other Sacraments, he ought to abide and look for a special Commission from Almighty God, as Moses had, or else to send unto other Regions where Priests or Bishops may be had, and else not to meddle. Examples in Eccles. Hist. lib. 10. cap. 1. de Frumentio. et cap. 2. de Ancilla captiva que convertit gentem Hiberorum, cujus captive monitis ad Imperato rem Constantinum totius gentis legatio mittitur, res gesta exponitur, Sacerdotes mittere exorantur qui captum erga se Dei munus implerent, &c.— Dr. Edgeworth. I think that in such a necessity, a learned Christian Prince, and also temporal Men learned, be bound to preach and minister either Sacraments, so that the same Ministers be orderly assigned by the High Power and the Congregation Dr. Symmons. in this case. I say, to the first part, That such a King, and his temporal learned Men, not only might, but were also bound to preach God's Word And as to the second part, I say, That if there could no Bishop be had to Institute, the Prince might in that of necessity do it.-Dr. Tresham. To the thirteenth I suppose the Affirmative thereof to be true; Quamvis potestas clavium residet præcipue in Ecclesia.-Dr. Leughton. In such a case, I do believe that God would illuminate the Prince; so that either he himself should be made a Bishop, by internal working of God (as Paul was) or some of his Subjects, or else God would send him Bishops from other Parts. And as for preaching of the Word of God, the Prince might do it himself, and other of his learned Subjects, altho they were no Priests. Con. In prima parte Quæstionis Conveniunt omnes, etiam laicos, tali rerum statu, non solum posse sed debere docere. Menevens. Thirlebeus, Leightonus, Coxus, Symmons, Tresham, Redmanus, Robertsonus, etiam potestatem Ministrandi Sacramenta, et Ordinandi Ministros, concedunt illis. Eboracens. hanc prorsus potestatem denegat. Ccren credit Principem Divinitus illuminandum et consecrandum fore in Episcopum interne, aut aliquem ex suis, Pauli exemplo. Sin ile habet Herefordensis et Carliolensis. Dayus nihil respondet de Ordinandis Presbyteris in hac necessitate. Agreement. In the thirteenth; Concerning the first part, Whether Laymen may Preach and Teach God's Word? They do all agree, in such a case, "That not only they may, but they ought to teach." But in the second part, touching the Constituting of Priests of Laymen, my Lord of York, and Doctor Edgworth, doth not agree with the other; they say, That" Laymen in no wise can make Priests, or have such Authority." The Bishops of Duresme, St. Davids, Westminster, Drs. Tresham, Cox, Leighton, Crayford, Symmons, Redmayn, Robertson, say, That Laymen in such case have authority to minister the Sacraments, and to make 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 ministred 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 Tradi tion; altho 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 any-where such lacked to do and fulfil that God would have done, rightwell they might, by the inward moving and calling of God, supply the same.-Cartile. Huic Quæstioni idem Respondendum, quod priori, arbitror.-Dr. Robertson. Ut supra, Quæst. 13.-Dr. Coz. 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 assig nation 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. Duy. Si ab aliis Regionibus Sacerdotes baberi non poterint, opinor ipsum Principem deputare posse esiam 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 кауп. 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. Symmons. I 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. Leyghton. 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 "Lay-men 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 Lordon, Rochester, and Dr. Crayford, say, That" in such a case, Necessitas non habet Legem." 15. Question. Whether a Man be bound by Authority of this Scripture, (Quorum Remiseritis) and suchlike, 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 suchlike, 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 li mited, 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 is, 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 obtain 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 Remiseritis 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 conscientie illius satisfieri nequeat.—Dr Robertson. I cannot find that a Man is bound by Scripture to confess his secret deadly sas to a Priest, unless he be so troubled in his conscience, that he cannot be quieted without godly Instruction.- Dr. Cor. 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 suchlike, 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 præviá.— 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 Conjko. sion of privy Sins, is not expressly cominanaed; 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. Red mayn. 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 wholesome 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 it is 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. Leyghton. fieri 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 no Man." Dr. Leighton saith, That bindeth only such as have not the knowledg of Scripture." The Bishop of Carlile and Symmous say, That "by ancient Doctors exposition, Men be bound, by this Text, to confess their deadly sins." 16. Question. it Whether a Bishop or a Priest may excommunicate, and for what Crimes? And whether they only may Excommunicate by God's Law? Answers. A BISHOP or a Priest by the Scripture, is neither commanded nor forbidden to Excommunicate, but where the Laws of any Region giveth him authority to Excommunicate, there they ought to use the same in such Crimes, as the Laws have such authority in; and where the Laws of the Region forbiddeth them, there they have no authority at all; and they that be no Priests may also Excommunicate, if the Law allow thereunto.--Canterbury. To the sixteenth; The power to Excommunicate, that is, to dissever the Sinner from the communion of all Christian People, and so put them out of the Unity of the Mystical Body for the time, donec resipiscat, is only given to the Apostles and their Successors in the Gospel, but for what Crimes, altho in the Gospel doth not appear, saving only for disA Man whose Conscience is grieved with obedience against the Commandment of the mortal secret sins, is bound by these words, Church, yet we find example of ExcommuniQuorum Remiseritis, &c. to confess his sin to a cation used by the Apostles in other cases: Priest, if he may have him conveniently. As of the Fornicator by Paul, of Hymeneus Dr. Coren. Con Eboracens. Londinens. Dayus, Oglethorpus, Coren, Redmayn, asserunt obligari. Coxus, Tresham, et Robertsonus dicunt non obligari, si aliter Conscientiæ illorum satis and Alexander for their Blasphemy by the same; and yet of other Crimes mentioned in the Epistle of the said Paul writing to the Corinthians. And again of them that were disobedient to his Doctrine, 2 Thess. 3. We find also charge given to us by the Apostle St. John, that we shall not commune with them, nor so much as salute him with Ave, that would not receive his Doctrine. By which it may appear that Excommunication, may be used for many great Crimes, and yet the Church at this day, doth not use it, but only for manifest disobedience. And this kind of Excommunication, whereby Man is put out of the Church, and dissevered from the Unity of Christ's Mystical Body, which Excommunication toucheth also the Soul, no Man may use, but they only, to whom it is given by Christ.-York. To the sixteenth; I think a Bishop may Excommunicate, taking example of St. Paul with the Corinthian; and also of that he did to Alexander and Hymeneus. And with the Lawyers it hath been a thing out of Question, That to Excommunicate solemnly, appertaineth to a Bishop, altho otherwise, both inferior Prelates and other Officers, yea and Priests too in notorious Crimes, after divers Mens Opinions, may Excommunicate semblably, as all others that be appointed Governors and Rulers over any Multitude, or Spiritual Congregation.-London. I answer affirmatively to the first part, in open and manifest Crimes, meaning of such Priests and Bishops as be by the Church authorized to use that power. To the second part, I answer, That it is an hard Question, wherein I had rather hear other Men speak, than say my own Sentence; for I find not in Scripture, nor in the old Doctors, that any Man hath given Sentence of Excommunication, save only Priests; but yet I think, that it is not against the Law of God, that a Lay-man should have authority to do it.-Rochester. Divers Texts of Scripture seemeth, by the Interpretation of ancient Authors, to shew, that a Bishop or a Priest may Excommunicate open deadly sinners continuing in obstinacy with contempt. I have read in Histories also, that a Prince hath done the same. -Carlile. Opinor Episcopum aut Presbyterum Excommunicare posse, tanquam ministrum et os Ecclesiæ, ab eadem mandatum habens. Utrum vero id juris nulli nisi Sacerdotibus in mandatis dari possit, non satis scio. Ex communicandum esse opinor pro hujusmodi criminibus, qualia recenset Paulus, 1 Cor. 5. si, is qui frater nominatur, est fornicator, aut avarus, aut idolis serviens, aut maledicus, aut ebriosus, aut rapax, cum hujusmodi ne cibum sumere, &c.-Dr. Robertson. A Bishop or a Priest, as a publick Person appointed to that Office, may excommunicate for all publick Crimes: And yet it is not against God's Law, for others than Bishops or Priests to Excommunicate.-Dr. Cor. A Bishop or a Priest may Excommunicate by God's Law for manifest and open Crimes: Also others appointed by the Church, tho they be no Priests, may exercise the power of Excommunication.-Dr. Day. Non solum Episcopus Excommunicare potest, sed etiam tota Congregatio, idq; pro lethalibus criminibus ac publicis è quibus scandalum Ecclesiæ provenire potest. Non tamen pro re pecuniaria uti olim solebant.— Dr. Oglethorp. They may Excommunicate, as appeareth 1 Cor. 5. 1 Tim. 1. and that for open and great Crimes, whereby the Church is offended: and for such Crimes as the Prince and Governours determine, and thinketh expedient, Men to be excommunicate for, as appeareth in novellis Constitutionibus Justiniani. Whether any other may pronounce the Sentence of Excommunication but a Bishop or a Priest I am uncertain.—Dr. Redmayn. A Bishop, or a Priest only, may excommunicate a notorious and grievous Sinner, or obstinate Person from the Communion of Christian People, because it pertaineth to the Jurisdiction which is given to Priests, Jo. 26. Quorum Remiseritis, &c. et Quorum retinetis, &c. There is one manner of Excommunication spoken of 1 Cor. 5. which private Persons may use. Si is qui frater nominatur inter vos est fornicator, aut avarus, aut idolis serviens, &c. cum hujusmodi ne cibum quidem capiatis. Excluding filthy Persons, covetous Persons, Braulers and Quarrellers, out of their Company, and neither to eat nor drink with them.-Dr. Edgeworth. Whosoever hath a place under the Higher Power, and is assigned by the same to execute his Ministry given of God, he may Excommunicate for any Crime, as it shall be seen to the High Power, if the same Crime be publick.--Dr. Symmons. A Bishop and Priest may Excommunicate by Scripture as touching, for what Crimes; say, for every open deadly sin and disobedience. And as touching. Whether only the Priest may Excommunicate? I say, not he only, but such as the Church authorizes so to do.-Dr. Tresham. To the sixteenth, I say, that a Bishop or a Priest having License and Authority of the Prince of the Realm, may excommunicate every obstinate and inobedient Person, for every notable and deadly sin. And further, I say, That not only Bishops and Priests may Excommunicate, but any other Man appointed by the Church, or such as have authority to appoint Men to that Office may Excommunicate.-Dr. Leighton. A Bishop or a Priest may Excommunicate an obstinate Person for publick Sins. Forasmuch as the Keys be given to the whole Church, the whole Congregation may Excommunicate, which Excommunication may be pronounced by such a one as the Congre gation does appoint, altho he be neither Bishop nor Priest.-Dr. Coren. Con. Menevens. Herefordens. Thirleby, Dayus, Leightonus, Coxus, Symmons, Coren, concedunt authoritatem excommunicandi etiam Laicis, modo a Magistratu deputentur, Eboracens. et Edgworth prorsus negant da tum Laicis, sed Apostolis et eorum successoribus tantum. Roffensis, Redmanus, et Robertsonus ambigunt, num detur Laicis. Londinens. non respondet Quæstioni: Oglethorpus et Thirleby aiunt, Ecclesiæ datam esse potestatem Excommunicandi; Idem Treshamus. James, but after what form or fashion the said Inunction was then used, the Scripturs telleth not. Written on the back of the Paper, The Bishop of Rochester's Book. Extream Unction is plainly set out by St. James, with the which maketh also that is written in the 6th of St. Mark, after the mind of right good ancient Doctors.-Robert Carliolen. De Unctione Infirmorum nibil reperio in Scripturis, præter id quod scribitur, Marc. 6. et Jacob. 5.-Thomas Robertson. T. Cantuarien. Agreement. In the sixteenth, Of Excommunication, they do not agree. The Bishops of York, Duresme, and Dr. Edgworth say, That "Lay-men have not the authority to Excommunicate, but that it was given only unto the Apostles and their Successors. The Bishops of Hereford, St. Davids, Westminster, Doctors Day, Coren, Leighton, Cox, Symmons, say, That "Lay-men may Excommunicate, if they be appointed by the High Ruler." My Lord Elect of Westminster, Dr. Tresham, and Dr. Oglethorp, say is further, That "the Power of Excommunication was given to the Church, and to such as the Church shall institute." 17. Question. Whether Unction of the Sick with Oil, to remit Venial Sins, as it is now used, be spoken of in the Scripture, or in any ancient Authors? Answers. UNCTION of the Sick with Oil, to remit Venial Sins, as it is now used, is not spoken of in the Scripture, nor in any ancient Authors. T. Cantuarien. This is mine Opinion and Sentence at this present, which I do not temerariously define, but do remit the judgment thereof wholly unto your Majesty. To the seventeenth; Of Unction of the Sick with Oil, and that Sins thereby be remitted, St. James doth teach us; but of the Holy Prayers, and like Ceremonies used in the time of the Unction, we find no special mention in Scripture, albeit the said St. James maketh also mention of Prayer to be used in the Ministry of the same-Edward Ebor. To the seventeenth; I think that albeit it appeareth not clearly in Scripture, whether the usage in extream Unction now, be all one with that which was in the beginning of the Church: Yet of the Unction in time of Sickness, and the Oil also with Prayers and Ceremonies, the same is set forth in the Epistle of St. James, which place commonly is alledged, and so hath been received, to prove the Sacrament of extream Unction. Ita mihi Edmundo Londinensi Episcopo pro hoc tempore dicendum videtur, salvo judicio melius sentientis, cui me prompte et humiliter subjicio. Inunction of them that be sick with Oil, and praying for them for remission of Sins, is plainly spoken of in the Epistle of Saint These are the Subscriptions which are at the end of every Man's Paper. it Unction of the Sick with Oil consecrat, as is now used, is not spoken of in Scripture. -Richardus Cox. found in Scripture.-George Day. Opiniones non Assertiones. De Unctione Infirmorum cum oleo, adjecta Oratione, expressa mentio est in Scripturis, quanquam nunc addantur alii ritus, honestatis gratiâ (ut in aliis Sacramentis) de quibus in Scripturis nulla mentio.-Owinus Oglethorpus. Unction with Oil, adjoined with Prayer, and having promise of Remission of Sins, is spoken of in St. James, and ancient Authors; as for the use which now is, if any thing be amiss, it would be amended.-J. Redmayn. It is spoken of, in Mark 6. and James 5. Augustine and other ancient Doctors speaketh of the same.-Edgeworth. The Unction of the Sick with Oil, to remit Sins, is in Scripture, and also in ancient Authors.-Symon Matthew. Unction with Oil is grounded in the Scripture, and expresly spoken of; but with this Additament (as it is now used) it is not specified in Scripture, for the Ceremonies now used in Unction, I think meer Traditions of Man.-William Tresham. To the seventeenth, I say, That Unction of the Sick with Oil and Prayer to remit Sins, is manifestly spoken of in St. James Epistle, and ancient Authors, but not with all the Rites and Ceremonies as be now commonly used. T. Cantuarien. Per me Edwardum Leyghton. Unction with Oil to remit Sins is spoken of in Scripture.-Richard Coren. Con. Menevens. et Coxus negant Unctionem Olei (ut jam est recepta) ad remittenda peccata contineri in Scripturis. Eboracens. Carliolens. Edgworth, Coren, Redmayn, Symmons, Leightonus, Oglethorp aiunt haberi in Scripturis. Roffens. Thirleby, Robertsonus, præterquam illud Jacobi 5. et Marci 6. nihil proferunt. Herefordensis ambigit. Tresham vult Unctionem Olei tradi nobis è Scripturis, sed Unctionis Cæremonias traditiones esse humanas. Agreement. In the last; The Bishop of St. Davids, and Dr. Cox, say, That "Unc |