there can be no particular Church 4. that by Ordinarie course without a Bishop there can be no Hierarchicall functions So that these twoe onely be M. Doctours maine arguments and that which he alledgeth Chap. 14. n. 9. is not as M. Nicholas saieth but onely parte of his second maine argument For if it had beene by it selfe one of his maine arguments he would not haue sayed n. 4. And my reasons are twoe but he should haue saied And my reasons are fiue because the seconde reason includeth fowre which yet do all but make vp one his second maine reason 2. Yet is that reason which M. Nicholas alledgeth a good reason also because it being the diuine lawe that euerie particular Church of extent for he speaketh not of euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop by whome it may be made a particular Church the people that would resist a Bishop sent in by Lawfull and Supreme authoritie as our twoe last most Reuerend Bishops were should resist the diuine Law and Institution and so commit a sinne But of this more hereafter M. NICHOLAS Ep 69. ad Flor. This assertion he proueth out of S. Cyprian who sayeth that the Church is Sacerdoti plebs adunata pastori suo grex adharens the Church is the people vnited to the Priest Bishop and the flocke adbering vnto its Pastour c. And num 3. Three things I will endeauour saieth he to performe First that the alledged words of S. Cyprian c. Make nothing against vs but rather are for vs against himselfe c. n. 2. 3. THE REPLY M. Doctour proueth sufficientlie and euidentlie out of S. Cyprian that without a particular Bishop there can be no particular Church 3 True also it is that M. Doctour alledged those words out of S. Cyprian to proue that a particular Church cannot be without a particular Bishop And what bringeth M. Nicholas to disproue this He answereth num 4. that S. Cyprian doth not define the Church to be the people vnited and the flocke adhering to a particular Priest and Pastour but onelie indefinitlie to the Priest and Pastour and he addeth n. 5. and 6. that Saint Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schisme doe leaue their Bishop 4. But first in that M. Nicholas denyeth that out of this definition of a Church it necessarilie followeth that a particular Church cannot be without a particular Bishop he contradicteth Cardinall Bellarmin who lib. 3. de Eccles militante cap. 5. alledgeth this definition of S. Cyprian word by word and lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 8. he proueth that the Church by no meanes can be without Bishops because S. Cypian sayeth Ecclesians esse Episcope adunatam Episcopum esse in Ecclesia Ecclesiam in Episcopo that the Church is vnited to the Bishop and that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop Where first by the word Sacerdoti Priest he vnderstandeth a particular Bishop not a Priest or Pastour indefinitelie as M. Nicholas saied because in that place he proueth that the Church cannot be without particular Bishops SecoÌ„delie he proueth out of this place that the Church cannot be without Bishops in the plurall number And why But because particular Churches must haue particular Bishops For the whole Church caÌ„ haue but one Supreme Bishop her gouernement being Monarchicall which requireth one Supreme Gouernour as M. Doctour hath shewed in his Hierarchie cap. 3. And there fore if it be necessarie that in the Church there should be other Bishops besides one Supreme Bishop the reason must be because the notable partes of the Church which are of notable exteÌ„t must haue their particular Bishops by whome they may be made particular Churches and so may compose the whole Church and obey their particular Bishops with a subordination to the chiefe Bishop Hence it is that the same Cardinall in the foresaied place alledgeth S. Hierom l. contra Luciferianos who saieth Ecclesia non est quae non babet Sacerdotes the Church is not or it is not a Church which hath not Priests that is Bishops And in his second Tome lib. vnice de Sacramento Confirm cap. 12. § Sextum augmentum he saieth out of S. Hierome contra Lutiferianos Necesse est in singulis Ecclesijs vnum esse Episcopum ne si multi sine pares non ad vnum summa referatur schismata fiant it is necessarie that in euerie Church there be one Bishop least if many were equall and the chiefe place or authorttie not giuen to one Schismes should be And dareth M. Nicholas gaine say so learned a Cardinal and him also a Iesuite 5. To Cardinal Bellarmin I shall adde our learned Countrieman Doctour Stapleton whoin his fift booke De potestatis Ecclesiasticae subiecto cap. 7. saieth non nisi propter Pastores praeposiâ—os Ecclesiae nomine vocari debet aliqua multitudo Vnde Cyprianus Ecclesiam esse in Episcope Sanctus Hieronymus vbi non sunt Sacerdotes Ecclesiam non esse sapienter scripserunt a multitude ought not to be called by the name of a Church but onely for the Pastours and Prelats WhereupoÌ„ it is truelie and wiselie written by S. Cyprian that the Church is in the Bishop and by S. Hierome that there is noe Church where there are noe Priests And againe Stapleton saieth that the word Church in Scripture signifieth properlie and as it were antonomasticallie multitudinem non vagam aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a vagrant or head lesse multitude sed cuiiam Pastores praepositi à Deo constituti sunt But a multitude to which Pastours and Prelates are constituted by God 6. Soe that Cardinall Bellarmin and Stapleton and so do all deuines require in the whole Church many particular Churches and to particular Churches particular Bishops and M. Nicholas in endeauouring to extenuate S. Cyprians definition of a Church depriueth Catholike Authors of a principall authoritie by which they proue against heretikes that the Church cannot be without Bishops and thereby he fauoureth heretikes 7. Out of this definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian to wit that it is the people vnited to the Bishop M. Doctour inferreth that a people without a Bishop can be no particular Church M. Nicholas q 2. n. 5. 6. saieth S. Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schisme do leaue their Bishop and so are no Church But this litle auaileth M. Nicholas for that it is a Maxime in Logike grounded in one of the principall places or seates of argumentes called definitio definition That Cuicunque non conuenit definitio non conuenit definitum to what thing soeuer the definition agreeth not to that thing the thing defined doth not agree and so seing that the definition of a Church according to S. Cyprian is Sacerdoti plebs adunata a people vnited to the Bishop Stapl. l. 6. de potest Eccles Subiecto c 7. which definition Stapleton in his sixt booke Depotestatis Eccles subiecto cap. 7. commendeth
placed in them Patriarches or Archbishops or Bishops according to the extent of the place Who as spirituall Fathers may beget many thousands to Christ and may rule them when they are begotten as the carnall Father first begetteth then gouerneth his children 14. M. Nicholas hath read in his Breuiarie 17. Nou. how S. Gregorie called Thaumaturgus of the wonderous miracles he wrought at the hower of his death demaūding how many infidels there were remanent in his Citie and answere being made that there were seuenteen God be thanked saied hee I found so many when I accepted of my Bishopricke Where M. Nicholas may see that for the placing of a Bishop there was had a regard not onely to the number of the Christians but also to the extent and greatenesse of the place otherwise seuenteene Christians should not by M. Nicholas his counte haue had a Bishop And the reason is which M. Nicholas considered not for that a Bishop is appointed not onely as a Ruler to gouerne Christians already conuerted but as a Father to beget Christians by his preaching and example as Saint Paule and the Apostles did who at their first preaching found few or none to gouerne yet by their preaching were Fathers of the whole world And so although in England there were not so many Catholikes as there are in one Diocese in a Catholike Countrie though thankes be to God there are many thousand Catholikes and many hundred Priests who deserue a Bishop to gouerne them and to confirme those that haue not Confirmation yet England by reason of the extent of the Island might require a Bishop yea many Bishops in that so greate an Island is capable of many more Catholikes then a Diocese cā hould especiallie if it may enioye the benefit of a Bishop or Bishops 15. But I doe not meruaile that M. Nicholas laboureth so hard to hinder Englād from a Bishop for that peraduēture he is of the opinion of those who in An answere to the Bishop of Chalcedons letter to the Lay Catholikes of England which was sent vnto him by the Heades of three Regular Orders do call Episcopall authoritie in Englād and in these times a Noueltie though as ould as Christ and his Apostles Odious though proceeding from Christ his loue to his Church vnto which it is much beneficiall Derogating to the ancient lawes of England though England by Bishops hath many hundred yeares beene conserued in religion pietie sanctitie all ecclesiasticall splendour Pernicious to soules though instituted for their gaining gouernement and saluation Which opinion in a manner is worse then Caluins opinion for that it is lesse iniurious to Christ to denie all Episcopall authoritie as Caluin doth then to say that Christ hath iustituted and giuen to his Church an authoritie which is a Noueltie odious derogating to temporall laws of Kings pernicious to soules I say In a manner for that these Regulars do not absolutelie speake in these termes of Episcopall authoritie but onely in England in this time of persecutiō they counte it a Noueltie wee hauing not had till of late a Bishop of long time odious derogating to ancient lawes and pernicious at this time Which yet will hardly serue for a iust excuse Christ hauing instituted this authorities and giuen it to the Apostles in the beginning of the greatest persecution and they hauing exercised it in the greatest furie of persecution maugre all the lawes threates and menaces of the cruell persecutours And if Episcopall authoritie in time of persecution be odious and pernicious when shall it be gratefull and profitable Certes if when the wolfe inuadeth the flocke the Pastours presence be odious and pernicious when can it be profitable M. NICHOLAS SMITH Enough hath beene sayed to disproue M. Doctours Tenet in this present question yet nothing will more disaduātage his assertion that when the reader shall by my answere clearly perceiue his owne augments ether to goe beside the matter or to proue against himselfe n. 8. And n. 9. his first argument is taken out of Sotus affirming it to be De Iure diuino of the diuine law c. REPLIE Sotus his opinion concerning that point whether by the diuine law euerie Church must haue its Bishop maketh for M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas 16. M. Nicholas braggeth that he hath sayed enough and in deed to much vnlesse he had saied more to the purpose as partely hath beene shewed partely shall but sayeth he nothing will more disaduantage his assertion then when the Reader shall see by my answers that M. Doctours arguments are besides the matter or against himselfe Thus he but by his leaue he still continueth his ould fault in making M. Doctour say more then he doth For M. Doctour doth not impose vpon Sotus more then he sayeth as M. Nichoas imposeth on M. Doctour M. Doctour onely relateth Sotus his words leauing the Reader to conceiue that sense which the words offer And although M. Doctour doth not say so much of him or his words Yet his words may verie well haue Yea indeed haue a sense which fauoureth M. Doctour 17. Sotus l 10. de Iust Iure q. 1. ar 4. Let vs therefore heare Sotus his words He sayeth it is Deiure diuino quodin genere singulis Ecclesijs secundum Ecclesiasticam diutsionem sui applicentur Episcopi it is of the diuine law that in generall to euerie particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision their proper Bishops are to be applyed Which words may verie well haue and indeed haue another interpretation then M. Nicholas giueth and they doe clearelie fauour that which M. Doctour sayed to wit that by the diuine law euerie particular Church at lest which is a notable parte of the whole Church of which M. Doctour speaketh should haue its Bishop For supposing that Christ hath instituted a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches gouerned by particular Bishops and hath giuen to the Church authoritie to make this diuision of diuers Churches and Dioceses Sotus as by the former words may be gathered is of opiniō that supposing the diuision of Dioceses euerie Diocese much more euerie notable part of the Church as England France c. is by the diuine law and appointement to haue its Bishop not Peter or Paul but one indeterminatelie and this by vertue of our Sauiours institution in generall whereby that order is sette generallie and euerie where to be obserued Singulis Ecclesijs vt sui applicentur Episcopi that to euerie particular Church their proper Bishop should be applyed And thus in generall the election of Bishops is Deiure diuino of the diuine law And therefore when a Pope doth applie a Bishop to a Diocese he doth but that which our Sauiour hath before instituted in his generall institution and commandement Vt singulis Ecclesijs sui applicentur Episcopi that to euerie Church their proper Bishops should be applyed 18. That the diuision of Dioceses is Ecclesiasticall that is introduced by the Church it
is not materiall for that according to Sotus the diuine law stillis generall commanding in generall that all Dioceses diuided by the Church be they more or fewer of greater or lesse extent each must haue its Bishop in it 19. So our B. Sauiour hauing instituted in generall that vnder euerie host rightlie consecrated there shall infalliblie be his sacred bodie be the host consecrated diuided into many or fewe greate or small partes which determination depēdeth of man as the diuision of Dioceses dependeth of the Church the bodie of Christ is in each of them by vertue of the consecration And that this is the meaning and scope of Sotus may appeare by these words of Sotus himselfe Nunquid propterea quod per Ministrum Dei illa factà fuerit applicatio continuo fit consequens non fuisse diuinam Doth it therefore follow that it is not the diuine Institution that euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop because that application of a particular Bishop to a particular Diocese was made by the minister of God Out of which M. Doctour may inferre against M. Nicholas that in the opiniō of Sotus according to the diuine lawe euerie Diocese must haue its Bishop and M. Nicholas can inferre nothing against but rather for M. Doctour to witte that at lest by the diuine law euerie notable parte of the Church as England France c. must haue its Bishop 20. To this M. Nicholas answereth n. 10. that Sotus his meaning is not that the Pope is obliged by the diuine law to giue particular Bishops to euerie particular Diocese but onelie that when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and giue him charge of some particular Diocese in such cases he doth a particular action which in generall was instituted and commaunded by our Sauiour Christ who ordained in generall that in the whole Church there should alwayes be some Bishops This M. Nicholas confirmeth by Sotus his owne words in the same place where he sayeth Dum Dei minister c. Whilest the minister of God by his command dispenseth that which he God instituted the action is to be esteemed of the diuine law but when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and apply him to some Church he executeth that which Christ in generall Marke did institute and which he commanded them to do therefore such an action ought to be sayed of the diuine law Whence M. Nicholas sayeth it is plaine against M. Doctour that Sotus speaketh of the Institution of Christ onely in generall 21. But M. Nicholas goeth about to deceiue men in generalities when he biddes vs Marke that Sotus sayeth that Christ onely instituted and cōmaunded in generall that there should be Bishops For that this may haue two meanings the one that Christ instituted and communded onely in generall that there should be Bishops in the Church and this is M. Nicholas his interpretation The other that Christ in generall instituted and commanded that not onely in generall there should be Bishops in the Church but also that euerie particular Church or Diocese after the diuision of Dioceses made should haue its Bishop and this is Sotus his meaning as I haue shewed out of his words aboue alledged and as may appeare euen by his last words cited by M. Nicholas for Sotus sayeth there that when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and apply him to some Church he executeth that which Christ commanded in generall to do that is to confirme and consecrate and apply a Bishop to the Church ouer which he giueth him charge And Sotus in the former place alledged by M. Doctour sayeth not onely that there must in generall by the diuine law be Bishops in the Church Sotus supra l 10. q. q. 1. ar 4. but also that it is of the diuine law that in generall to euery particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision their proper Bishops are to be applyed 22. Sotus l. 10 de Iust iure q 3 ar 4. That this is Sotus his opinion it may appeare also by other places as where he sayeth Cum enim ius diuinum sit vt vnicuique suus mancipetur Episcopus idgue vt demonstratum est propter peculiarem curam vigilantiam quae eidem Ecclesiae est necessaria c. For seing that it is the diuine law that to euerie Diocese it s owne Bishops should be mancipated or bound he sayeth not onely that in generall there must by the diuine law be some Bishops in the Church but also that by the diuine law to euerie Diocese it s owne Bishop must be bound and mancipated and then he giueth the reason Sot in 4 dist 20 q 1. art 5 Concl. 1. for the peculiar care and vigilancie which is necessarie to that Church And in another place he giueth also the reason why the Pope onely is not sufficient to gouerne the whole Church without Bishops nor a Bishop the whole Diocese without Pastours Si autem aliorum rationem desideres haec est egregia quod officium Pastoris est ad salutem gregis oculatè attendere supremus autem Ecclesiae Pastor non sufficit toti Ecclesiae prospicere nisi singulis Dioecesibus Episcopos praeficiat neque Episcopus toti Dioecesi nisi parochijs parochiales Sacerdotes praeponat But if thou desire the reason of others this is a notable reason because the office of a Pastour is to attend with a vigilant eye to the safetie of the flocke but the supreme Pastour is not sufficient to looke to the whole Church vnlesse he ordaine to each Diocese a Bishop and vnlesse the Bishop constitute Parish Priests to the Parochiall Churches So that seing the Pope is bound by the diuine law to haue care of the whole Church and that according to Sotus he cannot looke sufficiently to the Church vnlesse he appoint to eche Diocese a Bishop it followeth in Sotus his opinion that by the diuine law he is bound to giue euerie Diocese his Bishop as the Bishop is bound to giue to euerie Parish its Pastour 23. But M. Nicholas n. 10. sayeth that Sotus also sayeth that sacramentall absolution and the like are to be esteemed of the diuine law and yet it were a madnesse out of these words to inferre that the minister is bound by the diuine law to administer Sacraments I answer that the Sacraments are of the diuine law though men dispense them and so according to Sotus that euerie Church should haue its Bishop it is of the diuine law though the Pope elect him This is the Scope of Sotus as appeareth by these words Nunquid propterea quod per ministerium Dei c. Is it therefore any consequence that the application is not diuine because it was done by the Minister of God And M. Nicholas out of this cannot inferre any thing for his purpose 24. Now whether all this which Sotus saieth be true or no M. Doctour did not examine he intending onely to shew that his owne
assertion pag. 376. n. 2. which affirmeth it to be the diuine law that euerie notable part of the Church such as is England Spaine France should haue its Bishop was moderate in respect of the assertion of Sotus who sayed that euerie Diocese by the diuine law in the aforesayed sense must haue its Bishop And to this purpose onelie he cited Sotus And therefore that was not modestlie nor truelie saied of M. Nicholas but odiouslie and not so charitablie as might be expected of him in the 10. number towards the end where he he sayeth Finallie M. Doctour I doubt not wil be more circumspect in alledging authours lest he doth wrong his owne reputation the Authours themselues the Reader and most of all the trueth Rather M. Nicholas should haue beene more modest and more carefull of the trueth in his words For that M. Doctour doth not say so much as Sotus doth as M. Nicholas would make him but onelie alledged him to shew that this assertion in respect of that of Sotus was moderate M. Doctour affirming onely that it was of the diuine law that euerie notable parte of the Church such as England France Spaine should haue its Bishop Sotus auerring that by the same diuine law euerie Diocese ought to haue its Bishop which is much more then M. Doctour sayed and that this was Sotus his opinion is shewed out of his words and so not M. Doctour but M. Nicholas alledgeth authours contrarie to their meaning MAISTER NICHOLAS The second Authour alledged by M. Doctour is Bannes saying that Bishops cannot by the Pope be remoued from the whole Church or a great or notable parte thereof I wonder M. Doctour would alledge this learned diuine c. num 11. REPLIE Bannes his opinion concerning that point whether it be a diuine law that cuerie notable part of the Church must haue its Bishop and whether Bannes maketh for M. Nicholas Bann 2.2 q. 1. ar 10 Concl. 6. ad vlt. and against M. Doctour 25. To this I shall endeauour to answere with much more moderation then M. Nicholas vseth I answere thē that M. Doctour did not alledge Bannes to proue that euerie particular Church of Diocese is to haue a Bishop neither doth M. Doctour euer say so as M. Nicholas himselfe obserueth n. 14. but he alledged the sense of that Authour as he did of Sotus to shew that his assertion or opinion was moderate And that which is cited as the sense of Bannes is manifestlie there in these words Non tamen admittendum est quòd in tota Ecclesia aut in magna eius parte tam temere Pontifex sua potestate abutatur Yet it is not to be admitted that the Pope in the whole Church or in a great parte of it should so rashly abuse his authoritie And what is this but what M. Doctour sayed to wit that Bishops according to Bannes cannot be remoued from the whole Church or a great or notable parte of it And further that Bānes did beleiue that the Pope could not do this by reason of the diuine law it is easilie gathered by the example he bringeth and by those words tam temerè sua potestate abutatur that he should so rashlie abuse his authoritie for were it an Ecclesiasticall impediment and law he could take it away That Bannes sayeth the Pope may remoue one Bishop and not appoint another may seeme to be against Sotus but not against M. Doctour who sayeth not that euerie Diocese must haue by the diuine law a Bishop but onely that at lest euerie notable parte as England France c. is to haue a Bishop by the diuine precept Yet neither doth Bannes herein plainelie contradict Sotus because Sotus would also graūt that it pertaineth to the Pope to diuide Dioceses and to make them greater or lesse and so to make of two one and consequentlie he would graunt to Bannes that the Pope may take from a Diocese its proper Bishop which it had and subiect it to another Bishop by making it parte of his Diocese onelie Sotus saieth that supposing the diuision of Dioceses made by the Church it is of Christes institution and the diuine law that euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop M. NICHOLAS The reason that M. Doctour did inferre from the saied authorities maketh for him iust as they did It was this By the diuine law c. n. 12. The trueth in the foresaied pointe setting a side opinions of authours 26. Before I shew the force of M. Doctours argument and the faulte of M. Nicholas his māner of arguing I shall explicate and confirme M. Doctour his assertion by which he auerreth that by the diuine law in euerie notable parte of the Church there must be a Bishop Which I shall easilie do supposing M. Doctours ground to wit that the Church must not be gouerned by one onelie supreme Bishop but also by other particular Bishops who are to gouerne particular Churches because the supreme Bishop alone cannot by himselfe gouerne the Church and because the Church is a Hierarchie This groūd M. Doctour hath proued in his 9. Chapter of his Hierarchie where he hath shewed how Bishops inferiour Pastours are to gouerne the Church to preach and administer Sacraments Secondly in his 12. Chapter where he hath proued that Bishops are so necessarie in the Church that it cannot subsist without them And thirdlie in his 13. Chapter where he hath could vs how euen in the time of persecution though it was the greater for the Bishops presence the Church was and ought to be gouerned by Bishops Whence it is consequent that by the diuine law the Church must be gouerned by Bishops and that in generall there must be particular Bishops in the Church of God Which M. Nicholas also graūteth with Suarez n. 17. And why are Bishops necessarie but to gouerne to preach and minister Sacraments 27. Out of which assured ground I argue in this manner There must be by the diuine law Bishops in the Church to gouerne it and consequentlie as manie as may suffice to supplie the necessities the Church hath of gouernment preaching and Sacraments therefore by the same diuine Institution and precept there must be at lest a Bishop in euerie notable parte of the Church such as is France Spaine England for that fewer will not suffice one Bishop being not sufficient to serue all France England Spaine and in particular to confirme by the Sacrament of Confirmation all French and English 28. I instance in Confirmation because other Sacraments may more easilie be in some sort supplyed without a Bishop especiallie in the countrie for that neither the English can go all into France nor all the French into Englād to receaue Confirmation neither can one Bishop go to one Countrie to serue it of Confirmation without preiudice to the other countrie nor can he being but one suffice for so many Wherefore England must haue its owne Bishop France its owne Spaine it s owne and so of the rest if
munus the chiefe office of a Bishop as indeede it is Cone Trid. sess 5. c. 2. sess 24 c. 4. Marci vlt. according to the commandement of Christ giuen to the Apostles and in them to Bishops their successours praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae preach the Ghospell to all creatures And besides he hath his owne proper functions which they haue not to wit to gouerne a more ample parte of the whole Church to sit in Councells as Iudge to direct and Iudge inferiour Pastours to ordaine ministers to confirme to consecrate Churches Altars Chalices c. which other Pastours cannot doe Likewise it pertaineth most of all to Bishops by their examples to illuminate others euen inferiour Pastours Mat 5 Ioan. 10. Conc. Tol. 11. c. 2. and therefore they especiallie are the light of the world and they especiallie like good Pastours are to goe before their sheepe by illuminating them by doctrine and example For as the eleuenth Councell of Tolet sayeth by how much any one hath the higher place by so much the more it is necessarie that he goe before others in grace of merits c. 6. Thirdlie saieth Suarez in a Bishop especially is required greate charitie as well towards God who is the principall Lord of his sheepe Ioan. 21. therefore Christ calleth them his sheepe as also towords his subiectes whom he must tolerate and assiste with whose infirmities he must beare whose necessities he must releeue and to whom he must be an honorable seruant as S. Paul was 1. Car. 9. when he sayed factus sum omnium seruus vt plures lucrifacerem I made my selfe the seruant of all that I might gaine the more 7. Fourthlie the Bishop peculiarlie and in the first place by his office and state is bound to giue his life for his sheepe which is the greatest charitie Ioan. 10. 15. and which requireth greate patience and fortititude 8. Lastlie the perfection and height of the state of a Bishop may be gathered by what M. Doctour hath sayed in his 6. Chapt. where he hath shewed that the Bishop is higher in dignitie power and authoritie then the simplie Priest by the Diuine Institution for that he can confirme and giue orders and with two other Bishops can ordaine a Bishop Which simple Priests cānot doe at least as ordinarie ministers and therefore the Councell of Trent sayeth that Bishops doe principallie appertaine to the Hierarchicall order Conc. Trid. sess 23. cap. 4. de Sacram Ordin 9. The same may be deduced by what he hath deliuered in his seuēth Chapter were he hath proued that Bishops and Priests are of the highest orders in the Church This he hath proued out of diuers Fathers and examples euen of Emperours who attribute much to the dignitie of Bishops and amongst those Fathers he citeth S. Ignatius Ignat. ep ad Smyrn who sayeth that in the Church of God there is nothing greater then the Bishop 10. The same may be also gathered out of his eleuenth Chapter n. 18. S. Th 2.2 q 185 ar 8. in Corp. Where he alleageth S. Thomas his words Status religionis ad perfectionem pertinet quasi quaedam via in perfectionem tendens Status autem Episcoporum ad perfectionem pertinet tanquam quoddam perfectionis Magisterium Vnde status religionis comparatur ad statum Episcopalem sicut disciplina ad magisteriū dispositio ad perfectionē The state of Religion pertaineth to perfection as a certaine way tending vnto perfection But the state of Bishops pertaineth to perfection as a certaine maistership of perfection Whence it is that the state of Religion is compared to the Episcopall state as instructiō to maistership M. Doctour also alleadgeth there Henricus de Gandauo who hath the like words and thence he concludeth Henr. quodl 12. q. 29. Math. 10. that where the Religious endeth there a Bishop or Pastour beginneth For as Christ sayeth the disciple is not aboue the maister nor the seruant aboue his Lord. It sufficeth the disciple if he be as his maister And seldome it is seene that the Scholler attaineth to the perfection of his maister and if he doth yet the state of a Scholler is lower then the state of a maister and it requireth lesse perfection Henr Supra Wherefore Henricus as M. Doctour alleadged sayeth that the maister ought to be perfecter thē the Scholler and againe that when any Religions is brought ad summum aliquid perfectum to the hight of perfection he is then fit to be assumed for a Prelate 11. Why doth then M. Nicholas so storme against M. Doctour as though he had spoken partially and with disaduantage of a religious state through all his Treatise and particularly in his 11. Chapter Hath he sayed more for Bishops or lesse for Regulars or could he say more for Bishops then S. Thomas Suarez and Henricus haue Yea M. Doctour speaketh principallie out of S. Thomas let him them wreake his anger on S. Thomas and Suarez 12. So that M. Doctour in this needeth neither to leaue S. Thomas nor Henricus de Gandauo as M. Nicholas n. 13. saieth he must For that concerning the state of a Bishop they both agree as their words alleadged will witnesse and although Henricus saieth more then S. Thomas doth to wit that not onelie the Bishop but also inferiour Pastours are in an higher state of perfection then the regulars much more in his opinion the Bishop is in an higher state thē the religious for which onely thing M. Doctour alleadged him And whereas M. Doctour saied that where a religious man endeth there a Bishop or Pastour beginneth which words or Pastour M. Nicholas carpeth at M. Doctour addeth or Pastour because he knewe that Henricus de Gandauo and Gerson doe hold that euen Curats haue a state of perfection aboue regulars which opiniō Suarez as we shall see deemeth not improbable and at least as M. Doctour a litle before had proued they haue a calling and office of greater perfection thē hath the religious Yet M. Doctour not standing on this concludeth onelie that the Bishop he now addeth not or Pastour layeth his foundation on the religious mans roofe and top So that vnlesse M. Nicholas will leaue S. Thomas the Angelicall Doctour Suarez and all Diuines he must Graunt that the Bishop is absolutelie in an higher state of perfection then the state of Regulars is 13. And in deede M. Nicholas cannot bring so much as one argument to equalize the state of a Regular to the state of a Bishop nor hath he or can he answere any one of M. Doctours argumēts by which he preferred the state of a Bishop What then hath he done He telleth vs n. 2. that we must distinguish betwixt the state which is to exercise perfection which is the state of Bishops the state which endeauoureth to attaine to perfection which is the state of Regulars least we erre in generalities as he saied and be deceiued
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectiue or perfecting Respectiuelie he S. Denys calleth the Catechumenes Energumens and Penitents 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the order that is purged the solie people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminated and the order of Monkes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfected 18. And a litle after this Auctour addeth Voylà done premierement comme il constitue les Moynes entrele peuple laique qui esloient ceux qui faisoyent profession d'vne plus grande perfection que les autres d'vne vie plus deuote spirituelle renonçans anx affections soucis dâ—s choses de ce monde se deuoüans consacrans totalement au seruice de Dieu c. Behold then first of all how he S. Denys placeth the Monkes amongest the lay people which Monkes were they who made profession of a greater perfection then others and of a life more denoute and spirituall renouncing the affections and cares of the thinges of this world vowing and coÌ„secrating them selues wholie to the seruice of God L. de Hier. Eccl. c 6. c And after that to wit in the page 76. and 77. he relateth out of S. Denys how the Priests that vvere vnder the Bishop had the office to coÌ„secrate the Monkes vvho made sayth he their profession entre les mains des Prestres â—â— dessoubs des Euesques betvvixt the handes of the Priests under the Bishop And pag. 78. this Auctour shevveth out of S. Denys in his Epistle to Demophilus hovv the ranke and place of the Monkes in publicque assemblies vvas vvith the lay people though as vve haue seene they vvere aboue the people and vnder the Clergie and sayth this Auctour Leur estoit deffendu d'entrer dans le Presbytere It vvas ferbidden them to enter into the Presbyterie All vvhich and more S. Denys him selfe hath in his fift and sixt chapter of his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie as may partlie appeare by that vvhich I haue alleaged out of those tvvo chapters 19. By this it is manifest that according to S. Denys and as he vnderstandeth the vvord Hierarchie the Regulars are not of the Hierarchie that is of that parte of the Church vvhich gouerneth the rest and ministreth Sacraments and preacheth and therby purgeth illuminateth and perfecteth vvhich as S. Denys sayth are the proper actions of the Hierarchie and are called Hierarchicall actioÌ„s vvhich also are exercised in the Hierarchie of the Angels in vvhich the Superiour orders illuminate purge and perfecte the inferiour And therfore in S. Denis his tyme regulars tooke their place beneath the Clergie and aboue the lay people And although in later tymes the Regulars enioyed the Clericall priuiledge and were more frequentlie ordained Subdiacons Deacons Priests yea and Bishops and as such are of the Hierarchie yet as Regulars they are not of the Hierarchie in S. Denys his opinion for then in his tyme also they should haue bene of the Hierarchie And M. Nicholas who told vs that many vvho neuer read S. Denys are forvvard to discourse of the Clergie as though they only vvere of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie Sheweth that he ether neuer read or vnderstood not S. Denys who will haue regulars to be of the Hierarchie and euen according to S. Denys his opinion 20. And thus I hope I haue brought sufficient proofe out of S. Denys to exclude regulars as regulars from the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie though I grante them to be eminent members of the Church which is a Hierarchie to wit in like manner as they are members and subiectes of the Kingdome who though eminent beare no rule in it And seing that as M. Nicholas confesseth what other Doctours euen S. Thomas of Aquin say of the Hierarchie they rake out of S. Denys his Authoritie is to be preferred before them all 21. Secondlie I adde to S. Denis and his Translatours and Expositours a reason or two And my first shal be taken out of the Councell of Trent alleaged in my Reply to this question n. 7. The Councell defineth that there is a Hierarchie in the Church vvhich consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers Ses 23 can 6. But Regulars as Regulars are neither Bishops Priests nor Ministers ergo they are not of the Hierarchie as the Councell of Trout taketh the word Hierarchie The minor proposition I haue proued in that number and so the conclusion must follow 22. My second reason vvhich excludeth them from the Hierarchie in the meaning of S. Denis shal be this They who are of the Hierarchie must simpathise with that part which is coÌ„fessedlie of it to wit with Bishops Priests and Ministers in their manner of life and profession in their actions and functions but Regulars as Regulars doe leade a life altogether different froÌ„ the life of Bishops Priests and Ministers of the Church and their actions and functions are as different ergo Regulars as Regulars are not of the Hierarchie The maior or first proposition is euident for that all who are of the same arte or trade or the same science or profession doe agree in actions functions and manner of life and therfore lawiers agree in pleading and giuing Counsel Physitians are busied in prescribing and ministring Physicke Carpenters vvorke in timber masons in stone c. 23. The minor and second proposition to wit that Regulars as Regulars doe differ in actions functioÌ„s and manner of life I shall proue out of S. Amb. l. 9. Ep. 82. Ambrose S. Chrysostome and other Authours of good authoritie and so the conclusion must followe S. Ambrose in an Epistle to them of Vercelles coÌ„paring the state of the Clergie with that of the Regulars sayth Namque hac duo in attentiore Christianorum deuotione praestantiora esse quis ambigat Clericorum officia Monachorum instituta Ista ad comitatem moralitatem disciplina illa ad abstinentiam assuefacta atque patientiam Haec velut in quodam Theatro ista in secreto spectatur ista illa absconditur Who can doubt but that these tvvo the offices of Clarkes and the institutes of Monkes are the more excelling in the more attent deuotion of Christians This discipline of Clarkes accustomed to humanitie and moralitie that of Regulars to abstinence and patience This the state of Clarkes is as in a Theater that in secret this is obuious to the eyes of men that is hidden And a litle after This life therfore of the Clergie is in a race that in a denne This against the confusion of the vvorld that against the desire of the flesh this subduing that flying the pleasures of the body This more grate full that more secure This gouerning it selfe that restraining it selfe yet both denying them selues that they may be of Christe because to the perfect it is sayd he that vvill come after mee let him deny him selfe to him selfe and take his crosse and follovv mee And againe Haec ergo dimicat illa se remouet haec illecebras vincit illa refugit huic
for no other cause but because he cannot brook a Bishop Let him I say take heed least his discussion fraught with this ill marchandise be neither pleasing to God nor man 18. As for the manner hold by M. Doctour in preouing his Tenets which M. Nicholas n. 11. auerreth not to be correspondent to the opinion of his learning but to be easilie answered and without any studie the trueth thereof shall appeare in my Reply by which I shall defend all M. Doctours positions and shall shew M. Nicholas his answere to be altogether deficient or not to the purpose Whereby I think in the end he will not haue the face and I ame sure not the cause to bragge as he doth 19. I cannot here omit how n. 12. he accuseth M. Doctour of want of Logike and prudence though he hath taught Diuinitie alone longer then M. Nicholas hath beene in studying Logik Philosophie and diuinitie There are many manners of arguing and all good in their degree for the Logician sometimes argueth from the cause to the effect which manner of arguing is called demoÌ„stratio propter quid sometimes he proceedeth from the effect to the cause which is demonstratio quia and sometimes he argueth from intrinsecall sometimes from extrinsecall causes and all these formes of arguing are good because there is a connexion betwixt the cause and the effect and soe one inferreth another and the cause is notior naturâ then the effect and the effect is notior nobis then the cause and soethey may inferre one another And it were to be meruailed if M. Dectour should hit vpon none of these formes and manners 20. But let vs heare what M. Nicholas saieth for example saieth he to proue the necessitie of a Bishop in England he serueth himselfe of these strange and vnto ward propositions that it is a diuine law for euery such particular Church as EnglaÌ„d is to hauea Bishop that without a Bishop England cannot be a particular Church that vnlesse euerie particular Church haue it Bishop or Bishops the whole Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hier archie composed of diuers particular Churches That without a Bishop we cannot haue Confirmation which whosoeuer wanteth is not as M. Doctour saieth a perfect Christian And are these harsh strange and vnto ward propositions they being grounded in Scripture and the diuine law To speake with in compas this saying of M. Nicholas is a verie rash assertion 21. That these propositioÌ„s are true according to Scripture and the diuine law and consequeÌ„tlie not harsh I shall proue more at large in their proper places Here I briefelie argue thus It is of the diuine law that there must be Bishops in the Church as M. Doctour hath proued in his 12.13 14. chap. and as M. Nicholas confesseth q. 3. n. 4. 17. and cannot denie if he wil be a Catholik And why But to supplie the wants the Church hath of Preaching Sacraments and in particular of Confirmation of which onely the Bishop is ordinarie Minister but one Bishop cannot supplie the wantes of twoe notable partes such as are England Spaine and France Ergo euerie notable part such as these Countries are must at least haue one Bishop and that also by the deuine lawe Soelikewise that without a Bishop a people cannot be a particular Church I shall proue in the next question n. 2. For if it be true which S. Cypr. Ep. 69. ad Florâ— Cyprian sayeth that the Church is Sacerdoâ—i plebs adunata Apeople vnited to the Priest that is Bishop then that people which hath no Bishop cannot be a Church and consequently also the whole Church cannot as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches vnles these Churches haue euerie one their Bishop And hence it followeth also that without a Bishop who is the Ordinarie minister of Confirmation we cannot by ordinarie course be perfect Christians because we cannot haue Confirmation which maketh vs perfect Christians as S. Clement and S. Vrban hereafter alledged doe auerre as also other fathers and S. Thomas of Aquin and sundrie deuines euen Iesuites as we shall see in the 4. question n. 15. These argumeÌ„ts are à priore and are inferred from the extrinsecall cause to wit God his commandement and institution which is a cause why Bishops are necessarie in the Church And therefore as we may argue from the ecclesiasticall law as from an extrinsecall cause and say the Church hath coÌ„manded to fast in Lent Therefore we must fast So we may argue from the deuine law as from an extrinsecall cause and say God hath commanded that Bishops shal be in the Church and that euerie particular greate Church must haue it Bishop ergo it must haue him And so it was harhlie and vntowardlie saied of M. Nicholas that the aboue rehearsed propositions are harsh and vntoward they being grounded in Scripture and Fathers 23. Th 3. p. q. 72 art 11. ad 1. And although S. Thomas of Aquin and many diuines doe affirme that by commission from the Pope a Priest not Bishop may confirme yet diuers also hould the contrarie as S. Bonauenture Durand Adrian VI. Estius in 4. d. 17. Alphonsus à Castro Verbo Confirmatio and they prooue their opinion out of Eusebius Ep. 3. Pope Damasus Epist. 4. Innocentius III. de consuetud cap. quando Who expressely affirme that Confirmation cannot be giuen but by the Bishop as in the primitiue Church is was giuen by the Apostles onely to whome Bishops succeede and not by the disciples to whome Priests succeede 24. Yea they want not apparent reason For say they the acte of Confirming either it is appertaining to the Bishop by reason of his power of Iurisdiction or by reason of his power of Order If by reason of his power of Iurisdiction then a Bishop elected and confirmed but not consecrated might confirme For that he hath Episcopall Iurisdiction which yet neuer was seene yea then this might be coÌ„mitted to a deacon or an inferiour minister for he also is capable of Episcopall Iurisdiction as when one is elected and confirmed Bishop before he be Priest or deacon If by reason of the power of Order then as the Pope cannot giue power to a deacon to consecrate because that is proper to the Character and Order of a Priest so he cannot giue power to a Priest to confirme that appertaining to the Character and Order of a Bishop If the authours of the other opinion say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme they should contradict the Fathers alledged who say that to confirme is proper to the Bishop and cánot agree to the Priest not Bishop Besides thence it would follow that though the Priest in confirming might sinne Confirmation being reserued to Bishops yet as a Priest suspended if he coÌ„secrate though he sinneth yet consecration is valid so if a Priest should confirme he should sinne yet Confirmation would be valid it being not
they be notable partes of the Church all hauing the like necessitie and there being the same reason of one which is of another And so M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter n. 2. pag. 376. argueth well from the like necessitie in this manner By the diuine law there must be particular Bishops in the Church to supply the necessities of particular Churches but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France for he speaketh especiallie of greate particular Churches which are notable partes of the whole Church should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops more or fewer according to the extent of the Countrie rather then the Church of Spaine or the Church of England Ergo France Spaine and England and all other such particular Churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops and euerie one by his owne all hauing the like necessitie 29. M. Nicholas numer 12. wondreth that a learned man should vse such a forme of argument and therefore to make a shew against this argument of M. Doctour be bringeth other arguments verie ridiculous which though they may seeme to the ignorante to be like yet indeed are not so like as chalke and cheise His first argument of diuers meates doth argue that hee was hungrie for wāt of arguments else he would not haue made vse of one so weake and leane Thus he argueth Some meate is necessarie for the maintenance of man but there is no more reason why egges or fish should be necessarie rather then other particular meates Ergo egges fish and all meates are necessarie 30. But I meruaile that M. Nicholas if he be learned could not see the difference betwixt his owne and M. Doctours argument For that hee arargueth from the necessitie of some indeterminate meanes to the necessitie of some determinate meanes Maister Doctour argueth from like ends to the like necessarie meanes The first manner of arguing which Maister Nicholas vseth is ridiculous For it followeth not Meate which is an indeterminate meane is necessarie for mans life Ergo this meate Bishops are necessarie in the Church Ergo this Bishop in particular Marriage of some men is necessarie to maintaine lawfullie mankind Ergo this man must marrie M. Doctours manner of arguing is good and solid for that it is grounded in paritie and equalitie of reason Lib. 1. Post or c. 4. 5. or in this principle knowne by the light of reason Quod conuenit alicui quâtale conuenit omni tali that which agreeth to a thing as it is such a thing agreeth to euerie such thing as for example sayeth Aristotele because it agreeth to a Triangle as it is a Triangle to haue three angles equall to two right angles it agreeth to euerie Triangle to haue three angles equall to two right angles but because it agreeth not to a triangle as it is a triangle to be of brasse euerie triangle is not of brasse And so because it is necessarie to a notable parte of the Church as it is a notable parte to haue a Bishop and that also by the diuine law because one Bishop cannot serue sufficientlie two notable partes of the Church euerie notable parte must haue its Bishop And there being the same reason of England Frāce Spaine euerie one of these countries being of such extent that one Bishop cannot serue two of them euerie one of them must haue its Bishop by paritie of reason and for that it being necessarie to a Church to haue a Bishop because it is a notable parte euerie such notable part must haue a Bishop Because quod conuenit alicui quâ tale conuenit omnitali that which agreeth to a thing as it is such a thing agreeth to euerie such thing And if it be necessarie to one it is necessarie to another 31. If M. Nicholas his argument had beene thus framed it had beene good Meate or food in generall is necessarie to mās life but there is nomore reason of one man then another for that all mortall men do need meate or food Ergo meate or food is necessarie ot euerie mās life but this food in particular as egges or fish is not necessarie 32. M. Nicholas his second argument is as ridiculous for that by it he argueth from an indeterminate meane to wit from men whoe are necessarie to maintaine by marriage mankinde to euerie particular man Which kinde of argument is not the same with that of M. Doctour but as fond as this A shippe indeterminatelie is necessarie to passe from Douer to Calais Ergo euerie particular shippe 33. His thirde argument is of the same or of a worse forme and stampe Religious institute in generall is of the diuine iustitution and the Supreme Bishop is by his office obliged on his parte to procure that in the Catholike Church so sacred an institute be maintained but there is no reason why it should be be maintained rather in France or Spaine then in England Ergo the Pope is obliged to maintaine the religious institute in England To his maior or first proposition I answere that religious orders can be no more norso much necessarie in the Church I. 2. q. 108. ar 4. then the Counsailes in which according to S. Thomas they are grounded which counsailes are instituted by Christe but as M. Doctour saieth in his Hierarthie pag. 300. they are not commanded to anie but counsailed onely And so M. Nicholas cannot fynde out a diuine precept to oblige the Pope to admitte any religious order as he is bound to giue Bishops to the Church and hence it is that the Pope doth much deliberate before he admitte of any new Religious order and whē he admitteth it he admitteth it onely as profitable to the Church not as necessarie by any diuine law 34. But suppose it were of the diuine law that religious orders indeterminatelie and in generall should be in the Church yet no Religious order is necessarie by the diuine law in euerie notable part of the Church as Bishops are And so it would not be a good argument Religious orders must by the diuine institution be in the Church Ergo in Englād or in this or in that particular Coutrie But as I haue proued it is of the diuine law that in euerie notable parte of the Church there must be a Bishop and so there being no more reason of one such parte then another all such partes must haue their Bishops This I suppose would be M. Doctours answer to that argument Now let M. Nicholas make what he can of this answere Who verie politikelie perhappes as he thought saied n. 13. pag. 50. When M. Doctour shall tell me what he thinketh of this manner of argument I will then let him know what good vse I shal be able to make of his answere whatsoeuer it be 35. And by this M. Nicholas his fourth argument will proue to haue the same fault that the others had It is not of the diuine law as M. Doctour confesseth to haue a Bishop in
or to heare his sermon with hazard of losse of goods libertie or life he may except against the comming in of Secular and Regular Priests For though there be not the like necessitie of a Bishop Priests in all pointes yet if one argument concludeth the other must conclude especiallie in M. Nicholas his opinion who sayeth in this question num 17. that the generall persecution of a whole countrie is more to be auoided thē of any priuate person VVho yet as M. Doctour confesseth is not obliged to hazard goods or life for enioying the Sacrament of Confirmation by which it seemeth he would inferre that if a priuat person be not bound to hazard losse of goods or life for Cōfirmation neither is a countrie whence it followeth in M. Nicholas his manner of arguing that if a priuat person be not bound to receiue a Priest with that hazard a countrie is not bound to receiue Priests into it with hazard of persecution But the generall spirituall losse is greater thē anie particular losse as M. Nicholas confesseth and so more is to be hazarded rather then a whole coūtrie should want a Bishop or Priestes then that a priuat man should want them 5. But M. Nicholas in the beginning of this question fearing be like that he might seeme no good Catholike in writing against the necessitie of the Bishop and Confirmation protesteth that be reuerenceth Confirmation and that when Confirmation can conuenientlie be had and when is it more necessarie then in time of persecution against which it is instituted When is it more necessarie that the souldier should be armed and haue his Captaine then when the enemie is readie to giue battaile the neglict of so great a benefit cannot be pleasing to God Which protestation was indeed necessarie and I feare is not sufficient for that hereafter Puritans may alledge him against Bishops and Confirmation the necessitie of which he so much extenuateth M. NICHOLAS True it is the Sacrament of Confirmation was instituted for giuing of grace to professe our faith and S. Thomas teacheth that by it a man receiueth augmentation and groweth c. numer 2. THE REPLY Whether according to S. Thomas without Confirfirmation wee can be perfect Christians M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter n. 5. pag. 180. being to proue that a particular Countrie cannot refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution alledgeth two reasons The first is because the gouernemēt of Bishops in the Church is instituted by Christ as he had proued in the former Chapter The second reason is n. 2. because the commoditie which a prouince reapeth by a Bishop is so greate and the want of him is such a losse that we should rather hazard persecution then to be depriued of a Bishop For first without a Bishop we cannot be perfect Christians c. then n. 4. Secondlie the Sacrament of Confirmation pleadeth for a Bishop Then n. 9. without a Bishop we can be no particular Church c. Then n. 10. Without a Bishop no Hierarchicall action can be exercised in the Church So that M. Doctours second reason includeth fowre reasons all which make one totall reason M. Nicholas beginneth with that parte of the totall second reason which was because without a Bishop we cannot be perfect Christiās Wherein he playeth foule playe in taking these reasons a parte because virtus vnita est fortior seipsa dispersa and a child will breake a sheffe of arrowes one by one which ioyned in one boundell he cannot and many vnited can draw a ship which seuered they cannot and so all M. Doctours partiall reasons put together may make one good and conuincing reason though seuerallie taken they could not 7. But let vs see how he answereth this partiall reason singled out from the rest S. Th. 3 p q. 65. ar 1. M. Doctour had alledged S. Thomas of Aquin who compareth Baptisme to our natiuitie by which we haue our first being and Confirmation to our augmentation and encrease by which we get strēgth grougth To our natiuitie sayeth this learned Doctour is answerable in a spirituall life Baptisme by which we are regenerated and receaue our first spirituall being Ioan. 3. T it 3. To our augmentation and grougth sayeth he is answerable Confirmation by which the holy ghost is giuen to giue vs manlie pitch and strength Luc. vlt. according to that And I send the promes of my father vpon you But you tarrie in the Citie till you be endued with powre from high And againe But you shall receaue the vertue of the holie Ghost comming vpon you Act. 1. So that according to S. Thomas by Baptisme we are borne Christians but litle ones 1. Pet. 2. and to vse S. Peters words as infants euen now borne and by Confirmation me receaue manly grougth for as our natiuitie giueth vs our being and all our partes and limmes but all litle and weake and our augmentation giueth vs full strength and quantitie in all the bodie and maketh vs men so by Baptisme wee haue our spirituall birth and wee are Christians but weake and infirme and by Confirmation we receaue full grougth and strength and we become perfect Christians 8. Whereby it is euident that S. Thomas though a greate Sainte and a greate diuine sayeth as much as M. Doctour doth Yea what M. Doctour sayeth he speaketh out of his mouth and none write against S. Thomas for saying so as M. Nicholas hath written against M. Doctour Yet let vs heare M. Nicholas his answere True it is sayeth he that S. Thomas teacheth that by it Confirmation a man receiueth augmentation and groweth which yet cannot be so vnderstood as if this Sacrament were the onelie meanes to attaine such spirituall groweth And why because sayeth he by other Sacraments and ordinarie helpes of almightie God we may receaue the effect of that same grace which is giuē men in Confirmation I cannot like this his answere if it were but for this that it in a manner giueth Christians occasion to neglect this and other Sacraments seing that by other meanes as the loue of God Contrition prayer meditation c. they may get as much grace as is giuen by Sacramēts But suppose that by other Sacraments and other meanes one may get as much grace as Confirmation giueth yet he should not soe easilie norsoe infalliblie get it nor should he Sacramentallie and by a Character be a perfect Christian 9. For as although a Cathecumene who beleiueth all that other Christians do may peraduenture by multiplication of actes of Charitie and contrition by prayer almes faste get as much grace as is gotten by Baptisme yet he shall not be a Christian Sacramentallie and by Baptisme nor shall he be so incorporated to the Church as the Church shall haue that authoritie ouer him which she hath ouer the baptized and therefore cannot bynde him to any Ecclesiasticall law nor excommunicate him he being as S. Paule sayeth foris without 1. Cor. 5. and no
The regulars meddle not with Baptisme marriage and extreme vnction the Pastour ministreth all In fine the Pastour with Iacob day and night is parched with heate and forst Genes 31. 35. Math. 20. and is by office vigilant and carefull for his sheepe that the sleepe flyeth from his eyes and with the first workers in the vinyeard he beares the burden of the day and heate Whereas the regular as they are the later workers so they worke at plea fure And as one saieth the Priests or Pastours of the Church are the body of the armie regulars are the ayding wings Priests are pressed souldiers regulars are voluntaries Priests by office and ordinary right do minister Sacraments and preach regulars only by priuiledge And therefore S. Denys sayeth that because that the monkes when they were innitiated did not kneele an both knees nor had the Diuine bookes layed on their head but were neere the Priests whilest he recited the prayer Declarat monachorum ordinis non esse alios deducere sed in se ac per se stare in singulari sanctoque statu Lib de Eccl. Hier. co S. Contéplatio se cundū vers periotium M. NICHOLAS The perfection of a Bishop consists in this that by his office he is obliged to enlighten others and if occasion require to giue his life for his Flocke which occasion seldome happeneth To these two obligations the Bishop is tyed by iustice in regard of maintenāce and honour afforded him by his flocke or by vertue of sideline c. but religions men meerelie vpē charitie or religion more noble vertues then iustice or fidelitie to illuminate others and venture their liues for the sauing of soules n. 11. THE REPLY M. Nicholas speaketh to baselie of the Bishops office and dutie 43. when I redde these words of M. Nicholas I confesse I noe litle wondered to heare a religious man who should honour Bishops and Pastours speake in this manner But speake truth M. Nicholas da gloriam Deo giue glorie to God in giuing the due to his Bishop Is not the Bishop also boūd and especiallie bound out of charitie to vndertake and execute his office in illuminating and perfecting others and in giuing his life for thē If he be not why did Christ three times demaund of S. Peter whether be loued him Ioan 21 before he would cōmitte the gouernement of the Church vnto him Doe not those words of our Sauiour a good shepheard giueth his life for his sheepe Ioan. 10. pertaine especially more principallie to Bishops yea and to inferiour Pastours then to regulars Suarez a regular as well as M. Nicholas Lib 1. c 18 n. 14. and farre more learned and modest in the place last alleadged sayeth that the obligation of exercising actions ordained to the perfecting of others and the procuring the saluation of soules and loosing life for them is farre greater and higher in a Bishop then in any whatsoeuer simple religious of what Institute soeuer hee be And is there any greater charitie then to expose ones life for his sheepe as the Bishop is bound confesse then M. Nicholas to the honour of God who is honored in his Bishops that the obligation which the Bishop hath to illuminate others to giue his life for thē is greater thē any regular hath vnlesse he be also a Bishop or Pastour Yea as aboue we haue sayed it belongeth not to regulars as regulars to illuminate others or to giue their liues for them for then they should be in statu perfectionis acquisitae exercendae but onlie to seeke to saue and perfect themselues And M. Nicholas see how partiall affection domineereth sometimes euen in Religious men when he sayeth that a Bishop is eyed to illuminate others and to giue his life for his flocke by iustice only in regard of his maintenance and by fidelitie in regard of his coucuant made with his flocke and that regulars meerelie out of charitie expose themselues to dangers for gaining of soules as he commendeth partiallie regulars so he derogateth no litle to all Bishops in making thē all in a māner mercenaries which kind of Pastours Christ discōmēdeth reiecteth For that the mercenarie takes care of the flock not for the sheepes good loue of them but for his owne interest to wit honour maintenance and lucre as M. Nicholas seemeth to say all Bishops doe And so regulars are only the good Pastours who meerely vpon charitie and religion doe illuminate others and aduenture their life for sauing of soules wherefor as all Bishops ought to accept their office principallie for the loue of God and zeale of soules so we must haue that charitable opinion of them as to thinke that they doe so Suarez speaketh more honorablie of the charitie of the Bishop Tertiò desideratur maximè in Episcopo charitas tum in Deum qui est principalis ouium Dominers vt significanit christus Ioan. 21. cum ter interroganit Petrum an se diligeret prinsquam illiones suas commendaret c. Thirdlie saieth he there is required most of all in a Bishop charitie as well towards God who is the principall Lord of the sheepe as Christ signified Ioa. 21. when three times he demaunded of Peter whether he loued him before he commended vnto him his sheepe as also towards his subiectes Suarez c. 18. n. 4. whom he must tolerate receiue beinglie patiētlie suffer releiue their necessities and serue thē according to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 9. I made myselfe the seruāt of all that I might gaine the moe And after To the weake I became weake that I might gaine the weake And finallie he is bound in a particular māner by vertue of his office so to loue his sheepe as to yeeld his life for thē if loit must he as Christ taughe Ioan. 10. Whence it is that patience is necessarie for him which hath a perfect worke because hee must not onely obserue mercie but also iustice that sometymes stoutly and seuerelie Whence also it must needs be that he must suffer many thinges of the naughtie For these causes therefore and the like the Episcopall throne is a place of greatest perfection Thus and thus farre Suarez 44. Whereas M. Nicholas addeth n. 12. that merit doth not consist in office but in actes thereof I must tell him that though merit cōsist not in office only yet there is greate merite in executing a lawfull holy office such as is the office of the Priest Bishop the greater the state office and dignitie is the greater is the merit in executing it And M. Nicholas cannot deny but that the state dignitie of the person addeth merit to his actions For as the regulars actions by reason of his state and vow are more meritorious then are the same actiōs done by other Christiās not regulars so not onely the Bishops actions proper to his state are of greater perfection and merit then the proper
so comprehendeth both that order only will make a man of the Hierarchie as it importeth distinction in order and iurisdiction onely will make him of the Hierarchie as it implyeth distinction in power of iurisdiction and if he haue both then by both titles he is of the Hierarchie To his other demaund n. 4. he is also answered in the Hierarchie chap. 5. n. 18. and 21. for if the fowre lesser orders be of the institutition of the Church as some Authours cited by M. Doctour affirme then they who are vnder Subdeacons are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the Churches lawe and institution and not by the diuine lawe and institution but if they be of the diuine institution then these Ministers who are vnder Subdeacons are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the diuine institutiō And seing that Regulars who are neither Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons nor Accolytes c. haue neither order nor iurisdiction ouer the Church as other Ministers of the Hierarchie haue they cannot as Regulars be of the Hierarchie And therfore if an Abbot had only primam Tonsuram the first Tonsure which is no order although he haue iurisdiction ouer his Monkes Yet he should not be of the Hierarchie of the Church because he hath neither order nor Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but only Regular And so an Abbot as Abbot though he haue ordinarie power in his Religious order is not so much of the Hierarchie as a Bishop delegated because an Abbot not Bishop Priest c. is not of the Hierarchie at all but the delegated Bishop hath both order and iurisdiction and so by both wayes is of the Hierarchie And therfore S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars from the Hierarchie and yet some of them had iurisdiction ouer other Monkes VVherefore Regulars must not take this in euill parte for I giue them as much as S. Denys and learned Regulars giue them and would giue them alfo this dignitie to be of the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie if ether Christe or his Church had giuen it vnto them M. NICHOLAS That Religious Superiours as such bee of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie S. Bernard cited by M. Doctour chap. 1. n. 17. doth expressely teache c. n. 5. THE REPLY S. Bernard is explicated I answere that S. Bernard must be so explicated S. Bernard l. 3. de consid c. 4. as that he doe not contradict S. Denys from vvhom as Mr Nicholas in this trulie sayth q. 6. n. 1. vve have the best and allmost onlie Treatises of the Hierarchie Certaine it is that S. Denys and his Translatours and Interpreters doe giue not place to Regulars amongest vvhom some vvere Abbots in the Hierarchie but doe place them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie and only about the laitie and therfore perchance S. Bernard putteth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie not because they are properlie of the Hierarchie but because they are eminent mēbers in the Churche and haue some resemblance by reason of their high ranke in their Religious orders with those that are of the Hierarchie And if I would take hold of euerie thing as M. Nicholas vseth to doe I could confirme this because S. Bernard in that place placeth Abbots after Priests S. Ber. l. 3. de consid c. 4. Or else S. Bernard rekeneth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie because in his tyme most of thē were Priests many had Episcopall authoritie in some things Bel. to 1. l. 1. de concil c. 15. and many were perchance then as according to Bellarmine they are now admitted by priuiledge or custome to haue their voice in generall Councels and so by the Ecclesiasticall lawe were of the Hierarchie as we shall hereafter in the end of this question declare 31. Now wheras M. Nicholas in the same place sayth that he hath reason to complaine of M. Doctours dealing in alleaging S. Bernard as if he had sayd that the Hierarchie of the Church is perturbed vvhen Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops iurisdiction vvheras S. Bernard in the verie same place vvhich M. Doctour cites doth in expresse vvords approue the exemption of Abbots from Bishops and only disliketh exemption procured out of a spirit of disobedience pride and ambition wheras I say he sayth he hath reason to complaine on M. Doctour it will proue that M. Doctour hath reason to complaine on him in making him say more then he doth for doth not S. Bernard say as much as M. Doctour imputeth to him Doth he not complaine in that chapter that the order of the Hierarchie was then perturbed by exemptions hath he not these complayning words Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis Episcopi Archiepiscopis Archiepiscopi Patriarchis sen Primatibus Bona ne species hac mirum si excusari queatvel opus Sic fac titando probatis vos habere plenitudinem potestatis sed iustitiae forte non ita Facit is hoc quia potestis sed virum debeatis quaestio est Honorum ac dignitatum gradus ordines quibusque suos seruare positi estis non inuidere Abbots are subtracted from Bishops Bishops from Archbishops Arch-Bishops frō Patriarches or Primates And these words only M. Doctour alleaged But S. Bernard as we haue seen goeth on further Bona ne species hac Is this a good shovve forsoothe if euē the vvorke it selfe can be excused by so doing You he speaketh to Pope Eugenius proue that you haue the fulnes of povver but perchance not so of iustice you doe this because you can but vvhether you should there is a question Wherfore If S. Bernard in speaking thus much against exemptiōs to wit which haue no lawfull cause doth not deny but that the Pope hath power and iust cause to exempte Abbots and Monasteries from the iurisdiction of the Bishop much lesse can M. Nicholas inferre against M. Doctour who sayd not so much as he that he is against all exemptions but as S. Bernard for all those words doth allow of exemptions when there is iust cause as when a Monasterie from the beginning hath been exempte so might M. Doctour and so he doth M. NICHOLAS Mauclerus also vvhom M. Doctour in his 10. chapter n. 23. stileth a learned Doctour of Sorbon compareth Superiours in Religion to the Principalities secular Pastours inferiours to Bishops to Archangels and Priests not Curates to Angelles n. 5. THE REPLY Mauclerus meaneth only that Superiours in Religion haue some similitude vvith Principalities 32. M. Nicholas now would place Superiours of Religion not only in the Hierarchie but in one of the highst rankes also for that he sayth Mauclerus compareth them to Principalities And I also honour them not only for their Religious state but also for their dignitie in Religion But if S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars amongest whō were Abbots from the Hierarchie and placeth them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie and aboue the laytie they cā not be of the Hierarchie vnles they be
aboue his character And this opinion would answere to the fact of Saint Gregorie vpoÌ„ which the contrarie opinioÌ„ much relieth that S. Gregorie onely permitted certaine Priests who before had presumed it Greg. l. 3. ep 9 ad Ianuarium dist 90 cap peruenit to anoint the baptized in the forhead but not with the vnction proper to Confirmation nor with the forme of words which the Bishop vseth Others answere otherwise 25. And to the Councells of Florence and Trent which say that the ordinarie Minister of Confirmation is the Bishop as though the extraordinarie minister might be the Priest They answere that these two Councells define that at least the Bishop is the Ordinarie Minister because it was disputed whether by commission and as an extraordinarie Minister the Priest might confirme And whereas the Councell of Florence sayeth that It is read that sometimes by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike a simple Priest hath confirmed they answere the Councell defineth not that this indeed hath euer beene done but that it is read soe Thus they 26. But for all this S. Thomas his opinion is most probable being now especiallie most common though not most secure And this opinion would alledge for it the fact of S. Gregorie and the twoe councells alledged And to the Fathers it would answere that they meane onely that the Bishop is the onely Ordinarie Minister of Confirmation yet that the Priest may by commission from the Pope confirme and they would say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme so that the Pope commit this to him not that the Pope giueth him any power of Order for that this Priests owne Character is sufficient so that this condition be also put to wit that the Pope commit him and if he attempt to confirme without this commission he shall not validlie confirme because he wanteth a condition necessarie But although this be a probable peraduenture the more probable opinion as being the more common yet the first opinion is houlden of all as vndoubted and so is most secure 27. And so we haue more reason to demande a Bishop then a Priest committed by the Pope for that it is most certaine that he can confirme and by Confirmation giue vs strength against persecution and make vs perfect Christians And therefore M. Doctour vseth to say that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church nor haue Confirmation because the Bishop is the Ordinarie and most assured Minister and therefore this hereafter I will suppose 28. M. Nicholas n. 13. affimerth that M. Doctour doth not a right coÌ„pare Religious with Secular Priests But to this he is fullie answered in the sixt question n. 1. Where he is tould that if we take the Regular as Regular according to that state and qualitie onely he is not as soe taken of the Hierarchie though as Regular he be aboue the laitie and an eminent member of the Church but the Secular Priest as a Secular Priest considered in that state of a Priest is of the Hierarchie But more of this in that place shal be saied 29. M. Nicholas numer 14. saieth the thing which I most wonder in a man of learning is that those Fathers and Schooles diuines which be produceth for witnesses of his doctrine are in deed against himselfe as the Reader will see in his allegation of S. Cyprian S. Clement Sotus Bannes c. And I admire M. Nicholas for many things as for his conning carriage of things wilfull mistakings false impositions c. But most of all I wonder at his audacitie and that he hath the face to vtter the aforesaied words so considentlie Noe doubt the Reader cannot but thinke he affirming it so boldely that M. Doctour hath not alledged well these Fathers and Doctours but let him suspend his Iudgement vntill he come to the 2. question in M. Nicholas n. 2.9.10.11.17 Where he shall finde it so cleare and plaine that those Fathers and Doctours are for M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas that when he hath read the places alledged he will haue cause neuer to credit M. Nicholas in this kinde vpon his word albeit he make neuer so great or solemne protestations 30. Lastlie M. Nicholas n. 15. accuseth againe M. Doctour for derogating to my Lord of Chalcedons Ordinariship but to this he is alreadie answered and may haue a fuller answere hereafter 31. Thus in a cursorie manner I haue runne ouer M. Nicholas his first question not staying any long time about it partely because the matter by him proposed did not require any longer discourse partely because in his first question he seemeth principally to bragge onely what he will doe as in his seuenth and last questioÌ„ he boasteth of what he hath done But I hauing in the fiue middle questions answered him fullie to all and hauing shewed that he hath not beene able to disproue any one of M. Doctours assertions nor to answere to any one of his arguments it will plainelie appeare that in his firstquestion he breaketh promise and in his last boasteth of more then he hath performed THE SECOND QVESTION VVhether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church MAISTER NICHOLAS MAISTER Doctour in diuers partes of his Treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church And in his 14. Chapter where he endeanoureth to proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution one of his maine arguments is n. 9. because without a Bishop there can be no particular Church n. 1. REPLIE M. Nicholas Smith mistaketh M. D. Kellisons arguments 1. TRVE it is that M. Doctour Kellison in diuers places of his Treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church But as concerning that which M. Nichulas addeth that one of his maine arguments chap. 14. numer 9. is be cause without a Bishop theâ—â— cannot be a particular Church I denie that this is one of M. Doctours maine arguments to proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution For that in that 14. Chapter numer 4. M. Doctour hauing affirmed that as England cannot except against the comming in of Priestes by reason of persecution so England cannot except against the comming in of a Bishop for feare of persecution He addeth And my reasons are twoe The first is that which I haue often alledged because the gouernement of Bishops is instituted by Christ and hath beene in practise in the greatest persecution as wee haue seene in the former Chapter My secondreason is because the commoditie which a prouince reapeth by a Bishop is so greate and the want of him is such a losse that wee should rather hazard persecution as the AsricaÌ„ Catholiks did theÌ„ to be depriued of a Bishop And in this his secoÌ„d maine reason he includeth 1. the necessitie of a Bishop to make a perfect Christian 2. the vtilitie or necessitie of Confirmation 3. that without a Bishop
for a good definition saying Quenadmodum Ecclesiam bene definit Cyprianus as Cyprian well defineth the Church to be a people vnited to its Priest Bishop to what company or multitude soeuer that definition of a Church agreeth not that multitude can not be a Church Now a multitude may be without a Bishop ether because by Schisme it cutteth it selfe disobedientlie from its Bishop or because without its fault it wanteth a Bishop and which way soeuer it want a Bishop it is no Church because which way soeuer it want a Bishop it is not a people vnited to its Bishop Euen as a bodie is not a perfect bodie without a head whether it be depriued of its head by a iust or by an vniust sentēce or whether it neuer had a head Wherefore as S. Cyprian out of the a foresaied definition of a Church which Stapleton commendeth for a good definition inferred that the Nouatians were no Church because they had separated themselues by Schisme from their Bishop so M. Doctour might well also inferre that what countrie or people soeuer hath not a Bishop it is not a Church because as M. Nicholas is taught in Logike Cui non conuenit definitio non conuenit definitum to whome the definition agreeth not the thing defined agreeth not This onely is the difference that they who separate themselues by Schisme frome the Bishop are not onely no particular Church for want of a Bishop but also are no members of the whole and vniuersall Church by reason of their Schisme which cutteth them of from the whole Church as Bellarmin proueth in the place alledged Bellar. lib. 3 de Eccles milit c 5. But they who without Schisme or heresie want a Bishop though they be no particular Church by S. Cyprians definition yet they are members of the whole Church 8. And so the Catholikes of England who many yeares without their fault wanted a Bishop wereindeed no particular Church yet they were most worthie members of the whole Church and the heretikes of England who by Schisme and heresie separated themselues from all particular lawfull Bishops yea from the vniuersall Bishop himselfe were not onely no particular Church but also were no members of the whole and vniuersall Church being cutte of from it by schisme and heresie 9. But M. Nicholas cryeth out that S. Cyprian out of that definition inferreth onely that the Nouatians who had cutte themselues of by schisme were no Church It is true and what then May not out of the negation of the definition diuers conclusions be inferred and cōsequentlie that they also who without schisme want a Bishop be no Church Else if M. Nicholas inferreth that a horse is not a man because to a horse agreeth not the definition of a man which is Animalrationale M. Doctour must not inferre that a mule is not a man though the definition of a man agree not to it And therefore this Maxime Cui non conuenit definitio non conuenit definitum to whome the definition agreeth not to it the thing defined agreeth not as it is anvniuersall propositiō so it is vniuersallie true and seing that the definition of a Church is a people vnited to a Bishop that people which wāteth a Bishop whether by Schisme or otherwise can be no Church because it cannot be a people vnited to a Bishop vnlesse it haue a Bishop And so all the while English Catholikes wanted a Bishop they were no particular Church because all that while they could not be a people vnited to the Bishop 10. M. Doctours grounde being so fullie proued to wit that a people cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop his conclusion followeth in good consequence to wit that Englād euen as Catholike all the while it wanted a Bishop was not a particular Church and M. Nicholas his foundation which was that a people Catholike is a Church though it haue no Bishop being shaken and refuted all which M. Nicholas buildeth thereon falleth of it selfe Nemine impellente 11. As for example that which he saieth pag. 13. ◠4. that S. Cyprian speaketh of a Preist indefinitelie whē he saieth the Church is a people vnited to the Priest and that therefore England so long as it is vnited by obedience to the Bishop or Rome is a particular Church without a particular Bishop is reiected by that which is already saied and proued For as a Church in generall is a Church in that it is vnited to a Bishop so a particular Church is that which is vnited to a particular Bishop To be vnited to the vniuersall and Supreme Bishop is sufficient to be a member of the Church but to be a particular Church is required also that the multitude haue a particular Bishop else euerie Catholike familie euerie Nunnerie yea and companie of Cathōlike weomen should be a particular Church because they are subordinate to the Supreme Bishop 12. And I wonder M. Nicholas cannot see this For that as more is required to be a particular body of the Kingdome then to be a member so more is requisite to a particular Church then to a member of the Church For as if the King should take frō a dutchie the honour of a dutchie by depriuing it for euer of a duke that parte of his Kingdome should still be a member of the kingdome and subiect to the King but it should be no more a dutchie So if the Pope should depriue some one little prouince of its Bishop as he may though that Prouince be neither schismaticall nor hereticall that Prouince should cease to be a particular Church or Diocese but yet should still remaine a member of the vniuersall Church 13. Soe likewise that which M. Nicholas saieth pag. 16. num 6. falleth because S. Cyprian in the Epistle alledged by this definition of a Church Which is The people vnited to the Bishop excludeth the Nouatians not onely frō being a Church but also from being of the Church in that by Schisme they had separated themselues from their Bishop But M. Nicholas demaundeth And what is all this to proue that a particular Church can be no such without a Bishop no more thē if one should say King Henrie the 8. and his adherents in Schisme deuiding themselues from their lawfull Pastours were no true Church Ergo English Catholikes liuing in perfect obedience to the Vicar of Christ cannot truelie be a Church Which is in effect as doughtie an argument as this The soule and body separated can make no true man Ergo if they be conioyned they cannot make a true man Behould M. Nicholas his litle subtilitie who could not distinguish betwixt Schismaticall separation and faultelesse or meerelie negatiue separation The Catholiks of England in King Henrie the 8. his tyme who remained in harte and profession subiect to the Bishop of Rome were onely negatiuely separated from their particular Bishops because King Henrie tooke them from them by vrging them to follow him in his Schisme And so
euerie particular Church or Diocese but if we respect the diuine law there is not more reason of one then another Ergo all the Dioceses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop But M. Doctour would deny his maior as it is Fathered on him for he neither affirmeth nor denyeth that euerie Diocese must haue its Bishop onely he sayeth pag. 375. that it is not so certaine that by the diuine law there must be a Bishop in this or that particular Church as that in generall there must be Bishops in the Church pag. 376. he saieth that it is of the diuine law that euerie notable parte of the Church should haue its Bishop It is true Sotus saieth that it is of the diuine law that euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop but M. Doctour neither affirmeth it nor denyeth it Secondly I answere that there is more reason and necessitie of a Bishop in a whole countrie or Kingdome which is a notable parte of the Church then in euerie particular Diocese because one Bishop may in some sort gouerne two Dioceses but not all France Spaine or England or any such notable parte as I haue shewed and one Diocese may be assisted by the Bishop of the next Diocese but not one great Coūtrie by the Bishop of another countrie as I haue also proued 36. By this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to that his questiō n. 16. whether that England Scotland Iure diuino must also haue an Ordinarie For if England Scotland be both notable partes of the Church both ought to haue by the diuine law their proper Bishop be he Ordinarie or delegate when men demaund any thing there is more reason to demaūd that which is ordinarie thē that which is extraordinarie And if the Pope thinke best to giue a Delegate as so he may supplie Englāds wantes so that is not the ordinarie course obserued in other Churches And so Englād may demaund an Ordinarie and leaue the rest to the Chiefe Pastours discretion who is to Iudge whether he should giue an Ordinarie or delegate whether the diuine law obligeth to giue vnto a countrie a Bishop in this or that circumstance 37. Out of all this I gather how vnwilling M. Nicholas is to haue a Bishop I graunt that he sayeth pag. 204. that he would most willinglie spend his blood for the purchassing of times sutable with the enjoying of a Catholike Bishop in England But what is that time which M. Nicholas deemeth sutable for the enioying of a Bishop Would he haue a time which the supreme Pastour whose office it is to giue Pastours to eueriē Church thinketh in his iudgement sutable That tyme is alreadie come Would he haue a time in which the countrie hath men of its owne in it to be Bishops that time is also come for that two most worthie Prelates haue beene thought by the supreme Pastour sit and worthie to be sent the one after the other Would he haue a tyme in which there are not particular lawes enacted against the Bishop no confiscation of goods no losse of libertie or life executed on them that receiue Confirmation of him That tyme also is come Would he haue England altogether Catholike and no vse of any other religion to be permitted in it but Catholike before he would haue a Bishop come If that tyme onely be in M. Nicholas his opinion sutable the primatiue Church liued in no time sutable for a Bishop and yet Christ constituted his Apostles Bishops and they constituted others in the greatest rage and furie of persecution as M. Doctour hath shewed in his 13. Chapter n. 3. And to say that a time of persecution is not sutable for a Bishop is to say that when the enemie is in the field it is not a time sutable to haue a Generall when the woulfe is ready to set on the flocke it is not a time sutable to haue a Pastour And so the tyme of the primatiue Church in which the Church was assalted by persecutours in all Countries and on all sides was not a time sutable for enioying a Bishop And yet that is the tyme in which there is most need of him to giue them by Confirmation spirituall force and strength to direct them by his counsaile to encourage them by his presence and example If none of these tymes be sutable for a Bishop in M. Nicholas his opinion The primitiue Christians should haue beene without a Bishop till the Emperour Constantine appeased persecution and Christ should not haue sent his Apostles to gouerne preach and confirme till the saied tyme of Constantine for all the tymes before being times of persecutiō were not by M. Nicholas his counte sutable to the enioying of a Bishop If then neither the tyme that Christ thought fit to send Bishops nor the tyme that the Apostles ordained Bishops nor the time that Christ his chiefe Vicaires haue thought sutable for the enioying of a Bishop in England be sutable in M. Nicholas his Iudgement Let him name vs another tyme which is sutable least if he except against so many times men may thinke that M. Nicholas deemeth no time sutable for enioying a Bishop in England M. NICHOLAS What he alledgeth out of Suarez to proue that the gouernement c. n. 17. THE REPLY Suarez is not against M. Doctour but for him 37. Suarez in the place alledged by M. Doctour hath two reasons Suarez tom 4. in 3. p. disput 26. sect 1. n 8. and it sufficed M. Doctour to cite the one because the other matter which the second reason toucheth was not controuerted nor in question Euerie Reader of Iudgement would obserue that in the citation nothing is wanting but an c. which was not necessarie because the first reason serued M. Doctours turne which was that the Pope cannot change the gouernement of the Church because the Church by Christ his institution is a Monarchie and a monarchie requireth not onelie one chiefe Monarche but also other subordinate princes Which was enough to confirme what M. Doctour there intended to wit that in the Church there must be diuers particular Bishops and Churches And the second reason which Suarez alledgeth as it was not necessarie to be alledged for M. Doctours purpose so it was not left out as M. Nicholas rashlie iudgeth because it made against M. Doctour as it is manifest His second reason therefore was tum etiam quia in republica Christiana c. and also because in the Christian commonwealth this was most necessarie for it is most ample and most vniuersall and its gouernement is spirituall and interne which is not done exactlie bu◠by proper Pastours and Princes of the Church And what is this against M. Doctour rather it is for him For as the Church is a must ample and most vniuersall Monarchie and therefore according to Suarez his second reason needeth more spirituall Princes and Bishops then a Kingdome doth neede temporall Princes so euerie notable parte of
this vniuersall and ample Church pleadeth for one Ordinarie or Delegate Bishop one Bishop being not sufficient to serue diuers great partes thereof as aboue is declared 38. By this sayeth M. Nicholas num 17. is answered a demaund of M. Doctour Chapter 14. V V by the Pope and Bishops in the primatiue Church were so diligent in consecrating Bishops yea and making Popes in the midst of persecution but that they thought it was the diuine law that euerie great Church should haue its Bishop M. Nicholas answereth that the reason was because in those times euerie Countrie needed its owne Bishop to ordaine Priests c. And why might not Priests then haue beene sent out of one countrie into another as well as now Was anie one countrie so farre distant from all Catholike coūtries or Churches as none could send Priests vnto them as now they do from Rome Spaine Flāders and other places into England And is not England separated from the whole worlde more thē many of those countries Did not Apostolicall men then go further and do they not now also MAISTER NICHOLAS In the numbers 19.20.21.22.23 he examineth the Examples of the Africans alledged by M. Doctour Chap. 13. n. 7.8 and he saieth examples proue litle vnlesse we were sure of all circumstances THE REPLY Why these examples were alledged by M. Doctour and what they proue 39. M. Doctour brought these examples as he doth professe in his 13. Chapter num 7. to shewe their zele and great desire to haue a Bishop notwithstanding persecution and so M. Nicholas may let them stand as they will to all posteritie If all English Catholikes and especiallie some Regular Catholikes and their adherentes had imitated this zele those oppositions against a Bishop sent by lawfull and highest authoritie would neuer haue beene but rather we should haue allioyned vnanimouslie for the procuring of a Bishop not for priuate interests of which M. Nicholas though he inculcate it sometimes had as much need to take heed of as Secular Priests who cōsidering the times haue litle reason to desire such an office for humane respects to which many labours and daungers no wordly splendour or riches are now annexed but for the good of our countrie the comfort of Catholikes the saluation of soules the honour of our Church of England and the greater glorie of God Yet these examples of those zelous African Catholikes proue also something For why should they so crye for a Bishop but that they knew it was the diuine Institution that the Church in all times should be gouerned by Bishops Victor Vticēs l. 2. de persec .. Vādal but that they reaped great comforte and had much direction in persecution by his presence and great strength by the grace of Confirmation which for twentie fower yeares they had wanted they hauing had all that time no Bishop 40. And thus M. Nicholas his third question being fullie answered though he peraduenture not satisfied M. Doctours position of the necessitie of a Bishop in euerie notable parte of the Church proued and all M. Nicholas hath beene able to say disproued I will make an end of this question THE FOVRTH QVESTION VVhether a countrie although the persecution should be encreased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were onely for the Sacrament of Confirmation MAISTER NICHOLAS FIRST we protest that by Gods holy assistance we do and euer will reuerence the Sacrament of Confirmation c. but to put vpon mennes Consciences so strict an obligation not withstanding whatsoeuer persecution c num 1. THE REPLIE M. Nicholas changeth the Question 1. M. DOCTOVR onely affirmeth that as although no man in particular be bound to receiue a Priest if thereby he should hazard lands libertie or life Yet no countrie can except against the comming in of Priests for feare of persecution in generall because the losse of preaching and Sacraments c. is such a spirituall domage to a whole countrie that it should rather hazard persecution then refuse Priests though none in particular be bound with such temporall losse to receiue a priest his priuate spirituall losse being not cōparable to the spirituall losse which a whole countrie should receiue by want of Priests So M. Doctour sayeth also that although no man in particular be bound to receiue a Bishop into his house or Confirmation of him with any notable temporallosse Yet neither a whole countrie nor any of the countrie can except against the comming in of a Bishop by reason that the spirituall losse which it should sustaine by want of him for that the Countrie should not be a particular Church nor the Catholikes could be perfect Christians nor could they haue so infalliblie the grace of Cōfirmation giuen to that purpose that men may haue force thereby to stand constantly to the profession of their faith nor should they haue the example and encouragement of the Bishop who in that case vseth to put life into his subiectes 2. M. Nicholas changeth the state of the question and imposeth on M. Doctour as though he sayed that euerie Catholike in particular is bound to hazard all for the Bishop and Confirmation 3. That M. Doctour speaketh onely in generall may appeare by those his words which he hath Chapter 14. numer 3. 4. 8. and also by the words which out of Maister Doctour Maister Nicholas himselfe alledgeth q. 4. num 12. Where M. Doctour sayeth I am of opinion which I humblie submitte to authoritie that this particular Church of England France Spaine and such like of which notable partes he before spoake n. 2. cannot except any long tyme against a Bishop Againe M. Doctour sayeth in the same Chapter nu 8. But howsoeuer although euerie man in particular cannot be condemned of sinne for omitting confirmation for feare of losse of his life lands or libertie yet I thinke c. Which words M. Nicholas alledgeth out of M. Doctour p. 85. 4. And yet that M. Nicholas in the beginning of this 4. question chargeth M. Doctour as though he had sayed that euerie one in particular is to hazard temporall losses rather then to omit confirmatiō appeareth because he exaggerateth this as if he had put vpon mens consciences so strict an obligation notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution c. And againe pag 83. endeauouring to answere a place alledged out of S. Clement he sayeth our case is When Confirmatiō cannot be had without hazard of goods libertie life as though M. Doctour had sayed that one in particular is to hazard such losse rather then omit Confirmation 5. But M. Doctour speaketh in generall and if because in particular no man is bound to hazard any notable temporall losse for the Bishop or Confirmation he may inferre that the countrie may except against the Bishop and that Sacrament by the like reason it may be inferred that because no man is bound to receiue a priest secular or regular into his house or to receiue any Sacrament of him
that were wanting it would not derogate to the perfectioÌ„ of the Seminarie Priests office aÌ„d calling because still it should be ordained to the most perfect actioÌ„s aÌ„d this is the principall in astate of perfection and by this onestate is iudged to be more perfect or eminent then another 61. And yet this immobilitie seemeth not altogether wanting for that the Seminarie Priest byndeth himselfe by oathe to goe to EnglaÌ„d there to endeauour with hazard of libertie and life to conuert and gaine soules And indeed Pope Gregorie the thirteenth who founded the English Seminarie in Rome hath decreed Greg. 13. in bulla edita an that the Schollers who will enioy the benefit of that howse shall sweare as appeareth by a Bull made for the erecting of that Seminarie that they will vndertake an Ecclesiasticall life and wil be ready omni tempore at all times to returne to their Countrie at the Commaundement of the Superiour there to ayde soules as much as in our Lord they can 1579. 9. Kal Maij And in the oath of that and other Colleges the Scholler sweareth vnto Almightie God that he Is and wil be in mynd prepared as much as his grace shall helpe him to receiue orders and to returne into EnglaÌ„d to gaine soules quotiescumque quandocumque so often as euer and when or what tyme soeuer is shall seeme good in our lord to the superiour of the colledge according to the Institute thereof to commaund him And the more yet to bind the Seminarie Priest to this state the holie coÌ„gregation De Propag fide by commandement from the Pope hath ordained that the Schollers of the popes Semiies shal sweare that they willnot enter into ReligioÌ„ without licence froÌ„ the Pope or not till they haue laboured three yeares in the missioÌ„ and if thus they vndertake a Religious life yet by the decree of the sayed coÌ„gregatioÌ„ they must goe to labour in the mission 62. And if by these words Soe often as euer and When or at what tyme soeuer it be vnderstood that although the Priest vpon occasion may retire himselfe out of England he will yet returne soe often as his superiour shall command then the Seminarie Priests state is immoueable because his oath byndeth him perpetuallie to goe to England when soeuer his Superiour shall send him which argueth a perpetuall obligation by oath which as Nauarre and others doe think byndeth more then a vowe Nau. c. 27. Man n. 75. Maior in 3. d. 39. q. 2. Va lentia to 3. diso 6. q 7. punct 4 S. Th. 2.2 q. 89. a. 8. or if not so much as S. Thomas thinketh at least it byndeth sufficiently to make a state and more then a pacte or couenaunt of the Pastour with his Church which Suarez as we haue seene holdeth sufficient to make an immoueable state But because I will not take vpon me to interprete so rigourouslie those words QuotiescuÌ„que quan documque but leaue that to Superiours and to the practise of the same oath I will not affirme that the Seminarie Priests calling hath a sufficient immobilitie to make it a state At least this out of the premises is certaine that the Seminarie Priests calling vnder the Bishop is the highest calling in the Church of God by reason that it is ordained to actes of greatest perfection which are to preach teach minister Sacraments c. amongest heretiques euen with dayly hazard of his libertie and life 63. By this which hath beene sayed of the state of Bishops Secular Priests inferiour Pastours and Seminarie Priests may easilie be gathered an Answer to all which M. Nicholas alleageth from the number 14. to the number 16. for the precedence of Regulars in state of perfection From which number 16. to the number 23. he goeth about to proue that Religious men are fitter to be sent in mission then secular Priests are which is an odious comparison wheras notwithstanding our Sauiour Christe who wanted neither wisdome nor will hath made choise of Bishops and Priests as the Church to this day doth though Regulars also be sometymes called to be Bishops and Priests To. 3. lib. 1. de Rel. c. 19. n. 14. and to doe Episcopall and Priestlie functions But this as Suarez sayth they doe only by delegation and priuiledge not by ordinarie right and power And in this sense it is out of their element though M. Nicholas pag. 232. thinketh this strange But to this also he is answered aboue n. 41.42.45 and to his contentment if reason will content him M. NICHOLAS It remaineth that I explicate a pointe or two handled by M. Doctour obscurely and with disaduantage to Religious state n. 22 in the end The first is that perfection consisteth in charilie and that the three Euangelicall Counsels are noe perfection but instruments and meanes to perfection etc. n. 23. THE REPLY M. Doctour speaketh as S. Thomas and Suarez doe 64. If that saying of M. Doctours displeaseth M. Nicholas S. Th. Suar infra Caiet infra Caiet in 2.2 q. 184. ar 7 he must blame S. Thomas and Suarez yea and all deuines who speake as M. Doctour did And although I haue alreadie cited S. Thomas and Suarez yet to ease the Reader of the labour of looking backe I shal heere againe set downe their words S. Thomas alleageth Moyses Abbot his words to shewe that perfection coÌ„sisteth in charitie not in the Counsels S. Th. 2.2 q. 184. a. 3. in corp The words are these leiunia vigiliae meditatio Scripturarum c. Fastings watchings medication of the Scriptures nakednes and priuation of all riches are not perfection but instruments of perfection because in them consisteth not the end of that discipline but by them is attained the end And S. Thomas himselfe in his answere to the first argument hath these words Et idcoex ipso modo loquendi apparet guod consilia sunt quaedam instrumenta perueniendi ad perfectionem c. And therefore by the verie manner of speaking it appeareth that the Counsels are certaine instruments to come to perfection Suar. to 3 l 1. c. 15. n. 12. And Suarez ioyneth with him or rather followeth him in the same Illa consilia corumque obseruantâ—a non continent formalem perfectionem c. Those counsels and the obseruation of them doe not contâ—yne formal perfection but are instruments to acquire it yet without them perfection may be found 65. But M. Nicholas obiecteth against this 2.2 q. 184. n. 3. that S. Thomas in the same article sayth Secundario instrumentaliter perfectio consistit in consilys Secundarilie and instrumentallâ—e perfection consteth in the Counsels I answer that to saye perction consisteth iustrumentallie in the Counsels is all one as to say with S. Thomas and Suarez that they are instruments of perfection but conteyne not formall perfection otherwise S. Thomas should contradict himselfe Soe the Sacraments doe conteine grace virtuallie and instrumentallie but not formallie because they are
eiusmodi Praelatis c. If in such Prelates vvee confider the degree of the holy order speaking simply ther is some thing in them vvorthier and more perfect then in the religious as religious not in holy orders VVhere we see he vseth M. Doctours reduplication which offendeth M. Nicholas and preferreth the holy order before the state and perfection of a religious man who is not in holy orders M. NICHOLAS J grante that if vve limit the name of Hierarchie to Bishops Priests Deacons c. then to say that Religious not Priests or Bishops are not of the Hierarchie is no more then to say religious not Priests or Bishops are no Priests or Bishops vvhich surelie is no greate mysterie but then it should be prooued vvith vvhat ground the mame of Hierarchie should be soe limited n. 2. THE REPLY Hovv regulars are of the Hierarchie and hovv they are not 8. M. Nicholas from this place beginneth to proue that Regulars are of the Hierarchie And trulie if ether God or his Church had bestowed that honour on them God forbid that I should goe about to take it from them rather I would by word and writing defend it and hazard euen my life to assure it the more vnto them But if neither God nor his Church hath giuen them this honour neither must we giue it to them least wee breake God his ordinaunce neither should they desire it But as the laytie murmureth not against the Clergie as Core Dathan and Abiron Num. 16. and their followers did against Moyses and Aaron for that they may not preache nor minister Sacraments and as those of the secular Clergie ought not to take it in euil part that they are not esteemed religious Soe neither should the religious be offended if wee say that they are not of the Hierarchie neither God nor his Church hauing bestowed that honour vpon them though they be adorned with many other graces Rather they may reioice in God that they haue many perfections of a religious life which others haue not and are furnished with moe meanes to attaine to perfection then secular Priests haue and that their state is more secure and free from danger then any other state is 9. And if M. Nicholas who endeauoureth to proue them to be of the Hierarchie meane only that they are members of the Church which is a Hierarchie neither M. Doctour nor any good Catholique will or can deny it Nay M. Doctour in his Hierarchie Chap. 8. n. 7. sayth that religious men as religious are a greate ornaments to the Church and are in this sense of the Hierarchie of the Church in that they are eminent members of the Church and are ordained to help and assist Bishops and Pastours c. 10. But if he meane that they are of the Hierarchie as commonly it is taken by S. Denys and diuines for that part of the Church which gouerneth illuminateth perfecteth and purgeth the rest by preaching and administration of Sacraments c. so only Bishops Pastours Priests and other Ministers are of the Hierarchie And in this sense the holie Councell of Trent taketh the Hierarchie saying Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia Catholica non esse Hierarchiam diuina ordinatione institutam quae constat ex Episcopis Pres byter is Ministris Anathema sit If any shall saye that there is not in the Church a Hierarchie instituted by the diuine ordinance vvhich consisteth of Bishops and Priests and Ministers let him be accursed Sess 23 can 6. VVhere we see that the Hierarchie is taken only for that part of the Church which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers and seing that Regulars as Regulars are neither Bishops Priests nor Ministers in the Church as Bishops Priests and Deacons are they are not as Regulars of the Hierarchie in this sense for if as Regulars they were of the Hierarchie in this sense then lay brothers and sisters who are trulie Regulars should be of the Hierarchie in the same sense and so should be comprehended vnder Bishops or Priests or Ministers in the Church 11. And therfore I wonder that M. Nicholas pag. 165. should saye that it is temeritie to affirme that the Councell intended to define as a matter of fayto that vnder the name of Hierarchie could be comprehâ—nded only Bishops Priests or other Ministers indued vvith order or iurisdiction rather it may seeme greate temeritie in M. Nicholas to comprehend Regulars as Regulars vnder that definition they as such being neither Bishops nor Priests nor Ministers in the Church But peraduenture M. Nicholas will comprehend Regulars vnder thâ— word Ministers And why so are they as Regulars Ministers in the Church who as Regulars can not by office preach or Minister Sacraments or assist at the Altar with the Deacon and Subdeacon did he euer reade or heare that Regulars were called Ministers of the Church Certes Vasquez a Iesuite and Regular Vasq to 3. disp 238. c. 2. vnder that word Ministris Ministers comprehendeth only Deacons not other inferiour Ministers much lesse vnder that word would he vnderstand Regulars who as Regulars were neuer called Ministers in the Church they as Regulars hauing no Church-functions Others vnder that word Ministers vnderstand Deacons and Subdeacons but none vnderstand Regulars 22. M. Doctour in his Hierarchie chap. 15. touched this question whether regulars be of the Hierarchie in the former sense and indeed he seemed only to touche it and that with greate moderation and respect to Religious and therfore alleaged noe Authours for the proofe of it And I also because I would not giue the least occasioÌ„ of offeÌ„ce would haue beene sparing in this matter but that M. Nicholas vrgeth me much in his 6. question where he handleth this point at large and sayth n. 1. that nothing is more frequent then that some persons hee seemeth to meane M. Doctour for one vvho I dare say scarselie euer read S. Denys nor euer vvere much conuersant in S. Thomas of Aquin from vvhom vve haue the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchie vvilbe discoursing of the secular Clergie as though they only vvere of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie And because M. Nicholas will seeme to be more conuersant in S. Denys and S. Thomas then others are and sayth that from them vve haue the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchie I shall especiallie examine what S. Denys sayth of the Hierarchie and I will shewe soe plainelie and clearlie out of him from whence indeed S. Thomas and all deuines haue learned that which they say of the Hierarchie that regulars in his opinion and as he taketh the word Hierarchie are not of the Hierarchie that the Reader will confesse that ether M. Nicholas neuer read S. Denys and so is of the number of them who as he sayth scarselie euer read S. Denys or if he read him that he vnderstood him not or wittinglie and willinglie dissembled his opinion 13. L. de Eccl. Hierarch cap. 5. S.
Denys then in his booke of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie speaking of those who are of the Hierarchie reckeneth only the Bishop Priest and Deacons and sayth that the Bishops office is to perfect the Priests to illuminate the Deacons to purge And in the sayd Chapter in his contemplation he telleth how they all three are ordained And the Bishop he sayth is the first and Chiefe order in whom the rest are consummated For sayth he as the whole Hierarchie of the Church is consummated in the Chiefe Hierarch and Bishop Christe soe euerie spirituall and particular Hierarchie that is euerie particular Church is terminated and consummated in its proper Bishop Which may be noted against M. Nicholas who would haue a particular Church without a particular Bishop So that S. Denys in the Hierarchie placeth only Bishops Priests Deacons to whom are reduced Subdeacons and other inferiour orders if especiallie these be of the deuine institution of which point M. Doctour hath disputed in his Hierarchie 14. Dion l. Eccl. Hier c. 6. In the next chapter which is the sixt he treateth of the three orders of those that are perfected And Dionysius Carthusianus in his Elucidation or explication of this sixt chapter sayth that S. Denys in the former chapter treated of the three orders of perfectors that is the Bishop Priest and Deacon but now in the sixt â—hapter he speaketh of three orders of those that are perfected And he obserueth that when S. Denys speaketh of the three orders of those that perfect others the name order signifieth a name of dignitie but when he speaketh of the three orders of them that are perfected the name order signifieth no name of dignitie but rather is a name of subiection 15. S. Denys in that sixt chapter sayth that the orders of those who are perfected are in generall three The last as Dionysius Carthusianus explicateth to wit they that are purged are 5. that is Catechumenes Energumenes Apostataes vicious infirme and timide or fearfull persons the next aboue them are the people baptized and admitted to the sacred Euchariste the highest order of those that are perfected are the Monkes and religious who therfore are called according to the Translation of Lanselius Summus corum qui initiantur perficiuntur ordo The cheefe order of those that are initiated and perfected not the cheefe in the Church because S. Denys placeth Bishops Priests and Deacons before them but the first of those who are initiated and perfected Dion Cart. sayth that the order of MoÌ„kes is perfectus inter perficiendos perfect amongest those that are to be perfected but not amongest those that perfect others Art 13. super That 6. 16. All this may be confirmed by what S. Denys sayth in his Epistle to Demophilus Monke where checking him for hauing Kicked a penitent who was confessing to the Priest and for contemptuouslie vsing the Priest him selfe he taketh him vp in these words Nefas est sacerdorem a Ministris qui to superiores sunt aut à tui ordinis Monachis corrigi reprehendi c. It is not lavvfull that a Priest should be corrected or reprehended by the Ministers vvho are aboue thee or of the Monkes of they order c. and he giueth the reason saying Sacerdotes autem nuncij atque interpretes secundum pontifices sunt dininorum iudiciorum ab eis rectè ordine tâ— per medios interiectosque Ministros cum tempus posiulabit diuina disce à quibus etiam vt monachus esses habuisti An non hoc etiam clamant sacramysteria neque enim planè omnibus aditus ad Sancta Sanctorum interdictus est sed proximè ad ea accedit Pontificum ordo deinde Sacerdotum tum secundum hos ministrorum Ijs autem qui Monachi instituti sunt valuae adytorum occlusae sunt ad quas initiantur assistunt non vt eas Custodiant sed vt agnoscant se ordinem suum propiusque populum quam Ecclesiastici ordinis homines accedunt c. Priests next to the Bishops are the messengers or relaters and interpretors of the diuine iudgements of them by meanes of the middle Ministers rightlie and by order vvhen the tyme shall require doe thou learne the diuine thinges of vvhom also thou hadst that thou vvast monke Do not the sacred mysteries erye this For that all is not interdicted accesse to the Holies of Holies but next to them hath accesse the order of Bishops then of Priests then after them of the ministers But to them vvho are instituted monkes the doores of the Chaunselles or secret places of the Temple are shut at vvhich they are initiated and doe assist not to keepe them but that they may acknovvledge themselues and their order and they doe approche neerer to the people then the men of the Ecclesiasticall order doe By which it appeareth that according to S. Denis Regulars in his tyme wen excluded from the presbyterie and the Chaunsell and only were admitted to the doores but were not admitted into that holy and secret place 17. But let vs heare a worthie Regular speake Father Ihon de S. François Generall in his tyme of the order of S. Bernard called the order of the Fueillianes in Paris vvho is famous for his Translation of S. Denis his worke into french Hee in his Apollogie for these workes in answering an obiection made by Scaliger against them hath these words Chap. 13. pag. 74. Rour l'intelligence de ce que nous disons faut supposer que sainct Denis voulant monstrer le bel ordre qui est en la Hierarchie de l'Eglise diuise tout le peuple Chrestien en deux parties dont l'vne est celle du Clergé l'autre est du peuple laique Il distingue tout le Clergé en trois ordres le premier esi celuy des Euesques l'autre des Prestres le tiers de liturges c. For the vnderstanding of this vvhich vve say it must be supposed that S. Denys intending to shevv the goodlie order vvhich is in the Hierarchie of the Church deuideth all the Christian people into tvvo parts of vvhich the one is that of the Clergie the other of the lay people He distinguisheth all the Clergie into three orders The first is that of the Bishops the other of Priests and the third of the liturges that is Deacons to whom the other Ministers of the Church are reduced He distribueth the people in like manner into three Quires the first is that of Catechumenes Energumenes and Penstents the second parte is that vvhich is the holy people and the third is of the Monkes And because that all the ministerie of the Hierarchie consisteth in three thinges either in purging or illuminating or perfecting or in being purged illuminated or perfected Therfore he S. Denys calleth the order of liturges Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purgatiue order that of Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminatiue and that of the Bishops 〈◊〉
Bishops Priests c. or haue some Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction or by priuiledge be admitted to the Hierarchie as we shall see in the end of this question and so as Abbots preciselie they are not of the Hierarchie I answere therfore first that as I honour Mauclerus for that his learned worke and for the greate good fame and report that goeth of him so if he did hold against S. Denys I ought te preferre S. Denys as he him selfe would 33. Secondlie I answere that Mauclerus intended not in that place exactlie to declare who are properlie of the Hierarchie of the Church but only to shew how some in the Church militant resemble one order of the Hierarchie some another though they be not properlie of the Hierarchie Maucl 1. p. l. 5. c. 5. de Monarch as S. Denys and the Councell of Trent doe take the name Hierarchie So he sayth that holy Christians who rapte with the loue of God doe contemne the world doe resemble the Seraphins as S. Gregorie also by him alleageth doth affirme and yet M. Nicholas will not say that all holy women or lay men who are so rapt with the loue of God are of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie And if for this resemblance which they haue with Seraphins they are of the Hierarchie of the Church militant they should be in the highest ranke of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie because they resemble the highest order of the Angelicall Hierarchie and so should haue an higher ranke then Bishops and yet S. Denys excludeth all lay people froÌ„ the Hierarchie though neuer so holy and burning with the loue of God And the reason of this is because it is not charitie or merit which maketh a man of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie but only order or iurisdiction or Ecclesiasticall office and dignitie and therfore an euill Bishop hath an high ranke in the Hierarchie and an holy layman is not of the Hierarchie So Mauclerus sayth that good Princes such as Theodosius and others were doe resemble the Celestiall powers and yet Princes are reckened amongest the laye people which S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth from the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie for although they be lawfull gouernorus of the common wealth yet they are noe Gouernours nor Superiours of the Church but subiectes to her Pastours and especiallie to her cheefe Pastour So he sayth that compassionate and charitable persons are like to the Angelles because they haue care of pupilles widowes and the poore as Angels haue of them who are committed to their custodie and yet laye Christians though neuer so charitable are not of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie M. NICHOLAS S. Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. defineth a Hierarchie in this manner Qui Hierarchiaâ— dixit omnium simul sacrorum ordinum dixit dispositionem He that names a Hierarchie names the disposition or due ranking of all sacred orders VVhat vvords are heere to exclude Religious men c. n. 6. THE REPLY The definition of a Hierarchie is declared against M. Nicholas 34. Heere M. Nicholas vrgeth vs with the definition of a Hierarchie and argueth as he thinketh à definitione ad definitum which is one of the best manners of arguing For if from the definition of a Hierarchie Regulars are not excluded they can not be excluded from the thing defined that is from the Hierarchie And then as making him selfe cocke sure to be of the Hierarchie by this definition he demandeth What vvords are heere to exclude Religious men I ame sure sayth he M. Doctour knovveth vvell that by sacred orders S. Denys is farre from vnderstanding as some valearned persons might imagin holy orders of Priesthood Deacon and Subdeacon But by orders he vnderstandeth professions institutes offices degrees Thus he And if you let him goe with this interpretation all Regulars must be of the Hierarchie though they be but lay brothers or sisters and yet as we haue seene S. Denys excludeth them from the Hierarchie and Presbiterie and placeth them vnder the Clergie and aboue the laytie So that it should be strange that S. Denys should define a Hierarchie in the seÌ„se in which M. Nicholas taketh him and yet should exclude them from the Hierarchie which were to grosse a fault to be attributed to S. Denys for that it were to comprehend them in the definition and yet to exclude them froÌ„ the definitum which were as grosse a thing as if a logician should grant one to be animal rationale and yet deny him to be homo a man 34. I answere therfore first that S. Denys hath not that definitioÌ„ of a Hierarchie which M. Nicholas alleageth for he sayth not that he that names a Hierarchie names the disposition of all sacred orders nor hath he the word ordinum orders but onlie sacrorum sacred thinges to signifie that the Hierarchie is that in which is a disposition of all sacred functions and Hierarchicall actions Lib. de Eccl. Hier. c. 1. The Greeke Text hath these words Cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words Perionius translateth thus into latin Vt enim qui Hierarchiam dixit omnium simul sacrorum dixit descriptionem sic qui Hierarcham dicit is virum diuino numine afflatum diuinumque declarat qui omni sacra scientia sit praeditus in quo omnis quae eum attingit Hierarchia purè absoluitur ac cognoscitur And Frere Iean de S. François whom I aboue alleaged translateth the same words into French thus Car ne plus ne moins que celuy qui dict Hierarchie comprend sommairement l'ordre disposition de toutes les choses sainctes sacrees ensemble c. And the English both of the greeke latin and frenche is this For as he that nameth a Hierarchie nameth a description or an order or disposition as the french translation hath of all the holy thinges together so he that nameth a Hierarch he declareth a man inspired by the deuine povver or maiestie and a deuine man vvho is moued vvith all sacred knovvledge in vvhom all the Hierarchie vvhich forteineth to him is purelie compleate and finished And so in none of these translations is sacrorum ordinum sacred orders but only sacrorum holy thinges that is sacred and Hierarchicall actions which are performed by the Hierarchie which as S. Denys sayth are in generall to purge illuminate and perfect by preaching administration of Sacraments and such like sacred functions So that according to S. Denys as the Hierarchie is an order and disposition of all the sacred functions and actions so a Hierarch which is a spirituall Prince to wit the Bishop hath in him all sacred orders and functions and comprehendeth all power and functions which are in inferiour ministers and so all the functioÌ„s of the Hierarchie of the Church are compendiouslie comprehended in him And thus Dionysius Cartusianus doth expounde the former words Dion Cart. art 1. saying Nefiraigitur Hierarchia puta Ecclesiastica dicitur est continens omnium quae iuxta eam suâ—t
of the Church and subordinate to him in matters of faith and Religion 38. Secondlie I answere that two wayes one may be of the Hierarchie of the Churche first as the people are of the Kingdome that is as subiectes and such as are ruled and so all Catholique Christians are of the Hierarchie of the Church and are a multitude ordered vnder one spirituall Prince the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successour Seconlie as the King and his Consellors and Officers who beare rule in the Kingdome and so only Bishops Priests Deacons Pastours and those tha◠vnder the cheefe Bishop gouerne the Church and who purge as S. Denys sayth illuminate and perfect others by ruling preaching and administration of Sacraments are of the Hierarchie and in this sense Regulars as Regulars or who are not Bishops Priests c. are not of the Hierarchie as aboue is euidenlie shewed out of S. Denys and others And this distinction M. Doctour hath◠his Hierarchie chap. 8. n. 1. where he hath these words which if M. Nicholas had marked he would not haue made this obiection for there M. Doctour hath these words Jt fellovveth novv that I breifely declare vvhich in partieular are these orders and vvhether all that are in dignitie in the Church be of the Hierarchie not onlie as the laitie is vvhich is of this Hierarchie as the common people are of the Kingdome but also as vvho beare office in the Churche M. NICHOLAS In his second article he S. Thomas demaunds vvhether in one Hierarchie there be more orders of Angels and he ansvvers that there are Because it should not be an ordered but a confused multitude if in it there vvere not diuers orders vvhich diuersity of orders is considered according to diuers offices and actes as in one city there are diuers orders according to diuers actions for there is one order of iudges another of the fighting men another of such as till the ground Marke hovv S. Thomas doth hold that diuers functions and actes are sufficient for the distinctiō of Hierarchies although they doe not alvvayes presuppose iurisdiction c. n. 7. THE REPLY Not all actes and functions but Hierarchicall vvhich are purging illuminating and perfecting make men of the Hierarchie and there is a difference betvvixt the Hierarchie of Angels and of the Church militant 39. M. Nicholas because he knoweth that Regulars not Bishops Priests c. doe not exercice Hierarchicall actions which are purging illuminating and perfecting by preaching and administration of Sacraments would fayne haue it granted vnto him that all diuersitie of actes are sufficient to make mē of diuers orders of the Hierarchie And this he proueth out of S. Thomas by two examples the one is of the diuers orders of Angels the other is of the diuers orders in a citie as of iudges soldiours and those that till the ground But as concerning the Angels 1. p. q. 50. ar 4. it is true in S. Thomas his opinion who holdeth euerie one of them to be of diuers natures that euerie one of them sauing the last and lowest is of the Hierarchie because euerie one purgeth illuminateth and perfecteth his inferours I say sauing the last because the last and lowest Angels is purged from ignorance illuminated and perfected but purgeth illuminateth or perfecteh no Angell he being the lowest and so he in respect of the Superiour Angels is not of the Hierarchie but only as the people is of the Kingdom as afore is sayd Yet this lowest Angell doth exercise Hierarchicall actes in respect of men to whom he is superiour in nature and whō he can purge from ignorance illuminate and perfect Yet all the lowest orders as S. Denys teacheth lib. Eccl. Hier. c. 5. may respectiuelie be called orders initiated and perfected in respect of the higher Angels But in the opinion of other diuines who hold that all the Angels of the same order are of one nature and doe not differre in nature and function but onlie indiuiduallie Vasq 1. p. disp 181. c. 2. and not specie but numere for which opinion Vasquez citeth diuers diuines and which diuers learned Iesuites doe imbrace all the lower orders are of the purging illuminating and perfecting Hierarchie in respect of the lowest order but all of the lowest order are in respect of al the higher orders as the people is of the Kingdome because this last order in this opinion beareth no rule or office ouer any order of Angels nor purgeth illuminateth or perfecteth any Angell yet in respect of men this order exerciseth Hierarchicall actions of purging illuminating and perfecting So that M. Nicholas may see that there is a difference betwixt the Hierarchie of Angels and of men for that in S. Thomas his opinion all the Angels as they are euerie one of distinct natures doe exercise Hierarchicall actions ouer inferiour Angels and only the last Angell is not of the purging illuminating and perfecting Hierarchie in respect of Angels because he is purged illuminated and perfected of the superior Angell but purgeth illuminateth and perfecteth no Angell he being the last And so according to this opinion all the Angels are of the perfecting Hierarchie sauing only the lowest But the Hierarchie of the Church militāt though it consist of diuers dignities orders and offices as vnder the Pope Cardinalles Patriarches Archbishops Bishops Priests Deacōs c. yet there are many of the same order and iurisdiction as many Bishops are of the same order of Bishops many Priests are of the same order of Prieshood But Regulars as Regulars hauing no Hierarchicall action though they haue other Regular actions are not of the ruling and perfecting Hierarchie 40. Now as concerning M. Nicholas his other example of a Citie in which are diuers orders according to diuers actions as the order of iudges the order of soliders the order of husbandmen and tillers of the ground I answer that S. Thomas bringeth this example to shew that there are diuers orders amongest the Angels as there is in a well ordered Citie but his intention was not to shewe that all the diuers orders in a Citie that haue diuers actions are of that part of the Citie that ruleth and directeth as the superiour Angelles illuminate and perfect the inferiour For in the Citie some rule and gouerne as the Maior and Aldermē and iudges but the orders of Taylors and show makers and other artificers though they haue diuers actions and functions yet they are not of that part of the Citie which ruleth but which is ruled And so although Regulars haue diuers actiōs according to their diuers orders yet these actions being not Hierarchicall they are not sufficient to make them of the ruling purging illuminating and perfecting Hierarchie but only they are of the Hierarchie as the common people that beareth no rule in the common wealth is of the Kingdome amongest which people not with standing there are may artes trades and actions which yet doe not make them rulers in the
and Sotus vvould not have Regulars take care of soules but to attend to their own institute And Rodericus sayth that the Franciscans did ouer fly the heaâ—ie burden of Curats And Gerson sayth Debent parochi Religiosos tanquam coadiutores missos à superioribus benigne ac beneuole recipere modo non obstet rationabilis causa vt si detractor si collusor sicorruptor si seductor appareat parochianos in contemptum parochi addncat c. Pastours ought gentlie to receiue Religious as coadiutours sent from their superiours so that no reasonable cause be to the contrarie as if he be a detractour one that vseth collusion a corruptour if he appeare to be a deceiner or do bring the parishioners to contemne their Pastour c. Whence I gather that M. Nicholas is not so gratefull to the secular Clergie as might haue been expected for that as we haue seen aboue in my Preface to the secular and Regular Clergie Cardinall Allen of famous and pious memorie made sute to the Generall of the Societie of Iesus to send the first English lesuites to England to helpe and ayde the Priests who to the nuÌ„ber of fowrescore were there labouring and end eauouring the conuersion of soules before the first Iesuites were sent And the Pope sent them and the Clergie receiued them as Cooperatours Dâ—â—itse in Edm. Camp And therfore D. Pitse in his booke of the famous writers of England sayth that the Clergie desired the Fathers of the Societie vt sâ—se Cooperatores adiungerent that they vvould adioine them sâ—lues as Cooperatours And yet now M. Nicholas will nor acknowledge him selfe a Cooperatour and ayder but sayth that in England Regulars are noe more ordamed to helpe secular Priests then they to helpe Regulars VVhich I suppose his brethren will not saye M. NICHOLAS In his fourth Chapter n. 2. he vvriteth that an Ordinarie must haue others to succeed him in the same authoritie vvithout any especiall grante c. Out of these vvords it most euidentlie follovveth thut my lord of Chalcedon is no Ordinarie he cause he hath no successour in his authority vvithout an especiall nevv grante THE REPLY What ordinary M. Doctour meaneth 8. M. Doctour speaketh of an Ordinarie made by an ordinarie course and meanes and it is most true that such an one hath others to succeed him in the same authoritie without any new speciall grante and therfore because a Bishop is Ordinarie when he dyeth or leaueth the place another Bishop is to succeèd who in that he is elected and confirmed Bishop of such a place hath the power and iurisdiction belonging to it without any new especiall grant But M. Doctour denyeth not but that by an especiall graÌ„t and by commissioÌ„ the Pope may make my lord of ChalcedoÌ„ Ordinarie of EnglaÌ„d VVhether he hath or noe I thought not to haue disputed but because M. Nicholas not only in this but also in other places still accuseth M. Doctour as though he derogated to my lord of Chalcedon his ordinariship and carpeth at it as though it were most certaine that he is not Ordinarie I will demand only of M. Nicholas what it is that is wanting in my lord to make him ordinarie 9. There wanted not power in the cause efficient or him that gaue him the power of an Ordinarie ouer all England for that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis fulnes of povver gaue him his authoritie And Syluester sayth Ordinariam iurisdictionem dant quatuor Primo lex inanimata vel Canon 2. Silu. verbo iurisd Lex animata vt Papa vel Imperator 3. Consuetude 4. Vniuersitas approbata vt mercatorum c. similiter vniuersitas facultatum artium vel legistarum Fovvre doe giue ordinarie iurisdiction First the dead lavve or Canon 2. The liuing lavve as the Pope or Emperour 3. Custome 4. An approued companie or communitie as of merchants c. and likevvise an vniuersitie or companie of the faculties of artes or of lavviers VVherfore seing the Pope gaue my lord of Chalcedon his iurisdiction there was no waÌ„t of power in him to make him Ordinarie And seing that the Pope made him Pastour of England as his letters doe witnesse there wanted not lex inanimata the dead lavv or canon for that the law and canon giueth to him that is Pastour all power belonging to his Pastourship 10. M. Nicholas will saye that he was made by delegatioÌ„ and commission and so is only delegate not Ordinarie But although this may hinder him froÌ„ being made Ordinarie according to the ordinarie course yet it hindreth him not from being made Ordinarie after an extraordinarie manner that is by delegation and commission 11. For first according to the receiued Axiom of lawâ—ers Delegaius à Principe ad vniuersitatem causarum est ordinarius He that is delegated by the Prince as my lord of ChalcedoÌ„ was by the cheefe visible and spirituall Prince of the Church the Pope to an vniuersitie of causes is an Ordinarie 12. Secondlie a Commissarie Generall who is made by commission is as Rodericus sayth an ordinarie and his reason is Rod. to 1. q. 51. art 3. Glos in c cum ab Eccl. Praelat De Of. Ordin Pan. in c susp de offic del n. 9. Innoc. in c. l. 1 in c. ad hoc de off Archi. Sylis V. del n. 1. because eligitur à communitate he is elected by a communitie VVhich Rodericus sayth is determined by a generall Chapter called PincianuÌ„ confirmed by Apostolicall authoritie And againe he sayth that the rule which sayth that a delegate cannot subdelegate doth not hold in him vvho is delegated ad vniuersitatem causarum to an vniuersitie of causes 13. Thirdly the Popes legate is made by commission and delegation and yet he is ordinarie as Syluester teacheth For sayth he Legatus est is cui a Papa certa patria vel prouincia committitur gubernanda A legate is he to vvhom by the Pope a certaine countrie or prouince is committed to be gouerned And this he proueth out of the Decretalles in the sixt booke where Innocentius the fourth sayth that Legates Cap. leg de of leg in sexto to whom in certaine prouinces the office of a legate is committed are reputed ordinaries 14. Fourthlie a Vicar Generall of the Bishop is Ordinarie and yet he is made by commission as Germonius affirmeth and Sanchez Lib. 1. Anim. c. 6. Sanch. tom 1. l. 3. de consensu cland disp 29. qu. 1. concl 1. ad 2. who affirmeth also that he is Ordinarie proueth it because the Bishop and his Vicar Generall haue one Tribunal And sayth he a vice gerent in a diuers Tribunal is delegate but in the same Tribunal he is Ordinarie and may assist at marriage as an Ordinarie Pastour 15. If M. Nicholas obiect that my lord of ChalcedoÌ„ is constituted ad beneplacitum Papae at the pleasure of the Pope neither will that hinder his Ordinariship for that a legate is
constituted also ad beneplacitum Papae and yet as we haue proued out of Syluester and the Canon law he is Ordinarie And so it wil be hard fellowing the opinion of these Auctours for I will say nothing of my selfe but referre the determination of this to Superiours for M. Nicholas to exclude my lord of Chalcedon from being an Ordinarie by commission or delegation If this anger M. Nicholas let him blame him selfe for that I would not haue touched this point if he had not prouoked me In his fourth number he taxeth M. Doctour for alleaging S. Ambrose 1. Tim. 3. the booke being doubfull But M. Doctour hauing alleaged other proofes to proue that the Bishop hath an higher ranke in the Church then the Priest and writers vsing to alleage diuers bookes of Fathers which yet are doubted of by some this M. Nicholas might haue ouerpassed M. NICHOLAS Here nu 14. he teacheth that Catholiques ought to contribute maintenance to my lord of Chalcedon n. 5. THE REPLY This M. Nicholas should not haue obiected 16. M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctour a beggar for my lord of Chalcedons maintenaunce wherin he sheweth litle respect to my lord M. Doctour only alleaged S. Paule 1. Ti. 5. to proue that Priests or Bishops vvho rule vvell should be esteemed vvorthie of double honour that is not only of the honour of cappe and knee but also of honourable maintenaunce and therfore we see that Bishops and Pastours are by the Church honourably prouided for But M. Nicholas obiecteth that S. S. Th. 2 2.188 ar 4 ad 5. Thomas sayth that the people are not bound in iustice S. Thomas his words are ex debito iuris to prouide for the expenses of others besides Ordinaries To which he is easily answered for that S. Thomas supposeth that the people hath their ordinarie Pastours who receiue their ordinarie Tithes and other renenewes and then if any will voluntarilie preache vnto them they are not bound to maintayne them but when there are no ordinarie Pastors thē the people is bound to giue them competent maintenance whether they be ordinaries or delegates for as S. Paule sayth Who euer playeth the soldior at his ovvne charges vvho planteth a vine and eateth not of the fruite therof vvho feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milke of the flocke And as in the same place he sayth If vve haue sovven vnto you spirituall thinges is it a greate matter if vve reape your carnall thinges and a litle after they that serue the Altar participate vvith the Altar So also our lord ordained for them that preach the Ghospell to liue of the Ghospell S. Th. 2.2 q. 87. a. 1. And S. Thomas and other diuines affirme that by the lawe of nature the people is bound to giue in generall necessaries to them that minister vnto them the thinges that pertaine to the worship of God and their saluation as the same people is bound to minister necessaries to soldiers and Princes that fight for them or haue care of their common wealth though the determinate parte which diuines call quota and which in the old lawe was the tenth parte be of the positine lawe And so the Catholiques in England are bound to giue competent meanes not onely to their Bishop but also to their Priests though the Priests be not ordinarie Pastors To which I adde that in the opinion of the alleaged Auctours my lord of Chalcedon is an Ordinarie by commission VVhere as M. Nicholas n. 5. addeth that except for the Sacrament of Confirmation vvhich yet hath not been administred to many and vvhich also may be cōmitted to a Priest they finde not vvhat greater benefit lay Catholikes haue reaped by my lord Bishop then they may receiue from secular and regular Priests that rather since my lords comming some inconueniences haue happened vvhich they vvill not easilie be persvvaded they are bound to buye vvith mony that they cannot take much comfort to spare frō their ovvne necessities arising from daylie pressures for the maintenance of Agents I leaue this to the consideration of the iudicious and indifferent Reader whether in this he speaketh like a religious man yea or a zealous Catholique But for the like speeche to this he is a litle taken vp aboue pag. 123. n. 38. 18. But I meruayle that M. Nicholas should exaggerate as he doth n. 5. the charges to which the Bishop and Clergie put the Catholiques of England for the maintenance of their Agents in diuers places And many will think that M. Nicholas sheweth noe greate discretion or prudence to complaine of the charges to which the Bishop and Clergie put the Catholiques vnto considering that M. Nicholas and his brethren haue and doe daylie put the Catholiques to farre greater charges as appeareth by the statelie howses purchasses and many other expenses which commeth from the Catholiques states and purses But such thinges should not haue been mentioned but that M. Nicholas giueth the iust occasion 19. To that which M. Nicholas addeth in this questiō concerning a particular Church without a particular Bishop and a notable part of the Church without a Bishop and of a perfect Christian without Confirmation and of the Fathers and diuines alleaged by M. Doctour and of regulars state of perfection and of their being of the Hierarchie and all such pointes he is answered fullie as the reader will confesse if he reade my Reply to his former questions 20. And so that which he sayth n. 8. is litle to the purpose because M. Doctour in his cleuenth chapter of his Hierarchie intended only to shew that charitie is the perfection of a Christian life in that it vniteth vs to our first efficiēt and last end God That charitie vniteth vs to God M. Doctour proueth out of Scriptures and also by the effect of all loue which is to make two freinds one soule by affection in two bodyes as sayth M. Doctour S. Augustine confessed of him selfe and his freind who were he Nebridius of whom S. Augustine spake before in the third chapter stiling him charissimus mous amicus my most deare freind or another it was all one to M. Doctours purpose and so might by M. Nicholas haue been omitted but that he not able to answere to any maine point is enforced to take hold of euerie trifle The rest which M. Nicholas alleageth in this question is answered or else is not worthie any answere Only there resteth one thing which I shall examine in the next number M. NICHOLAS Jn this account of Popes martyrs M. Doctour is much mistaken for the 3. last Popes by him reckened namely Ioannes Syluerius and Martinus vvere long after Constantine c. qu. 7. n. 10. THE REPLY This errour is vvrongfullie fathered on M. Doctour 21. M. Doctour in his thirteenth chapter n. 5. to shew that in the greatest furie of persecution it was the custome of the primatiue Church not to except against Bishops as some now doe in England but to consecrate Popes and