

heaved at, VII. xxiv. 2.

her (instead of its ), “the appetite,” I. v. 3; “discipline,” Pref. viii. 3: V. lxiii. 1.

heteroclites, vol. iii. p. 605.

his (instead of its ), “that which is of God—his kind,” I. xiv. 5; “operation,” I. xvi. 5; “creature,” V. lv. 2; “body,” lviii. 4.

hold out with, III. xi. 19.

hungry, V. xxii. 19.

I.

Idea, I. iv. 1.

idol (so, 1597-1616, instead of “idle”), V. xi. 3, vid. note 1.

ifs or ands, Pref. ii. 6.

illation, Serm. II. 9.

imbecility, V. xxii. 17; xxv. 1.

imbreathed with, vol. iii. p. 611.

impaled, VIII. i. 4.

impardonable, V. lxv. 1.

implead (raise a plea against), VI. iv. 10.

implement, I. x. 2.

import (“their souls”), VI. iv. 15.

impotent, Pref. ii. 4: IV. ix. 1.

impreparation, V. ii. 2.

impression, I. iii. 3; xvi. 3.

improve (= improbare), V. xxii. 10; vol. iii. p. 699.

imps (and limbs of Satan), III. i. 7.

incantations, IV. iv. 1.

incident into, I. iii. 3: II. iii. 1; vii. 5: V. lxii. 14 ( passim ) ( unto only in the later xviith century edd.)

inclinable, VII. xiv. 2.

incommodious, IV. vi. 2.

inconformitie, IV. xi. 4.

incredibility, V. App. 1. 36.

indifferent, II. i. 3.

infested, III. xi. 9.

inflammations, V. xxxiv. 1.

infringe, V. lxxxi. 3.

ingenuity, V. xx. 20.

injuried, I. i. 2, 4: V. xvi. 1.

injury (to), III. viii. 9: VI. iii. 3; v. 2.

inn, V. lxvii. 10.

innocent (n.), I. vi. 3: III. viii. 11: V. lx. 7; lxiv. 2, 3, 5.

inrailed, IV. xiii. 7.

instinct, VII. v. 7.

intentive, I. xi. 4.

intercourse (= alternation, “day and night”), Serm. I. vol. iii. p. 474.

interessed, V. Ded.; V. xl. 3; lxiv. 5; lxxx. 9.

interlace, V. xxvi. 2; lxii. 14.

inure with, I. i. 2; vi. 3: III. xi. 3: V. xl. 3: Answ. to Trav. 16.

inure unto, V. xlii. 11.

invective (adj.) V. lxxii. 12.

irefully, Pref. ii. 2.

its (I. iii. 5: V. xxix. 6 in Keble’s text; but in early edd. the ).

J.

John a Style, Serm. II. 35.

judicials, I. xv. 1: III. x. 4.

jump, I. viii. 8.

K.

Kind, “grown out of,” vol. iii. p. 698.

known of his faults, VI. iv. 5.

L.

Lapt up, Serm. VI. 28.

leave or liking, Pref. viii. 13.

leisurable -y, V. xlvi. 1, 2.

“let or hindered,” I. ii. 6: II. ii. 3.

lets, I. i. 1.

lifted at, VII. xxiv. 26.

like of (to), I. iv. 3: VIII. vi. 14.

limbs, III. i. 7.

list (= border), V. xx. 10.

list (v.), V. xxii. 9; lxx. 1; lxxi. 4; lxxvii. 3.

listed, VII. viii. 4.

litigious (of things, “feast of Easter”), IV. xi. 12.

livery, V. lxxi. 7.

loam, “wash a wall of,” Serm. II. 19.

loden, Pref. iii. 13.

long of them, V. i. 1.

look (interj.), I. viii. 10: VII. vi. 9: VIII. vi. 6.

loover, Pref. iv. 4.

M.

Maims, IV. xii. 6: V. lxv. 7; lxx. 4.

malapert, VII. xv. 15.

malignants, III. vii. 10: V. ii. 4.

manner (“all, no, manner”), Pref. viii. 6: I. iv. 1; viii. 10: II. vii. 4; v. 2: V. vi. 1; liv. 7: VIII. ii. 13.

manuary, V. lxxxi. 8.

manumised, V. lxxxi. 15.

markable, VIII. vi. 14.

mast, VIII. iii. 2.

medled (= mixed), IV. viii. 1.

meeken, to, vol. iii. p. 623.

mel-pell, VIII. ix. 5.

merry, “more merry than wise,” V. lxxiv. 3.

meslin, IV. vi. 3.

mettle, “softer,” V. lxv. 6 (cf. lxv. 15, 1st ed.; lxxix. 5).

mincingly, I. xi. 6.

minerals, I. iv. 3.

mingle-mangle, Serm. V. 7.

miscollecting, vol. iii. p. 595.

misconceit, Pref. i. 2: III. i. 10: VIII. i. 4.

miscreants, III. i. 8: V. lxiii. 1: VI. v. 8.

misdesert, V. lxxvii. 3.

misdistinguish, III. ii. 2; iii. 1.

miserable (= miser), V. lx. 20.

misinfer, V. lii. 4.

misordered, VI. v. 9.

moe, Pref. ix. 4: II. v. 5: III. v. 1; xi. 21: IV. ii. 2; xiii. i. 9: V. Ded. p. 3; xxii. 8; xxxv. 2; lvi. 10; lxxviii. 12; lxxx. 4, 11.

momentany, I. viii. 5.

montanize, IV. vii. 4.

mother-cause, v. I. iii. 2; viii. 6: VIII. ii. 12.

mother of life, vol. iii. p. 650.

mother-sentence, Serm. II. 36.

motioner, VIII. viii. 4.

N.

Namely, VI. iv. 4.

natural, “a mere n. man,” III. viii. 6.

nemo scit, a, V. lxxix. 5.

nephew (= grandson), V. xx. 11: VI. App. p. 133.

nice, made it not, VI. iv. 2.

nocive, Serm. IV. p. 649.

noon’s meal, V. lxxii. 6.

not no, I. xii. 2; III. xi. 9.

no, not, V. xxii. 14; lxxi. 8.

no, no, VI. iv. 14.

note, (of this n.), vol. iii. p. 481.

notional, V. lxxxi. 5.

nuzzled, Answ. to Trav. 26.

O.

Object (adj.), Serm. I. vol. iii. p. 478: E. P. III. i. 2: IV. i. 3.

observants, I. iv. 1.

occasioned to, Pref. ii. 1.

occurrents, V. Ded. i. 3.

odds (sing.), what odds there is, I. viii. 2; VIII. iv. 5.

opinative, V. lx. 5.

opposite (subs.), I. xvi. 5: III. xi. 9: IV. vii. 6: V. vii. 3.

oratorial, III. viii. 9.

organize (“soul of the body”), V. lviii. 1.

orient, VIII. ii. 8.

over-carried, vol. iii. p. 565.

overcast, to (v.), V. xxxii. 3.

over-having (“an over-having disposition”), VII. xxiii. 5.

over-seeing (cf. oversight ), vol. iii. p. 607.

overseen, I. viii. 3.

oversight, III. i. 9, 12.

overskip, Pref. iii. 2.

overslip, V. lxxii. 14.

oversway, IV. xiii. 9.

P.

Pageants, V. lxxvii. 14.

pale (“the common pale”), IV. xiii. 7.

panical (terrors), vol. iii. p. 615.

paramount, paravaile, Serm. II. 28, p. 527.

participate (transitive), V. lxv. 20; lxxi. 4.

party, IV. i. 4: V. i. 3; xliii. 3; lxxx. 5, 12: VI. iv. 7; v. 8.

peers (“two cases be peers”), V. lxii. 13.

pensive, V. lxxii. 1: VI. iii. 3; iv. 6; v. 4.

perceivance, Serm. I. vol. iii. p. 477.

permit to, Serm. II. 27, p. 525.

person (= mask?), V. ii. 3.

petit, V. lxxiv. 4.

petitionary, V. xlviii. 2.

pew-fellows, VI. iv. 10.

phrenetical, V. App. 1. 38.

pin, III. iv. 1.

pinch, IV. xiii. 1, 9.

pitch, a field, V. xxxi. 1.

platform, III. vii. 4.

politician, VII. xxiv. 3.

politicly, VII. xxiv. 22.

politics, V. App. 2. 5: VII. xxiv. 22.

powerable, VII. xviii. 9: Serm. II. 11.

preach, a (n.), V. xxviii. 3.

precincts (= limits), V. lxxx. 2 (v. VII. ii. 1; viii. 3).

preconceit, Pref. iii. 9.

predicants, Serm. II. 12.

prejudice, Pref. ii. 8: I. vii. 6; x. 13.

prest, Serm. IV. p. 649.

pretence, V. lxii. 8.

pretend (= put forward), II. v. 6; (= claim) VI. v. 1.

prettily, V. xxii. 7.

prime, II. iv. 6: V. lxv. 2: VII. xxii. 6.

proctor, IV. ix. 3: V. Ded. 7.

propense, Pref. iii. 13.

puddle, Serm. II. 28, p. 528.

puissance, V. xxxviii. 1.

punned (= bruised), V. xxii. 12 (T. C.)

purchase (= obtain), Pref. ii. 8: I. vii. 1: V. xxiii.

purity, I. iii. 4.

put up injuries, VII. xv. 3.

Q.

Querulous (= quarrelsome), III. xi. 10.

quite and clean, I. xii. 3: III. i. 8, 13: IV. xii. 7: V. ii. 1; xx. 2: VIII. i. 6.

quite, to, I. xi. 5.

R.

Race, “the race of Christ,” IV. v.; V. lvi. 11.

rake (“billows raking a boat”), Travers, vol. iii. p. 550.

ransom, put to his (opposed to “amerced” or fined), III. p. 552.

readunited, VIII. i. 6.

reasoned, be, VII. xv. 14.

rebukeable, IV. vii. 5.

recharge, III. xi. 13.

recidivation, Serm. VII. 1.

reckless (= rechless, wretchless), V. lxxi. 9.

recognizance, V. xlii. 10.

recomforted, V. lxxv. 3.

redeem, IV. xiv. 3.

refel, VI. vi. 6.

regalities, VIII. vii. 7.

rein, “the question shorter,” Serm. II. 28, p. 527. Cp. V. xliii. 4.

religion, “they of the religion in France,” IV. viii. 4.

rely myself on, V. lxvii. 12.

remonstrances, V. lxxvi. 6.

remorse, V. lx. 6.

rent (verb), VI. iii. 5.

resemble unto us, I. iv. 1: V. vi. 2; xxxviii. 1: III. iii. 4 (?).

respected (regarded), III. xi. 20: V. lxvi. 4.

respective, V. i. 1; xxix. 8.

respectively (with respect of person), Pref. ii. 4.

revisit (= review), vol. iii. p. 564.

rewardable, I. ix. 1.

riotous, I. xiii. 3.

rise, III. viii. 10: V. iii. 4.

ruff (“in their chiefest r.”) Serm. III. 4.

S.

Sabboth, for Sabbath, III. viii. 10, vid. note: IV. xiii. 1, passim.

safeconduct, to, vol. iii. p. 693.

sallet (1st and 2nd edd. = salad K.), V. lxxvi. 8.

salt apology, VI. vi. 6.

sanctimony, VI. v. 6.

says (= essays), V. lxx. 4 (cf. lxxi. 2).

scapes and oversights, Serm. II. 39.

scholies -y, III. viii. 2, 16; xxxi. 3; lxxxviii. 2.

scholy, to (v.), V. xxii. 7: VI. iv. 10.

scopious (?), Serm. III. p. 623.

sea (“a sea of such matter”), vol. iii. p. 587: E. P. Pref. i. 1; viii. 11: I. xi. 3: V. lxxi. 7: VI. iii. 3.

sear, VI. iv. 6.

sedulity, V. iii. 1.

seedsmen (= sowers), VIII. ii. 8.

several, I. x. 13; xiv. 3: IV. xiii. 1: V. xiv. 1.

severed from, IV. xiii. 1.

shadowish, VIII. iii. 1.

shame (= to be ashamed), VII. xxiv. 22.

“shorten the reins of their censure,” V. xliii. 4.

“shorter commons,” V. lxxviii. 5.

side respect, I. x. 7.

side (= page), vol. iii. p. 661.

silly, III. viii. 10; xi. 8.

sith, IV. xii. 5 and passim.

skilleth, III. vii. 3.

sleight, Pref. viii. 10.

slight, Pref. iii. 16.

slips (branches), II. i. 1: V. lxxviii. 5: VI. xv. 13.

slought, V. App. 1. 5.

smally, III. xi. 5.

soder, V. xxix. 7.

soon or sine, Serm. III. p. 627.

soonest, with the, VII. xiii. 2.

sophisticate, V. lxxvii. 14.

sound that way, Pref. iii. 9: V. ii. 1; xx. 12; xxxviii. 3.

sound to, Pref. iii. 9: V. xxxviii. 3.

sound towards, Pref. iii. 9: V. xx. 12; xlii. 10: VIII. ii. 15.

spit-venom, V. ii. 2.

sponged out, V. xix. 2; lxvi. 9.

square (out of), III. i. 10: V. lxv. 11; lxxxi. 1.

stand to, Pref. viii. 2: I. viii. 7.

stand with, III. ix. 3; xi. 18: V. lxii. 22.

stand upon, II. iv. 1: III. iii. 4; v. 1: V. lxv. 20: VII. xxiv. 13: Answ. to Trav. 8.

stand in stead, III. ix. 1: V. lxxii. 2.

“stews of idols,” V. lxii. 17.

stint (= limit), IV. xiv. 3: VII. vxxiii. 10, 11.

stomach, Pref. ii. 6: II. v. 7: V. xlii. 2.

stormingly, V. App. 1. 44.

stroke, VIII. vi. 13.

stupidity (ἀναισθησία), VI. vi. 6.

sugared, vol. iii. p. 474.

suit (of one), Pref. viii. 7: III. iii. 2.

sup up words, V. lxii. 14.

suppage, V. lxxii. 6.

suppled, V. lxviii. 11.

suppositum, vol. ii. p. 230, note 1.

suspense (adj.), Pref. ii. 2.

T.

Teeth, “from the t. outwards,” V. lxviii. 6.

teeth, “with t. and all,” VIII. vi. 2.

tempts (= attempts), V. lxxvi. 7.

tender (v.), IV. xi. 5.

tenor, IV. ii. 2.

tenure, I. iii. 2: III. i. 12.

thought, “half a thought the better,” IV. xiii. 10.

too too (manifest), Serm. II. 29, p. 528; vid. T. C. quoted, vol. ii. p. 94.

touch, hold the, VI. iv. 11.

touch of mercy, V. li. 3.

touch of his person, vol. iii. p. 559.

toy, IV. i. 3: V. lix. 3.

toyish, V. lxiv. 1, 4.

tract of time, IV. xiv. 1: V. xxix. 7; lxxviii. 5.

treatable, V. xlvi. 1: -y, V. lxxix. 16.

trencher-mates, V. ii. 2.

U.

Unbeseeming, I. viii. 9.

unbuilded (conclusions), II. vii. 5.

uncapable, I. iii. 3.

uncomfortable, I. iv. 1.

uncommanded, VIII. ii. 1.

unconscionable -ly (= against conscience), VII. xxiv. 25.

unconsonant, V. li. 3.

uncredible, vol. iii. p. 476.

unculpable, III. vii. 2.

underlie, VIII. i. 2.

underset, V. xv. 5.

undispensable, VII. xiv. 4.

undistinctly, V. lxviii. 9.

undividable, VII. xxiv. 20: Serm. III. 4.

unemptiable, II. i. 4.

unfallible, VI. vi. 5.

unforcible, V. lxv. 9.

unframable, I. xvi. 6.

ungroundedly, vol. iii. p. 627.

unindifferent, IV. vii. 4: vol. iii. p. 550.

unlapt, vol. iii. p. 567.

unpartial, VI. vi. 5.

unperfect, V. ix. 3.

unrequisite, III. xi. 16.

unresistable, Pref. ii. 3: V. i. 3; lxi. 4.

unsensible, VII. xiv. 2.

unseparable, VII. xxii. 5.

unstrengthened, V. viii. 4.

unsubject, VIII. ii. 13; viii. 1.

unweariable, Pref. iii. 12.

upshot, V. lxv. 12: VI. v. 5.

ure, “put in,” Pref. ii. 2: II. vii. 9: V. lxxiii. 8: Serm. II. 11.

— out of, VII. xiv. 2.

V.

Vice-agent, V. xli. 1.

voyage (French sense), V. lxxix. 7.

vulgar, VI. vi. 8.

W.

Wade, I. ii. 2; iii. 2: V. lxv. 13; lxvii. 4; lxxxi. 4: Serm. II. 37.

warfaring, VIII. iv. 6.

warrantize, Serm. V. 11.

wash a wall of loam, Serm. II. 19.

wave in and out, V. xliii. 5.

weeds, IV. xiii. 6: V. xxix. 3; lxx. 4.

well-willers, V. lxxii. 14; lxxvi. 2: VIII. iv. 10.

willinger (more willing), V. i. 2.

withal = with, III. xi. 10: IV. vii. 2.

woe worth, Serm. II. 13: Serm. V. 6: VI. 10.

worsed, vol. iii. p. 679.

wreath (= strand of a cable), VII. xviii. 10.

wretchless, Serm. VI. 33.

wringeth, V. App. ii. 4.

writhed, IV. xiii. 5.

THE END.

a

The words which is, are inserted from the Dublin MS. ( which will be designated in these notes by the letter E.)

1

[Although the present editor is convinced, for the reasons assigned in the preface, that the sixth book completed by Hooker is now almost or altogether lost, still he has judged it best on consideration to leave the following pages in their usual place: first, because the early part of them does appear to have formed part of some rough draft of the book on lay elders; secondly, because it seemed safer to await the judgment of literary men in general, before expunging so large a portion of the treatise: thirdly, because he believes the whole to be Hooker’s, though wrongly inserted into his great work.]

b

conflicts Ed. 1651.

c

striving E.

1

[After 1593, in which year were published the first portion of Hooker’s work, and the two treatises of Bancroft, there was a pause for a while in the Puritan controversy.]

2

[See Pref. iv. 5: and note 17 (?87, which is note 1, p. 160, in vol. i. of this Ed.).]

3

Lib. vi.

4

Lib. vii.

5

Lib. viii.

d

not om. E.

e

only om. E.

6

[It may seem that there is some omission here: for the following sentence implies that a summary had been given of the Puritan “plot set down for the office of the ministry,” as being the end, for which the objections about ceremonies were a pretence, and the agitation for lay elders a mean.]

f

suppose E.

g

favour it the more. Fulman in the margin of a copy of the first edition in C. C. C. library.

7

[See Bancroft’s Dang. Pos. b. iv. c. 12.]

h

so om. E.

i

bear E.

1

[Eccl. Disc. fol. 120-125.]

2

Numb. xvi. 3.

k

doth D.

l

sufficient om. E.

1

Acts xx. 28.

2

1 Tim. v. 19.

3

Mark xvi. 15; Matt. xxviii. 19; 1 Cor. xi. 24.

4

Τίμα μὲν τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς αἴτιον τω̑ν ὅλων καὶ κύριον· Ἐπίσκοπον δὲ, ὡς ἀρχιερέα, Θεου̑ εἰκόνα ϕορου̑ντα· κατὰ μὲν τὸ ἄρχειν, Θεου̑, κατὰ δὲ τὸ ἱερατεύειν, Χριστου̑. Epist. [interpol.] ad Smyrn. [c. 9.] [This note in E forms part of the text.]

m

iii. D.

n

limation made limitation by Abp. Ussher in D.

o

ampliation D.

p

inconstant E.

q

bringeth E. which spoils the sentence. Fulman conjectured offered; though instead of offered through.

r

predecessor E.

s

doctrine E.

t

concerns E.

u

step towards om. E.

x Penitency E.

y

iv. D.

z

then om. E.

a

toward E.

1

[This clause, “in matters of ecclesiastical cognizance,” is no doubt inserted with especial purpose of qualifying the general expression before, of “reforming all injuries, c.:” and so avoiding the claim of extreme prerogative, which the Puritans urged in order to draw all causes into their spiritual courts. See Pref. c. vii. 4. In the statement supposed to be the Lord Keeper Puckering’s, Stryp. An. iv. 201, among other opinions held by the Puritans against the state and policy of the realm, is set down, “That all matters arising in their several limits, (though they be mere civil and temporal,) if there may happen to be breach of charity, or wrong offered by one unto another, may and ought to be composed by the eldership.”]

b

sin deprives E.

c

farther E.

1

“Pœnitentiæ secundæ, et unius, quanto in actu [arcto] negotium est, tanto operosior [“potior” E.] probatio est, ut non sola conscientia proferatur, [“præferatur,” D.] sed aliquo etiam actu administretur.” “Second penitency, following that before baptism, and being not more than once admitted in one man, requireth by so much the greater labour to make it manifest, for that it is not a work which can come again in trial, but must be therefore with some open solemnity executed, and not left to be discharged with the privity of conscience alone.” Tertull. de Pœnit. [c. 9.]

d

the E.

1

[Judging by internal evidence, (which is almost all we have,) it may perhaps appear that at this point, if not before, the collections of Hooker for the 6th book cease, and that what remains is taken indeed from papers of his, but wrongly assigned to a treatise on lay-elders.]

e

v. D.

2

[Rev. iii. 20.]

3

[Comp. Fragment of an Answer to a Christian Letter, above, t. ii. p. 540.]

4

[See E. P. V. lvi. 12.]

5

Acts ii. 37. [om. D.]

1

Jonah iii. 5. [om. D.]

f

f. wrought. Fulm.

2

S. Matth. xi. 21. [om. D.]

3

[Acts xix. 17, 19.]

g

any E.

h

endeavours E.

4

[Rev. ii. 4.]

1

now om. E.

1

Cassian. Col. 20. c. 4. [Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. p. 2. 206. “Ita ut Deo, præteritis facinoribus offenso, jamque justissimam pœnam pro tantis criminibus inferenti, (si dici fas est) quodammodo obsistat, et quasi inviti (ut ita dixerim) dextram suspendat ultoris.”]

2

Basil. Episc. Seleuc. (circ. 451,) p. 106, [ed. Commelin. 1596.] Φιλάνθρωπον βλέμμα προσιου̑σαν αἰδει̑ται μετάνοιαν. Chry. in 1 Cor. Hom. 8. [§ 4. t. x. p. 71 C. ed. Bened.] Οὐ τὸ τρωθη̑ναι οὕτω δεινὸν, ὡς τὸ τρωθέντα μἠ βούλεσθαι θεραπεύεσθαι. Marc. Erem. († circ. 410) [de Pœnit. ap. Biblioth. Patr. Par. 1624, t. i. p. 915 D.] Οὐδεὶς κατεκρίθη, εἰ μὴ μετανοίας κατεϕρόνησε, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδικαιώθη, εἰ μὴ ταύτης ἐπεμελήσατο.

3

Fulg. (Bp. of Ruspe, 467-533,) de Remis. Peccat. lib. ii. cap. 15. [“Ecce Saul dixit, Peccavi; David quoque dixit, Peccavi. Cum ergo in confessione peccati utriusque una vox fuerit, cur non una est utriusque concessa remissio? nisi quia in similitudine confessionis videbat Deus dissimilitudinem voluntatis.” in Bibl. Patr. Colon. vi. 119.]

k

God’s D.

1

Jon. c. iii. 9.

2

[Luke xv. 18.]

l

vi. D.

3

Senten. lib. 4. d. 14.

m

vii. D.

n

nor slight E.

o

viii. D.

p

A space of half a page is left here in D.

q

i. D.

1

Matt. xvi. 19.

r

therein E.

1

Matt. xviii. 17.

2

Matt. xviii. 18; John xx. 23; 1 Cor. v. 3; 2 Cor. ii. 6.

3

1 Tim. i. 20.

s

ii. D.

t

their.

u

other E.

x

iii. D.

1

[Concil. Later. iv. AD 1215, under Innocent III. can. 21. “Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua solus peccata confiteatur fideliter, saltem semel in anno, proprio sacerdoti et injunctam sibi pœnitentiam studeat pro viribus adimplere, suscipiens reverenter ad minus in Pascha Eucharistiæ sacramentum.” t. xi. p. 172, 3.]

y

a thing thus made E.

z

Penitence E.

2

Soto [Spanish Dominican, 1494-1560,] in iv. Sent. d. 14. q. 1. art. 1. [“Est enim pœnitentia, sacramentum remissionis peccatorum quæ post baptismum committuntur.” p. 344. ed. Douay, 1613.]

3

Idem, ead. dist. q. 2. art. i. [p. 359. “Est detestatio, et odium, et abominatio commissi peccati, cum firmo proposito emendandi vitam, spe veniæ divinitus obtinendæ. Hæc namque pro pœnitentiæ virtutis definitione habenda est.”]

1

Scot. [John Duns, Franciscan Schoolman, † 1308,] Sent. iv. d. 14. q. 4. [“Pono hanc rationem nominis: pœnitentia est absolutio hominis pœnitentis, facta certis verbis, cum debita intentione prolatis a sacerdote, jurisdictionem habente ex institutione divina, efficaciter significantibus absolutionem animæ a peccato.” t. ix. p. 81. ed. Wading. This reference is by Ussher.]

2

[Tho. Aquin. Summ. Theol. p. iii. de Sacram. q. xxv. al. 84. art. iii. “Oportet quod ea quæ sunt ex parte pœnitentis, sive sint verba sive facta, sint quædam materia hujus sacramenti, ea vero, quæ sunt ex parte sacerdotis, se habeant per modum formæ.” p. 291. Venet. 1596.]

3

Sess. xiv. c. 3. “Docet sancta Synodus sacramenti pœnitentiæ formam, in qua præcipue ipsius vis sita est, in illis ministri verbis positam esse, Ego te absolvo. Sunt autem quasi materia hujus sacramenti ipsius pœnitentis actus, nempe contritio, confessio, et satisfactio.”

a

parts E.

4

[In iv. sent. d. xvi. q. 1. § 4. “Præter materiam et formam in sacramentis non est dare alias partes proprie dictas; sed contritio et satisfactio non sunt materia neque forma sacramenti pœnitentiæ: forma enim consistit in verbis absolutionis; materia vero siqua sit in verbis confessionis, quibus pœnitens suam conscientiam aperit sacerdoti: ergo contritio et satisfactio non sunt partes sacramenti pœnitentiæ, proprie loquendo.”]

b

inpenitency D.

c

iv. D.

d

iniquity E.

1

Luc. vii. 47.

2

Job xxxi. 33.

3

“Tantum relevat confessio delictorum, quantum dissimulatio exaggerat. Confessio autem [enim] satisfactionis consilium est, dissimulatio contumaciæ.” Tertull. de Pœnit. [c. 8. fin.]

1

Chry. hom. 30. in Epist. ad Hebr. [Opp. tom. iv. 589. 20. ed. Savil. ἁμαρτία γὰρ ὁμολογουμένη ἐλάττων γίνεται· μὴ ὁμολογουμένη δὲ, χείρων· ἂν γὰρ προσλάβῃ τὴν ἀναισχυντίαν καὶ τὴν ἀγνωμοσύνην, οὐδέποτε στήσεται· πω̑ς δαὶ ὅλως ὁ τοιου̑τος δυνήσεται ϕυλάξασθαι πάλιν μὴ τοι̑ς αὐτοι̑ς περιπεσει̑ν, ὁ τὸ πρότερον οὐκ εἰδὼς ὅτι ἥμαρτε; . . . μὴ ἁμαρτωλοὺς καλω̑μεν ἑαυτοὺς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα ἀναλογιζώμεθα, κατ’ εἰ̑δος ἕκαστον ἀναλέγοντες. οὐ λέγω σοι, ἐκπόμπευσον σαὐτὸν, οὐδὲ παρὰ τοι̑ς ἄλλοις κατηγόρησον· . . . ἐπὶ του̑ Θεου̑ ταυ̑τα ὁμολόγησον, ἐπὶ του̑ δικαστου̑ ὁμολόγει τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, εὐχόμενος, εἰ καὶ μὴ τῃ̑ γλώττῃ ἀλλὰ τῃ̑ μνήμῃ, καὶ οὕτως ἀξίου ἐλεηθη̑ναι. . . . . οὐ του̑το δὲ λέγω, ἐὰν ᾐ̑ς πεπεισμένος σαὐτὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν εἰ̑ναι· οὐχ οὕτω του̑το δύναται ταπεινω̑σαι ψυχὴν, ὡς αὐτὰ ἐϕ’ ἑαυτω̑ν τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, καὶ κατ’ εἰ̑δος ἐξεταζόμενα· . . . . οὐ ϕρονήσεις μέγα, οὐ περιπεσῃ̑ πάλιν τοι̑ς αὐτοι̑ς, σϕοδρότερος ἐσῃ̑ πρὸς τὰ ἀγαθά. . . . . Οἰ̑δα ὅτι οὐκ ἀνέχεται ἡ ψυχὴ τη̑ς μνήμης τη̑ς οὕτω πικρα̑ς. ἀλλὰ ἀναγκάζωμεν αὐτὴν, καὶ βιαζώμεθα· βέλτιον δάκνεσθαι αὐτὴν τῃ̑ μνήμῃ νυ̑ν, ἢ κατ’ ἐκει̑νον τὸν καιρὸν τῃ̑ τιμωρίᾳ.]

e

doth but grow E.

f

often om. E.

g

thy E.

h

or D.

i

held om. E.

2

Levit. xvi. 21.

1

“All Israel is bound on the day of expiation to repent and confess.” R. Mos. in lib. Mitsuoth haggadol. par. 2. præ. 16. [Comp. Tract. Teshuboth, c. ii. § 9. p. 52. ed. Clavering.]

2

“On the day of expiation the high-priest maketh three express confessions.” Idem, eodem loco. [E. gives this note as part of the text. See Clavering’s notes, p. 137. and Talmud, Cod. Joma, as cited by him.]

k

at the times E.

l

book call E.

3

Num. v. 6.

4

Lev. v. 5.

5

Misne Tora, Tractatu Teshuba, cap. 1. [t. i. fol. 7. Venet. 1550.] et R. M. in lib. Misnoth, par. 2. cap. 16.

6

Mos. in Misnoth. par. 2. præ. 16. [This note in E. is part of the text. Comp. Tract. Teshuboth, c. i. § 3.] “None of them, whom either the house of judgment hath condemned to die, or of them which are to be punished with stripes, can be clear by being executed or scourged, till they repent and confess their faults.” [Ibid.] “To him which is sick and draweth towards death, they say, Confess.”

1

Jos. vii. 19.

2

[Maimonid. in Tract. Teshuboth, c. ii. § 6.]

3

[Prov. xxviii. 13.]

m

v. D.

1

Matt. iii. 6.

2

Acts xix. 18. [Alleged by Bellarmine, de Pœnit. iii. c. 4.]

3

James v. 14, 16.

4

Mark xvi. 18.

5

Acts xxviii. 8.

1

Ambros. de Pœnitentia, lib. i. cap. 8. [“Cur ergo manus imponitis, et benedictionis opus creditis, si quis forte revaluerit ægrotus? Cur præsumitis aliquos a colluvione Diaboli per vos mundari posse? Cur baptizatis, si per hominem peccata dimitti non licet.”]

2

[In loc. “Nec hic est sermo de confessione sacramentali: (ut patet ex eo quod dicit, ‘confitemini invicem.’ Sacramentalis enim confessio non fit invicem, sed sacerdotibus tantum;) sed de confessione, qua mutuo fatemur nos peccatores, ut oretur pro nobis; et de confessione hinc et inde erratorum, pro mutua placatione et reconciliatione.” fol. 419. Ludg. 1556.]

3

Annot. Rhem. in Jac. 5. [“It is not certain that he speaketh here of sacramental confession, yet the circumstance of the letter well beareth it, and very probable it is that he meaneth of it.” p. 653. ed. 1582.]

4

[De Pœnit. lib. iii. c. 4.]

5

1 John i. 9.

6

[Bellarm. ubi sup. “Verba illa, ‘Fidelis est et justus,’ referuntur ad promissionem divinam: ideo enim Deus fidelis et justus dicitur, dum peccata confitentibus remittit, quia state promissis suis, nec fidem fallit. At promissio de remittendis peccatis iis qui confitentur Deo peccata sua, non videtur ulla exstare in divinis literis: exstat autem promissio apertissima iis qui ad illos accedunt, quibus dictum est Joannis XX , ‘Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis.’ ”]

n

his E.

o

vi. D.

1

[De Pœnit. c. ix. “Exomologesis prosternendi et humilificandi hominis disciplina est, conversationem injungens misericordiæ illicem.”]

2

“Plerosque hoc opus ut publicationem sui aut suffugere, aut de die in diem differre præsumo pudoris magis memores quam salutis; velut illi qui, in partibus verecundioribus corporis contracta vexatione, conscientiam medentium vitant, et ita cum erubescentia sua pereunt.” Tertull. de Pœnit. [c. 10.]

1

[Idem ibid. “Inter fratres atque conservos, ubi communis spes, metus, gaudium, dolor, passio, (quia communis spiritus de communi Domino et Patre) quid tu hos aliud quam te opinaris? Quid consortes casuum tuorum ut plausores fugis? Non potest corpus de unius membri vexatione lætum agere: condoleat universum, et ad remedium conlaboret necesse est.”]

2

[De Laps. c. 14. “Quanto et fide majores et timore meliores sunt, qui quamvis nullo sacrificii aut libelli facinore constricti, quoniam tamen de hoc vel cogitaverunt, hoc ipsum apud sacerdotes Dei dolenter, et simpliciter confitentes, exomologesin conscientiæ faciunt, animi sui pondus exponunt, salutarem medelam parvis licet et modicis vulneribus exquirunt.”]

3

[Qui necessitatem sacrificandi pecunia apud magistratum redimebant, accepta securitatis syngrapha Libellatici dicebantur.]

1

[For an account of the literary history of these Homilies, and of the various opinions which have been entertained regarding their origin, see Oudin. Comment. de Scriptor. Eccles. i. 390-426. He does not mention Salvian [† c.485.] as one of the supposed authors, but after deciding against the claims of Eucherius [of Lyons, † c. 449.] and Hilary of Arles [† c. 449.], acquiesces in that of Faustus Regiensis [of Riez, † 493].]

2

Hom. i. de initio Quadragesimæ, [tom. v. par. 1. p. 552. Biblioth. Patr. Col. Agripp. 1618. “Quod autem, charissimi, videmus aliquoties etiam illas animas pœnitentiam petere, quæ ab ineunte adolescentia consecrata pretiosum Deo thesaurum devoverunt, inspirare hoc Deum pro Ecclesiæ nostræ profectibus noverimus: ac medicinam quam invadunt sani discant quærere vulnerati: ut bonis etiam parva deflentibus, ingentia ipsi mala lugere consuescant: ac si quando jam illa persona quæ forte minus indiget pœnitentia aliquid fide dignum atque compunctum sub oculis Ecclesiæ gerit, fructum suum etiam de aliena ædificatione multiplicat, et meritum suum de lucro proficientis accumulat; ut dum perfectione illius emendatur alterius vita, spiritali fœnore ad ipsum boni operis recurrat usura.”]

1

Hom. 10, ad Monachos, [p. 586, 7. “Si levia sunt fortasse delicta; verbi gratia, si homo vel in sermone, vel in aliqua reprehensibili voluntate, si oculo peccavit, aut corde; verborum et cogitationum maculæ quotidiana oratione curandæ, et privata compunctione tergendæ sunt. Si vero quisque conscientiam suam intus interrogans, facinus aliquod capitale commisit, aut si fidem suam falso testimonio expugnavit ac prodidit, ac sacrum veritatis nomen perjurii temeritate violavit; si velum baptismi vel tunicam et speciosam virginitatis holosericam cœno commaculati pudoris infecit; si in semet ipso novum hominem nece hominis occidit; si per augures et divinos atque incantatores captivum se Diabolo tradidit: hæc atque hujusmodi commissa expiari penitus communi et mediocri vel secreta satisfactione non possunt, sed graves causæ] graviores et acriores et publicas curas requirunt.”

2

Hom. 8. ad Monach. [p. 585. “Respondeat mihi illa anima, quæ peccatum suum confusione mortifera in conspectu fratrum sic agnoscere erubuit, quomodo vitare debuisset; quid faciet, cum ante tribunal divinum, cum ante cælestis militiæ fuerit præsentata consessum?”]

1

Lib. ii. de Pœnitentia, c. 9. [“Plerique futuri supplicii metu, peccatorum suorum conscii, pœnitentiam petunt; et cum acceperint, publicæ supplicationis revocantur pudore.” t. ii. p. 434 e.]

2

[De Ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, in Appendix to S. Augustine’s works, ascribed doubtfully to Gennadius, † 493.] Cap. 53. [“Quamvis quis peccato mordeatur, peccandi non habeat cætero voluntatem, et communicaturus satisfaciat lacrymis et orationibus, et confidens de Domini miseratione, qui peccata piæ confessioni donare consuevit, accedat ad Eucharistiam intrepidus et securus. Sed hoc de illo dico quem capitalia et mortalia peccata non gravant: nam quem mortalia crimina post Baptismum commissa premunt, hortor prius publica pœnitentia satisfacere, et ita sacerdotis judicio reconciliatum communioni sociari, si vult non ad judicium et ad condemnationem sui Eucharistiam percipere.”]

p

with conscience E.

q

now held E.

1

Cypr. Epist. 12. [al. 17. c. 1. ap. Bellarmin. de Pœnit. lib. iii. c. 7. “Cum in minoribus delictis, quæ non in Dominum committuntur, pœnitentia agatur justo tempore, et exomologesis fiat, inspecta vita ejus, qui agit pœnitentiam, nec ad communicationem venire quis possit, nisi prius illi ab Episcopo et Clero manus fuerit imposita, quanto magis in his gravissimis et extremis delictis caute omnia et moderate secundum disciplinam Domini observari oportet!” t. ii. 39. ed Fell.]

2

“Inspecta vita ejus qui agit pœnitentiam.”

3

Conc. Nic. par. 2. c. 12. “Pro fide et conversatione pœnitentium.” [ἐϕ’ ἅπασι δὲ τούτοις προσήκει ἐξετάζειν τὴν προαίρεσιν καὶ τὸ εἰ̑δος τη̑ς μετανοίας. ὅσοι μὲν γὰρ καὶ ϕόβῳ καὶ δάκρυσι καὶ ὑπομονῃ̑ καὶ ἀγαθοεργίαις τὴν ἐπιστροϕὴν ἔργῳ καὶ οὐ σχήματι ἐπιδείκνυνται, οὑ̑τοι πληρώσαντες τὸν χρόνον τὸν ὡρισμένον τη̑ς ἀκροάσεως εἰκότως τω̑ν εὐχω̑ν κοινωνήσουσι· μετὰ του̑ ἐξει̑ναι τῳ̑ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ϕιλανθρωπότερόν τι περὶ αὐτω̑ν βουλεύσασθαι. t. ii. 36.]

1

[*] De Pœnitent. dist. i. cap. Mensuram. [in Corp. Jur. Can. p. 368. “Mensuram temporis in agenda pœnitentia idcirco non satis aperte præfigunt canones pro uno quoque crimine, ut de singulis dicant qualiter unumquodque emendandum sit, sed magis in arbitrio sacerdotis intelligentis relinquendum statuunt, quia apud Deum non tam valet mensura temporis quam doloris.”]

*

The heading of the last note inserted here. D.

2

Ambros. de Pœnitentia, lib. ii. cap. 10. [“Facilius inveni qui innocentiam servaverint quam qui congrue egerint pœnitentiam.” t. ii. 436.]

r

Nice E.

3

Greg. Nyss. Orat. in eos qui alios acerbe judicant. [tom. ii. p. 136. ed. Par. 1638. “Eadem in vultu hilaritas, idem in corporis cultu victuque splendor. Somno ad satietatem usque indulgemus, negotiis et occupationibus animo sedulitatis oblivionem injicimus, pœnitentiæ nomen inane duntaxat, et nullis expressum factis retinemus.”]

s

vii. D.

1

Origen. in Psal. xxxvii. [Hom. ii. § 6. “Circumspice diligentius cui debeas confiteri peccatum tuum. Proba prius medicum, cui debeas causam languoris exponere, . . . ut ita demum si quid ille dixerit, qui se prius et eruditum medicum ostenderit et misericordem, si quid consilii dederit, facias, et sequaris, si intellexerit, et præviderit talem esse languorem tuum qui in conventu totius Ecclesiæ exponi debeat et curari, ex quo fortassis et cæteri ædificari poterunt, et tu ipse facile sanari, multa hoc deliberatione, et satis periti medici illius consilio procurandum est.” t. ii. 688.]

2

Ambros. de Pœnitentia, lib. ii. cap. 9. “Hi non tam se solvere cupiunt quam. Sacerdotem ligare.”

3

Aug. in Hom. de Pœnit. [Serm. 351. c. 4. “Ab ipsa mente talis sententia proferatur, ut se indignum homo judicet participatione corporis et sanguinis Domini: ut qui separari a regno cælorum timet per ultimam sententiam summi Judicis, per ecclesiasticam disciplinam a sacramento cælestis panis interim separetur. . . . Cum ipse in se protulerit severissimæ medicinæ, sed tamen medicinæ sententiam, veniat ad antistites, per quos illi in Ecclesia claves ministrantur; et tanquam bonus jam incipiens esse filius, maternorum membrorum ordine custodito, a præpositis sacramentorum accipiat satisfactionis suæ modum.” tom. v. 1356, 1359. Hooker quotes from the Decret. Gratian. de Pœnit. dist. i. c. “ in actione. ” “Cum tanta est plaga peccati, atque impetus morbi, ut medicamenta corporis et sanguinis Domini differenda sint, auctoritate antistitis debet se quisque ab altari removere ad agendam pœnitentiam, et eadem auctoritate reconciliari.” col. 1673. ed. Lugd. 1572.]

1

Hom. de Pœnit. Ninivit. [Bibl. Patr. Col. t. v. par. i. p. 569. “Dicit Novatianus, ‘Pœnitentiam agere debeo, non accipere; necessaria mihi non est vel admonitio vel intercessio sacerdotis.’ Non ita est. Nam Deus qui erudiendis peccatoribus per prophetam adjutoria procurat, neminem sibi per se sufficere posse confirmat. Errant itaque qui inter dantem et accipientem velut corporale intervenire arbitrantur officium. Quid est enim dare, nisi remedia demonstrare peccatis? Quid est accipere, nisi obedire præceptis, lacrymis et jejuniis interpellare miserationis auditum?”]

2

Aug. Hom. de Pœnit. [i. Serm. 351, c. 4. § 9.] citatur a Grat. [de Pœnit.] dist. 1. c. judicet.

1

[“Judicet ergo seipsum homo in istis voluntate, dum potest, et mores convertat in melius : . . . et tanquam bonus incipiens esse . . . ] a præpositis sacramentorum accipiat satisfactionis suæ modum.”

2

James v. 16.

3

Cassian. coll. 20. c. 8. [7. Bibl. Patr. Col. t. v. pars ii. 207 E. “Si te fragilem fecerit quælibet mentis ignavia, oratione saltem atque intercessione sanctorum remedia vulneribus tuis humilitatis affectu submissus implora.”]

t

Nisse E.

4

Greg. Nyss. Orat. in eos qui alios acerbe judicant, [t. ii. p. 137. “Afflige te, fratresque benevolos atque unanimes adhibe, qui simul doleant, adjumentoque sint, ut libereris. Ostende mihi amaras atque uberes lacrymas tuas, ut meas ego quoque commisceam.” ed. Paris. 1638. This homily has not been published in Greek.]

5

[Ibid.]

u

thine affection D.

1

Leo i. Ep. 7, 8. [al. 136, t. i. 718, ed. Quesnel.] ad Episc. Campan. citat. a Grat. de Pœn. d. 1. c. sufficit. [“Sufficit illa confessio, quæ primum Deo offertur, tum etiam sacerdoti, qui pro delictis pœnitentium precator accedit.”]

2

Ambros. lib. ii. de Pœnit. c. 10. [“Fleat pro te Mater Ecclesia, et culpam tuam lacrymis lavet; videat te Christus mœrentem, ut dicat, Beati tristes, quia gaudebitis. Amat ut pro uno multi rogent.” t. ii. p. 436.]

x

suppliant E.

3

Tertull. de Pœnit. [c. 10. “In uno et altero Ecclesia est, Ecclesia vero Christus. Ergo cum te ad fratrum genua protendis, Christum contractas, Christum exoras. Æque illi cum super te lacrymas agunt, Christus patitur, Christus Patrem deprecatur. Facile impetratur semper, quod Filius postulat.”]

y

supplicant E.

z

their om. E.

a

viii. D.

1

Leo i. Ep. 7, 8. [“Quamvis plenitudo fidei videatur esse laudabilis, quæ propter Dei timorem apud homines erubescere non veretur: tamen quia non omnium hujusmodi sunt peccata ut ea quæ pœnitentiam poscunt non timeant publicare, removeatur tam improbabilis consuetudo, ne multi a pœnitentiæ remediis arceantur, dum aut erubescunt aut metuunt inimicis suis sua facta reserari, quibus possint legum constitutione percelli . . . . Tunc enim demum plures ad pœnitentiam poterunt provocari, si populi auribus non publicetur conscientia confitentis.” Ep. 136. t. i. 719.]

2

[E. H. vii. 16. ἐν τῳ̑ παραιτει̑σθαι συνομολογει̑ν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν χρεὼν, ϕορτικὸν, ὡς εἰκὸς, ἐξ ἀρχη̑ς τοι̑ς ἱερευ̑σιν ἔδοξεν, ὡς ἐν θεάτρῳ ὑπὸ μάρτυρι τῳ̑ πλήθει τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἐξαγγέλλειν· πρεσβύτερον δὲ τω̑ν ἄριστα πολιτευομένων ἐχέμυθόν τε καὶ ἔμϕρονα, ἐπὶ του̑το τετάχασιν· ᾠ̑ δὴ προσίοντες οἱ ἡμαρτηκότες, τὰ βεβιωμένα ὡμολόγουν. ὁ δὲ, πρὸς τὴν ἑκάστου ἁμαρτίαν, ὅ, τι χρὴ ποιη̑σαι ἢ ἐκτίσαι ἐπιτίμιον θεὶς ἀπέλυε, παρὰ σϕω̑ν αὐτω̑ν τὴν δίκην εἰσπραξομένους.]

3

Rather Nicephorus, referring apparently to Socrates. His words are, (lib. xii. c. 28.) Ναυατιανοι̑ς οὐδεμία περὶ τούτου ἔστι σπουδή. λόγος γε μὴν ἔχει καὶ δι’ αὐτοὺς μα̑λλον του̑τ’ ἐπινοηθη̑ναι τὸ ἔργον, μὴ θελήσαντας κοινωνη̑σαι τοι̑ς ἐπὶ τῳ̑ διωγμῳ̑ Δεκίου ἀρνησαμένοις, ἔπειτα μεταμεληθει̑σιν· οἱ γὰρ τηνικάδε ἐπίσκοποι τῳ̑ Ναυάτου ἀντιϕερόμενοι δόγματι τὸν ἐπὶ τω̑ν μετανοούντων πρεσβύτερον ἐϕ’ ἑκάστῃ ἐκκλησίᾳ κατέστησαν, τῳ̑ ἐκκλησιαστικῳ̑ κανόνι ἑπόμενοι.]

b

more E.

c

specially E.

4

Facinoris viam monstrat innoxiis, qui nocentibus post scelera blanditur. [from D.]

d

ix. D.

1

[From the schism of Novatian, circ. AD 253, to the episcopate of Nectarius, circ. 391.]

2

[Soc. v. 19. Γυνή τις τω̑ν εὐγενω̑ν προση̑λθεν τῳ̑ ἐπὶ τη̑ς μετανοίας πρεσβυτέρῳ· καὶ κατὰ μέρος ἐξομολογει̑ται τὰς ἁμαρτίας, ἃς ἐπεπράχει μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα. Ὁ δὲ πρεσβύτερος παρήγγειλε τῃ̑ γυναικὶ νηστεύειν καὶ συνεχω̑ς εὔχεσθαι, ἵνα σὺν τῃ̑ όμολογίᾳ καὶ ἔργον τι δεικνύειν ἔχῃ τη̑ς μετανοίας ἄξιον. Ἡ δὲ γυνὴ προβαίνουσα καὶ ἄλλο πται̑σμα έαυτη̑ς κατηγόρει· ἔλεγε γὰρ, ὡς εἴῃ συγκαθευδήσας αὐτῃ̑ τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας διάκονος. Soz. vii. 16. Προσταχθει̑σα παρὰ τούτου του̑ πρεσβυτέρου νηστεύειν καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἱκετεύειν, τούτου χάριν ἐν τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ διατρίβουσα, ἐκπεπορνευ̑σθαι παρ’ ἀνδρὸς διακόνου κατεμήνυσεν. By this latter account it appears not only that the exposure gave offence, but also that the method of penance prescribed in the case led to a new crime. Such is the construction put on the words of Sozomen by Nicephorus, E. H. xii. 28, and in Hist. Tripart. ix. 35, as also by Valesius in his note on the place of Socrates.]

3

E. H. v. 19. ἠγανάκτουν γὰρ οὐ μόνον ἐπὶ τῳ̑ γενομένῳ, ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ βλασϕημίαν ἡ πρα̑ξις καὶ ὕβριν προὐξένησεν. Διασυρομένων δὲ ἐκ τούτου τω̑ν ἱερωμένων ἀνδρω̑ν, Εὐδαίμων τις τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας πρεσβύτερος, Ἀλεξανδρεὺς τὸ γένος, γνώμην τῳ̑ ἐπισκόπῳ δίδωσι Νεκταρίῳ περιελει̑ν μὲν τὸν ἐπὶ τη̑ς μετανοίας πρεσβύτερον· συγχωρη̑σαι δὲ ἕκαστον, τῳ̑ ἰδίῳ συνειδότι τω̑ν μυστηρίων μετέχειν· οὕτω γὰρ μόνως ἔχειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὸ ἀβλασϕήμητον. This statement, made by Socrates of the cause of the abolition of the office of penitentiary in the time of Nectarius, Hooker seems to have referred to its establishment in the third century.]

1

[Ubi supr. Ἤδη τη̑ς ἀρχαιότητος, οἰ̑μαι, καὶ τη̑ς κατ’ αὐτὴν σεμνότητος καὶ ἀκριβείας, εἰς ἀδιάϕορον καὶ ἡμελημένον ἠ̑θος κατὰ μικρὸν διολισθαίνειν ἀρξαμένης· ἐπεὶ πρότερον, ὡς ἡγου̑μαι, μείω τὰ ἁμαρτήματα ἠ̑ν, ὑπό τε αἰδου̑ς τω̑ν ἐξαγγελλόντων τὰς σϕω̑ν αὐτω̑ν πλημμελείας, καὶ ὑπὸ ἀκριβείας τω̑ν ἐπὶ του̑το τεταγμένων κριτω̑ν.]

e

open E.

f

thought E.

2

[Socr. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. cap. 19. fin. Ταυ̑τα παρὰ του̑ Εὐδαίμονος ἀκούσας ἐγὼ τῃ̑ γραϕῃ̑ τῃ̑δε παραδου̑ναι ἐθάρρησα· . . Ἐγὼ δὲ πρὸς τὸν Εὐδαίμονα πρότερον ἔϕην· ἡ συμβουλή σου, ὡ̑ πρεσβύτερε, εἰ συνήνεγκεν τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἢ εἰ μὴ, Θεὸς ἂν εἰδείη. Ὁρω̑ δὲ ὅτι πρόϕασιν παρέσχε του̑ μὴ ἐλέγχειν ἀλλήλων τὰ ἁμαρτήματα, μηδὲ ϕυλάττειν τὸ του̑ Ἀποστόλου παράγγελμα τὸ λέγον, Μηδὲ συγκοινωνει̑τε τοι̑ς ἔργοις τοι̑ς ἀκάρποις του̑ σκότους, μα̑λλον δὲ καὶ ἐλέγχετε.]

g

mine E.

1

[Sozom. Hist. Eccles. l. vii. c. 16. ἐπηκολούθησαν δὲ σχεδὸν οἱ πανταχου̑ ἐπίσκοποι . . . καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνου του̑το κρατου̑ν διέμεινεν.]

h

x. D.

2

“Tanta hæc Socrati testanti præstanda est fides, quanta cæteris hæreticis de suis dogmatibus tractantibus; quippe Novatianus secta cum fuerit, quam vere ac sincere hæc scripserit adversus pœnitentiam in Ecclesia administrari solitam, quemlibet puto posse facile judicare.” Baron. tom. i. ann. Chr. 56. [c. 26.]

“Sozomenum eandem prorsus causam fovisse certum est.” Ibid.

“Nec Eudæmonem illum alium quam Novatianæ sectæ hominem fuisse credendum est.” Ibid. [c. 27.]

“Sacerdos ille merito a Nectario est gradu amotus officioque depositus, quo facto Novatiani (ut mos est hæreticorum) quamcunque licet levem, ut sinceris dogmatibus detrahant, accipere ausi occasionem, non tantum Presbyterum pœnitentiarium in ordinem redactum, sed et pœnitentiam ipsam una cum eo fuisse proscriptam, calumniose admodum conclamarunt, cum tamen illa potius theatralis fieri interdum solita confessio peccatorum fuerit abrogata.” Ibid. [c. 34.]

i

so forward E.

k

both om. E.

l

corresponding E.; correspondency E. 1648.

1

[Ubi supr. Ναυατιανοι̑ς μὲν, οἱ̑ς οὐ λόγος μετανοίας, οὐδὲν τούτου ἐδέησεν.]

2

[Lib. vii. cap. 16. Τὸ μὴ παντελω̑ς ἁμαρτει̑ν θειοτέρας ἢ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἐδει̑το ϕύσεως· μεταμελουμένοις δὲ καὶ πολλάκις ἁμαρτάνουσι συγγνώμην νέμειν ὁ θεὸς παρεκελεύσατο.]

3

[Socr. v. 10. ὁ βασιλεὺς (Theodosius) θαυμάσας αὐτω̑ν τὴν περὶ τοὺς οἰκείους κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὁμόνοιαν, νόμῳ ἐκέλευε τω̑ν μὲν οἰκείων κρατει̑ν ἀδεω̑ς εὐκτηρίων τόπων, ἔχειν δὲ καὶ προνόμια τὰς ἐκκλησίας αὐτω̑ν, ἅπερ καὶ οἱ τη̑ς αὐτου̑ πίστεως ἔχουσιν.]

1

Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 19 [*] . [μόνοι οἱ του̑ Ὁμοουσίου ϕρονήματος, καὶ οἱ τούτοις κατὰ τὴν πίστιν ὁμόϕρονες Ναυατιανοὶ, τὸν ἐπὶ τη̑ς μετανοίας πρεσβύτερον παρῃτήσαντο.]

*

This reference not in D.

m

xi. D.

2

Bellarm. de Pœnit. lib. iii. c. 14. [p. 1399, 1400.] “Apud veteres nomine pœnitentium, soli publici pœnitentes, intelligi solebant.”

“Nullo modo fieri potuit, ut unus presbyter satisfaceret tantæ multitudini, quantam Constantinopoli, vel in aliis civitatibus, pœnitentiæ remedio indigebat: non igitur omnes eum Presbyterum adire cogebantur, sed ii solum, qui pœnitentiam publicam suscipiebant.”

“Sozomenus, ubi disertis verbis affirmasset, constitutionem de Presbytero pœnitentiali, quam prisci Episcopi invexerant, et Nectarius postea Constantinopoli abrogaverat, Romæ potissimum accurate servari; continuo explicare cœpit ritum pœnitentiæ publicæ, quæ Romæ suo tempore servabatur: igitur constitutio illa ad solos pœnitentes publicos pertinebat.”

“Colligimus, constitutionem Episcoporum, de qua historici loquuntur, id solum complexam, ut qui publice lapsi essent post Baptismum, ii ad sacram Eucharistiam non accederent, nisi Presbytero pœnitentiario privatim omnia peccata sua confessi essent, et deinde ad ejus arbitrium publice coram cœtu Ecclesiæ peccata publica detexissent, et pœnitentiam publicam egissent . . . Ante exortam hæresin Novati, nemo cogebatur certum Presbyterum adire, neque peccata ulla publice confiteri . . . Cæterum post Novati hæresin excitatam, placuit Episcopis aliquid addere, ne Novatiani Catholicos reprehendere possent quod nimis facile lapsos ad communionem admitterent.”]

n

of om. D.

1

Τοὺς ἐπὶ τη̑ς μετανοίας περιελει̑ν πρεσβυτέρους. [Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 19.]

o

convict E.

p

But E.

q

whensoever E.

1

Sozom. Hist. Eccles. lib. vii. c. 16. [vid. supr. p. 33, note 2.]

r

Prelate E.

s

The following clause to the repetition of the word burthensome is omitted in E.

t

confessions E.

u

in the first E.

2

Fab. Decret. Ep. 2. tom. i. Conc. p. 358. [“Illi qui illa perpetrant, de quibus Apostolus ait ‘Quoniam qui talia agunt regnum Dei non consequentur,’ valde cavendi sunt, et ad emendationem, si voluntarie noluerint, compellendi; quia infamiæ maculis sunt aspersi, et in barathrum delabuntur, nisi eis sacerdotali auctoritate subventum fuerit.” Conc. ed. Labb. et Cossart. i. 643. The epistle is believed to be spurious.]

x

xii. D.

y

Hessels E.

1

Theological professor at Louvain: present at the Council of Trent, where he died 1551. (Fleury, Hist. Eccl. l. 147. c. 104.) Not to be confounded with J. Hessels. v. Biog. Univ. Fleury, l. 170. c. 13.

1

[De Pœnit. iii. 14. p. 1399.]

2

“Non [nec E.] est quod sibi blandiantur illi de facto Nectarii, cum id potius secretorum peccatorum confessionem comprobet, et non aliud quam Presbyterum pœnitentialem illo officio suo moverit; uti amplissime deducit D. Johannes Hasselius” [so E.; v. note y above]. Pamel. in Cypr. lib. [de Lapsis, p. 251.] annot. 98. et in lib. Tertull. de Pœnit. annot. 1. [p. 200. Paris. 1598.]

z

xiii. D.

a

fourthly ins. E.

b

fifthly ins. E.

c

sixthly ins. E.

d

profession D.

1

“Sacerdos imponit manum subjecto, reditum Spiritus Sancti invocat, atque ita eum qui traditus fuerat Satanæ in interitum carnis, ut spiritus salvus fieret, indicta in populum oratione altari reconciliat.” Hieron. advers. Lucif. [§ 5. t. ii. p. 175. a. ed. Vallarsii.]

2

Ambros. de Pœnit. lib. ii. cap. 10. [“An quisquam ferat ut erubescas Deum rogare, qui non erubescis rogare hominem? et pudeat te Deo supplicare, quem non lates, cum te non pudeat peccata tua homini, quem lateas, confiteri? An testes precationis et conscios refugis, cum si homini satisfaciendum sit, multos necesse est ambias obsecres, ut dignentur intervenire; ad genua te ipse prosternas, osculeris vestigia, filios offeras culpæ adhuc ignaros, paternæ etiam veniæ precatores? Hoc ergo in ecclesia facere fastidis, ut Deo supplices, ut patrocinium tibi ad obsecrandum sanctæ plebis requiras: ubi nihil est quod pudori esse debeat, nisi non fateri, cum omnes simus peccatores; ubi ille laudabilior, qui humilior, ille justior, qui sibi abjectior.” t. iii. 435.]

1

Chrys. Hom. Περὶ μετανοίας καὶ ἐξομολογήσεως. Παρὰ τοι̑ς λογισμοι̑ς γενέσθω τω̑ν πεπλημμελημένων ἡ ἐξέτασις· ἀμάρτυρον ἔστω τὸ δικαστήριον· ὁ Θεὸς ὁράτω μόνος ἐξομολογούμενον. [See hereafter on § 16.]

e

punishment E.

2

Cassian. Collat. 20. c. 8. [7. Bibl. Pat. Colon. t. v. p. ii. 207. “Quod si verecundia retrahente revelare coram hominibus erubescis, illi quem latere non possunt confiteri ea jugi supplicatione non desinas, . . . qui et absque illius verecundiæ publicatione curare, et sine improperio peccata donare consuevit.”]

3

Prosper de Vita Contempl. lib. ii. c. 7. [“Deum sibi facilius placabunt illi, qui non humano convicti judicio sed ultro crimen cognoscunt: qui aut propriis illud confessionibus produnt, aut nescientibus aliis quales occulti sunt, ipsi in se voluntariæ excommunicationis sententiam ferunt; et ab altari cui ministrabant non animo sed officio separati vitam tanquam mortuam plangunt, certi quod reconciliato sibi efficacis pœnitentiæ fructibus Deo non solum amissa recipiant, sed etiam cives supernæ civitatis effecti ad gaudia sempiterna perveniant.” Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. pars iii. p. 63.]

f

First ins. E.

g

Secondly E; and the mistake is continued throughout this enumeration.

h

sin E.

i

offenders E.

k

xiiii. D.

1

Calv. Inst. lib. iii. cap. 4. § 7. [“Miror autem qua fronte ausint contendere confessionem de qua loquuntur juris esse divini; cujus equidem vetustissimum esse usum fatemur, sed quem facile evincere possumus olim fuisse liberum.”]

l

to man om. E.

1

“Sed tantum ut Ecclesiæ sit aliqua ratione satisfactum, et omnes unius pœnitentia confirmentur, qui fuerant unius peccatis et scandalis vulnerati.” Sadeel. [i. e. Antoine la Roche de Chandieu, a leading French Protestant teacher, first at Paris, then at Geneva, 1534-1591. He hebraized his name— Sadeel, ‘Chant de Dieu,’ Zamariel, ‘Champ de Dieu.’ Biog. Univ.] in Psal. xxxii. ver. 5. [Op. p. 906. ed. 1599.]

2

Harm. Confess. sect. viii. ex 5. cap. Confess. Bohem. [p. 143. Genev. 1581.] “Docetur et hoc apud eos; quorum peccatum est publicum, atque ideo scandalum publicum, quando Deus iis largitur pœnitentiæ spiritum, externam pœnitentiæ testificationem non debere abesse; et hac quidem de causa, ut sit argumentum et testimonium, quo probetur seu planum fiat lapsos peccatores qui pœnitentiam agunt vere se convertere. Etiam ut sit nota reconciliationis cum Ecclesia et proximo; atque exemplo aliis, quod reformident et vereantur.”]

m

example E.

3

[Ibid. “Ita instituuntur pœnitentes, ut curatores animarum suarum accedant, et coram ipsis confiteantur Deo, peccata sua . . . . ut hoc modo dolorem suum, quo afficiuntur, et quam sibi propter peccata displiceant, indicare, et consilium et doctrinam quomodo deinceps ea effugiant, et institutionem atque consolationem impeditis conscientiis suis, itemque absolutionem ex potestate clavium, et remissionem peccatorum per ministerium evangelii a Christo institutum peculiariter singuli expetere possint, et a Deo suo consequi se sciant, et quando hæc a ministris eis præstantur, accipere ab eis, tanquam rem a Deo ad commodandum ipsis et salubriter inserviendum institutam, cum fiducia debent, et remissione peccatorum sine dubitatione frui, secundum verbum Domini, ‘Cui peccata remiseritis, remittuntur eis.’ Atque hac fide indubitata nitentes, certi et animo confirmato esse debent per ministerium harum clavium, de potestate Christi et verbo ipsius omnia ipsis peccata remitti.” The Saxon confession runs thus: “De confessione privata facienda pastoribus adfirmamus ritum privatæ absolutionis in Ecclesia retinendum esse; et constanter retinemus, propter multas graves causas.” Ap. Syntagm. Confess. pars ii. p. 77. Genev. 1654.]

n

all om. E.

1

[John xx. 23. ap.] cap. 5. Confess. Bohem.

o

they om. D.

p

xv. D.

q

guilty om. E.

1

As for private confession, abuses and errors set apart, we condemn it not, but leave it at liberty. Jewel, Defens. p. 156. [158. ed. 1611. “Abuses and errors removed, and especially the priest being learned, as we have said before, we mislike no manner confession, whether it be private or public.”]

r

save E.

s

themselves fearful E.

t

the om. D.

1

“Nos a communione quenquam prohibere non possumus, quamvis hæc prohibitio nondum sit mortalis, sed medicinalis, nisi aut sponte confessum, aut aliquo sive seculari sive ecclesiastico judicio accusatum atque convictum. Quis enim sibi utrumque audet assumere, ut cuiquam ipse sit et accusator et judex?” [Rhenan. Admon. de Dogm. Tertull. [Basel. 1521. Paris 1566.] inter Opp. Tertull. p. 903, ed. Par. 1635.]

u

it is not in us E.

x

or om. E.

1

“Non enim temere et quodammodo libet, [quomodolibet?] sed per judicium, ab Ecclesiæ communione separandi sunt mali, ut si per judicium auferri non possint, tolerentur potius, velut paleæ cum tritico.” [et paullo supra.] “Multi corriguntur, ut Petrus; multi tolerantur, ut Judas; multi nesciuntur, donec veniat Dominus, et illuminabit abscondita tenebrarum.” Rhenan. [Beatus Rhenanus 1485-1547] admonit. de dogmat. Tertull. [Ibid.]

y

fors. elude. Fulm.

1

Lib. iii. de Pœnit. [called in the old editions of St. Ambrose, “Exhortatio ad Pœnitentiam:” but omitted by the Benedictine editors on the ground of its being found word for word in St. Augustin’s Works, t. v. 1506-8, Hom. cccxciii: ascribed by some to Cæsarius of Arles. “Qui positus in ultima necessitate ægritudinis suæ acceperit pœnitentiam, et mox reconciliatus fuerit, et vadit, i.e. exit de corpore; fateor vobis, non illinegamus quod petit, sed non præsumo dicere quia bene hinc exit. Non præsumo, non polliceor, non dico, non vos fallo, non vos decipio, non vobis promitto . . . Nunquid dico, damnabitur? non dico: sed nec liberabitur dico. . . . Prorsus nescio de Dei voluntate. Vis te frater a dubio liberari? vis quod incertum est evadere? Age pœnitentiam dum sanus es. . . Si autem tunc agere vis ipsam pœnitentiam quando peccare jam non potes, peccata te dimiserunt, non tu illa.”]

z

clearly om. E.

a

xvi. D.

1

“Non dico tibi, ut te prodas in publicum, neque ut te apud alios accuses, sed obedire to volo Prophetæ dicenti, (Ps. xxxii. 5.) ‘revela Domino viam tuam.’ Ante Deum confitere peccata tua.” Chrysost. Hom. 31. ad Hebr. [t. iv. p. 198. ed. Froben. Basil] “Peccata tua dicito, ut ea deleat; si confunderis alicui dicere quæ peccasti, dicito ea quotidie in anima. Non dico ut confitearis conservo qui exprobret; Deo dicito qui ea curat.” [Idem in Ps. l. t. i. p. 708, 10. ed. Savile.] “Non necesse est præsentibus testibus confiteri; solus te Deus confitentem videat.” Id. Hom. de Pœnit. et Confess. [t. v. 512.] “Rogo et oro ut crebrius Deo immortali confiteamini, et enumeratis vestris delictis veniam petatis. Non te in theatrum conservorum duco, non hominibus peccata tua conor detegere. [detegere cogo.] Repete coram Deo conscientiam tuam, te explica, ostende medico præstantissimo vulnera tua, et pete ab eo medicamentum.” Hom. 5. de incompreh. Dei Natura, itemque Homil. de Lazaro. [t. ii. 402; i. 77.]

b

reckoning up D.

2

Psalm xxxii. 5.

c

then om. E. inserted in D. by Archbishop Ussher.

d

i. D. with a considerable blank after the last line.

1

Tertull. de Pœnit. [cap. 5. “Qui per delictorum pœnitentiam instituerat Domino satisfacere, diabolo per aliam pœnitentiæ pœnitentiam satisfaciet: eritque tanto magis perosus Deo, quanto æmulo ejus acceptus.”]

e

fors. from Fulm.

2

Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Hom. 8 Τὸν Θεὸν ἐξιλεώσασθαι. [πω̑ς οὐ̑ν δυνήσῃ τὸν Θεὸν ἐξιλεώσασθαι, ὅταν μηδὲ ὅτι ἥμαρτες εἰδῃ̑ς; t. x. 71 E. ed. Bened.]

f

St. om. E.

3

Cypr. Ep. 8. [al. 11. c. 2. “Virgas et flagella sentimus, qui Deo nec bonis factis placemus, nec pro peccatis satisfacimus. ” ii. 23, 24. ed. Fell.]

g

this E.

1

Cyp. Ep. 26. [al. 31. c. 5. “Illi ipsi oculi, qui male simulacra conspexerunt, quæ illicita commiserant, satisfacientibus Deo fletibus deleant.” p. 64.]

2

Sent. lib. iv. dis. 16. [cap. 1. “In perfectione pœnitentiæ tria observanda sunt; s. compunctio cordis, confessio oris, satisfactio operis, . . . ut sicut tribus modis Deum offendimus, sc. corde, ore, et opere, ita tribus modis satisfaciamus. Sunt enim ‘tres peccati differentiæ’ (ut ait Augustinus:” [De Serm. Dom. in Monte, [Editor: gap in text] 12. t. iii. pars ii. p. 180.]) “in corde, et in facto, et in consuetudine vel verbo; tanquam tres mortes. Una quasi in domo, cum in corde consentitur libidini: altera quasi prolata jam extra potam, cum in factum procedit libidini assensio; tertia cum malæ consuetudinis tanquam mole premitur animus, vel noxiæ defensionis clypeo armatur, ‘quasi in sepulchro jam fœtens. Hæc sunt tria genera mortuorum, quæ Deus legitur suscitasse.’ Huic ergo triplici morti triplici remedio occurritur.” fol. 174. ed. Colon. 1513.]

h

works om. E.

i

ii. D.

1

Bonavent. [S. Bonaventura, great Franciscan Schoolman, 1221-1274.] in Sent. lib. iv. dist. xv. q. 9. [q. i. t. iii. pars ii. p. 199. “Etsi divina misericordia relinquat offensam homini dando gratiam, non tamen ita omnino relinquit, quin etiam exigat de offensa satisfactionem per justitiam Et quia homo non potuit pro tanta offensa satisfacere, ideo Deus dedit ei mediatorem qui satisfaceret pro offensa. Unde in sola fide passionis Christi remittitur omnis culpa, et sine fide ejus nullus justificatur. Et secundum hoc dicunt, quod omnis satisfactio nostra virtutem habet a satisfactione Christi.” Ed. Rom. 1596.]

k

iii. D.

l

thereby made E.

m

fruits E.

2

[De Pœnit. c. 9.]

n

iv. D.

1

Apoc. i. 6.

2

Cassian. col. 20. c. 8. [Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. p. ii. 207. “Etiamsi hæc omnia fecerimus, non erunt idonea ad expiationem scelerum nostrorum, nisi ea bonitas Domini clementiaque deleverit. Qui cum religiosi conatus obsequia supplici mente a nobis oblata perspexerit, exiguos parvosque conatus immensa libertate prosequitur, dicens, Ego sum, ego sum, qui deleo iniquitates tuas propter me, et peccatorum tuorum jam non recordabor.”]

o

v. D.

1

Basil. Hom. in Psalm. xxxvii. Παντὸς γὰρ πάθους ἀλλότριον τὸ Θει̑ον. [Πολλάκις δὲ εἴρηται, ὡς ὀργὴ καὶ θυμὸς του̑ Θεου̑ λεγόμενα ἐν ται̑ς θεοπνεύστοις γραϕαι̑ς οὐ πάθη σημαίνει (παντὸς γὰρ πάθους ἀλλότριον τὸ Θει̑ον·) κατὰ μεταϕορὰν δὲ τὰ τοιαυ̑τα εἴωθεν ὀνομάζειν ὁ τη̑ς γραϕη̑ς λόγος, ὡς καὶ ὀϕθαλμοὺς Θεου̑, κ.τ.λ. . . . οὕτως οὐ̑ν καὶ τὰς ἐπαγομένας πονηρίας τοι̑ς ἁμαρτάνουσι κατὰ Θεου̑ κρίσιν, σκυθρωπὰς οὔσας καὶ ἀλγεινὰς τοι̑ς πάσχουσιν, ὡσανεὶ ἐξ ὀργη̑ς καὶ θυμου̑ ἐπαγομένας ὑποτυπου̑ται. App. ad t. i. p. 363. bc The Homily is considered spurious.]

2

“Cum Deus irasci dicitur, [irascitur E.] non ejus significatur perturbatio qualis est in animo irascentis hominis, sed ex humanis motibus translato vocabulo, vindicta ejus, quæ non nisi justa est, iræ nomen accepit.” Aug. t. 3. Ench. c. 33. [t. vi. 209.]

3

“Pœnitentiæ compensatione redimendam proponit impunitatem Deus.” Tertull. de Pœniten. [c. 6.]

p

takes E.

q

which E.

4

Numb. xiv. [22]; xx. 12; xii. 14; 2 Sam. xii. 14.

5

“Cui Deus vere propitius est, non solum condonat [donat] peccata ne noceant ad futurum seculum, sed etiam castigat, ne semper peccare delectet.” Aug. in Psal. xcviii. [§ 11. iv. 1067.]

1

“Plectuntur quidam, quo cæteri corrigantur; exempla sunt omnium, tormenta paucorum.” Cypr. de Lapsis. [c. 13.]

r

punishment E.

s

now here D. E.

2

Ezech. xxxiii. 14.

t

turneth E.

3

Rom. ii. 5.

4

Isai. i. 18. [Abp. Ussher in E.]

u

as E.

5

“Si texit Deus peccata, noluit advertere; si noluit advertere, noluit animadvertere.” [in Psal. xxxi. (Heb. xxxii.) 1. t. iv. 176.]

6

[Psal. xxxii. 2.]

x

not E.

y

God E.

1

“Mirandum non est, et mortem corporis non fuisse eventuram homini, nisi præcessisset peccatum, cujus etiam talis pœna consequeretur, et post remissionem peccatorum eam fidelibus evenire, ut ejus timorem vincendo exerceretur fortitudo justitiæ . . . . Sic et mortem corporis propter hoc peccatum Deus homini inflixit, et post peccatorum remissionem propter exercendam justitiam non ademit.” Aug. de Pecc. Mer. et Rem. lib. ii. c. 34. [t. x. 69.]

2

“Ante remissionem esse illa supplicia peccatorum, post remissionem autem certamina exercitationesque justorum.” [August. ibid. p. 68.]

z

This word is erased by Abp. Ussher in D, and seemeth written in its place.

1

Cypr. Epist. 53 [52 ed. Pamel. 55 ed. Fell. p. 111. “Unus ille et verus Pater. . . . lætatur in pœnitentia filiorum suorum; nec iram pœnitentibus, aut plangentibus et lamentantibus pœnam comminatur, sed veniam magis et indulgentiam pollicetur.”]

a

himself E. (?)

b

meditation E.

c

fruit E.

d

vi. D.

e

Prayers E.

f

have E.

g

those E.

1

2 Cor. vii. 11.

2

Ἡμω̑ν γὰρ αὐτω̑ν δίκην λάβωμεν, ἡμω̑ν αὐτω̑ν κατηγορήσωμεν· οὕτως ἐξιλεωσόμεθα τὸν κριτήν. Chrys. Hom. 30. [31.] in Ep. ad Heb. [t. xii. 289. a.]

h

are E.

3

Cypr. de Lapsis. [c. ult. “Orare oportet impensius et rogare, . . in cilicio et sordibus volutari; post indumentum Christi perditum, nullum hic jam velle vestitum; post diaboli cibum malle jejunium; justis operibus incumbere, quibus peccata purgantur; eleemosynis frequenter insistere, quibus a morte animæ liberentur.” t. i. p. 137, 138.]

i

some E.

1

Salv. ad Eccl. Cathol. lib. i. [p. 367. tom. v. par. iii. Biblioth. Patr. Colon. “Nec offerat cum redemptionis fiducia, sed cum supplicationis officio: . . . Non pretio, sed affectu placent.”]

k

our E. [not 1648.]

l

vii. D.

m

sometime E.

n

dealing E.

o

habiletee D.

2

Levit. vi. 2.

p

neighbours E.

q

taken D.

r

swear E.

s

sometime E.

t

have E.

u

any om. E.

1

Num. v. 8.

2

[Maimon. tract. Teshuboth. § ii. in fine.]

x

that E.

y

guides E.

z

oppressions D.

3

“Quamdiu enim res, propter quam peccatum est, non redditur, si reddi potest; non agitur pœnitentia sed fingitur.” Sent. iv. d. 15. [c. 5. fol. 173. from S. Aug. Ep. ad Maced. 153. c. 6. t. ii. 532.]

a

viii. D.

b

suffices.

c

for E.

1

Cyp. Ep. lii. [al. 55, c. 10. “Si nos aliquis pœnitentiæ simulatione deluserit; Deus qui non deridetur, et qui cor hominis intuetur, de his quæ nos minus perspeximus judicet, et servorum sententiam Dominus emendet.” t. ii. p. 108.]

2

Basil. Ep. ad Amphil. c. 76. [77. ep. 217. t. iii. 329. Ὁ καταλιμπάνων τὴν νομίμως αὐτῳ̑ συναϕθει̑σαν γυναι̑κα, καὶ ἑτέραν συναγόμενος, κατὰ τὴν του̑ Κυρίου ἀπόϕασιν, τῳ̑ τη̑ς μοιχείας ὑποκει̑ται κρίματι· κεκανονίσται δὲ παρὰ τω̑ν πατέρων ἡμω̑ν, τοὺς τοιούτους ἐνιαυτὸν προσκλαίειν, διετίαν ἐπακροα̑σθαι, τριετίαν ὑποπίπτειν· τῳ̑ δὲ ἑβδόμῳ συνίστασθαι τοι̑ς πιστοι̑ς· καὶ οὕτω τη̑ς προσϕορα̑ς καταξιου̑σθαι, ἐὰν μετὰ δακρύων μετανοήσωσι· ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς τύπος κρατείτω καὶ ἐπὶ τω̑ν τὰς δύο ἀδελϕὰς λαμβανόντων εἰς συνοικέσιον, εἰ καὶ κατὰ διαϕόρους χρόνους.]

1

Concil. Nicen. can. 11. [περὶ τω̑ν παραβάντων χωρὶς ἀνάγκης, ἢ χωρὶς ἀϕαιρέσεως ὑπαρχόντων, ἢ χωρὶς κινδύνου, ἤ τινος τοιούτου, ὅ γέγονεν ἐπὶ τη̑ς τυραννίδος Λικινίου· ἔδοξε τῃ̑ συνόδῳ, κἂν ἀνάξιοι ἠ̑σαν ϕιλανθρωπίας, ὅμως χρηστεύσασθαι εἰς αὐτούς· ὅσοι οὐ̑ν γνησίως μεταμέλονται, τρία ἔτη ἐν ἀκροωμένοις ποιήσουσιν οἱ πιστοὶ, καὶ ἕπτα ἔτη ὑποπεσου̑νται· δύο δὲ ἔτη χωρὶς προσϕορα̑ς κοινωνήσουσι τῳ̑ λαῳ̑ τω̑ν προσευχω̑ν. Conc. t. i. 327. ed. Harduin.]

2

Καθόλου καὶ περὶ παντὸς οὑτινοσου̑ν ἐξοδεύοντος, αἰτου̑ντος [δὲ] μετασχει̑ν Εὐχαριστίας, ὁ ἐπίσκοπος μετὰ δοκιμασίας μεταδιδότω τη̑ς προσϕορα̑ς. can. 13. μετὰ δοκιμασίας, id est, manifestis indiciis deprehensa peccatoris seria conversione ad Deum. [ib. 329.]

3

Canon 12. [μετὰ του̑ ἐξει̑ναι τῳ̑ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ϕιλανθρωπότερόν τι περὶ αὐτω̑ν βουλεύσασθαι· ὅσοι δὲ ἀδιαϕόρως ἤνεγκαν, καὶ τὸ σχη̑μα του̑ μὴ εἰσιέναι εἰς τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀρκει̑ν αὐτοι̑ς ἡγήσαντο πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστροϕὴν, ἐξ ἅπαντος πληρούτωσαν τὸν χρόνον.]

d

Thirdly, being E.

e

ill E.

f

was E.

g

St. om. E.

1

[De Laps. c. 12.] “Jacens stantibus, et integris vulneratus, minatur, [et quod non statim Domini corpus inquinatis manibus accipiat, aut ore polluto Domini sanguinem bibat, sacerdotibus sacrilegus irascitur. Atque O tuam nimiam, furiose, dementiam. Irasceris ei qui abs te averter e Dei iram nititur, ei minaris qui pro te Domini misericordiam deprecatur.”]

1

[“Mandant aliquid martyres fieri, sed si justa, si licita, si non contra ipsum Dominum a Dei sacerdote facienda, si obtemperantis facilis et prona consensio, si petentis fuerit religiosa moderatio . . . Quid vero justius Noe? . . . Quid gloriosius Daniele? . . . Quid Job in operibus promptius? . . . Nec his tamen, si rogarent, concessurum se Deus dixit . . . Adeo non omne quod petitur in præjudicio petentis sed in dantis arbitrio est.” p. 187. ed. Baluz.] Exod. xii. [xxxii?] 31; Jerem. vii. 15. [16.]; Ezek. xiv. 14.

h

did himself E.

2

[Ibid. p. 186. “Emersit, fratres dilectissimi, novum genus cladis; et quasi parum persecutionis procella sævierit, accessit ad cumulum sub misericordiæ titulo malum fallens et blanda pernicies. Contra evangelii vigorem, contra Domini ac Dei legem temeritate quorundam laxatur incautis communicatio, irrita et falsa pax, periculosa dantibus, et nihil accipientibus profutura. Non quærunt sanitatis patientiam, nec veram de satisfactione medicinam. Pœnitentia de pectoribus excussa est, gravissimi extremique delicti memoria sublata est. Operiuntur morientium vulnera, et plaga lethalis altis et profundis visceribus infixa dissimulato dolore contegitur. A diaboli aris revertentes ad sanctum Domini sordidis et infectis nidore manibus accedunt. Mortiferos idolorum cibos adhuc pœne ructantes, exhalantibus etiam nunc scelus suum faucibus, et contagia funesta redolentibus, Domini corpus invadunt, quando occurrat scriptura divina et clamat et dicat, . . .‘Quicunque ederit carnem aut biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini.’ Spretis his omnibus atque contemptis, ante expiata delicta, ante exomologesin factam criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio et manu sacerdotis, ante offensam placatam indignantis Domini ac minantis, vis infertur corpori ejus et sanguini . . . Pacem putant esse, quam quidam verbis fallacibus venditant. . . Quid injuriam beneficium vocant? Quid impietatem vocabulo pietatis appellant? . . . Non concedit pacem facilitas ista, sed tollit: . . . Persecutio est hæc alia et alia tentatio, per quam subtilis inimicus impugnandis adhuc lapsis occulta populatione grassatur: ut lamentatio conquiescat, ut dolor sileat, ut delicti memoria evanescat, ut comprimatur pectorum gemitus, statuatur fletus oculorum, nec Dominum graviter offensum longa ac plena pœnitentia deprecetur.”]

i

rigour E.

k

altar E.

1

1 Cor. xi. 27.

l

rise E.

m

ix. D.

n

[ Here the Dublin MS. goes on. “For against y guiltines of sinne, and y danger of everlasting condemnation thereby incurred, confession and absolution succeeding y same, are, (as they take it,) a remedie sufficient, and therefore, what their pœnitentiaries doe thinck good to impose further, whether it be, a matter of Ave Maries dayly to be scored up, a journey of pilgrimage to bee undertaken, some few dishes of ordinarie dyet to be exchanged, offrings to be made att y shrines of Saints, or a little to be scraped of from men’s superfluitie, for releife of poore people, as in liew or exchange w God, whose Justice oweth us still (they say) notwithstanding our pardon, some temporall punishment, to be susteyned in y life to come, except wee quitt ourselves here with workes of y former kind, continued till y ballance of God’s most strict severity, shall finde y paynes wee have taken, æquivallent, with y faults for which wee satisfye.” All this passage Abp. Ussher has drawn lines through and across, with his pen; and noted in the margin, “(This followeth afterward, more properly, in the viith section of the next head, touching absolution.)” (See below, pp. 83, 84.)]

o

and children E.

p This marginal note om. E.

q satisfaction E. (?)

r indulgence E. (?)

s

unpossible E.

1

See below, p. 84.

t

unestimable E.

u

those E.

x

true om. E.

y

i. D.

1

Matt. ix. 2.

2

Marc. v. 21. [ii. 7]; Luc. v.21.

z

much as om. E.

a

ii. D.

b

due E.

1

“Ipsius (pœnitentis scil.) actio non est pars sacramenti, nisi quatenus potestati sacerdotali subjicitur, et a sacerdote dirigitur vel jubetur.” Bellarmin. de Pœnit. lib. i. c. 16. [t. iii. 942.]

2

“Christus instituit sacerdotes judices super terram cum ea potestate, ut, sine ipsorum sententia, nemo post baptismum lapsus reconciliari possit.” Bellarmin. de Pœnit. lib. iii. c. 2. [t. iii. 1028.]

3

[Matt. xviii. 18; John xx. 23.]

4

“Quod si possent rei [ei E.] sine sacerdotum sententia absolvi, non [enim E.] esset vera Christi promissio, Quæcunque,” c. Bellarm. ibid. [p. 1031.]

c

hampred himself so E.

5

[Luke xviii. 13.]

1

[Psalm li. 1.]

d

compassion E.

2

[Gen. xix. 22.]

e

iii. D.

f

is E.

g

granteth E.

3

“Christus ordinariam suam potestatem in apostolos transtulit; extraordinariam sibi reservavit. Ordinaria enim remedia in Ecclesia ad remittenda peccata sunt ab eo instituta, sacramenta; sine quibus peccata remittere Christus potest, sed extraordinarie et multo rarius hoc facit, quam per sacramenta. Noluit igitur homines [eos E.] extraordinariis remediis remissionis peccatorum confidere, quæ et rara sunt et incerta: sed ordinaria, et ut ita dicam, visibilia sacramentorum quærere remedia.” Maldonat. in Matt. xvi. 19. [p. 343.]

h

iv. D.

1

[The insertion of this paragraph here is probably a mistake; the whole of it except the quotation from St. Clement being found in other parts of this book.]

2

Matt. ix. 2; Mark ii. 7; Luke v. 21; Cypr. de Laps. c. 11 [*] .

*

14. D.

3

Πάντα ὀνίνησιν ὁ Κύριος καὶ πάντα ὠϕελει̑, καὶ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, καὶ ὡς Θεός. Τὰ μὲν ἁμαρτήματα ὡς Θεὸς ἀϕιεὶς, εἰς δὲ τὸ μὴ ἐξαμαρτάνειν παιδαγωγω̑ν ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Clem. Alexandr. Pædag. lib. i. cap. 3.

i

a man D.

4

Esai. xliii. 25.

5

“Veniam peccatis, quæ in ipsum commissa sunt, solus potest ille largiri, qui peccata nostra portavit, qui pro nobis doluit, quem Deus tradidit pro peccatis nostris.” [de Laps. c. 11.]

k

v. D.

l

unfallable E.

1

Victor. de Persecut. Vandal. [lib. ii. ap. Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. pars iii. p. 655-6. Hunneric, king of the Arian Vandals in Africa, had by one edict driven into exile bishops, priests, deacons and other members of the church catholic to the number of 4961. “Quantæ tunc multitudines de diversis regionibus et civitatibus ad visendos Dei martyres occurrerent populorum testantur viæ vel semitæ; quæ cum agmina venientium nequaquam caperent, per vertices montium et vallium occurrens turba fidelium inæstimabilis descendebat, cereos manibus gestantes, suosque infantulos vestigiis martyrum projicientes, ista voce clamabant: ‘Quibus nos miseros relinquitis, dum pergitis ad coronas? qui hos baptizaturi sunt parvulos fontibus aquæ perennis? qui nobis pœnitentiæ munus collaturi sunt, et reconciliationis indulgentia obstrictos peccatorum vinculis soluturi? quia vobis dictum est, ‘Quæcunque solveritis super terram erunt soluta et in cœlis.’ Qui nos solennibus orationibus sepulturi sunt morientes? a quibus divini sacrificiritus exhibendus est consuetus? vobiscum et nos licebat pergere, si liceret ut tali modo filios a patribus nulla necessitas separaret.”]

m

universally E.

n

freed E.

o

favours E.

p

loosened D.

q

censures E.

r

offenders D.

s

habilitie D.

t

then more E.

u

vi. D.

1

[De Pudicit. c. ii. “Causas pœnitentiæ delicta condicimus. Hæc dividimus in duos exitus. Alia erunt remissibilia, alia irremissibilia. . . . Secundumquod nemini dubium est alia castigationem mereri alia damnationem. Omne delictum aut venia expungit aut pœna: venia ex castigatione; pœna ex damnatione. . . . Secundum hanc differentiam delictorum, pœnitentiæ quoque conditio discriminatur. Alia erit, quæ veniam consequi possit, in delicto scilicet remissibili. Alia, quæ consequi nullo modo possit, in delicto scilicet irremissibili.” And, c. xviii. “Pœnitentia ad se clementiam invitat, salva illa pœnitentiæ specie post fidem, quæ aut levioribus delictis veniam ab episcopo consequi poterit, aut majoribus et irremissibilibus a Deo solo.”]

2

[Ibid. c. iii. “Ad Dominum remissa [Pœnitentia] et illi exinde prostrata, hoc ipso magis operabitur veniam, quod eam a solo Deo exorat, quod delicto suo humanam pacem sufficere nec credit, quod Ecclesiæ mavult erubescere quam communicare.”]

1

[Ib. c. v. “Est et mali dignitas, quod in summo aut in medio pessimorum collocatur. Pompam quandam atque suggestum adspicio mœchiæ, hinc ducatum idololatriæ antecedentis, hinc comitatum homicidii insequentis.” Tertullian’s copies, as many of the LXX do now, apparently transposed the sixth and seventh commandments. Comp. Rom. xiii. 9.]

2

[Cap. i. “Durissime nos infamantes Paracletum disciplinæ enormitati, digamos foris sistimus: eundem limitem liminis mœchis quoque et fornicatoribus figimus; jejunas pacis lacrymas profusuris, nec amplius ab Ecclesia quam publicationem dedecoris relaturis.”]

3

[Ibid. cap. 9. “Quis enim timebit prodigere quod habebit postea recuperare? Quis curabit perpetuo conservare quod non perpetuo poterit amittere.] Securitas delicti, etiam libido est ejus.”

4

[Ibid. c. xxi. “Si et ipsos beatos Apostolos tale aliquid indulsisse constaret, cujus venia a Deo, non ab homine, competeret, non ex disciplina, sed ex potestate fecissent. Nam et mortuos suscitaverunt, quod Deus solus; et debiles redintegraverunt, quod nemo nisi Christus: immo et plagas inflixerunt, quod noluit Christus. Non enim decebat eum sævire, qui pati venerat. Percussus est Ananias et Elymas; Ananias morte, Elymas cæcitate. . . . Exhibe igitur et nunc mihi, Apostolice, prophetica exempla, et agnoscam divinitatem; et vindica tibi delictorum ejuscemodi remittendorum potestatem. Quod si disciplinæ solius officia sortitus es, nec imperio præsidere sed ministerio, quis aut quantus es indulgere? qui neque Prophetam nec Apostolum exhibens, cares ea virtute cujus est indulgere.”]

x

the impotent E.

1

Concil. Neocæsar. c. 12. [t. i. 1484. Ἐὰν νοσω̑ν τις ϕωτισθῃ̑, εἰς πρεσβύτερον ἄγεσθαι οὐ δύναται· οὐκ ἐκ προαιρέσεως γὰρ ἡ πίστις αὐτου̑, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀνάγκης· εἰ μὴ τάχα διὰ τὴν μετὰ ταυ̑τα αὐτου̑ σπουδὴν καὶ πίστιν, καὶ διὰ σπάνιν ἀνθρώπων. ad 314.]

2

Sozom. [Socrat. D.E.] lib. iv. cap. 23. Concil. Nicen. c. 30. [In this reference the editor apprehends some mistake.] Socrat. lib. i. cap. 7. [Quoted from the Bibl. Patr. In Valesius’ edition it is Socr. i. 10. Sozom. i. 22.]

1

[Ὡς ἄρα οὐ χρὴ τοὺς μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ἡμαρτηκότας ἁμαρτίαν, ἣν πρὸς θάνατον καλου̑σιν αἱ θει̑αι γραϕαὶ, τη̑ς κοινωνίας τω̑ν θείων μυστηρίων ἀξιου̑σθαι· ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ μετάνοιαν μὲν αὐτοὺς προτρέπειν· ἐλπίδα δὲ τη̑ς ἀϕέσεως μὴ παρὰ τω̑ν ἱερέων ἀλλὰ παρὰ του̑ Θεου̑ ἐνδέχεσθαι, του̑ δυναμένου καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἔχοντος συγχωρει̑ν ἁμαρτήματα. Socr. i. 10.]

2

[De Pudic. c. 1. fin.: vid. supr. note 2, p. 80.]

3

Can. viii. [Περὶ τω̑ν ὀνομαζόντων μὲν ἑαυτοὺς καθαρούς ποτε, προσερχομένων δὲ τῃ̑ καθολικῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἔδοξε τῃ̑ ἁγίᾳ καὶ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ, ὥστε χειροθετουμένους αὐτοὺς, μένειν οὕτως ἐν τῳ̑ κλήρῳ· πρὸ πάντων δὲ του̑το ὁμολογη̑σαι αὐτοὺς ἐγγράϕως προσήκει, ὅτι συνθήσονται καὶ ἀκολουθήσουσι τοι̑ς τη̑ς καθολικη̑ς καὶ ἀποστολικη̑ς ἐκκλησίας δόγμασι· του̑τ’ ἔστι, καὶ διγάμοις κοινωνει̑ν, καὶ τοι̑ς ἐν τῳ̑ διωγμῳ̑ παραπεπτωκόσιν. Conc. ii. 32.]

y

vii. D.

z

absolution E.

a

not E.

b

practices E.

c

also in them E.

d

al. impose. Archbishop Ussher in MS. D, over the word inioyne. His authority for the correction was probably the use of the word in the same MS. where this passage had before occurred: see above, c. v. § 9. p. 71.

e

quite E.

f

which we E.

g

that om. E.

1

[See above, pp. 71, 72.]

h

viii. D.

2

“In peccato tria sunt; actio mala, interior macula, et sequela.” Bonav. Sent. lib. iv. d. 17. [Q. i. pars i. art. i.] q. 3. [p. 240 e. Rom. 1596.]

3

1 John iii. 4.

4

Matt. xv. 19.

1

Acts viii. [22,] 23.

i

that om. E.

2

Prov. v. 22.

k

hand E.

3

“Sacerdotes opus justitiæ exercent in peccatores cum eos justa pœna ligant; opus misericordiæ cum [dum D. E. not 1648] de ea aliquid relaxant, vel Sacramentorum communioni conciliant; alia opera in peccatores exercere nequeunt.”

Sent. lib. iv. dis. 18. [c. 5. fol. 178. Basil. 1513.]

l

bonds E.

4

Acts vii. 60; Mic. vii. 19.

5

1 Cor. vi. 11; Tit. iii. 5.

6

Luke xii. 5; Matt. x. 28.

7

2 Sam. xii. 13.

8

Luke vii. 27. [29?]

9

Mal. iii. 15.

1

Sent. [Peter Lombard, † 1164.] lib. iv. dis. 18. [c. iii, iv. fol. 178. “Hoc sane dicere ac sentire possumus, quod solus Deus dimittit peccata et retinet; et tamen Ecclesiæ contulit potestatem ligandi et solvendi: verum aliter ipse solvit vel ligat, aliter Ecclesia. Ipse enim per se tantum dimittit peccata: quoniam et animas mundat ab interiori macula, et a debito æternæ mortis solvit. Non autem hoc sacerdotibus concessit, quibus tamen tribuit potestatem solvendi et ligandi, i. e. ostendendi homines ligatos vel solutos. . . . Quoniam etsi aliquis apud Deum sit solutus, non tamen in facie Ecclesiæ solutus habetur nisi per judicium sacerdotis. . . . Ligant quoque sacerdotes dum satisfactionem pœnitentiæ confitentibus imponunt: solvunt cum de ea aliquid dimittunt, vel per eam purgatos ad sacrorum communionem admittunt.”]

m

power to the Church E.

n

to om. E.

o

in the Church of God so E.

p

satisfaction E.

2

[Ibid.]

3

Hier. t. vi. Comment. in 16. Matt. [“Legimus in Levitico de Leprosis, ubi jubentur ut ostendant se sacerdotibus, et si lepram habuerint, tunc a sacerdote immundi fiant: non quo sacerdotes leprosos faciant et immundos, sed quo habeant notitiam leprosi et non leprosi, et possint discernere qui mundus quive immundus sit. Quomodo ergo ibi leprosum sacerdos mundum vel immundum facit, sic et hic alligat vel solvit Episcopus et Presbyter, non eos qui insontes sunt vel noxii; sed pro officio suo, cum peccatorum audierit varietates, scit qui ligandus sit, quive solvendus.” t. vii. p. 125. ed. Vallarsii.]

q

ix. D.

1

[I. e. in the degree of Pope Eugenius [iv. 1431-47] addressed to the Armenians [in 1439], t. xiii. 534. “Sacramenta antiquæ legis non causabant gratiam, sed eam solum per passionem Christi dandam esse figurabant: hæc vero nostra et continent gratiam et ipsam digne suscipientibus conferunt.”]

r

ecclesiastical E.

s

doth seem E.

2

[In 4 Sent. dist. 1. q. i. art. 4. “Principale agens respectu justificationis Deus est, nec indiget ad hoc aliquibus instrumentis ex parte sua, sed propter contrarietatem ex parte hominis justificandi . . . utitur sacris quasi quibusdam instrumentis justificationis. Hujusmodi autem materialibus instrumentis competit aliqua actio ex natura propria, sicut aquæ abluere, et oleo facere nitidum corpus: sed ulterius, in quantum sunt instrumenta divinæ misericordiæ justificantis, pertingunt instrumentaliter ad aliquem effectum in ipsa anima, qui primo correspondet sacramentis, sicut est character, vel aliquid hujusmodi. Ad ultimum autem effectum, qui est gratia, non pertingunt etiam instrumentaliter, nisi dispositive, in quantum hoc, ad quod instrumentaliter effective pertingunt, est dispositio, quæ est necessitas, quantum in se est, ad gratiæ susceptionem. Et quia omne instrumentum agendo actionem naturalem, quæ competit sibi in quantum est res quædam, pertingit ad effectum, qui competit sibi in quantum est instrumentum, sicut dolabrum dividendo suo acumine pertingit instrumentaliter ad formam scamni; ideo etiam materiale elementum exercendo actionem naturalem, secundum quam est signum interioris effectus, pertingit ad interiorem effectum instrumentaliter. Et hoc est quod Augustinus dicit, quod aqua baptismi corpus tangit, et cor abluit; et ideo dicitur quod sacramenta efficiunt quod figurant.” Op. t. vii. ed. Venet. 1593.]

t

concept E.

1

Scot. Sent. lib. iv. Solut. ad 4. Quæst. et 5. [t. viii. 89, c. ed. Wading. “Susceptio sacramenti est dispositio necessitans ad effectum signatum per sacramentum, non quidem per aliquam formam intrinsecam, per quam necessario causaret terminum vel aliquam dispositionem præviam, sed tantum per assistentiam Dei causantis illum effectum, non necessario absolute, sed necessitate respiciente potentiam ordinatam: disposuit enim universaliter, et de hoc Ecclesiam certificavit, quod suscipienti tale sacramentum ipse conferret effectum signatum.” p. 95.] Occam. in i. qu. quart. [quanti D. In iv. Sent. qu. 1. Lyons, 1495.] Alliac. Quæst. 1. in 4. Sent. [fol. 224-6. ed. Paris.]

u

them? Fulm.

x

x. D.

y

book E.

2

“Lutherani in [de E.] hac re interdum ita scribunt ut videantur a catholicis non dissentire; interdum autem apertissime scribunt contraria: at semper in eadem sententia manent, Sacramenta non habere immediate ullam efficientiam respectu gratiæ, sed esse nuda signa, tamen mediate aliquid efficere quatenus excitant et alunt fidem. . . quod ipsum non faciunt nisi repræsentando, ut Sacramenta per visum excitent fidem, quemadmodum prædicatio Verbi per auditum.” Bellarm. de Sacram. in genere, lib. ii. c. 2. [t. iii. 112.]

“Quædam signa sunt theorica, non ad alium finem instituta, quam ad significandum; alia ad significandum et efficiendum, quæ ob id practica dici possunt. . . Controversia est inter nos et Hæreticos, quod illi faciunt Sacramenta signa prioris generis. Quare si ostendere poterimus esse signa posterioris generis, obtinuimus causam.” Ib. c. viii. [p. 126. These two quotations are somewhat abridged.]

z

hath E.

1

John iii. 5. [om. E.]

2

“Semper memoria repetendum est Sacramenta nihil aliud quam instrumentales esse conferendæ nobis gratiæ causas.” Calv. in Ant. con. Trid. sess. 7. c. 5. [p. 344. ed. Gen. 1597.] “Si qui sint qui negent Sacramentis contineri gratiam quam figurant, illos improbamus.” Ibid. c. 6.

a

else is E.

3

“Iste modus non transcendit rationem signi, cum Sacramenta novæ Legis non solum significent sed causent gratiam.” [Summ. Theol.] pars iii. q. 62. art. 1. [xii. 192.]

1

Alexand. pars iv. 1. 8. memb. 3. art. v. sec. 1, et 2. [p. 94. ed. Col. Agrip. 1622.] Th. de Verit. q. 27. art. iii. [4? “Si sic se habeant sacramenta novæ legis ad gratiam, sequitur quod sint solum signa gratiæ, et ita nihil habebunt præ sacramentis veteris legis.” t. viii. 474.] Alliac. in iv. Sent. qu. 1. Capreolus in 4. d. 1. q. 1. [“In Sacramentis novæ legis est aliqua virtus gratiæ causativa.” p. 2. Venet. 1588.] Palud. [i. e. Petrus de Palude,] ibidem. Ferrar. [Ferrarius in Tho. Aquin.?] lib. iv. cont. Gent. c. 57. [Op. Aquin. t. ix. 493.] [*]

*

[Alexander of Hales, † 1245. Peter d’Ailly, 1354-1425. John Capreolus, Dominican of Toulouse, † 1444. Peter de la Palu, Dominican of Paris, † 1342.]

2

Eph. ii. [8.]

3

[Tho. Aquin. de Verit. 27. art. 3.]

4

“Necesse est ponere aliquam virtutem supernaturalem in Sacramentis.” [Aquin. in] Sent. iv. d. 1. q. 1. art. iv. [fol. 4. g.] “Sacramentum consequitur spiritualem virtutem cum benedictione Christi, et applicatione ministri ad usum Sacramenti.” [Id. Summ. Th.] pars iii. q. 62. art. iv. Concil. [t. xii. 193 G.] “Virtus sacramentalis habet esse transiens ex uno in aliud et incompletum.” Ibidem. “Ex Sacramentis duo consequuntur in anima, unum est character, sive aliquis ornatus; aliud est gratia. Respectu primi, Sacramenta sunt causæ aliquo modo efficientes; respectu secundi, sunt disponentes. Sacramenta causant dispositionem ad formam ultimam, sed ultimam perfectionem non inducunt.” [Idem in] Sent. iv. d. 1. q. 1. art. iv. [p. 4 A.] “Solus Deus efficit gratiam, adeo quod nec angelis, qui sunt nobiliores sensibilibus creaturis, hoc communicetur.” Ibid. [pag. 3. i.]

b

habilitie D; hability E.

1

Ad Donat. c. 3. [*] [“Postquam undæ genitalis auxilio superioris ævi labe detersa, in expiatum pectus serenum ac purum desuper se lumen infudit; postquam cœlitus Spiritu hausto in novum me hominem nativitas secunda reparavit; mirum in modum protinus confirmare se dubia, patere clausa, lucere tenebrosa, facultatem dare quod prius difficile videbatur, geri posse quod impossibile putabatur, ut esset agnoscere terrenum fuisse quod prius carnaliter natum delictis obnoxium viveret, Dei esse cœpisse quod jam Spiritus Sanctus animaret.” p. 2. ed. Baluzii.]

*

Epl. 2. D.

c

me om. E.

d

xi. D.

2

[In 4 Sent. d. 1. pars 1. art. i. qu. 4. p. 12.] “Cavendum est ne dum nimis damus corporalibus signis ad laudem, subtrahamus honorem causæ curanti et animæ suscipienti.”

1

Luke xviii. [viii.]; John ix.

e

virtue om. E.

2

Bellarm. de Sacr. in genere, lib. ii. c. 1. [Having quoted Luther for the words, “Omnes in hoc concedunt, sacramenta esse efficacia signa gratiæ,” he goes on, “Hoc sufficit ad fidem, et ad legitimum usum Sacramentorum; quomodo in miraculis Christi non requirebatur, ut homines qui curandi essent scirent in quo genere causæ fimbria Christi sanaret; . . . neque opus erat ut ipsi Apostoli, qui manus imponendo curabant, scirent quomodo id fieret: ita quoque non est necesse ut vel ministri vel qui suscipiunt sacramenta sciant quomodo Sacramenta sint causæ justificationis.”]

3

“Dicimus gratiam non creari a Deo, . . . sed produci . . . ex aptitudine et potentia naturali animæ, sicut cætera omnia quæ producuntur in subjectis talibus, quæ sunt apta nata ad suscipiendum accidentia.” Allen. [of Oriel College, Oxford, 1532-1594. Cardinal, 1587. Archbp. Mechlin, 1589.] de Sacr. in Gen. c. 37. [p. 132. Antwerp. 1576.]

f

thereby om. E.

1

[Decr. Eugen. ap. Concil. t. xiii. p. 534. “Hæc nostra [sacramenta] et continent gratiam, et eam digne suscipientibus conferunt.”]

2

[Sess. vii. de Sacram. can. 6. “Si quis dixerit, sacramenta novæ legis non continere gratiam quam significant, aut gratiam ipsam non ponentibus obicem non conferre; quasi signa tantum externa sint acceptæ per fidem gratiæ vel justitiæ, et notæ quædam Christianæ professionis quibus apud homines discernuntur fideles ab infidelibus, anathema esto.” xiv. 777.]

3

[The obvious corruption of the text here may perhaps be rightly removed by leaving out the word “which.”]

4

Tho. de Verit. q. 27. art. iii. resp. ad 16. [“Manus impositio non causat Sp. Sancti adventum; sed simul cum manus impositione Sp. Sanctus advenit. Unde non dicitur in textu quod Apostoli imponentes manus darent Sp. Sanctum, sed quod imponebant manus, et illi accipiebant Sp. Sanctum. Si tamen impositio manuum dicatur aliquo modo causa acceptionis Sp. Sancti per modum quo Sacramenta sunt causa gratiæ . . . . hoc non habebit manus impositio in quantum est ab homine, sed ex institutione divina.” t. viii. 472. i.] Acts viii. 18.

1

[t. xiii. 534. “Illa non causabant gratiam, sed eam solum per passionem Christi dandam esse figurabant.”]

2

“Quod ad circumcisionem sequebatur remissio, fiebat, [per accidens ratione signi,] ratione rei adjunctæ et ratione pacti divini, eodem plane modo quo non solum Hæretici, sed etiam aliquot vetustiores Scholastici voluerunt nova Sacramenta conferre gratiam.” Allen. de Sacr. in Gen. c. 39.

3

“Bonaventura, Scotus, Durandus, Richardus, Occamus, Marsilius, Gabriel, — volunt solum Deum producere gratiam ad præsentiam Sacramentorum.” Bellarm. de Sacr. in Gen. lib. ii. c. 11.

4

“Puto longe probabiliorem et tutiorem sententiam quæ dat sacramentis veram efficientiam. Primo quia Patres passim docent, sacramenta non agere nisi prius a Deo virtutem seu benedictionem seu sanctificationem accipiant, et referunt effectum sacramenti ad omnipotentiam Dei, et conferunt cum versi causis efficientibus. Secundo, quia non esset differentia inter modum agendi sacramentorum, et signorum magicorum. Tertio, quia tunc non esset homo Dei minister in ipsa actione sacramentali, sed homo præberet signum actione sua, et Deus alia actione viso eo signo infunderet gratiam, ut cum unus ostendit syngrapham mercatori, et ille dat pecunias. At Scripturæ docent, quod Deus baptizat per hominem.” Bellarm. lib. ii. cap. 11.

g

own om. E.

h

copartner E.

i

xii. D.

k

my E.

l

Rabbies E.

1

Conc. Trid. Sess. xiv. c. 4. “[Docet . . . etsi contritionem hanc aliquando caritate perfectam esse contingat, hominemque Deo reconciliare, priusquam hoc sacramentum actu suscipiatur; ipsam nihilominus reconciliationem ipsi contritioni sine sacramenti voto, quod in illa includitur, non esse ascribendam.” t. xiv. 817.]

2

Bellarm. de Pœnit. lib. ii. c. 13. [“Scriptura passim docet, eos qui toto corde ad Dominum convertuntur sine mora veniam peccatorum accipere.” “Veram conversionem nullas pati veniæ moras, proinde continuo remitti contritis peccata, etiam antequam absolutio sacerdotalis accedat.”]

m

if man D.

n

thought E.

1

“Hæc expositio, Ego te absolvo, id est, Absolutum ostendo, partim quidem vera est, non tamen perfecta. Sacramenta quippe novæ legis non solum significant, sed efficiunt quod significant.” Soto, Sent. lib. iv. dist. 14. q. 1. art. iii. [p. 350. Douay, 1613. from Aquin. 3 Summ. qu. 84. art. 3. resp. ad 5.]

o

I D.

p

xiii. D.

2

“Attritio solum dicit dolorem propter pœnas inferni; . . . dum quis accedit attritus, per gratiam Sacramentalem fit contritus.” Soto, Sent. iv. dist. 14. q. 1. art. i. [p. 347.]

1

“Dum accedit vere contritus propter Deum, illa etiam contritio non est contritio, nisi quatenus prius natura informetur gratia per Sacramentum in voto.” Soto, Sent. iv. dist. 14. q. 1. art. i.

2

“Legitima contritio votum Sacramenti pro suo tempore debet inducere, atque adeo in virtute futuri Sacramenti peccata remittit.” Idem, art. iii. [p. 350.]

q

due E.

3

“Tunc sententia sacerdotis judicio Dei et totius cœlestis curiæ approbatur, et confirmatur, cum ita ex discretione procedit, ut reorum merita non contradicant.” Sent. l. iv. d. 18. [“Quoscunque ergo solvunt vel ligant adhibentes clavem discretionis reorum meritis, solvunt vel ligant in cœlis: i.e. apud Deum.” c. 4. fol. 178.]

4

“Non est periculosum sacerdoti dicere, Ego te absolvo, illis in quibus signa contritionis videt, quæ sunt dolor, de præteritis, et propositum de cætero non peccandi; alias absolvere non debet.” Tho. Opusc. 22. [c. 3. t. xvii. p. 195.]

r

St. Cyprian’s E.

5

Cypr. de Lapsis. [See above, p. 69, note 2.]

s

sacraments D.

t

xiv. D.

1

[Sess. xiv. c. 4: vid. supr. p. 96, note 1.]

u

virtue E.

x

afterwards D.

y

should seem a thousand times to absolve E.

z

Ancients E.

1

“A reatu mortis æternæ absolvitur homo a Deo per contritionem; . . . manet autem reatus ad quandam pœnam temporalem, et minister ecclesiæ quicunque virtute clavium tollit reatum cujusdam partis pœnæ illius.” Abulens. [Tostatus, Bp. of Avila, 1400-1455] in Defensor. p. i. c. 7. [Opusc. ad calc. Comment. t. xii. p. 9. Venet. 1596.]

2

“Signum hujus Sacramenti est causa effectiva gratiæ sive remissionis peccatorum; non simpliciter, sicut ipsa prima pœnitentia, sed secundum quid; quia est causa efficaciæ gratiæ qua fit remissio peccati, quantum ad aliquem effectum in pœnitente, ad minus quantum ad remissionem sequelæ ipsius peccati, scilicet pœnæ.” Alex. p. iv. q. 14. memb. 2. [art. i. § 2. p. 467.]

3

“Potestas clavium proprie loquendo non se extendit supra culpam . . . . Ad illud quod objicitur, Joan. 20; ‘Quorum remiseritis peccata;’ dicendum, quod vel illud de remissione dicitur quantum ad ostensionem vel solum quantum ad pœnam.” Bon. Sent. lib. iv. d. 18. [pars i. art. 2.] q. i. [p. 273.]

4

“Ab æterna pœna nullo modo solvit sacerdos, sed a purgatoria [*] ; neque hoc per se, sed per accidens, quod cum in pœnitente virtute clavium minuitur debitum pœnæ temporalis, non ita acriter punietur in purgatorio sicut si non esset absolutus.” [Bonav. in] Sent. lib. iv. d. 18. q. 3. [p. 274.]

*

purgatorio E.

a

xv. D.

b

enforce him E.

1

[Tacit. Annal. lib. vi. c. 6. “Quid scribam vobis, patres conscripti, aut quomodo scribam, aut quid omnino non scribam hoc tempore, Dii me Deæque pejus perdant, quam perire me quotidie sentio, si scio.”]

c

suspicion E.

d

vertuous E.

e

inordinate E.

f

xvi. D.

g

that D.

h

a om. E.

i

was E.

1

Matt. 21. [xii.] 31; Mark iii. 30.

k

very om. E.

l

apostates E.

2

Acts ii. 38.

m

the imposition E.

1

Heb. vi. 6.

2

Heb. x. 26.

n

xvii. D.

1

Jer. vi. 26; Micah i. 8, 9; Lam. ii. 18. “Quam magna deliquimus, tam granditer defleamus. Alto vulneri diligens et longa medicina non desit; pœnitentia crimine minor non sit.” Cypr. de Laps. [p. 192. ed. Baluz.] “Non levi agendum est contritione, ut debita illa redimantur, quibus mors æterna debetur; nec transitoria opus est satisfactione pro malis illis propter quæ paratus est ignis æternus.” Euseb. Emissenus, vel potius Salvian. f. 106. [Ad Monach. Hom. V. in Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. pars i. 582. g.]

o

command E.

p

for a heart E.

q

out om. D, E.

r

object om. D.

2

Psal. vi. 6.

3

Mark xii. 42.

s

near to the mark E.

4

Acts x. 31.

t

his D.

u

xviii. D.

v

secondly D.

w

they doe, which E.

x

that om. E.

y

devotions D.

1

Jer. xxix. 13; Joel ii. 12.

2

Chrys. de repar. Laps. lib. ad Theodor. [ap. Grat. Decr.] de Pœnit. dist. 3. c. Talis. [“Talis, mihi crede, talis est erga homines pietas Dei: nunquam spernit pœnitentiam si ei sincere et simpliciter offeratur. Etiamsi ad summum quis perveniat malorum, et inde tamen velit reverti ad virtutis viam, suscipit et libenter amplectitur, facit omnia quatenus ad priorem revocet statum: et quod est adhuc præstantius et eminentius, etiam si non potuerit quis explere in præsenti satisfaciendi ordinem, quantulamcunque tamen et quamlibet brevi tempore gestam non respuit pœnitentiam. Suscipit etiam ipsam, nec patitur quamvis exiguæ conversionis perdere mercedem.” See the original (from which this is much altered) in the Benedictine Chrysostom, t. i. p. 5.]

z

Saint om. E, not 1648.

1

Aug. in Psal. cxxxviii. [§ 21. “In libro tuo omnes scribentur: non solum perfecti sed etiam imperfecti. Non timeant imperfecti, tantum proficiant.” t. iv. p. 1546.]

1

[This paper is preserved in the library of C.C.C. Oxford; “N°. 297. W. C. 2. 11.” It is indorsed as follows: “Mr. S. and Mr. Cr. Notes upon the 6 and 7 bookes.” Then in Fulman’s hand, “Written with their own hands and given me by my friend M. Isaac Walton 1673. W. F.”]

2

[In Fulman’s hand. The rest of the paper in Cranmer’s hand.]

3

[See St. Jerome, Ep. ad Nepotian. § 5. t. i. p. 256. ed. Vallars.]

4

[This is one of the very few instances in which it is possible that the copy before Cranmer may have agreed with the present (so called) sixth book: in the early part of which a citation from St. Ignatius occurs. See before, p. 4.]

1

[See it quoted E. P. V. xx. 3. note 6; lxxiii. 6. note 4.]

2

[c. i. 7, 13.]

3

[The word comes in the margin of the MS. which is defaced here.]

4

[Evidently in Rom. ix. 3.]

5

[See Exod. xxxii. 32.]

1

[This may be noted as a second instance in which the note might possibly refer to the sixth book as it stands: p. 29.]

2

[c. xii. 2.]

1

[In some private letter: for of Some’s published tracts the only one which from its date could have referred to Hooker is “Questions wherein is handled that Christ died for the elect alone,” c. Camb. 1596: in which Hooker is not mentioned.]

2

[Lucr. iii. 14, c.]

3

[In the margin, opposite the words, “is to be sayd in defence thereof,” is the following note, as it seems in Cranmer’s hand.

“Excommunication with us you knowe is exercised by a lay commissary, although for fashion sake a minister be called in to reade the sentence. But in their discipline suppose the lay elders be of mynd to excommunicate any man, the pastor, not; Shall the pastor have a negative voice, or shall excommunication be exercised by the laymen only?”]

4

[See 2d Admonition, p. 6, 7, ed. 1617; Milton, of Reform. in Engl. Prose Works, vol. i. p. 27. ed. 1738.]

1

[Eccles. iv. 12. Comp. E. P. b. vii. c. 18. § 10.]

1

[Exod. xviii. 25, 26.]

2

[Num. xi. 25.]

1

[The MS. adds “Samuel,” with a pen drawn across it.]

2

[2 Chron. xix. 5, 6, 7.]

3

Deut. xvi. [ver. 18.]

4

[2 Chron. xix. 8-11.]

5

Deut. xvii. [ver. 8-13.]

6

[Ver. 10.]

7

[xvii. 8.]

8

[Ver. 11.]

1

[See Sutcliffe, “de Presbyterio,” p. 20, 29; and “False Semblant,” c p. 80.]

1

[This sentence has a pen drawn across it in the MS.]

1

Deut. xvii.

1

[This seems to be a reference to Heb. xii. 2.]

2

A Fruitfull Sermon upon Rom. xii. 3-8. Lond. Waldegrave, 1584. Especially p. 34, 35. “If you ask me, how many members there be in the body, what they be, and how they be named and called, and what be their duties and callings: the Apostle himself will answer plainly in the next verses, and perfectly and fully determine all these quotations, saying, These members are either doctors to teach, pastors to exhort, elders to rule, deacons to distribute, attenders upon the poor strangers and the sick; or else the people and saints, which are taught, exhorted, ruled, and receive alms and relief. These are all, no mo, no fewer. So the necessity of relation plainly proveth; and these are such as are able to execute andperform any duty belonging to the perfect building of and adorning of the mystical body of Christ, as shall hereafter appear more at large in the particular handling of every several office.”

And p. 54. “He reduceth all the ordinary functions which were ordained in the Church, and which are perpetually to be retained for the happy success and preservation thereof, unto two general heads, that is to say, unto prophets and officers, dividing either of them into their several branches.”]

1

[In 1 Cor. xii. 28; to which this note clearly refers. See b. v. c. 78. § 8.]

2

[Viz. 1 Tim. v. 17, comp. T. C. i. 173; Def. 626; T. C. iii. 32.]

1

1 Tim. iii. 2. “For at that tyme I thinke the word presbyter and episcopus were used promiscuously. And in episcopo it was required to be able to teach.”

2

“In this point I perceave that I have mistaken Mr. Car. meaning. See what I have written in the end of all.”

3

[T. C. iii. 35; comp. Def. 628.]

4

[Pseud. Ambros. in 1 Tim. v. 1. “Apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est senectus: unde et synagoga, et postea Ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia. Quod qua negligentia obsoleverit, nescio; nisi forte doctorum desidia, aut magis superbia dum soli volunt aliquid videri.” ed. Bened. t. ii. App. 298. vid. Whitgift’s Answ. 132; T. C. i. 182; Def. 651; T. C. iii. 44.]

1

[Tert. Ap. 39; T. C. iii. 41.]

2

[S. Cyp. Ep. 1. p. 2; T. C. iii. 42. Cf. V. lxxx. 11. note 1; VII. xxiii. 9.]

3

[T. C. iii. 43. quoting Socr. H. E. v. 22. “At Alexandria, after Arius was convicted of heresy, it was decreed that the elders should no more teach: by which decree they did as it were covertly confess that they had received the reward of breaking the order of God, in permitting that the elder should teach in the Church.”]

4

[Hier. adv. Lucif. 9; T. C. iii. 43.]

1

[T. C. iii. 45, quoting S. Ign. ad Trall. Ep. interp. c. 3. ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, του̑ Πατρὸς τω̑ν ὅλων τύπος ὑπάρχει· οἱ δὲ πρεσβύτεροι, ὡς συνεδρίον Θεου̑, καὶ σύνδεσμος ἀποστόλων Χριστου̑· χωρὶς τούτων ἐκκλησία ἐκλεκτὴ οὐκ ἔστιν. ap. Coteler. ii. 61.]

2

[T. C. iii. 42. “Valerius . . . did contrary to the custom of theAfrican church, in that he committed the office of teaching unto Augustin which was an elder.” He refers to Posidonius, or Possidius, Vit. Aug. c. 5. “Valerius Augustino presbytero potestatem dedit coram se in ecclesia evangelium prædicandi contra usum. . . Africanarum ecclesiarum.”]

1

[E. H. V. 22.     +  ]

1

[ Edwin Sandys in Fulman’s hand; the rest in Sandys’ own hand.]

2

Vid. in p. 16. [referring to Hooker’s MS.]

1

[“ Non intendimus judicare de feudo ” is Innocent the Third’s disavowal of temporal jurisdiction in the dispute between king John and Philip Augustus, AD 1204. See Decretal. ix. i. 13. col. 489. ed. Lugd. 1572.]

1

[Probably Mr. Serjeant Yelverton, who was chosen Oct. 27, 1597, and continued in office till the 9th Feb. following, when the parliament was dissolved. Cobbett’s Parliamentary Hist. i. 895, 905.]

1

[Qu. Hanoth? vid. Lightf. t. i. p. 1062, and Buxtorf. voc. הָנוה.]

2

[i.e. Walter Travers.]

1

The harvest greate, the labourers few: i. e. Preachers.

1

[“Si quæris quare in ecclesia baptizatus nisi per manus Episcopi non accipiat Sp. Sanctum,” c. Adv. Lucif. § 9. t. ii. 182. ed. Vallarsii.]

2

[Ubi supra; (speaking of baptism;) “Frequenter, (si tamen necessitas cogit,) scimus etiam licere laicis.” t. ii. 139. ed. Frob. Basil.]

1

[On 1 Tim. v. 1.]

1

[This anecdote must relate either to France or Scotland: the editor has not succeeded in tracing it in either history. From the tone in which Hooker describes the state of the country, it would seem that France was meant; comp. b. iii. c. xi. § 14. The anecdote might be one of the many reports of what had passed in the conference at Poissy, 1561.]

1

[Lam. ii. 13.]

1

[Job xxix. 21, 22, 25.]

2

[Job xxx. 1-9.]

3

Cyp. lib. i. Ep. 3. [al. Ep. 59. c. 3. “Exaltatio, et inflatio, et arrogans ac superba jactatio non de Christi magisterio, qui humilitatem docet, sed Antichristi spiritu nascitur.” ii. 127. ed. Fell.]

4

[Bed. Hist. Eccl. i. 4.]

1

Sulpit. Sever. lib. ii. [c. 55. “Missis per Illyricum, Italiam, Africam, Hispanias, Galliasque magistris officialibus, acciti ac in unum coacti quadringenti et aliquanto amplius Occidentales Episcopi, Ariminum convenere; quibus omnibus annonas et cellaria dare imperator præceperat; sed id nostris, i. e. Aquitanis, Gallis ac Britannis indecens visum, repudiatis fiscalibus, propriis sumptibus vivere maluerunt. Tres tantum ex Britannia, inopia proprii, publico usi sunt.” More than three it seems were present from Britain, but three only received the public allowance.]

2

Beda Eccl. Hist. lib. ii. c. 2. [“Augustinus . . . . convocavit ad suum colloquium episcopos sive doctores proximæ Britonum provinciæ . . . Convenerunt, ut perhibent, septem Britonum episcopi et plures viri doctissimi.”]

3

An. 1066.

4

“Alfredus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus Gulielmum cognomento Nothum spirantem adhuc minarum et cædis in populum mitem reddit: et religiosis pro conservanda repub. tuendaque ecclesiastica disciplina sacramentis adstrinxit.” Neubrig. l. i. c. 1. [William of Newbridge, 1135-1208.] [ap. Rer. Britannic. Script. Heidelberg, 1587. p. 357.]

5

[Rather Albinus the successor of Festus; of whom Josephus writes, B. J. ii. 14. ed. Huds. Οὐκ ἔστι δὲ ἥν τινα κακουργίας ἰδέαν παρέλιπεν· . . . τοιου̑τον δὲ ὄντα τὸν Ἀλβι̑νον ἀπέδειξεν ὁ μετὰ του̑τον ἔλθων Γέσσιος Φλω̑ρος ἀγαθώτατον κατὰ σύγκρισιν.]

1

Οἱ παρ’ Ἀθηναίων εἰς τὰς ὑπηκόους πόλεις ἐπισκέψασθαι τὰ παρ’ ἑκάστοις πεμπόμενοι, Ἐπίσκοποι καὶ ϕύλακες ἐκαλου̑ντο· οὓς οἱ Λάκωνες ἁρμοστὰς ἔλεγον. Suid. [voc. ἐπίσκοπος.] Κατέστησεν ἐϕ’ ἑκάστοις [ἑκάστου] τω̑ν πάγων ἄρχοντα ἐπίσκοπόν τε καὶ περίπολον τη̑ς ἰδίας μοίρας. Dionys. Halicar. de Numa Pompilio, Antiq. lib. ii. [c. 76.] “Vult me Pompeius esse quem tota hæc Campania et maritima ora habeat Ἐπίσκοπον, ad quem delectus et negotii summa referatur.” Cic. ad Attic. lib. vii. Epist. 11.

1

Acts xx. 28; Phil. i. 1.

2

“And God brought them unto Adam, that Adam might see or consider what name it was meet he should give unto them.” Gen. ii. 19.

3

So also the name deacon, a minister appropriated to a certain order of ministers.

4

The name likewise of a minister was common to divers degrees, which now is peculiarly among ourselves given only to pastors, and not, as anciently, to deacons also.

1

[Othello, Act ii. sc. 1. “O most lame and impotent conclusion!” The date of this play is 1611. The phrase is a translation of “ manca et debilis, ” which had somehow become proverbial. Cf. in Facciolati, Plaut. Mercator. 3. 4. 45, “Cæcus, mutus, mancus, debilis; ” Liv. 7, 13, “ mancorum et debilium ducem;” Cic. pro Mil. 9, “ mancam ac debilem Præturam.”]

1

“Meminisse diaconi debent, quoniam apostolos, id est, episcopos et præpositos, Dominus elegit.” Cypr. l. iii. ep. 9. [al. ep. 65. p. 113, ed. Baluz.]

2

Rom. ii. 14, 15; 1 Cor. ix. 16; John xxi. 15, 16.

1

Gal. ii. 8.

2

Him Eusebius doth name the governor of the churches in Asia, lib. iii. Hist. Eccles. c. 16. [i. Θω̑μας μὲν, ὡς ἡ παράδοσις περιέχει, τὴν Παρθίαν εἴληχεν, Ἀνδρέας δὲ τὴν Σκυθἰαν, Ἰωαννὴς τὴν Ἀσίαι· πρὸς οὕς καὶ διατρίψας, ἐν Ἐϕέσῳ τελευτᾳ̑.] Tertullian calleth the same churches St. John’s foster-daughters, advers. Marcion. [lib. iv. c. 5. “Si constat, id verius quod prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab apostolis traditum quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacrosanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hauserint; ad quam regulam Galatæ sint recorrecti; quid legant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii; quid etiam Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus et Paulus sanguine quoque suo signatum reliquerunt. Habemus et Joannis alumnas ecclesias. Nam etsi Apocalypsin ejus Marcion respuit, ordo tamen episcoporum ad originem recensus in Joannem stabit auctorem. Sic et cæterarum generositas recognoscitur.”]

3

“Jacobus, qui appellatur frater Domini, cognomento Justus, post passionem Domini statim abapostolis Hierosolymorum episcopus ordinatus est.” Hieron. Scrip. Eccles. Catal. ii. [al. De Viris Illustr. c. 2. t. ii. 815, ed. Vallars.] “Eodem tempore Jacobum primum sedem episcopalem Ecclesiæ, quæ est Hierosolymis, obtinuisse memoriæ traditur.” [τότε δη̑τα καὶ Ἰάκωβον, τὸν του̑ Κυρίου λεγόμενον ἀδελϕὸν. . . πρω̑τον ἱστορου̑σι τη̑ς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις ἐκκλησίας τὸν τη̑ς ἐπισκοπη̑ς ἐγχειρισθη̑ναι θρόνον.] Euseb. Hist. Ecclesiast. lib. ii. cap. 1. The same seemeth to be intimated, Acts xv. 13; xxi. 18.

1

Acts xii. 2; xiii. 2.

2

Titus i. 5.

3

This appeareth by those subscriptions which are set after the epistle to Titus, and the second to Timothy, and by Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. cap. 4. [§ 2. Τιμόθεός γε μὴν τη̑ς ἐν Ἐϕέσῳ παροικίας ἱστορει̑ται πρω̑τος τὴν ἐπισκοπὴν εἰληχέναι· ὡς καὶ Τίτος τω̑ν ἐπὶ Κρήτης ἐκκλησιω̑ν.]

4

Iren. lib. iii. cap. 3. [“Habemus annumerare eos qui ab Apostolis instituti sunt Episcopi in Ecclesiis.”]

5

[Ibid. § 3. οἰκοδομήσαντες οἱ μακάριοι ἀπόστολοι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, Λίνῳ τη̑ς ἐπισκοπη̑ς λειτουργίαν ἐνεχείρισαν.]

6

[Ibid. § 4. Πολύκαρπος . . . οὐ μόνον ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων μαθητευθεὶς, καὶ συναναστραϕεὶς πολλοι̑ς τοι̑ς τὸν Χριστὸν ἑωρακόσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὑπὸ ἀποστόλων κατασταθεὶς εἰς τὴν Ἀσίαν ἐν τῃ̑ ἐν Σμύρνῃ ἐκκλησία ἐπίσκοπος.]

7

In Ep. [adscript.] ad Antioch. [c. 7. μνημονεύσατε Εὐοδίου του̑ ἀξιομακαρίστου ποιμένος ὑμω̑ν, ὁς πσω̑τος ἐνεχειρίσθη παρὰ τω̑ν ἀποστόλων τὴν ὑμετέραν προστασίαν· μὴ καταισχύνωμεν τὸν πατέρα· γενώμεθα γνήσιο παι̑δες, ἀλλὰ μὴ νόθοι.]

1

Hieron. ep. 85. [al. 101, § 1. “Omnes Apostolorum successores sunt.”]

2

Cypr. Ep. ad Flor. [ep. 66. c. 3. ed. Fell.]

3

Theod. in 1 Tim. iii. [1. τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἐκάλουν τοτὲ πρεσβυτέρους καὶ ἐπισκόπους· τοὺς δὲ νυ̑ν καλουμένους ἐπισκόπους, ἀποστόλους ὠνόμαζον.]

4

“Ipsius apostolatus nulla successio. Finitur enim legatio cum legato, nec ad successores ipsius transit.” Stapl. [Thomas Stapleton, 1535-1598, a famous Roman Catholic controversialist.] Doct. Prin. lib. vi. cap. 7. [Opp. i. 213.]

5

Acts i. 21, 22; 1 John i. 3; Gal. i. 1; Apoc. xxi. 14: Matt. xxviii. 19.

6

[“Omnia Dei dona quæ fuerunt in Apostolis et Evangelistis propius erunt inspicienda, ut sciamus, quid Apostolis eorumque temporibus fuerit peculiare, quid commune futurum sit cæteris omnibus Ecclesiæ ministris, usque ad consummationem sæculi. Primum quod in Apostolis nobis est considerandum, est vocatio illa extraordinaria, quæ proxime a Deo est facta: deinde, legatio nullis circumscripta finibus: tertium, quod in iis omnibus quæ ad ipsorum spectabant officium, infallibilem habuerunt directorem, Sp. Sanctum, qui suggessit ipsis quæcunque prius a Domino audiverant, et omnia quæ ad hominum salutem et ecclesiæ ædificationem erant necessaria, adeo ut in ipsorum potestate non fuerit a veritate deflectere. Postremum est ipsius apostolatus potestas.

“Priora illa tria fuerunt necessaria ponendis fundamentis ecclesiarum super quæ alii superstruerent, quæ nisi certam conjunctam Sp. Sancti haberent firmitatem, labasceret quicquid ab aliis postea superstructum fuit. Edendi miracula gratiam prætereo, quod illa data sit non Apostolis tantum aliisque Ecclesiæ pastoribus, sed quibusvis ut Deo visum fuit fidelibus, ut de fide in Filium Dei certam et indubitatam fidem facerent. Ex omnibus his donis nihil successoribus communicare potuerunt præter evangelii ministerium: quod cum Apostolicæ potestati conjunctum sit, eam simul ad posteros transmiserunt: utpote quæ non tantum propagandis, verum etiam conservandis ecclesiis sit necessaria. Sine verbi Dei prædicatione, et sacramentorum usu, ac ecclesiastico regimine, nulla ecclesia recte potest subsistere. Quemadmodum prædicatio verbi Dei, baptismus, et cœna Domini non sunt data Ecclesiæ, ut tantum servirent temporibus Apostolorum, sed etiam futuris sæculis usque ad Domini adventum; sic etiam regiminis forma quæ ab ipso Domino fuit instituta, et ab Apostolis tradita, et usu patrum confirmata, permanere debet. Illa autem habuit inferiores et superiores pastores: ergo id in Ecclesia Christi retinendum est.” Saravia de Div. Ministr. Grad. c. 14. p. 33.]

1

Acts xx. 36, 37.

2

Acts xx. 28.

3

As appeareth both by his sending to call the presbyters of Ephesus before him as far as to Miletum (Acts xx. 17) which was almost fifty miles, and by his leaving Timothy in his place with his authority and instructions for ordaining of ministers there (1 Tim. v. 22); and for proportioning their maintenance (ver. 17, 18); and for judicial hearing of accusations brought against them (ver. 19) and for holding them in an uniformity of doctrine (ch. i. 3).

1

Acts xx. 30.

2

Rev. ii.

3

Cypr. iv. Epist. 9. [al. ep. 66. c. 6.]

1

Hieron. epist. ad Evag. [101. ad Evang. “Cum Apostolus perspicue doceat, eosdem esse presbyteros, quos et episcopos. . . . Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui cæteris præponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est, ne unusquisque ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet.”]

2

Exod. xviii. 19.

3

Ep. ad Januar. [108. al. 54. c. i. t. ii. 124.]

1

Ep. ci. ad Evagr. [ad Evan. § 1. “Nam et Alexandriæ a Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos, presbyteri semper unum ex se electum, in excelsiore gradu collocatum, episcopum nominabant.”]

2

T. C. lib. i. p. 82. “It is to be observed that Jerome saith, it was so in Alexandria; signifying that in other churches it was not so.”

1

[Euseb. E. H. vii. 11.]

2

[Id. vii. 32.]

3

Socr. E. H. i. 5.

4

[Ibid. Καί ποτε παρόντων τω̑ν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ τω̑ν λοιπω̑ν κληρικω̑ν, ϕιλοτιμότερον περὶ τη̑ς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ἐν Τριάδι Μονάδα εἰ̑ναι ϕιλοσοϕω̑ν, ἐθεολόγει. Ἄρειος δέ τις πρεσβύτερος τω̑ν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν ταττομένων, ἀνὴρ οὐκ ἄμοιρος τη̑ς διαλεκτικη̑ς λέσχης . . . γοργω̑ς ὑπήντῃσε πρὸς τὰ παρὰ του̑ ἐπισκόπου λεχθέντα.]

5

Unto Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, Hero a deacon there was made successor. [Euseb. E. H. iv. 36. 3. Ign. ep. adscr. ad Heron. t. ii. p. 108, ed. Coteler.] Chrysostom, being a presbyter of Antioch, was chosen to succeed Nectarius in the bishopric of Constantinople. [Soc. vi. 2.]

1

[Ep. cxlvi. ad Evag. “Quid patitur mensarum ac viduarum minister, ut supra eos se tumidus efferat, ad quorum preces Christi corpus sanguisque conficitur? . . .Manifestissime comprobatur, eundem esse episcopum atque presbyterum. Quod autem postea unus electus est, qui cæteris præponeretur, in schismatis remedium factum est. . . . Nam et Alexandriæ . . . presbyteri semper unum ex se electum . . . episcopum nominabant . . . Nec altera Romanæ urbis ecclesia, altera totius orbis existimanda est. Et Galliæ, et Britanniæ, et Africa, et Persis, et Oriens, et India, et omnes barbaræ nationes unum Christum adorant, unam observant regulam veritatis. Si auctoritas quæritur, orbis major est urbe. Ubicunque fuerit episcopus, sive Romæ, sive Eugubii, sive Constantinopoli, sive Rhegii, sive Alexandriæ, sive Tanis, ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii. Potentia divitiarum et paupertatis humilitas vel sublimiorem vel inferiorem episcopum non facit . . . Sed dices, quomodo Romæ ad testimonium diaconi presbyter ordinatur? Quid mihi profers unius urbis consuetudinem? Quid paucitatem, de qua ortum est supercilium, in leges Ecclesiæ vindicas? . . . Diaconos paucitas honorabiles, presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit. Cæterum etiam in ecclesia Romæ, presbyteri sedent et stant diaconi. . . . Qui provehitur, de minori ad majus provehitur. Aut igitur ex presbytero ordinetur diaconus, ut presbyter minor diacono comprobetur; aut si ex diacono ordinatur presbyter, noverit se lucris minorem, sacerdotio esse majorem. Et ut sciamus traditiones Apostolicas sumtas de veteri Testamento; quod Aaron et filii ejus atque Levitæ in templo fuerunt, hoc sibi episcopi et presbyteri et diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia.” t. i. 1074-77, ed. Vallars.]

1

V. 5. [t. vii. 694 E. “Antequam Diaboli instinctu studia in ecclesia [religione] fierent, et diceretur in populis, Ego sum Pauli, ego Apollo, ego autem Cephæ; communi presbyterorum consilio Ecclesiæ gubernabantur. Postquam vero unusquisque eos quos baptizaverat suos putabat esse, non Christi, in toto orbe decretum est, ut unus de presbyteris electus superponeretur cæteris, ad quem omnis ecclesiæ cura pertineret, et schismatum semina tollerentur.” Saravia remarks on this passage, “Quod hic dicitur communi presbyterorum consilio ecclesias in principio fuisse gubernatas, non diffiteor: sed hoc non arguit dominicæ institutionis episcopos non fuisse postea præpositos ecclesiæ, non magis quam presbyteros et diaconos non ex ordinatione divina creatos ab Apostolis, quia ecclesiæ absque presbyteris et diaconis sub apostolis regebantur, antequam crearentur diaconi et presbyteri.” c. 23. p. 51. “Inde non sequitur, ab apostolis, ubi viros idoneos Deus dederit, non fuisse præfectos singulis ecclesiis singulos episcopos supra ipsos presbyteros, qui in apostolorum locum succederent, et illa eadem præstarent, quæ ipsi præstitissent, si ubique semper præsentes ecclesiis adesse, aut semper vivere potuissent.” p. 52.]

2

[Sarav. Tract on diverse Degrees of Ministers, Eng. Transl. p. 65. Lond. 1591. “But now those factions begun under the apostles, and therefore that custom began in good time, and the Apostles themselves for the avoiding of schism altered (if not abrogated) the Lord’s institution. The which, methinks, were more than absurd to say. Our Saviour, no doubt, who is the wisdom of His Father, knew much better than the Apostles what was needful and commodious for the preventing of schism. Whom as it did not beseem to seem more wise than their master, so was it not their parts for the default of one church to alter God’s institution. Again, how knew Hierome, that before those schisms brake forth the church of Corinth had their elders, by whose council they were ruled . . . Neither do we read at any time that the elders of the church of Corinth gave the occasion of this schism, but that it was taken of the people by reason of that opinion they had of their pastors and elders . . . . They for whose sake this schism was set abroad at Corinth were not at Corinth: so that for the avoiding of this schism the elders which were to be set in some better order under one bishop were Paul himself and Apollos and Cephas,” c. And p. 67. “The error of Hierom and Aërius grew of the . . . confused use of these titles (a Bishop and an Elder ) as they were then in use. But when the same thing befalleth the title of an Apostle also, is it not strange that they should rather err in the one than the other? For whereas Barnabas, Epaphroditus, and many others are called apostles; yet no man thereby ever thought that there was no difference between them and the twelve apostles.”]

1

Ibid. v. 5. [vii. 695 E. “Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se ex Ecclesiæ consuetudine ei qui sibi præpositus fuerit, esse subjectos; ita episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine, quam dispositionis Dominicæ veritate, Presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere.”]

2

Bishops he meaneth by restraint; for episcopal power was always in the Church instituted by Christ himself, the apostles being in government bishops at large; as no man will deny;—having received from Christ himself that episcopal authority. For which cause Cyprian hath said of them: “Meminisse diaconi debent quoniam apostolos, id est episcopos et præpositos, Dominus elegit: diaconos autem post ascensum Domini in cœlos apostoli sibi constituerunt episcopatus sui et ecclesiæ ministros.” Lib. iii. Ep. 9. [al. Ep. 3. c. 2.]

*

[A new paragraph begins here in Gauden’s ed.]

1

[It is obvious that this sentence is an insertion by mistake into the text of a note on the rough draft of the work, either by Hooker or by some friend (most probably the latter): according to the remark of Dr. Mac Crie, Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 462. The following sentences, down to “perpetual continuance thereof,” are by Gauden printed in Italics, probably because he found them underscored in Hooker’s MS. But the sense, it is apprehended, will be more exactly given by omitting the Italics, (which were probably an insertion of the critic,) and reading the whole as one paragraph with the exception of the supposed marginal note.]

1

[Saravia’s remark however is, “Privatam fuisse Hieronymi opinionem, consentaneam cum Aërio, et Dei verbo contrariam.” c. 23.]

2

Lib. ii. Hæres. 66. [c. 20.]

3

De Præscript. advers. Hæret. [c. 32. “Edant ergo origines ecclesiarum suarum, evolvant ordinem episcoporum suorum, ita per successiones ab initio decurrentem, ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis, vel apostolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis perseveraverit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo Ecclesiæ apostolicæ census suos deferunt: sicut Smyrnæorum Ecclesia Polycarpum ab Joanne conlocatum refert.”]

*

[So printed, as a parenthesis, in Gauden’s ed.]

1

Acts xiii. 2.

2

Acts viii. 26.

3

Acts xvi. 6.

4

Ver. 7.

5

1 Tim. 1. 18.

1

[Sutcliffe de Presbyt. 119. “Ex istis hæ eliciuntur conclusiones: episcoporum supra presbyteros gradum, cum a synodis confirmetur, a Patribus tanquam divina probetur, cœperitque Apostolorum temporibus, et nunquam nisi nuper, a nuper exortis tenebrionibus condemnata fuerit, omnesque qui contra senserunt pro hæreticis habiti sint: divinam esse ejusdem originem; presbyterium vero, cum a synodis et Patribus ignoretur, figmentum esse humanum.”]

2

Aug. Ep. 19. [al. 82. c. 4. fin.] ad Hieron. [t. ii. 202. “Quanquam secundum honorum vocabula, quæ jam Ecclesiæ usus obtinuit, episcopatus presbyterio major sit, tamen in multis rebus Augustinus Hieronymo minor est.”] et de Hæres. 53. [t. viii. 18. “Aërius . . . dicebat etiam presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni.”]

1

1 Cor. vii. 25; 1 Tim. v. 9.

2

Tertull. de vel. Virg. [c. 9. “Scio alicubi virginem in viduatu ab annis nondum viginti collocatam; cui si quid refrigerii debuerat episcopus, aliter utique salvo respectu disciplinæ præstare potuisset.”]

3

Epiph. lib. iii. Hær. 75. [c. 4. speaking of Aërius. Ὅτι μὲν ἀϕροσύνης ἐστὶ τὸ πα̑ν ἔμπλεων, τοι̑ς σύνεσιν κεκτημένοις, του̑το δη̑λον· τὸ λέγειν αὐτὸν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ πρεσβύτερον ἰ̑σον εἰ̑ναι· καὶ πω̑ς ἔσται του̑το δυνατόν; ἡ μὲν γάρ ἐστι πατέρων γεννητικὴ τάξις· πατέρας γὰρ γεννᾳ̑ τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἡ δὲ πατέρας μὴ δυναμένη γεννᾳ̑ν, διὰ τη̑ς του̑ λουτρου̑ παλιγγενεσίας τέκνα γεννᾳ̑τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ, οὐ μὴν πατέρας, ἢ διδασκάλους.]

4

Acts xiv. 23.

5

Tit. i. 5.

6

1 Tim. v. 22.

1

“Apud Ægyptum presbyteri consignant, si præsens non sit episcopus.” Com. q. vulgo Ambros. dic. in 4. ep. ad Ephes. [§ 9. in App. 241. ed. Bened.]

2

[Concil. Carthag. iv. can. 3. t. i. 979. ed. Harduin. AD 398. “Presbyter cum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente, et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri qui præsentes sunt manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant.”]

3

[Matt. xix. 28.]

1

Numb. iii. 32.

2

Numb. iv. 27.

3

2 Chron. xix. 11.

4

Joseph. Antiq. p. 612. [του̑τον θεραπεύουσι μὲν διὰ παντὸς οἱ ἱερει̑ς, ἡγει̑ται δὲ τούτων ὁ πρω̑τος ἀεὶ κατὰ γένος. οὑ̑τος μετὰ τω̑ν συνιερέων θύσει τῳ̑ Θεῳ̑, ϕυλάξει τοὺς νόμους, δικάσει περὶ τω̑ν ἀμϕισβητουμένων, κολάσει τοὺς ἐλεγχθέντας ἐπ’ ἀδίκῳ· ὁ δέ γε τούτῳ μὴ πειθόμενος, ὑϕέξει δίκην ὡς εἰς τὸν Θεὸν αὐτὸν ἀσεβω̑ν. Contr. Apion. II. 23.]

5

[E. g. Beza, Respons. ad Saraviam, De divers. Grad. Ministr. Evang. c. 14. § 2. in Tract. Sarav. p. 136. “Respondeo non fuisse æquale neque sacerdotum neque Levitarum inter se ministerium. Fuerunt enim aliæ et eminentiores summi sacerdotis, quam aliorum infra ipsum, partes; ut cui soli sacrarium ingredi liceret, ut Jesu Christi ecclesiæ suæ capitis unici typo.” comp. “De Triplici Sacerdotio,” p. 60.]

1

[De Brés, “Racine, Source, et Fondement des Anabaptistes.” p. 822. “Plusieurs de nos Anabaptistes pensent bien d’échapper de tant de témoignages qui sont contr’eux, disant, que tous ces témoignages sont pris du Vieil Testament, et qu’ils ne doivent avoir lieu au Nouveau, en tant que notre Seigneur requiert une perfection plus grande en l’église Chrétienne qu’il n’a pas fait au peuple Judaique.” Comp. p. 825. “Les Anabaptistes pensent bien tout renverser, quand ils nous repliquent le dire du Prophête Esaie, ii. 4; xi. 6.” c.]

2

Cypr. l. iii. Ep. 9. [65. ed. Baluz.] ad Rogatianum. [“Tu quidem honorifice circa nos et pro solita tua humilitate fecisti, ut malles de eo nobis conqueri, cum pro episcopatus vigore et cathedræ auctoritate haberes potestatem qua posses de illo statim vindicari, . . . habens circa hujusmodi homines præcepta divina, cum Dominus Deus in Deuteronomio dicat, ‘Et homo quicunque fecerit in superbia, ut non exaudiat sacerdotem aut judicem quicunque fuerit in diebus illis,’ c. . . . Et ut sciamus hanc Dei vocem cum vera et summa majestate ejus processisse ad honorandos ac vindicandos sacerdotes suos, cum adversus Aaron sacerdotem tres de ministris, Chore, et Dathan, et Abiron ausi sunt superbisse et cervicem suam extollere, et sacerdoti præposito se adæquare, hiatu terræ absorpti ac devorati pœnas statim sacrilegæ audaciæ persolverunt. . . . Ut probaretur sacerdotes Dei ab eo qui sacerdotes facit vindicari.”]

1

Hier. Ep. 85. [al. 146. fin. vid. supr. c. v. § 6. p. 160, note 1.]

2

Ep. ad Smyr. [c. 9. vid. supr. b. vi. c. ii. § 1. p. 4, note 4.]

3

1 Tim. v. 19. “Against a presbyter receive no accusation under two or three witnesses.”

4

Ignat. [adscr.] Epist. ad Antioch. [c. 8.]

5

Apud Cypr. Ep. ii. 7. [31. “Quanquam nobis differendæ hujus rei necessitas major incumbat, quibus post excessum nobilissimæ memoriæ viri Fabiani nondum est episcopus propter rerum et temporum difficultates constitutus, qui omnia ista moderetur, et eorum qui lapsi sunt possit cum auctoritate et consilio habere rationem.”]

1

“Episcopi universæ plebi mandare jejunia assolent.” Tertull. advers. Psychic. [c. 13.]

2

Cypr. Ep. 27. [al. 33. “Dominus noster, cujus præcepta et monita observare debemus, episcopi honorem et ecclesiæ suæ rationem disponens in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro, ‘Ego tibi dico quia tu es Petrus,’ c. . . . . . Inde per temporum et successionum vices episcoporum ordinatio et ecclesiæ ratio decurrit, ut ecclesia super episcopos constituatur, et omnis actus ecclesiæ per eosdem præpositos gubernetur.”]

3

Cypr. Ep. 39. [al. 5. ed. Baluz. Fretus et dilectione et religione vestra, quam satis novi, his literis et hortor et mando, ut vos, quorum minime illic invidiosa et non adeo periculosa præsentia est, vice mea fungamini circa gerenda ea quæ administratio religiosa deposcit.”]

4

Vide Ignat. ad Magnes. [c. vi. προκαθημένου του̑ ἐπισκόπου εἰς τόπον Θεου̑, καὶ τω̑ν πρεσβυτέρων εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τω̑ν ἀποστόλων, καὶ τω̑ν διακόνων, τω̑ν ἐμοὶ γλυκυτάτων, πεπιστευμένων διακονίαν Ἰησου̑ Χριστου̑ . . c. vii. ὥσπερ οὐ̑ν ὁ Κύριος ἄνευ του̑ Πατρὸς οὐδὲν ἐποίησε, ἡνωμένος ὢν, οὔτε δι’ αὐτου̑, οὔτε διὰ τω̑ν Ἀποστόλων· οὕτως μηδὲ ὑμει̑ς ἄνευ του̑ ἐπισκόπου καὶ τω̑ν πρεσβυτέρων μηδὲν πράσσετε. . . c. xiii. ὑποτάγητε τῳ̑ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ὥσπερ Ἰησου̑ς Χριστὸς τῳ̑ Πατρὶ κατὰ σάρκα, καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῳ̑ Χριστῳ̑ καὶ τῳ̑ Πατρὶ καὶ τῳ̑ Πνεύματι, ἵνα ἕνωσις ᾐ̑ σαρκική τε καὶ πνευματική.]

1

“Quod Aaron et filios ejus, hoc episcopum et presbyteros esse noverimus.” Hier. ad Nepotianum, ep. 2. [al. 52. § 7. t. i. p. 260. ed. Vallarsii.]

2

“Ita est, ut in episcopis Dominum, in presbyteris Apostolos recognoscas.” Auctor Opusc. de septem Ordinib. Eccl. inter Opera Hieron. [t. xi. 123.]

3

Ignat. [interp.] Ep. ad Trall. [c. 7. τί γάρ ἐστιν ἐπίσκοπος, ἀλλ’ ἢ πάσης ἀρχη̑ς καὶ ἐξουσίας ἐπέκεινα πάντων κρατω̑ν, ὡς οἱ̑όν τε ἄνθρωπον κρατει̑ν, μιμητὴν γινόμενον κατὰ δύναμιν Χριστου̑ του̑ Θεου̑.]

4

Instit. lib. iv. cap. 4. § 2. [“Quibus docendi munus injunctum erat, eos omnes nominabant presbyteros. Illi ex suo numero in singulis civitatibus unum eligebant, cui specialiter dabant titulum episcopi; ne ex æqualitate, ut fieri solet, dissidia nascerentur. Neque tamen sic honore et dignitate superior erat episcopus ut dominium in collegas haberet; sed quas partes habet consul in senatu, ut referat de negotiis, sententias roget, consulendo, monendo; hortando, aliis præeat, authoritate sua totam actionem regat, et quod decretum communi consilio fuerit exsequatur; id muneris sustinebat episcopus in presbyterorum cœtu.”]

1

[T. C. i. 109. al. 83. “That he meaneth nothing less than to make any such difference between a bishop and a minister as is with us, . . . I will send you to Chrysostom upon 1 Tim. iii. where he saith, ‘The office of a bishop differeth little or nothing from an elder’s:’ and a little after, ‘That a bishop differeth nothing from an elder or minister but by the ordination only.’ ” Whitgift, Def. 387. “Chrysostom in that place maketh degrees in the ministry, and placeth the bishop in degree above the minister, which utterly overthroweth your equality.”]

2

Hieron. Ep. ad Evagr. [Evang.] 85. [al. 146. § 1. “Quid enim facit excepta ordinatione episcopus, quod presbyter non faciat?”]

3

Chrysost. Hom. x. [xi.] in 1 Tim. 3. [t. xi. p. 604. ed. Ben. Ἃ περὶ ἐπισκόπων εἰ̑πε, ταυ̑τα καὶ πρεσβυτέροις ἁρμόττει· τῃ̑ γὰρ χειροτονίᾳ μόνῃ ὑπερβεβήκασι, καὶ τούτῳ μόνον δοκου̑σι πλεονεκτει̑ν τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους.]

1

[Ep. ad Nepot. 2. al. 52. § 7.]

1

“Velut in aliqua sublimi specula constituti, vix dignantur videre mortales et alloqui conservos suos.” In 4. c. Epist. ad Gal. [v. 13. t. vii. 458.]

2

“Nemo peccantibus episcopis audet contradicere; nemo audet accusare majorem; propterea quasi sancti et beati et in præceptis Domini ambulantes augent peccata peccatis. Difficilis est accusatio in episcopum. Si enim peccaverit, non creditur; et si convictus fuerit, non punitur.” In cap. 8. Ecclesiast. v. 11. [iii. 454. The later editions of St. Jerome omit the first clause.]

3

“Pessimæ consuetudinis est, in quibusdam ecclesiis tacere presbyteros et præsentibus episcopis non loqui; quasi aut invideant aut non dignentur audire.” Ep. ad Nepotian. [52. § 7.]

4

Ep. 53. ad Ripar. [al. 109. § 2. i. 720.]

5

Hier. ad Nepot. [52. § 7. “Esto subjectus Pontifici tuo, et quasi animæ parentem suscipe. . . Illud etiam dico, quod episcopi, sacerdotes se esse noverint, non dominos; honorent clericos quasi clericos, ut et ipsis a clericis quasi episcopis honor deferatur. Scitum illud est oratoris Domitii, ‘Cur ego te, inquit, habeam ut principem, quum tu me non habeas ut senatorem?’ Quod Aaron et filios ejus, hoc esse episcopum et presbyteros noverimus. Unus Dominus, unum Templum; unum sit etiam ministerium.” i. 260.]

1

No bishop may be a lord in reference unto the presbyters which are under him, if we take that name in the worst part, as Jerome here doth. For a bishop is to rule his presbyters, not as lords do their slaves, but as fathers do their children.

2

[§ 9. “Ecclesiæ salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet; cui si non exsors quædam et ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes.” ii. 182.]

3

In Vita Chrys. per Cassiod. Sen. [in Hist. Eccles. Tripart. (a Latin compilation from Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, made or translated at the instance of Cassiodorus (470-565) by his friend Epiphanius Scholasticus) l. x. c. 18.] 1886.

1

Pallad. (367-431.) in Vita Chrys. [c. 9. t. xiii. p. 29 E. ed. Bened. ἐμηνύθησαν δύο πρεσβύτεροι του̑ Ἰωάννου, . . . λέγοντες, “ἐδήλωσέν σοι ἡ σύνοδος· ‘πέρασον πρὸς ἡμα̑ς, ἀπολογησόμενος τὰ ἐγκλήματα.’ ” πρὸς ταυ̑τα ὁ Ἰωάννης ἀντεδήλωσεν δι’ ἐπισκόπων ἑτέρων· “ποίᾳ ἀκολουθίᾳ δικάζετε, οἱ μήτε τοὺς ἐχθρούς μου ἐξεώσαντες, καὶ διὰ τω̑ν ἐμω̑ν κληρικω̑ν μεταστελλόμενοι;”]

2

Ὥσπερ σύμπονοι δοθέντες τῳ̑ ἐπισκόπῳ. Zonaras, 1029-1118. in Can. Apost. [Can. 58. ap. Beveridge, Synod. i. 38. καὶ τὸ ὄνομα δὲ του̑ ἐπισκόπου εἰς νη̑ψιν αὐτὸν διεγείρει· σκοπὸς γὰρ ὠνόμασται· τὸν δὲ σκοπὸν ἐγρηγορέναι δει̑, ἀλλ’ οὐ ῥαθυμει̑ν· διὰ του̑το τοι̑ς ἐπισκόποις ἐν τῳ̑ θυσιαστηρίῳ καθέδρα ἐϕ’ ὕψους ἵδρυται, δηλου̑ντος του̑ πράγματος, οἱ̑ον εἰ̑ναι του̑τον, καὶ ὅτι δει̑ τὸν ὑπ’ αὐτὸν λαὸν ὁρᾳ̑ν ἀϕ’ ὕψους, καὶ ἐπισκοπει̑ν ἀκριβέστερον· καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι συνιστάναι ἐκει̑ τῳ̑ ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ συγκαθη̑σθαι ἐτάχθησαν, ἵνα καὶ οὑ̑τοι διὰ τη̑ς ἀϕ’ ὕψους καθέδρας ἐνάγωνται εἰς τὸ ἐϕορᾳ̑ν τὸν λαὸν, καὶ καταρτίζειν αὐτὸν, ὥσπερ σύμπονοι δοθέντες τῳ̑ ἐπισκόπῳ.]

3

[Cap. 7. τί δὲ πρεσβυτερίον, ἀλλ’ ἢ σύστημα ἱερὸν, σύμβουλοι καὶ συνεδρευταὶ του̑ ἐπισκόπου; . . . ὁ τοίνυν τούτων παρακούων, ἄθεος πάμπαν εἴη ἂν, καὶ δυσσεβής, καὶ ἀθετω̑ν Χριστὸν, καὶ τὴν αὐτου̑ διάταξιν σμικρύνων. ap. Coteler. ii. 63.]

1

“Cum episcopo presbyteri sacerdotali honore conjuncti.” Ep. 28. [qu. 68? p. 118. ed. Baluzii. “Nec hoc in episcoporum tantum et sacerdotum, sed et in diaconorum ordinationibus observasse apostolos animadvertimus . . . nequis ad altaris ministerium vel ad sacerdotalem locum indignus obreperet.”] “Ego et compresbyteri nostri qui nobis adsidebant.” Ep. 27. [66. p. 114.]

2

[It should be “Cornelius unto Cyprian.”]

3

[Ep. 46. p. 60. ed. Baluz. “Posteaquam Urbanus et Sidonius confessores ad compresbyteros nostros venerunt, affirmantes Maximum confessorem et presbyterum secum pariter cupere in ecclesiam redire, . . . . ex ipsorum ore et confessione ista quæ per legationem mandaverant placuit audiri. Qui cum venissent, et a presbyteris quæ gesserant exigerentur. . . . circumventos se esse affirmaverunt, . . . . qui cum hæc et cætera eis fuissent exprobrata, ut abolerentur et de memoria tollerentur deprecati sunt. Omni igitur actu ad me perlato, placuit contrahi presbyterium. Adfuerunt etiam episcopi quinque, . . . ut firmato consilio quid circa personam eorum observari deberet consensu omnium statueretur.”]

1

Cypr. Ep. 93. [5. p. 11. “Ad id quod scripserunt mihi compresbyteri nostri Donatus et Fortunatus, Novatus, et Gordius, solus rescribere nihil potui, quando a primordio episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro et sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere.”]

2

[Ibid. “Sed cum ad vos per Dei gratiam venero, tunc de iis quæ vel gesta sunt vel gerenda, sicut honor mutuus poscit, in commune tractabimus.”]

1

Cypr. Ep. [65. al. 3. c. 1. vid. supr. c. vi. § 7. p. 172, note 2.]

2

Such a one was that Peter whom Cassiodore writing the life of Chrysostom doth call the archpresbyter of the church of Alexandria under Theophilus at that time bishop. [Hist. Eccles. Tripartit. lib. x. cap. 10.]

3

Psalm cii. 13, 14.

1

L. 36. C. de Episc. et Cler. [Cod. Just. i. 3. de Episc. et Cler. 36. p. 35. ed. Gothofr. 1688. Hooker gives almost verbatim the Greek version of Photius, (†890.) Nomocanon, p. 85. ed. Paris. 1620.] Ἑκάστη πόλις ἴδιον ἐπίσκοπον ἐχέτω· καὶ κᾂν διὰ θείας ἀντιγραϕη̑ς τολμήσῃ τις ἀϕελέσθαι πόλιν του̑ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου ἢ τη̑ς περιοικίδος αὐτη̑ς ἢ τινὸς ἄλλου δικαίου, γυμνου̑ται τω̑ν ὄντων καὶ ἀτιμου̑ται. Ἐξῄρηται δὲ ἡ Τομέων Σκυθίας πόλις. Ὁ γὰρ ἐπίσκοπος αὐτη̑ς καὶ τω̑ν λοιπω̑ν προνοει̑. Καὶ ἡ Λεοντόπολις Ἰσαυρίας ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπόν ἐστιν Ἰσαυροπόλεως. Besides, Cypr. Ep. 52. [p. 73. ed. Baluz. al. 55. c. 14.] “Cum jampridem per omnes provincias et per urbes singulas ordinati sunt episcopi.”

2

“Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offert et tingit sacerdos qui est ibi solus.” Tertull. Exhort. ad Castit. [c. 7.]

1

Cypr. Ep. 25. [40. ed. Baluz. p. 53. “Cum semel placuerit tam nobis quam confessoribus et clericis urbicis, item universis episcopis vel in nostra provincia vel trans mare constitutis,” c.]

2

Hieron. advers. Lucifer. [§ 9. “Non quidem abnuo hanc ecclesiarum esse consuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longe in minoribus urbibus per presbyteros et diaconos baptizati sunt, episcopus ad invocationem Sancti Spiritus manum impositurus excurrat.”]

3

Cypr. Ep. 49. [al. 52. c. 1. “Didicimus, atque docere et instruere cæteros cœpimus, Evaristum de episcopo, jam nec laicum remansisse, cathedræ et plebis extorrem, et de ecclesia Christi exsulem.” p. 63. ed. Baluz.]

4

[So Keble. Johnson quotes Whitgift and Raleigh for this form. So Gauden’s text 1676, but in ed. 1682 it is diocese. ] 1886.

5

[Ἕκαστον ἐπίσκοπον ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν τη̑ς ἑαυτου̑ παροικίας, διοικει̑ν τε κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστῳ ἐπιβάλλουσαν εὐλάβειαν καὶ πρόνοιαν ποιει̑σθαι πάσης τη̑ς χω̑ρας τη̑ς ὑπὸ τὴν ἑαυτου̑ πόλιν, ὣς καὶ χειροτονει̑ν πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διακόνους, καὶ μετὰ κρίσεως ἕκαστα διαλαμβάνειν· περαιτέρω δὲ μηδὲν πράττειν ἐπιχειρει̑ν δίχα του̑ τη̑ς μητροπόλεως ἐπισκόπου, μηδὲ αὐτὸν ἄνευ τη̑ς τω̑ν λοιπω̑ν γνώμης.] Conc. Antioch. cap. 9. [ AD 341. t. i. 597. ed. Harduin.] Ἀκλήτους δὲ ἐπισκόπους ὑπὲρ διοίκησιν μὴ ἐπιβαίνειν, ἐπὶ χειροτονίᾳ ἤ τισιν ἄλλαις οἰκονομίαις ἐκκλησιαστικαι̑ς. Conc. Const. can. 2. [ AD 381. t. i. 809.] Του̑το γὰρ πρότερον διὰ τοὺς διωγμοὺς ἐγίνετο ἀδιαϕόρως. Socr. lib. v. cap. 8.

1

“As I have ordained in the churches of Galatia, the same do ye also.” 1 Cor. xvi. 1.

2

2 Cor. xi. 28.

3

Chrys. in i. ad Tit. [εἰ δὲ ὁ μίαν ψυχὴν σκανδαλίζων, συμϕέρει αὐτῳ̑ ἵνα μύλος ὀνικὸς κρεμασθῃ̑ εἰς τὸν τράχηλον αὐτου̑, καὶ καταποντισθῃ̑ ἐν τῳ̑ πελάγει τη̑ς θαλάσσης. ὁ τὰς τοσαύτας ψυχὰς σκανδαλίζων, πόλεις ὁλοκλήρους, καὶ δήμους, καὶ μυρίας ψυχὰς, ἄνδρας, γυναι̑κας, παι̑δας, πολίτας, γεωργοὺς, τοὺς ἐν αὐτῃ̑ τῃ̑ πόλει, τοὺς ἐν ἑτέραις ται̑ς ὑπ’ ἐκείνην τὴν πόλιν, τί ὑποστήσεται;]

4

Pallad. in Vita Chrys. [c. 7.] καὶ τὸν μὲν χειροτονει̑ ἐπίσκοπον, ἐγκατατάξας κωμυδρίῳ, πόλιν οὐκ ἔχων· ἀδεω̑ς γὰρ καὶ τὰς καινοτομίας εἰργάζετο, ἄλλον ἑαυτὸν Μωσέα ὀνομάζων. ap. Chrys. ed. Bened. t. xiii. 22 F.]

a

bishops, Keble; so Gauden 1676.

b

vicegerent, Keble; and so 1676.

1

Concil. Antioch. AD 341. can. 10. [τοὺς ἐν ται̑ς κώμαις, ἢ ται̑ς χώραις, ἢ τοὺς καλουμένους χωρεπισκόπους, εἰ καὶ χειροθεσίαν εἰ̑εν ἐπισκόπων εἰληϕότες, ἔδοξε τῃ̑ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ εἰδέναι τὰ ἑαυτω̑ν μέτρα, καὶ διοικει̑ν τὰς ὑποκειμένας ἑαυτοι̑ς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τῃ̑ τούτων ἀρκει̑σθαι ϕροντίδι καὶ κηδεμονίᾳ, καθιστα̑ν δὲ ἀναγνώστας, καὶ ὑποδιακόνους, καὶ ἐϕορκιστὰς, καὶ τῃ̑ τούτων ἀρκει̑σθαι προαγωγῃ̑· μήτε πρεσβύτερον, μήτε διάκονον χειροτονει̑ν τολμᾳ̑ν, δίχα του̑ ἐν τῃ̑ πόλει ἐπισκόπου, ᾑ̑ ὑπόκεινται αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ χώρα· εἰ δὲ τολμήσειέ τις παραβη̑ναι τὰ ὁρισθέντα, καθαιρει̑σθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ἣς μετέχει τιμη̑ς· χωρεπίσκοπον δὲ γίνεσθαι ὑπὸ του̑ τη̑ς πόλεως, ᾑ̑ ὑπόκειται, ἐπισκόπου. t. i. p. 597. ed. Harduin. AD 341.]

1

[T. C. i. 85. apud Whitgift. Def. 392. al. 110. “If any man will call this a rule or presidentship, and him that executeth the office a president or moderator, or a governor, we will not strive, so that it be with these cautions, that he be not called simply governor or moderator, but governor or moderator of that action and for that time, and subject to the orders that others be, and to be censured by the company of the brethren as well as others, if he be judged any way faulty. And that after that action ended and meeting dissolved, he sit him down in his old place, and set himself in equal estate with the rest of the ministers. Thirdly, that this government or presidentship, or whatsoever like name you will give it, be not so tied unto that minister, but that at the next meeting it shall be lawful to take another if another be thought meeter.”]

c

So ed. 1676, 1682.

1

[Of Archbishops, see Admon. ap. Whitg. Def. 298; Answ. ibid. al. 95-103; T. C. i. 61. al. 82; Def. 297, c.; T. C. ii. 453-514.]

2

“Si quid habebis cum aliquo Hellespontio controversiæ, ut in illam διοίκησιν rejicias.” Cic. Fam. Ep. 53. lib. xiii. The suit which Tully maketh was this, that the party in whose behalf he wrote to the proprætor, might have his causes put over to that court which was held in the diocess of Hellespont, where the man did abide, and not to his trouble be forced to follow them at Ephesus, which was the chiefest court in that province.

d

mo, ed. 1676; more, 1682.

1

[Notit. Imp. Orient. per Pancirollum, p. 78. ed. 1593.]

2

[According to the Notitia, p. 153, Africa had but five provinces; according to Sextus Rufus, six; ap. Gruter. Script. Hist. Rom. p. 1194.]

3

[Lib. xlv. c. 29.]

4

[Theodoret. E. H. v. 17; Cod. Theodos. xi. tit. i. 33.]

5

Cic. ad Attic. lib. v. ep. 13. Item, l. Observ. D. de Officio Proconsulis et Legati. [“Imperator noster Antoninus Augustus ad desideria Asianorum rescripsit, proconsuli necessitatem impositam per mare Asiam applicare, καὶ τω̑ν μητροπολέων Ἔϕεσον, i.e. inter matrices urbes Ephesum primam attingere.” ap. Gothofred. Corp. Jur. Civ. p. 28. ed. 1688.]

6

“Sancimus . . . ut sicut Oriens atque Illyricum, ita et Africa prætoriana maxima potestate specialiter a nostra clementia decoretur. Cujus sedem jubemus esse Carthaginem . . . et ab ea, auxiliante Deo, septem provinciæ cum suis judicibus disponantur.” Lib. i. tit. 27. l. i. sect. 1, 2. [Cod. Justinian. p. 100. ed. Gothofr. 1688.]

e

So ed. 1676, 1682.

1

Psalm lxxx. 8, 9.

2

Concil. Antiochen. can. 9. Τοὺς καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν ἐπισκόπους εἰδέναι χρὴ τὸν ἐν τῃ̑ μητροπόλει προεστω̑τα ἐπίσκοπον καὶ τὴν ϕροντίδα ἀναδέχεσθαι πάσης τη̑ς ἐπαρχίας, διὰ τὸ ἐν τῃ̑ μητροπόλει πανταχόθεν συντρέχειν πάντας τοὺς τὰ πράγματα ἔχοντας, ὅθεν ἔδοξε καὶ τῃ̑ τιμῃ̑ προηγει̑σθαι αὐτόν. [t. i. 595. ed. Harduin. AD 341.]

1

Vilierius de Statu primitivæ Ecclesiæ. [“Hæc quidem Ecclesiæ Christianæ instituta adusque cccc amplius xxx annos integra atque inviolata permanserunt . . . . At paucis post annis, Constantinopolitanus Episcopus ambitione et cupiditate regnandi ac census ausus est præclaram illam Ecclesiæ descriptionem et œconomiam convellere. Cum enim imperatores sedem imperii sui, senatumque in ea civitate constituissent, ille artibus suis perfecit, ut ea . . . dignitatem quoque et potestatem aliquam præter cæteras metropoles eximiam ac perpetuam obtineret. Itaque quod Constantinopolitani primi cap. 2°. constitutum erat, ut Asiæ, Ponti, et Thraciæ metropolitæ, suæ quisque provinciæ procurationem gererent, . . . proximo universali concilio, i. e. Chalcedonensi, funditus abrogatum est, et novo more, nullo exemplo constitutum, ut harum omnium provinciarum metropolitas solus Constantinopolitanus episcopus constitueret: qua lege . . . nemo non videt . . . æquabilitatem provinciarum, quæ a majoribus conservata ac tradita fuerat, turpissime confusam ac perturbatam.” fol. 143. ad calcem Reg. Poli, Def. Eccl. Unit.; Argentorat. 1555. The tract was written in reality by François Hotman, the distinguished French protestant lawyer, and was first printed at Geneva, 1553: Hotman being then Professor of Law at Strasburg. Vid. Gesneri Biblioth. as epitomized by Simler, Zurich, 1574. p. 202; et Biogr. Univ. art. Hotman.]

2

[I. e. the council of Chalcedon, AD 451; in its 28th canon, cited below.]

1

[Can. vi. Τὰ ἀρχαι̑α ἔθη κρατείτω, τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλει, ὥστε τὸν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῳ̑ ἐν τῃ̑ Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ του̑το σύνηθές ἐστιν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν, καὶ ἐν ται̑ς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις, τὰ πρεσβει̑α σώζεσθαι ται̑ς ἐκκλησίαις. Conc. Harduin. i. 325.]

2

Socr. lib. v. c. 8.

3

[ AD 381. Can. ii. Κατὰ τοὺς κανόνας, τὸν μὲν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπον τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μόνον οἰκονομει̑ν· τοὺς δὲ τη̑ς ἀνατολη̑ς ἐπισκόπους τὴν ἀνατολὴν μόνην διοικει̑ν, ϕυλαττομένων τω̑ν ἐν τοι̑ς κανόσι τοι̑ς κατὰ Νικαίαν πρεσβείων τῃ̑ Ἀντοιχέων ἐκκλησίᾳ. And Can. iii. Τὸν μέντοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβει̑α τη̑ς τιμη̑ς μετὰ τὸν τη̑ς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον, διὰ τὸ εἰ̑ναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμην. Conc. i. 809.]

4

Can. 28. [ AD 451. Τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ἡμει̑ς ὁρίζομεν καὶ ψηϕιζόμεθα περὶ τω̑ν πρεσβείων τη̑ς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ψέας Ῥώμης· καὶ γὰρ τῳ̑ θρόνῳ τη̑ς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης, διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην, οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβει̑α, καὶ τῳ̑ αὐτῳ̑ σκόπῳ κινουμένοι οἱ ρν́ θεοϕιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι, τὰ ἰ̑σα πρεσβει̑α ἀπένειμαν τῳ̑ τη̑ς νέας Ῥώμης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρίναντες, τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθει̑σαν πόλιν, καὶ τω̑ν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῃ̑ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ, καὶ ἐν τοι̑ς ἐκκλησιαστικοι̑ς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασιν, δευτέραν μετ’ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν. Ibid. ii. 612.]

1

Can. 36. [There is an historical oversight here. The council meant is that called Quinisextum, or “in Trullo,” AD 706; of which the 36th canon appeals to the 630 bishops assembled at Chalcedon. Ἀνανεούμενοι τὰ παρὰ τω̑ν ρν́ ἁγίων πατἐρων τω̑ν ἐν τῃ̑ θεοϕυλάκτῳ ταύτῃ καὶ βασιλίδι πόλει συνελθόντων, καὶ τω̑ν χλ́. τω̑ν ἐν Χαλκήδονι συνελθόντων νομοθετηθέντα, ὁρίζομεν, ὥστε τὸν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνον τω̑ν ἴσων ἀπολαύειν πρεσβείων του̑ τη̑ς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης θρόνου, καὶ ἐν τοι̑ς ἐκκλησιαστικοι̑ς ὡς ἐκει̑νον μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι, δεύτερον μετ’ ἐκει̑νον ὑπάρχοντα· μεθ’ ὃν ὁ τη̑ς Ἀλεξανδρέων μεγαλοπόλεως ἀριθμείσθω θρόνος· εἰ̑τα ὁ τη̑ς Ἀντιοχέων· καὶ μετὰ του̑τον ὁ τη̑ς Ἱεροσολυμιτω̑ν πόλεως. Ibid. iii. 1676.]

2

[E. g. of Theodosius ii. xvi. Cod. Theodos. tit. ii. l. 45. AD 421. “Omni innovatione cessante, vetustatem et canones pristinos ecclesiasticos qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici provincias servari præcipimus: tum, si quid dubietatis emerserit, id oporteat non absque scientia viri reverendissimi sacrosanctæ legis antistitis urbis Constantinopolitanæ (quæ Romæ veteris prærogativa lætatur) conventui sacerdotali sanctoque judicio reservari.” t. vi. 89. ed. Gothofred. And of Justinian, Novell. cxxxi. c. 1, 2. AD 541. “Sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas ecclesiasticas regulas, quæ a sanctis quatuor conciliis expositæ sunt, aut firmatæ . . . Ideoque sancimus secundum earum definitiones sanctissimum senioris Romæ Papam primum esse omnium sacerdotum; beatissimum autem Archiepiscopum Constantinopoleos novæ Romæ secundum habere locum post sanctam apostolicam senioris Romæ sedem; aliis autem omnibus sedibus præponatur.” p. 275. ed. Gothofr. 1688.]

3

Novell. cxxiii. 22. [“Si quis vero sanctissimorum episcoporum ejusdem synodi dubitationem aliquam ad invicem habeat, sive pro ecclesiastico jure, sive pro aliis quibusdam rebus, prius metropolita eorum cum aliis de sua synodo episcopis causam examinet et judicet; et si non rata habuerit utraque pars ea quæ judicata sunt, tunc beatissimus Patriarcha diœceseos illius inter eos audiat, et illa determinet, quæ ecclesiasticis canonibus et regulis consonant, nulla parte ejus sententiæ contradicere valente. Si autem et a clero, aut alio quocunque aditio contra episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam; apud sanctissimum ejus metropolitam secundum sacras regulas et nostras leges causa judicetur; et siquis judicatis contradixerit, ad beatissimum archiepiscopum et patriarcham diœceseos illius referatur causa, et ille secundum canones et leges huic præbeat finem. Si vero contra metropolitam talis aditio fiat ab episcopo aut clero, aut alia quacunque persona, diœceseos illius beatissimus patriarcha simili modo causam judicet.” p. 259. ed. Gothofr. 1688. AD 541.]

1

Conc. Nic. c. 6. [t. i. 325. ed. Harduin. vid. supr. § 9. p. 193, note 1.]

1

Ejusd. Conc. c. 7. [ἐπειδὴ συνήθεια κεκράτηκε καὶ παράδοσις ἀρχαία, ὥστε τὸν ἐν Αἰλίᾳ ἐπίσκοπον τιμα̑σθαι, ἐχέτω τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τη̑ς τιμη̑ς, τῃ̑ μητροπόλει σωζομένου του̑ οἰκείου ἀξιώματος. It appears that Hooker’s copy placed the comma after μητροπόλει.]

2

[Vide Sarav. de Divers. Ministr. Evang. Grad. c. 20.]

3

“What! no mention of him in Theophilus bishop of Antioch? none in Clemens Alexandrinus? none in Ignatius? none in Justin Martyr? in Irenæus, in Tertullian, in Origen, in Cyprian? in those old historiographers, out of which Eusebius gathered his story? Was it for his baseness and smallness that he could not be seen amongst the bishops, elders, and deacons, being the chief and principal of them all? Can the cedar of Lebanon be hidden amongst the box-trees?” T. C. lib. i. 92. [al. 70.]

1

T. C. lib. i. ubi supra. “A metropolitan bishop was nothing else but a bishop of that place which it pleased the emperor or magistrate to make the chief of the diocess or shire; and as for this name, it makes no more difference between a bishop and a bishop, than when I say a minister of London and a minister of Newington.”

f

more, so in edd. 1676, 1682.

2

[“ Girdler, ‘a maker of girdles.’ ‘Talk with the girdler, or with the milliner.’ Beaum. and Fletcher, Honest Man’s Fortune.” Todd’s Johnson’s Dict.]

3

Conc. Nicen. c. 6. “Illud autem omnino manifestum, quod siquis absque metropolitani sententia factus sit episcopus, hunc magna synodus definivit episcopum esse non oportere.” [καθόλου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκει̑νο, ὅτι εἴτις χωρὶς γνώμης του̑ μητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος, τὸν τοιου̑τον ἡ μεγαλὴ σύνοδος ὥρισε μὴ δει̑ν εἰ̑ναι ἐπίσκοπον.] Can. 4. [ἐπίσκοπον προσήκει μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ πάντων τω̑ν ἐν τῃ̑ ἐπαρχίᾳ καθίστασθαι· εἰ δὲ δυσχερὲς εἴη τὸ τοιου̑το, ἢ διὰ κατεπείγουσαν ἀνάγκην, ἢ διὰ μη̑κος ὁδου̑, ἐξ ἅπαντος τρει̑ς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναγομένους, συμψήϕων γινομένων καὶ τω̑ν ἀπόντων, καὶ συντιθεμένων διὰ γραμμάτων, τότε τὴν χειροτονίαν ποιει̑σθαι· τὸ δὲ κυ̑ρος τω̑ν γινομένων δίδοσθαι καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν τῳ̑ μητροπολίτῃ. t. i. 324. ed. Harduin.]

1

Novell. cxxiii. can. 10. [“Ut omnis ecclesiasticus status et sacræ regulæ diligenter custodiantur; jubemus unumquemque beatum archiepiscopum et patriarcham et metropolitam sanctissimos episcopos sub se constitutos in eadem provincia semel aut secundo per singulos annos ad se convocare, et omnes causas subtiliter examinare, quas episcopi aut clerici aut monachi ad invicem habeant.” p. 255.]

2

Novell. cxxiii. cap. 9. [“Interdicimus Deo amabilibus episcopis proprias relinquere ecclesias, et ad alias regiones venire. Si vero necessitas faciendi hoc contigerit, non aliter, nisi cum literis beatissimi Patriarchæ aut Metropolitæ, aut per imperialem videlicet jussionem hoc faciant.” ibid.]

3

Novell. lxxix. cap. 2. [“Imp. Just. Aug. Mennæ Archiep. Constantinop. . . . Tua celsitudo . . . . utatur ad Deo amabiles civitatum metropolitanos (quorum ipse suscepisti ordinationem) proponens propriis literis hanc nostram sacram legem. Verum illi sub se constitutis episcopis hæc nuncient, ut ex paucis literis una continuatio legis ad omnem perveniat ditionem.” p. 165.]

4

Novell. cxxiii. cap. 22. [vid. supr. § 10. p. 194, note 3.]

5

Novell. cxxiii. cap. 23. [“Œconomos autem et xenodochos, nosocomos, ptochotrophos, et aliorum venerabilium locorum gubernatores, et alios omnes clericos jubemus pro creditis sibi gubernationibus apud proprium episcopum, cui subjacent, conveniri, et rationem suæ gubernationis facere et exigi. . . Si vero putaverint se gravari, post repetitionem metropolita causam examinet. Si vero metropolita . . . debitum exegerit, et exactus putaverit se gravatum, diœceseos illius beatissimus patriarcha causam examinet.” p. 259.]

1

Can. 9. [τοὺς καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν ἐπισκόπους εἰδέναι χρὴ, τὸν ἐν τῃ̑ μητροπόλει προεστω̑τα ἐπίσκοπον καὶ τὴν ϕροντίδα ἀναδέχεσθαι πάσης τη̑ς ἐπαρχίας . . . ὅθεν ἔδοξε . . . μηδὲν πράττειν περιττὸν τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐπισκόπους ἄνευ αὐτου̑, κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαι̑ον κρατήσαντα τω̑ν πατέρων ἡμω̑ν κανόνα, ἢ ταυ̑τα μόνα, ὅσα τῃ̑ ἑκάστου ἐπιβάλλει παροικίᾳ καὶ ται̑ς ὑπ’ αὐτὴν χώραις. i. 595. ed. Hard.]

2

Can. 16. [τελείαν δὲ ἐκείνην εἰ̑ναι σύνοδον, ᾑ̑ συμπάρεστι καὶ ὁ τη̑ς μητροπόλεως. i. 599.]

3

Can. 4. τὸ κυ̑ρος τω̑ν γινομένων. [i. 324.]

4

Can. 23. [28. AD 397. 3. Concil. Carthag. “Placuit, ut Episcopi transmare non proficiscantur nisi consulto primæ sedis Episcopo, sive cujusque provinciæ primate, ut ab eo præcipue possint sumere formatam, sive commendationem.” t. i. 964.]

5

Can. 34. [33. τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρὴ τὸν ἐν αὐτοι̑ς πρω̑τον, καὶ ἡγει̑σθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεϕαλὴν, καὶ μηδέν τι πράττειν περιττὸν ἄνευ τη̑ς ἐκείνου γνώμης. Conc. Harduin. i. 17.]

1

Cassiod. in Vita Chrysost. [Hist. Eccles. Tripart. lib. x. c. 4. from Theodoret. H. E. v. 18.]

2

Hieron. Ep. 9. [al. lib. contr. Joan. Hierosolym. § 37. t. ii. 447. ed. Vallarsii.]

3

Aug. de Hær. ad Quodvultdeum. [t. viii. 18. Hær. 53.] “Aëriani ab Aërio quodam sunt, qui quum esset presbyter, doluisse fertur, quod episcopus non potest ordinari; [et in Arianorum hæresin lapsus, propria quoque dogmata addidisse nonnulla, dicens, offerri pro dormientibus non oportere, nec statuta solenniter celebranda esse jejunia, sed cum quisque voluerit jejunandum, ne videatur esse sub lege.] Dicebat etiam presbyterum ab episcopo nulla differentia debere discerni.”

1

[Epiphan. Hæres. 75. c. 3. ἠ̑ν δὲ αὐτου̑ ὁ λόγος μανιώδης μα̑λλον, ἤπερ καταστασέως ἀνθρωπίνης, καί, ϕησι, τί ἐστιν ἐπίσκοπος πρὸς πρεσβύτερον; οὐδὲν διαλλάττει οὑ̑τος τούτου· μία γάρ ἐστι τάξις, καὶ μία, ϕησὶ, τιμὴ, καὶ ἓν ἀξίωμα· χειροθετει̑, ϕησὶν, ἐπίσκοπος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος· λουτρὸν δίδωσιν ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ὁμοίως καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος· τὴν οἰκονομίαν τη̑ς λατρείας ποιει̑ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος ὡσαύτως· καθέζεται ὁ ἐπίσκοπος ἐπὶ του̑ θρόνου, καθέζεται καὶ ὁ πρεσβύτερος.]

1

Ἐν τούτῳ πολλοὺς ἠπάτησε. [Hær. 75. § 3.]

2

[Hær. 75. § 5.]

3

As in that he saith, the Apostle doth name sometime presbyters and not bishops, 1 Tim. iv. 14. sometime bishops and not presbyters, Phil. i. 1. because all churches had not both, for want of able and sufficient men. In such churches therefore as had but the one, the Apostle could not mention the other. Which answer is nothing to the latter place abovementioned: for that the church of Philippi should have more bishops than one, and want a few able men to be presbyters under the regiment of one bishop, how shall we think it probable or likely?

4

1 Tim. iv. 14. “With the imposition of the presbytery’s hand.” Of which presbytery St. Paul was chief, 2 Tim. i. 6. And I think no man will deny that St. Paul had more than a simple presbyter’s authority.

1

Phil. i. 1. “To all the saints at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons.” For as yet in the church of Philippi, there was no one which had authority besides the Apostles, but their presbyters or bishops were all both in title and in power equal.

1

Titus i. 5; 1 Tim. iii. 5; Phil. i. 1; 1 Pet. v. 1, 2. [See this argument urged, T.C. i. 79. al. 103. ii. 515, c. Comp. Calvin, Instit. iv. 3, 8.]

1

[Marsilius of Padua, [a Franciscan canonist, who defended the claims of the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, against Pope John XXII. † 1328.] Def. Pacis, pars ii. c. xvi. (vid. infra, § 8. note.) “Ostendemus, primum, Apostolorum neminem ad alios habuisse præeminentiam in essentiali dignitate sacerdotali. . . Ex quibus etiam per necessitatem deducemus, episcoporum sibi successorum neminem singulariter auctoritatem seu potestatem aliquam. . . in reliquos sibi coepiscopos seu compresbyteros habere.” p. 241.]

2

[Can. 6, 7.]

3

[Vid. supr. c. viii. 12. p. 199, note 1.]

4

T. C. lib. i. p. 62, [al. 83. Whitgift’s Defence, 303.] “So that it appeareth that the ministry of the Gospel, and the functions thereof ought to be from heaven: from heaven, I say, and heavenly, because although it be executed by earthly men, and ministers are chosen also by men like unto themselves, yet because it is done by the word and institution of God, it may well be accounted to come from heaven and from God.”

1

Acts i. 20.

2

Rev. ii. 1.

1

1 Tim. v. 19.

2

Tit. i. 5.

1

They of Walden. Æn. Syl. [Æneas Sylvius Piccolomini, Pius II. 1458-1463] Hist. Bohem. [c. 35. (speaking of John Huss and his partisans in the university of Prague); “Proruperunt in blasphemias, et cum aliquibus ignavis fortasse ac vitiosis maledicere possent, in omnes latrare sacerdotes cœpere; et ab ecclesia Catholica recedentes, impiam Valdensium sectam atque insaniam amplexi sunt. Hujus pestiferæ et jampridem damnatæ factionis dogmata sunt, Romanum præsulem reliquis episcopis parem esse; inter sacerdotes nullum discrimen; presbyterum non dignitatem sed vitæ meritum efficere potiorem.” p. 141. ap. Dubravium, Rerum Bohem. Scriptores, Hanoviæ, 1602.] Marsilius Defens. Pac. [“Marsilii Menandrini Patavini, Defensor Pacis ad Imp. Ludovic. iv. adversus usurpatam Rom. Pontif. Jurisdict.” circ. AD 1324. [v. Fleury, H. E. l. 93. 19, 39.] Dictio seu Pars ii. c. xv. “Post Apostolorum tempora numero sacerdotum notabiliter aucto, ad scandalum et schisma evitandum elegerunt sacerdotes unum ex ipsis, qui alios dirigeret et ordinaret quantum ad ecclesiasticum officium et servitium exercendum, et oblata distribuendum, ac reliqua disponendum convenientiori modo. . . Hic ex posteriorum consuetudine retinuit sibi soli nomen episcopi. . . Jam dicta electio seu institutio per hominem sic electo nihil amplioris meriti seu sacerdotalis auctoritatis. . . . tribuit, sed solum ordinationis œconomicæ in domo Dei seu templo potestatem quandam, alios sacerdotes, diaconos, et officiales reliquos regulandi et ordinandi.” ap. Goldastum, Tract. de Monarch. S. Rom. Imp. t. ii. p. 240. Francof. 1621.] Nicl. [Wicl. ap.] Thom. Wald. [Thomas Netter, of Walden in Essex, † 1431, Provincial of the Carmelites: employed by Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V.] c. 1. lib. ii. art. 3. c. 60. [quoting Wicl. Trialog. lib. i. c. 10. for the following sentiment; “Unum audacter assero; quod in primitiva ecclesia ut tempore Pauli suffecerunt duo ordines clericorum, scil. sacerdos atque diaconus. Secundo dico quod in tempore Apostoli idem fuit presbyter ac episcopus . . . . Tunc enim non fuit inventa distinctio papæ, et cardinalium, patriarcharum, et archiepiscoporum, episcoporum, et archidiaconorum, officialium, et decanorum, cum cæteris officiariis . . . Certum videtur quod superbia Cæsarea hos gradus et ordines adinvenit. Si enim fuissent necessarii ecclesiæ, Christus et ejus Apostoli non in expressione eorum ac detentione (sic) officii reticerent.” p. 326. Venet. 1571. In the edition of Wicliffe, 1525, the passage occurs lib. iv. c. 15. fol. 124.] Calvin. Com. in 1. ad Tit. [v. 7. “Locus hic abunde docet, nullum esse presbyteri et episcopi discrimen: quia nunc secundo nomine promiscue appellat quos prius vocavit presbyteros. . . Hinc perspicere licet, quanto plus delatum hominum placitis fuerit quam decebat, quia abrogato Sp. Sancti sermone, usus hominum arbitrio inductus prævaluit. Mihi quidem non displicet quod statim ab ecclesiæ primordiis receptum fuit ut singula episcoporum collegia unum aliquem moderatorem habeant: verum nomen officii quod Deus in commune omnibus dederat in unum solum transferri, reliquis spoliatis, et injurium est et absurdum. Deinde sic pervertere Sp. Sancti linguam, ut nobis eædem voces aliter quam voluerit significent, nimis profanæ audaciæ est.” p. 537. ed. Genev. 1600.] Bullinger, (1504-1575.) Decad. v. Serm. 3. [p. 296. Tigur. 1577. “Non ita multis post mortem Apostolorum sæculis visa est in ecclesia longe alia hierarchia quam fuerat ab initio. Quamvis principia illa videantur tolerabiliora fuisse quam sint hodie istius ordinis omnia. . . In qualibet urbe et regione præstantissimus quisque cæteris præponebatur. Ejus functio erat superintendere presbyteris et universo gregi. Non habebat . . . in collegas vel presbyteros dominium, sed sicut consul in senatu partes habet interrogandi colligendique suffragia, leges item ac jura tuendi, ac curandi ne subnascantur inter senatores factiones; ita non aliud in ecclesia episcopo officium fuit: per cætera, communia habuit cum sacerdotibus. Nisi vero longius processisset consequentibus temporibus sacerdotum audacia, et episcoporum ambitio, ne verbo quidem reclamaremus.”] Juel. Def. Apol. part. 2. c. 9. di. 1. [Harding, in the course of an argument for tradition, had remarked, that “they which denied the distinction of a bishop and a priest were condemned of heresy.” (p. 196.) Jewel replies, (p. 202,) “What meant M. Harding here to come in with the difference between priests and bishops? Thinketh he that priests and bishops hold only by tradition? Or is it so horrible an heresy as he maketh it, to say that by the Scriptures of God a bishop and a priest are all one? Or knoweth he how far, and unto whom, he reacheth the name of an heretic?” He then proceeds to quote S. Chrysostom, S. Jerome, c. and concludes, “All these and other mo holy Fathers, together with S. Paul the apostle, for thus saying, by M. Harding’s advice, must be holden for heretics.” ed. 1609.] Fulk. Answ. to the Test. Tit. 1. 5. [The Rhemish note on this verse is, “Though priests or bishops may be nominated and elected by the princes, people, or patrons of places, . . . yet they cannot be ordered and consecrated but by a bishop who was himself rightly ordered or consecrated before, as this Titus was by St. Paul. . . . . That the ordering of priests or imposition of hands to that purpose belongeth only to bishops. . . . . is plain by the apostolic practice set down in the Scriptures, viz. in the Acts and in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus.” Fulke’s reply: “The people had their elections, moderated by the wisdom and gravity of the clergy, among whom, for order and seemly government, there was always one principal, to whom by long use of the church the name of bishop or superintendant hath been applied, which room Titus exercised in Crete, Timothy in Ephesus, and others in other places. Therefore although in the Scripture a bishop and an elder is of one authority in preaching of the word and administration of the sacraments, . . . yet in government by ancient use of speech he is only called a bishop, which is in the Scripture called προιστάμενος, προεστὼς, or ἡγούμενος, i. e. chief in government, to whom the ordination or consecration by imposition of hands was always principally committed. Not that imposition of hands belongeth only to him, for the rest of the elders that were present at ordination did lay on their hands, or else the bishop did lay on his hands in the name of the rest.” p. 718, 19. ed. 1633.]

1

John i. 25. [ap. T. C. i. 62. al. 83.]

2

Matt. xxi. 23. 25, 26.

1

Lib. i. [c. 14.]

2

Rom. i. 32.

3

Luke i. 6.

1

Confess. 169. [“Fides mea nititur cum primis et simpliciter verbo Dei, deinde nonnihil etiam communi totius veteris Catholicæ ecclesiæ consensu, si ille cum sacris literis non pugnet: credo enim quæ a piis Patribus in nomine Domini congregatis, communi omnium consensu, citra ullam sacrarum literarum contradictionem definita et recepta fuerunt, ea etiam (quanquam haud ejusdem cum sacris literis authoritatis) a Sp. Sancto esse. Hinc fit ut quæ sint ejusmodi, ea ego improbare nec velim nec audeam bona conscientia. Quid autem certius ex historiis, ex conciliis, et ex omnium Patrum scriptis, quam illos ministrorum ordines, de quibus diximus, communi totius Reip. Christianæ consensu in ecclesia constitutos receptosque fuisse? Quis autem ego sum, qui quod tota ecclesia approbavit improbem? Sed neque omnes nostri temporis docti viri improbare ausi sunt, quippe qui norunt et licuisse hæc ecclesiæ, et ex pietate atque ad optimos fines pro electorum ædificatione ea omnia fuisse perfecta et ordinata.” Quoted also by Bishop Cooper, Adm. 82, 83; by Saravia, De Divers. Min. Grad. c. 23; by Bancroft, Survey, c. p. 108; and by Bridges, Def. of Gov. established, c. p. 424. It was Zanchius’ deliberate opinion, in answer to an exception which Beza had taken to a clause in his (Zanchius’) draught of a Confession for theReformed Churches.]

2

Epist. [ad Reg. Polon. (Non. Decemb. 1554.) p.] 190. [“Vetus quidem ecclesia patriarchias instituit, et singulis etiam provinciis quosdam attribuit primatus, ut hoc concordiæ vinculo melius inter se devincti manerent episcopi.” ed. Gen. 1617 = p. 140. ed. Gen. 1576.]

1

Ep. 3, lib. i. [al. 59. c. 10. “Cum statutum sit ab omnibus nobis et æquum sit pariter ac justum ut uniuscujusque causa illic audiatur ubi est crimen admissum, . . . oportet . . . agere illic causam . . . ubi et accusatores habere et testes . . . possint.” p. 86. ed. Baluz.]

1

“The bishop which Cyprian speaketh of, is nothing else but such as we call pastor, or as the common name with us is, parson, and his church whereof he is bishop is neither diocess nor province, but a congregation which met together in one place, and to be taught of one man.” T. C. lib. i. p. 99, 100. [76. ap. Whitg. Def. 360.]

1

[“Judicio Dei ac plebis favore, ad officium Sacerdotii et Episcopatus gradum adhuc neophytus, et ut putabatur, novellus electus est . . . Humiliter ille secessit, antiquioribus cedens, et indignum se titulo tanti honoris existimans.” Pont. Vit. S. Cypr. § 5. p. cxxxvii. ed. Baluz.]

2

[Ibid. § 6. cxxxviii. “Viderint pietatis antistites, seu quos ad officium boni operis instruxit ipsius ordinis disciplina, seu quos sacramenti religio communis ad obsequium exhibendæ religionis arctavit. Cyprianum de suo talem accepit cathedra, non fecit.”]

1

“Etsi fratres pro dilectione sua cupidi sunt ad conveniendum et visitandum confessores bonos, quos illustravit jam gloriosis initiis divina dignatio, tamen caute hoc, et non glomeratim nec per multitudinem simul junctam, puto esse faciendum: ne ex hoc ipso invidia concitetur, et introeundi aditus denegetur, et cum insatiabiles multum [totum] volumus, totum perdamus: consulite ergo et providete ut cum temperamento hoc agi tutius possit; ita ut presbyteri quoque, qui illic apud confessores offerunt, singuli cum singulis diaconis per vices alternent, quia et mutatio personarum, et vicissitudo convenientium minuit invidiam.” Ep. 5. [4. p. 9. ed. Baluz.]

g

bitter, so edd. 1676, 1682.

1

[As T. C. does, in reply to a paper of Jewel’s, ap. Whitg. Def. 428.]

2

[About AD 1147. vid. Pet. Cluniacens. Epist. ap. Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. xii. pars 2. p. 206 H. “Templorum vel ecclesiarum fabricam fieri non debere, factas insuper subrui oportere, nec esse necessaria Christianis sacra loca ad orandum, quoniam æque in taberna et in ecclesia, in foro et in templo, ante altare vel ante stabulum invocatus Deus audit, et eos qui merentur exaudit.” Fleury, E. H. lxix. 24. t. xiv. 600.]

h

So edd. 1676, 1682.

1

Cypr. lib. i. Ep. 3. [al. 59. c. 10. vid. supr. c. xii. p. 215, note 1.]

2

Acts xxv. 11.

1

Liv. lib. i. [c. 49.]

1

[So edd. Query, reverence.] 1886.

1

[Not “ancients:” comp. b. v. lxi. 1; infra, xiv. 13. xv. 1, 12.]

2

[Ep. xxxiii. p. 46. ed. Baluz. “Presbyteris et diaconibus et universæ plebi salutem. In ordinationibus clericis, fratres clarissimi, solemus vos ante consulere, et mores ac merita singulorum communi consilio ponderare. Sed expectanda non sunt testimonia humana cum præcedunt divina suffragia. Aurelius frater noster, illustris adolescens, a Domino jam probatus et Deo carus . . . bis confessus et bis confessionis suæ victoria gloriosus, c. . . . Merebatur talis clericæ ordinationis ulteriores gradus et incrementa majora . . . Sed interim placuit ut ab officio lectoris incipiat.”]

3

[“Plus vident oculi quam oculus” vid. Erasm. Colloq. Opp. t. i. p. 824. ed. Clerici. Lugd. Bat. 1703.]

1

Acts xiv. 23.

2

1 Tim. v. 22.

3

[1 Tim. iii. 10.]

4

Lamprid. in Alex. Sever. [p. 130. B. ed. Salmas. Paris. 1620. “Ubi aliquos voluisset vel rectores provinciis dare, vel præpositos facere, vel procuratores, i. e. rationales, ordinare, nomina eorum proponebat, hortans populum ut siquis quid haberet criminis, probaret manifestis rebus; si non probasset subiret pœnam capitis: dicebatque, grave esse, quum id Christiani et Judæi facerent in prædicandis sacerdotibus qui ordinandi sunt, non fieri in provinciarum rectoribus, quibus et fortunæ hominum committerentur et capita.”]

1

Dec. Quando Epis. sect. Igitur. [pars i. distinct. 24. p. 114. Lugd. 1572. from the council of Nantes, of uncertain date. “Episcopus quando ordinationem facere disponit, omnes qui ad sacrum ministerium accedere volunt, feria quarta ante ipsam ordinationem evocandi sunt ad civitatem, una cum archipresbyteris qui eos repræsentare debent. Et tunc episcopus e latere suo dirigere debet sacerdotes et alios prudentes viros, gnaros legis divinæ, et exercitatos in ecclesiasticis sanctionibus, qui ordinandorum vitam, genus, patriam, ætatem, institutionem, locum ubi educati sunt, si sint bene literati, si in lege Domini instructi, diligenter investigent. Ante omnia, si fidem catholicam firmiter teneant, et verbis simplicibus asserere queant. Ipsi autem, quibus hoc committitur, cavere debent, ne aut favoris gratia, aut cujuscunque muneris cupiditate allecti, a vero devient, ut indignum et minus idoneum ad sacros gradus suscipiendos episcopi manibus applicent. Quod si fecerint; et ille qui indigne accessit ab altari removebitur, et illi qui donum Sp. sancti vendere conati sunt, coram Deo jam condemnati ecclesiastica dignitate carebunt. Igitur per tres continuos dies diligenter examinentur; et sic sabbato, qui probati inventi sunt, episcopo repræsententur.” Concil. Harduin. vi. pars i. 459.]

2

Cf. V. lxxii. 8.

3

Eccl. Discipl. p. 34. [or p. 22. Cartwright’s Translation, 1617.]

1

Eccl. Discipl. fol. 41. [or p. 27 of Cartwright’s version.]

1

[Eccl. Discipl. transl. by T. C. p. 28. “I would not that the judgment of the rest of the Church should be contemned and neglected, or that the council or elders of the Church should of their own authority set one over the Church whom they list against the Church’s will, but that the elders going before the people also follow, and having heard and understood their sentence and decree, may either by some outward token or else by their silence allow it if it be to be liked of, or gainsay it if it be not just and upright.”]

2

Eccles. Discipl. p. 41. [Ibid. “And not only gainsay it, but if just cause of their disliking may be brought, make it altogether void and of none effect, until at the last a meet one may be chosen by the authority and voices of the elders, and allowed of by the consent and approbation of the rest of the Church. So that herein there is no cause to complain that by the bringing in of the rule of a few the majesty of the whole Church is diminished.”]

1

“Neque enim fas erat aut licebat, ut inferior ordinaret majorem.” Comment. q. Ambros. tribuuntur, in 1 Tim. 3 [§ 7.]

2

[ AD 1561. Thuanus, lib. 28. t. ii. p. 45. Gen. 1620. “Claudius Espencæus, vir doctus et pacis ecclesiæ studiosus, a Lotaringo loqui jussus, postquam præfatus est expetivisse jam a multo tempore ut colloquendi copia fieret, et interea semper a suppliciis, quibus ob religionem miseri homines antea afficiebantur abhorruisse; demirari se subinde sæpius dixit, qua auctoritate Protestantes et a quo vocati et instituti ad ministerium essent: et cum neminem citarent, a quo manus impositionem suscepissent, quomodo legitimi pastores censeri possent: nam manifestum esse, vocatione ordinaria minime institutos; cum autem ad extraordinariam miraculis opus sit, nec ea ipsi edant, necessario sequi, nec secundum ordinem nec extra ordinem eos in domum Dei ingressos esse.]

3

[Apol. con. Arian. c. 12. sqq. t. i. 134. ed. Bened. Πόθεν οὐ̑ν πρεσβύτερος Ἰσχύρας; τίνος καταστήσαντος, ἀ̑ρα Κολλούθου; του̑το γὰρ λοιπόν· ἀλλ’ ὅτι Κόλλουθος πρεσβύτερος ὢν ἐτελεύτησε, καὶ πα̑σα χεὶρ αὐτου̑ γέγονεν ἄκυρος, καὶ πάντες οἱ παρ’ αὐτου̑ κατασταθέντες ἐν τῳ̑ σχίσματι λαικοὶ γεγόνασι, καὶ οὕτως συνάγονται, δη̑λον, καὶ οὐδενὶ καθέστηκεν ἀμϕίβολον· πω̑ς οὐ̑ν ἰδιώτης ἄνθρωπος, καὶ οἴκισκον οἰκω̑ν ἰδιωτικὸν, ποτήριον ἔχειν μυστικὸν πιστενθείη;]

1

Ἐπισκοπη̑ς χειροθεσίαν.

2

John iii. 2.

3

[Sleidan. Comment. v. p. 58. Argent. 1556. “Cum ejectus e Saxonia finibus. . . . . Muncerus oberraret, ac rumor increbuisset eum cogitare Mulhusium, Lutherus. . . datis ad senatum literis, graviter monet, ne recipiat . . . recte facturum senatum, si roget ex illo, quis docendi munus ipsi commiserit, quis evocavit? et si Deum nominet authorem, tum jubeant hanc suam vocationem aliquo evidenti signo comprobare, quod si repræsentare non possit, ut tum repudietur: hoc enim esse Deo proprium et familiare, quoties formulam consuetam et rationem ordinariam velit immutari, ut tum voluntatem suam aliquo signo declaret.” v. Fleury, l. 128. c. 45. a. 1523.]

1

[See b. V. c. lxxx. § 11.]

2

[1 Adm. p. 2. ed. 1617. “Then election was made by the elders with the common consent of the whole Church: now every one picketh out for himself some notable good benefice, he obtaineth the next advowson, by money or by favour, and so thinketh himself to be sufficiently chosen. Then, the congregation had authority to call ministers; instead thereof now they run, they ride, and by unlawful suit and buying prevent other suitors also. Then no minister placed in any congregation but by the consent of the people; now that authority is given into the hands of the bishop alone.” Whitg. Answ. 42; T. C. i. 28, al. 43, c.; Def. 154, c.; T. C. ii. 194, c.]

1

[1 Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 662. “Then it was said, ‘Tell the Church;’ now it is spoken, ‘Complain to my lord’s grace, primate and metropolitan of all England, or to his inferior my lord bishop of the diocese; if not to him, shew the chancellor or official or commissary.’ ” Answ. ibid. “In that place of Matthew, as all learned interpreters both old and new do determine, the Church signifieth such as have authority in the Church.” T. C. i. 146, al. 183, c.; Def. 662-671; T. C. iii. 77-88.]

2

[T. C. i. 147. al. 184. “It must needs be the meaning of our Saviour Christ that the excommunication should be by many and not by one; and by the Church and not by the minister of the Church alone.” Ibid. 183. “That the charge of excommunication belongeth not unto one, to the minister, but chiefly to the eldership and pastor, it appeareth by that which the authors of the Admonition allege out of St. Matthew, xviii. 17; which place I have proved before to be necessarilyunderstanded of the elders of the Church.”]

3

Concil. Carthag. iv. c. 23. [ AD 398. “Ut episcopus nullam causam audiat absque præsentia clericorum suorum; alioquin irrita erit sententia episcopi, nisi clericorum præsentia confirmetur.” i. 980. ed. Harduin.]

4

Cypr. lib. iii. Ep. 10. [5. ed. Baluz. p. 11. “Solus rescribere nihil potui, quando a primordio episcopatus mei statuerim nihil sine consilio vestro et sine consensu plebis mea privatim sententia gerere.”] 14. [11. Baluz. p. 21. “Audio quosdam de presbyteris, nec evangelii memores, nec quid ad nos martyres scripserint cogitantes, nec episcopo honorem sacerdotii sui et cathedræ reservantes, jam cum lapsis communicare cœpisse et offerre pro illis et eucharistiam dare, quando oporteat ad hoc per ordinem perveniri. Nam cum in minoribus delictis quæ non in Deum committuntur pœnitentia agatur justo tempore, et exomologesis fiat inspecta vita ejus qui agit pœnitentiam, nec ad communicationem venire quis possit nisi prius illi ab episcopo et clero manusfuerit imposita: quanto magis in his gravissimis et extremis delictis caute omnia et moderate secundum disciplinam Domini observari oportet! . . . Audiant quæso patienter consilium nostrum, expectent regressionem nostram, ut cum ad vos per Dei misericordiam venerimus, convocati coëpiscopi plures, secundum Domini disciplinam et confessorum præsentiam et vestram quoque sententiam, beatorum martyrum literas et desideria examinare possimus.”] Lib. ii. Ep. 8. [59. Baluz. p. 97. “Significasti de Victore quodam presbytero, quod ei, antequam pœnitentiam plenam egisset, et Domino Deo, in quem deliquerat, satisfecisset, Therapius collega noster immaturo tempore et præpropera festinatione pacem dederit. Quæ res nos satis movit, recessum esse a decreti nostri auctoritate, ut ante legitimum et plenum tempus satisfactionis, et sine petitu et conscientia plebis, nulla infirmitate urgente ac necessitate cogente, pax ei concederetur. Sed librato apud nos diu consilio, satis fuit objurgare Therapium collegam nostrum, quod temere hoc fecerit, et instruxisse, ne quid tale de cætero faciat. Pacem tamen quomodocunque a sacerdote Dei semel datam non putavimus auferendam.” These passages are producted by T. C. i. 149. al. 187, and maintained, iii. 87-89, in order to shew that the bishop might not absolve alone. Comp. Whitg. Def. 674.]

1

[Compare De Presbyterio et Excommunicatione: p. 112, 113. Gen. 1590. “Hoc veluti fræno, (sc. presbyterio) coercebatur tum ipsorum pastorum tum etiam populi potestas, ne illa quidem in oligarchiam, ista vero in ochlocratiam degeneraret. Itaque mihi quidem ecclesia Christiana, ut et vetus illa Israelitica, ex illo triplici statu divinissime constituta videtur: cujus caput est et monarcha longe supra omnia eminens unicus ille noster Pontifex æternus, cujus figura fuit Leviticus ille Pontifex . . . Isti vero cœtus divinissimam aristocratiam referunt. Universa denique multitudo, qua conscia, et ex cujus consensu cœtus ipsi aristocratici constituuntur, cælestis democratiæ perfectum exemplum præbet.” And Epist. xii. p. 220. AD 1567. Tract. t. iii. Gen. 1582. “Aiunt . . . excommunicationes et absolutiones in curiis quibusdam episcopalibus in Anglia fieri non ex presbyterii (quod nullum ibi sit) sententia, neque ex Dei verbo, sed ex quorundam jurisconsultorum et aliorum ejusmodi, immo etiam interdum unius cujuspiam auctoritate . . . Respondemus, nobis pæne incredibile videri, ejusmodi abusum perversissimi moris et exempli adhuc in eo regno usurpari, ubi puritas doctrinæ vigeat. Jus enim excommunicandi ante papisticam illam tyrannidem nunquam penes unum fuisse comperietur, sed penes presbyterium, et quidem non excluso penitus populo.” This is the epistle to the leading Puritans, which was so industriously circulated in England. Vid. vol. ii, p. 133, note 3.]

1

[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 749. “In that they have civil offices joined to the ecclesiastical, it is against the word of God. As for an archbishop to be a lord president, a lord bishop to be a county palatine, a prelate of the garter, who hath much to do at St. George’s feast when the Bible is carried before the procession in the cross’s place, a justice of peace, a justice of quorum, an high commissioner, c. And therefore they have their prisons, as Clinks, Gatehouses, Colehouses, towers and castles; which is against all the Scriptures; Luke ix. 60, 61; xii. 14; Rom. xii. 7; 1 Tim. vi. 11; 2 Tim. ii. 3, 4;” Answ. 114, c.; T. C. i. 206, al. 165, c.; Def. 749, c.; T. C. iii. 1-31; Decl. of Discipl. 39-44, ed. 1617.]

2

Jer. xxix. 26.

1

1 Cor. vi. 1-7.

1

Vide Barnab. Brisson. [Bernabé Brisson, an eminent French lawyer under Henry III, hung by the Leaguers Nov. 1591.] Antiq. Jur. lib. iv. c. 16. [“Conjunctam olim fuisse juris divini et humani scientiam. Ridiculum videtur nonnullis jurisprudentiam rerum divinarum et humanarum notitiam ab Ulpiano definiri, quod existimant rerum divinarum cognitionem nihil cum juris civilis scientia commune habere. Atqui ex veteribus memoriis certissimum est in utriusque facultatis cognitione consultos pares fuisse, tenuisseque et edocuisse eos quibus hostiis, quibus diebus, quo ritu, ad quæ templa sacra facienda essent, quæ sepulchrorum monumentorumque jura, quæ justorum funebrium solemnia essent. Quæ ad jus publicum et divinum referebantur omnia.” p. 136. Paris. 1606.]

2

Aug. de Oper. Monach. c. 29. [t. vi. 499. “Dominum Jesum, in cujus nomine securus hæc dico, testem invoco super animam meam, quoniam quantum attinet ad meum commodum, multo mallem per singulos dies, certis horis, quantum in bene moderatis monasteriis constitutum est, aliquid manibus operari, et cæteras horas habere ad legendum et orandum aut aliquid de divinis literis agendum liberas, quam tumultuosissimas perplexitates causarum alienarum pati, de negotiis sæcularibus vel judicando dirimendis, vel interveniendo præcidendis: quibus nos molestiis idem affixit Apostolus, non utique suo, sed ejus qui in eo loquebatur arbitrio; quas tamen ipsum perpessum fuisse non legimus: aliter enim se habebat Apostolatus ejus discursus . . . Sapientes ergo qui in locis consistebant, fideles et sanctos, non qui hac atque illac propter evangelium discurrebant, talium negotiorum examinatores esse voluit. Unde nunquam de illo scriptum est quod aliquando talibus vacaverit, a quibus nos excusare non possumus, etiamsi contemptibiles sumus, quia et hos collocari voluit, si sapientes defuissent, potius quam ut negotia deferrentur in forum. Quem tamen laborem non sine consolatione Domini suscipimus, pro spe vitæ æternæ, ut fructum feramus cum tolerantia.” Quoted by Bp. Jewel in Whitg. Answ. 325. See T. C. i. 171; Def. 771; T. C. iii. 26; Sarav. de Hon. Præs. c. 20.]

1

Isaiah xlix. 23.

1

Zanchius [Jerome Zanchi of Bergamo † 1590: he taught theology at Strassburg and Heidelberg 1553, 1568], p. 274. Observ. in Confess. [t. viii. 547. c. xxv. aphorism. 21. “Non diffitemur, episcopos, qui simul principes sunt, præterauctoritatem ecclesiasticam, sua etiam habere jura politica, sæcularesque potestates, quemadmodum et reliqui habent principes jus imperandi sæcularia, jus gladii, nonnullos jus eligendi confirmandique reges et imperatores, aliaque politica constituendi et administrandi, subditosque sibi populos ad obedientiam sibi præstandam cogendi. Ac proinde fatemur, politicis horum mandatis, quæ sine transgressione legis divinæ servari possunt, a subditis obtemperandum esse, non solum propter timorem sed etiam propter conscientiam.” And Append. p. 584. “Duæ longe diversæ sunt quæstiones, utrum episcopis liceat etiam esse principibus, principibusque esse episcopis, suis retentis principatibus; et, an qui episcopi jam sunt simul et principes, ii præter auctoritatem ecclesiasticam jura etiam habeant politica in cives sibi subjectos; eoque an subditi illis tanquam principibus obedire debeant necne. In meo aphorismo nihil prorsus de priori quæstione locutus sum, quia non fuit necesse, sed tantum de posteriori. Quis autem illis omnino obediendum esse, quo jure, quaque injuria principes fuerint creati, ex testimoniis a me allatis non videat aperte demonstrari? Cur enim qui subditi sunt Moguntino, Coloniensi, Trevirensi principibus Imperii simul et archiepiscopis, in rebus cum pietate Christiana minime pugnantibus non obtemperent? Seditiosorum certe fuerit non obtemperare. Quod si istis, cur non etiam Romano, iisdem in rebus et eandem ob causam, qui sub ejus vivunt imperio? Eadem enim horum omnium est ratio. De priori quæstione nihil (ut ante dixi) disserui; sed neque etiam nunc in hac mea brevi confessione disputare constitui; cum sciam, non omnium eandem esse sententiam; et in utramque partem multa dici possint.” ed. 1605.]

1

[Especially in the two embassies to Maximus, AD 383, and 387. vid. ep. xxiv. ed. Bened. t. ii. 888-891.]

1

[Hooker seems to refer to the conference at Paris, Dec. 1329, between the archbishop of Sens and Bertrand bishop of Autun as representatives of the Church, and Pierre de Cugnières as advocate for the royal and baronial authority: the particulars of which may be seen, Concil. Harduin. vii. 1544; or abstracted in the continuation of Fleury, liv. xciv. c. 2-5. Goldastus, Monarch. S. R. I. t. iii. p. 1383, having inserted the document, adds, “Sic re aliquamdiu ultro citroque agitata, cum episcopi et prælati se suo solito more reformarent, ita nempe, ut specie ac verbis injuriarum quandam alleviationem simularent, re autem ipsa ea potius augerent et aggravarent quam diminuerent; demum rex severam quandam legem fert, qua talem prælatorum audaciam et tyrannidem cohibet, seque ac suos in libertatem asserit. ” But it seems clear from a papal letter to the king, quoted in Raynaud’s Continuation of Baronius, AD 1329, that this latter statement (which is similar to Hooker’s) must be erroneous. No authority for it is given. But in the proceedings of the conference complaint is made by the clergy, “quod quædam præconizationes factæ erant in præjudicium jurisdictionis ecclesiasticæ, quas supplicabant revocari. Tum dominus rex respondit ore proprio, quod non erant factæ de suo mandato, nec aliquid sciebat, nec eas ratas habebat.” Possibly the statement in the text may be traced to some of these ordinances, either spurious at first, or such as it was found convenient to disavow. Henault’s account is, “Le roi est favorable aux ecclésiastiques, mais cette querelle est le fondement de toutes les disputes qui se sont élevées depuis par rapport à l’autorité des deux puissances, et dont l’effet a été de restraindre la jurisdiction ecclésiastique dans des bornes plus étroites.” Abrégé Chronol. de l’Hist. de France, t. i. p. 52, Paris, 1768.]

1

[Eccl. Disc. fol. 57-64. “Episcopi nomen, a Græca voce ἐπισκοπει̑ν deductum, speculatorem aut vigilem significat, qui castris custodiendis, aut ad urbis vigilias ad hostium adventum denunciandum designatus est. . . Est autem episcopus, si vere illum definire volumus, minister ecclesiæ in rebus divinis, et ad Deum pertinentibus. . . Sic Timothei (quamvis evangelistæ) munus Paulus domus Dei gubernatione et administratione definivit. Et Apostolus ad Hebræos animarum procuratione τω̑ν ἡγουμένων curam complexus est. . . Videamus, recte ne eorum munus religione et cærimoniis tractandis definitum sit. Vetus enim opinio est, et ab antiquis ducta temporibus, episcopos non ita rei divinæ faciendæ terminis circumscribi, quin etiam humana tractare possint, ac simul quidem ecclesiam et rempublicam administrare. Hinc apud nos episcopi pacis et otii communis conservandi auctoritatem habent, et ejus violatores in carcerem atque vincula conjiciendi, testamentorum lites, et alias civilium controversias in suo foro audiendi, disceptandi judicandique potestatem.” c. Decl. of Disc. 75-77, 85.]

2

[Eccl. Disc. 60, “Quum utraque potestas primo in Mose confusa esset, Deus, republ. Mosi relicta, ecclesiæ gubernationem ad Aaronem fratrem transtulit.” Decl. of Disc. 79.]

3

[T. C. iii. 7. “In saying that ‘although the godly magistrate ruleth in the Lord over us, yet that this title is given by excellency (1 Thess. v. 12.) to ecclesiastical officers,’ I do not dally; it is the distinction of the Holy Ghost himself. For albeit they that handle commonwealth matters serve the Lord, and do things tending to his glory, yet the Scripture comparing both these governments together giveth this title as a note to discern the ecclesiastical officers from the civil; as appeareth in the Chronicles, (2 Chr. xix. 11,) from whence (it is like) the Apostle took this manner of speech.”]

1

[Whitg. Answ. 217. ap. Def. 767. “What say you to Eli and Samuel? were they not both priests and judges?” T. C. i. 170, al. 211. “As for Eli and Samuel, they are extraordinary examples, which may thereby appear, for that both these offices first meeting in Melchisedech and afterward in Moses were by the commandment of God severed, when as the Lord took from Moses the priesthood, and gave it to Aaron and his successors.” Whitg. Def. 767. “It is not certain whether Moses were ever priest or no. . . Howsoever the priesthood and civil magistracy were divided in Moses and Aaron, yet met they both together again not only in Eli and Samuel, but in Esdras, Nehemias, Matthias and some other.” T. C. iii. 21. “Such were extraordinarily raised up of God, and not by any established order or election of men.”]

2

[Whitg. Def. 769. “Remember I pray you what you said before in the treatise of Seniors: you there set it down that they are ecclesiastical persons; and yet M. Beza as I have there declared saith that noblemen and princes may be of the seigniory; wherefore either may civil and ecclesiastical offices meet together in ecclesiastical persons (which you deny); or else cannot noblemen and princes be of your seigniory, as M. Beza affirmeth.”]

1

[S. John viii. 11. alleged by T. C. iii. 3.]

2

[S. Luke xii. 14. alleged by Adm. see Ans. 264, 266, al. 215; T. C. i. 165; Def. 751; T. C. iii. 2.]

3

[“He, because he came not but to be a Mediator between God and man, would not become a common divider and judge of every secular cause of title of land: . . . ‘Neither my heavenly Father sent me to that end, neither have I commission from thy brother to send thee into the moiety of the possession.’ Besides, if he had intermeddled in the matters of the commonwealth, it would have strengthened the conceit, that he sought an earthly kingdom, and to dispossess the Romans. . .Christ did not condemn the woman taken in the act of adultery: shall not therefore officers ecclesiastical condemn any such sinner? Christ refused to divide the inheritance: it was because he would not use the authority that he had as Lord of heaven and earth, when he came as a servant: not because either a Christian magistrate or minister should after his example lay aside all authority: τίς μὲ κατέστησε; implieth rather that if he had been appointed by both the parties, he might have done it; and so may any minister arbitrate and compound a controversy civil that is committed unto him.” Sutcliffe, Rem. to Dem. of Disc. 179.]

4

2 Tim. ii. 4. [quoted in Adm. See Answ. 216; T. C. i. 166; Def. 754; T. C. iii. 6.]

1

[Acts vi. 4. ap. T. C. i. 167, al. 208; Def. 758; T. C. iii. 10.]

2

[Hooker here forsakes the rendering of the Geneva Bible, which he commonly adopts, and translates the verse for himself.]

3

“Convenit hujusmodi eligi et ordinari sacerdotes, quibus nec liberi sunt nec nepotes. Etenim fieri vix potest, ut vacans hujus vitæ quotidianæ curis, quas liberi creant parentibus maxime, omne studium omnemque cogitationem circa divinam liturgiam et res ecclesiasticas consumat.” [Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. iii.] xlii. sect. 1. de Episc. et Cler.

1

[Can. Apost. 72. Εἴπομεν, ὅτι μὴ χρὴ ἐπίσκοπον καθει̑ναι ἑαυτὸν εἰς δημοσίας διοικήσεις, ἀλλὰ προσευκαιρει̑ν ται̑ς ἐκκλησιαστικαι̑ς χρείαις· ἢ πειθέσθω οὐ̑ν του̑το μὴ ποιει̑ν, ἢ καθαιρείσθω. οὐδεὶς γὰρ δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν, κατὰ τὴν κυριακὴν παρακέλευσιν. Ed. Coteler. t. i. 452. Conc. Chalc. can. 3. ἠ̑λθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν σύνοδον, δτι τω̑ν ἐν τῳ̑ κλήρῳ κατειλεγμένων τινὲς δι’ οἰκείαν αἰσχροκερδείαν ἀλλοτρίων κτημάτων γίνονται μισθωταὶ, καὶ πράγματα κοσμικὰ ἐργολαβου̑σι, τη̑ς μὲν του̑ Θεου̑ λειτουργίας καταρραθυμου̑ντες, τοὺς δὲ τω̑ν κοσμικω̑ν ὑποτρέχοντες οἴκους, καὶ οὐσιω̑ν χειρισμοὺς ἀναδεχόμενοι διὰ ϕιλαργυρίαν. ὥρισε τοίνυν ἡ ἁγία συνόδος, μηδένα του̑ λοιπου̑, μὴ ἐπίσκοπον, μὴ κληρικὸν, μὴ μονάζοντα, ἢ μισθου̑σθαι κτήματα ἢ πράγματα, ἢ ἐπεισάγειν ἑαυτὸν κοσμικαι̑ς διοικήσεσι· πλὴν εἰ μή που ἐκ νόμων καλοι̑το εἰς ἀϕηλίκων ἀπαραίτητον ἐπιτροπὴν, ἢ ὁ τη̑ς πόλεως ἐπίσκοπος ἐκκλησιαστικω̑ν ἐπιτρέψοι ϕροντίζειν πραγμάτων, ἢ ὀρϕάνων καὶ χηρω̑ν ἀπρονοήτων, καὶ τω̑ν προσώπων τω̑ν μάλιστα τη̑ς ἐκκλησιαστικη̑ς δεομένων βοηθείας, διὰ τὸν ϕόβον του̑ Κυριου̑. εἰ δέ τις παραβαίνειν τὰ εἰρημένα του̑ λοιπου̑ ἐπιχειρήσοι, ὁ τοιου̑τος ἐκκλησιαστικοι̑ς ὑποκείσθω ἐπιτιμίοις. t. ii. 601, ed. Harduin. And can. 7, τοὺς ἅπαξ ἐν κλήρῳ κατειλεγμένους, ἢ καὶ μονασάντας, ὡρίσαμεν, μήτε ἐπὶ στρατείαν, μήτε ἐπὶ ἀξίαν κοσμικὴν ἔρχεσθαι· ἢ του̑το τολμω̑ντας, καὶ μὴ μεταμελουμένους, ὥστε ἐπιτρέψαι ἐπὶ του̑το, ὃ διὰ θεὸν πρότερον εἵλοντο, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι. ibid. 603. ap. T. C. i. 168, al. 210; Def. 762; T. C. iii. 15; who refers also to 4 Conc. Carthag. can. 20. “Ut episcopus nullam rei familiaris curam ad se revocet, sed lectioni et orationi et verbi Dei prædicationi tantummodo vacet.” ibid. i. 986.]

2

[S. Cypr. 1 Ep. ed. Fell. “Graviter commoti sumus. . . cum cognovissemus quod Geminius Victor frater noster de sæculo excedens . . . Presbyterum tutorem testamento suo nominaverit: cum jam pridem in concilio episcoporum statutum sit, ne quis de clericis et Dei ministris tutorem vel curatorem testamento suo constituat, quando singuli divino sacerdotio honorati et in clerico ministerio constituti non nisi altari et sacrificiis deservire et precibus atque orationibus vacare debeant. Scriptum est enim, ‘Nemo militans Deo obligat se molestiis sæcularibus.’ . . . Quod cum de omnibus dictum sit, quanto magis clerici molestiis et laqueis sæcularibus obligari non debent! . . . Quod episcopi antecessores nostri religiose considerantes, et salubriter providentes, censuerunt ne quis frater excedens, ad tutelam vel curam clericum nominaret: ac si quis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro dormitione ejus celebraretur.” Ap. T. C. i. 166, al. 207; Def. 754; T. C. iii. 6. He quotes also S. Ambr. de Offic. i. 38. (36.) “Non te implices negotiis sæcularibus, quoniam Deo militas. Etenim si is qui imperatori militat a susceptionibus litium, actu negotiorum forensium, venditione mercium prohibetur humanis legibus: quanto magis qui fidei exercet militiam ab usu negotiationis abstinere debet: agelluli sui contentus fructibus, si habet; si non habet, stipendiorum suorum fructu.” And S. Jer. on Zephaniah, c. 1. “ Eos, qui adorant Dominum et Melchom: qui sæculo pariter et Domino putant se posse servire, et duobus Dominis satisfacere, Deo et Mammonæ; qui militantes Christo obligant se negotiis sæcularibus, et eandem imaginem offerunt Deo et Cæsari, et cum Christi sacerdotes se esse dicant, filios consecrant Melchom, i. e. regi suo.” t. vi. 680.]

1

“Cum multa divinitus, pontifices, a majoribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt, tum nihil præclarius, quam quod vos eosdem et religionibus deorum immortalium, et summæ reipub. præesse voluerunt.” Cic. pro Domo sua ad Pontific. [c. 1.]

2

“Honor sacerdotii firmamentum potentiæ assumebatur.” Tacit. Hist. lib. v. [c. 8. fin.] He sheweth the reason wherefore their rulers were also priests. The joining of these two powers, as now, so then likewise, profitable for the public state, but in respects clean opposite and contrary. For whereas then divine things being more esteemed, were used as helps for the countenance of secular power; the case in these latter ages is turned upside down, earth hath now brought heaven under foot, and in the course of the world, hath of the two the greater credit. Priesthood was then a strengthening to kings, which now is forced to take strength and credit from far meaner degrees of civil authority. “Hic mos apud Judæos fuit, ut eosdem reges et sacerdotes haberent, quorum justitia religioni permixta incredibile quantum evaluere.” Just. Hist. lib. xxxvi. [c. 2.]

1

Cod. Justin. I. iii. de Episcopis, c. 42. § 2. [“De his vero episcopis, qui nunc sunt, vel futuri sunt, sancimus, nullo modo habere eos facultatem testandi vel donandi vel per aliam quamcunque excogitationem alienandi quid de rebus suis, quas postquam facti fuerint episcopi possederint et acquisierint, vel ex testamentis, vel ex donationibus, vel alia quacunque causa: exceptis duntaxat his, quas ante episcopatum habuerint ex quacunque causa, vel quæ post episcopatum a parentibus et theiis, h. e. patruis vel avunculis, et a fratribus ad ipsos pervenerunt, perventuraque sunt: quæcunque enim post ordinationem ex quacunque causa extra præfatas personas ad ipsos pervenerunt, ea jubemus ad sanctissimam ecclesiam, cujus episcopatum tenuerint, pertinere.” AD 528.]

2

T. C. lib. i. p. 126. [98, ap. Whitg. Def. 452. “I have done, only this I admonish the reader, that I do not allow of all those things which I before alleged in the comparison between our archbishops and the archbishops of old time, c. . . . Only my intent is to show that although there were corruptions, yet in respect of ours they be much more tolerable.”]

1

[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 57. “The lordly lords, archbishops, bishops, suffragans, deans, doctors, archdeacons, chancellors, and the rest of that proud generation, whose kingdom must down, hold they never so hard, because their tyrannous lordship cannot stand with Christ’s kingdom. And it is the special mischief of our English church, and the chief cause of backwardness, and of all breach and dissention. For they whose authority is forbidden by Christ, will have their stroke without their fellow servants. Matt. xx. 25, 26; xxiii. 8, 9; Mark x. 42, 43; Luke xxii. 15, c.” Ans. 37-39, al. 13, c.; T. C. i. 10, al. 22; Def. 61-75; T. C. ii. 421-436.]

2

[T. C. i. 10, al. 22. “Our Saviour Christ upon occasion of the inordinate request of the sons of Zebedee, putteth a difference between the civil and ecclesiastical function. He placeth the distinction of them in two points; whereof the one is in their office, and the other is in their names and titles. The distinction of the office he noteth in these words: ‘The kings of the gentiles, c.’ Whereupon the argument may be thus gathered; That wherein the civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer doth not agree to one minister over another. But the civil magistrate is severed from the ecclesiastical officer by bearing dominion; therefore bearing dominion doth not agree to one minister over another.”]

3

[De Brés, “La Racine, c. Des Anabaptistes, c.” p. 841.]

1

[“Horum verborum verus et simplex hic est sensus: Vestra gubernatio diversa erit ab ea quæ est regum propria. . . Si quis locus citari potest ex evangelicis scriptis ad probandam superioritatem inter evangelii ministros, hic unus est. . . ubi omnes sunt futuri pares, præcepto nihil opus quo moderatio mandatur in præcipua dignitate constituto. Sensus igitur hujus præcepti est, Quanto quis inter vos major erit tanto submissius inter suos fratres se gerat. Tametsi omnes Apostoli ejusdem ordinis et potestatis fuerint, ætatis discrimen et donorum Sp. Sancti magnum inter eos fuit.” Sar. de divers. Min. Grad. c. 15. vid. etiam de Honore Præsulibus debito, c. 2.]

2

T. C. lib. i. 100. [al. 76. ap. Whitg. Def. 361.]

1

Lib. iv. ep. 9. [ii. p. 166. ed. Fell. “Quis autem nostrum longeest ab humilitate? utrumne ego, qui quotidie fratribus servio, et venientes ad ecclesiam singulos benigne et cum voto et gaudio suscipio? an tu qui te episcopum episcopi, et judicem judicis ad tempus a Deo dati constituis?”]

2

[T. C. i. 72.] Ὥστε τὸν τη̑ς πρὼτης καθέδρας ἐπίσκοπον μὴ λέγεσθαι ἔξαρχον τω̑ν ἱερέων ἢ ἀκρὸν ἱερέα ἢ τοιουτότροπόν τί ποτε, ἀλλὰ μόνον ἐπίσκοπον τη̑ς πρώτης καθέδρας. Can. 39. [Cod. Can. Eccl. Afr. 39. ap. Harduin. Conc. i. 884. or 3 Conc. Carth. can. 26. p. 964. AD 397.]

3

[S. Cyp. Ep. 49. p. 63. ed. Baluz. “Novatus, qui apud nos primum discordiæ et schismatis incendium seminavit; qui quosdam istic ex fratribus ab episcopo segregavit; . . cum sua tempestate Romam quoque ad evertendam ecclesiam navigans similia illic et paria molitus est, a clero portionem plebis avellens . . . Damnare nunc audet sacrificantium manus, cum sit ipse nocentior.”]

1

[Ibid. Ep. 69. p. 121. “Prævaluit apud te contra divinam sententiam et contra conscientiam nostram fidei suæ viribus nixam inimicorum et malignorum commentum, quasi apud lapsos et prophanos et extra ecclesiam positos, de quorum pectoribus excesserit Sp. Sanctus, esse aliud possit nisi mens prava et fallax lingua et odia venenata et sacrilega mendacia; quibus qui credit, necesse est cum iis inveniatur cum judicii dies venerit.”]

2

[Ib. Ep. 69. p. 122. “Quæ mentis inflatio, ad cognitionem suam præpositos et sacerdotes vocare, ac nisi apud te purgati fuerimus et sententia tua absoluti, ecce jam sex annis nec fraternitas habuerit episcopum, nec plebs præpositum, nec grex pastorem, nec ecclesia gubernatorem, nec Christus antistitem, nec Deus sacerdotem.”]

1

Concil. Carthag. de Hæret. baptizandis. [p. 329. ed. Baluz. Superest ut de hac ipsa re singuli quid sentiamus proferamus, neminem judicantes, aut a jure communicationis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amoventes. Neque enim quisquam nostrum episcopum se esse episcoporum constituit, aut tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem collegas suos adigit; quando habeat omnis episcopus pro licentia libertatis et potestatis suæ arbitrium proprium, tamque judicari ab alio non possit, quam nec ipse potest alterum judicare.”]

2

Lib. ii. Ep. i. [72. “Hæc ad conscientiam tuam, frater carissime, et pro honore communi et pro simplici dilectione pertulimus, credentes etiam tibi pro religionis tuæ et fidei veritate placere quæ et religiosa pariter et vera sunt. Cæterum scimus quosdam quod semel imbiberint nolle deponere, nec propositum suum facile mutare, sed salvo inter collegas pacis et concordiæ vinculo quædam propria quæ apud se sunt semel usurpata retinere. Qua in re nec nos vim cuiquam facimus aut legem damus, quando habeat in ecclesiæ administratione voluntatis suæ arbitrium liberum unusquisque præpositus, rationem actus sui Domino redditurus.” p. 129.]

1

Ωστε τὰ ἐν τῃ̑ Νικαέων συνόδῳ ὁρισθέντα παντὶ τρόπῳ παραϕυλαχθήσεται. [Conc. Hard. i. 868.]

2

T. C. lib. i. p. 113. [al. 87. ap. Whitg. Def. 408. Whitgift (Answ. 72.) had quoted from S. Ign. interp. ad Smyrnæos, c. 9: Τίμα τὸν θεὸν, ὡς αἰτίον τω̑ν ὅλων καὶ κύριον· ἐπίσκοπον δὲ, ὡς ἀρχιερέα, θεου̑ εἰκόνα ϕορου̑ντα: T. C. replies, “As for Ignatius’ place, it is sufficiently answered before, in that which was answered to Cyprian his place: for when he saith, ‘the bishop hath rule over all,’ he meaneth no more all in the province, than in all the world, but meaneth that flock or congregation whereof he is bishop or minister. And when he calleth him ‘prince of the priests,’ although the title be excessive and big, condemned by Cyprian and the council of Carthage, yet he meaneth no more the prince of all in the diocese as we take it, or of the province, than he meaneth the prince of all the priests in the world: but he meaneth those fellow ministers and elders that had the rule and government of that particular church and congregation whereof he was bishop.”]

1

Theod. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. 7. Ἀρχιερει̑ς. [Ἀϕίκετο καὶ αὐτὸς εἰς τὴν Νικαίαν, ἰδει̑ν τὴν τω̑ν ἀρχιερέων πληθὺν ἐϕιέμενος . . . ὀκτωκαίδεκα δὲ καὶ τριακόσιοι συνη̑λθον ἀρχιερει̑ς.]

2

Hieronymus contra Luciferian. “Salutem ecclesiæ pendere,” dicit, “a summi sacerdotis dignitate,” id est, episcopi. [c. ix. t. ii. 182. ed. Vallarsii.] Idem est in Hieronymo summus sacerdos quod ἄκρος ἱερεὺς in Carthaginensi Concilio.

3

Vide C. omnes. 38 dist. [Decret. Gratian. pars i. d. 38, p. 184. Lugd. 1572. “Ex septima synodo.” . . . . “Substantia summi sacerdotii nostri sunt eloquia divinitus tradita, i. e. vera divinarum scripturarum disciplina: quemadmodum magnus perhibet Dionysius.” Comp. 2 Concil. Nicæn. AD 787. can. ii. οὐσία τη̑ς καθ’ ἡμα̑ς ἱεραρχίας ἐστὶ τὰ θεοπαράδοτα λογία, εἴτουν ἡ τω̑ν θείων γραϕω̑ν ἀληθινὴ ἐπιστήμη, κάθως ὁ μέγας ἀπεϕήνατο Διονύσιος. t. iv. 48. ed. Hard. comp. Dionys. de Eccl. Hierarch. c. v. § 7.] Item c. Pontifices, [Decr. Grat. pars ii. causa] xii. qu. 3. [p. 1001. “Pontifices quibus in summo sacerdotio constitutis ab extraneis aliquid . . . donatur . . . inter facultates ecclesiæ computabunt.” In Consilio Agathensi [can. 6. AD 506. t. ii. 998. Hard.] Item c. De his. [Decr. Grat. pars iii.] De Consecr. dist. 5. [p. 1991, from a supposed decretal epistle of Melchiades. “Utrum majus sit sacramentum manus impositionis episcoporum aut baptismi: scitote utrumque magnum esse sacramentum: et sicut unum majoribus, i. e. summis Pontificibus, est accommodatum . . . ita et majori veneratione venerandum.” Comp. Conc. i. 245.]

2

Hieronymus contra Luciferian. “Salutem ecclesiæ pendere,” dicit, “a summi sacerdotis dignitate,” id est, episcopi. [c. ix. t. ii. 182. ed. Vallarsii.] Idem est in Hieronymo summus sacerdos quod ἄκρος ἱερεὺς in Carthaginensi Concilio.

3

Vide C. omnes. 38 dist. [Decret. Gratian. pars i. d. 38, p. 184. Lugd. 1572. “Ex septima synodo.” . . . . “Substantia summi sacerdotii nostri sunt eloquia divinitus tradita, i. e. vera divinarum scripturarum disciplina: quemadmodum magnus perhibet Dionysius.” Comp. 2 Concil. Nicæn. AD 787. can. ii. οὐσία τη̑ς καθ’ ἡμα̑ς ἱεραρχίας ἐστὶ τὰ θεοπαράδοτα λογία, εἴτουν ἡ τω̑ν θείων γραϕω̑ν ἀληθινὴ ἐπιστήμη, κάθως ὁ μέγας ἀπεϕήνατο Διονύσιος. t. iv. 48. ed. Hard. comp. Dionys. de Eccl. Hierarch. c. v. § 7.] Item c. Pontifices, [Decr. Grat. pars ii. causa] xii. qu. 3. [p. 1001. “Pontifices quibus in summo sacerdotio constitutis ab extraneis aliquid . . . donatur . . . inter facultates ecclesiæ computabunt.” In Consilio Agathensi [can. 6. AD 506. t. ii. 998. Hard.] Item c. De his. [Decr. Grat. pars iii.] De Consecr. dist. 5. [p. 1991, from a supposed decretal epistle of Melchiades. “Utrum majus sit sacramentum manus impositionis episcoporum aut baptismi: scitote utrumque magnum esse sacramentum: et sicut unum majoribus, i. e. summis Pontificibus, est accommodatum . . . ita et majori veneratione venerandum.” Comp. Conc. i. 245.]

2

1 Pet. ii. 17.

3

Ecclus. xxxviii. 1.

4

Levit. xix. 32.

1

Ecclus. xxv. 6.

2

Prov. xxiii. 22.

3

1 Pet. ii. 14.

4

Psalm lxxii. 15.

1

[Compare b. v. c. lxxvi. § 2.]

2

“Quis est tam vecors, qui aut cum suspexerit in cœlum, Deos esse non sentiat, et ea, quæ tanta mente fiunt ut vix quisquam arte ulla ordinem rerum ac necessitudinem persequi possit, casu fieri putet; aut, cum Deos esse intellexerit, non intelligat eorum numine hoc tantum imperium esse natum et auctum et retentum.” Cic. Orat. de Harusp. Resp. [c. 9.]

1

Tit. 1. l. iii. C. [lib. i.] de summa Trinit.

2

L. 43 C. [Cod. lib. i. tit. iii.] de Episc. et Cler. [lex 43.]

3

L. 34 C. de Episcopali Audientia. [Ibid. i. iv. 34.]

4

Psalm lxxvii. 20.

1

“Qui sacerdotes in Veteri Testamento vocabantur, hi sunt qui tunc presbyteri appellantur: et qui tunc princeps sacerdotum, nunc episcopus vocatur.” Raban. Maur. de Instit. Cler. lib. i. cap. 6. [Opp. t. vi. 5. ed. Colon. 1526.]

1

1 Tim. v. 17.

2

Rom. xiii. 7.

1

Deut. iv. 6.

2

Matt. v. 14.

1

Petr. Blesens. Ep. 5. [t. xii. par. ii. p. 704. Biblioth. Patr. Colon. “Ego, qui conscius secretorum fui, verbum illud confidenter in communem deduco notitiam: verbum enim memorabile est. ‘Sciat,’ inquit, ‘Dominus Archiepiscopus, quod si meus filius electus, aut aliquis episcopus terræ, vel comes, vel aliqua persona illustris, suæ voluntati aut dispositioni contrarie præsumpserit, aut impedierit quo minus opus sibi commissæ legationis adimpleat, inveniet me sui contemptus persecutorem et vindicem, ac si in coronam meam proditorie commisisset.’ ” Peter of Blois was archdeacon of Bath in the reign of Henry II. and wrote this letter from court to Richard, who succeeded Thomas Becket in the primacy, and held it from 1174 to 1183.]

1

Psal. lxxvii. 20.

1

Isa. iii. 5.

2

[Comp. Proverbs xi. 29.]

1

Præf. lib. v. Silv. [i.e. Statius, Publ. Papinius, Præf. lib. v. Sylvarum.] 1886.

1

Ἀρχιερει̑ς.

2

[T. C. i. 61. ap. Def. 300. al. 81. “The title of archbishop is only proper to our Saviour Christ, therefore no man may take that unto him. That it is proper to our Saviour Christ, appeareth by that which St. Peter saith, when he calleth him ἀρχιποιμένα. . . And in the Hebrews where he is called the great shepherd of the sheep, and in the Acts and Hebrews archleader of life and salvation, which . . . are proper titles of his mediation, and therefore cannot be without bold presumption applied unto any mortal man.” Whitgift, Def. ibid. “What name is more proper unto God than is this name GOD ? and yet is the same also attributed unto man.”]

1

[T. C. ii. 408. “The Greek word signifying prince, which name he confesseth proper unto the civil magistrate; it must follow that the name of archbishop, which is as much as prince of bishops, breaketh upon the possession of the magistrate.”]

2

Hist. Eccles. lib. v. c. 8. [rather c. 9. in which he gives the synodical epistle of the council of Constantinople to the Roman synod, beginning Κυρίοις τιμιωτάτοις.]

3

[Τὴν σὴν ἁγιωσύνην. Cod. Justin. I. 1.] de summa Trinit. l. vii. [“tuæ sublimitatis.” ibid. I. 3.] de Episc. et cler. l. xxxiii.

4

[“Sacrosanctam hujus religiosissimæ civitatis ecclesiam . . . privilegia et honores omnes super episcoporum creationibus, et jure ante alios residendi, et cætera . . . habere sancimus.” Impp. Leo et Anthemius in Cod. Just. i. 2.] de sacros. Eccles. l. xvi.

5

[Conc. Nic. Canones Arabici, can. lvii. “Locus episcopi in oratione sit in summo sacelli sive capellæ intra locum altaris, ut qui sit pastor et gubernator: post eum sit archidiaconus ad latus dextrum, ut qui sit loco ejus, et præsit omnibus quæ ad orationem et ecclesiam pertinent: chorepiscopus autem sit post archidiaconum ad alterum latus, quia ipse etiam est loco episcopi super villas, et monasteria et sacerdotes villarum,” t. i. 472. ed. Hard. iv Conc. Carth. AD 398. can. 35. “Ut episcopus in ecclesia, et in consessu presbyterorum, sublimior sedeat. Intra domum vero, collegam se presbyterorum esse agnoscat.” t. i. 981.]

1

“They love to have the chief seats in the assemblies, and to be called of men Rabbi.” Matt. xxiii. 6, 7. [quoted in Adm. ap. Def. 57; Answ. 40. al. 15; T. C. i. 12. al. 24; Def. 71, 72.]

2

Ecclus. xlv. 7.

1

[Ign. ad Philadelph. Ep. interp. c. xi; ad Smyrn. c. x; Martyr. Ign. c. 3. ἐδεξιου̑ντο τὸν ἅγιον, διὰ τω̑ν ἐπισκόπων καὶ πρεσβυτέρων καὶ διακόνων, αἱ τη̑ς Ἀσίας πόλεις καὶ ἐκκλησίαι, πάντων ἐπειγομένων πρὸς αὐτόν. ap. Coteler. t. ii. 159.]

2

[Before the middle of the third century, vid. (e. g.) S. Cypr. Ep. 55. “Cyprianus Cornelio. Legi literas tuas, quas per Saturum fratrem nostrum acolythum misisti;” et Ep. 36. “Peregrinis sumptus suggeratis . . . misi . . . . per Naricum acolythum aliam portionem;” et S. Cornelius ap. Euseb. H. E. vi. 43. who reckons up ἀκολούθους δύο καὶ τεσσαράκοντα among the officers of the Roman church. Comp. Duarenus de Sacr. Eccles. Minist. i. 14. as quoted by Bingham, b. iii. c. iii. § 3. “Extat rescriptum cujusdam Pontificis ap. Gratianum, quo præcipitur Episcopis ut comites semper aliquos (duo Presbyteros et tres Diaconos) secum ducant famæ suspicionisque vitandæ causa. Can. Jubemus; de Consecr. dist. i. (p. 1868.) Vel ideo acoluthi appellati sunt, quod funus una cum canonicorum et ascetriarum cœtu comitarentur. Nam eos id munus obire solitos fuisse satis perspicuum est ex constitutione Justiniani: Novell. ix.” (c. iv. p. 136. ed. Gothofr.)]

3

Novel. vi. [c. 2. του̑το οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι πρέποντα λογισμὸν, τὸ μετὰ πλήθους (ὅπερ ἀνάγκη τὰς τω̑ν ἐπισκόπων ἔχειν θεραπείας) περινοστει̑ν . . . ἐν ξένῃ. vid. p. 18. ed. Gothofr. 1688.]

1

T. C. l. i. p. 126. [al. 98: ap. Whitg. Def. 451. “Another reason of this pomp and stateliness of the bishops was that which almost brought in all poison and popish corruption into the church, and that is a foolish emulation of the manners and fashions of the idolatrous nations. . . . Galerius Maximinus the emperor to the end that he might promote the idolatry and superstition whereunto he was addicted, chose of the choicest magistrates to be priests, and that they might be in great estimation gave each of them a train of men to follow them: and now the Christians and Christian emperors thinking that that would promote the Christian religion that promoted superstition, . . . . . endeavoured to make their bishops encounter and match with those idolatrous priests, and cause that they should not be inferior to them in wealth and outward pomp. Eusebius, lib. viii. cap. 15.” 14. ed. Reading. p. 399. Ἱερέας τε εἰδώλων κατὰ πάντα τόπον καὶ πόλιν· καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων ἑκάστης ἐπαρχίας ἀρχιερέα τω̑ν ἐν πολιτείαις ἑνά γέ τινα, μάλιστα τὸν ἐμϕανω̑ς διὰ πάσης ἐμπρέψαντα λειτουργίας, μετὰ στρατιωτικου̑ στίϕους καὶ δορυϕορίας ἐκτάσσων. ἀναιδήν τε πα̑σι γόησιν, ὡς ἂν εὐσεβέσι καὶ θεω̑ν προσϕιλέσι, ἡγεμονίας καὶ τὰς μεγίστας προνομίας δωρούμενος. Whitgift: “There is not one word, that any Christian prince took any example of him to do the like in Christianity. It rather appeareth that Maximinus did in this point imitate the Christians, who had their metropolitans, and one chief bishop in every province long before this time.” The conduct of Julian afterwards seems to warrant this conjecture.]

1

L. 12. C. de sacros. Eccles. [This is a law of Valentinian the Third and Marcian, AD 454, confirming all former church privileges, annulling encroachments, and especially enjoining the payment of allowances.] L. 5. ibid. [A law of Honorius and Theodosius ii. AD 412. “Placet . . . . præscribere, a quibus specialiter necessitatibus singularum urbium ecclesiæ habeantur immunes. Prima quippe illius usurpationis contumelia depellenda est: ne prædia usibus cælestium secretorum dedicata, sordidorum munerum fœce vexentur.”] L. 2. C. de Episc. et Cler. [A law of Constantius ( AD 357.) reenacting former immunities, and extending them to the wives and families of clergymen.] L. 10. ibid. [Arcadius and Honorius, AD 398, enjoin on provincial officers immediate regard to all cases of sacrilege, and add, “Nec expectet (provinciæ moderator), ut episcopus injuriæ propriæ ultionem deposcat, cui sanctitas ignoscendi gloriam dereliquit. Sitque cunctis laudabile, factas atroces sacerdotibus aut ministris injurias veluti crimen publicum persequi, ac de talibus reis ultionem mereri.”]

1

Psal. l. 18.

2

Hos. ii. 8.

3

Psal. l. 10.

4

Job i. 21.

1

Mal. iii. 10.

2

Prov. iii. 9.

3

Seneca. [Epist. 95. p. 604. ed. Lipsii, Antwerp 1615. “Vis Deos propitiare? bonus esto. Satis istos coluit, quisquis imitatus est.”]

1

Mal. i. 8. [Comp. b. v. c. xxxiv. § 3; b. viii. c. i. § 5.]

2

[Compare b. v. c. lxxviii.]

3

“Because,” saith David, “I have a delight in the house of my God, therefore I have given thereunto of mine own both gold and silver to adorn it with.” 1 Chron. xxix. 3.

1

Psal. l. 13, 14.

2

Phil. iv. 18.

3

Psal. lxxii. 11.

4

Ver. 10.

5

Matt. ii. 11.

6

Matt. xxvi. 13.

7

John xv. 16.

1

[See E. P. b. v. c. lxxix. 14.]

2

Aug. c. 15. de Mendac. [t. vi. 437. “Sicut illud, Nolite cogitare de crastino: et, Nolite itaque cogitare quid manducetis, et quid bibatis, et quid induamini. Cum autem videmus et ipsum Dominum habuisse loculos, quo ea quæ dabantur mittebantur, ut servari possent ad usus pro tempore necessarios; et ipsos Apostolos procurasse multa fratrum indigentiæ, non solum in crastinum, sed etiam in prolixius tempus impendentis famis, sicut in Actis Apostolorum legimus; satis elucet illa præcepta sic intelligenda, ut nihil operis nostri temporalium adipiscendorum amore vel timore egestatis tanquam ea necessitate faciamus.”]

3

C. 12. qu. 1. c. 15 et 16. [“Futuram ecclesiam Apostoli in gentibus prævidebant: idcirco prædia in Judæa minime sunt adepti, sed pretia tantummodo ad fovendos egentes.” Decr. Grat. pars ii. causa xii. qu. 1. p. 958. can. “ Futuram. ” This decretal, ascribed to Miltiades, or Melchiades, who was bishop of Rome from AD 311 to 320, bears evident marks of having been composed long after Christianity had been established in the empire.]

1

[Decret. Grat. pars ii. caus. xiii. qu. 2. § Siquis irascitur. “Qui unum filium habet, putet Christum alterum; si duos habet, putet Christum tertium; si decem habet, undecimum Christum faciat; et suscipio.” From S. Aug. Serm. i. de Vita Clericorum, § 4: t. v. 1382.]

2

Prov. iii. 10.

3

Mal. iii. 10.

4

2 Chron. xxxi. 10. Tho. Waldensis, tom. i. [Doctrinale Fidei] lib. iv. c. 39. [and 40; quoting inter al. Wicliffe, Trialog. iv. § 18. (of which the title is, “Sæculares propter dotationem sunt puniendi.”) “Nos autem dicimus illis, quod nedum possunt auferre temporalia ab ecclesia habitudinaliter delinquente, nec solum quod illis licet hoc facere, sed quod debent sub pœna damnationis gehennæ, cum debent de sua stultitia pœnitere, et satisfacere pro peccato quo Christi ecclesiam macularunt.” fol. 131. ed. 1525. And, § 19. “Facilitatem autem faciendi hanc eleemosynam et debitum sic potes cognoscere. Constat ex regalibus regis Angliæ, quod decedente episcopo vel abbate, aut quocunque notabiliter dotato de Anglia, temporalia sua, ad denotandum regalia regis, cadere debent in manu sua, et non procedetur ad electionem, nisi obtenta regis licentia; nec habebuntur ab electo mortificata regni dominia, nisi rege noviter approbante. Contineat ergo se rex ab innovatione derelicti maximi progenitorum suorum, et in brevitate erit totum regnum purgatum a mortificatione stolida bonorum temporalium, quæ jam sunt in manu mortua.” fol. 132. The passages which Thomas of Walden produces in c. 39, do not occur in the copy of Wicliffe here quoted: but their tenor is exactly that of his whole argument. E. g. c. 18. fol. 129. “Dic, rogo, utrum sæculares sunt propter dotationem hujusmodi increpandi?” . . . “Tene firmiter et nullatenus dubites, quin temporales domini in isto graviter peccaverunt. . . Non solum cooperati sunt ad istam dotationem, sed multipliciter consenserunt.” . . . . . fol. 130. “Cito post ascensionem ejus, infra annum CCCC ejus ordinationem præcipuam in dotando ecclesiam reversarunt, et per consequens Antichristum in deturpationem sponsæ suæ multipliciter procrearunt. Unde narrant Chronica, quod in dotatione ecclesiæ vox audita est in aere angelica, tunc temporis sic dicentis, Hodie effusum est venenum in ecclesiam sanctam Dei.” Compare the following, quoted by Walden from the Speculum militantis Ecclesiæ, cap. 9. Juxta prædicta, erubescerent Antichristus et sui maculare sacerdotes Christi contra ordinationem quam ipse fecit; et domini sæculares et alii fatui qui hic adjuvant Antichristum, erubescerent de sic adjuvando sicut erubescent in finali judicio; et iste pudor erit major pro dolore hypocrisis, quia dicunt in factis suis quod faciunt ista ob honorem Christi, quia Christus male instituit, et Domini sæculares emendant eum, sicut Imperator Romanus quando fecit sacerdotes suos dominos, ipse correxit statum Apostolorum super ordinationem Christi. Sed totum hoc sapit blasphemiam.” Among the errors of Wicliffe condemned at the Council of Constance, one head is, Contra dotationem Ecclesiæ; of which the following are specimens: “Domini temporales possunt licite auferre temporalia ab ecclesia delinquente.” “Non est major hæreticus vel Antichristus, quam ille qui docet quod licitum sacerdotibus et Levitis gratiæ sit dotari in possessionibus et temporalibus.” Quantum ad chartas et concessiones sæcularium dominionum patet quod clerus erubesceret inniti tam culpabili fundamento: quia in nullo valet humana concessio, nisi præhabita licentia a domino capitali: et cum non possint docere quod domini de hoc habeant licentiam a Christo, patet quod lege tam humana quam divina, est talis donatio stulta sentienda, et ita illicita et Catholicis respuenda.” Fasciculus, c. Gratii: ed. Browne, p. 271.]

1

Gen. xxviii. 20-22.

1

[Apol. c. 39.]

2

[Justinian. Inst. II. i. 7. “Nullius autem sunt res sacræ et religiosæ, et sanctæ: quod enim divini juris est, id nullius in bonis est.”]

3

Num. xviii. 24-28.

4

Num. xxxi. [48-54.]

5

Heb. vii. 3.

6

Acts iv. 34.

1

2 Cor. viii. 5.

2

Acts xi. 30.

3

Acts xxi. 18. xii. 17.

4

Ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τω̑ν τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας πραγμάτων ἐξουσίαν, ὥστε διοικει̑ν εἰς πάντας δεομένους μετὰ πάσης εὐλαβείας καὶ ϕόβου Θεου̑. Can. 40. [Προστάττομεν ἐπίσκοπον ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν τω̑ν τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας πραγμάτων· εἰ γὰρ τὰς τιμίας τω̑ν ἀνθρώπων ψυχὰς αὐτῳ̑ πιστευτέον, πολλῳ̑ ἂν μα̑λλον δέοι ἐπὶ τω̑ν χρημάτων ἐντέλλεσθαι, ὥστε κατὰ τὴν αὐτου̑ ἐξουσίαν πάντα διοικει̑σθαι, καὶ τοι̑ς δεομένοις διὰ πρεσβυτέρων· καὶ διακόνων ἐπιχορηγει̑σθαι, μετὰ ϕόβου του̑ Θεου̑ καὶ πάσης εὐλαβείας· μεταλαμβάνειν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν τω̑ν δεόντων (εἴγε δέοιτο) εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας αὐτου̑ χρείας, καὶ τω̑ν ἐπιξενουμένων ἀδελϕω̑ν, ὡς κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον αὐτοὺς ὑστερει̑σθαι. t. i. 20. ed. Hard.] et Conc. Antioch. [can. 25. ibid. p. 604, 5. AD 341.]

1

John iv. 24.

2

[Vid. supr. c. xiii. § 4.]

3

Heb. xi. 38.

4

[Comp. b. v. c. xv.]

1

Num. xviii. 15.

2

Ver. 12.

3

Ver. 13.

4

Ver. 15.

5

Ver. 8; Leviticus xxvii. 11, 14; Num. xviii. 8.

6

Ver. 8.

7

Ver. 9.

8

Ver. 21.

9

Ver. 28.

10

1 Chron. xxiii. 3.

1

Gen. xlvii. 22.

2

Num. xxxv. 7.

3

Josh. xiv. 4.

i

[So corrected, ed. 1676, 1682.]

4

Deut. xviii. 8; Lev. xxv. 33, 34.

1

Deut. x. 9.

2

Josh. xiii. 14.

3

Num. xviii. 24.

4

Ver. 19.

5

1 Cor. ix. 13.

6

1 Tim. v. 17.

7

2 Cor. iii. 7, 8. Vide [Tho. Aquin.] 2 . 2. [i. e. secundæ Summ. Theol. pars ii.] qu. 77. [87.] art. 1. [“Utrum homines teneantur dare decimas ex necessitate præcepti.”] . . . Respons. ad 1. [“Determinatio decimæ partis solvendæ est authoritate ecclesiæ tempore novæ legis instituta, secundum quandam humanitatem, ut scil. non minus populus novæ legis ministris novi testamenti exhiberet, quam populus veteris testamenti exhibebat: cum tamen populus novæ legis ad majora obligetur, secundum illud Matth. v. ‘Nisi abundaverit,’ c.: et cum ministri novi testamenti sint majoris dignitatis quam ministri veteris testamenti, ut probat Apostolus 2 ad Corinth. iii.” fol. 205, ed. Venet. 1593.]

1

1 Tim. v. 18.

1

Acts iv. 35.

2

Acts ii. 44.

3

Dispens. [“Dispensator;” so called by] Prosper: [?] Julianus Pomerius † 493.] de Vita Contempl. l. ii. c. 12. [in Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. part. iii. p. 64.] “Œcon.” [“Œconomus”] L. 14. C. de sacr. Eccles. [Cod. Justin. lib. i. tit. 2. lex 14.] et Novel. vii. in princip. [μήτε ἀρχιεπίσκοπον . . . μήτε οἰκόνομον, πιπράσκειν . . . ἢ ἄλλως ἐκποιει̑ν πρα̑γμα ἀκίνητον.]

4

Prosp. de Vita Contempl. l. ii. c. 16. [p. 65. “Ut uno solicitudines omnium in sua societate viventium sustinente, omnes, qui sub eo sunt, fructuosa vacatione potiantur spiritualiter et quiete . . . . Etiam in hoc Deo serviunt, quia si Dei sunt ea quæ conferuntur ecclesiæ, Dei opus agit, qui res Deo consecratas non alicujus cupiditatis, sed fidelissimæ dispensationis intentione non deserit.”]

1

Cypr. l. iv. ep. 5. [34. p. 48. Baluz.] “Presbyterii honorem designasse nos illis jam sciatis, ut et sportulis iisdem cum presbyteris honorentur, et divisiones mensurnas æquatis quantitatibus partiantur, sessuri nobiscum provectis et corroboratis annis suis.” Which words of Cyprian do shew, that every presbyter had his standing allowance out of the church-treasury; that besides the same allowance called sportula, some also had their portion in that dividend which was the remainder of every month’s expense; thirdly, that out of the presbyters under him, the bishop as then had [a] certain number of the gravest, who lived and commoned always with him.

1

Prosp. [v. note 4, p. 296.] de Vita Contempl. l. ii. c. 9. [“Expedit facultates ecclesiæ possideri, et amore perfectionis proprias contemni. Non enim propriæ sunt, sed communes ecclesiæ facultates, et ideo quisquis omnibus quæ habuit dimissis aut venditis fit rei suæ contemptor, cum præpositus fuerit sanctæ ecclesiæ, omnium quæ habuit ecclesia efficitur dispensator. Deinde Sanctus Paulinus, ut ipsi melius nostis, ingentia prædia, quæ fuerunt sua, vendita pauperibus erogavit; sed cum postea factus esset episcopus, non contempsit ecclesiæ facultates, sed fidelissime dispensavit. Quo facto satis ostendit, et propria debere propter perfectionem contemni, et sine impedimento perfectionis posse quæ sunt communia ecclesiæ possideri.”]

2

[Ibid. “Quid S. Hilarius? nonne et ipse omnia bona sua aut parentibus reliquit, aut vendita pauperibus erogavit? Is tamen cum merito perfectionis suæ fieret ecclesiæ Arelatensis episcopus, quod illa tunc habebat ecclesia non solum possedit, sed etiam acceptis fidelium numerosis hæreditatibus ampliavit. Isti ergo tam sancti tam perfecti pontifices factis evidentibus clamant, posse et debere fieri quod fecerunt. Qui utique homines tam sæcularium quam divinarum literarum sine ambiguitate doctissimi, si scirent res ecclesiæ deberi contemni, nunquam ea debuerant, qui omnia sua reliquerant, retinere. Unde datur intelligi, quod tales ac tanti viri, (qui volentes esse Christi discipuli renunciaverunt omnibus quæ habebant) non ut possessores sed ut procuratores facultates ecclesiæ possidebant.”]

3

Pont. Diacon. in vita Cypr. [“Statim rapuit quod invenit promerendo Deo profuturum. Distractis rebus suis ad indigentiam pauperum sustentandam, tota prædia pretio dispensans, duo bona simul junxit, ut et ambitionem sæculi sperneret, qua perniciosius, nihil est; et misericordiam, quam Deus etiam sacrificiis suis prætulit, quam nec ille qui legis omnia mandata servasse se dixerat, fecit, impleret.” col. cxxxvi. ed. Baluz.]

4

[Capitul. Hincmar. Archiepisc. Remens. AD 852. series ii. cap. xvi. Concil. Hard. t. v. 396. “Ut ex decimis 4 portiones fiant juxta institutionem canonicam . . . et ut de duabus portionibus, ecclesiæ et episcopi, ratio reddatur per singulos annos, quid inde profecerit in ecclesia.” Conc. Namnet. temp. incert. can. x. “Instruendi sunt presbyteri pariterque admonendi quatenus noverint decimas et oblationes, quas a fidelibus accipiunt, pauperum et hospitum et peregrinorum esse stipendia, et non quasi suis sed quasi commendatis uti . . . . Qualiter vero dispensari debeant canones sancti instituunt; sc. ut 4 partes inde fiant; una ad fabricam ecclesiæ relevandam, altera pauperibus distribuenda, tertia presbytero cum suis clericis habenda, quarta episcopo reservanda, ut quidquid exinde jusserit prudenti consilio fiat.” t. vi. pars i. 459. The “Excerptiones” of Egbert, archbishop of York, AD 747. (t. iii. 1962.), the Canons of Charlemagne, cap. vii. (t. iv. 958.) those of Ælfric, can. xxiv. (vi. pars i. 982.); and those of a bishop of Basle, (can. xv. ib. 1243.) recognise a threefold division, considering the bishop’s portion and that of his clergy as one. The latter refers to 9 Conc. Tolet. can. vi. AD 655: which speaks of the bishop’s third as a received institution. (t. iii. 974.)]

1

[So the word stands in E. (Gauden’s edd.) It should be “their,” or some equivalent word.]

2

Lact. de Vera Sap. lib. iv. c. 30. [“li, quorum fides fuit lubrica, cum Deum nosse se et colere simularent, augendis opibus et honori studentes, affectabant maximum sacerdotium; et a potioribus victi, decedere cum suffragatoribus suis maluerunt, quam eos ferre præpositos, quibus concupierant ipsi ante præponi.”]

1

[Conc. Antioch. can. 25. t. i. 604. AD 341. Ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τω̑ν τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας πραγμάτων ἐξουσίαν, ὥστε διοικει̑ν εἰς πάντας τοὺς δεομένους μετὰ πάσης εὐλαβείας καὶ ϕόβου Θεου̑· μεταλαμβάνειν δὲ καὶ αὐτὸν τω̑ν δεόντων, (εἴγε δεοίτο,) εἰς τὰς ἀναγκαίας αὐτου̑ χρείας, καὶ τω̑ν παρ’ αὐτῳ̑ ἐπιξενουμένων ἀδελϕω̑ν, ὡς κατὰ μηδένα τρόπον αὐτοὺς ὑστερει̑σθαι, κατὰ τὸν θει̑ον ἀπόστολον λέγοντα· ἔχοντες διατροϕὰς καὶ σκεπάσματα, τούτοις ἀρκεσθησόμεθα· εἰ δὲ μὴ τούτοις ἀρκοι̑το, μετάβαλλοι δὲ τὰ πράγματα εἰς οἰκικὰς αὐτου̑ χρείας, καὶ τοὺς πόρους τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας ἢ τοὺς τω̑ν ἀγρω̑ν καρποὺς μὴ μετὰ γνώμης τω̑ν πρεσβυτέρων ἢ τω̑ν διακόνων χειρίζοι, ἀλλ’ οἰκείοις αὐτου̑ καὶ συγγενέσιν ἢ ἀδελϕοι̑ς ἢ υἱοι̑ς παράσχοιτο τὴν ἐξουσίαν, εἰς τὸ διὰ τω̑ν τοιούτων παραλεληθότως βλάπτεσθαι τοὺς λόγους τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας· του̑τον εὐθύνας παρέχειν τῃ̑ συνόδῳ τη̑ς ἐπαρχίας. 4 Conc. Carthagin. c. 14, 15. t. i. 980. AD 398. “Ut episcopus non longe ab ecclesia hospitiolum habeat:” “Ut episcopus vilem supellectilem, et mensam ac victum pauperem habeat, et dignitatis suæ auctoritatem fide ac vitæ meritis quærat.” T. C. i. 124. al. 97. ap. Whitg. Defence, 446, quotes these two canons, as also 3 Conc. Turon. c. 5. AD 813. t. 4. 1024. “Episcopum non oportet nimium profusis incumbere conviviis.”]

1

[Wicliff. Trial. iv. 16. fol. 127. “Non volet negare, quia oportet omnes fideles sequi Christum in moribus. Patet quod in gradu suo oportet clericos specialiter in paupertate humili sequi ipsum.” Penry, Humble Motion, p. 108. (1590.) “As touching the lord bishops and great clergymen, which have so laden themselves with thick clay, that they have much ado to get up into the pulpit of God; do they not know that it is their duty, that they may please Him who hath chosen them to be soldiers, not to entangle themselves with the affairs of this life, and that they ought for the peace and wealth of the Church to follow the example of their Lord and Master, c. . . . then is it a small matter for them to leave their thousands and be content with their hundreds.”]

2

[Wicliff. fol. 126. “Christus dicit Matth. 8. ‘Quod filius hominis non habet,’ c. hoc est, non habet humanitus sæculariter et proprietarie dominando. Qua ergo fronte episcopi nostri cæsarii audent in dominio civili se sic extollere super Christum?”]

3

[“Disputant, aliam hujus temporis sub Christi Evangelio esse rationem, ac olim fuit sub lege Mosaica: divitias et honores Deum priscis indulsisse sacerdotibus, at Evangelii ministros pauperes et inglorios vivere oportere, ad Christi Servatoris nostri exemplum et Apostolorum.” Saravia, de Hon. Præsul. et Presbyteris debito, c. 4. Vid. Wicliff. ubi sup.]

1

[“Sarcasmus est Juliani Apostatæ et hostium Christianæ religionis, deprædatis ecclesiarum opibus, doctoribus et pastoribus ecclesiarum insultare, ac dicere ipsos esse pauperes oportere, ad Christi Servatoris et Apostolorum ipsius exemplum.” Sar. de Hon. Præs. c. c. 5. p. 90.]

2

1 Cor. xi. 1.

3

Phil. iii. 16.

1

Psalm vii. 8.

2

Epiph. contra Hæres. lib. iii. hær. 70. c. 1. [διαϕανής τις κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτου̑ πατρίδα, διὰ τὸ ἀκραιϕνὲς του̑ βίου, καὶ κατὰ Θεὸν ζηλου̑ καὶ πίστεως· ὃς πολλάκις θεώμενος τὰ ἐν ται̑ς ἐκκλησίαις γενόμενα, εἰς πρόσωπον ἐπισκόπων τε καὶ πρεσβυτέρων ἐλεγκτικω̑ς ἀντετίθει τοι̑ς τοιούτοις λέγων· οὐ χρὴ ταυ̑τα οὕτως γενέσθαι, οὐκ ὀϕείλει ταυ̑τα οὕτως πράττεσθαι· ὡς ἀνὴρ ἀληθεύων, καὶ ὁποι̑α ϕιλει̑ ὑπὸ τω̑ν ϕιλαληθω̑ς ἐλευθεροστομούντων ἀνδρω̑ν, τω̑ν μάλιστα τὸν βίον ἀκρότατα βιούντων . . . εἴτινα γὰρ εἰ̑δε τω̑ν ϕιλοχρηματούντων του̑ κλήρου, ἢ ἐπίσκοπον, ἢ πρεσβύτερον, ἢ ἕτερόν τινα του̑ κανόνος, πάντως ἐϕθέγγετο· καὶ εἰ ἑώρα τινὰ ἐν τρυϕῃ̑ καὶ σπατάλῃ, ἤ τινα παραχαράττοντα τὰ ἐν τῳ̑ ἐκκλησιαστικῳ̑ κηρύγματι καὶ θεσμῳ̑ τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας, μἠ ϕέρων ὁ ἀνὴρ, προεβάλλετο, ὡς ἔϕην, τὸν λόγον. καὶ ἠ̑ν του̑το τοι̑ς μὴ τὸν βιὸν δεδοκιμασμένον ἔχουσιν ἐπαχθές· ὑβρἰζετο δὲ ἕνεκα τούτου, καὶ ἀντελέγετο, ἐμισει̑το, ἔϕερε κλυδωνιζόμενος τε καὶ ὠθούμενος, καὶ ἀτιμαζόμενος, ἕως χρόνου ἱκανου̑ ἐν ται̑ς ἐκκλησίαις συναγόμενος, ἕως ὅτε δεινω̑ς ἐνεγκάντες τινὲς ἐξεου̑σι τὸν ἄνδρα διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν· ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἠνείχετο, ἀλλ’ ἐβιάζετο μα̑λλον ἀλήθειαν μὲν λέγειν, μὴ ἀναχωρει̑ν δὲ του̑ συνδέσμου τη̑ς μια̑ς ἑνώσεως τη̑ς ἁγίας καθολικη̑ς ἐκκλησίας· ὡς δὲ ἐτύπτετο, . . . τὰ δει̑να τε ἔπασχε, βαρυστονήσας, σύμβουλον λαμβάνει ἑαυτῳ̑ τὴν ἀνάγκην τω̑ν ὑβρέων· ἑαυτὸν γὰρ ἀϕορίζει τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας.]

1

Ammian. Marcel. lib. xxvii. [c. iii. ( AD 367.) “Damasus et Ursinus [Ursicinus] supra humanum modum ad rapiendam episcopatus sedem ardentes, scissis studiis asperrime conflictabantur, adusque mortis vulnerumque discrimina adjumentis utriusque progressis . . . constatque in basilica Sicinini, ubi ritus Christiani est conventiculum, uno die cxxxvii. reperta cadavera peremptorum; efferatamque diu plebem ægre postea delenitam.” p. 480. ed. Vales.]

2

Vide in Vita Greg. Naz. [p. 22. præfix. ed. Par. 1630.]

3

“Nemo gradum sacerdotii pretii venalitate mercetur; quantum quisque mereatur, non quantum dare sufficiat, æstimetur. Profecto enim, quis locus tutus et quæ causa esse poterit excusata, si veneranda Dei templa pecuniis expugnentur? Quem murum integritatis aut vallum [fidei] providebimus, si auri sacra fames in penetralia veneranda proserpat? quid denique cautum esse poterit aut securum, si sanctitas incorrupta corrumpatur? Cesset altaribus imminere profanus ardor avaritiæ, et a sacris adytis repellatur piaculare flagitium. Itaque castus et humilis nostris temporibus eligatur episcopus, ut quocunque locorum pervenerit, omnia vitæ propriæ integritate purificet. Nec pretio sed precibus ordinetur antistes.” L. 31. C. de Episc. et Cler. [Cod. Just. lib. i. tit. 3. lex 31.]

1

[Dr. Bridges, Def. of the Government, c. p. 488, takes notice of a similar oversight: “With dutiful submission to their authority, we wish that some even of our bishops had been so careful in this long time that they had not admitted some though prettily learned yet too headstrong and newfangled ministers, that since they have entered into the ministry, forgetting the oath of their canonical obedience to their bishops, and of their loyal obedience to their prince, have, and do make, all, or the most part, of these stirs. But their carelessness in admitting such, hath been since meetly well punished by these their disobedient and unthankful children. And some also they have admitted into this function too unlearned (we confess) and unworthy ministers, and so are not altogether clear of maintaining the continual nurseries of ignorance and ignorant pastors. Yet neither have they been maintained, but greatly rebuked, for their so careless doings, and thereupon laws and provisions have been made, and stand in force, to repress such unlearned ministers, and the makers of them.”]

2

[Gibson, Codex, 784, note. “This writ lies, when one hath an advowson, and the parson dies, and another presents a clerk, or disturbs the rightful patron to present.” He gives the form of the writ.]

3

[Bp. Cooper, Adm. p. 147. “As for the corruption in bestowing other meaner livings, the chief fault thereof is in patrons themselves. For it is the usual manner of the most part of these (I speak of too good experience) though they may have good store of able men in the Universities, yet if an ambitious or greedy minister come not unto them to sue for the benefice, if there be an unsufficient man, or a corrupt person within two shires of them, whom they think they can draw to any composition for their own benefit, they will by one means or other find him out. And if the bishop shall make courtesy to admit him, some such shift shall be found by the law, either by Quare impedit or otherwise, that whether the bishop will or no, he shall be shifted into the benefice. I know some bishops unto whom such suits against the patrons have been more chargeable in one year, than they have gained by all the benefices they have bestowed since they were bishops, or I think will do while they be bishops.”]

1

Can. Apost. 76. [ap. Beveridge, Synodicon, i. 50. Οὐ χρὴ ἐπίσκοπον τῳ̑ ἀδελϕῳ̑, ἢ τῳ̑ υἱῳ̑, ἢ ἑτέρῳ συγγενει̑ χαριζόμενον, εἰς τὸ ἀξίωμα τη̑ς ἐπισκοπη̑ς χειροτονει̑ν ὃν βούλεται· κληρονόμους γὰρ τη̑ς ἐπισκοπη̑ς ποιει̑σθαι οὐ δίκαιον, τὰ του̑ Θεου̑ χαριζόμενον πάθει ἀνθρωπίνῳ. οὐ γὰρ τὴν του̑ Θεου̑ ἐκκλησίαν ὑπὸ κληρονόμους ὀϕείλει τιθέναι· εἰ δέ τις του̑το ποιήσει, ἄκυρος μὲν ἔστω ἡ χειροτονία· αὐτὸς δὲ ἐπιτιμάσθω ἀϕορισμῳ̑.]

1

[Sueton. Nero. c. 38.]

1

Egisip. [*] l. ii. c. 12. “[Nactus igitur Herodes regnum, quod a Romanis pro oppugnatæ vel proditæ patriæ mercede acceperat, in locum Antigoni . . . substituit successores in sacerdotium, non Asamonæi generis, quos clarioris fuisse prosapiæ accepimus, sed ignobiles quosque quos aut libido aut casus dedisset . . . In hujusmodi ordinationibus Archelaus secutus paternæ speciem consuetudinis, angustioris animi tenuit sententiam: more quodam insito mortalibus, ut apud eos minus suspecta sit ignavia hebetiorum, quam gratia bonorum.” in Bibl. P. Colon. II. 1003 F.]

*

[I. e. Hegesippus (or Josippus ), de Bello Judaico: a compilation from Josephus in Latin, and in some MSS. ascribed to S. Ambrose. It was printed several times in the sixteenth century, from 1511 to 1583, and by Weber, Marburg, 1864. Vid. Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 216; Ceillier. ii. 2. § 5; Weiss in Biog. Univ. ] 1886.

1

[See Theodoret. E. H. i. 11. Φιλαπεχθήμονες ἄνδρες ἐγράψαντο τω̑ν ἐπισκόπων τινὰς, καὶ τῳ̑ βασιλει̑ τὰς ἐγγράϕους κατηγορίας ἐπέδοσαν· ὁ δὲ πρὸ τη̑ς γεγενημένης ὁμονοίας ταύτας δεξάμενος, εἰ̑τα δεσμὸν ἐπιθεὶς καὶ τῳ̑ δακτυλίῳ σημηνάμενος, ϕυλαχθη̑ναι προσέταξεν· ἔπειτα τὴν σύμβασιν ἐργασάμενος, ταύτας κομίσας παρόντων αὐτω̑ν κατέκαυσεν, ὁμωμόκως ἠ̑ μὴν μηδὲν τω̑ν ἐγγεγραμμένων ἀνεγνωκέναι· οὐ γὰρ ἔϕη χρη̑ναι τω̑ν ἱερέων τὰ πλημμελήματα δη̑λα γίνεσθαι τοι̑ς πολλοι̑ς, ἵνα μὴ σκανδάλου πρόϕασιν ἐντευ̑θεν λάβοντες, ἀδεω̑ς ἁμαρτάνωσι· ϕασὶ δὲ αὐτὸν καὶ τόδε προσθει̑ναι, ὡς εἰ αὐτοπτὴς ἐπισκόπου γάμον ἀλλότριον διορύττοντος γίνοιτο, συγκάλυψαι ἂν τῳ̑ πορϕυρίῳ τὸ παρανόμως γινόμενον, ὡς ἂν μὴ βλάψῃ τοὺς θεωμένους τω̑ν δρωμένων ἡ ὄψις.]

1

[1 Tim. iv. 16.]

2

[Psalm v. 8.]

3

[c. xliv. 4. σοϕοὶ λόγοι ἐν παιδείᾳ αὐτω̑ν.]

1

2 Sam. xvi. 12.

2

Plat. in Phæd. [Μισανθρωπία ἐνδύεται ἐκ του̑ σϕόδρα τινὶ πιστευ̑σαι ἄνευ τέχνης, καὶ ἡγήσασθαι παντάπασί γε ἀληθη̑ εἰ̑ναι καὶ ὑγιη̑ καὶ πιστὸν τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἔπειτα ὄλιγον ὕστερον εὑρει̑ν του̑τον πόνηρόν τε καὶ ἄπιστον, καὶ αὐ̑θις ἕτερον· καὶ ὅταν του̑το πολλάκις πάθῃ τις, καὶ ὑπὸ τούτων μάλιστα οὓς ἂν ἡγήσατο οἰκειοτάτους τε καὶ ἑταιροτάτους, τελευτω̑ν δὴ θαμὰ προσκρούων, μισει̑ τε πάντας, καὶ ἡγει̑ται οὐδένος οὐδὲν ὑγιὲς εἰ̑ναι τοπαράπαν . . . . καὶ δη̑λον ὅτι ἄνευ τέχνης τη̑ς περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια ὁ τοιου̑τος χρη̑σθαι ἐπιχειρει̑ τοι̑ς ἀνθρώποις· εἰ γάρ που μετὰ τέχνης ἐχρη̑το, ὥσπερ ἔχει, οὕτως ἂν ἡγήσαιτο, τοὺς μὲν χρηστοὺς καὶ πονηροὺς σϕόδρα ὀλίγους εἰ̑ναι ἑκατέρους, τοὺς δὲ μεταξὺ, πλείστους. t. i. 89. c. ed. Serran.]

1

Merc. Trism. in Pimandro, dial. vi. [§ 3. ed. Patricii, Lond. 1611, fol. 14.]

2

Mal. iii. 8.

k

So corrected ed. 1676.

3

Acts v. 2.

1

Gen. xlvii. 22.

1

Numb. xviii. 32.

2

Lev. xxv. 34.

3

Ezek. xlviii. 14.

4

Habak. ii. 17.

5

Mal. iii. 9.

6

Prov. iii. 9.

7

2 Chron. xix.

l

So all Gauden’s edd.

1

[De Præscript. Hæret. c. xxx. “Agnosco maximam virtutem eorum, qua Apostolos in perversum æmulantur.”]

1

Psal. cv. 24, 25.

2

[See in Penry’s “Humble Motion,” p. 94, c. a detailed plan for the redistribution of church property.]

3

[Cf. Elizabeth’s motto, Semper eadem. ]

m

time and; all Gauden’s edd.

4

Lib. x. Ep. 54. DDD. Valent. Theodos. et Arcad. [p. 289. Paris. 1604.]

5

Cod. Just. I. 2. de Sacros. Eccles. l. 14.

1

[So 1662: bishopricks, 1676, ’82.

1

[c. viii. 12.]

2

[Justinian. Instit. lib. i. tit. viii. § 2. “Expedit enim reip. ne sua re quis male utatur.”]

3

“Pudet dicere, sacerdotes idolorum, aurigæ, mimi et scorta hæreditates capiunt, solis clericis et monachis id lege prohibetur, et prohibetur non a persecutoribus sed principibus Christianis. Nec de lege conqueror, sed doleo quod meruerimus hanc legem.” Ad Nepot. 2. [§ 6. t. i. 258. ed. Vallars.]

1

[Exod. xxxvi. 5-7.]

2

Obad. ver. 5.

3

Flor. lib. iii. c. 13. [23.]

1

Deut. xxxiii. 11.

*

[Q.L.C.D. stand for MSS. described vol. i. p. xliv. E. for the ed. 1651; see vol. i. p. xxxiii. There was an earlier ed. 1648, here marked E′. which was followed by Gauden, 1662.] 1886.

a

E. adds containing.

b

to E C.

†

[Archdeacon Cotton has transmitted to the editor, from a MS. [D. 3. 3.] in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, the following extract, being part of a kind of analysis of the eighth book, written out by Abp. Ussher as for his own use.

“ Of Kings and their Power Ecclesiastical generally.

- 1. “An Admonition concerning Men’s Judgments about the Question of regal Power.

- 2. “What their Power of Dominion is.

- 3. “By what 1 Right, after what 2 Sort, in what 3 Measure, with what 4 Conveniency, and according to what 5 Example, Christian Kings may have it. In a word, their manner of holding Dominion.

“ Of the Kings of England particularly.

- 4. “Of the Title of Headship, which we give to the Kings of England in relation unto the Church.

- 5. “Of their Prerogative to call general Assemblies about the affairs of the Church.

- 6. “Of their Power in making Ecclesiastical Laws.

- 7. “Of their Power in making Ecclesiastical Governors, (the chief Ministers of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction).

- 8. “Of their Power in Judgment Ecclesiastical.

- 9. “Of their Exemption from Judicial kinds of Punishment [‡] by the Clergy.”]

‡

[Censures Ecclesiastical written underneath this clause. ]

c

in both Q.

1

1 Maccab. xiv. 42.

d

their E.Q.L.C.

e

over their works, and country, and weapons, but also, c. E.

f

all om. E.

2

Vid. inf. c. iii. 1.

g

haply it be E.C.L.

h

to E.

i

only om. E.

k

Ezekias om. E.C.L.

l

the om. E.

m

matters E.Q.L.C.

n

officers C.L.

o

kings E.

p

things E.C.

q

prophets E.

r

nor E.C.L.

s

at any time could E.L. any time could C.

t

with D.

u

thing E.C. change Fulm.

x

the supremacy E.C.

y

even om. E.C.

z

high om. E.C.L.Q.

a

the E.C.

b

and E.Q.L.C.

c

do imagine E.C.

1

[1 Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 694. “To these three jointly, i. e. to the ministers, seniors, and deacons, is the whole regiment of the Church to be committed.” Answ. ibid. “Methinks I hear you whisper that the prince hath no authority in ecclesiastical matters.” T. C. i. 153. al. 192. “The prince or civil magistrate hath to see that the laws of God touching his worship and touching all matters and orders of the Church be exercised and duly observed, and to see that every ecclesiastical person do that office whereunto he is appointed, and to punish those which fail in their office accordingly. As for the making of the orders and ceremonies of the Church, they do (where there is a constituted and ordered Church) pertain unto the ministers of the Church and to the ecclesiastical governors . . . But if those to whom that doth appertain make any orders not meet, the magistrate may and ought to hinder them and drive them to better.”]

d

callings E.C.

e

the om. D.

2

See below, c. ii. 1.

f

who E.Q.C.L.

g

functions E.

h

in om. D.

i

matter E.

k

the om. E.

kk

opinions E′.

l

the om. E.C.

ll

substance, ed. 1676, ’82.

m

that E.Q.C.L. which E′.

n

so being E.C.

o

E.Q.L.

p

every one of them E.

q

sever E. [swerve Fulm.]

r

most om. E.

s

through E.C.

t

Christian om. C.L.

u

E. reads the church and commonwealth are two corporations, independently subsisting [each Fulm.] by itself. The correction is made upon the authority of all the MSS.

x

man a om. E.C.

y

triangle E.

z

kind om. E.

a

the Church E.L.

b

to E.Q.C.

c

both. Nay, it is so E. The MSS. read as above, only C. omits so.

d

also to be E.C.

e

the om. E.Q.C.L.

ee

that—do between brackets E′.

f

the bishops E.

g

with E.

h

which does not hinder, om. E. inserted from Q.D.

i

a om. E.C.L.

1

[“Etsi duo sunt gubernationis genera, alterum civitatis, alterum ecclesiæ, tamen utrumque ab eodem profectum est auctore. Quod quamvis diversa fiat ratione, et illud a Deo sit quatenus Creator et Moderator rerum humanarum, hoc quatenus Redemptor est humani generis, et unumquodque suum habeat finem; tamen quando eadem societas ecclesia est et civitas, sicut ab eodem utriusque regiminis auctoritas manat, ita ad eundem postremum finem respicit, et eodem se recolligit. Unde fit, ut multa habeant communia, quæ nunquam recte nisi communi consilio et assensu possunt perfici. Evangelii minister a Deo Servatore regiminis in ecclesiam habet auctoritatem: magistratus a Deo omnium Creatore in cives. Qui quoties simul amice conspirant, et eodem sua consilia referunt, optime cum civitate, optime agitur cum ecclesia.” Saravia de Divers. Ministr. Grad. c. xi. p. 27.]

k

errors E.Q.C.L.

l

such as are E. [such; are Fulm.]

m

in om. E.D.

n

hath E.C.

o

dependencie D.

p

government E.

1

[“Dicunt, ecclesiam et rempublicam res distinctas esse: quod nos quidem fatemur nonnunquam personis et ratione fieri, nonnunquam ratione tantum. Ubi universa civitas aut resp. fidem Christi profitetur et amplectitur, ratione tantum differunt cives regni Dei, et reip. Ubi civitas et princeps est infidelis, ibi non ratio tantum, sed personæ civium utriusque regni diversæ sunt. Quo in loco diversæ possunt esse summæ jurisdictiones. Ubi vero eadem est resp. et ecclesia, minime hoc fieri potest. Cum igitur in nostro regno iidem sint cives regni Dei, et reip. una debet esse summa potestas, nisi subditorum et præsidum alia sit ratio.” Sutcliffe, de Presbyterio, p. 42.]

2

[Apol. doctissimi Viri D. Gulielmi Alani [i. e. Cardinal Allen, v. p. 92, note 3] pro Sacerdotibus Societatis Jesu, et aliis Seminariorum Alumnis: Augustæ Trevirorum, 1583. cap. iv. p. 64, 65: “Est error manifestus, omni eruditione tam humana quam divina damnatus, affirmare primatum in causis ecclesiasticis naturalibus aut Christianis legibus in potestate et jure regis temporalis includi, aut hujusmodi dignitatem unquam in gubernatorem aliquem civilem jure collatam aut conferri posse, sive is ethnicus, sive Christianus fuerit, asserere. . . Sub Nerone, præcipui Apostoli ecclesiam Romanam gubernabant: quemadmodum modo, ubi regna ab avita fide desciverunt, ecclesia suam spiritalem necessario habeat gubernationem, quæ a regibus ethnicis, quibus tamen in rebus sæcularibus obtemperant Christiani, minime dependeat. Quapropter omnia quæ a Protestantibus ex sacris literis adferuntur, non plus principi Christiano quam ethnico quoad hanc potestatem favent.”]

q

did bare D.

r

church’s E.C.

s

live she om. E.C.L.

t

spiritual E.

u

the om. E.C.L.

1

Polit. [lib. iii. cap. 6.] p. 102. [τὸ κοινῃ̑ συμϕέρον συνάγει, καθ’ ὅσον ἐπιβάλλει μέρος ἑκαστῳ̑ του̑ ζῃ̑ν καλω̑ς· μάλιστα μὲν οὐ̑ν του̑τ’ ἔστι τέλος, καὶ κοινῃ̑ πα̑σι, καὶ χωρίς· συνέρχονται δὲ καὶ του̑ ζῃ̑ν ἕνεκεν αὐτου̑.]

x

saith E.C.L.

y

the life E.

z

which the life hath need of E. as this life hath need of C.

zz

needeth E′.

2

S. Matt. vi. [33. This reference from Q.]

a

to be sought first for E.

b

sought E.

3

Arist. Pol. p. 196. [om. E. Q. C. L.]

c

heathens E.Q.C.L.

d

affairs E.

4

Arist. Pol. lib. iii. cap. 20. [123. l. 10. et 181. l. 28. D. vi. 8. t. iii. 566. c. ed. Duval. Ἀλλὸ δ’ εἰ̑δος ἐπιμελείας ἡ πρὸς τοὺς θεούς· οἱ̑ον, ἱερει̑ς τε καὶ ἐπιμεληταὶ τω̑ν περὶ τὰ ἱερά.] Liv. lib. i. c. 20. [“(Numa) sacerdotibus creandis animum adjecit . . . Pontificem . . . legi eique sacra omnia exscripta exsignataque attribuit . . . ut esset quo consultum plebis veniret.”]

e

states amongst D.

f

considerations E.Q.

g

selfsame E.L.

h

reasons E.Q.C.L.

i

there be E.

k

already [alleged Fulm.]

l E. reads, Three kinds of their proofs are [1. Fulm.] taken from the difference of affairs and offices. L. as in the text, only reading, officers for affairs D.C. and Q. give the reading above.

kk

the holy E′.

ll

commonweal in E′. throughout this §.

m

their E.C.L.Q.

n

were E.

o

or E.

p

evermore to be E.C.Q.

q

was that E. that was C.L.Q.

r

that E.Q.C.L.

s

dependence E.C.

t

the om. E.C.L.Q.

tt

the om. E′.

u

a church E.Q.C.L.

x

rest E.

y

continued E. corr. in 1662.

z

subsistencie D.

a

are in this case therefore E.Q.C.L.

b

as it liveth under E.C.L.

c

Jesus om. E.C.L.

d

forsomuch E.C.L.

e

so om. E.

1

2 Chron. xix. 8, 11; Heb. v. 1; 1 Thess. v. 12; T. C. iii. 151.

f

from D.

g

a little om. Q.

2

[“A true, sincere, and modest Defence of English Catholics that suffer for their faith both at home and abroad; against a false, seditious and slanderous libel, entitled ‘the Execution of Justice in England.’ ” c. v. p. 98, 99. “Though the state, regiment, policy and power temporal be in itself always of distinct nature, quality, and condition from the government ecclesiastical and spiritual commonwealth called the Church or body mystical of Christ, and the magistrate spiritual and civil divers and distinct, and sometime so far that the one hath no dependance of the other, nor subalternation to the other in respect of themselves, (as it is in the churches of God residing in heathen kingdoms, and was in the Apostles’ times under the pagan emperors,) yet now when the laws of Christ are received, and the bodies politic and mystical, the Church and civil state, the magistrate ecclesiastical and temporal, concur in their kinds together, (though ever of distinct regiments, natures and ends) there is such a concurrence and subordination betwixt both, that the inferior of the two (which is the civil state) must needs (in matters pertaining any way either directly or indirectly to the honour of God and benefit of the soul,) be subject to the spiritual, and take direction from the same. The condition of these two powers (as St. Gregory Nazianzen most excellently resembleth it) is like unto the distinct state of the spirit and body or flesh in a man. . . The spirit may and must command, overrule, and chastise the body . . . So likewise, the power political,” c.]

h

temporal princes C.

1

[“Nor yet the spiritual turned into the temporal, or subject by perverse order (as it is now in England) to the same; but the civil, which indeed is the inferior, subordinate, and in some cases subject to the ecclesiastical; though so long as the temporal state is no hinderance to eternal felicity and the glory of Christ’s kingdom, the other intermeddleth not with his actions.” Allen, ubi supra.]

i

Christian om. E.C.L.

k Proofs . . . commonwealth om. E.

2

T. C. l. iii. p. 151.

l

opposed E.

m

both Church and commonwealth E.C.L.

n

which saith om. E. that saith Q.

3

Socr. lib. 5. præfat. Sozom. lib. 3. c. 20. [These two references from D.]

o

to be adjudged E.

p

and another E.Q.C.L.

4

Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. iii. [c. 65.]

q

of om. E.C.L.

r

Church, doth E.Q.C.L.

5

Aug. Ep. 167. [al. 89.]

rr

not E′. edd. 1662, ’76. corr. 1682.

s

may om. E.C.

t

there om. E.Q.C.L.

tt

accident E′.

u

always should E.C.L.

x

lovingly dwell E.L.D.

y

be E.C.L.

yy

sometimes E′.

z

residence E.

a

in those accidents they are to be divers E.

aa

that om. E′.

b

inabstracted, betoken E.; so in 1662-82.

c

the accidents themselves E.Q.C.L.

d

the om. E.

e

those E.C.L.

f

in one man E.Q.C.

g

in divers E. not in E′.

h

these E. such C.L.

i

as E.Q.

k

that E.C.L.

l

therefore the Church E.C.L.

m

a om. E.

n

without any affairs; besides, when, E.

o

when ... church doth flourish om. E.C.L.

p

when in both [of] them, we then say E.

1

Isai. i. 21, 23.

q

justice and judgment E.Q.L. [ The Geneva Bible, D. and C. read as in the text. ]

2

Mal. i. 7, 8. [cf. VII. xxii. 4.]

r

evil Gen. Bible, E.Q.C.L.

s

you D.

t

treasure E.C.

3

1 Chron. xxix. 3.

u

bestowed E.

x

did E.C.L.

y

which E.C.L.

4

Nehem. ii. 17.

yy

Nehemiah E′.

5

Acts xviii. 14.

6

Ver. 15.

z

reciteth E.C.L. [rejecteth Fulm.]

a

thereof E.C. of those matters L. of those things, Gen. Bible.

b

this difference E.

c Proofs ... Church om. E.

d and released om. E. or released Q.C.

e

or E.

f

is not therefore E.Q. is therefore C.L.

g

from om. E.C.

1

T. C. l. iii. p. 152. [151. “A man may, by excommunication, be sundred from the Church, which forthwith loseth not of necessity his burgessship or freedom in the city, or commonwealth . . . The civil magistrate may by banishment cut off a man from being a member of the commonwealth, whom the Church cannot by and by cast out by excommunication . . . When one is for his misbehaviour deprived of his privileges both in the Church and commonwealth; albeit the Church be upon his repentance bound to receive him in again as member thereof, yet the commonwealth is at her liberty whether she will restore him or no.”]

gg

admit? If it chance the same man be shut out of both, division E′. 1666.

h

both, divisions E.

hh

execution. After E′.

i

none of E. none of is gone from L. cut off is gone from C. once that way gone from Q.

k

fit E. [still Fulm.]

l

that E.

m

a om. E.D.C.L.

n

state D.

o

very om. E.C.

p

which om. E.

q

it must E.

r

utterly separate E. sever C.

s

from the other also E.

t

may E.

u

do clearly E.

x

the affairs of om. E.C.L.

y

by E.

z

which E.C.L.

a

same om. E.

b

same E.C.

c

which having E.L.Q. which having been both D.A. man which hath both been C.

d

reunited E.L. received C.

e

admitted E.C.

f

both parts E.

g

these E.C.

h

received E.L. receives C.

i

man om. E.C.L.Q.

k

or E.L. on C.Q. E′. 1666.

kk

hath E′. 1666.

l

of these things in E. of those things of C.L.

m

said D.

n

the dominions E.C.L.

o

and E.C.L.

p

subjected E. submitted C.

q

dependence from E.C.L.

r

when he is suffered to rule E.C.L. where he, c. Q.

s

all om. D. all did L.

t

thought fit E.

u

as it is a Church om. E.C.L.Q.

x

order thereby E.C.L.Q.

y

and to dispose E.C.L.

z

so far as E.C.L.

a

government E.C.

b

over the Church om. E.C.

c

and power E.C.

d

degrees E.C.L.Q.

dd

Law E′. 1666.

e

Head and om. E.C.L.Q.

f

E.C.L. insert “secondly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly,” to mark the respective clauses of this sentence; to which C. and L. add (as would be correct) sixthly before the word according; but E. in that place has a full stop, for which in the current text and has been substituted. Q. notes the numbers in the margin. The whole stands here as in the Dubl. MSS.

g

in what inconveniency E. in what conveniency C.

h

generals E.C.

i

secondly, the prerogative, c. E.C.L. (and so in the following clauses of this enumeration).

k

great E.

l

law E.

m

inevitable om. E.Q.C.L.

1

Luke xi. 17.

2

1 Cor. xiv. 40.

n

except E.C.L.

o

and E.C.L.

p

Yea om. E.C.L.Q.

pp

coaugmentation E′. 1666. corr. 1676.

q

to the other E.Q.

r

policy E.Q.C.L.

s

have E.C.L.

t

matters E.

u

so...extend om. D. do om. E.

x

an authority E.

y

cases E.C.L.

z

there om. E.C.L.

a

of all Dominion? om. E. 1666.

b

Besides—dominion om. E. him om. D.

c

order E. [Fulm. under.]

cc

old axiom E′.

d

et dominium om. E. potestatem, dominium C.

1

[Bracton (circ. 1244.) de Leg. the reading in the former quotation Angl. i. 8. fol. 5. ed. 1569; where is “dominationem et potestatem.”]

e

not om. E.C.

f

state E.

g

any thing hereunto to the contrary E.C.

h

not E.C.L.Q.

i

meant to exclude E. (Fulm. inserts “but”).

k

in E.

l

consisteth E.

m

of om. E.

n

On the authority of the Dublin MS. confirmed by internal evidence, the section headed, “By what rule,” is omitted here, and inserted § 17. Of this arrangement a relic remains in E.Q. and L. viz. the marginal note, “By what rule,” inserted in that place, without any section to which it might refer. Fulm. notes in the margin there, “des.” which probably means “desunt [quædam].”

o The right which men give, God ratifies, E. In Q., on a separate paper, in another hand, (perhaps Bishop Barlow’s,) this side-notestands thus: “By what right kings hold supreme power over causes ecclesiastical in their own dominions; namely, though such as men do give, yet God doth ratify.”

p

which E.

q

against the other E.Q.C.L.

r

must E.Q.

s

God supreme E.Q.C.L.

t

band E.C.L.

u

full om. E.

1

[Comp. Allen, Apol. c. iv. p. 67. “Oportet ecclesiam . . . illam retinere et conservare gubernandi rationem, quam Christus ipse immediate instituit, quamque nec elegit nec ordinavit populi decretum et consensus qui origo omnium statuum humanorum est et formarum politiæ. ” It is the principle of the Roman law: “Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem: utpote cum lege regia, quæ de ejus imperio lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat. ” Dig. i. iv. 1.]

x

kinds D.

y

society E.C.L.

z

they E. he C.L.

a

unto E.Q.C.L.

b

to the E.C. to that Q.

c

Sometime D.

d

which E.C.

e

have it om. E.C.L. [which insert it after “God.”]

f

freely E.

g

governors E.C.L.Q.

h

estates E.C.

i

for D. [see p. 346, line 5.]

2

Dan. ii.21.iv; Is. xlv; Rom.xiii.

k

power which they have to be his E.C.L.Q.

3

“Corona est potestas delegata a Deo.” Bracton. [The editor has not been able to find these words in the Book De Legibus Angliæ, but the sentiment occurs continually. E. g. ed. 1569, fol. 1. “Rex vicarius Dei;” et fol. 5. “Quod sub lege esse debeat, cum sit Dei vicarius, evidenter apparet ad similitudinem Jesu Christi, cujus vices gerit in terris;” and fol. 55. Habet omnia jura in manu sua, quæ ad coronam et laicalem pertinent potestatem . . . ut ex jurisdictione sua, sicut Dei minister et vicarius, tribuat unicuique quod suum fuerit. . . . Est enim corona regis facere justitiam et judicium, et tenere pacem;” and fol. 107. lib. iii. cap. 9. throughout.] “ ‘Rex’ ” “(inquit Sthenidas [Ecphantus] Locrus de Regno) τὸ μὲν [σκα̑νος] τοι̑ς λοιποι̑ς ὅμοιος οἵα γεγονὼς ἐκ τα̑ς αὐτα̑ς ὕλας ὑπὸ τεχνίτα δ’ εἰργασμένος λώστω ὃς ἐτεχνίτευσεν αὐτὸν ἀρχετύπῳ χρώμενος ἑαυτῳ̑.” [Ap. Stobæum, ii. 321. ed. Gaisford [*] .]

*

E. and C. omit this note; L. gives the following version. “A king, in regard of the tabernacle of his body, is like to other men, as made of the same matter, but fashioned by the best workman, who artificially framed him, using himself for the pattern.” The word σκα̑νος therefore seems to have been inadvertently omitted by the copyist. It may be questioned, however, whether this version be Hooker’s. In MS. D. a space is left here.

l

even om. E.Q.C.L.

m

own om. E.C.L.

n

hath E.Q.C.L.

o

the om. E.C.

p

the thing om. E. [Fulm. f. the power. ]

q

assigned and established E.

r

affairs E.

s

by E.C.

t

the om. E.

u

the om. E.

x

being now made E.Q.C.L.

y

proposed E.

z

states E. estates C.

a

laws E.

b

so by the same law they E.

c

state E.

d

hath E.Q.C.L.

e

power and authority E. f. power over C.

f

the kingly E.

g

right om. E.Q.C.L.

h

place of estate E. the place of state C. that place Q.

i

right to exact E.Q.C.L.

j

and E.Q.C.L.

k

the om. E.

l Inserted from D.Q.L.

m

behoveth further E.

n

in E.Q.C.L.

o

of E.

1

[Vindic. contr. Tyr. p. 63, 65. “Cum de universo populo loquimur, intelligimus eos qui a populo auctoritatem acceperunt, magistratus . . . intelligimus etiam comitia, quæ nil aliud sunt, quam regni cujusque epitome, ad quæ publica omnia negotia referuntur . . . Illi vero ut singuli rege inferiores sunt, ita universi superiores. ”]

p

herein om. E.Q.C.L.

q

injury done unto him E.Q.C.L.

r

not om. E.C.L.

s

the same E.C.L.

t

μετὰ E. Fulm. by birth, μετὰ L. μεία E′. both Greek words om. C.

u

is capital, and E. is capable, and C.

1

Junius Brutus, Vindic. p. 83. [“Vindiciæ contra Tyrannos, sive, de Principis in Populum Populique in Principem legitima Potestate; Stephano Junio Bruto, Celta, sive, ut putatur, Theodoro Beza, auctore.” P. 112, ed. Amstelod, 1660. “Etsi, ex quo virtutem patrum imitati filii nepotesve regna sibi quasi hæreditaria fecisse videntur, in quibusdam regionibus electionis libera facultas desiisse quodammodo videatur; mansit tamen perpetuo in omnibus regnis bene constitutis ea consuetudo, ut demortuis non prius succederent liberi, quam a populo quasi de novo constituerentur; nec tanquam sui hæredes patribus agnascerentur, sed tum demum reges censerentur, cum ab iis, qui populi majestatem repræsentarent, regni investituram quasi per sceptrum et diadema accepissent.” The first edition of this work bears date 1579. It appears by the prefixed epistle to have been completed 1577: and from internal evidence to have been written soon after the coronation of the Duke of Anjou (afterwards Henry III.) as king of Poland. See p. 223, ed. 1660; and compare a dissertation by Le Clerc at the end of Bayle’s Dictionary, Eng. Transl. 1734, in which, from this and other circumstances, he seems to have established in opposition to Bayle that Du Plessis Mornay, not Hubert Languet, was the probable author of the Vindiciæ. Sutcliffe in his Answer to the Petition to the Queen, 1591, mentions it repeatedly as the work either of Beza or Hotoman: p. 75, 79, 81. Dr. Mac Crie in his life of Melville, p. 425 (Edinb. 1819), says that the Vindiciæ is properly an enlargement of Beza’s suppressed treatise of De Jure Magistratuum. This, Mr. Gibbings suggests, may be the reason why Hooker seems to have been inclined to ascribe the book to Beza: see above, Editor’s Preface, p. xxii. At one time it was ascribed to the Jesuit Saunders: see Bancroft, Survey, c. 22. It is an essay to settle four questions: 1. “An subditi teneantur aut debeant principibus obedire, si quid contra legem Dei imperent.” 2. “An liceat resistere principi, legem Dei abrogare volenti, ecclesiamve vastanti. Item quibus, quomodo et quatenus.” 3. “An et quatenus principi remp. aut opprimenti aut perdenti resistere liceat. Item, quibus id, quomodo, et quo jure permissum sit.” 4. “An jure possint aut debeant vicini principes auxilium ferre aliorum principum subditis, religionis puræ causa afflictis, aut manifesta tyrannide oppressis.”]

x

that om. E.

y

deceased om. E.C.L.

z

king’s E.

a

sceptre and a diadem E.

1

Junius Brutus, Vindic. p. 85. [116. “In summa: omnes omnino reges ab initio electi fuerunt. Et qui hodie per successionem regnum adire videntur, prius a populo constituantur necesse est. Denique etsi populus ob egregia quædam merita ex aliqua stirpe reges sibi deligere in quibusdam regionibus solet; stirpem ipsam, non surculum deligit; nec ita deligit, quin, si degeneret, aliam eligere non [?] possit. Qui vero ex ea stirpe etiam proximi sunt, non tam reges nascuntur, quam fiunt; non tam reges, quam regum candidati habentur.” p. 81. [110.] “Si stirpem spectas, hæreditarium certe fuisse; at sane si personas, omnino electivum.”]

b

that E.C.L.

c

we E.C.L.

d

themselves om. E.C.L.

e

selected E.

2

Page 78. [105, c.]

f

and E.Q.C.L.

3

[See this subject treated of at large by Dr. Saravia, “De Imperandi Auctoritate, et Christiana Obedientia,” lib. iii. cap. 1-17; against William Reynolds, of Rheims, who had maintained the contrary doctrine on the part of a Roman Catholic clergy and people in his work, “De Reip. Christianæ Potestate super Reges,” published 1592, under the name of G. Gul. Rossæus. It appears to have been the standing doctrine of the extreme papal party in their contentions with the imperialists.]

ff

given with E′.

g

and sceptres om. E.Q.C.L.

gg

have. I say these om. E′.

h

specified E.C.L.

i

either om. E.Q.C.L.

k

And om. E.

l

doth E.Q.C.

m

all these new elections and investings E.Q.C.L.

n

in E.Q.C.L.

o

entire om. E. inserted in C. by an after hand.

p

have rule Q.C.L. E′. om. E.

q

the D.E.C.L. [Q. reads his.]

r

of his sovereign E.C.L.

s

in om. E.Q.C.L.

t

from E.C.

u

into D.

x

births E.Q.C.L.

y

incapable D.C.L.

z

is om. E. which gives the whole sentence in italics.

1

Vide Cicer. de Offic. [ii. 12.]

a

it did always flow by original E.

b

the cause of kings’ E.

c

lords E.C.

d

fall unto them by escheat E.C.

e

follow rightly E. rightly om. C.

f

and E.Q.C.L.

g

the om. E.Q.C.L.

h

may a body politic then E.C.

i

the E.C.L.

k

inconveniences do E.Q.C. conveniences do L.

l

by any just means should be able E.

m

the line of E. [underscored by Fulm.]

n

lawfully om. E.Q.C.L.

o

is to E.Q.C.L.

p

only the articles E.C.L.

q

do by little and little growE. do grow by little, c. Q.C.L.

r

most om. E.

s

to be om. E.

1

Arist. Pol. lib. iii. cap. 1 [*] . [cap. 10. E. cap. 16, ed. Duval, t. iii. 477. B. βασιλείας μὲν οὐ̑ν εἴδη ταυ̑τα, τέτταρα τὸν ἀριθμόν· μία μὲν, ἡ περὶ τοὺς ἡρωϊκοὺς χρόνους· αὕτη δ’ ἠ̑ν έκόντων μὲν, ἐπί τισι δ’ ὡρισμένοις· στρατηγὸς γὰρ ἠ̑ν καὶ δικαστὴς ὁ βασιλεὺς, καὶ τω̑ν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς κύριος.]

*

Pol. l. i. c. 10. D.

ss

sustained, and endued with . . E′. and edd.

2

Pythagoras apud Ecphant. de Regno. Ὁ κατ’ ἀρετὰν ἐξάρχων καλέεται [τε] βασιλεὺς, καὶ ἔντι, ταύταν ἔχων ϕιλίαν τε καὶ κοινωνίαν ποτὶ τὼς ὑπὸ αὐτὸν, ἅνπερ ὁ Θεὸς ἔχει ποτί τε τὸν κόσμον καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῳ̑. [ap. Stob. Floril. ii. 323. ed. Gaisford.] “He that ruleth according to virtue is called a king, and hath such friendship and community towards those that be under him, as God hath towards the world and those things that be in it [†] .”

†

This extract is wanting in E; the Greek in C; the English in D.Q.L.

t

judge E.C.L.

u

that D.

x

scape D.

y

another E.Q.C.L.

3

Polit. iii. 14. [Ἡ ἐν τῃ̑ Λακωνικῃ̑ πολιτείᾳ δοκει̑ μὲν εἰ̑ναι βασιλεία μάλιστα τω̑ν κατὰ νόμον, οὐκ ἔστι δὲ κυρία πάντων· ἀλλ’ ὅταν ἐξέλθῃ τὴν χώραν, ἡγεμὼν ἔστι τω̑ν πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον. ἔτι δὲ τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ἀποδέδοται τοι̑ς βασιλευ̑σιν. comp. c. 15. init.]

z

have E.Q.C.L.

a

they were most tied to law, and so [had C.L.Q.] the most restrained power E.C.L.Q.

b

very om. E.C.L.

c

the state E.C.L.

d

αὐτῳ̑ μὲν, and afterwards δὲ, om. E.C.

1

[The margin of the Queen’s Coll. MS. has here, “Ecphantus Pythagoricus.” Vid. Stob. Floril. ed. Gaisford, II. 326. The whole passage is, Ὅπερ ἔντι μὲν τῳ̑ Θεῳ̑, ἕντι καὶ τῳ̑ βασιλει̑, αὐτῳ̑ μὲν ἄρχειν (ἀϕ’ ὠ̑περ καὶ ὁ αὐτάρκης καλέεται) ἄρχεσθαι δ’ ὑπ’ οὐδενός.]

e

predominancy E.

f

always om. E.C.L.

g

E.Q.C. insert “both for them and the people,” as does L, repeating “best” before that clause.

h

The reading of C. here is, “I mean not only the law of nature and the law of God, but the national consent thereunto.” Q, as in the text, omitting “very.” L and E, “I mean not only the law of nature and of God, but the national law consonant thereunto.” The text is from D.

hh

hand ins. E′.

hhh

Happier—science ital. E′.

i

and degrees ins. E.Q.C.L.

j

every of which E. later of which Q.C.L.

k

another E.C.L.

l

δὲ E.

m

ἀπόλυπος E.

n

ἡ δὲ ὅλη E.Q. [C. omits the Greek.]

2

[Ap. Stob. Floril. II. 166.] “The king ruling by law, the magistrate following, the subject free, and the whole society happy [*] .”]

*

This English in text of E. om. D. in marg. Q.C.L.

o

a king E.C.

p

grows D.

q

by him, or commanded E.

r

unto E.Q.L.

1

[Καὶ τούτων παραβάσει μὲν βασιλευς, τύραννος· ὁ δὲ ἄρχων, ἀνακόλουθος· ὁ δ’ ἀρχόμενος, δου̑λος· ἁ δ’ ὅλα κοινωνία, κακοδαίμων. Id. ibid.]

s

the E.C.

t

manner of person E.Q.C.L.

u

the om. D.

x

are to take E.C.

y

crown E.

z

pointed E.C.L.

a

same E.Q.C.L.

b

power and authority E.Q.C.L.

c

and om. E.

d

military dominion E.Q.C.L.

e

and E.Q.L.

f

such om. E.C.L.

g

may lawfully E.C.

2

Stapl. de Doct. Princip. [Controv. II.] lib. v. c. 17. [“Non negatur principi, magistratui, vel communitati potestas, perversa docentes corporali pœna puniendi, legesque pro ecclesiæ pace ferendi, dogmata promulgandi, defendendi, et contra violatores vindicandi.” p. 189. Paris, 1579.]

h

punishments D.

i

from violation om. E. which inserts it after themselves.

j

the very E.

3

Choppin. [René Chopin, 1537-1606.] de Sacra Politia forensi. Par. 1577, and 1589. Præfat. [This reference is from the Dubl. MS. Hooker quotes from the dedication of the edition of 1589, addressed to cardinal Bourbon under the name of Charles X. “Regium istud est, civiliumque magistrorum munus, ecclesiæ decreta tueri, conservare, tum latis legibus omnes sacris addictos continere in officio; urgendos etiam ad canonum ecclesiasticorum veterisque cultum disciplinæ, principali non minus auctoritate quam pontificali. . . . Laudatus est enim vel ex eo Joas Hebræorum rex, quod metuens ne sacerdotes nummos interverterent, qui offerebantur a populo ad tutelam templi, eos primum in arcam clausam inferri jussisset, deinde scriba suo præsente fabris ac cæmentariis erogari. Sed longe augustius illud, Christianæque utilius reip. regem ipsius adeo religionis cultusque divini custodem se profiteri, nedum sacri ærarii: qualem se gessisse Constantinum Magnum accepimus, et Galliæ tuæ heroas præstantissimos plerosque.” The writer was a lawyer of eminence in the parliament of Paris, and a vehement partisan of the League. v. Biog. Univ.]

k

rule E.

kk

Joash E′. 1666.

l

was E.Q.

m

treasure E.

n

whole om. E.Q.C.L.

o

of om. E.Q.C.L.

p

God’s ecclesiastical E.Q.C.L.

q

fear E.Q.C.L.

r

thing E.C.

s

themselves E.C.L.

t

never hereunto E.Q.C.L.

u

discourse E.C.L.

x

to be far E.

1

T. C. lib. i. p. 192. [154.]

y

that om. E.

z

all orders E.C.

a

to be E.

b

that om. E.

2

[*] Fenner’s “Defence of the godly Ministers [against the slanders of D. Bridges, contained in his answer to the preface before the Discourse of Ecclesiastical Government.” 1587. Sign. E. 1.]

*

Farmer’s E.C. Fennar’s D. Fermor’s Q. Fenner’s L.

c

do om. E.

d

towards E.

3

Humble Motion, p. 63.

e

which om. E.Q.C.L.

f

and preeminence E.C.

g

insomuch E.Q.C.L.

h

no kind of motion om. E.

4

Cicero, lib. i. de Nat. Deor. [c. 44. “Posidonius disseruit in libro quinto, nullos esse deos, Epicuro videri; quæque is de diis immortalibus dixerit, invidiæ detestandæ gratia dixisse: neque enim tam desipiens fuisset, ut fingeret . . . omnino nihil curantem, nihil agentem . . . Re tollit, oratione relinquit, deos.” Lactant. Epit. 36. “Verbo reliquisti, re sustulisti.”]

k

and om. E.

l

those D.

m

afore alleged E′. grant E.C. ground Q.

n

shew E. some C.

o

opinion E.Q.C.L.

p

the establishment E.Q.C.L.

q

that such words only sound towards all kind of fulnes of power E. All the MSS. read as in the text, except that C has a kind of fulness of power.

r

above E.

s

only E.

t

thereunto E.Q.C.L.

u

kinds Q.L. In the margin of E. Kinds stand here, as if the title of a section; perhaps by the printer’s mistake, from its being inserted in his copy as a probable emendation.

x

power and order, and of spiritual jurisdiction E. the power of order and of spiritual jurisdiction C.L.

y

hath E. which has no stop at joined.

z

inseparably E.Q.C.L.

a

those E.Q.C.L.

b

proceeding E.

c

such E.C. some L.

d

wish’t D.

e

E. omits not.

f om. D.

1

[Vid. supra, § 2, 3.]

g

in om. E.Q.C.L.

h

sundry great things E.Q.C.L.

i

and by command E.

j

the law doth so much E.

k

sometimes E.

l

the king, c. (as a quotation) E.

m

right E.C.L.

n

his lords and commons in parliament E.C.

o

of om. E.

p

either divine Q.

q

human L.

r

the kings in themselves C.

s

not any . . . both, but om. E.

t

have a privilege therein E.Q.C.L.

u

restrain E.Q.C.L.

x

laws E.Q.L.

y

not E.

z

in E.C.L.

a

supernatural E.

b

church, whether E. church; where even C.

1

Ambros. Ep. 32. d. 160 [*] . [II. 873. N. B. The word “bonus” is not in the MSS. of St. Ambrose.]

*

This marginal reference from C.

c

proceeding E.Q.C.L.

d

spiritual om. E.Q.C.L.

e

business E.C.L.

f

liberty E.Q.C.L.

g

C. has that church.

h

never E.

i

alter it; yet E. (Fulm. yea.)

j

supreme om. E.

k

any of om. E.Q.

l

throughout all E.Q.L. throughout the whole C.

m

law E. laws Q.C.L.

n

ways E.Q.C.L.

o

so om. E.

p

so om. E.

q

determined to be E.Q.C.L. [The phrase of the statute is, “adjudged to be.”]

1

An. 1. Reg. Eliz. [1 Eliz. c. 1. § 36.]

r

that in E.Q.C.L.

s

four first E.C.

t

churches, and evermore E.

u

making E.L.

x

it D.

y

that E.

2

[“It hath been generally holden that although the high commission court was abolished by the statute of 16 Car. I. c. 11, yet these rules will be good directions to ecclesiastical courts in relation to heresy.” 1 Hawkins, 4. ap. Burn. Eccl. Law, II. 277. ed. 1788.]

z This marginal note om. E.C. [Fulm. For what inconveniency.]

zz

case E′. 1662.

a

into E.C.L.

b

inconvenience E.L.

c

hurts E.

d

themselves E.

e

the procurement E.C.

f

invested E. arrayed marg. Q.

g

prerogative honour E.

h

as part to the whole perfection E. as part of L.C. as part to Q.

i

yet om. E.C.L.

k

E inserts be here, and omits it after societies.

l

the om. E.

1

Ob utilitatem publicam Reip. per unum consuli oportere, prudentissimi jurisconsulti docuerunt [*] . Just. Dig. i. 2. de Orig. Juris. 2. § 11 [†] . [quoted in substance. The words are, “Novissime, sicut ad pauciores juris constituendi via transisse ipsis rebus dictantibus videbatur, per partes evenit, ut necesse esset reip. per unum consuli: nam senatus non perinde omnes provincias probe gerere poterat. Igitur constituto Principe, datum est ei jus, ut quod constituisset, ratum esset.”]

*

docent E.C.L. Jurisconsulti . . Just. Dig. om. E′.

†

L. ii. § novissimè. ¶ de orig. Juris. D. E′. adds Civilis.

m

all in E.

n

inconveniency E.

o

have E.C.L.Q.

p

these E.Q.C.L.

q

one’s E.C.

r

then in such case thou shouldest be E.

s or pattern om. E.C.L.Q.

t

comparable E.C.

u

policy E.

x

the Israelites E.

y

chosen E.

z

himself om. E.C.L.

a

from E.C.L.

b

of E.C.L.

c

power om. E.

d

First, unless E.C.

1

Staplet[on] de Princ. Doct. p. 197. [194. Opp. t. i. Controv. 11.] lib. v. c. 22. “Primum, ut Judæorum sacerdotium imperfectius erat, quia umbraticum tantum ac melioris præfigurativum, suoque tempore in melius commutandum: sic ipsius sacerdotii regimen imperfectius fuit [*] , ut illud viz. etiam aliqua ex parte ad Reges pertinere non incongrue posset.”

*

This quotation om. E.

e

that the Jews [first C.] religion E.C.

f

is om. E.

2

Stapl. ibid. [“Rursum, sacerdotium vetus habuit suas leges, sacrificia, ritus, et cæremonias omnes a Moyse præscriptas atque conscriptas, quibus nefas erat vel addere vel detrahere quicquam: ut hic nulla fere alia re opus esset, quam præscriptos cultus et leges executioni mandare; in quo genere Reges concurrere commodissime possent. Nam ardua et sublimiora fidei mysteria, quæ sacerdotum judicia maxime desiderarent, nondum erant necessario ab omnibus explicite credenda, sed tantum a majoribus, a cæteris autem in fide majorum . . . At in ecclesia Christi et quam plurima accesserunt mysteria explicite credenda, etiam a minoribus et vulgo fidelium . . . et præterea cultus divini externique regiminis ratio, ritus, ac cæremoniæ, scriptæ omnino non fuerunt.”]

g

and their E.C.L. Rights E′.

h

so generally om. Q.

i

government E.C.L.

k

our E.Q.C.L.

1

Idem ibid. [“Tertio, synagogæ disciplina erat gladius, et pœnæ temporales . . . Ut totus ille status servorum erat, non filiorum; sic terrore et externis pœnis, non amore et spiritualibus pœnis ducebantur. ‘Quod enim tunc fiebat gladio, lapidationibus, aliisque corporeis censuris, illud’ (ait Augustinus [*] ) ‘degradationibus et excommunicationibus faciendum esse significatum est hoc tempore; cum in ecclesiæ disciplina visibilis fuerit gladius cessaturus.’ Hæc ille. Hinc ergo factum est, ut propter disciplinam illam corporalem, et visibilis gladii, qui in manu regum erat, reges ipsi causis ecclesiasticis non solum pie, sed etiam necessario sese nonnihil immiscuerint. Nunc vero, cum visibilis gladius non pertineat amplius ad disciplinam ecclesiæ, ut docuit Augustinus, datur intelligi non amplius ad reges disciplinam ecclesiæ et regimen pertinere; sed ad illos tantum quorum est ligare et solvere, et cætera.”]

*

[De Fid. et Oper. c. 3.]

l

as E.

m

the E.Q.C.L.

n

and om. E.

o

now om. E.

2

Stapl. ibid. [“Quarto, cum synagoga vetus in uno populo concluderetur, et in uno loco sub illo sacrificaretur, non erat incommodum, ut uni quoque regi synagogæ cura magna ex parte committeretur. At in ecclesia multarum gentium ut idem fiat impossibile est . . . . Cum unitate religionis Christianæ bene constat multitudo regnorum.”]

p

whilst E.Q.C.L.

q

into E.C.

r

king E.C.

s

inconveniences E.

t

must E.C.L.Q.

u

of nature E.

x

the om. E.

y

The following paragraphs, to “kings and priests” in p. 367, are inserted here on the authority of the Dublin MS.; and collated with Clavi Trabales, pp. 64-71.

z

for om. Cl. Trab. D.

1

[See book v. c. 76, § 4.]

1

2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.

2 [The editor has substituted this from Cl. Trab. for “ad primum,” which stands here in the MS. by mistake.]

a

which om. Cl. Trab.

b

seem D.

1

[See in Hector Boeth. Scot. Hist. lib. xii. fol. 250. ed. Paris. 1574; circ. AD 1050, the third law of Maccabæus (or Macbeth): “Qui pontificis authoritatem annum totum execratus contempserit, neque se interim reconciliarit, hostis reip. habetor: qui vero duos annos in ea contumacia perseverarit, fortunis omnibus multator.” This may be seen in the Councils, Hard. t. vi. p. 1. pag. 974: with his other canons, the one transferring all judicature over Christians to the clergy, the other confirming their right to tithes and oblations.]

1

[Whitaker. adv. Campian, p. 201. “Pontifex Romanus ille est Nemrodes, robustus venator ecclesiæ.”]

1

[In 1 Pet. ii. 9. Comm. in Epist. omnes Canonicas, Antwerp, 1591. fol. 270. “Cum dicitur, Exod. xix, Vos eritis in regnum sacerdotale, quare dicatur hic regale sacerdotium? Resp. Ad innuendam prærogativam novi testamenti respectu veteris: in novo enim testamento sacerdotium præeminet regno; sicut spiritus præeminet corpori. Regnum enim consistit in regimine corporali, sacerdotium vero in regimine spirituali. Ideo potestas sacerdotalis ponitur in substantivo, regalis autem in adjectivo.” This work is omitted in the Roman and Venetian editions of Aquinas, and is ascribed by many critics to Thomas Anglicus; i. e. to Thomas Gualensis or Wallensis, a Dominican of Oxford, about AD 1332: whose nomen gentilitium may have been confounded with Angelicus, the well-known epithet of Aquinas. See Wharton ap. Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 728, and App. 10, 29, ed. 1668; Sixt. Senens. Biblioth. i. 482. Neap. 1742; Lorinus, in S. Jac. Præf. § 11. The same doctrine however is clearly enough taught in the treatise De Regimine Principum, Aquin. t. xvii. Opusc. xx. lib. i. c. 14. “Ab eo (Christo) regale sacerdotium derivatur . . . Quia in veteri lege promittebantur bona terrena . . . religioso populo exhibenda, ideo et in lege veteri sacerdotes regibus leguntur fuisse subjecti. Sed in nova lege est sacerdotium altius, per quod homines traducuntur ad bona cœlestia: unde in lege Christi reges debent sacerdotibus esse subjecti.” Wharton however doubts the genuineness of this treatise also.]

2

Exod. xix. [6.]

3

1 Pet. ii. [9.] Thomas in eum locum.

4

Revelat. i. 6.

c

first considered thus E. first thus considered C.L.

d

easier E.C.L.

e

government E.

f

with us om. C.

g

do understand E.

h

and E.C.

i

lawful E.C. princes lawfully Q.

k

in E.C.Q.L.

l

spiritual E. [Fulm. special] D.

m

the om. E.C.Q.

n

dominion or [of C.] supreme E.Q.C.L.

o

Again to E.

p

it will peradventure E.L.Q.

1

T. C. lib. ii. p. 411. [See also T. C. i. 35; Def. 181; and in Bristow, Motives to the Catholic Faith, fol. 157. ed. 1599, almost the same argument alleged on the part of the Church of Rome.

The following memoranda are found in the Dubl. MS. fol. 154. with a reference, in Archbishop Ussher’s handwriting, to this part of the treatise.

“The name of ‘Head of the Church of England,’ to give to the prince, they count it injurious unto Christ. See Mr. Cartw. second book, p. 411.” (Here Abp. Ussher adds a note; “vid. supr. pag. 47:” i. e. p. 47. of the MS.) “See Counterpoison, pag. 173, what authority they leave to princes.” [*]

“The cause of this doubt is a conceit that the Church and commonweale in respect of regiment must needs be always two distinct bodies; so that the head of the one cannot be the head of the other also. Their reason frivolous, that because Christ is properly termed the Head of the Church, therefore the Prince may not be called the Head of this Church under Christ. What the name of Headship doth import being attributed unto Christ; that his headship over all churches doth not exclude the authority of governors placed as heads over each particular church for the visible regiment thereof. That a Christian prince within his dominions hath supreme power, authority, and headship, over all governors, and that in causes of whatsoever kind, no less if they belong to the Church of Christ than if they merely concern the temporal and civil state.

“Their minds, I doubt not, are far from treason. Howbeit, in the days of Henry VIII. to have held that which now is maintained concerning the prince’s power, had then been adjudged a capital offence.

“Out of the principles which the learneder sort of them deliver the simpler [*] may draw, as some have done, that by just execution of law hath cost them their lives. A hard case, and to them small comfort which have taught these silly persons such doctrine as being unsaid they have notwithstanding suffered death.”

It will be perceived that most of these notes are expanded more or less entirely in the book as we now have it. Some of the topics however do not there occur. The memoranda are exactly of the same sort as those in the C. C. C. copy of the Christian Letter, inserted here and there in the notes on the five first books. This is a confirmation (if any were needed) of their genuineness.]

*

[“For his” (Cosin’s Answer to the Abstract, p. 207.) “slander that we agree with the papists ‘to give Christian princes power of fact, but not of law, and authority to promote and set forward, not to intermeddle in causes ecclesiastical;’ we esteem it no more than a foul untruth, which every man of judgment can convince. For if they have authority in our judgment by the word of God to see to their ministry, and to cause them to make such laws as they know to be agreeable to God’s word; to authorize such and disannul the contrary; cause them to make good when they would make ill; or orderly to procure such as can and will be present in the action, and give their consent if it please them (all which are given by T. C. (ii. [iii.?] 167.) and by us all unto the magistrate): then do we grant them no more than ‘ power of fact? ’ than ‘ to promote matters? ’ ”]

*

[e. g. Penry, Coppinger, Arthington.]

q

fit om. D.

r

entitled Head of the Church, which was given E.

1

Ephes. i. 21, Col. i. 18.

s

rules, dominions, titles E. rules or dominions C.

t

to civil magistrates E.

u

termed also E.

x

of all E.

y

articles E.

z

much as om. E.C.L.Q.

a

none E.

b

magistrate E.Q.C.L.

c

to E.C.

d

used and urged E.C.

1

Ephes. i. 20-23.

e

had [hath C.] set on his E.C.

f

fulness E.

2

Col. i. 18.

g

he mentioned before E.C.L. named before Q.

3

Col. i. 16.

h

By E.

i

on D.

k

dominions E.C.

l

which lifteth...... of head om. E.

m

ways E.

n

therein om. E.

o

usually E.

p

self om. E.C.

q

equalizing E. equalling [of om. ] C.

1

Apol. [adv. Gent. c. 34.] “Dicam plane Imperatorem Dominum sed quando non cogor ut Dominum Dei vice dicam [*] .”

*

This note om. E.

r

call E.

s

may be also as well D.

t

doth E.C.L.

u

or E.

x

Christ, that the E.C.L.

y

where E.

z

called E. termed C.

a

in meaner degrees E.C. in meaner degree L.

b

the om. D.

c

there is E. is the C.L.

d

that could not well be E.

e

nor E.

f

the E.C.L.

g

which om. E.C.L.

h

must E. [might Fulm.]

i

plain E.

k

personally spoken E. unusually taken C.

1

Capita papaverum, primores civitatis. Liv. I. [54.] Roma κεϕαλὴ συμπάσης Ἰταλίας. Dionys. Halic. Antiq. lib. II. Pekah is termed the Head of Samaria, which was the seat of his throne and kingdom [*] . Esai. vii. 9.

*

This note, except the reference to Isaiah, om. E.

l

nothing E.

m

even om. E.

n

Christian kings E.

o

others D.

p

other, although it be E.C. although Q.L.

q

than that which E.Q.L.

2

Confess. c. 5. art. 23 [†] [“Eorum qui publico munere funguntur in ecclesia, alii . . . partim administrant civilia negotia, partim ecclesiæ tranquillitatem in genere procurant ac tuentur, et quidem accepta in hos usus gladii potestate:”] et 32. [“Civili magistratui obnoxii sunt omnes, cujus etiam potestas est suo respectu ἀρχιτεκτονικὴ, quatenus pacem et εὐταξίαν procurare debet, præsertim in iis quæ primam tabulam respiciunt.” Tract. Theol. i. 42. 46. Gen. 1570.]

†

This reference om. E.

r

command E.

s

if even E.

t

they E.

u

the E.C.

v

it should not E.

x

could E.

y

whole om. E.

z

is properly E.Q.C.L.

b

Apostle......doth E.

c This side-note om. E.

d

First, It differeth in order, because E. in measure......in kind Q.L. first in order...secondly...thirdly C.

e

above all om. E.C.

f

τη̑ς om. E. ὑ. π. τ. ἀ. om. L. all the Greek om. C.

1

Ephes. i. 21, 22.

g

principalities......powers E.C.

h

subordinated D.

i

Secondly, again E.

2

Psal. ii. 8.

k

both in E.C.L.

l

own E.C.

m

for ever om. E.C.

n

other E.C.Q.L.

o

How their power E.C.

p

Thirdly, The last E.

q

and greatest E.C.

r

the E.C.

s

the om. E.C.

3

Θειότατον καὶ τω̑ν ἐν ἡμι̑ν πάντων δεσποτου̑ν. Plat. in Tim. [*]

*

This note om. E. in English C.

q

the Head of the Church E.C.L.

r

they om. E.C.

s

chiefest E.C.

t

is om. E.C.L.

u

is always knit to it E. is inseparably knit with it. L.

x

motion unto E.

y

quickeneth us E.

z

Church affairs E.C.L.

a

any possibility E.C.Q.

b

one besides E.C.

c note om. E.Q.

1

T. C. lib. ii. p. 411. [and i. 167.]

d

not E.

e

over his, and over kingdoms, E. [Fulm. “ ‘other kingdoms,’ i. e. over his own, and over other kingdoms.”]

f

of E.C.L.Q.

g

to commonwealths E.

h

there E.C.

i

of Christ om. E.C.

1

T. C. lib. ii. p. 418. [Of this and the passage last referred to, the substance is given, not the very words.]

j

him E.C.

k

that om. E.C.Q.L.

l

it om. E.

m

in word om. E.C. in words Q.

n

of Christ E.C.Q.L.

o

first om. E.C.L.Q.

2

Matt. vi. 13.

3

1 Tim. i. 17.

p

the invisible D.

q

in om. D.

r

both om. E.C.L.

s

which made E.

1

Apoc. i. 8.

s

hath E.

t

as he was man E.

u

requireth E.

2

John xvii. 5.

x

now om. E.C.L.

y

he E.

z

Further, it is not necessary E.C.L.Q.

a

properly and truly E.

b

and E.C.

c

and E.C.

d

conditions E.C.L.

e

wholly E.

f

and therefore E.C.

g

proportion E.

3

1 Tim. iv. 10.

h

succour E . 1666, corr. 1676.

4

Heb. v. 9.

i

high and ghostly E.C.L.Q.

5

1 John i. 3.

6

Heb. xii. 22[-24.]

k

we account them E.C.L.Q.

l

and that live E.C.L.Q.

m

as over dutiful and loving subjects E.C.L.Q.

n

the E.

1

[T. C.] ii. 411. l. 14.

o

his E.

p

the E.C.

q

in governing E.Q.L.C.

r

of om. E. [ not E .]

s

kingdoms E.

2

T. C. lib. ii. p. 418. l. 10. [rather 416 . . 418.]

t

magistrates authority E.C.L.

u

Christ’s E.C.L.Q.

x

is subordinate E.

y

the preservation E.C.

z

of om. E.L.C.Q.

a

also E.

b

obstinate and rebelliousE.C.

3

T. C. ii. 417. l. 12.

c

that E. the C.L.Q.

g

there E.L. om. C.

h

superiors E.Q.C.L.

i

of the commonwealth E.

k

to E.Q. until C.

l

them om. E.

m

as E.

n

on the earth E.C.L.

o

reigneth now E.

p

any longer under him E.C.L.Q.

q

the E.

r

providence and kingdom E.

1

[T. C.] lib. ii. p. 411. lin. 16. [D.]

s

regiment E.

t

sacrifices E.

2

Heb. ix. 25.

u

sleight E.Q.C.L.

3

T. C. lib. ii. p. 415.

x

immediately E.C.

4

Rom. xiii. 1.

y

nor with any subordination to God, nor doth any thing from God, but by the hands of our Lord, c. E.

5

Prov. viii. 16. Humble Motion, p. 63. [“Seeing her highness doth acknowledge Christ to be her head, and renounceth the pope, is it not for her safety, by her authority, to set up that which remaineth of Christ’s most holy laws, and to banish all the pope’s canons! May not her princely mind perceive it to be so, if she remember that it is said of Christ, ‘By me kings reign, and princes decree justice: by me princes rule,’ ” c.]

z

By me ......justice om. E.

6

Rev. i. 5.

a

amongst......government om. E.C.L.

b

and have......unto him om. E.

c

as om. E.

d

of necessity E.C.

e

govern and guide E.C.

f

special E.

g

namely om. E.

1

1 Cor. iii. 22, [23.]

h

E. reads kings are Christ’s as saints, because they are of the Church, if not collectively, c. C. reads, as saints, because they are of the Church: as kings, because they are in authority over the Church, c. in which L. agrees. D. and Q. give it as in the text.

i

It E. [The mistake might arise from the old way of abbreviating “that.”]

k

surely E.C.L.

l

reacheth E.C.

m

may have and lawfully exercise it E.

o

where they speak E. where C.L.Q.

1

T. C. lib. ii. p. 413.

p

over E.

q

seeing E.

n This side-note om. E.Q.

r

heads E.L.

s

the E .

t

may om. E. [Fulm. “may be”] C.

u

more E .

v

provinces E.C.

w

to om. E.

x

the earth E.

y

is om. D.

z

the E.

a

always remaineth E.C.L.

b

indeed E.

c

a visible E.

1

T. C. lib. ii. p. 419.

d

that are of the Church make E.

2

Ut Hen. 8. 6. 9. [26 Hen. viii. cap. 1.?]

e

customs E.C.L.

f

misconceiving E.Q.C.L.

g

or E.Q.C.L.

h

from E.C.L.

i

the head E.Q.C.L.

k

therefore even E.

l

be om. E.Q.C.L.

m

of the Church om. D.

n

the Church therefore next this, is E.

o

the E.

p

a superior or head E.C.L.

q

do grant E.C.

r

chief E.

s

order E.L. the order C.

t

termed in E.Q. termed within [C. in] his own dominions C.L.

u

own om. E.Q.C.L.

v

any E.

x

a om. E .

1

T. C. ii. 412.

y

heads E.

z

monsters together E.C.L.Q.

a

the skilful in nature’s mysteries have been used to term it, The womb, c.

b

it is E.

c

appears D.

d

how E.C.L.

e

shall E.

f

if Christians om. E.

g

the om. E.

h

each E.

i

each om. E.

k

a head also E.

l

and om. E.

m

more E .

n

is E.C.

o

nor yet uncomely E.Q.C.

p

perfect body E.C.

q

him that God E.C.L.

r

to itself should E. should be to itself C.

s

ought E.

t

the E.

u

have power possibly E.C.

x

we see therefore E.C.

y

as that E.C.

1

[This section stands here on the authority of the Dublin MS. But it must be apparent to every reader that it is out of its place. Probably it was a note made to be inserted, in substance, somewhere in the treatise, but the place of insertion not determined. The conclusion of the whole subject, in p. 392, seems no improper place for it. But without MS. authority it might be too great a liberty to transpose it. The Dublin MS. bears marks of unusual inattention in this part.]

z

This paragraph is inserted before “these things,” p. 368. E.Q.C.L. There it is clearly incongruous, and here the transition would be clearer without it.

a

state E.C. [style Fulm.]

b

should E.

c

any om. E.

d

great E.

1

G. Courin. in Epist. de Morte T. Mori, et Episcopi Roffensis, p. 517. [ap. “Thomæ Mori, Angliæ Ornamenti eximii Lucubrationes.” Basil. 1563. [*] ]

*

This note, except “Roffens. Epist. p. 517.” om. E.Q.C.L. “p. 517.” om. D.

e

a secular E.

2

[“Illud dico, me septem annis intendisse animum studiumque meum in istam causam, verum hactenus in nullo doctorum ab ecclesia probatorum reperi scriptum,] quod laicus, aut, ut vocant, sæcularis, possit aut debeat esse caput status spiritualis aut ecclesiastici.”

f

even om. E.

3

Præf. Cent. 7. [t. iv. p. 11. Basil. 1567. “Non sint capita ecclesiæ, quia istis,” c.]

4

Calvin. in Com. in Amos vii. 13. [Quoted by T. C. ii. 413. “Qui initio tantopere extulerunt Henricum regem Angliæ, certe fuerunt inconsiderati homines: dederunt illi summam rerum omnium potestatem: et hoc me semper graviter vulneravit. Erant enim blasphemi, qui vocarent eum summum caput ecclesiæ sub Christo. Hoc certe fuit nimium. Sed tamen sepultum hoc maneat, quia peccarunt inconsiderato zelo . . . Faciunt illos nimis spirituales. Et hoc vitium passim regnat in Germania. In his etiam regionibus nimium grassatur . . .Principes, et quicunque potiuntur imperio, putant se ita spirituales esse, ut nullum sit amplius ecclesiasticum regimen. Non putant se posse regnare, nisi aboleant omnem ecclesiæ auctoritatem, et sint summi judices, tam in doctrina, quam in toto spirituali regimine.” p. 282. ed. 1610.]

g

and thought . . . . we do om. E.

h

protesteth E.L.Q.

i

through D.

j

was E.C.

k

government E.

l

the authority E.C.L.Q.

m

Here the Dublin MS. proceeds as in p. 388, line 20. “Their meaning is,” to “whole or any part,” in p. 392: and then inserts what follows in this place, as far as “spiritual government,” p. 388.

n This side-note om. E.Q.C. Against the third difference L.

o

made om. E.

p

give E.Q.C.L.

q

these D.

r

the E.C.

1

[Whitg. Def. 300, 301. “Christ is the only head of the Church, if by the head you understand that which giveth the body life, sense, and motion: for Christ only by his Spirit doth give life and nutriment to his body. He only doth pour spiritual blessings into it, and doth inwardly direct and govern it. Likewise he is only the head of the whole Church, for that title cannot agree to any other. But if by the head you understand an external ruler and governor of any particular nation or church, (in which signification head is usually taken) then I do not perceive why the magistrate may not as well be called the head of the church, i.e. the chief governor of it in the external policy, as he is called the head of the people, and of the commonwealth. And as it is no absurdity to say, that the civil magistrate is head of the commonwealth, next and immediately under God, (for it is most true,) so is it none to say, that under God also he is head of the church, i. e. chief governor, as I have before said.”]

s

there om. E.C.

t

exceptions D.

u

the outward E.C.

x

of head D.

y

to him with E.C.L.Q.

1

T. C. ii. 414. [“It is first to be noted from whom this provision was brought him. For as Harding borrowed it of Pighius, so the doctor’s purveyors had it from Harding, or from both.”]

z

to om. E.Q.C.L.

a

it E.

b

already hath E.

c

sufficiently been E.C.L.Q.

d

therefore be E.Q.C.

e

convicted in some things E.Q.C.L.

f

thought E.

g

confess E.C.

2

T. C. lib. iii. p. 168.

h

in E.C.

i

of E. in E′.

k

is there E.Q.C.L.

l

mislike E.

m

therein E.

n

and E.C.

o

that om. E.Q.C.L.

p

reasons E.C.L.

q

any om. E.

r

to be D.

1

T. C. lib. ii. p. 415.

s

the om. E.Q.C.L.

t

also as it is E. as it is also C.

u

in distinguishing, they think E. as they think, in so distinguishing C.

x

doth D.E′.

y

wonted om. E.C.

z

kind of affection E.C.L.

a

be able to om. E.

b

henceforward E.C.L.Q.

c

invisible, exercised E.C.L.

d

the om. E.

e

particularly E.Q.C.L.

f

him only do we acknowledge E. him therefore only (L. only therefore) do we C.L.

g

the E.C.

h

graces E.

i

the sacraments E.C.L.Q.

k

means E.C.L.

l

those D.

m

such properly concerns E.

n

regiment D.

o

nor E.Q.C.L.

p

seeing E.

q

his E.

r

differing om. E.

1

T. C. lib. ii. p. 415.

s

in om. E.

t

societies E.Q.

u

gathered together E.L.

x

must be their head E. must needs be their head C.L.

y

not their E.C. there E′.

z

societies E.Q.C.

a

as God E.C.

b

not there E. there om. C.

c

very om. E.C.

d

hereby E.C.L.

e

as D.

f

and not the D.

g

that there E.Q.C.L.

h

that E.Q.C.L.

i

that E.

k

the om. E.L.

l

Church E.

m

the head E.Q.C.L.

1

T. C. ii. 413. [“As it hath certain ground in the Scripture that this title of Head of the Church is too high to be given unto any man, so hath it been confirmed from time to time by writers both old and new, which have had the honour of Christ in any convenient estimation . . . Cyprian saith, ‘there is but one head of the Church.’ De Simplicitate Prælatorum,” (i.e. de Unitate Ecclesiæ: “Ecclesia Domini . . . ramos suos in universam terram copia ubertatis extendit . . . Unum tamen caput est, et origo una.” p. 195. ed. Baluz.) “The bishop of Sarisbury affirmeth the same. Apol. p. 2. c. 2. div. i.” (“Christ alone is the prince of this kingdom; Christ alone is the head of this body; Christ alone is the bridegroom of this spouse.”) “Augustine proveth that the minister which baptizeth cannot be the head of him which is baptized, because Christ is the Head of the whole Church. Contr. Lit. Petil. i. [4.] 5.” (“Id enim agunt isti, ut origo, radix, et caput baptizati non nisi ille sit a quo baptizatur . . . O humana temeritas et superbia . . . . Cur non sinis ut semper sit Christus origo Christiani, in Christo radicem Christianus infigat, Christus Christiano sit caput? . . . .An vero Apostolus Paulus caput est et origo eorum quos plantaverat . . . cum dicat, nos multos unum esse corpus in Christo, ipsumque Christum caput esse universi corporis?” t. ix. 208. comp. lib. iii. c. 42. p. 322.)

n

it om. D.

o

into E.

p

besides can be so E.

q

Here the Dublin MS. goes back to p. 386. “The last difference . . . . . spiritual government.” p. 388.

r

E.C.L.Q. begin this paragraph with the word “amongst,” in lin. 14, transposing all that goes before it so as to come in after “and others.”

1

Polyb. lib. vi. de Milit. ac Domest. Rom. Discipl. [c. 12.]

s

other om. E.C.

t

there E.

2

1 Macc. xiv. 44.

u

sort E.Q.C.L.

3

1 Chr. xv. 3, 4.

4

1 Reg. viii. 1.

5

2 Chr. xv. 9; xxiv. 5; xxx. 1; xxxiv. 29.

x

Before this paragraph two insertions are made in E.Q.C.L. 1. From “The Consuls” to “Wherefore,” noticed above note . 2. From “The clergy” to “shall not need,” as below, p. 395. The two are connected thus: “Wherefore the clergy,” c.

6

Dig. xlvii. 22. De Collegiis Illicitis [et Corporibus.] L. i. [1. Mandatis principalibus præcipitur præsidibus provinciarum, ne patiantur esse collegia sodalitia, neve milites collegia in castris habeant . . . ne sub prætextu hujusmodi illicitum collegium coeant . . . Sed religionis causa coire non prohibentur: dum tamen per hoc non fiat contra senatus consultum.” 3. “Nisi ex senatus consulti auctoritate, vel Cæsaris, collegium, vel quodcunque tale corpus coierit: contra senatus consultum, et mandata, et constitutiones collegium celebrat.”] Cod. Just. i. 3. De Episc. et Presbyt. [et Cler. L. 15.] De Illicit. Conventiculis. [“Conventicula illicita etiam extra Ecclesiam in privatis ædibus celebrari prohibemus; proscriptionis domus periculo imminente, si dominus ejus in ea clericos nova ac tumultuosa conventicula extra ecclesiam celebrantes susceperit.” AD 404.]

y

Christians E.C.L.

z

general synod E.C.

a

meeting E.Q.C.L.

b

consisting E. consists C.

c

not accounted E.Q.C.L.

1

[Albert Pighius, of Kempen in Holland, (1490-1542.) “Aucun controvertiste n’a poussé plus loin le zèle pour les prétensions de la cour Romaine.” (Biog. Univ.) The work quoted is Hierarchiæ Ecclesiasticæ assertio, 1544, several times reprinted.] Hierarch. lib. vi. cap. 1. [“Constantini principis pius religiosusque zelus prima eorundem causa et origo extitit.”]

d

businesses E.

2

Constant. concilium a Theodosio sen. indictum: Theod. l. i. [5.] c. 9. Ephesinum 1. nutu Theodosii jun. convenit. Evagr. i. 2. [i. 3.] Sardicen. concil. a Constant. [Sardicense Constantius indicit. D.] Theod. ii. 4. Chalcedon. impetratum a Martiano. Leo, Ep. 43 [*] .

*

These references are in part supplied by the MSS. D. and L.

e

used D.

3

Hieron. cont. Ruffinum, lib. ii. [§ 20. St. Jerome, as appears by the context, was rather disputing the existence than the authority of the alleged synod. “Responde, quæso, synodus, a qua excommunicatus est (S. Hilarius), in qua urbe fuit? Dic episcoporum vocabula; profer sententias subscriptionum . . Doce qui eo anno consules fuerint, quis imperator hanc synodum jusserit congregari: Galliæne tantum episcopi fuerint, an et Italiæ et Hispaniæ: certe quam ob causam synodus congregata sit. Nihil horum nominas.” t. ii. 513. ed. Vallars.]

f

the om. D.

f

the om. D.

g

and E.Q.C.L.

1

Sozomen. lib. vi. cap. 7. [Οἱ περὶ Ἑλλήσποντον καὶ Βιθυνίαν ἐπίσκοποι, καὶ ὅσοι ἄλλοι ὁμοούσιον τῳ̑ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν λέγειν ἠξίουν, προβάλλονται πρεσβεύειν ὑπὲρ αὐτω̑ν Ὑπατιανὸν . . . ὥστε ἐπιτραπη̑ναι συνελθει̑ν ἐπὶ διορθώσει του̑ δόγματος· προσελθόντος δὲ αὐτου̑, καὶ τὰ παρὰ τω̑ν ἐπισκόπων διδάξαντος, ὑπολαβὼν Οὐαλεντινιανός, ἐμοὶ μὲν, ἔϕη, μετὰλαου̑ τεταγμένῳ, οὐ θέμις ἐστὶ τοιαυ̑τα πολυπραγμονει̑ν. οἱ δὲ ἱερει̑ς οἱ̑ς ταυ̑τα μέλει καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς ὅπη βούλονται συνίτωσαν.] Ambros. Epist. 32. [21. t. ii. 860. Ad Valentinian. ii. “Augustæ memoriæ pater tuus non solum sermone respondit sed etiam legibus suis sanxit, in causa fidei vel ecclesiastici alicujus ordinis eum judicare debere, qui nec munere impar sit nec jure dissimilis; hæc enim verba rescripti sunt, hoc est, sacerdotes de sacerdotibus voluit judicare . . . . Pater tuus, Deo favente . . . dicebat, Non est meum judicare inter episcopos.”] Quanquam longe aliter Nicephorus, lib. vii. c. 12 [*] . [xi. 3. where Valentinian is represented as saying, Ἐμοὶ, πράγμασιν ἐνειλημμένῳ, καὶ τὰ του̑ πλήθους ἐπιτετραμμένῳ, οὐκ εὐχερὲς τὰ τοιαυ̑τα διερευνα̑σθαι.]

*

This reference om. E.C.

h

matters E.C.

i

willed E.Q.L. called C.

k

belongeth E.Q.C.L.

l

together E.C.

m

where E.

n

together om. E.

o

the om. E.Q.C.

p

and Valentinian E.C.

q

east unto the west parts E.

r

to D.

s

there the bishops E.

t

was E.C.

u

very small E.C.L.Q.

x

grow thereby E.C.

y

means E.C.L.

z

he E.Q.C.L.

a

unto them E.Q.C.L.

b

even om. E.

c

else om. E.C.L.

d

now therefore E.Q.C.L.

e

This passage, from “The clergy” to “shall not need,” in E.C.L.Q. occurs before, viz. after “the other. Wherefore” in p. 392.

f

that afterward E. [Fulm. del.]

g

seemeth D.

h

thereof E.C.

i

breaketh E.Q.C.L.

l

will E.Q.C.L.

k This whole §, down to the words “laws thereof,” is inserted here from the Dublin MS. [It does not appear in E. 1648, 1651, or Gauden, 1662.] It might not improperly be marked as a fragment, as it evidently has not been brought into coherence with what comes before and after. It appears to be the introduction of this part of the treatise, as re-written by the author, but not yet finished off so as to smooth the transitions and avoid repetition. The marginal heading is transferred, as the subject seemed to require, from the beginning of the following section, “The case is,” c.

m

hir D.

n

or E.Q.C.L.

1

Soto in 4 Sent. [ubi infra. “Gerson in Tract. Potest. Eccles.” (cons. iv, xi.) . . . “atque alii fautores illius opinionis, quod concilium est supra papam, arbitrati suam opinionem ex hoc fundamento pendere, aiunt, potestatem ecclesiasticam jurisdictionis in utroque foro residere in tota universitate Ecclesiæ, hoc est, in toto corpore . . . Jure enim naturæ potestas regendi rempubl. in tota ipsa est, et in nullo seorsim membro, nisi ab ipsa eligatur, ut est videre in antiquo regimine Romanorum . . . Nisi quod illæ quæ rege gubernantur ipsum elegerunt, in quem suam transtulerunt auctoritatem, quæ jure hæreditario perpetuo succederet in suam sobolem, juxta tenorem legis, Quod principi placuit. Sic ergo aiunt existere potestatem in corpore Ecclesiæ immediate.” Which opinion he proceeds to combat on the ground of the apostolical charter granted in Scripture.]

2

Potestas jurisdictionis ecclesiasticæ non residet in toto corpore immediate, sed in prælatis. Caiet. [Thomas de Vio, of Gaeta, Dominican theologian, 1469-1534.] in Opusc. de comp. Pap. et Concil. [t. i. tract. i. c. xii.] Turrecr. [John Torquemada of Valladolid, Dominican theologian, 1388-1468.] Summ. Eccl. l. 2. c. 71. [fol. 196, 197. Venet. 1561. apud] Soto in 4 Sent. Dist. 20 q. 1. art. 4.

1

[Possibly this paragraph might case it should stand as § 1 of this be meant as a transition from the chapter. It is here given as in the former chapter to this: in which Dubl. MS.]

o

This portion of the work, to “assent not asked?” p. 407, is omitted in the edition of 1651, but found in part in Clavi Trabales, p. 73-76, c. and was inserted by Bishop Gauden in his edition of Hooker’s works, 1662. It occurs in MSS. Q.C.L. but much later, viz. where Bishop Gauden inserted it, after the words “defence of the truth therein,” at the end of c. viii. On the authority of the MS. D, confirmed by internal evidence, it is now placed here.

p

cause E.

q

not om. D. It had been “unlike,” but the “un” is erased.

r

of om. Cl. Trab.

s

they are om. E.

t

quality E.Q.C.L.

u

belongs E.

1

[Eccl. Disc. transl. by T. C. p. 4. ed. 1617; comp. T. C. i. 84. al. 63. ap. Whitg. Def. 305. “Moses that was the overseer of the work was a wise and a godly man; the artificers that wrought it, Bezaleel and Aholiab, most cunning workmen: and yet observe how the Lord leaveth nothing to their will, but telleth not only of the boards, of the curtains, of the apparel; but also of the bars, of the rings, of the strings, of the hooks, of the besoms, of the snuffers,” c. . . . “If in the shadows, how much more in the body . . . Is it a like thing . . . that he that then remembered the pins did here forget the master builders?”]

x

as E.Q. Cl. Trab.

y

also E.Q.C.L. Cl. Trab.

z

strait E.

1

Deut. iv. 2; xii. 32; [quoted in Admonit. p. 1. ed. 1617;] Jos. i. 7.

a

to Cl. Trab. you D.

b

had E.

c

law E.

2

Thom. ii. [*] [2 Sum. pars i.] quæst. 108. art. 2. [p. 709. Venet. 1596.]

*

1. 2. D.

d

said Cl. Trab. D.

e

of scripture D.

f

must needs take D.

g

so great E.Q.C.L. Cl. Trab.

h

as a conclusion E.

i

as E.Q.C.

k

for manner in E.C.L. Cl. Trab. for manner of Q.

l

a duty E.

m

it om. E.C.L.

n

as om. E.

1

[Rom. x. 10.]

o

man’s laws have E.

p

their contradiction E.Q.C.L. Cl. Trab.

q

man afterwards is E.C.L. Cl. Trab.

r

man of wisdom apply those words of D.

2

Prov. vi. 20.

s

The English first E.Q.

t

makes E.Q.C.L.

u

thou not E.Q.C.L.

x

a thing even undoubtedly E.C.L.

y

ordained D.

1

Δει̑ τὸν νόμον τὰ περὶ Θεοὺς καὶ δαίμονας καὶ γονέας, καὶ ὅλως τὰ καλὰ καὶ τίμια, πρω̑τα [πρα̑τα] τίθεσθαι· δεύτερον δὲ τὰ συμϕέροντα· τὰ γὰρ μήονα τοι̑ς μείζοσιν ἀκολουθει̑ν καθήκει. [ποθάκει [*] .] Archyt. de Leg. et Justit. That is, “It behoveth the law first to establish or settle those things which belong to the gods, and divine powers, and to our parents, and universally those things which be virtuous and honourable; in the second place, those things that be convenient and profitable: for it is fit that matters of the less weight should come after the greater [†] .” [Ap. Stob. Floril. II. 169. ed. Gaisford.]

*

This word is erased D.

†

Translation om. D.

z

must needs E.Q.C.L.

a

Here the fragment in Cl. Trab. breaks off.

b

it must of necessity retain the same, being of the Christian religion E. of necessity being [of 1676] Christian Religion, Gauden, 1662.

c

that om. E.C.Q. inserted L.D.

2

Act. xv. 7. 13-23.

d

which om. E.

e

afterwards E.Q.C.L.

3

[See App. No. iv.]

f

belongeth to the prelates E. The MSS. all give it as above: except that the before bishops is omitted in D.

g

alone om. E.

h

has E.C.L. hath Gauden.

i

since D.

1

Acts xvi. 4.

k

since D.

2

Acts xv. 28.

3

Matt. xxviii. 20.

l

the E.C.

4

2 Cor. iii. 3, 6.

m

more D.

n

no om. E.

o

are, as now E.C.L.

p

laws E.Q.C.L.

1

Cap. Dilecta, de Excess. Prælator. [Decretal. Greg. v. 31, 14. c. 1642. Lugd. 1572. This is an inhibition of Pope Honorius III. to the clergy of Jouars, in the diocese of Meaux, forbidding them to make or use a common seal without the consent of the abbess of Jouars, who was “ipsorum caput et patrona.”] L. Per fundum [Tit. de servitutib.] rusticor. Præd. [Digest. lib. viii. tit. iii. l. 11. “Per fundum, qui plurium est, jus mihi esse eundi, agendi, potest separatim cedi: ergo subtili ratione non aliter meum fiet jus, quam si omnes cedant: et novissima demum cessione superiores omnes confirmabuntur.”] et § Religiosum. De rerum divis. [Inst. II. 1. § 9. “Religiosum locum unusquisque sua voluntate facit. In communem autem locum purum invito socio inferre non licet.”]

2

Gloss. [in verb. Pertinet. ] Dist. 96. c. Ubinam [*] . [fol. xcix. Lugd. 1509. Bonifac. viii. De Regulis Juris, ad calc. lib. 6 Decretal. Lugd. 1572. Reg. xxix. col. 742.]

*

This note from D.

1

[Decr. Gratian. pars i. d. 96. col. 468, from a letter of Nicholas I. to the Greek emperor Michael III, reproving him for having been a party to the proceedings of the provincial synod which deposed Ignatius patriarch of Constantinople without any charge of heresy, and substituted Photius in his place. AD 865. Concil. Hard. v. 158 C.]

q

quæ univ. . . . communis est om. E.

r

as om. E.Q.C.L.

s

minuere E.C.L.

2

Extrav. de Judic. C. Novit. ( Extra de judiciis novit, Gauden in text.) [This passage does not appear in the Extravagantes, Tit. De Judiciis, ad calc. vi. Decretal. ed. 1573. The forty-second canon of the fourth Lateran council, which was drawn up by Innocent III, AD 1215, runs thus: “Sicut volumus ut jura clericorum non usurpent laici, ita velle debemus, ne clerici jura sibi vindicent laicorum. Quo circa universis clericis interdicimus, ne quis prætextu ecclesiasticæ libertatis suam de cætero jurisdictionem extendat in præjudicium justitiæ sæcularis.” Conc. Hard. vii. 49. In the title De Judiciis, Decretal. Greg. ix. lib. ii. tit. i. cap. 13, (which begins, Novit ille qui nihil ignorat ) the following passage is given of the letter from Innocent to the bishops of France; by which he interfered between king John and Philip Augustus, AD 1204; “Non putet aliquis quod jurisdictionem illustris regis Francorum perturbare aut minuere intendamus, cum ipse jurisdictionem nostram nec velit nec debeat impedire.” col. 489. Lugd. 1572.]

t

saith Pope Innocent E.Q.C.L.

u

conditions E.L.

x

right E.C.

y

in making laws E.Q.C.L.

z

whereby E.Q.C.L.

a

in om. E.C.L.

b

Tridental E.

c

laws E.

1

Boet. Epo, Heroic. Quæst. lib. i. sect. 284. [“Ecclesiasticarum sive Heroicarum Quæstionum libri sex.” No date, but some time before 1588, in which year were published three additional books, “De jure Sacro.” The author was Boetius Epo, a native of Friesland, [1529-1599] Professor of Canon Law at Douay, 1578. The editor has not obtained a sight of the work here quoted. It appears from the continuation of it, that the writer was a strenuous assertor of the pope’s plenary power: and from the preface to his “Antiquit. Ecclesiast. Syntagmata,” that he had once been a Protestant. (Moreri; Hurter, Nomenclator Liter. i. 228.)]

d

touching either E.Q.C.L.

e

right E.Q.C.L.

2

[It should seem from Strada’s account, b. iv. p. 106, 107, that no formal exception was made, but from Fra Paolo, viii. 85, that the publication took place in the king’s name and not in the pope’s; and from Brandt, (Hist. of the Reform. in the Low Countries, b. v. Eng. Transl. t. i. 153,) that the “temporal magistrates were directed to assist the prelates. . . and to be conformable to the canons of the council in every thing, save only where they might seem to derogate from his majesty’s prerogatives or from the rights of any of his vassals.” This statement is confirmed by the original documents as they stand in Le Plat, Monum. Hist. Concil. Trid. t. vii. especially the king’s final letter to the duchess of Parma, p. 91. The points specified by Hooker about patronage, c. are specified not in the king’s letter, but in various memorials, given by Le Plat, from the councils of Namur, Brabant, c. (p. 71, 83,) and forwarded by the duchess to Philip: which memorials occasioned the letter.]

f

again D.

g

follows E.C.L.

h

king’s E.C. Kings Gaud.

i

face E.L.

k

a corporation E.

l

Here the printed editions since Gauden, and all the MSS., insert a passage, which will be found below, as a note by way of Appendix to this book. The reasons for omitting it here will be found elsewhere. The Dublin MS. then proceeds as in § 14. “And concerning,” to “over the Church.” But as that MS. is clearly erroneous and incoherent in one part of this arrangement, the transposition has not been adopted.

m

account E.Q.C.L.

n

those E.C.L.

1

[Allen, Apol. 1583, c. iv. p. 69. “Veritas est, nec regem nec parlamentum habere potestatem legitimam præscribendi ordinem ecclesiæ vel clero in hac parte, magis quam hierarchiis angelorum in cœlo commorantium.” The points which he had just been mentioning were the royal supremacy and the validity of the protestant episcopal orders.]

1

[Ibid. p. 64. “Parlamentum autem est conventus plane civilis, in quo nec episcopi aliter quam ut regni barones jus suffragandi obtinent, nec ut barones ullam habent tractandi aut definiendi negotia, aliam quam quæ ad civilem status gubernationem spectant, potestatem: cum omnis potestas, quam vel episcopi vel alii in illo loco exercent, sit a Principe et Rep. civili derivata; ad quos nec lege divina nec naturali hujusmodi rerum definitio spectat.”]

o

of power om. E.

p

notwithstanding om. E.C.L.

q

so E.

2

[Ibid. 65. “Non ad paganos imperatores hoc spectabat, (quamvis non minus olim imperiales et regales quam nunc temporis extiterint) nec ab illis expetebatur; nam sub Nerone, præcipui Apostoli ecclesiam Romanam gubernabant.”]

3

[Ibid. 67. “Hoc itaque regimen non est jus regi terreno, principi, aut statui ulli debitum: hi enim omnes (si Christiani sunt) tenentur subesse pastoribus animarum suarum et ecclesiæ Christi.”]

r

laws here E.C.L.Q. and D. read as in the text.

s

in such sort om. E.C.

4

[Ibid. “Nec eam ecclesia concessit, nec unquam concedere potest, cum nec a natura illis, ut patet in ethnicis, competat, nec jure Christianitatis, cujus virtute omnes quotquot in universo orbe vivunt, ecclesiæ Christi obedire tenentur, non eidem imperare; nec ulla civilis resp. eam principi suo auctoritatem largiri potest quam nulla vi naturæ possidet: unde princeps cum hanc potestatem nec a populo nec a majoribus per naturalem propagationem aut alia ratione acceptam consecutus sit, eam parlamento haud communicare potest, et consequenter nullas ferre leges, nec audire nec determinare, per se vel per parlamentum aut aliud quodcunque tribunal modo jam dicto sibi subjectum, quidquam de ecclesiæ gubernatione potest.”]

t

For they . . . . unto om. E.

1

[Saravia. de Honore Præsulibus et Presbyteris debito, c. 25. “Coriarii, tinctores, textores, coctores cervisiæ, fabri, fullones, mercatores, comitia celebrant, de Republ. sententiam dicunt (quod equidem in libero populo non improbo): sed pastores ecclesiarum excludi, contra æquabile jus civium est, qui sub iisdem legibus et magistratu vivunt, et communia ferunt cum cæteris civibus onera: de quorum vita et fortunis, de iisque omnibus a quibus tum ipsorum privata salus, tum ecclesiarum publica pendet, non minus deliberatur, quam de pannis, de lana, de piscibus, de coriis cæterisque mercibus importandis aut exportandis. Num minor pastoribus ecclesiarum cura Reip. esse debet, quam Burgimagistris?”]

u

Jule D.

x

the om. E.Q.C.L.

xx

should E′.

y

of E.Q.C.L.

z

in themselves om. E.

a

foundation D.

b

into E.

c

the laws E.C.

d

grand D.

1

An. 1 et 2 Phil. et Mar. c. 8.

e

there om. D.

f

neither did they or the cardinal imagine E. or the cardinal himself, as they imagine, any thing commit Q; commit any thing C.L.

g

of om. E.Q.C.L.

h

public om. E.C.L.

i

the Christian E.

j

rites om. E.

k

the devising E.

l

This clause om. E.

l

that E.Q.C.L.

m

kings but E.

n

states of om. E.

o

the om. E.

p

no E.C.L.

q

of E.Q.C.L.

r

utterly om. E.C.L.

s

regal E.C.

t

unto their emperors E.Q.C.L.

u

means E.C.L.Q.

1

“Quod principi placuit, legis habet vigorem: cum lege Regia, quæ de ejus imperio lata est, populus ei et in eum omne imperium suum et potestatem concedat [*] .” Inst. [lib. i. t. 2.] de J. N. G. et C. [§ 6.]

*

“cum . . . concedat” om. E.C.L.

x

endued E.

y

thought E.

z

nor E.Q.C.L.

a

the E.

b

to om. E.C.L.

1

T. C. lib. i. p. 92. (292 D.) [al. 154. ap. Whitg. Def. 695. “As for the making of the orders and ceremonies of the Church, they do (where there is a constituted and ordered church,) pertain unto the ministers of the Church and to the ecclesiastical governors; and as they meddle not with the making of civil laws for the commonwealth, so the civil magistrate hath not to ordain ceremonies pertaining to the Church.”]

c

the om. E.Q.

d

these E.Q.C.L.

e

be lords om. D.

f

of all other is E. is most proper of all other C.

g

ecclesiastical persons E.C.

h

and E. and the C.L.

1

[De Rep. iii. ap. Lactant. vi. 8.]

i

part D.

k

his E.C.L. [Fulm. this.]

l

the E.L.

m

though E. however C.

n

of om. C.L.

o

especially is E.

p

establisheth them E.C.L.Q.

q

deliver om. E.Q.C.L.

s

is E.

t

that om. D.

u

did forbid E.

x

them E.

y

thereby E.Q.

z

laws E.C.

a

the om. E.Q.C.L.

b

deprive himself thereof E.

c

a om. E.Q.C.L.

d

own om. E.Q.C.L.

e

his E. [Fulm. this] L.

ee

head E′. Gauden, ’62, ’76, ’82.

f

on D.

g

needs om. E.Q.C.L.

h

unto E.Q.

i

of E.

k

matters E.C.L.

l

idolatrous E.Q.C.L.

m

and E.C.

n

as om. E.

o

true and Christian D.

p

The passage which follows, down to “over the Church,” p. 419, is placed by the Dublin MS. before “There are which wonder,” c. c. vi. 9. The margin of D. has, “Power to make laws.”

q

the E.C.L.

r

for D.

1

T.C. lib. iii. p. 159 (51 E.) [T. C. i. 193. al. 155. ap. Whitg. Def. 701, says, “We say, that if there be no lawful ministry to set good orders (as in ruinous decays and overthrows of religion,) that then the prince ought to do it; and if (when there is a lawful ministry) it shall agree of any unlawful or unmeet order, that the prince ought to stay that order, and not to suffer it, but to drive them to that which is lawful and meet.” And iii. 159: (quoting Jewel and Nowell;) “ ‘Christian princes have rather to do with these matters than ignorant and wicked priests . . . In case of necessity (meaning when the ministry is wicked) the prince ought to provide for convenient remedy:’ the very selfsame thing which we maintain, in saying, when there is no lawful ministry, that then the prince ought to take order in these things.”

s

endued E.

t

remarkable E.C.L.

u

wheresoever E.Q.C.L.

x

is no E.

y

ministry? D.

z

quality? D.

a

dealing for ever with affairs E.

b

transfers E.

c

the om. E.C.Q.

1

[See at the end of Greenwood’s “Answer to G. Gifford’s pretended Defence of Read Prayers,” 1590, a circular letter from the bishop of London (Aylmer) to his clergy, with “A Brief of the Positions holden by the new sectory of Recusants:” of which the 10th is, “That if the prince, or magistrate under her, do refuse, or defer to reform, such faults as are amiss in the Church, the people may take the reforming of them into their own hands, before or without her authority.” And in a subsequent paper, Art. 6. “They affirm that the people must reform the Church and not tarry for the magistrate.” Their own reply is, “We go not about to reform your Romish bishopricks, deans, officers, advocates, courts, canons, neither your popish priests, half priests, ministers, all which come out of the bottomless pit: but we leave those merchantmen and their wares with the curse of God upon them until they repent . . . We are to obey God rather than man, and if any man be ignorant let him be ignorant still. We are not to stay from doing the Lord’s commandment upon the pleasure or offence of any.”]

d

to D.

e

and to the D.E.

f

the great, by the poor and the simple; some Kniperdoling, c. E. Gauden. Kimperdoling E. G. Kniperdoling 1676. But all the MSS. omit by: which seems to indicate the change of punctuation here adopted.

2

[Bernard Knipperdoling, of Munster, one of the leaders of the anabaptists in the tumult of 1533, and designated by Sleidan as ‘facile primus ejus factionis.” Commentar. b. x. f. 106. ed. Argentorat. 1559. “Vaticinatur Cnipperdolingus, fore ut in summo gradu collocati deturbentur, alii autem e sordibus et infimis emergant subselliis: deinde jubet omnia templa destrui.” Ibid.]

g

this E.C.L.

h

and orders om. D.

i

very om. E.

k

so om. E.

l

qu. contentious?

m

stifling E. [trifling Fulm. Q. in marg. ]

n

authorized kings E.

o

till it were well E.

p

strong E.Q.C.L.

q

whereof E. hereof C.

r

indeed lawful for kings E.C.L.

s

these E.C.L.

t

foresaid om. E.C.L.Q.

u

reason C.

1

T. C. lib. i. p. 192. [al. 153. ap. Whitg. Def. 694.]

x

vid. p. 17. [marg. D.]

2

Apol. fol. 40 [*] . p. 2. [c. iv. p. 67. “Ad terrenam spectat potestatem, quam Deus illis largitus est, ecclesiæ leges defendere, negotiorum suscipere executionem, et punire rebelles atque transgressores.”]

*

4 D.

y

punish rebels and transgressors E.Q.C.L.

z

the laws E.Q.C.L.

a

the church D.

z

that om. E.Q.C.L.

a

doth D.

1

[Here in E.Q.C.L. ends the treatise on Legislative Supremacy, and the section “Touching the king’s supereminent authority,” c. (c. viii.) begins. But in D. the following passage is inserted: which, occurring as it does afterwards, the first part of it almost verbatim, was probably put here as a note in the copy from which that MS. was transcribed, and got by mistake into the text. (It appears also in Cl. Trab. p. 71.) “Wherein it is, from the purpose altogether, alleged, that Constantine,” c. (as in c. viii. § 8. to “a matter of theirs:) all which hereupon may be inferred reacheth no further than only unto the administration of church affairs, or the determination of strifes and controversies [*] rising about the matter [†] of religion: it proveth that in former ages of the world it hath been judged most convenient for church officers to have the hearing of causes merely ecclesiastical, and not the emperor himself in person to give sentence of them. No one man can be sufficient for all things. And therefore public affairs are divided, each kind in all well-ordered states allotted unto such kind of persons as reason presumeth fittest to handle them. Reason cannot presume kings ordinarily so skilful as to be personal judges meet for the common hearing and determining of church controversies; but they which are hereunto appointed, and have all their proceedings authorized by such power as may cause them to take effect. The principality of which power in making laws, whereupon all these things depend, is not by any of these allegations proved incommunicable unto kings.”]

*

controversy Cl. Tr.

†

matters Cl. Tr.

2

[In a second instance here the order of the Dublin MS. fol. 107; and of Cl. Trab. p, 72, has been departed from; the following passage to the end of this section, as they give it, is quite incoherent, followingthe extract given above, (note 1,) in this way: “The principality of which power in making laws whereupon all these things depend, is not by any of these allegations proved incommunicable unto kings, although not both in such sort,” c. This being clearly wrong, and the passage as it stands in the text fitting in tolerably well, perhaps the insertion of it on conjecture may not seem too bold.]

3

T. C. lib. i. p. 193. [al. 154. ap. Def. 698. “By the emperor’s epistle in the first action of the council of Constantinople...it appeareth that it was the manner of the emperors to confirm the ordinances which were made by the ministers, and to see them kept.”]

b

These sentences from “although not both,” p. 418, l. 4, occur only in D. They are followed by the passage “There are which wonder,” c. c. vi. 9. to “Christian religion,” p. 415. After which at an interval, that MS. proceeds with the words “Touching the advancement,” c. as in the text.

c This side-note from Cl. Trab. as are all the various readings in this seventh chapter.

1

[Vid. Sarav. De Imp. Auct. et Christian. Obedient. lib. iii. c. 37. “Sacerdotii præcipua pars relicta regibus.” In the coronation of the emperors of Germany at Aix la Chapelle, after their anointing, they put on a deacon’s habit: (Goldast. Polit. Imp. p. 71, 80, 95.) “quem amictum quondam imperator Carolus Magnus gestaverat.” ibid. p. 144.]

d

the people.

e

the.

f

only om.

g

sometimes.

1

Pseud. Ambros. in 4 ad Ephes. [v. 11, 12. “Non per omnia conveniunt scripta apostoli ordinationi quæ nunc in ecclesia est: quia hæc inter ipsa primordia sunt scripta. Nam et Timotheum presbyterum a se creatum episcopum vocat; quia primi presbyteri episcopi appellabantur; ut recedente eo, sequens ei succederet . . . Sed quia cœperunt,” c. t. ii. Ap. 241.]

h

judicio om.

i

the favour.

2

In Vit. Cypr. [§ 5.]

k

chose.

3

Nulla ratio. Dist. 63. [it should be 62. § 1. Dec. Grat. pars i. p. 311. He adds, “Nec a comprovincialibus episcopis cum metropolitani judicio consecrati.” See his Canonical Epistle to Rusticus, archbishop of Narbonne, t. i. 406, ed. Quesnel. circ. AD 450: and compare the canonical letter of Cœlestine to the bishops of Gaul, AD 428; can. v. “Nullusinvitis detur episcopus: cleri, plebis, et ordinis consensus et desiderium requiratur.” Conc. Hard. i. 1260.]

4

Ep. Honor. Imp. ad Bonif. Concil. tom i. [col. 1238. ed. Hard. “Beatitudine tua prædicante, id ad cunctorum clericorum notitiam volumus pervenire, ut si quid forte religioni tuæ (quod non optamus) humana sorte contigerit, sciant omnes ab ambitionibus esse cessandum. At si duo contra fas temeritate certantes fuerint ordinati, nullum ex his futurum penitus sacerdotem, sed illum solum in sede apostolica permansurum, quem ex numero clericorum nova ordinatione divinum judicium et universitatis consensus elegerit.” Circ. AD 419.]

l

places.

m

munificence.

n

seasonable.

o

the law.

1

25 Ed. 3. [c. 6. A Statute of Provisors, reciting the Statute of Carlisle, 25 Edw. i. c. 4. preamble: “Whereas the holy Church of England was founded in the estate of prelacy within the realm of England, by king Edward and his progenitors, and the earls, barons, and other nobles of his said realm, and their ancestors, to inform them and their people of the law of God, and to make hospitalities, alms, and other works of charity, in the places where the churches were founded, for the souls of the founders, their heirs, and all Christians; and certain possessions, as well in fees, lands, rents, as in advowsons, which do extend to a great value, were assigned by the said founders to the prelates and other people of the holy Church of the said realm, to sustain the same charge, and especially of the possessions which were assigned to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, religious and all other people of holy Church, by the kings of the said realm, earls, barons, and other great men of his realm; the same kings, earls, barons and other nobles, as lords and advowees, have had and ought to have the custody of such voidances, and the presentments and the collations of the benefices being of such prelacies.” c. AD 1350.]

p

to.

1

Ibid. [§ iii. “The election was first granted by the king’s progenitors upon a certain form and condition, as to demand licence of the king to chuse, and after the election to have his royal assent, and not in other manner.” Stat. at Large, by Ruffhead and Runnington, t. i. 260, 62.]

2

25 Hen. VIII. c. 20. [§ iv. “Be it ordained and established by the authority aforesaid, that at every avoidance of every archbishoprick or bishoprick . . . the king . . . may grant to the prior and convent, or the dean and chapter of the cathedral churches or monasteries where the see . . . shall happen to be void, a licence under the great seal . . . to proceed to election . . . with a letter missive, containing the name of the person which they shall elect.” § vii. “If the prior and convent of any monastery, or dean and chapter of any cathedral church, . . . proceed not to election and signify the same according to the tenor of this act, within the space of twenty days next after such licence shall come to their hands: or else if any archbishop or bishop, . . . shall refuse, and do not confirm, invest, and consecrate, with all due circumstance . . . every such person as shall be so elected, nominate, or presented . . . . within twenty days next after the king’s letters patents . . . . shall come to their hands . . . . then every prior and particular person of his convent, and every dean and particular person of the chapter, and every archbishop and bishop, and all other persons so offending . . . . shall run in the dangers, pains, and penalties of the estatute of Provision and Præmunire: ” i.e. imprisonment, outlawry, and forfeiture of lands and goods.]

3

C. Nullus, Dist. 63. [Decret. Gratian. pars i. dist. 62. § 3. “Nullus in episcopum nisi canonice electum consecret. Quod si præsumptum fuerit, et consecrans et consecratus absque recuperationis spe deponatur.” This is the tenth Canon of the first Lateran council, held under Calixtus II, AD 1123. See Concil. Hard. t. vi. pars ii. p. 1112.]

q

for Cl. Tr.

1

Tom. i. Concil. [i. 1237. ed. Hard. “Ecclesiæ meæ, cui Deus noster meum sacerdotium, vobis res humanas regentibus, deputavit, cura constringit, ne causis ejus, quamvis adhuc corporis incommoditate detinear, propter conventus, qui a sacerdotibus universis et clericis, et Christianæ plebis perturbatoribus agitantur, apud aures Christianissimi principis desim.”]

2

Onuphr. [Onuphrius Panvinius, of Verona, 1529-1568, annotated and continued the Lives of the Popes, by Platina, 1421-1481] in Pelag. II. [in his note on Platina’s life of that pope, who was next before S. Gregory the Great; and of whom Platina had remarked, that owing to the Lombards who beset the city, he was elected without the emperor’s consent; AD 577: “Nil enim tum a clero in eligendo Pontifice actum erat nisi ejus electionem Imperator approbasset.” On which Onuphrius observes, “Gotthis Italia omni per Narsem Patricium pulsis, eaque cum urbe Roma Orientalis imperii parte facta sub Justiniano Imperatore, ex auctoritate Papæ Vigilii, novus quidam in comitiis Pontificiis mos inolevit. Is fuit, ut mortuo Papa, nova quidem electio more majorum statim a clero S.P.Q.R. fieret, verum electus Romanus Pontifex non ante consecrari atque ab Episcopis ordinari posset, quam ejus electio ab Imperatore Constantinopolitano confirmata esset, ipseque literis suis patentibus licentiam electo Pontifici concederet, ut ordinari et consecrari posset.” p. 75. ed. Colon. 1626.]

3

[Benedict II. AD 684. “Ad hunc Constantinus Imperator hominis sanctitate permotus, sanctionem misit, ut deinceps quem clerus, populus, exercitusque Romanus in Pontificem delegisset, eundem statim verum Christi vicarium esse omnes crederent; nulla aut Constantinopolitani Principis aut Italiæ exarchi exspectata auctoritate, ut antea fieri consueverat.” Ibid. p. 93.]

1

[Grat. Decr. pars i. dist. 63. c. Hadrianus. ( AD 774.) Carolus . . . “constituit synodum cum Hadriano papa in patriarchatu Lateranensi, in ecclesia Sancti Salvatoris: quæ synodus celebrata est a cliii episcopis religiosis et abbatibus. Hadrianus autem papa cum universa synodo tradiderunt Carolo jus et potestatem eligendi pontificem, et ordinandi apostolicam sedem . . . Insuper archiepiscopos et episcopos per singulas provincias ab eo investituram accipere definivit; ut nisi a rege laudetur et investiatur episcopus, a nemine consecretur: et quicunque contra hoc decretum ageret, anathematis vinculo eum innodavit.” col. 322. Lugd. 1572. This seems to have been altogether false, though a story current in the time of Gratian, ( AD 1131,) who took it from an interpolated copy of the Chronicle of Sigebert. ( AD 1101.) Vid. Pagi in Ann. Baron. iii. 341.]

2

[In council at Rome, AD 1080, in which Henry IV. was finally deposed, and Rodolph of Suabia confirmed emperor in his place. Canon i. “Sequentes statuta sanctorum patrum . . . decernimus . . . ut siquis deinceps episcopatum vel abbatiam de manu alicujus laicæ personæ susceperit, nullatenus inter episcopos vel abbates habeatur . . . Insuper etiam ei gratiam S. Petri et introitum ecclesiæ interdicimus” . . . ii. “Item, si quis imperatorum, regum, ducum, marchionum, comitum, vel quilibet sæcularium potestatum ac personarum investituram episcopatuum vel alicujus ecclesiasticæ dignitatis dare præsumpserit, ejusdem sententiæ vinculo se obstrictum esse sciat.” Conc. Hard. t. vi. pars i. col. 1587.]

r

needeth.

3

C. Reatin. Dist. 63. [Decr. Grat. pars i. d. 63. § 16. “Reatina ecclesia, quæ per tot temporum spatia pastoralibus curis destituta consistit, dignum est ut brachio amplitudinis vestræ sublevetur, ac gubernationis regimine protegatur. Unde salutationis alloquio præmisso, vestram mansuetudinem deprecamur, quatenus Colono humili diacono eandem ecclesiam adregendam concedere dignemini: ut vestra licentia accepta, ibidem eum, Deo adjuvante, consecrare, valeamus episcopum.” circ. AD 847. The Church was greatly depressed at that time, the Saracens often ravaging Italy to the very gates of Rome.]

s

of om.

t

please, c.

u

highnesses.

1

Walthramus [Waleran, Bp. of Naumburg, 1089-1111] Naumburgensis, de Investit. Episcoporum per Imperator. facienda. [ap. Schardium, “Sylloge Historico-Politico-Ecclesiastica, de Discrimine Potestatis imperialis et ecclesiasticæ.” pp. 72-74, Argentorat. 1618, [published by Ulric Hutten, 1520.] The tract was written, AD 1109: by a German bishop, a strong partisan of the imperial side.]

2

[Plat. vit. Greg. VII. p. 165. AD 1373. “Adeptus pontificatum Gregorius, statim Henricum imperatorem admonet, ne deinceps largitione corruptus, episcopatus et beneficia alicui per simoniacam cupiditatem committat, aliter se usurum in se et delinquentes censuris ecclesiasticis.”]

x

dealing.

3

[Viz. Sylvester, Gregory I. Adrian I. Leo (III?) Leo (IV?) and Benedict (III?) Walthram, 73 A.]

y

further om.

z

other om.

a

hereunto.

4

[Ibid. “Legitur etiam de episcopis Hispaniæ, Scotiæ, Angliæ, Ungariæ, quomodo ex antiqua institutione, usque ad modernam novitatem, per reges introierint, cum pace temporalium, pure et integre.”]

b

the.

1

[Ibid. p. 72. “Qui a primo Constantino gesta et decreta revolvit, patenter inveniet, quod per reges et imperatores et devotos laicos Romana ecclesia, aliæque in orbe terrarum ecclesiæ, in fundis et mobilibus ditatæ et exaltatæ sint; sibique tutelas et defensiones contra tyrannos et raptores retinuerint, ut gladius regalis et stola Petri sibi invicem subveniant, quasi duo cherubin conversis vultibus respicientia in propitiatorium.”]

c

understood.

2

[Ibid. p. 73. “Episcopatus qui sub Romano degunt imperio, majoribus fundis et amplioribus vigent justitiis: et ideo propter majus scandalum a stola Petri disertius tractandi sunt: quia non omnes sunt Petrus, qui tenent sedem Petri.” . . “Postquam a Sylvestro per Christianos reges et imperatores dotatæ, ditatæ, et exaltatæ sunt ecclesiæ in fundis et aliis mobilibus, et jura civitatum in teloneis, monetis, villicis, c. . . . . per reges delegata sunt episcopis; congruum fuit et consequens ut rex qui unus est in populo, et caput populi, investiat et inthronizet episcopum: et contra irruptionem hostium sciat cui civitatem suam credat, cum jus suum in domum illorum transtulerit.”]

3

[Ibid. “Longe ante decretum Adriani papæ, ejusque successorum, reges, qui erant uncti, et majores domus, investituras episcoporum fecerunt.”]

4

[Ibid. “Nihil refert, sive verbo, sive præcepto, sive baculo, sive alia re quam in manu tenuerit, investiat aut inthronizet rex et imperator episcopum, quo die consecrationis veniens, annulum et baculum ponit super altare, et in curam pastoralem singula accipit a stola et authoritate S. Petri. Sed congruum magis est per baculum, qui est duplex, i. e. temporalis et spiritualis.”]

d

save.

1

[Francisci Duareni, [1509-1559.] Biturig. “De Beneficiis et ad ea pertinentibus, libri viii.” [Paris, 1551.] ap. Tract. Illustr. Jurisc. Ven. 1584. t. xv. pars ii. The author was accounted by Thuanus one of the most distinguished of the French jurists of the sixteenth century.]

2

[Jean Papon, a lawyer in the service of Catharine de’Medici, and author of a work called Notaire, or Secrets de Notaire, in three parts, in the third of which, b. iii. p. 155, c. is a statement and vindication of the rights of the Crown of France in the matter of presentation to benefices.]

3

[“De Sacra Politia forensi,” [Par. 1577.] 1589. Vid. supr. c. ii. § 14. note 3.]

4

[Ægidius de Columna, archbishop of Bourges, †1316, contemporary with Boniface VIII. and tutor to Philip the Fair: in his “Quæstio de Utraque Potestate,” inserted by Goldastus in Monarch. S. Rom. Imp. t. iii. 95, c.]

5

[Ægidius Magister, “De Regaliis,” in Tract. Illustr. Jurisc. t. xiii. pars ii. p. 437, c.]

6

[Arnulphus Ruzæus, “De Jure Regaliæ.” [Par. 1534, 1551.] Ibid. t. xii. 357, c.]

7

[Petrus Costalius, “Adversaria ex Pandect. Justin.” lib. i. p. 49. Colon. 1560.]

8

[Philippus Probus [= Prudhomme], Bituricus, “De Jure Regaliæ,” in Tract. Illustr. Jurisc. t. xii. 389, c. v. Biog. Univ. Supplem. art. Ruzé].]

9

Cap. general. de Elect. i. 6. [In 2 Conc. Lugd. AD 1274, can. 12, Generali constitutione sancimus, universos et singulos, qui regalia, custodiam, sive guardiam advocationis, vel defensionis titulum, in ecclesiis, monasteriis, sive quibuslibet aliis piis locis, de novo usurpare conantes, bona ecclesiarum, monasteriorum, aut locorum ipsorum vacantium occupare præsumunt, quantæcunque dignitatis honore præfulgeant, . . . eo ipso excommunicationis sententiæ subjacere. . . . Qui autem ab ipsarum ecclesiarum cæterorumque locorum fundatione, vel ex antiqua consuetudine, jura sibi hujusmodi vindicant, ab illorum abusu sic prudenter abstineant, et suos ministros in eis solicite faciant abstinere, quod ea quæ non pertinent ad fructus sive reditus provenientes vacationis tempore non usurpent; nec bona cætera, quorum se asserunt habere custodiam, dilabi permittant, sed in bono statu conservent.” Conc. Hard. vii. 711.]

n

prerogative.

o

the om.

1

Hieron. adv. Jovin. i. [19. “Nonnunquam errat plebis vulgique judicium, et in sacerdotibus comprobandis unusquisque suis moribus favet, ut non tam bonum quam sui similem quærat præpositum.”]

p

dishonest.

2

L. 7. Ep. 5. [“Ecclesia” (Bituricarum, i. e. Bourges,) “nuper summo viduata pontifice, utriusque professionis ordinibus ambiendi sacerdotii quodammodo classicum cecinit. Fremit populus per studia divisus: pauci alteros, multi sese non offerunt solum, sed inferunt. Si aliquid pro virili portione secundum Deum consules, veritatemque, omnia occurrunt levia, varia, fucata: et quid dicam? sola est illic simplex impudentia.” In Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. pars i. p. 1022.]

1

Theod. l. v. c. 27. Sozom. l. viii. c. 2. [ψηϕισαμένων δὲ του̑το του̑ λαου̑ καὶ του̑ κλήρου, καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς συνῄνει. Nectarius was his predecessor, not his competitor.]

2

[Amm.] Marcell. l. xv. [p. 24. c. 3. “Nec corrigere sufficiens nec mollire, coactus magna vi secessit in suburbanum.”] Socr. lib. ii. c. 27. et iv. c. 29. [(after the election,) συμπληγάδες τω̑ν ὀχλω̑ν ἐγίνοντο· ὥστε καὶ ἐκ τη̑ς παρατριβη̑ς πολλοὺς ἀποθανει̑ν, καὶ διὰ του̑το πολλοὺς λαικούς τε καὶ κληρικοὺς ὑπὸ του̑ τότε ἐπάρχου Μαξιμίνου τιμωρηθη̑ναι. AD 366.] Sozom. lib. vi. c. 23.

3

Socr. ii. 27. [Μακεδόνιος τω̑ν ἐκκλησιω̑ν ἐγκρατὴς. . . . Χριστιανικὸν ἐκίνησε πόλεμον, οὐχ ἥττονα ἢ ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ἐποίουν οἱ τὑραννοι. AD 356.] Soz. iv. 11. [ὡς εἰσήλαυνεν εἰς Ῥώμην ὁ βασιλεὺς, . . . πολὺς ἠ̑ν ὁ ἐνθάδε δη̑μος περὶ Λιβερίου ἐκβοω̑ν, καὶ δεόμενος αὐτὸν ἀπολαβει̑ν.] Theodor. ii. 15, 16, 17: [concerning the expulsion of Liberius bishop of Rome by the emperor Constantius, and the discontent of the people in his absence, AD 357.]

4

Pontius in Vit. Cypr. c. 5. [“Invitus dico, sed dicam necesse est. Quidam illi restiterunt, etiam ut vinceret; quibus tamen quanta lenitate, quam patienter, quam benevolenter indulsit! quam clementer ignovit, amicissimos eos postmodum, et inter necessarios computans, mirantibus multis! Cui enim posset non esse miraculo tam memoriosæ mentis oblivio?”]

q

our om.

1

C. Sacror. Can. dist. 63. [Grat. Decr. i. from Capitul. Carol. et Ludovic. l. i. “Sacrorum canonum non ignari, ut in Dei nomine sancta Ecclesia suo liberius potiretur honore, assensum ordini ecclesiastico præbuimus, ut scil. episcopi, per electionem cleri et populi, secundum statuta canonum, de propria diœcesi, remota personarum et munerum acceptione, ob vitæ meritum et sapientiæ donum eligantur, ut exemplo et verbis sibi subjectis undequaque prodesse valeant.”]

2

C. Lectis. dist. 63. [from a letter of Stephen to a count Guido, relating to the consecration of a bishop for the church of Reate. “Scientes ecclesiam Dei sine proprio pastore non debere consistere, gloriæ vestræ mandamus, quoniam aliter nos agere non debuimus, ut a vestra solertia imperiali (ut prisca consuetudo dictat) percepta licentia, et nobis, quemadmodum vos scire credimus, imperatoria directa epistola, tunc voluntati vestræ de hoc parebimus, et eundem electum, Domino adjuvante, consecrabimus.”]

3

Archbishop Ussher has corrected this to fourth.

r Their om. E.C. no marginal head Q.

s whatsoever om. E.C.

t

The Dublin MS. has an interval of seven pages between this and the preceding dissertation.

u

the judging D.

x

the sacraments E.

y

the bishops E.C.

z

the Church E. the courts D.

a

do rise E.

b

matter D.

c

account E.Q.C.L.

d

this E.Q.C.L.

e

an E.

f

this E.Q.L.

g

the order E.

h

of om. E.Q.C.L.

i

serves D.

k

Josiah E.C.

1

2 Chron. xxiv. 4-9.

l

“Go out, c.” (not giving the quotation at length.) D.

m

all om. E.

n

“the Lord” in later editions, “God” E.C.

o

the Lord God E.C.

oo

Balaam E′.

p

the Lord E.C.

2

2 Chr. xxx. 6.

q

these E.C.L.Q.

r

sometimes E.Q.L.

s

solemn om. E.C.L.

3

Josh. i. 18.

t

“and will. . . . courage” om. D.

u

that om. E.

x

law D.

y

supreme governors E.C.

z

who E.Q.C.L.

a

any E.C.L.Q.

b

same law E.

1

Just. Instit. l. iv. tit. 1. de Offic. Judic.

c

aut om. E.Q.C.L.

d

ut Imperator Justinianus E.C.

e

own om. E.Q.

f

the D.

g

belonging to E.C.

h

any of E. any thing the practice C.L.Q.

i

there om. D.

k

imparting E.C.

l

and D.

m

that D.

n

cause E.

1

1 Eliz. cap. 1.

o

schisms, heresies E. schisms om. C.

p

and E.Q.C.L.

q

the violation E.Q.C.L.

r

laws E.C.

s

motion E.Q.C.L.

t

commission E. commissioners Q.C.L.

u

appeal: and E.Q.C.L.

x

jurisdictions E.Q.C.L.

2

[Alexander III. in the arrangement made after the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, AD 1172.]

y

sometimes E.Q.C.L.

z

the om. E.

a

have appeal E.

1

Machiavel. Hist. Florent. lib. i. [“Che dovesse annullare tutte le cose fatte nel suo regno in disfavore della libertà ecclesiastica; e dovesse acconsentire, che qualunque suo soggietto potesse volendo appellare a Roma: le quali cose furono tutte da Enrico accettate, e sottomessesi a quel giudicio un tanto Re, che oggi un uomo privato si vergognarebbe a sottomettersi.” p. 21. ed. Genev. 1550.]

a

causes E.

b

appeals, but appeals made E.Q.C.L.

2

25 Hen. VIII. c. 19.

c

any certain particular E.Q.C.L.

d

in E.C.L.

e

favour or preferment E.Q.C.

f

the D.

g

of E.

h

judgment in E.

o

things, persons E.Q.C.L.

oo

supreme power E.

p

jurisdictions E.Q.C.L.

q

incite E.

r

we are herein E.C.

1

T. C. l. iii. p. 154. 2 Chron. xix. 5. Heb. v. 1.

s

Apostles E. Apostle to the Hebrews Q.

t

high om. D.

u

but E.Q.C.L.

x

his E.Q.L.

y

ergo E.Q.C.L.

z

three om. E.C.

a

the Church D.

2

Heb. v. i.

b

sin E.Q.C.L.

c

alone only } D.

d

but in spiritual or church affairs, (as hath been already shewed) it was E. The whole clause om. from “Church affairs” just before C.L.

e

kings only E.

f

so E.Q.C.L.

ff

so E′. politie Gauden.

g

priest E.C.

h

they say om. E.

i

whereof E.C.L.Q.

k

to E.

l

the pastors E.

m

the E.C.L.Q.

n

nor E.

o

at war E.D. in Q.C.L.

p

notwithstanding his power must E.

q

unto, even E.C.L.

r

more either E.Q.C.L.

s

of D.

t

plainly om. E.

1

Staunf. Pleas of the Crown, l. ii. c. 3. [fol. 54. ed. 1574. “Le Roy in person ne peut estre judge ne seer in judgment in treason ou felony, eo quod il est un des parties al judgment.”]

u

there E.C.L.

x

What follows does not appear in the first edition, but was added, in 1662, by Bishop Gauden.

y

consideration D.

z

consideration D.

a

hath transcendent E.Q.C.L.

b

when E.Q.C.L.

c

enemies E.C.

d

this unresistible E.Q. an unresistable C.

e

the E.Q.C.L.

f

that E.C.L.

1

T. C. lib. iii. p. 155.

1

Euseb. de Vita Constant. lib. iv. [c. 24. Ἐν ἑστιάσει ποτὲ δεξιούμενος ἐπισκόπους, λόγον ἀϕη̑κεν, ὡς ἄρα εἴη καὶ αὐτὸς ἐπίσκοπος, ὡ̑δέ πη αὐτοι̑ς εἰπὼν ῥήμασιν ἐϕ’ ἡμετέραις ἀκοαι̑ς· ἀλλ’ ὑμει̑ς μὲν τω̑ν εἴσω τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας, ἐγὼ δὲ τω̑ν ἐκτὸς ὑπὸ Θεου̑ καθιστάμενος ἐπίσκοπος ἂν εἴην.]

2

Aug. Ep. 162. [al. 43. c. 7. t. ii. 297. “Neque enim ausus est Christianus imperator sic eorum tumultuosas et fallaces querelas suscipere, ut de judicio episcoporum qui Romæ sederant ipse judicaret; sed alios, ut dixi, episcopos dedit.”] Ep. 166. [al. 105. c. 2.] t. ii. 299, [43. 20. “Eis” (Donatistis) “ipse cessit, ut de illa causa post episcopos judicaret, a sanctis antistitibus postea veniam petiturus.” t. ii. 97.]

3

Besides these testimonies of antiquity which Mr. Cartwright bringeth forth, D. Stapleton, who likewise (Doct. Prin. l. 5. cont. 2. c. 18.) citeth them one by one to the same purpose, hath augmented the number of them by adding other of the like nature: namely, how Hosius the bishop of Corduba (apud Athan. in. Ep. ad Solit. Vit. agentes [*] ) answered the emperor, saying, “God hath committed to thee empire; with those things that belong to the Church he hath put us in trust.” How Leontius bishop of Tripolis (Suid. in verb. Leontius [†] ) also told the selfsame emperor as much: “I wonder how thou, which art called unto one thing, takest upon thee to deal in another. For being placed in military and politic affairs, in things that belong unto bishops alone thou wilt bear rule.”

*

[Hist. Arian. ad Monach. t. i. 371. ed. Bened. Μὴ τίθει σεαυτὸν εἰς τὰ ἐκκλησιαστικὰ, μηδὲ σὺ περὶ τούτων ἡμι̑ν παρακελεύου· ἀλλὰ μα̑λλον παρ’ ἡμω̑ν σὺ μάνθανε ταυ̑τα· σοὶ βασίλειαν ὁ Θεὸς ἐνεχείρισεν, ἡμι̑ν δὲ τὰ τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας ἐπίστευσε.]

†

[Θαυμάζω, ὅπως ἕτερα διέπειν ταχθεὶς, ἑτέροις ἑπιχειρει̑ς· στρατιωτικω̑ν μὲν καὶ πολιτικω̑ν πραγμάτων προεστηκὼς, ἐπισκόποις δὲ περὶ τω̑ν εἰς μόνους ἐπισκόπους ἡκόντων διαταττόμενος. This is conjectured to be an extract from Philostorgius.]

4

Hilar. ad Constant. lib. i. § 1. [“Provideat et decernat clementia tua, ut omnes ubique judices, quibus provinciarum administrationes creditæ sunt, ad quos sola cura et solicitudo publicorum negotiorum pertinere debet, a religiosa se observantia abstineant.” col. 1218. ed. Bened.]

r

only commonwealth matters E.

5

Ambros. lib. v. Ep. 33. [al. 20. § 16. by an error of the press in the Benedictine edition, for § 19. “Ad imperatorem palatia pertinent, ad sacerdotem ecclesiæ. Publicorum tibi mœnium jus commissum est, non sacrorum.” II. 857.]

s

the authority E.Q.C.L.

1

[“Ambrose hath a worthy saying, wherein he plainly noteth both what a Christian prince may do in these things that appertain unto the Church, and how a godly bishop should in that case behave himself. ‘When it was proposed unto me,’ saith he, ‘that I should deliver the plate or vessel of the Church, I made this answer: If there were any thing required that was my own, either land, house, gold or silver, being of my own private right, that I would willingly deliver it: but that I could not pull any thing from the Church of God. And moreover I said, that in so doing I had regard to the emperor’s safety, because it was not profitable either for me to deliver it, or for him to receive it. Let him receive the words of a free minister of God: if he will do that is for his own safety, let him forbear to do Christ injury.’ ” Bishop Cooper’s Adm. p. 212.]

2

[T. C. i. 193. al. 154. ap. Whitg. Def. 700.]

3

[See Epistle 21, throughout.]

t

consistories E.C.L.

u

D inserts here in the text, “Besides these testimonies,” c. (as in note 3, p. 440.)

x

means E.C.L.Q.

y

custom E.Q.C.L.

z

fit and lawful C.

a

hath E.

b

ratifieth E.Q.L.

c

the bishops E.Q.C.L.

d

special E.

1

Ep. 68. [D. al. 88. § 3. t. ii. 162. C, D. Ed. Bened. Antwerp. 1700.]

e

it pleased C.L.

f

therewith om. E.Q.C.L.

g

sort modestly D.

h

is E.C.

i

odds was between E.Q. is C.

k

his E.Q.C. this L.

2

Ep. xx. § 16. (19.) “Mandatur denique, ‘Trade basilicam.’ Respondeo, ‘Nec mihi fas est tradere, nec tibi accipere, imperator, expedit. Domum privati nullo potes jure temerare, domum Dei existimas auferendam?’ Allegatur, imperatori licere omnia, ipsius esse universa. Respondeo, ‘Noli te gravare, imperator, ut putes te in ea, quæ divina sunt, imperiale aliquod jus habere. Noli te extollere, sed si vis diutius imperare, esto Deo subditus. Scriptum est, quæ Dei Deo, quæ Cæsaris Cæsari.’ ” t. ii. 857.]

l

that are E. which are Q.C.L.

m

whomsoever he pleaseth, but E.

n

habitation E.Q.C.

o

do E.

p

wicked heretics E.Q.C.L.

q

decision E.L. correction C.

r

prelates E.D.

s

or D.

t

the head E.D.L.

tt

gave E.

u

may E.Q.C.L.

x

either the nature E.Q.C.L.

y

had om. E.

1

See the statute of Edw. I. and Edw. II. [13 Edw. I. st. 4. Circumspecte agatis; 24 Edw. I. De Consultatione; 9 Edw. II. st. 1.] and Nat. Brev. touching Prohibition, [p. 30. Lond. Tottell, 1584.] See also in Bracton these sentences, lib. v. [Tract. v.] cap. 2. “Est jurisdictio quædam ordinaria, quædam delegata, quæ pertinet ad sacerdotium, et forum ecclesiasticum, sicut in causis spiritualibus et spiritualitati annexis. Est etiam alia jurisdictio ordinaria vel delegata, quæ pertinet ad coronam, et dignitatem regis, et ad regnum in causis et placitis rerum temporalium in foro seculari.” Again: “Cum diversæ sint hinc inde jurisdictiones, et diversi judices, et diversæ causæ, debet quilibet ipsorum imprimis æstimare, an sua sit jurisdictio, ne falcem videatur ponere in messem alienam.” Again: “Non pertinet ad regem injungere pœnitentias, nec ad judicem secularem; nec etiam ad eos pertinet cognoscere de iis, quæ sunt spiritualibus annexa, sicut de decimis et aliis ecclesiæ proventionibus.” Again: “Non est laicus conveniendus coram judice ecclesiastico de aliquo, quod in foro seculari terminari possit et debeat.” [fol. 400, 401. ed. 1569.]

z

the law E.C.L.

a

and in all E.Q.C.L.

b

What follows is all found in D. alone of the MSS. with an interval of a blank leaf. But § 1, 2. is printed in Clavi Trabales, p. 92-94: as far as “to any,” p. 446.

c Harding om. E. (?)

d

disorder Cl. Tr.

e

that.

f

moved.

g

immoveable.

h

it om.

i

kingdom.

1

Deut. xvii. 15. Matt. xviii. 15.

2

1 Cor. v. 12, 13.

3

Def. Apol. part 6. p. 720. [c. 12. div. 1. p. 582. ed. 1611.]

4

[Jewel, and the Counterpoison, both read priest, not high priest. ]

5

Tom. ii. f. 53. [“The Reproof of M. Dorman his proof of certain Articles of Religion, c. continued by Alexander Nowell. With a Defence of the chief Authority and Government of Christian Princes as well in causes ecclesiastical as civil within their own dominions, by M. Dorman maliciously oppugned.” Lond. 1566. f. 51. “We profess, as doth Calvin, that the prince himself ought to be obedient to the ecclesiastical minister executing these his offices according to God’s word; yea though it be against the prince himself, according as Theodosius the emperor was in this case obedient to St. Ambrose.”]

6

Euseb. l. vi. c. 14. Theod. v. c. 18.

7

Counter[poison,] page 174. [Comp. T. C. iii. 93, for the whole of this except the reference to Bp. Jewel. And Eccl. Disc. 142, 143. “Neque vero hic magistratus, etsi in reliqua ecclesia politicæ auctoritatis ratione emineant, se ab hoc parendi et ecclesiasticis magistratibus obediendi præcepto et mandato eximendos esse arbitrentur. Quum enim non minus de magistrorum quam de aliorum salute illos solicitos esse oporteat, et illius etiam animam, ut cæterorum, sua cura contineant, illis etiam non minus quam reliquis parendum est, et ecclesiasticorum magistratuum justæ auctoritati obtemperandum. Atque cum illi Jesu Christi non solum auctoritate præsint, sed ipsam quodammodo personam sustineant, quum nullo suo imperio, sed illius solo verbo et mandato omnia administrent; annon æquum est, illis vel summos magistratus et reges ipsos obtemperare? Huic enim omnes orbis principes et monarchæ fasces suos submittere et parere decet [debent]; quem Deus regni sui hæredem, et cœli atque terræ Dominum constituit.” Then he proceeds to give examples, and dwells especially upon the cases of Philip and Theodosius.]

1

Gen. xxxvii. 7.

1

[T. C. iii. 92. “Who could be ignorant that our Saviour Christ speaketh generally when he saith, ‘if thy brother,’ c. whereby he comprehendeth all those that are members of one church and children of one heavenly Father. In which number the Scripture reckoneth the king, whilst in that he is both called a brother, and calleth his subjects brethren. Or who could be ignorant that St. Paul subjecteth all unto this order, saving those only which are strangers from the Church. So that to say that princes are not subject unto this order, is all one as if he should say that princes pertain not to the kingdom of heaven, are none of the Church, have no part with Christ, c. Thus is both Christ robbed of his honour, which in contempt of his order (as though it were too base for princes to go under) is himself contemned; and princes defrauded of a singular aid of salvation, and way to draw them to repentance, when they, through the common corruption, fall into such diseases against which this medicine was prepared.”]

2

Deut. xvii. 2.

a

D. has a space of half a page here.

3

Ὁ βασιλεὺς νόμοις οὐχ ὑπόκειται, ἤγουν ἁμαρτήσας οὐ κολάζεται. Καὶ κατὰ βασιλέως οἱ γενικοὶ ἤγουν οἱ καθολικοὶ κρατείτωσαν νόμοι. Harmenop. [Promptuarium Juris] l. 1. c. i. § 48 et 39. [ed. Gothofred. 1587.]

1

Def. p. 6. c. 12. div. 1.

1

Eus. l. vi. c. 33. [34. Του̑τον κατέχει λόγος Χριστιανὸν ὄντα, ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τη̑ς ὑστάτης του̑ πάσχα παννυχίδος, τω̑ν ἐπὶ τη̑ς ἐκκλησίας εὐχω̑ν τῳ̑ πλήθει μετασχει̑ν ἐθελη̑σαι, οὐ πρότερον δὲ ὑπὸ του̑ τηνικάδε προεστω̑τος ἐπιτραπη̑ναι εἰσβαλει̑ν, ἢ ἐξομολογήσασθαι, καὶ τοι̑ς ἐν παραπτώμασιν ἐξεταζομένοις μετανοίας τε χώραν ἴσχουσιν ἑαυτὸν καταλέξαι· ἄλλως γὰρ μὴ ἄν ποτε πρὸς αὐτου̑, μὴ οὐχὶ του̑το ποιήσαντα, διὰ πολλὰς τω̑ν κατ’ αὐτὸν αἰτίας παραδεχθη̑ναι. Καὶ πειθαρχη̑σαί γε προθύμως λέγεται, τὸ γνήσιον καὶ εὐλαβὲς τη̑ς περὶ τὸν θει̑ον ϕόβον διαθέσεως ἔργοις ἐπιδεδειγμένον. Comp. Chron. Alex. AD 253. p. 270. ed. Du Fresne. S. Chrys. t. xi. 531 . . 45. Suid. voc. Βαβυλα̑ς. Philostorg. vii. 8. Of which conflicting accounts the first is the only one which gives any countenance to the narration of Eusebius.]

2

Sozom. [Theod.] l. v. c. 18. [Ἀϕικόμενον εἰς τὴν Μεδιόλανον τὸν βασιλέα, καὶ συνήθως εἰς τὸν θει̑ον εἰσελθει̑ν βουληθέντα νεὼν, ὑπαντήσας (Ἀμβρόσιος) ἔξω τω̑ν προθύρων, ἐπιβη̑ναι τω̑ν ἱερω̑ν προπυλαίων τοιάδε λέγων ἐκώλυσεν· “οὐκ οἰ̑σθα, ὡς ἔοικεν, ὡ̑ βασιλευ̑, τη̑ς εἰργασμένης μιαιϕονίας τὸ μέγεθος, οὐδὲ μετὰ τὴν του̑ θυμου̑ παυ̑λαν ὁ λογισμὸς ἐπέγνω τὸ τολμηθέν. οὐκ ἐᾳ̑ γὰρ ἴσως τη̑ς βασιλείας ἡ δυναστεία ἐπιγνω̑ναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, ἀλλ’ ἐπιπροσθει̑ ἡ ἐξουσία τῳ̑ λογισμῳ̑· χρὴ μέντοι εἰδέναι τὴν ϕύσιν, καὶ τὸ ταύτης θνητόν τε καὶ διάρρεον, καὶ τὸν πρόγονον χου̑ν ἐξ οὑ̑ γεγόναμεν, καὶ εἰς ὃν ἀπορρέομεν· καὶ μὴ τῳ̑ ἄνθει τη̑ς ἀλουργίδος ἀποβουκολούμενον, ἀγνοει̑ν του̑ καλυπτομένου σώματος τὴν ἀσθένειαν. ὁμοϕυω̑ν ἄρχεις, ὡ̑ βασιλευ̑, καὶ μὲν δὴ καὶ ὁμοδούλων. εἱ̑ς γὰρ ἁπάντων δεσπότης καὶ βασιλεὺς, ὁ τω̑ν ὅλων δημιουργός. ποίοις τοίνυν ὀϕθαλμοι̑ς ὄψει τὸν του̑ κοινου̑ δεσπότου νεών; ποίοις δὲ ποσὶ τὸ δάπεδον ἐκει̑νο πατήσεις τὸ ἅγιον; πω̑ς δὲ τὰς χει̑ρας ἐκτενει̑ς, ἀποσταζούσας ἔτι του̑ ἀδίκου ϕόνου τὸ αἱ̑μα; πω̑ς δὲ τοιαύταις ὑποδέξῃ χερσὶ του̑ δεσπότου τὸ πανάγιον σω̑μα; πω̑ςδὲ τῳ̑ στόματι προσοίσεις τὸ αἱ̑μα τὸ τίμιον, τοσου̑τον διὰ τὸν του̑ θυμου̑ λόγον ἐκχέας παρανόμως αἱ̑μα; ἄπιθι τοίνυν, καὶ μὴ πειρω̑ τοι̑ς δευτέροις τὴν προτέραν αὔξειν παρανομίαν· καὶ δέχου τὸν δεσμὸν ᾠ̑ ὁ Θεὸς ὁ τω̑ν ὅλων δεσπότης ἄνωθεν γίνεται σύμψηϕος· ἰατρικὸς δὲ οὑ̑τος, καὶ πρόξενος ὑγιείας.” Τούτοις εἴξας ὁ βασιλεὺς τοι̑ς λόγοις· (τοι̑ς γὰρ θείοις λογίοις ἐντεθραμμένος, ᾔδει σαϕω̑ς τἰνα μὲν τω̑ν ἱερέων, τίνα δὲ τω̑ν βασιλέων ἴδια·) στένων καὶ δακρύων ἐπανη̑λθεν εἰς τὰ βασίλεια· χρόνου δὲ συχνου̑ διελθόντος· ὀκτὼ γὰρ ἀναλώθησαν μη̑νες· κατέλαβεν ἡ του̑ σωτη̑ρος ἡμω̑ν γενέθλιος ἑορτή. ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς ἐν τοι̑ς βασιλείοις ὀλοϕυρόμενος καθη̑στο, τὴν τω̑ν δακρύων ἀναλίσκων λιβάδα· του̑το θεασάμενος Ῥουϕι̑νος· μάγιστρος δὲ τηνικαυ̑τα ἠ̑ν καὶ πολλη̑ς μέτασχε παρρησίας, ἅτε δὴ συνηθέστερος ὢν, προσελθὼν ἤρετο τω̑ν δακρύων τὸ αἴτιον· ὁ δὲ πικρω̑ς ἀνοιμώξας, καὶ σϕοδρότερον προχέας τὸ δάκρυον, “σὺ μὲν,” ἔϕη, “Ῥουϕι̑νε, παίζεις, τω̑ν γὰρ ἐμω̑ν οὐκ ἐπαισθάνῃ κακω̑ν· ἐγὼ δὲ στένω καὶ ὀλοϕύρομαι τὴν ἐμαυτου̑ συμϕορὰν λογιζόμενος, ὡς τοι̑ς μὲν οἰκέταις καὶ τοι̑ς προσαίταις ἄνετος ὁ θει̑ος νεὼς, καὶ εἰσίασιν ἀδεω̑ς, καὶ τὸν οἰκει̑ον ἀντιβολου̑σι δεσπότην· ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ οὑ̑τος ἄβατος, καὶ πρὸς τούτῳ μοι ὁ οὐρανὸς ἀποκέκλεισται· μέμνημαι γὰρ τη̑ς δεσποτικη̑ς ϕωνη̑ς ἣ διαρρήδην ϕησὶν, ὃν ἂν δήσητε ἐπὶ τη̑ς γη̑ς, ἔσται δεδεμένος ἐν τοι̑ς οὐρανοι̑ς.” Comp. S. Ambr. Ep. li. t. ii. 997 AD circ. 390. and Paulin. vit. S. Ambros. c. 2. ibid. App. col. vii.]

1

[This passage, down to the word “evangelists,” is found verbatim in E. P. III. 9. 3. For this reason, and on account of its general irrelevancy to the subject of this Book, the editor has ventured to treat it as a separate fragment, probably of a Sermon on Obedience to Governors, annexed by mistake to the eighth book in all the MSS. but not appearing in the first edition, which breaks off abruptly in c. viii. 6. at the words “give judgment.”]

2

Rom. viii. 14.

a

admit of no E. [*]

*

[E. here stands for Ganden’s ed. 1662, not as before for the ed. princeps, 1648, 1651.]

b

great om. E.

c

pains as law E. pain as law L. pain as the law C.

d

the om. E.

1

[Contra Faustum, lib. xxii. 27. “Peccatum est factum vel dictum vel concupitum aliquid contra æternam legem. Lex vero æterna est ratio divina vel voluntas Dei.” t. viii. 378. f.]

e

laws E.Q.C.L.

f

the spots E.Q.C.L.

g

feel E.Q.L.

2

Psalm li. 4.

h

his word E.Q.C.L.

i

in D.

k

itself E.Q.C.L.

3

1 Pet. ii. 13.

4

Rom. xiii. 1.

5

“Verum ac proprium civis a peregrino discrimen est, quod alter imperio ac potestate civili obligatur; alter jussa principis alieni respuere potest. Illum princeps ab hostium æque ac civium injuria tueri tenetur; hunc non item nisi rogatus et humanitatis officiis impulsus,” saith Bodin, de Rep. lib. i. cap. 6. non multum a fine p. 61 B. edit. Lugd. in fol. 1586. [*] [Bodin was a French jurist, and secretary to the duke of Alençon, brother to Henry III. His work “de Republica” had such credit as to be used for a text book in lectures at Cambridge. Biog. Univ.]

*

Note om. D.

l

kinds E.

1

Matt. xxiii. 3.

m

ye E.C.L.

n

whatsoever simply D.

o

in om. E.

p

powers D.

2

Rom. xiii. 1.

q

orders D.

r

instituting E.Q.C.L.

s

The quotations in marg. D.

1

“A sceptre-swaying king, to whom even Jupiter himself hath given power and commandment.” Hom. II. lib. A. [ver. 279.]

t

undeniably E.C.

2

2 Chron. xix. 6.

u

him, and even E.Q.C.L.

x

thereof E.C.L.

y

be E.C.L.Q.

z

jurisdictions E.

a

clearly E.

b

to govern E.Q.

c

services E.

d

rule E.

1

Heb. xiii. 17.

e

of E.L.

f

them E.

2

[Prefixed to “A Summarie view of the government both of the Old and New Testament, whereby the episcopal government of Christ’s Church is vindicated: out of the rude draughts of Lancelot Andrews, late bishop of Winchester.” Oxford, printed by Leonard Lichfield, AD 1641. This is part of a collection entitled, “Certain brief Treatises, written by diverse learned men, concerning the ancient and modern Government of the Church: wherein both the primitive institution of Episcopacy is maintained, and the lawfulness of the Ordination of the Protestant Ministers beyond the seas likewise defended.” The other fragments are, “The original of Bishops and Metropolitans, briefly laid down by Martin Bucer, John Reinolds and James archbishop of Armagh;” “A Disquisition touching Proconsular Asia and its seven Churches,” by Ussher; “A Declaration of the Patriarchal Government of the ancient Church,” by Edward Brerewood; “A brief Declaration of the several forms of Government received in the Reformed Churches beyond the seas,” by John Durel; and “The Lawfulness of the Ordination of the Ministers of those Churches, maintained against the Romanists,” by Francis Mason. If the fragment in question be Hooker’s, (a point on which the editor does not feel entitled to express any decided opinion; but is rather inclined to hold the negative,) it may have been sketched by way of hints for the conclusion of the whole work: and for that reason it is inserted here. Compare the latter part of Cranmer’s letter to Hooker, subjoined to the fifth book in this edition.

Archdeacon Cotton informs the editor, that this paper is in the library of Trinity College, Dublin, in MS. (D. 3. 3.) in the handwriting of some person unknown, “but certainly,” Mr. Gibbings adds, the same amanuensis, who copied the latter portions of the Sermon on Pride, and also the Appendix i. to B. v. together with B. vi. This may afford a reason for ascribing the Paper to Hooker.” “The marginal references to Scripture are in Ussher’s hand, as likewise several slight corrections in the text. It is highly probable that this is the very MS. from which the printed copy was taken; more especially as at p. 5. line 22, Ussher has added a side-note to the printer, ‘ a larger space betwixt these: ’ [†] which has been followed: the space left there being wider than between any other two paragraphs of the tract.” Mr. Gibbings adds that the Title or Heading is Ussher’s. But it makes no mention of Hooker, standing as follows: “The Causes of the Continuance of these Contentions concerning Church-Government.”]

†

But Ussher afterwards erased the direction:—as Mr. Gibbings informs the Editor.

1

[Possevin de Rebus Muscoviticis, p. 5. AD 1581. “Concionatores non habent, sed tantum, quas diximus, vitas sanctorum, vel eorum, quos pro sanctis venerantur, atque homiliæ partem ut dixi (a D. præsertim Chrysostomo) a Poppis suis audiunt.” Herberstein, Rerum Moscovitic. Comment. p. 31. “Doctores quos sequuntur sunt Basilius magnus, Gregorius, et Joannes Chrysostomus.” Concionatoribus carent. “Satis esse putant interfuisse sacris, ac evangelii, epistolarum, aliorumque doctorum verba, quæ vernacula lingua recitat sacrificus audivisse: ad hoc, quod varias opiniones ac hæreses, quæ ex concionibus plerumque oriuntur, sese effugere credunt.” ap. Rer. Mosc. Auct. varii, Francof. 1600. It appears from King’s Greek Church, p. 433, that Iwan Basilowitz held a synod in 1542, in which possibly the law in question might be enacted. He was very jealous of the progress of Lutheranism in Livonia. See in the same collection, p. 220, Hist. Belli Livonici, per Tilm. Bredenbach, 1563.]

1

Prov. xxii. 15.

u

the easier reuniting. So in D.

2

2 Cor. viii. 18.

3

Dan. xii. 3.

1

[Socr. E. H. i. 6. πρὸς ὀργὴν ἐξάπτεται.]

2

Lib. ii. § [61.] “Is vero sine modo, et ultra quam oportuit, Instantium sociosque ejus lacessens, facem quandam nascenti incendio subdidit: ut exasperaverit malos potius quam oppresserit.”]

y

Instantius D.

z

deformities D.

3

[Bristow’s “Fifty-one Demands to be proposed by the Catholics to the Heretics.” Lond. 1592. 4to.]

1

[The same author’s “Sure ways to find out the Truth, or Motives unto the Catholic Faith.” Antwerp, 1574. 8vo.]

2

[Campian’s “Censure upon two books written in answer to Edmund Campian’s offer of Disputation.” Douay, 1581; and Defence of the same by Parsons, 1582.]

3

[Allen’s “Apology of the English Seminaries at Rome and Rheims.” Mons, 1581.]

4

Job xiii. 7.

a

ye D.

5

Rom. iii. 17.

6

Job xl. 4, 5.

7

Psalm lxxii. 3, 6.

b

for peace D.

c

there is now no way D.

1

Psalm cxxii. 6.

1

[Compare B. vii. xi. 8. p. 211.]

1

[This and the Discourse of Justification, are now placed first among Hooker’s Opuscula, as having probably been earliest written. See Travers’s Supplication to the Council, in Dobson’s Hooker, ii. p. 464 (infra, p. 559). “Upon . . . occasion of this doctrine of his, that the assurance of that we believe by the word is not so certain as of that we perceive by sense, I . . . taught the doctrine otherwise. — According to which course of late, when as he had taught, ‘that the church of Rome is a true church,’ c.” Compare Hooker’s Answer, § 9, 10, 11. It should seem as if these two, and the Sermons on Pride, were portions of a series on the Prophecy of Habakkuk preached in the Temple Church, 1585-6; and the present arrangement sets them in the order of their texts. (It has here been compared with the first ed. 1612.)]

2

[The name is usually, but not always, in the first ed. Abacuc. ]

1

[Job xiii. 15.]

2

Psalm lxxiii. 28.

1

[Rom. iv. 20. οὐ διεκρίθη τῃ̑ ἀπιστίᾳ.]

2

[2 Kings vii. 2.]

3

Gen. xvii. 17.

1

[St. Mark ix. 24.]

2

[1 John ii. 9.]

1

[Rom. xv. 15.]

1

[Psal. xxii. 1.]

2

[Luke xviii. 11.]

3

[Rom. viii. 26, 27.]

1

[Luke xxii. 33.]

2

[Written Galathians, ed. 1612, 1618.]

3

[Gal. iv. 5.]

4

[ to, ed. 1612, 1618.]

5

[Apoc. ii. 2, 4.]

6

2 Cor. xi. 2, 3.

1

Jos. i. 5; Heb. xiii. 5.

2

[ Sathan, throughout 1612, 1618.]

3

Psal. lxxviii. 19.

4

Gen. xviii. 12.

5

John i. 46.

6

[So ed. 1612, 1618; bewitched, Gauden, 1662, and so Keble.]

1

Matt. xix. 26.

2

1 Cor. i. 27, 28.

3

[Ps. lxxxix. 28, 32.]

4

[Ps. lxxix. 9.]

1

John xiii. 1.

1

Sallust. Jugurth. c. 14.

2

Luke xxii. 31, 32.

3

[John xvii. 11.]

1

[ apaled, ed. 1612, 1618; appaled, Gauden, 1662, 1676: v. p. 606. v. Murray’s Dictionary, appal. ]

2

[Rom. viii. 35, 38, 39.]

1

[Prefixed to the first publication of the Sermon on Justification, 1612, by Henry Jackson, of C. C. C., to whom Hooker’s papers had been intrusted by Dr. Spenser, to be arranged for the press. In the first collection of Hooker’s Opuscula [dated 1618], subjoined to the five books of Ecclesiastical Polity, 1617, this sermon comes after Travers’s Supplication and Hooker’s Answer: the present order has been adopted as being that in which they were written, and because the two latter suppose a knowledge of this sermon.]

2

Lib. iv. Annal. [c. 34.]

3

Lib. i. Hist. [c. 2.]

4

In Vita Agric. [c. 41.]

5

Lib. ii. [c. 98.]

1

[From a passage in Hooker’s answer to Travers’s Supplication, § 5, we know that this sermon was preached in the first year of Hooker’s mastership of the Temple. For he says, “I am able to prove that myself have now for a full yeer together borne the continuance of such dealings,” c. And it appears from Strype’s Collections, inserted in Walton’s Life of Hooker, that the sermon was preached the 28th March, and that Travers’s notes of exception to it were “set down and shewed” March 30, 1585: but a MS. in the Harleian Collection, quoted above, vol. i. 59, gives March 1, 1585, as the date of the sermon; erroneously, since the sermon was preached on a Sunday, (see Travers, Supplication, p. 561, 562, infra, ) and the 1st March did not fall on a Sunday in either of those years. The 28th did, in 1586. And this agrees with what Travers in his Supplication states, “that Hooker according to his course had of late taught that the church of Rome is a true church of Christ.” He had been made Master of the Temple March 17, 1584, 5. The sermon was collated by Archdeacon Cotton for the edition of 1836, with a MS. (A. 5, 6.) in Trin. Coll. Dublin, here designated by D.: the results of which collation, revised by Dr. Todd and Mr. Gibbings, are given in the margin below [*] .]

*

[E. stands for edition of 1613 (v. Pref. i. p. liii). It agrees with the edition of 1618, except in the readings here marked. The ed. 1618 is here marked F.] 1886.

a

the better E.

b

Ergo D.

c

Corinthes D.

2

1 Cor. v. 12, 13 [†] .

†

Om. D.

d

be apparently such as cannot E.

e

of the apostolical E.

1

2 Cor. vi. 14-17 [*] .

*

Om. D.

f

amongste D.

h

never D.

2

[De Nat. et Grat. contra Pelag. § 42. x. 144. G. “Commemorat cos, qui non modo non peccasse, verum etiam juste vixisse referantur, Abel, Enoch, Melchisedech, c. Adjungit etiam fœminas, . . . ipsam etiam Domini ac Salvatoris nostri matrem, quam dicit sine peccato confiteri necesse esse pietati. Excepta itaque sancta virgine Maria, de qua propter honorem Domini nullam prorsus, cum de peccatis agitur, haberi volo quæstionem, (unde enim scimus, quid ei plus gratiæ collatum fuerit ad vincendum omni ex parte peccatum, quæ concipere ac parere meruit, quem constat nullum habuisse peccatum?) hac ergo virgine excepta, si omnes illos sanctos et sanctas, cum hic viverent, congregare possemus, et interrogare utrum essent sine peccato; quid fuisse responsuros putamus; utrum hoc quod iste dicit, sive quod Joannes Apostolus?”]

i

honour D.F.

k

about D.

l

may E.

3

Or whosoever it be that was the author of those Homilies that go under his name [†] .

†

Note om. D.

m

in E.

n

hath om. E.

o

own om. E.

1

Knowing how the schoolmen hold this question, some critical wits may perhaps half suspect that these two words, per se, are inmates. But, if the place which they have be their own, their sense can be none other than that which I have given them by a paraphrastical interpretation [*] .

*

Both notes om. D. the latter om. F.

p

bond E.

q

is not otherwise loosed from the bond of ancient sin, than by redemption. E.

2

Hom. 2. de Nativ. Dom. [*] [t. v. pars ii. p. 545. Biblioth. Patr. Colon. “Spem terrarum, decus sæculorum, commune omnium gaudium, peculiari munere novem mensibus sola possides: initiator omnium rerum abs te initiatur, et profundendum pro mundi vita sanguinem de corpore tuo accepit, ac de te sumpsit, quod etiam pro te solvat. A peccati enim,” c.]

r

then all E.

s

were dead in sin E.

t

righteous E.

3

[1 Cor. i. 30.]

u

offered up himself E.

x

of om. E.

4

[Rom. viii. 21.]

y

as E.

z

is inherent E.

z

plain om. E.

a

that all have sinned om. E.

b

never did E.

c

This clause in marg. E. which also reads coeffective for coefficient.

d

work efficiently E.

1

[*] “Deus sine medio coeffectivo animam justificat.” Casal. de quadr. 1. part. Just. lib. cap. 8 [pars I. lib. i. cap. 8. p. 24. G. ed. Venet. 1599. first published 1563.] Idem, lib. 3. c. 9. [“Salvator noster est nostra justificatio, quia nos justificat effective secundum naturam divinam; estque nostra justificatio, quia nos justificat meritorie secundum naturam humanam.” p. 304. Casal was bishop of Leiria and Coimbra in Portugal, and was distinguished at the Council of Trent. † 1587. See in Fra Paolo, vi. 53, his arguments for conceding the eucharistical cup to the laity; and vii. 32, his assertion of the divine right of episcopacy.]

*

Note om. D.

e

there is also somewhat D.

f

nature and essence E.

1

[*] Tho. Aquin. Summ. Theol. ii. pars i. quæst. 100. “Gratia gratum faciens, id est, justificans, est in anima quiddam reale et positivum; qualitas quædam (art. ii. concl.) supernaturalis, non eadem cum virtute infusa, ut Magister, sed aliquid (art. iii.) præter virtutes infusas, fidem, spem, charitatem, [110. art. 1.] habitudo quædam (art. iii. ad 3.) quæ præsupponitur in virtutibus istis sicut earum principium et radix;” essentiam animæ tanquam subjectum occupat, non potentias, sed “ab ipsa” (art. iv. ad 1.) “effluunt virtutes in potentias animæ, per quas potentiæ moventur ad actus.” Plur. vid. quaest. 113. de Justificatione. [t. xi. 253-255; 259, c. ed. Antwerp. 1612. Comp. Concil. Trident. Sess. vi. Decr. de Justificatione, cap. vii. “Justificationis unica formalis causa est, justitia Dei; non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati renovamur spiritu mentis nostræ, et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus; justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam, secundum mensuram quam Spiritus Sanctus partitur singulis prout vult, et secundum propriam cujusque dispositionem et cooperationem.” Ibid. can. xi. “Si quis dixerit, homines justificari vel sola imputatione justitiæ Christi, vel sola peccatorum remissione, exclusa gratia et caritate, quæ in cordibus eorum per Spiritum Sanctum diffundatur atque illis inhæreat, aut etiam gratiam, qua justificamur, esse tantum favorem Dei; anathema sit.”]

*

Note om. D.

g

to E.

h

of E.

i

inhable D.

k

amiable and gracious E.

l

and washeth out E.

m

sins E. not F.

2

[Concil. Trident. ubi supr. cap. 10. “Mortificando membra carnis suæ, et exhibendo ea arnia justitiæ in sanctificationem, per observationem mandatorum Dei et ecclesiæ, in ipsa justitia, per Christi gratiam accepta, cooperante fide bonis operibus, crescunt, atque magis justificantur: sicut scriptum est, ‘Qui justus est, justificetur adhuc.’ ” And can. xxiv. Si quis dixerit, justitiam acceptam non conservari, atque etiam non augeri coram Deo per bona opera; sed opera ipsa fructus solummodo et signa esse justificationis adeptæ, non autem ipsius augendæ causam; anathema sit.”]

1

[Ibid. cap. xvi. “Bene operantibus usque in finem, et in Deo sperantibus proponenda est vita æterna et tanquam gratia filiis Dei per Christum Jesum misericorditer promissa, et tanquam merces ex ipsius Dei promissione bonis ipsorum operibus et meritis fideliter reddenda.”]

2

[Ibid. “Cum ipse Christus Jesus, tanquam caput in membra, et tanquam vitis in palmites, in ipsos justificatos jugiter virtutem influat, quæ virtus bona eorum opera semper antecedit, et comitatur et subsequitur, et sine qua nullo pacto Deo grata et meritoria esse possent,” c.]

n

in their divinity is E.

3

[Catherinus, Dialog. de Justif. ad calc. Summ. Doctr. de Prædest. Rom. 1550. p. 60.]

4

[See in Aquinas (2 Summ. pars ii. qu. xxiv. art. 10; t. xi. pars ii. p. 63 A. Antwerp, 1612.) with what qualification this must be taken.]

5

[Id. ibid. art. 11, 12.]

o

the which E.

6

[Id. 3 Summ. qu. lxix. art. 6. (t. xii. 221.)]

p

the first E.

7

[Id. ibid. qu. lxviii. art. 5. fol. 219.]

8

[Id. ibid. qu. lxix. art. 1, 2, 3. f. 220.]

q

diminish E. not F.

1

[Id. ibid. qu. lxxxvii. art. 3. fol. 292. “Triplici ratione aliqua causant remissionem venialium peccatorum. Uno modo, in quantum in eis infunditur gratia;—et hoc modo. . .per omnia sacramenta novæ legis . . . peccata venialia remittuntur. Secundo, in quantum sunt cum aliquo motu detestationis peccatorum: et hoc modo confessio generalis, tunsio pectoris, et oratio Dominica, operantur ad remissionem venialium peccatorum. . .Tertio modo, in quantum sunt cum aliquo motu reverentiæ in Deum, et ad res divinas; et hoc modo benedictio episcopalis, aspersio aquæ benedictæ, quælibet sacramentalis unctio, oratio in ecclesia dedicata, et si aliqua sunt hujusmodi, operantur ad remissionem venialium peccatorum.”]

2

[Conc. Trid. Sess. vi. Decr. de Justif. cap. xiv. “Qui ab accepta justificationis gratia per peccatum exciderunt, rursus justificari poterunt, cum excitante Deo, per pœnitentiæ sacramentum, merito Christi, amissam gratiam recuperare procuraverint.”]

3

[Ibid. “Docendum est, Christiani hominis pœnitentiam post lapsum multo aliam esse a baptismali, eaque contineri non modo cessationem a peccatis, et eorum detestationem, aut cor contritum et humiliatum; verum etiam eorundem sacramentalem confessionem, saltem in voto, et suo tempore faciendam, et sacerdotalem absolutionem; itemque satisfactionem, per jejunia, eleemosynas, orationes, et alia vitæ spiritalis exercitia, non quidem pro pœna æterna, quæ vel sacramento vel sacramenti voto una cum culpa remittitur, sed pro pœna temporali, quæ, ut sacræ literæ docent, non tota semper, ut in baptismo fit, dimittitur illis, qui gratiæ Dei, quam acceperunt, ingrati, Sp.Sanctum contristaverunt, et templum Dei violare non sunt veriti.” Comp. Sess. xiv. decr. de Pœnit. cap. 9, et can. 13.]

r

first, for D.

s

either om. E.

4

[Ibid. Sess. xxv. Decr. de Purgatorio; et Decr. de Indulgentiis. Comp. Aquin. in iv. Sent. dist. xx. qu. i. art. 3.]

t

to justification E.

u

pass it by in few words E.

x

that E.

y

in the presence E.

z

it om. E.

1

Phil. iii. 8, 9.

a

lost E.

b

I do om. E.

c

to be found E.

d

it om. F. it the essence of a F.

e

is it E.

f

Christ E.

g

is impious in himself E.

h

remitted E.

i

upholdeth F.

k

it om. F.

l

was E.

2

2 Cor. v. 21.

m

to be sin for us, who knew no sin E.

n

or om. E.

o

whatsoever; it is our comfort, and our wisdom E.

p

son E.

q

man E.

r

the Apostles E.

s

D. begins the section here.

t

without D.

u

as om. F.

v

different in nature E.

1

[Rom. iv. 5.]

2

[1 John iii. 7.]

3

[Rom. iv.]

4

[James ii.]

5

Rom. vi. 22.

w

unto D.

x

you D.

y

possession E.

z

Abakuk D. Abak. F.

a

because E.

b

fruits E.

b

we E.

c

they professt D.

d

holy men E.

e

for E.

f

a om. F.

g

endeavour to om. E.

1

[De Gubern. Dei, lib. iv. p. 341. D; in Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. part. iii.]

h

indeed we have E.

i

herein D.

j

ever om. E.

k

were E.

l

own om. E.

m

before E.

n

farder D.

o

ourselves can do E.

p

mouth E.

q

do F.

r

If we did [do F.] not commit the sins which daily and hourly, either in deed, word, or thoughts we do commit E.

s

specially om. E.

t

men E.

u

and E.

w

by any respect E.

x

that om. E.

y

mercies E.

z

God om. E.

a

he had set E.

b

one E.

c

this E. (?)

d

and F. if he E.

e

our E.

f

any om. E.

g

past him D.

h

one om. F.

i

could be found to be E.

j

which we do E.

k

or E.

l

exactly able E.

m

doing well E.

n

knowes D.

o

to reckoning E.

p

and E.

1

[Psalm cxix. 5.]

2

[Rom. vii. 19, 24.]

q

the other prophet E.

3

[Isa. i. 4.]

r

were E.

s

loden D.

t

of E.

u

thus om. E.

x

ye F.

y

stake D.

1

Acts xiii. 41-44.

z

to E.

a

ye E.

b

in hand E.

2

[*] Heb. i. 2.

*

Notes om. D.

3

[*] By sanctification, I mean a separation from others not professing as they do. For true holiness consisteth not in professing, but in obeying the truth of Christ.

c

in E.

d

the conclusion whereunto in thend we came of all D.

e

and fellowship om. E.

f

may E.

g

open om. E.

h

strict om. E.

i

to be gold E.

k

be suitable E.

r

prove to om. E.

s

on it E.

t

this E.

u

may E.

x

that om. E.

y

then E.

z

and om. E.

1

Apoc. xviii. 4.

a

that ye be not partaker of her plagues E.

b

in wrath hath D. hath F.

2

Matt. xxiv. 16; S. Luke xxi. 21.

3

Gen. xix. 15.

c

that ye be not....sins of Babylon om. E.

d

we doubt E.

e

for the plagues E.

f

what E.

g

which E.

h

of E.

i

to om. D.

j

no stop after avoid in F.

k

by their law E.

l

amongste D.

m

in om. E. (?) apparance F.

1

[Conc. Trid. Sess. iv. Decr. de Canonicis Scripturis. “Ecclesia [Tridentina Synodus] orthodoxorum Patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti, cum utriusque unus Deus sit auctor, necnon traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Sp. Sancto dictatas, et continua successione in ecclesia catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit ac veneratur.” Conc. Hard. x. 22.]

n

that E.

2

[Bulla Pii IV. super Profess. Fidei, (containing what is commonly called Pope Pius’ Creed, to which all ecclesiastical persons must assent:) ibid. t. x. 201, a. “Sanctam catholicam et apostolicam Romanam ecclesiam, omnium ecclesiarum matrem et magistram agnosco; Romanoque Pontifici, beati Petri Apostolorum Principis successori, ac Jesu Christi vicario, veram obedientiam spondeo acjuro.”]

3

[Conc. Trid. Sess. xiii. Can. 2. “Si quis dixerit in sacrosancto Eucharistiæ sacramento remanere substantiam panis et vini una cum corpore et sanguine Dom. nostri J. C.; negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem conversionemtotius substantiæ panis in corpus et totius substantiæ vini in sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat speciebus panis et vini, quam quidem conversionem catholica ecclesia aptissime transubstantiationem appellat; anathema sit.” t. x. 83.]

4

[Ibid. can. 6. “Si quis dixerit, in sancto Eucharistiæ sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriæ, etiam externo, adorandum; atque ideo nec festiva peculiari celebritate venerandum, neque in processionibus . . . solenniter circumgestandum; vel non publice, ut adoretur, populo proponendum; et ejus adoratores esse idololatras; anathema sit.” x. 84.]

1

[Ibid. Sess. xxii. Decr. de Missa, cap. 2. “Quoniam in divino hoc sacrificio, quod in missa peragitur, idem ille Christus continetur, et incruente immolatur, qui in ara crucis semel seipsum cruente obtulit; docet sancta synodus, sacrificium istud vere propitiatorium esse . . . Non solum pro fidelium vivorum peccatis, pœnis, satisfactionibus, et aliis necessitatibus, sed et pro defunctis in Christo, nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite, juxta Apostolorum traditionem, offertur.” x. 127.]

2

[Bulla Pii IV. ubi supr. “Constanter teneo . . . sanctos una cum Christo regnantes, venerandos atque invocandos esse: eosque orationes Deo pro nobis offerre. . .Firmissime assero, imagines Christi et Deiparæ semper Virginis, nec non aliorum sanctorum, habendas et retinendas esse, atque eis debitum honorem ac venerationem impertiendam.” x. 200.]

n

the transubstantiation of the E.

o

also om. E.

p

the adoration E.

q

that E.

r

in om. E.

s

also om. E.

t

an actual E.

u

should speak E.

x

marked E.

y

in D.

y

them om. E.

z

heresy E.

a

of them om. D.

b

free and clear D.

c

heresies E. and them for it.

d

their om. E.

e

this E.

1

Ver. 22.

f

lay F. lap Gauden.

g

into E.

h

everlasting flaming E.

i

of E.

j

errors E.

k

which are in E.

l

those D.

m

that D.

n

them E.

o

these E.

p

to our fathers E.

q

the guides . . . . taught E.

r

worldly om. E.

s

guide as of the guided E.

t

promise E.

u

which . . . . man’s E.

x

that sinners can find to E.

y

he hardeneth E.

z

two om. E.

a

E. inserts In the third . . . . believers between the two verses.

1

John iii. 17.

b

own Son E.

2

John iii. 18.

3

Rev. ii. 21-23.

c

is, if they were not altogether faithless and impenitent E. so F.

d

are F.

e

either om. E.

f

any way om. E. (?)

g

with E.

h

byde D.

i

fire D.

k

therein E.

l

that om. E.

m

being E.

1

[Adv. Helvid. c. 19. t. ii. pars i. p. 226. ed. Vallarsii. Venet. 1767.]

2

They misinterpret, not only by making false and corrupt glosses upon the Scripture, but also by forcing the old vulgar translation as the only authentical: howbeit, they refuse no book which is canonical, though they admit sundry which are not [*] .

*

This note om. D.

n

these E.

o

name of foundation E.

3

1 Tim. iii. 16.

4

John i. 49; iv. 42.

p

raise D.

q

deny E.

r

with E.

s

the heathenish E.

t

and E.

u

were E.

x

mortal om. E. not F.

y

This sentence om. E.

z

you D.

1

Gal. v. 2.

a

the other E.

b

that they E.

c

in E.

2

Plainly in all men’s sight whose eyes God hath enlightened to behold his truth. For they which are in error are in darkness, and see not that which in light is plain. In that which they teach concerning the natures of Christ, they hold the same which Nestorius fully, the same which Eutyches about the proprieties of his nature [*] . [If taken in the full literal sense, it seems hardly possible that this note should be Hooker’s, considering on the one hand his unvarying acknowledgment that the church of Rome is orthodox regarding the doctrine of the Incarnation; on the other hand his express condemnation of Nestorius and Eutyches. Comp. (e. g.) b. iii. c. i. 10; with b. v. c. xlii. 13; lii. 3, 4. It should be remembered that this sermon was not prepared by the author for the press, and that the Dublin copy of it has no notes at all.]

*

Note om. D.

c

disputing with them urge E. not F.

d

one only E.

e

his mercy om. E.

1

The opinion of the Lutherans, though it be no direct denial of the foundation, may notwithstanding be damnable unto some; and I do not think but that in many respects it is less damnable, as at this day some maintain it, than it was in them which held it at first; as Luther and others, whom I had an eye unto in this speech. The question is not, whether an error with such and such circumstances; but simply, whether an error overthrowing the foundation, do exclude all possibility of salvation, if it be not recanted, and expressly repented of [*] .

*

Note om. D.

f

firmly E.

g

my D.

h

here E.

2

[Apoc. iii. 8.]

3

Luke xiii. 3.

i

thought or word E.

j

holden all sins and errors E., all om. F.

k

error D.

l

unless E.

1

[Ps. xix. 12.]

m

were om. F.

n

errors E.

o

end E.

2

Gal. v. 2. 4.

p

because om. E., that they received not the love of the truth, they might not be saved? (Hooker’s own words, not a quotation) F.

q

word of truth E.

3

2 Thess. ii. 10-12.

1

Apoc. xiii. 8.

r

of them om. E.

s

For om. E.

2

[Penry, “M. Some laid out in his colours,” c. p. 29. “We hold, that to him which dieth a papist, let him do never so many good works, and build if it were possible ten thousand colleges or churches, the very gates and portcullis of God’s mercy are quite shut up, and all those his glorious works, how sweet soever they may be to others, will prove but wrack and misery to himself. And in this point if either M. Hooker, M. Some, or all the reverend bishops of the land, do stand against us, it shall little dismay us: we say with their own Doctor, (but yet not altogether as he,) ‘Instar mille,’ (he saith Platonis, we say,) ‘ veritatis calculus.’ ”]

t

slender om. E.

u

as yet om. E.

x

general repentance E.

y

This clause om. E., or for all sinners om. F.

z

oversight D.

a

the faults E.

b

fall E.

c

which lived E.

d

foundations E.

e

at the least E.

f

for fear E.

g

although E.

h

live and om. E. not F.

i

with E.

k

all held E.

l

but only E.

m

interpretation E.

n

good works E.

1

For this is the only thing alleged to prove the impossibility of their salvation: The church of Rome joineth works with Christ, which is a denial of the foundation, and unless we hold the foundation, we cannot be saved [*] .

*

Note om. D.

o

through om. E.

p

which E.

q

as E.

r

Paragraph here in D.

s

the same E.

t

each the other E.

x

both om. E.

y

nothing to be more sound E.

z

as om. E.

a

No paragraph D.

b

be E.

c

and charity E.

d

he om. E.

e

which om. E.

f

the E.

g

whereof E.

h

fruits of works E.

i

the which E.

k

the Scriptures E.

l

Jesus Christ E.

m

hath D.

n

except E.

o

hath E.

p

hath faith comes after adoption E.

q

they E.

r

and E.

s

to the last E. not F.

t

in om. E.

u

thing om. E.

x

and not works of ours without faith E., and no work F.

y

that we E.

z

good om. E.

a

Fathers om. E.

b

that om. E.

1

[In Syntagm. Confess. pars ii. p. 106. Gen. 1654. “Docemus bona opera divinitus præcepta necessario facienda esse, et mereri gratuita Dei clementia sua quædam sive corporalia sive spiritualia præmia.” This confession was exhibited at the council of Trent, 1552, by the deputies of the Duke of Wirtemberg. It was drawn up by Brentius, (Sleidan, l. 22. p. 277. ed. Argent. 1559.) and had been approved by the Saxon protestants.]

c

Others om. E.

d

might E.

e

worst E.

f

may E.

g

own om. E.

h

the D.

i

the angels E.

k

these E.

l

merits is then E. not F.

m

or E.

n

Jesus Christ E.

o

which lived E.

p

superstition E.

1

They may cease to put any confidence in works, and yet never think, living in popish superstition, they did amiss. Pighius died popish, and yet denied popery in the article of justification by works long before his death. [See Bayle, art. Pighius. He died at Utrecht, December 26, 1542: having the same year published at Cologne, “Controversiarum præcipuarum in comitiis Ratisponensibus tractatarum, et quibus nunc potissimum exagitatur Christi fides et religio, diligens et luculenta replicatio.” In the 2nd Controversy, De Fide et Justificatione, Sign. G. ii. is the following: “In illo justificamur coram Deo, non in nobis; non nostra sed illius justitia, quæ nobis cum illo jam communicantibus imputatur. Propriæ ju stitiæ inopes, extra nos in illo docemur justitiam quærere . . . Non nostra, sed Dei justitia justi efficimur in Christo. Quo jure? amicitiæ, quæ communionem omnium inter amicos facit, juxta vetus et celebratissimum proverbium: Christo insertis, conglutinatis, et unitis, etiam sua nostra facit; suas divitias nobis communicat; suam justitiam inter Patris judicium et nostram injustitiam interponit, et sub ea, velut sub umbone et clypeo, a divina, quam commeruimus, ira, nos abscondit, tuetur, ac protegit; immo eandem nobis impertit, ac nostram facit, qua tecti ornatique audacter et secure divino nos sistamus tribunali ac judicio, justique non solum appareamus, sed etiam simus.” Sign. G. iii. “Justificat nos Deus Pater bonitate sua gratuita qua nos in Christo complectitur: dum eidem insertos innocentia et justitia Christi nos induit: quæ una ut vera et perfecta est, quæ Dei sustinere conspectum potest, ita unam pro nobis sisti oportet tribunali divini judicii, et velut causæ nostræ intercessorem eidem repræsentari.” Ibid. et G. iv. Dissimulare non possumus, hanc vel primam doctrinæ Christianæ partem obscuratam magis quam illustratam a scholasticis speciosis plerisque quæstionibus et definitionibus, secundum quas nonnulli, magno supercilio primam in omnibus auctoritatem sibi arrogantes, et de omnibus facile pronunciantes, fortassis etiam nostram hanc damnarent sententiam qua propriam et quæ ex suis operibus esset coram Deo justitiam derogamus omnibus Adæ filiis, et docuimus una Dei in Christo niti nos posse justitia, una illa, justos esse coram Deo, destitutos propria.” It appears that he was censured in his own church as having a tendency to the Calvinistic notion of justification: and accused of Pelagianism both by Calvin and the Jansenists.]

q

what om. D.

r

by E.

s

clear E.

t

that E.

u

should E.

x

my D.

y

and E.

z

that doctrine of laws E. F. Gaud.

a

acception E.

1

“Vocata ad concionem multitudine, quæ coalescere in populi unius corpus nulla re præterquam legibus poterat.” Liv. de Romulo, lib. i. [c. 8.]

b

ye E.

c

the laws E.

d

now om. E.

2

Ephes. i. 23; iv. 15.

e

only the E.

3

Ephes. ii. 20.

f

which E.

g

these E.

h

those words of E.

i

herself E. not F.

4

John vi. 68; 2 Tim. iii. 15.

k

of om. E. not F.

l

obtained E.

m

who E.

n

what they shall do D.

o

still om. E. not F.

p

laws E.

q

mercy E.

r

not om. E.

s

Yet E.

t

possessed D.

1

Acts xvi. 17; Heb. x. 20.

u

before the written E.

x

possessed E.

2

Gen. xlix.

3

Job xix.

y

likewise om. E.

z

so om. E.

a

before it E.

b

earth E.

c

shall E.

d

blessed E.

e

he is a name E.

f

but F.

4

Acts iv. 12.

g

doth put E.

h

very om. E.

i

Christ om. D.

1

Luke ii. 28.

2

1 Cor. iii. 11.

j

it om. F.

k

be better opened E.

l

first om. E.

m

and om. E.

n

which serve E.

o

wrapped D.

p

had E.

q

a colour E.

r

their E.

s

either om. E.

t

great E.

u

own om. E.

1

Acts xxv. 19.

w

the Jews D.

x

called E.

y

entitled E.

z

the E.

a

stand E.

b

the Christianity D.

c

have om. E.

d

denying om. E.

e

Christianity, not D.

f

being om. E.

g

justified truly E.

h

persuasion om. E.

i

the third E.

k

where E.

1

Octav. c. 34.

l

per E.

m

there be many E.

n

to be om. E.

o

so F. Gaud. and following edd. Oxf. 1793. receive, Keble (? a misprint).

p

into E. not F.

p

or E.

q

the E.

r

or E.

s

one om. E.

t

the spiritual E.

u

if we have read E.

1

Rom. viii. 10.

2

Phil. ii. 16.

3

Col. iii. 4.

x

through E.

4

1 Pet. i. 23.

5

Ephes. ii. 5.

6

1 John v. 12.

y

for E.

z

that D.

a

which have the Son E.

7

1 John v. 13. Perpetuity of faith; Rom. vi. 10.

b

is everlasting in the world to come E.

1

[Should not “but” be omitted?]

c

died E.

d

the om. E.

e

allied E.

2

John xiv. 19.

f

many and sundry E.

g

so secret E.

h

faith E.

3

1 Pet. i. 23.

4

1 John iii. 9.

5

Ephes. i. 14.

6

John xiv. 17.

i

he om. D.

7

[“Mr. Miller in his madness denied it, and yet died faithful as I hear.” Anonymous note in the Dublin MS. of this sermon.]

k

Object. ( ob. F.) But E.

l

you E.

m

that is to-day E.

n

be made E.

n

Sol. The E.

o

cause E.

1

[“Bolton’s end in despair, after persecution suffered in Queen Mary’s time.” Ibid. Strype, Mem. iii. i. 576. “John Bolton, sometime of Reading, who lying in gaol for religion, grew mad, and in his raving fits railed upon Queen Mary; who thereupon was cruelly tormented in the said prison. Which Bolton becoming sober, and of a better mind, Thackham took pity upon the man, because he seemed to be of good religion, and . . when by reason of the time, his very friends durst not become surety for such a traitor and rank heretic, as Bolton was then thought to be, he desired the mayor to take him alone with Bolton, which the mayor gently granted. And so this poor man was set at liberty and departed. But when the sessions came, Bolton left Thackham to pay the forfeiture.” It seems by a letter among Strype’s documents, Mem. iii. ii. 427, that this Bolton recanted so far as to attend mass, and yet afterwards printed “a certain story of his own great trouble and another’s recanting.” He was a silk weaver in Long-lane, Smithfield.]

p

Which kingdom om. E.

q

it shall not E.

r

be otherwise E.

2

Col. i. 23.

3

1 Tim. ii. 15.

4

John x. 28.

s

he promised E.

t

whereby it is E.

u

irrecoverably E.

v

unto E.

x

wherewith E.

y

angeis F. Gaud.

z

goodness E.

a

but the least E.

b

and E.

c

highest E.

d

which E.

1

1 John iii. 9.

e

that are of E.

2

[Platin. Vitt. Pontiff. p. 39. Colon. Ubiorum. 1600. “Marcellinus pontifex” ( AD 304) “ad sacrificia gentium ductus, cum minis instarent carnifices, ut thura diis exhiberet, metu perterritus, deos alienos adoravit. Habito deinde non ita multo post concilio clxxx. episcoporum in Sinuessa urbe Campaniæ, eo et Marcellinus squalidus et pulverulentus et cilicio indutus proficiscitur, petitque ut sibi pro inconstantia debita pœna tribuatur. Qui eum damnaret, in tanto concilio nemo unus inventus est, cum dicerent omnes ea ferme ratione Petrum peccasse, ac flendo peccati pœnam luisse. Rediit Romam Marcellinus iratus, Diocletianum adiit hominemque increpat, qui se impulerit diis gentium immolare. Ducitur ad martyrium Diocletiani jussu . . . . Inter eundum vero Marcellum presbyterum admonet, ne corpus suum sepulturæ traderet, quod diceret ob negatum Salvatorem se id nequaquam mereri.” This story is examined by Tillemont (among others) and shewn to be incredible, Mem. t. v. p. 613. The Donatists in Africa circulated such an account, which is mentioned by St. Augustin, contra Lit. Petil. lib. ii. § 202. t. ix. 276; and rejected by him as unworthy of notice, § 208. p. 280.]

f

after that they E.

g

may om. E.

h

words E.

i

is nevertheless E.

j

hath E.

k

but F.

l

so om. E.

m

it om. E.

n

him om. D.

o

either at om. E.

p

he preserveth E.

q

the love E.

r

very om. E.

s

afterwards om. E.

1

Howsoever men be changed, (for changed they may be, even the best amongst men,) if they that have received, as it seemeth some of the Galatians, which fell into error, had received, the gifts and graces of God, which are called ἀμεταμέλητα, such as faith, hope, and charity are, which God doth never take away from him to whom they are given, as if it repented him to have given them; if such might be so far changed by error, as that the very root of faith should be quite extinguished in them, and so their salvation utterly lost, it would shake the hearts of the strongest and stoutest of us all. See the contrary in Beza’s Observations upon the Harmony of Confessions [*] .

*

This note om. D.

s

time E.

t

but that I, E.

u

perilous even in them E.

v

that E.

w

maintain E.

x

it is less D.

y

the om E.

z

the stubborn E.

a

calls E.

b

thought F.

c

and om. D.

d

them E. ( not ) F.

e

theirs also E.

f

that om. E.

g

that om. E.

h

only should be preached E.

i

necks D.

k

inevitably E. ( not ) F.

1

[“They might err in freewill, yet not as Pelagius, who was enemy to the grace of God.” Anonymous note in D.]

l

these E.

1

[“How were they justified, when their faith was subverted?” Ibid.]

m

received E.

2

[“S. Paul saw they were turned to another gospel, therefore in a damnable state.” Note in D.]

3

Error convicted, and afterwards maintained, is more than error; for although opinion be the same it was, in which respect I still call it error, yet they are not now the same they were, when they are taught what the truth is, and plainly taught [*] .

*

Note om. D.

n

as om. E.

o

the E.

4

Acts xv. 5. [“ Equivocally, as the priests, John xii.” Note in D.]

p

other Pharisees E. these Pharisees, and other Pharisees F.

q

These E.

r

no E.

s

no believers E.

5

Gal. iv. 9.

t

you E.

6

Ver. 24.

u

gotten F.

7

Ver. 31.

1

Ver. 10.

w

that notwithstanding E.

2

[“The elect among them all were to be reclaimed from that error.” Note in D.]

x

by D.

y

which om. D.

3

Gal. v. 2, 4.

z

you D.

a

ye om. E.

b

because that they E.

c

and in grace E.

d

with a plain D.

e

godly or learned E. learned or godly F.

4

Bucer. de Unit. Eccles. Servanda [*] . [The editor has not found in Bucer’s works any tract with this title, and suspects that the name is put erroneously for that of some other reformer.]

*

This reference om. D.

f

as D.

g

spent upon the Galatians in vain D.

h

ever upon E.

i

willingly E.

k

and resist om. E.

1

[“Not true.” Note in D.]

l

their om. E.

m

of D.

n

Hereupon E. not F.

o

a reply E.

p

to prove E.

q

their denial of the foundation E.

r

besides E.

s

except . . death om. E.

t

understanding E.

u

that the E.

x

the foundation of om. E.

y

opinion E.

1

[“Who be they?” Ibid.]

z

heresies and om. E.

a

grant E.

2

Calv. Ep. 104. [p. 126. ed. Gen. 1617. “Quod Ecclesiæ reliquias manere in Papatu dico, non restringo ad electos, qui illic dispersi sunt, sed ruinas dissipatæ Ecclesiæ illic extare intelligo. Ac ne mihi longis rationibus disputandum sit, nos Pauli auctoritate contentos esse decet, qui Antichristum in templo Dei sessurum pronunciat. Quanquam et hoc rationibus satis validis me probasse puto, Ecclesiam licet semiruptam, immo si lubet diruptam ac deformem, aliquam tamen manere in Papatu.” This is from a letter to Lælius Socinus, 9 Dec. 1549.]

b

these E.

c

permit at your D.

d

not om. E.

e

where E.

3

[“God’s house a den of thieves.” Note in D.]

f

heretofore D.

g

before hath been declared E.

h

unto such E.

i

took a pleasure D.

1

[“Giving Christian repentance, and knowledge of the truth necessary to salvation, 1 Tim. ii.” Note in D.]

2

[“They deny the sufficiency of the scriptures, which you make the foundation.” Ibid.]

k

at om. E.

l

plain E.

3

Morn. de Eccles. [c. 2. p. 32. ed. 1594. “Si de Christi officio, et quærenda in Christo salute agatur, quo, tanquam jugulo, corpori caput, Ecclesiæ Christus conjungitur: sic meritis hominum et sanctorum, indulgentiarum sordibus, et infinitis blasphemiarum machinis pars hæc doctrinæ labefactata est, ut jam e tenui filo vita ecclesiæ penderet, eoque mox abrumpendo, (quæ fuit Antichristi in agendo sedulitas,) nisi tempore Dominus, qui eum compescerent, servos suos emisisset. Quamdiu vel tenui illud filum reliquum manet, Ecclesiæ nomen non denegamus, ut nec ei qui morbo contabescit nomen hominis quamdiu vivit.” The author of this work was the Breton nobleman, Philip Mornay du Plessis, leader of the more serious party among the French protestants: it was first published AD 1577.]

m

the E.

n

it om. E.

o

many E.

p

little om. E.

4

Zanch. Præfat. de Relig. [“Nescio quo singulari Dei beneficio, hoc adhuc boni in Rom. ecclesia servari nemo non videt, nisi qui videre non vult; quod nimirum, sicut semper, sic nunc etiam constans et firma in vera de Deo, deque personæ D. N. Jesu Christi doctrina persistit; et baptizat in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti; Christumque agnoscit ac prædicat pro unico mundi redemptore, futuroque vivorum et mortuorum judice, qui veros fideles secum in æternam vitam recepturus, incredulos autem et impios in æternum ignem cum Diabolo et angelis ejus ejecturus sit: quæ causa est, cur ecclesiam hanc pro ecclesia Christi etiamnum agnoscam: sed quali? qualis et ab Osea aliisque Prophetis ecclesia Israelis sub Jeroboamo, et deinceps, fuisse describitur: nunquam enim resipuit a suis fornicationibus.” Ad calc. Operis de Sacra Scriptura. t. viii. ed. 1605.]

q

did E.

r

God . . . . Jesus om. F.

s

to be E.

1

[“Not true altogether.” Note in D.]

t

world E.

u

hold E.

v

servants E.

2

[Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 60. ed. Coleridge. “If the King granted a manor to A, and he granted a portion of the land to B, . . . the King was styled Lord Paramount, A was both tenant and lord, or was a mesne lord; and B was called tenant paravail, or the lowest tenant; being he who was supposed to make avail, or profit, of the land. 2 Inst. 296.”] [*]

*

[From the French, par amount, ( ad montem, ) above; par aval, ( ad vallem, ) below. v. Skeat’s Etym. Dict.] 1886.

3

[“Ambiguous, if they hold Christ’s redemption without works to be insufficient.” Note in D. Dr. Todd states that “this note is not easily decyphered, and ends imperfect, as if it had never been finished. It seems to be, ‘Ambiguous, if they hold workes, Christ’s Redemption without works thus to be unsufficient or—’ ”]

x

to the foundation om. E.

y

water E.

z

that D.

a

wholly are E.

b

within E.

c

be om. D.

d

too manifest E.

e

you E.

f

I did directly E.

g

which E.

1

[2 Thess. ii. 13.]

h

added E.

i

by the sequel E.

k

granteth E.

l

of being E.

1

Rom. xi. 6.

m

adding of works E.

2

I deny not but that the church of Rome requireth some kinds of works which she ought not to require at men’s hands. But our question is general about the adding of good works, not whether such or such works be good. In this comparison it is enough to touch so much on the matter in question between St. Paul and the Galatians, as inferreth those conclusions, “Ye are fallen from grace; Christ can profit you nothing:” which conclusions will follow upon circumcision and rites of the law ceremonial, if they be required as things necessary to salvation. This only was alleged against me: and need I touch more than was alleged [*] ?

*

Note om. D.

n

and put away E.

3

[“But to justify us by faith without the merit of good works.” Note in D.]

4

[“The keeping of circumcision hindereth not salvation, but the opinion of the necessity thereof.” Ibid.]

5

[“Ambiguous.” Ibid.]

o

their om. D.

p

even om. E.

6

[The words “web” and “spun” in D. are underlined, and upon them written “tapinosis.”]

q

you D.

7

Matt. v. 20.

8

Luke xi. 39.

r

tithing E. not F.

s

things om. E.

9

Matt. v. 21.

1

[“The merit of works is most repugnant.” Note in D.]

2

[“Sophistry.” Note in D.]

x

as om. E.

y

our om. D.

z

by this speech we E.

a

or E.

b

very om. E.

c

out om. E.

d

as E.

e

case E.

f

are not excluded E.

g

it is not one meaning E. not F.

h

ado? E.

i

This sentence om. E. not F.

1

[“A base phrase.” Note in D.]

j

are of necessity required E.

k

unto E. (?)

2

Eph. i. 11.

l

acception E. not F.

m

to us E.

n

Jesus Christ E.

o

hands E.

p

with D.

q

that om. E.

r

it importeth E. it om. F.

s

are F.

t

yea E.

1

[“All the controversy brought to a term.” Note in D.]

2

[“All men take not ‘directly’ as he doth.” Ibid.]

u

necessary om. E.

3

[“How is the sanctification of infants accomplished?” Ibid.]

w

the power E.

x

to om. D.

4

[“Merit addeth to the very foundation, as the papists themselves will confess.” Ibid.]

y

by this addition consequently E.

z

be negatively E.

a

works E.

b

Not E.

c

that E.

d

who D.

e

straightwaies D.

1

“Hæc ratio ecclesiastici sacramenti et Catholicæ Fidei est, ut qui partem divini sacramenti negat, partem non valeat confiteri. Ita enim sibi connexa et concorporata sunt omnia, ut aliud sine alio stare non possit, et qui unum ex omnibus denegaverit, alia ei omnia credidisse non prosit.” Cassian. lib. vi. de Incarnat. Dom. [c. 17 [*] .]

*

Note om. E.

f

thereupon E.

g

bere or bare D.

2

Acts xxvi. 23.

h

the E.

i

of om. E.

j

such as are E.

3

[“I think he was bishop of Constantinople.” Note in D.]

k

who E.

l

the Christian E.

4

Lib. vi. de Incar. Dom. cap. 17. [“Si negas Deum Dominum Jesum Christum, necesse est ut Filium Dei denegans etiam Patrem neges. Quia juxta ipsius Patris vocem, ‘Qui non habet Filium, nec Patrem habet; qui autem habet Filium et Patrem habet.’ Negans ergo genitum, etiam genitorem negas. Negans quoque Filium Dei in carne natum, consequens est, ut etiam in spiritu natum neges, quia idem natus in carne, qui prius natus in spiritu. Non credens ergo in carne editum, necesse est etiam passum esse non credas. Non credens autem illius passionem, quid reliquum est, nisi ut etiam resurrectionem neges? Quia fides suscitati ex fide mortui est. Nec stare potest ratio resurrectionis, nisi fides mortis ante præcesserit. Negans ergo passum et mortuum, negas quoque ab inferis resurgentem. Consequens utique est, ut neges etiam ascendentem: quia ascensio sine resurrectione esse non potuit. Et qui resurrexisse non creditur, necesse est nec ascendisse credatur: dicente Apostolo, ‘Qui enim descendit, ipse est qui ascendit.’ Ergo, quantum in te est, Dominus Jesus Christus neque ab inferis resurrexit, neque cœlum ascendit, neque ad dexteram Dei Patris sedet, neque ad illum qui expectatur examinationis ultimæ diem veniet, nec vivos nec mortuos judicabit.” c. 18. “Intelligis itaque, O infelix et furiosa perversitas, evacuasse te penitus omnem symboli fidem, omnem spei sacramentique virtutem? Et in ecclesia insuper stare ausus es, et esse te sacerdotem putas, cum illa omnia denegaveris, per quæ sacerdos esse cœpisti?” in Bibl. Patr. Colon. t. v. pars ii. p. 80.]

m

to be God om. E.

n

which E.

o

again om. E.

p

from death D.

q

affirmeth D. so 1618, 1676.

r

death D.

s

dost E.

t

the third E.

u

be E.

1

[v. Arist. Rhet. 1. 2. p. 8. Bekk. 1831.]

x

of E.

y

or E.

z

not D.

a

good works E.

b

one om. E.

c

directly deny E.

d

hold with D.

e

that E.

f

that E.

g

be E.

h

hath D.

i

are to come E.

k

for so much E.

l

means E.

1

[The word “justification” is not either in the original or the English translation.]

m

satisfaction E.

n

doctrine om. E.

o

behooful D.

2

Lewis of Granada, Medit. ch. last. 3. [“Of Prayer and Meditation. Wherein are contained fourteen devout Meditations for the seven days of the week, both for the Mornings and Evenings. And in them is treated of the consideration of the principal Mysteries of our Faith. Written first in the Spanish tongue by the famous religious Father, F. Lewis de Granada, Provincial of the holy order of Preachers in the Province of Portugal.” Paris, 1582. fol. 317. The writer was one of the most distinguished ascetic and devotional writers of Spain. He was confessor to the Queen Regent of Portugal, and died 1588. Biog. Univ.]

p

sin E. not 1618.

q

himself up E.

r

No stop in D.

s

of D.

3

Panigarola, lett. 11. [“Disceptationes Calvinicæ a Joanne Tonso Mediolan. Patritio in Latinum conversæ.” Milan 1594. Discept. xi. p. 272, 3. “ ‘Omnis gratia data est nobis per Christum Jesum:’ verum; at per applicationem. ‘Ipse est propitiatio pro peccatis nostris:’ verum; at applica. ‘Livore ejus sanati sumus:’ at applica. ‘Pro nobis se obtulit:’ at applica . . . Omnem enim satisfactionem in sanguine locamus; sed applicationem hac in re tribuimus, quibus ipse tribuit Christus, pœnalibus scilicet nostris operibus.” Francis Panigarola was one of the most distinguished preachers of Italy in the 16th century. The work from which the above is translated was a course of lectures against the Calvinists, addressed to Charles Emanuel, Duke of Savoy, by whom Panigarola was made Bishop of Asti, AD 1587: he died in 1594. See Tiraboschi, Storia della Letteratura Italiana, t. vii. part. i. lib. iii. c. 6. N°. 12-14.]

1

Annot. in 1 John i. [v. 7. “Whether sins be remitted by prayers, by fasting, by alms, by faith, by charity, by sacrifice, by sacraments, or by the priests, (as 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 virtue and merit, of Christ’s blood: these being but the appointed means and instruments, by which Christ will have his holy blood to work effectually in us.”]

t

fastings E.

u

seyns D.

x

in this doctrine om. E.

2

[Apoc. ii. 24.]

y

unto E.

z

all the ability E.

b

its E. his F.

c

lists E.

d

also they be E.

e

own om. E.

f

unperfitt D.

g

do God no good E.

1

In his Book of Consolation, [i. 11. Works, p. 1153, ed. 1557.]

h

the greatest E.

i

and judgment om. E.

k

as well on the one side as on the other E.

l

work E.

m

mere om. E.

n

which om. E.

o

the worthiness of him E.

2

Panigarola, p. 264. [“Gratiam mereri non possumus, (alioqui gratia non esset gratia, sed præmium: nam meritum sequeretur); gloriam autem possumus. Præterea, (et in hoc summa consistit), opera nostra tanquam nostra, nunquam spiritalia et æterna bona merentur; cum vero merentur, id contingit, quoniam ab anima proficiscuntur, quæ gratiam habet. Simili nempe ratione, qua ex aquæ puræ rivulo nullus odor afflatur; sed si per odoratum canalem ea defluat, odorifera fit. Quare priusquam in gratia simus, res hujusmodi mereri non possumus; sed ante justificationem a gratia longe absumus; igitur ante justificationem non meremur: quo probato, consequens est, ut primam justificationem non mereamur, et primam gratiam mereri nunquam possimus. Atque ut rem absolvamus: opera nostra triplicia sunt, vel tribus modis considerare opera nostra possumus: tanquam quæ idoneos reddunt, quæ merentur, et quæ satisfaciunt. Antequam simus in gratia, quod ad eam attinet, opera nostra ad eam obtinendam nos præparant, et reddunt idoneos. Postquam vero gratiam obtinuimus, si pœnam tempore definitam, quæ reliqua est, spectemus, satisfaciunt; si vero gloriam, merentur.”]

p

sort om. E.

q

the om. E.

r

towards E.

s

grounds D.

t

sacred om. E.

1

[“S. Paul commandeth us so to do.” Note in D.]

u

such om. F.

w

of E.

x

abuse E. F.

y

and annihilate E. adnichillate D.

z

these E.

a

everlasting om. E.

b

of their om. D.

c

punishment D.

d

to D.

e

saith E.

2

[This has not been found in S. Aug. It was previously however quoted from him by Bp. Jewel, (iii. p. 210, Parker Soc. ed.) but with non possum for nolo (E. M.): also by Pilkington, p. 610, and Whitgift, i. 8. ii. 539. iii. 460, Parker Soc. ed.] 1886.

f

in E.

g

wise E.

h

which om. E.

i

and E.

k

and om. E.

l

that E.

m

pope or cardinal E.

n

a little E.

o

indifferently be E.

p

This sentence in marg. E.

q

as om. E.

r

popes E.

s

feet E.

t

stripped E.

u

and om. F. Antichrist converted c. F.

w

foot E.

x

shall E.

y

and shall E.

z

or of a E.

a

John Stile D. John Style F.

1

[“John a Stile is not the son of perdition.” Note in D.]

b

the D.

c

that Paul or an angel should D.

d

a om. E.

e

the E.

f

the hope E.

g

if E.

h

truly E.

i

by E.

k

means E.

l

by which E.

m

to think om. E.

1

[“In these things whereof the truth is necessary to be known.” Note in D.]

n

never E.

o

doubted E. it om. F.

p

in the world om. E.

q

hindereth E.

r

doth E.

s

sin om. F.

t

I om. E.

u

evil E.

x

savour E.

2

[“The Apostle hath not deceived you, if [oft?] you mistake his meaning.” Note in D.]

y

said E.

z

obtain F.

3

[“The Apostle obtained mercy to show the truth which he persecuted in ignorance.” Note in D.]

a

you E.

b

I spake (speake F.) no otherwise, I meant no otherwise than he did E.

c

are commonly E.

d

examples E.

e

these E.

1

[S. John xxi. 22.]

f

as om. E.

g

my D.

h

and E.

i

so far as E.

k

satisfying of minds E.

l

this D.

m

state D.

n

myself into E.

o

have om. E.

p

helped E.

q

helped E.

1

Judges v. 23.

q

helped E.

s

so F. poisonous 1676, Keble.

t

taught E. teached F.

u

our om. E.

w

glory and praise D.

2

Rom. iii. 7, 8.

x

am I then . . . . as D.

y

besides E.

z

upon D.

a

He E.

b

for you om. E.

1

[Ecclus. v. 10.]

c

great om. E.

2

[Job xv. 2.]

d

do neither E.

e

must E.

f

that E.

g

whiles E.

h

I hope om. E.

i

if om. and a period at injury E.

j

indeed E.

k

speech E.

3

[Gal. iv. 12.]

l

and I do wish om. E.

m

of my E.

4

[Contr. Joan. Ierosolym. § 2. t. ii. 409 C. ed. Vallars. “Nolo in suspicione hæreseos quenquam esse patientem; ne apud eos qui ignorant innocentiam ejus, dissimulatio conscientia judicetur, si taceat.”]

n

of E.

o

cause E.

p

deny D.

q

case om. E.

1

James ii. 1.

r

Christ om. E.

s

man om. E.

t

indifferent E. different F.

u

judgments E.

x

that F.

y

you E.

1

[This Supplication, with Hooker’s Reply, was first printed at Oxford, by Barnes, 1612: under the superintendence of Henry Jackson, of C.C.C., to whom Hooker’s papers had been entrusted by Dr. Spenser, to be prepared for the press. It was reprinted in 1617, [1618, for Henry Fetherstone] in fol. with the Sermons, (except that on Matt. vii. 7, 8,) and subjoined to the five Books of Ecclesiastical Polity, by Stansby: who prefixed the following address to the reader:

“The pleasures of thy spacious walks in Master Hooker’s Templegarden (not unfitly so called, both for the Temple whereof he was Master, and the subject, Ecclesiastical Polity) do promise acceptance to these flowers, planted and watered by the same hand, and, for thy sake, composed into this posy. Sufficiently are they commended by their fragrant smell in the dogmatical truth; by their beautiful colours, in the accurate style; by their medicinable virtue, against some diseases in our neighbour churches, now proving epidemical, and threatening farther infection; by their straight feature and spreading nature, growing from the root of faith, (which, as here is proved, can never be rooted up,) and extending the branches of charity to the covering of Noah’s nakedness; opening the windows of hope to men’s misty conceits of their bemisted forefathers. Thus, and more than thus, do the works commend themselves: the workman needs a better workman to commend him, (Alexander’s picture requires Apelles’s pencil;) nay, he needs it not, His own works commend him in the gates; and, being dead he yet speaketh; the syllables of that memorable name, Master Richard Hooker, proclaiming more, than if I should here style him a painful student, a profound scholar, a judicious writer, with other due titles of his honour. Receive then this posthume orphan for his own, yea, for thine own sake; and if the printer hath, with over-much haste, like Mephibosheth’s nurse, lamed the child with slips and falls, yet be thou of David’s mind, shew kindness to him for his father Jonathan’s sake. God grant, that the rest of his brethren be not more than lamed, and that as Saul’s three sons died the same day with him, so those three promised to perfect his Polity, with other issues of that learned brain, be not buried in the grave with their renowned father. Farewell. W. S.”

For an account of the occasion of this petition, see Walton’s Life of Hooker, supr. i. 52. The Supplication and Reply are in MS. in the Bodleian library, Mus. 55. 20, 21. (B.) collated for this publication by the editor: both evidently transcripts, and by no very accurate hand.]

2

[This seems to have been soon after Easter, 1586, 27 Eliz.]

a

many B.

3

[That is, in recommending him for the mastership of the Temple. See Burghley’s Letter to Whitgift, Sept. 17, 1584, in Strype’s Additions to Walton’s Life of Hooker, vol. i. p. 29. And Life of Whitgift, b. iii. c. 9. “The Queen had asked the lord treasurer, what he thought of Travers to be master of the Temple. Who answered, that at the request of Dr. Alvey in his sick ness, and of a number of honest gentlemen of the Temple, he had yielded his allowance of him to the place, so as he would shew himself conformable to the orders of the Church.”]

1

[Fuller, Ch. Hist. b. ix. p. 217. “As for Travers his silencing, many which were well pleased with the deed done were offended at the manner of doing it. For all the congregation on a sabbath in the afternoon were assembled together, their attention prepared, the cloth, as I may say, and napkins were laid, the guests set, and their knives drawn for their spiritual repast, when suddenly as Mr. Travers was going up into the pulpit, a sorry fellow served him with a letter, prohibiting him to preach any more.”]

2

[S. Mark xv. 43.]

3

John vii. 51.

b

allow F.

c

those F.

d

those [rules om. ] E. inserted in brackets F.

1

1 Tim. v. 21.

e

it F.

1

[He alludes doubtless to that which was one of the standing grievances of the puritans: viz. that too much favour comparatively was shewn to those clergymen who were charged with saying mass, or with otherwise betraying a tendency to popery.]

f

committed of E. convicted for F.

g

beneficence E. beneficency F.

h

letters E. F.

i

I rest.—I this answer: F.

2

[Fuller, C. H. ix. 215, gives the instrument of Travers’ ordination at Antwerp, 8 May, 1578.]

1

[Compare a letter of Travers to Lord Burghley, Strype, Whitg. b. iii. App. N°. xii; in which the same reasons are alleged for his not consenting to reordination, as Burghley and others wished, to qualify himself as Master of the Temple. See Life of Whitg. i. 346.]

j

in om. F.

1

[Cap. 12. “An act for the ministers of the Church to be of sound religion . . . . Every person under the degree of a bishop, which doth or shall pretend to be a priest or minister of God’s holy word and sacraments, by reason of any other form of institution, consecration, or ordering, than the form set forth by parliament in the time of the late king Edward VI. or now used; shall in the presence of the bishop or guardian of the spiritualities of some one diocese where he hath or shall have ecclesiastical living, declare his assent and subscribe to all the articles of religion, which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments.”]

k

case F.

2

[William Whittingham, born in Chester about 1524: an Oxford man, and student of Christ-church. He was exiled in queen Mary’s time, and one of the leaders of the Presbyterian party among the English at Frankfort and Geneva: one also of the most active in the translation called the Geneva Bible. Dr. M’Crie says, that he married Calvin’s sister. But Wood contradicts this. Being afterwards chaplain to the earl of Warwick at Havre, he was by his recommendation, or that of his brother of Leicester, promoted to the deanery of Durham; where he died in 1579. Wood, Ath. Oxon. i. 446; M’Crie, Life of Knox, i. 419. Whittingham was supposed author of the preface to Christopher Goodman’s violent book, “How Superior Powers ought to be obeyed, 1558.” Strype, Ann. I. i. 545; Mem. iii. ii. 131. Bancroft, Dangerous Positions, b. ii. c. 1. p. 38. ed. 1640, says that he was “unworthily dean of Durham;” an expression which Wood justifies by an account of the liberties he took with the graves, and consecrated things, in his cathedral. See also MS. of Mr. Carte in Collectanea Curiosa, ii. 105.]

3

[By Archbishop Sandys, who at his visitation, 1578, summoned him “to shew his orders, or rather no orders that he had received at Geneva:” see Strype, Ann. II. ii. 168. 620. The archbishop wrote to lord Burghley, 4 April, 1579, “If his ministry without authority of God or man, without law, order, or example of any church, may be current, take heed to the sequel. Who seeth not what is intended? God deliver his Church from it. I will never be guilty of it.” Whittingham seems to have produced such imperfect certificates, as might make it doubtful whether he had ever been ordained at all. The proceedings in the inquiry were purposely delayed by the influence of the earl of Huntingdon, lord president of the north, and within half a year Whittingham died. Travers’ argument from the case of a popish priest seems to have been taken from lord Huntingdon’s remonstrance, which is quoted in Strype.]

l

church B. had charge F.

1

[Strype, Whitg. b. iii. c. 2. AD 1583. “Very many preachers there were now started up, that would do nothing but preach, and neither read the Liturgy nor administer the sacraments, as disliking the manner and form thereof practised in our Communion Book. And some of these undertook to preach, that were either not ordained ministers at all, or ordained differently from the English book.”]

m

determine of it according to the order of the realm B.

n

when as B.

1

[The three articles set forth in Sept. 1583: affirming the Queen’s supremacy, the lawfulness of the Common Prayer, and the orthodoxy of the Thirty-nine Articles. Strype, Whitg. b. iii. c. 2.]

o

had B. F.

p

bond B.

2

[See in the pedigree of the Hooker family, vol. i. preface, of the marriage of a niece of Hooker with a person of the name of Travers.]

q

charge F.

r

brought F.

s

his F.

t

comfort of both our lives, and that the contrary would hinder the service of God and his Church, and tend to the disprofit and discomfort of both of us B.

u

so om. F.

x

discovered F.

y

for other F.

1

[Strype, Grind. 185. “There was now” (1568; see proof of this date in Wood’s Ath. Oxon. i. 579.) “in London one Corranus,” (or Anthony de Corro,) “a Spaniard, a native of Seville, preacher to an assembly of Spanish protestants,” (as he states in his Dedication of his Dialogue to the Students of the Temple,) “though he himself was a member of the Italian congregation, to which one Hieronymus was preacher: . . . . a man of good learning, as Grindal testified of him, but of a hasty, and somewhat contentious spirit . . . . had caused a Table, entitled De Operibus Dei, to be printed . . . . wavering, as it seems, somewhat from the opinions of Calvin.” And this is hinted in a letter from Beza to him (Ep. 59. p. 277); to whom the whole matter being referred, he begged Grindal to undertake it (Ep. 58); and it ended (1570) in Corranus’ suspension. (Strype, Gr. 217.) But in 1571 he was made reader of divinity in the Temple, by the interest either of Leicester or bishop Sandys, in which office Alvey being master, he continued about three years, in much disquiet, and then came with letters of recommendation from Leicester to the university of Oxford (Wood): which received him after some scruple about his Pelagianism on the part of Reynolds, and others. There he remained as student in Ch. Ch. and Divinity reader in several halls, at least until 1582; and died 1591, in London. In 1574 he published an abstract of his lectures on the Romans, in the form of a dialogue between St.Paul and a disciple; in which, and in certain articles of faith subjoined, he disavows (and apparently with good faith) all the heresies with which he was charged.]

z

his F.

a

to understand om. F.

b

followed in B.

c

more om. F.

d

Notwithstanding such warning, he replying B. replying F. comma after matter.

1

[See the sermon “Of the Certainty and Perpetuity of Faith in the Elect.”]

e

assureth B. F.

f

excuseth F.

2

1 Tim. i. 13.

g

expounded F.

h

of E.F.

i

concerning E.F.

1

Apoc. xviii. 4; Gal. v. 2-5.

k

in the faith of the Church of Rome B.

l

added F.

m

not F.

n

not om. F.

1

[1 Tim. v. 20.]

o

Apostles F.

2

[Gal. ii. 14. οὐκ ὀρθοποδου̑σι πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν του̑ εὐαγγελίου.]

3

[Covel, Just and Temperate Defence of the five Books of Eccl. Policy, p. 80. “The rest of the discourse, which is sometimes two or three hours long —a time too long for most preachers to speak pertinently—c.” Herbert, Country Parson, c. 7. “The parson exceeds not an hour in preaching, because all ages have thought that a competency.”]

1

[Sess. v. Decret. de Peccat. Orig. c. 5. “Declarat sancta synodus, non esse suæ intentionis comprehendere in hoc decreto, ubi de peccato originali agitur, beatam et immaculatam virginem Mariam, Dei genitricem, sed observandas esse constitutiones felicis recordationis Xisti Papæ IV, sub pœnis in eis constitutionibus contentis, quas innovat.” The decree of Sixtus IV. is in t. ix. 1495, and ordains that neither opinion on this shall be counted heretical, “cum nondum sit a Romana ecclesia et apostolica sede decisum.” AD 1483. Conc. Trid. Sess. vi. De Justificatione, can. 24. “Siquis dixerit, hominem justificatum posse in tota vita peccata omnia etiam venialia vitare, nisi ex speciali Dei privilegio, quemadmodum de beata Virgine tenet Ecclesia; anathema sit.”]

2

[This statement may have arisen from hastily reading such passages as the following: S. Tho. Aquin. Opusc. x. Art. 28. “An Christus venit tollere nisi peccatum originale principaliter, seu principalius inter omnia peccata quæ tollere venit. Ad quod dicendum, quod Christus quantum est in se venit tollere omnia peccata. . . . Tanto autem principalius contra aliquod peccatum venit, quanto est majus peccatum autem quod originaliter contrahitur, licet sit minus gravitate et reatu pœnæ, est tamen maximum communitate; secundum illud Apostoli, In quo omnes peccarunt. Et quantum ad hoc, potest dici quod Christus principaliter venit tollere originale.”]

3

[Vid. Catharin. Summ. Doctrinæ de Peccat. Orig. Romæ 1550. fol. 47, 54: and compare Hooker’s statement below, Answer to Travers, § 14. Ambrosio Catharino of Sienna was a Dominican, and much distinguished as a disputant at the council of Trent. See in Fra Paolo, ii. 65, his theory on original sin; in § 76, on works done before justification; in § 80, on assurance and predestination; in § 81, on the divine right of episcopacy; in § 86, on the necessity of serious intention in the administrator to the validity of sacraments. He was afterwards Bishop of Minori, then archbishop of Conza; and died in 1553.—Biog. Univ.

p

in F.

1

Mark iii. 17.

2

2 Sam. vii. 2-5.

3

Gal. ii. 11, 14.

q

either offence to him, or to such as F.

r

some F.

s

it F.

1

Ezek. xxii. 30; xxxiii. 6.

t

for answering the F.

u

unwilling F.

x

works om. F.

y

of F.

z

any F.

1

[See Philipp. ii. 17. εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι.]

a

but om. F.

b

Suppliant F.

c

Word of God F.

1

[It is observable that whereas Travers had supplicated the whole council, Hooker’s reply is addressed to the archbishop only.]

2

[I. e. three sermons on three successive Sundays: see Travers’ Supplic. p. 560, c.]

a

others E.

b

now om. E.

3

[Wordsworth, E. B. iv. 118. “Mr. Gilpin took down the glove, and put it up in his bosom. ” Ibid. iii. 490. “With that he (Cranmer) pulled out of his bosom their two letters.” Ibid. 601. “Putting his hand into his bosom, he drew forth his prayer.”]

c

so heavily E.

d

it is expedient D.F.

1

[See E. P. V. lxxvii. 14.]

e

the E. (?D.)

f

in the charge . . . with him om. E.F. 1676.

g

my D.

h

grieved E.F.

1

A mere formality it had been to me in that place, where as no man had ever used it before me, so it could neither further me if I did use it, nor hinder me if I did not.

2

[Bishop Saunderson, Pref. to Ussher on the Power of the Prince, § 19. “The ministers of that party, in their prayers before and after sermon, do not usually shew themselves over studious of brevity.” In the Geneva Prayer Book are forms or specimens of prayers to be used after the sermon, all of greater length than any before the sermon. See Phœnix, ii. 217, 20, 24.]

i

that E.

k

deposed F.

l

heard me then D.

m

occurrence D.

n

and sometimes D.

o

conference D.

1

[Archbishop Parker’s Advertisements, 1564; in Strype, Park. iii. 88. “ Item, That all communycantes do receve kneeling. . . . , and not sittinge, or standinge.”]

2

[“I know not how,—our carriage, a many of us, is so loose; covered we sit; sitting we pray; standing, or walking, or as it takes us in the head, we receive.” Bp. Andrewes’ Sermons, fol. 549, preached on Easter Day, 1621.]

p

other D.

q

called openly E.F.

r

that they E.

s

but an order E.B.

t

good customs B.

u

granting E.F.

x

Alvey’s E.D.F.

y

each house B.D.

z

were E.F.

a

seemed E.F.

b

that om. E.F.

c

any way E.F.

d

it om. D.

e

much E.F.

f

this B.

1

[Bishop Aylmer: consecrated March 24, 1576-7; died June 3, 1594. Strype.]

g

the om. E.F.

h

persuasions B.

i

would D.B.

k

experiences D.

l

were D.

m

displeasing E.F.

n

towste D.

o

setting down B.

p

an om. D.B.

1

His words be [*] these: “The next Sabbath-day after this, Mr. Hooker kept the way he had entered into before, and bestowed his whole hour and more only upon the question [†] he had moved and maintained. Wherein he so set out the agreement of the church of Rome with us, and their disagreement from us, as if we had consented in the greatest and weightiest points, and differed only in certain smaller matters. Which agreement noted by him in two chief points, is not such as he would have made men believe: the one, in [‡] that he said, they acknowledge all men sinners, even the Blessed Virgin, though some of them freed her from sin: for the council of Trent holdeth that she was free from sin: another in that he said, they teach Christ’s righteousness to be the only meritorious cause of taking away sin, and differ from us only in the applying of it. For Thomas Aquinas, their chief schoolman, and Archbishop Catharinus, teach, that Christ took away only original sin, and that the rest are to be taken away by ourselves: yea the council of Trent teacheth that the righteousness whereby we are righteous in God’s sight is inherent righteousness; which must needs be of our own works, and cannot be understood of the righteousness inherent only in Christ’s person, and accounted unto us.”

*

be om. D.

†

questions E.

‡

in om. D.

q

of om. E.F.

r

only of justification E.F.

1

[In 3 Sent. d. iii. art. i. qu. 2. “Aliorum positio est, quod sanctificatio Virginis subsecuta est originalis peccati contractionem; et hoc quia nullus immunis fuit a culpaoriginalis peccati, nisi solum filius Virginis;” quoting Rom. iii. . . . “Hic autem modus dicendi communior est, et rationabilior, et securior. Communior, inquam, quia omnes fere illud tenent, quod beata Virgo habuerit originale, cum illud appareat ex multiplici ipsius pœnalitate . . . Rationabilior . . . . quia esse naturæ præcedit esse gratiæ vel tempore vel natura . . . . Securior, quia magis consonat fidei pietati, et sanctorum auctoritati.” t. v. 36. ed. Rom. 1596.]

s

acknowledged E.F.

t

that by this E.D.F.

u

possible D.

x

myself B.D.

y

had freed E.B.F.

z

her original E.B.F.

1

[3 Summ. Theol. qu. xxvii. art. 1, 2.]

2

This doth much trouble Thomas, holding her conception stained with the natural blemish inherent in mortal seed. [“Si nunquam anima beatæ Virginis fuisset contagio originalis peccati inquinata, hoc derogaret dignitati Christi, secundum quam est universalis omnium salvator . . . . Sed beata Virgo contraxit quidem originale peccatum, sed ab eo fuit mundata antequam ex utero nasceretur.”] And therefore he putteth it off with two answers; the one that the church of Rome doth not allow but tolerate the feast; [“Licet Romana ecclesia conceptionem B. V. non celebret, tolerat tamen consuetudinem aliquarum ecclesiarum illud festum celebrantium. Unde talis celebritas non est totaliter reprobanda:”] which answer now will not serve: the other that being sure she was sanctified before birth, but unsure how long a while after her conception, therefore, under the name of her conception-day, they honour the time of her sanctification. So that besides this, they have now no soder to make the certain allowance of their feast, and their uncertain sentence concerning her sin to cleave together. [“Nec tamen per hoc, quod Festum Conceptionis celebratur, datur intelligi quod in sua conceptione fuerit sancta: sed quia quo tempore sanctificata fuerit ignoratur, celebratur Festum Sanctificationis ejus potius quam Conceptionis in die conceptionis ejus.”] Thomas, iii. part. quæst. 27, art. 2. ad 2 . et 3 . [t. xii. 101, 102.] [*]

*

Note om. D.

a

quote E.F.

b

pronounced D.B.

1

[Sess. v. Decret. de Peccato Originali, ad fin.] 1886.

2

Annot. in Rom. v. sect. 9. [v. 14. “ ‘Death reigned from Adam to Moses,’ not in them only which actually sinned, as Adam did, but in infants which never did actually offend, but only were born and conceived in sin, i. e. by having their natures defiled, destitute of justice, and averted from God in Adam, and by their descent from him. Christ only excepted, being conceived without man’s seed: and his mother, for his honour and by his special protection (as many godly devout men judge) preserved from the same.”]

c

Is it their wont to speak nicely E.

d

that D.B.

e

their om. E.F.

f

the D.

g

Andradens D. and so whenever the name occurs.

1

Lib. v. Defens. Trid. Fidei. [“Defen. Fidei Catholicæ et integerrimæ, quinque libris comprehensa, adversus hæreticorum detestabiles calumnias, et præsertim Martini Kemnitii Germani: autore illustri et R. D. Dieguo Payva d’ Andrada, Lusitano, insigni S. Theol. Doctore.” Ingolstadt, 1580. lib. v. pars iii. p. 487. “Mirari sane nemo debet, si in re, quæ nullis est vel Scripturæ sacræ apertis testimoniis, vel Patrum traditione, vel Ecclesiæ definitione constituta, variæ sint piorum et doctorum hominum sententiæ: suntque profecto nimium morosi, qui vel Deiparæ Virginis splendorem ita amplificant, ut illis succenseant, qui cum eam negent sine peccato fuisse conceptam, pro Christi se dignitate pugnare arbitrantur, vel qui Christi prærogativam sine aliqua sacrosanctæ Virginis macula retineri posse desperant.” 489. “Tridentini Patres non quid esset in hac quæstione certum, sed nihil esse in ea adhuc certum et exploratum, cum Xisto Roman. Pontif. pronunciarunt.” Andrada died 1575. See the part which he took in the council of Trent, Fra Paolo, vi. 30, 44. His “Defensio” is dedicated to Gregory XIII.]

h

the Scripture D.

i

men’s D.

k

do om. E.

l

or D.

1

Orthod. Except. lib. iii. [“Orthodoxarum Explicationum Libri Decem,” Cologne, 1564; against Chemnitz; lib. iii. p. 241. “Si vera sunt Christi verba, quibus salutem sempiternamque vitam iis solis pollicetur qui crediderint et baptizati fuerint, felicitatis autem aditum sola peccata occludere, Christi vero sola merita recludere possunt; annon satis constat, Baptismatis sacramentum Christi passionem et merita ita habere colligata, ut animam peccatis expunctis sanctificet, et beatitudinis aditum aperiat?”]

m

do D.F.

n

unto E.B.F.

2

In 4 Sent. dist. 1. quæst. 4. [3.] art. 6. [“Supponitur tam veteres quam nos, immo universos post peccatum Adæ per solam Christi passionem obtinere salutem . . . . cum autem nulla causa valeat nisi per ejus applicationem suum effectum assequi, nemo nisi per applicationem ejusdem passionis salutem consequitur.” p. 39. Douay, 1613.]

3

[Sess. vi. Decr. de Justif. c. 7. “Hujus justificationis causæ sunt; finalis quidem gloria Dei et Christi, ac vita æterna: efficiens vero, misericors Deus, qui gratuito abluit et sanctificat, signans et ungens Spiritu promissionis Sancto, qui est pignus hæreditatis nostræ: meritoria autem dilectissimus Unigenitus suus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui cum essemus inimici, propter nimiam caritatem, qua dilexit nos, sua sanctissima passione in ligno crucis nobis justificationem meruit, et pro nobis Deo Patri satisfecit: instrumentalis item sacramentum Baptismi, quod est sacramentum fidei, sine qua nulli unquam contigit justificatio.”]

1

[E. g. Dialog. de Justif. fol. 74, “ Hæret. Vos ergo negatis imputari vobis justitiam Christi? Cathol. Nova hæc verba sunt et vestra, quæ tamen si ad verum sensum trahantur, non gravaremur recipere. Sic enim imputatur nobis justitia Christi, ut per ejus meritum solvamur a præcedentibus delictis, et induamur nova vera justitia dono Dei superno, per quam vere justi efficiamur coram Deo.”]

2

“Nemo Catholicorum unquam sic docuit; sed credimus et profitemur Christum in cruce pro omnibus omnino peccatis satisfecisse, tam originalibus quam actualibus [*] .” Bellarm. Judic. de Lib. Concor. Mendac. 18. [†] [He is protesting against the following statement in the “Concordia” of the Lutherans, 1581. “Accessit opinio, quod Christus satisfecerit sua passione pro peccato originis: et instituerit Missam, in qua fieret oblatio pro quotidianis delictis mortalibus et venialibus.” This which seems meant to describe an ill effect of the Romish doctrine, Bellarmine understood as descriptive of the doctrine itself: and he stigmatizes it accordingly. “Impudenti mendacio tribuitur Catholicis doctoribus illa divisio, quod Christus passione sua satisfecerit solum pro peccato originis, pro actualibus autem instituerit Missam. Nemo enim Catholicorum,” c. Opp. t. vii. col. 604. Colon. 1617. The Dublin Copy of the Answer to Travers has here the following note: “Vide Bellarminum eodem capite, pag. 89. Ipse (opinor) secum in hac re pugnat.”]

*

Quotation om. D.

†

Robert Bellarius Judic. de Libr. Concor. D.

o

which om. D.

1

[Arist. Ethic. i. 2. ἕκαστος δὲ κρίνει καλω̑ς ἃ γινώσκει, καὶ τούτων ἐστὶν ἀγαθὸς κριτής.]

p

traduced D.

q

discovered and discoursed of B.

r

would be made B. would have E.F.

1

Calv. Inst. l. i. c. 16. sect. 9. [“Videmus, non temere in scholis inventas fuisse distinctiones, de necessitate secundum quid, et absoluta; item consequentis et consequentiæ.”]

s

harder sentences B. a harder D. if he wrote this in earnest B.

t

things I spoke D.

u

come D.

x

judgment E.F.

y

himself om. E.F.

1

In the Advertisements published in the seventh year of her Majesty’s reign: “If any Preacher, or Parson, Vicar, or Curate so licensed, shall fortune to preach any matter tending to dissension, or to derogation [*] of the religion and doctrine received, that the hearers denounce the same to the Ordinary, or the next Bishop of the same place, but not [†] openly to contrary or to impugn the same speech so disorderly uttered, whereby may grow offence and disquiet of the people, but shall be convinced and reproved by the Ordinary after such agreeable order as shall beseem [‡] to him, according to the gravity of the offence: and that it be presented within one month after the words spoken.” [This is found, with some verbal differences, in Strype, (Park. iii. 86.) as one of the Ordinances accorded by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the preamble states, that “ the Queen’s Majesty. . . hath by the assent of the metropolitan and with certain other her commissioners in causes ecclesiastical decreed certain Rules and Orders to be used, as hereafter followeth. . . .as constitutions mere ecclesiastical.” This preamble was afterwards altered, in consequence of the Queen’s sanction being refused through Leicester’s influence: “whereat the Archbishop was greatly displeased.” (Ibid. 314, 15.)]

*

the derogation D.

†

no man D. note om. B.

‡

be seen to E.F.

2

[Strype, Park. iii. 65. Queen Elizabeth addressed her letters to Archbishop Parker, dated Jan. 25, 1564, requiring him to confer with the bishops of his province on the best mode of repressing the disorders of nonconformists. Ibid. 313—20. “The Archbishop and some other bishops of the ecclesiastical commission proceeded to compile certain articles, . . . . which were printed with a preface this year 1564. . . . . and entitled Advertisements. .because the book wanted the Queen’s authority . . . so prevalent was that party in the council that disliked it. . .At length. . . these ecclesiastical rules recovered their first names of Articles and Ordinances.” See them in Sparrow’s Collection, p. 123.]

z

ymproving D.

a

discover first E.F.

b

willing D.

c

conceive F.

d

should E.B.

e

conceiveth D.

f

fact D.

g

cases D.

h

a secret D.B.

i

t E.F.

k

served D.

l

wherefore E.B.F.

m

his om. B.

n

by om. D.

o

speeches D.

p

whereon D.

q

to do D.

r

uncharitably D.

s

considerate advice E.F.

t

good om. D.

1

[v. Ecclus. xix. 11, 12.] 1886.

u

desired D.

x

hear D.B.

y

and heard D.

z

true om. E.

a

doth E.

2

[v. Petri Martyris Locorum Communium Cl. I. Cap. ii. §§ 11, 12. Cl. II. Cap. iii. §§ 9, 10. Ed. 1583.] 1886.

b

alwaie D.

c

setteth D.

d

in the deeps D.

e

how D.

f

to om. E.P.F.

1

[See before, App. to E. P. b. v. in vol. ii. 564-576.]

g

authors D.

h

heathens E.F.

i

sentences D.

k

it E.F.

l

make om. D.

m

to om. E.F.

n

a reason D. reasons E.F.

o

my E.F.

p

without F.

q

cannot E.F.

r

dark E.B.F.

s

many man’s E.F.

t

this D.

u

nousled E. nozled F.

x

as D.B.

y

so that this E.B.F.

z

the om. E.B.F.

1

[Sozom. i. 17; Theod. i. 11.] 1886.

a

the length E.

b

so great E.

1

[Collated with the first Edition, printed by Joseph Barnes, Oxford, 1612, 4to.] 1887.

a

Abac. 1612, F. 1622.

b

is, commonly vulgar and trivial. 1612, F. 1622.

c

happiness of om. D.

d

nurces, 1612, F. 1622.

e

ends 1612, E.F. 1622.

1

[Heb. xiii. 14.]

f

kam om. E. cam 1612, F. 1676.

2

[See Coriolanus, act iii. sc. 4.

Sicin. “This is clean kamme.”

Brut. “Merely awry.”]

g

to om. E. not F, or 1612.

h

also hath 1612, E.F. 1622.

i

shall 1612, E.F. 1622.

k

heathens E. not F.

1

Rom. [ii. 14, 15.]

l

mo 1612, moe F. 1622, more Keble (1676).

m

all in D.

n

habilitie 1612, D.F. 1622.

1

Rom. [ii. 14, 15.]

o

hability E.F. habilitie 1612, 1622.

p

their not E. not F.

q

om. not 1612, F. 1622.

r

thought 1612, F. 1622, 1676, v. p. 650.

s

those hideous 1612, E.F. 1622.

t

ougly 1612, F.

1

[Rev. ii. 19, 20.]

2

[Acts viii. 21.]

u

eminent 1612, E.F. 1622.

x

the 1612, E.F. 1622.

y

no stop after “by” 1612, F. 1622.

z

inevitable 1612, F. 1622.

a

ways 1612, D.F. 1622.

b

few men 1612,E.F. 1622.

c

most wretched 1612, E.F. 1622.

d

or D.

e

takes 1612, 1622.

f

except 1612, F. 1622.

g

excellencies E. excellencie F.

h

you D.

1

Luke xxii. [25, 26.]

1

[Matt. xx. 21.]

i

a full stop here, 1612, 1622.

k

fansifull 1612, fansiefull F. 1622.

2

Luke xxii. 28, [30.]

l

is no 1612, E.F. 1622.

m

are seemlier 1612, E.F. 1622.

n

callings E.F.

o

uglie F.

p

exempled D.

q

specially 1612, D.F. 1622.

r

percingly 1612, F.

1

[Ver. 13.]

s

Corah 1612, F. 1622.

t

mutinies, repining 1612, E.F. 1622.

u

in a 1612, E.F. 1622.

x

estate D. state 1612, F. 1622.

y

how that when 1612, E.F. 1622.

z

the om. 1612, F. 1622.

a

[appale 1612, F. 1622, 1676, v. p. 481.]

b

praise 1612, F. 1622.

c

harm by strife D.

d

the cause 1612, E.F. 1622.

e

and the 1612, E.F. 1622.

f

helps 1612, E.F. 1622.

g

which tend 1612, E.F. 1622.

1

[1 Cor. iv. 8.]

2

[Isai. i. 6.]

h

unrighteous D.

3

[“De meritis meis non præsumo . . . sæpe enim nostra justitia, ad examen divinæ justitiæ deducta, injustitia est; et sordet in districtione Judicis, quod in æstimatione fulget operantis.” Greg. Moral. in Job. 5. 21, 56 in Alulfus’ Compilation on 1 Cor. iv. 3.—Greg. Opp. iv. p. 817.] 1887.

i

the E.

k

habilitie D.

l

works 1612, F. 1622.

m

to a voluntary 1612, E.F. 1622.

1

Annot. Rhem. in 1 Cor. iii. [8. “Every one shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.” “A most plain proof that men by their labours, and by the diversities thereof, shall be diversely rewarded in heaven; and therefore that by their works proceeding of grace they do deserve or merit heaven, and the more or less joy in the same. For though the holy Scripture commonly use not this word merit, yet in places innumerable of the Old and New Testament the very true sense of merit is contained, and so often as the word merces, and the like be used, they be ever understood as correlatives, or correspondent unto it. For if the joy of heaven be retribution, repayment, hire, wages, for works, (as in infinite places of holy Scripture,) then the works can be no other but the value, desert, price, worth, and merit of the same. And indeed this word reward, which in our English tongue may signify a voluntary or bountiful gift, doth not so well express the nature of the Latin word, or the Greek, which are rather the very stipend that the hired workman or journeyman covenanteth to have of him whose work he doth, and is a thing equally and justly answering to the time and weight of his travels and works, (in which sense the Scripture saith, ‘Dignus est operarius mercede sua,’) rather than a free gift.”]

n

so 1612, E.F. 1622.

1

[Psalm cxix. 71.]

2

[2 Cor. xii. 7.]

o

happily 1612, D.

p

medicinalle D.

3

[De Civ. Dei, xiv. 13. “Audeo dicere, superbis esse utile cadere in aliquod apertum manifestumque peccatum, unde sibi displiceant, qui jam sibi placendo ceciderant. Salubrius enim Petrus sibi displicuit, quando flevit, quam sibi placuit, quando præsumsit.” t. vii. 366 B.

q

Christall 1612, F. Chrystall, 1622.

1

[“Hucusque excusum exemplar: sequentia in eo non habentur.” Note in MS. D. The ed. of 1618 (F.) stops here. Cp. vol. i. liii. So also the ed. of 1612.]

2

[Psalm xliv. 23-27.]

r

ever?

3

2 Cor. vi. 9.

1

Deut. xxx. 19.

2

Psalm xxxvi. 7.

3

John vi. [v. 26.]

1

Gal. iv. [19.]

1

Psalm xxxiv.

1

[Arist. Rhet. i. 9. δι’ ἣν τὰ αὑτω̑ν ἕκαστοι ἔχουσι, καὶ ὡς νόμος.]

1

[XII Tab. Fragm. ad calc. Cod. Justin. ed. Gothofred. tit. 27. p. 91. “Interfici indemnatum quemcunque hominem, etiam XII Tabularum decreta vetuerunt. Hæc Salvianus Episc. Massiliensis; 8. de Judicio et Providentia.”]

2

[Ibid. tit. 26. “Servius ad illos versus Virgilii 6 Æn. 609. ‘fraus innexa clienti;’ ‘Ex lege,’ inquit, ‘XII Tabularum venit, in quibus scriptum est, Patronus, c.’ ”]

3

Deut. xiii.

1

[Xenoph. Hist. Græc. lib. vi. The rest is a mere case put by Hooker for argument’s sake.]

1

Psalm cxv. 3.

2

Matth. xi. 25.

3

Ephes. i. 11.

1

Ephes. i. 6.

1

[“Soon or syne,” as Archdeacon Cotton has pointed out to the editor, is the Scottish expression for “soon or late.” See Jamieson’s Scottish Dictionary, voc. Syne. He quotes Baillie’s Letters, i. 355. “What I know I shall ever give you an account of soon or syne. ”]

2

Esay xxxviii.

3

Psalm lxxxvi.

4

Esay lxvi.

5

Jer. xxxi.

6

Hos. xiv.

1

Gen. xviii. 25.

1

1 Reg. iii. 14.

2

Ps. lv. 23.

1

Ps. xxv. 13.

2

Esai xxx. 23.

3

Deut. xxviii.

1

[Valerius Maximus, II. x. 7.] E. M.

1

[Heb. xi. 25.]

1

[Aulus Gellius, XII. xi. 7. “Alius quidam veterum poëtarum, cujus nomen mihi nunc memoriæ non est, Veritatem Temporis filiam esse dixit.”] E.M. qu. Bacon, N.O. i. 84.

2

[The reading of the MS. here is doubtful.]

3

[De Prov. qu. in Parsons, Christian Directory, c. ii. § 2.] E.M.

1

Psalm lxxiii.

1

[Vid. S. Tho. Aquin. 2 Summ. Theol. pars i. qu. 86. “De Macula Peccati;” et qu. 87. “De reatu pœnæ,” especially art. 6. respons.]

1

[S. Tho. Aquin. in 4. Sent. dist. xiv. qu. ii. art. 1; et dist. xviii. qu. i. art. 3. “Pœna est duplex; scil. exterminans hostes;—et talis pœna ex reconciliatione ipsa removetur:—alia pœna est quæ corrigit civem et filium, vel amicum, et debitum ejus potest remanere reconciliatione jam facta: et ideo simul cum peccatum remittitur quoad maculam, remittitur quoad pœnam æternam quæ est exterminans, sed non quoad pœnam temporalem quæ est corrigens.”]

2

[Id. dist. xx. qu. i. art. 3. “Quidam dicunt, quod indulgentiæ non valent ad absolvendum a reatu pœnæ, quam quis in purgatorio secundum judicium Dei meretur, sed valent ad absolutionem ab obligatione, qua sacerdos obligavit pœnitentem ad pœnam aliquam, vel ad quam etiam ordinatur ex canonum statutis. Sed hæc opinio videtur non vera . . . quia . . . Ecclesia hujusmodi indulgentias largiens seu dans magis damnificaret quam adjuvaret, quia remitteret ad graviores pœnas, scil. purgatorii, absolvendo a pœnitentiis injunctis.” et dist. xxi. qu. i. art. 1.]

3

1 Cor. xi.

1

[S. Tho. Aquin. in 4 Sent. d. xxi. qu. i. art. 1. “Ad tertiam quæstionem dicendum, quod in purgatorio erit duplex pœna. Una damni, in quantum sc. retardantur a divina visione: alia sensus, secundum quod ab igne corporali punientur; et quantum ad utrumque pœna purgatorii minima excedit maximam pœnam hujus vitæ.”]

2

[Ibid. “Sancti Patres ante adventum Christi fuerunt in loco digniori quam sit locus in quo purgantur animæ post mortem, quia non erat ibi aliqua pœna sensibilis: sed locus ille erat conjunctus inferno, vel idem quod infernus, alias Christus ad limbum descendens non diceretur ad inferos descendisse: ergo et purgatorium est in eodem loco, vel juxta infernum.”]

3

[The words “pœnam damni” are changed into “predestination,” in an old transcript of this sermon: Library, Trin. Coll. Dubl. (MS. B. I. 13). Contractions, in some measure, account for the mistake. So Mr. Gibbings informs the Editor.]

1

[Ibid. “De loco purgatorii non invenitur aliquid expresse determinatum in scriptura, nec rationes possunt ad hoc efficaces induci: tamen probabiliter et secundum quod consonat magis sanctorum dictis, et revelationi factæ multis, locus purgatorii est duplex . . Secundum legem communem locus purgatorii est locus inferior inferno conjunctus, ita quod idem ignis sit qui damnatos cruciat in inferno, et qui justos in purgatorio purgat, quamvis damnati secundum quod sunt inferiores merito, et loco inferiores ordinandi sunt. Alius est locus purgatorii secundum dispensationem, et sic quandoque in diversis locis puniti leguntur, vel ad vivorum instructionem, vel ad mortuorum subventionem, ut viventibus eorum pœna innotescens, per suffragia ecclesiæ mitigaretur.”]

2

[Ibid. art. 3. “Culpa venialis in eo qui cum gratia decedit, post hanc vitam dimittitur per ignem purgatorium, quia pœna illa aliqualiter voluntaria virtute gratiæ habebit vim expiandi culpam omnem quæ simul cum gratia stare potest.”]

1

[At this point unfortunately the Dublin MS. of this sermon breaks off: and no other copy has been found to supply the deficiency. On a leaf at the end of it is written, apparently by three different scribes:

“Abacuc 2. 4.”

“The first part printed: The rest not.”

“Mr. Hooker, in his own hand.”]

1

[Luke xxiii. 28.]

1

Psalm lxxiii. 3.

2

[Isa. xlviii. 22.]

3

Eccles. vi. 2.

1

[Job xx. 16.]

2

[“To” omitted Ed. [1618, and] 1622: which has been collated with the first edition, as having possibly been inspected by H. Jackson.]

1

[An allusion doubtless to the strewing of rushes along the passages leading to banqueting rooms. See (e. g.) Taming of the Shrew, act iv. sc. 1. “Is supper ready, the house trimmed, rushes strewed . . . the carpets laid, and every thing in order?”]

1

[Num. xxiii. 10.]

1

[Rev. xiv. 13.]

2

[There seems to be a mistake in this reference: the only scriptural passage corresponding to it being Ecclesiasticus xxi. 2.]

3

[“Add” in the editions of 1612, 1618, 1622.]

1

[“thought” cp. p. 601, ed. 1618, 1622.]

2

[Dan. v. 6.]

3

[“The twenty-one (21.) of the Revelation.” ed. 1622 and 1618.]

4

Heb. v. 7.

1

[Babylonians 1618.]

2

[the om. 1618.]

3

Rev. xviii. 7.

4

[Psalm lxxxviii. 15.]

5

[Psalm ix. 20.]

6

[“hath” edit. 1612; “have” edit. 1618.]

1

[Matt. xxvi. 39.]

2

[Job xiii. 15.]

3

[2 Tim. i. 12.]

4

[Prov. xxii. 3.]

5

Isa. xxvi. 20.

1

Lib. iv. c. 6. de Doct. Chr. [“Audeo dicere, omnes qui recte intelligunt quod illi loquuntur, simul intelligere non eos aliter loqui debuisse.” iii. 67. The rest of the sentence (though printed by Jackson as a quotation) does not appear in St. Augustine.]

a

Castellio his, 1614, 1618, 1622.

2

[In his translation, published at Basle, 1546, and severely censured by Beza in the notes to his own version of the New Testament, 1556, for sacrificing accuracy and propriety to grammatical purity.]

b

Alphonsus X, 1614.

3

Rod. Tolet. lib. iv. c. 5. [ap. Script. Rer. Hispan. t. i. p. 377. Francof. 1579.]

1

2 Pet. i. 19.

2

Præf. in Orat. D. Rainold.

3

Parsons in 3 Convers. [“The third part of a Treatise entitled, ‘of Three Conversions of England;’ containing an Examen of the Calendar or Catalogue of Protestant Saints, Martyrs and Confessors, devised by Fox, and prefixed before his huge volume of Acts and Monuments; with a parallel or comparison thereof to the Catholic Roman Calendar, and Saints therein contained. The last six months.” 1604. p. 215.]

c

using of, 1614, 1618, 1622.

4

Mal. ii. 7.

5

Canus, Locor. lib. xi. c. 6. [“Nec ego . . . auctorem excuso . . . historiæ ejus, quæ Legenda Aurea nominatur . . . Hanc homo scripsit ferrei oris, plumbei cordis, animi certe parum severi ac prudentis.” p. 658. Lovan. 1569.] Vives, lib. ii. de corrupt. Art. [De Causis corruptarum Artium, ii. t. i. 371. Opera, Basil. 1555. “Quam indigna est divis et hominibus Christianis illa Sanctorum historia, quæ Legenda Aurea nominatur, c.”] Hard. lib. iv. [“A Detection of sundry foul Errors, Lies, Slanders, c. uttered and practised by M. Jewel, in ‘A Defence of the Apology,’ c. By Tho. Harding, D.D. Lovan. 1568.” b. 4. fol. 251. “There is an old moth-eaten book, wherein saints’ lives are said to be contained. Sometimes it is called Legenda Aurea, sometimes Speculum Sanctorum, c. . . . It shall not greatly skill who was the author of it: certain it is that among some true stories there be many vain fables written.”]

d

M . 1614.

1

Pag. 1903. edit. 1570. [p. 1731. ed. 1583.]

2

In the third part of the Three Conversions of England: in the Examination of Fox’s Saints, c. 14. sect. 53, 54. p. 215.

3

Sect. 55.

4

Plutarch. in Demosthen. [c. 23.]

5

Liv. Dec. i. lib. ii. an. U. C. 60. [c. 32.]

1

1 Tim. ii. 8.

2

Annal. tom. i. an. 57. n. 109, 110. et tom. ii. an. 132. n. 5.

3

“S. Paulus de sua salute incertus;” Richeom. Jesuit. lib. ii.c. 12. Idololat. Huguenot. p. 119. in Marg. edit. Lat. Mogunt. 1613. interpret. Marcel. Bomper. Jesuita. [“S. Paul craint de n’estre pas sauvé.” Œuvres du R. Pere Louis Richeome, Provençale Religieux de la Compagnie de Jesus. Paris, 1628. t. i. p. 627.]

4

Witness the verses of Horatius, a Jesuit, recited by Possev. Biblioth. Select. part. 2. lib. xvii. c. 19. [27. p. 449. Colon. 1607.]

- Exue Franciscum tunica laceroque cucullo:

- Qui Franciscus erat, jam tibi Christus erit.

- Francisci exuviis (si qua licet) indue Christum:

- Jam Franciscus erit, qui modo Christus erat.

[Horatius Torsellinus was the author of this epigram: which is entitled, “De S. Francisci Stigmatibus;” and concludes with the following couplet:

- “Quid cœlestis amor non audes? fingis amantes

- Arte nova, effigies ut sit amantis amans.”]

The like hath Bencius, another Jesuit. [Francisci Bencii, e soc. Jesu, Carm. lib. iv. 25. Ad Effigiem S. Francisci.

- “Tene ego Francisce aspicio vel Christe? tabella

- Una tuam effigiem reddit, et una tuam.

- Quod si Francisci, nostræ monumenta salutis

- Vulnera cur palmas, corda, pedesque premunt?

- Si Christus; quid vult onerosa lacerna, nec altam

- Dulce crucem pondus pendula membra gravant?

- Induit, ut video, Christi Franciscus, et ille

- Francisci vultus: alter utrumque refert.

- Quid non mortales cogat divinus? in unum,

- Non animos tantum, corpora conflat amor.”

- P. 203. Ingoldstadt. 1599.]

1

[2 Cor. v. 1.]

1

[Collated, not with the first edition of 1613, which the editor has not been able to obtain a sight of, but with that of 1622.] (Now collated with the first edition, in which the Dedication bears the date Jan. 13 1613, and the title-page the date 1614: and also with the edition of 1618.) 1887.

2

[ so 1614 and 1618. “occasions” ed. 1622.]

a

enimies, 1614.

1

[Ver. 18, 19.]

2

[2 Pet. i. 19, 20.]

1

Job xv. 2, 3.

2

Wisd. ix. 6.

3

[Job xlii. 3.]

4

[2 Macc. xv. 38.]

5

Isa. xlix. 3.

6

[1 Cor. ii. 12, 13.]

1

Ezek. iii. 2, 3.

b

eate, 1614.

2

[Ezek. iii. 14.]

3

[Rom. i. 16.]

4

[Matt. xxvii. 46.]

1

[Luke x. 16.]

2

James ii. 2.

3

Acts xii. 22; [xvii. 18.]

4

James ii. 5.

1

[De Trin. ii. 12. 795. ed. Bened. “Superest de inenarrabili generatione Filii adhuc aliquid, imo aliquid illud adhuc totum est. Æstuo, differor, hebesco, et unde incipiam nescio . . . Quem imprecer? quem implorem? ex quibus libris ad tantarum difficultatum enarrationem verba præsumam? Evolvam omnem Græciæ scholam? Sed legi, Ubi sapiens? ubi conquisitor sæculi? In hoc ergo sophistæ mundi et sapientes muti sunt, sapientiam enim Dei reprobaverunt. Scribam ergo legis consulam? Sed ignorat; quia ei crux Christi scandalum est. Hortabor forte vos connivere et tacere, quia ad venerationem satis sit ejus qui prædicatur, leprosos emundatos fuisse, surdos audisse, claudos cucurrisse, paralyticos constitisse, cæcos lumen recepisse, cæcum ab utero oculos consecutum, dæmonas fugatos, ægrotos revaluisse, mortuos vixisse? Sed hæc hæretici confitentur, et pereunt.” § 13. “Expectate itaque nihil minus claudorum cursu, cæcorum visu, fuga dæmonum, vita mortuorum. Consistit enim mecum, in patrocinium editarum superius difficultatum, piscator egens, ignotus, indoctus, manibus lino occupatus, veste uvida, pedibus limo oblitus, totus e navi. Quærite et intelligite, utrum mirabilius fuerit mortuos excitasse, an imperito scientiam doctrinæ istius intimasse. Ait enim, In principio erat Verbum. ”]

c

Solomon, 1614.

d

ear, 1614, 1618.

1

[So in “The Device for Alteration of Religion, in the first year of Queen Elizabeth,” ap. Strype, A. i. 2. p. 394. Oxford, 1824. “A cloaked papistry, or a mingle mangle.” And in a Letter of certain Puritans to the Bp. of Norwich, (Parkhurst) A. ii. 2. p. 455. “You think God may be served with a mingle-mangle.”]

2

[S. Jerome, Adv. Helvid. c. 19. v. supra, p. 501.]. E. M.

1

[In Ps. cxxxii. Col. 463. ed. Ben.] E. M.

1

[E. P. V. lxxvii. 3. “They which have once received this power may not think to put it off and on like a cloak as the weather serveth. ”]

2

[Gen. xxi. 12.]

1

[Job xxxviii. 11.]

2

[Acts ii. 37.]

3

[Acts xxvi. 28.]

4

[Rom. x. 2.]

5

Acts xvii. 22.

e

staid, 1614.

1

[1 John ii. 19.]

2

[So 1614, 1618: “hath” ed. 1622.]

1

[1 John iii. 14.]

2

[2 Cor. xiii. 5.]

f

enimies, 1614.

3

Coloss. i. 21-23.

4

Ver. 24.

g

wained, 1614, 1618: weyned, 1622.

h

Solomon, 1614.

5

[Job xxi. 11.]

1

[Psal. cxix. 14.]

2

[John vi. 33.]

3

[Rev. xv. 2, 3.]

4

[Ver. 39.]

5

[Gal. iv. 6.]

6

[John xvii. 25, 26.]

1

[There are but two dates from which these twenty-four years may be reckoned: the accession of Queen Elizabeth, 1558, or the publication of the bull of Pius V. against her, 1570. This sentence was therefore probably written either in 1582 or 1594. The latter date is perhaps the preferable one, as a book is afterwards quoted which was published in 1583. See note 4. p. 677.]

2

Acts xxiv. 14.

3

Rev. xviii. 4.

4

2 Chron. xiii. 5.

i

Solomon, 1614.

5

Cant. viii. 11.

1

Acts xx. 28.

2

[John xxi. 22, 23.]

3

Matt. xvi. 18.

k

Solomon, 1614.

l

Jeroboam, 1614 1618.

1

[Luke xxii. 25, 26.]

2

Conc. de Lector. Cardin. [de Electione Cardinalium: e. g. Constant. AD 1418. Sess. xliii. t. viii. 876. “De numero et qualitate dominorum Cardinalium. . . . . Sint viri in scientia, moribus et rerum experientia excellentes: doctores in theologia, aut in jure canonico vel civili: præter admodum paucos, qui de stirpe regia, aut ducali, aut magni principis oriundi exsistant, in quibus competens literatura sufficiat.” Comp. Conc. Basil. 1436. Sess. xxiii. § 4. t. viii. 1207.]

m

cousenage, 1614; coozenage, 1618, 1622.

3

Laurent. Surius Com. de reb. gest. a Pio V. [“Commentarius brevis rerum in orbe gestarum ab AD 1500 usque ad AD 1574.” Colon. 1574. p. 486. “Est Romæ Academia, quam vulgo Sapientiam vocant. Ea jam collapsa erat, et ejus liberales annuos proventus quidam sibi vindicarant. At Pontifex eos jussit restitui, ut iis alantur scientiarum omnium egregii professores.”]

4

[Ibid. p. 485. “Impudicas mulieres, publico proposito edicto, ab urbe expelli jussit. Erant tum Romanorum plerique qui se vehementer opponerent, dicerentque si meretrices ab urbe excluderentur magnum id Reip. annui quæstus dispendium allaturum. Pontifex tandem ita eis silentium imposuit, ut asseveraret se cum tota curia sua alio migraturum, nisi illa hominum fæx profligaretur. Ita illæ coactæ sunt discedere, interim tamen nonnullæ in vicis ignobilibus ob pejora vitanda relictæ sunt, cum prius in viis publicis et splendidis ædibus magno numero habitarant.” P. 486. “Meretricibus, quas in unum urbis angulum rejecit, severiter præcepit, ne per urbem vagentur: contra facientes jussit publice flagellari. Duo vero aut tria designavit templa, quæ sacrificii et concionis auscultandæ causa petant. Ex iis pleræque nupserunt, aliæ complures cupiunt, honesta reperta conditione, ex ea se turpitudine extrahere; nec Pontifex se defuturum illis dixit, quas paupertas a sectanda pietate remoraretur. Eas autem, quæ sine sacramentis in iis sordibus decederent, in sterquiliniis vult sepeliri, quod multis calcar addat ad meditandam resipiscentiam.”] Francisc. Sansovin. de Gubern. Regnor. et Rerumpubl. t. xi. [xii.] cap. de Jud. Marescal. et Soldan. [“Del Governo et Amministratione di diversi Regni,” c. Vinegia. 1583, fol. 89. “Le meretrici della città pagano ogni anno un certo censo che essi chiamano tributo.”]

n

he, 1614, 1618.

1

2 Chr. xiii. 8, 9.

o

ougly, 1614, 1618, 1622.

p

have, 1614.

1

[Bulla Pii V. 26 Apr. 1570. “Missæ sacrificium, preces, jejunia, ciborum delectum, cælibatum, ritusque Catholicos abolevit.” ap. Cherubini, Bullarium. tit. ii. 229. Rom. 1638.]

2

[Strype, Park. ii. 392. “Anno 1574. popish books imported. Motives to the Catholic Faith by Richard Bristow, Priest, Licentiate in Divinity. Imprinted at Antwerp 1574.” Ann. II. i. 498. A book of great vogue with the papists, which Dr. Fulk of Cambridge now answered in a treatise called The Retentive. In the year 1599 it was published again at Antwerp. And again the next year, 1600, one Dr. Hill put it forth at Antwerp, entitled then ‘Reasons for the Catholic Religion,’ . . . as a new book of his own . . . which was fully and learnedly answered by Geo. Abbot, D.D., Master of University College, Oxford, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury. And in our time came out Bristow’s Motives again, with a new name, viz. The Touchstone of the new Gospel: which Dr. Simon Patrick, afterwards bishop of Ely, briefly and effectually answered.” The title of Bristow’s book is, “A brief treatise of divers plain and sure ways to find out the truth in this doubtful and dangerous time of heresy, containing sundry Motives unto the Catholic Faith: or, Considerations to move a man to believe the Catholics, and not the heretics.” He was born at Worcester, and bred in Oxford, where he was made Petreian Fellow of Exeter College, 1567. Two years afterwards he conformed to the church of Rome and went over to Douay, where and at Rheims he read lectures in divinity; and died in England, 1582. Wood, Ath. Oxon. i. 482; who adds, that “he collected, and for the most part wrote, the notes to the Rhemish Testament.”]

3

[Motives to the Catholic Faith, fol. 151, ed. 1599. This book has prefixed the testimony of Cardinal Allen, “that it is in all points catholic, learned, and worthy to be read and printed.”

1

2 Chron. xiii. 10, 11.

2

2 Chron. xiii. 12.

a

loath, 1614.

1

[Psal. cv. 15; Rev. vii. 3.]

2

[Ver. 13, 14.]

3

[Ver. 10, 11.]

4

[Ver. 10, 11, 13.]

1

Gen. vi. 3, 13; ver. 8, 18.

2

Gen. xix. 12.

3

Ver. 15.

4

Ver. 16.

5

Ver. 18-20.

1

Ver. 21, 22.

b

om. of, 1614.

2

[Ver. 31, 34.]

3

[Ver. 35.]

1

Matt. vi. 20; 1 Tim. ii. 9, 10.

2

[“shamefacedness,” Keble, but not the early edd. Cf. Spenser, F. Q. v. iii. 23, and Skeat’s Etym. Dict.]

3

[De Cult. Fœmin. ad fin. p. 161. Paris, 1664.]

c

civit, 1614, 1618, 1622.

4

[vii. 6.]

d

om. the, 1614.

e

Solomon, 1614.

5

[Luke x. 41, 42.]

1

[2 Cor. vi. 16.]

2

[John xiv. 23.]

f

lay, 1614.

3

[“setled,” 1614, 1622: “settled,” 1618.]

4

[“times,” 1614, 1618, 1622.]

1

[“We profess ourselves to have a due comfort, if truely; and if in hypocrisy, then woe worth us. Therefore ere, c.” Edit. 1622, not 1618. “We profess ourselves to have; a due comfort, if truly, and if in hypocrisy, then woe worth us. Therefore ere,” c. 1614.]

2

Lam. ii. 13.

g

name-sake, 1614.

1

[1 Pet. iii. 7.]

h

et passim, Sampson, 1614.

2

Ephes. ii. 19-22.

3

[1 John iv. 15.]

i

enimie, 1614.

1

1 John v. 4, 5.

2

Matt. vii. 25.

3

[Ver. 4.]

k

him, 1614, 1618, 1622.

l

reverent, trembling, 1614.

4

Rom. xi. 18.

1

1 John v. 12.

2

[Heb. xi. 33, 34.]

3

[Heb. xi. 6.]

4

John vi. 28, 29.

1

[Psalm lxxx. 8-11.]

2

Psalm lxix. 22, 23; Rom. xi. 9, 10.

m

sithens, 1614, 1618, 1622.

3

Psalm lxxx. 14.

4

Rom. xi. 20, 22.

1

Hosea i. 9. “not my people.”

2

Verse 6. “not obtaining mercy.”

3

Rom. xi. 21.

1

[De Pudicitia, c. xxii. “Sufficiat martyri propria delicta purgasse.” p. 575.]

2

[“ Safe-conducting the rebels from their ships.” Richard III. iv. 4. 483.]

1

[Psalm xxxii. 1.]

n

Solomon, 1614.

2

[Rom. ix. 31-33.]

1

[Phil. iii. 8, 9.]

1

[1 Pet. v. 2.]

o

So 1614;thorow, 1618, 1622.

p

so 1622: eternall, 1614, 1618.

1

[Hosea iv. 17.]

2

Careless [margin, early edd.].

q

loathsome, 1614.

1

Amos viii. 11, 12.

2

1 Pet. iv. 17.

3

[noondays Ed. 1614, 1618, 1622.]

4

[“in middest” 1614, 1618, 1622.]

5

[Hagg. ii. 2, 3.]

6

[The ed. 1614 puts no stop; 1618 and 1622 put a comma after “nothing.”]

1

[Edd. 1614, 1618, 1622 put a full stop at “gone.”]

2

[That is, “to reprove such as gainsaid the truth.”]

r

Niniveh, 1614, 1618, 1622.

3

[Moral. in Job. lib. xxv. § 34; t. i. 807. A. ed. Bened.]

4

Jer. iii. 14, 15.

1

[Psalm cxlvii. 9.]

1

Psalm xxii. 9.

2

Psalm l. 15.

3

Prov. xxiii. 26.

1

[2 Cor. ix. 7.]

2

Luke xviii. 10-14.

1

Matt. xx. 23.

2

Matt. xix. 16, 17.

3

2 Tim. iii. 7.

4

ii. 37.

1

iii. 1.

1

Gen. xlix. 14, 15.

1

John i. 29.

2

Psalm cxvi. 4-8.

1

John xxi. 22.

2

Habak. i. 46.

3

[In Cantica, Serm. lxxxiv. 2.] 1887.

4

Rom. xi. 33.

1

Mark vi. 23; Esther vii. 2.

2

John xvi. 23.

3

James iv. 3.

4

Isa. lv. 6.

5

Psalm xxi. 3, 4.

1

James i. 5.

Table of Contents

About Liberty Fund

About The Online Library of Liberty

Copyright and Fair Use

OF THE LAWS OF ECCLESIASTICAL POLITY.

BOOK VI.: CONTAINING THEIR FIFTH ASSERTION, WHICH ISa, THAT OUR LAWS ARE CORRUPT AND REPUGNANT TO THE LAWS OF GOD, IN MATTER BELONGING TO THE POWER OF ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION, IN THAT WE HAVE NOT THROUGHOUT ALL CHURCHES CERTAIN LAY-ELDERS ESTABLISHED FOR THE EXERCISE OF THAT POWER1.

APPENDIX TO BOOK VI. [Notes by George Cranmer and Edwin Sandys, on B. VI. as sent to them in MS.1]

THE SIXT BOOKE. Edwin Sandys1.

BOOK VII.: THEIR SIXTH ASSERTION, THAT THERE OUGHT NOT TO BE IN THE CHURCH, BISHOPS ENDUED WITH SUCH AUTHORITY AND HONOUR AS OURS ARE.

BOOK VIII.*: aTHEIR SEVENTH ASSERTION, THAT UNTOb NO CIVIL PRINCE OR GOVERNOR THERE MAY BE GIVEN SUCH POWER OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOMINION AS BY THE LAWS OF THIS LAND BELONGETH UNTO THE SUPREME REGENT THEREOF.

APPENDIX, No. I. [Supposed Fragment of a Sermon on Civil Obedience, hitherto printed as part of the Eighth Book.]

APPENDIX, No. II. A Discovery of the Causes of the Continuance of these Contentions concerning Church Government, out of the Fragments of Richard Hooker2.

APPENDIX, No. III.

APPENDIX, No. IV.

A LEARNED AND COMFORTABLE SERMON OF THE CERTAINTY AND PERPETUITY OF FAITH IN THE ELECT. ESPECIALLY OF THE PROPHET HABAKKUK’S FAITH1.

Habak. i. 4.

TO THE CHRISTIAN READER1.

A LEARNED DISCOURSE OF JUSTIFICATION, WORKS, AND HOW THE FOUNDATION OF FAITH IS OVERTHROWN1.

Habak. i. 4.

A SUPPLICATION MADE TO THE COUNCIL

MR. HOOKER’S ANSWER TO THE SUPPLICATION THAT MR. TRAVERS MADE TO THE COUNCIL.

A LEARNED SERMON OF THE NATURE OF PRIDE1.

Habak.a ii. 4.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

A REMEDY AGAINST SORROW AND FEAR: DELIVERED IN A FUNERAL SERMON.

John xiv. 27.

DEDICATION PREFIXED TO THE FIRST EDITION OF TWO SERMONS ON PART OF ST. JUDE.

To the Worshipful M. George Summaster, Principal of Broad-Gates Hall, in Oxford, Henry Jackson wisheth all happiness.

TWO SERMONS UPON PART OF ST. JUDE’S EPISTLE1.

SERMON I.

THE SECOND SERMON.

Epist. Jude, vers. 17-21.

A SERMON, FOUND AMONG THE PAPERS OF BISHOP ANDREWS.

Matth. vii. 7, 8.

GENERAL INDEX OF TEXTS.

APOCRYPHA.

GLOSSARY. Incorporating Mr. Furnivall’s Glossary.

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.

J.

K.

L.

M.

N.

O.

P.

Q.

R.

S.

T.

U.

V.

W.