in such a case would give the Prince authority, call him inwardly, and illuminate him or some of his, as he did St. Paul."

Question 14.

Whether it be forefended by God's Law, that (if it so fortune that all the Bishops and Priests of a Region were dead, and that the Word of God should remain there unpreached, and the Sacrament of Baptism, and others unministered) that the King of that Region should make Bishops and Priests to supply the same, or no?

Answers.

It is not forbidden by God's Law. - Canterbury.

To the fourteenth; In this case, as we have said in the next Articles afore, Teaching of the Word of God may be used by any that can and would use it, to the Glory of God; and in this case also the Sacrament of Baptism may be ministered by those that be no Priests; which things although we have not of Scripture, yet the universal Tradition and practice of the Church, doth teach us: And peradventure contract of Matrimony might also be made, the Solemnization thereof being only ordained by Law positive, and not by any ground, either of Scripture, or of Tradition; although for very urgent causes, the said Solemnization is to be observed when it may be observed; but that the Princes may not Make, that is, may not Order Priests nor Bishops not before ordered to minister the other Sacraments, the ministry whereof in Scripture is committed only to the Apostles, and from them derived to their Successors, even from the Primitive Church hitherto, and by none other used, we have answered in the thirteenth Article.-York.

Ut supra, Quæst. 13.-London.

Ut supra, Quæst. 13.-Rochester.

Not only it is given of God to Supream Governours, Kings, and Princes immediate under them, to see cause, and compel all their Subjects, Bishops, Priests, with all others, to do truly and uprightly their bounden Duties to God, and to them, each one according to his Calling: but also if it were so, that anywhere such lacked to do and fulfil that God would have done, right well they might, by the inward moving and calling of God, to supply the same. Carlile.

Huic Quæstioni idem Respondendum, quod priori, arbitror.Dr. Robertson.

Ut supra, Quæst. 13. - Dr. Cox.

To this case, as to the first, I answer; That if there could no Bishops be had to order new Priests there, by the Princes assignation and appointment; then the Prince himself might ordain and constitute, with the consent of the Congregation, both Priests and Ministers, to Preach and Baptize, and to do other Functions in the Church. - Dr. Day.

Si ab aliis Regionibus Sacerdotes haberi non poterint, opinor ipsum Principem deputare posse etiam Laicos ad hoc Sacrum Officium; sed omnia prius tentanda essent, ut supra. -Dr. Oglethorpe.

To this, I think, may be answered, as to the last Question before; howbeit the surest way, I think, were to send for some Ministers of the Church dwelling in the next Regions, if they might be conveniently had. - Dr. Red

mayn.

Likewise as to the next Question afore. Dr. Edgworth. If the King be also a Bishop, as it is possible, he may appoint Bishops and Priests to minister to his People: but hitherto I have not read that ever any Christian King made Bishop or Priest.-Dr. Symmonds.

1 make the same answer, as to the 13th Question is made. -Dr. Tresham.

To the fourteenth; I suppose the Affirmative to be true,* in case that there can no Bishops nor Priests be had forth of other Countries, conveniently. Dr. Leighton.

In this case I make answer as before, That God will never suffer his Servants to lack that thing that is necessary: for there should, either from other parts, Priests and Bishops be called thither, or else God would call inwardly some of them that be in that Region to be Bishops and Priests.-Dr. Coren.

CON.-Fatentur ut prius omnes, Laicos posse Docere. Eboracens. Symmons, Oglethorp negant posse Ordinare Presbyteros, tamen concedit Eboracens. baptizare et contrahere Matrimonia, Edgworth tantum baptizare posse; nam sufficere dicit ad salutem. Alii omnes eandem potestatem concedunt, quam prius. Roffens, non aliud respondet his duabus Quæstionibus, quam quod necessitas non habeat Legem.

AGREEMENT. In the fourteenth they agree for the most part as they did before, That Laymen in this case may teach and minister the Sacraments.' My Lord of York, Dr. Symmons, and Oglethorp say, "They can make no Priests, altho Symmons said they might minister all Sacraments, in

the Question before." Yet my Lord of York, and Edgworth, do grant, That "they may Christen." The Bishops of London, Rochester, and Dr. Crayford, say, That “in such a Necessitas non habet Legem."

case,

Question 15.

Whether a Man is bound by Authority of this Scripture, (Quorum Remiseritis) and such-like, to confess his secret deadly sins to a Priest, if he may have him, or no?

Answers.

A man is not bound, by the authority of this Scripture, Quorum Remiseritis, and such like, to confess his secret deadly Sins to a Priest, although he may have him. - Canterbury.

To the fifteenth; This Scripture is indifferent to secret and open Sin; nor the authority given in the same is appointed or limited, either to the one, or to the other, but is given commonly to both: And therefore seeing that the Sinner is in no other place of Scripture discharged of the confession of his secret Sins, we think, that this place chargeth him to confess the secret Sins, as well as the open. York.

To the fifteenth; I think, that as the Sinner is bound by this authority to confess his open sins, so also is he bound to confess his secret sins, because the special end, to wit, Absolutionem a peccato cujus fecit se servum, is all one in both cases: And that all sins as touching God are open, and in no wise secret or hid.- London.

I think that confession of secret deadly sins is necessary for to attain absolution of them; but whether every Man that hath secretly committed deadly sin, is bound by these words to ask Absolution of the Priest therefore, it is an hard Question, and of much controversy amongst learned Men, and I am not able to define betwixt them; but I think it is the surest way, to say that a Man is bound to Confess, &c.— Rochester.

I think that by the mind of most ancient Authors, and most holy Expositors, this Text, Quorum Remisertis peccata, &c. with other-like, serveth well to this intent; That Christian Folk should confess their secret deadly sins to a Priest, there to be assoiled, without which mean, there can be none other like Assurance.-Carlile.

Opinor obligare, modo aliter conscientiæ illius satisfieri nequeat. Dr. Robertson.

I cannot find that a Man is bound by Scripture to confess his secret deadly sins to a Priest, unless he be so troubled in

his Conscience, that he cannot be quieted without godly Instruction.-Dr. Cox.

The Matter being in controversy among learned Men, and very doubtful, yet I think rather the truth is, That by authority of this Scripture, Quorum Remiseritis, &c. and such-like, a Man is bound to confess his secret deadly sins, which grieve his Conscience, to a Priest, if he may conveniently have him. Forasmuch as it is an ordinary way ordained by Christ in the Gospel, by Absolution to remit sins; which Absolution I never read to be given, sine Confessione prævia. - Dr. Day.

Confitenda sunt opinor, etiam peccata abdita ac secreta propter Absolutionem ac conscientiæ tranquillitatem, et præcique pro vitanda desperatione, ad quam plerumq; adiguntur multi in extremis, dum sibi ipsis de remissione peccatorum nimium blandiuntur, nullius (dum sani sunt) censuram subeuntes nisi propriam.-Dr. Oglethorpe.

I think, that altho in these words Confession of privy Sins is not expressly commanded; yet it is insinuated and shewed in these words, as a necessary Medicine or Remedy, which all men that fall into deadly sin ought, for the quieting of their Consciences seek, if they may conveniently have such a Priest as is meet to hear their Confession. Dr. Redmayn.

Where there be two ways to obtain remission of Sin, and to recover Grace, a Man is bound by the Law of Nature to take the surer way, or else he should seem to contemn his own Health, which is unnatural. Also because we be bound to love God above all things, we ought by the same Bond to labour for his Grace and Favour: So that because we be bound to love God, and to love our selves in an Order to God, we be bound to seek the best and surest Remedy to recover Grace for our selves. Contrition is one way; but because a Man cannot be well assured, whether his Contrition, Attrition, or Displeasure for his sin be sufficient to satisfie or content Almighty God, and able or worthy to get his Grace: Therefore it is necessary to take that way that will not fail, and by which thou mayest be sure, and that is Absolution of the Priest, which by Christ's promise will not deceive thee, so that thou put no step or bar in the way: as, if thou do not then actually sin inwardly nor outwardly, but intend to receive that the Church intendeth to give thee by that Absolution, having the efficacity of Christ's promise, Quorum Remiseritis, &c. Now the Priest can give thee no absolution from that sin that he knoweth not: therefore thou art bound, for the causes aforesaid, to confess thy sin. Dr. Edgeworth.

This Scripture, as Ancient Doctors expound it, bindeth all Men to confess their secret deadly sins. Dr. Symmons.

I say, That such confession is a thing most consonant to the Law of God, and it is a wise point, and a wholsome thing so for to do, and God provoketh and allureth us thereto, in giving the active Power to Priests to assoil in the words, Quorum Remiseritis. It is also a safer way for Salvation to confess, if we may have a Priest: Yet I think that confession is not necessarily deduced of Scripture, nor commanded as a necessary precept of Scripture, and yet is it much consonant to the Law of God, as a thing willed, not commanded. Dr. Tresham.

To the fifteenth; I think that only such as have not the knowledg of the Scripture, whereby they may quiet their Consciences, be bound to confess their secret deadly sins unto a Priest: Howbeit no man ought to condemn such Auricular Confession, for I suppose it to be a Tradition Apostolical, necessary for the unlearned Multitude. - Dr. Leighton.

A Man whose Conscience is grieved with mortal secret sins, is bound by these words, Quorum Remiseritis, &c. to confess his sin to a Priest, if he may have him conveniently. - Dr. Coren.

CON.-Eboracens. Londinens. Dayus, Oglethorpus, Coren, Redmayn, asserunt obligari. Coxus,Tresham, et Robertsonus dicunt non obligari, si aliter Conscientiæ illorum satisfieri queat; Menevens. nullo modo obligari. Carliolens. et Symmons aiunt, secundum veterum interpretationem, hac Scriptura quemvis obligari peccatorem. Roffens. Herefordens, et Thirleby non respondent, sed dubitant. Leightonus solum indoctos obligari ad Confessionem. Edgeworth tradit duplicem modum remissionis peccatorum, per Contritionem sive Attritionem, et per Absolutionem et quia nemo potest certus esse, num attritio et dolor pro peccato sufficiat ad satisfaciendum Deo et obtinendam gratiam, ideo tutissimam viam deligendam, scilicet, Absolutionem a Sacerdote, quæ per promissionem Christi est certa; Absolvere non potest nisi cognoscat peccata; Ergo peccata per Confessionem sunt illi revelanda.

:

:

AGREEMENT. In the fifteenth Concerning Confession of our secret deadly sins. The Bishops of York, Duresme, London, Drs. Day, Curren, Oglethorp, Redmayn, Crayford, say, That "Men be bound to confess them of their secret Sins." Drs. Cox, Tresham, Robertson, say, "They be not bound, if they may quiet their Consciences otherwise." The Bishop of St. Davids also saith, That "this Text bindeth