must iure diuino haue an Ordinarie because by the deuine law beside the Supreme Pastour there must be in the Church of God other Ordinaries And this be saide concerning such arguments as M. Doctour hath in his 14 chapter Let vs now examine those of his 13. chapter 17 What he alleadgeth out of Suarez to prooue that the gouernment of the Church by Bishops speaking in generall cannot be altered by the Church is most true Only I wish M. Doctour had not so abruptly broken of Suarez his discourse who being to prooue that in a Monarchy there must be not only one supreme but also other inferiour as it were Princes of the Church saith thus the minor is declared both because a monarchy must haue somthing admixt of Aristocracy because there must be in the Church many Princes vnder one the first Thus he cyteth Suarez against all Grammar not giuing any word answering to both which therefore I must do and tell the reader that in Suarez there followe immediatly these words tum etiaÌ„ quia in rep Christana erat hoc maximè necessarium nam est amplissima vniuersalissima eius regimen est spirituale internum quod non fit exactè â—â—si per proprios Pastores Principes Ecclesiae also because in the Christian commoÌ„ wâ—lth this to haue some other Bishops beside the supreme Pastour was most necessarie because it is most large most vniuersall the gouernment of it is spirituall and internall which is not exactly pâ—rformed but by proper Pastours Princes of the Church If M. Doctour had not omitted this reâ—sâ— Imcane the amplitude and vniuersality of Christes Church the reader might haue seene that what Suarez affirmed with all Deuines of the necessity to haue some Bishops in the Church in generall could not be verified of the catholick Church in England which is neither amplissima nor vniuersalissima mostlarge nor most vneuersall neither doth the want of a Bishop in EnglaÌ„d infer that the Church shall not be a perfect Monarchie gouerned by one supreme Pastour other inferiour Ecclesiasticall Princes in some parts of it For England is not the whole world You see theÌ„ that I had reason to wish Suarez had bene by M. Doctour cited not by halfes for he being entirely cited makes for vs against him 18 His examples drawne from the African church may be answered all at once if we consider First that examples prooue little vnlesse we were sure that all circumstances concurre alike and as those of Africke could best iudge what was fit for that Church so English men can best tell how things stand in England and what is most expedient for that Church Secondly it is cleere their case was farre different from ours in England For the African Bishops and people had open meetings yea the Bishops celebrated Councels The Catholcks were many publicke or rather the whole face of the country was catholicke They had their knowne Primate and other Bishops and lastly which I desire the reader still to obserue if there had not bene Bishops in Africke their Church would haue wholy fâ—yled because for ordayning of Priests they had noe such meanes as England by the mercifull goodnesse of God and singular care of Popes haue had and still enioy with such education for Cleargy men as God grant we may retayne the like if England be catholicke For other helps also there was not betwixt Africke and Rome that entercourse which wee now enioy 19 And by this last obseruation is answered a demand of M. Doctour in his 14. chap. num 2. Why the Popes and Bishops in the Primatiue Church were so diligent in consecrating Bishops yeâ— and making Popes euen in the middest of the greatest persecutions but that they thought it was iuris diuini that euery church should haue its Bishop The true reason was because in those times euery country needed his owne Bishop for ordayning of Priests and the like without which their churches could not subsist least of all could the vniuersall Catholicke Church subsist without a head the Pope and I wonder at M. Doctour his yea and making Popes in his foresaid demaund as if it were more strange that Popes then that particular Bishops should be ordayned in time of persecution 20 All this that I haue said of the different case betwixt Africke and England is cleere out of the history and wordes alleadged by M. Doctour himselfe which I cyted in the beginning of this question and in particular of this last mayne difference you shall fiâ—de in Baronius Anno â—04 these wordes Eo consilio ista preceperat Trasamundus vt absque exerto ad persequendum gladio ipsae Orthodoxorum Eccelsiae aliquo temporis spatio orbatae vniuersae Pastoribus sponte concidereat To that end Trasamundus had commanded those thinges namely that no more Bishops should be ordayned in the place of those that dyed to the end that without dint of sword the Catholicke Churches being all for some space of tyme destitute of Pastours might of themselues fall And for this reason Baronius sayd what hope could there remayne for the churches when their foundations to wit the Bishops were taken away And this I hope will satisfie the iudicious reader that the three examples drawne from the African Church prooue nothing for our case in England yet by way of supererogation I will touch euery one of them apart 21 Concerning the first of the peoples crying on t for a Bishop for the Church of Certhage which Hunericus offered them but vpon condition that the Arians of Constantinople might enioy the free vse of their Churches otherwise not onely the Bishop that should be ordayned in Carthage with his cleargy but also all other Bishops of the Africanâ— prouinces with their cleargy should be sent to the Moores I aske M. Doctour whether in good earnest he thinke it necessary or lawfull rather to admit such conditioÌ„s then â—o lec a particular Diocesse as Carthâ—ge was be without a Bishops I doe not beleeue but he will grant that it is not lawfull at least Victor Primate of all Africke with other Bishops was of opinion that vpon such conditions a Bishop wos not to be desireâ— Interpositâ—s his Conditionibus c. say they with such conditions as these the church of Carthage is not willing to haue a Bishop And therefore the people who with such a resolution cryed for a Bishop did either hope that the threatned conditions would not take effect or else their zeale is more to be admired then imitated Wherefore when M. Doctour out of his zeale also to haue a Bishop num 7. turnes his speach to Catholicks in England desiring them to imitate this zeale of the Carthaginians for a Bishop to imprint it in their hearts although it must be with characters of their owne blood doth in effect say O my deere câ—â—atrymen you Catholicks of EnglaÌ„d be sure to cry for a Bishop although it were vpon condition 〈◊〉 the
owne arguments or else both contradict himselfe taxe his Holinesse as hauing not yet sufficiently prouided for the Churches of England and Scotland because the Institution of Christ the practise of the Church the decrees of Canons the sayings of ancieÌ„t Fathers the doctrine of all Catholicks concerning the necessity of hauing some Bishops in Gods Church coÌ„cerne Ordinary Pastors Prelats in the proper sence about mentioned not Delegates in an extraordinary manner And therefore as I said M. Doctour must defend himselfe against his owne argumeÌ„ts But least I may seeme to wrong so learned a maÌ„ I desire the reader not to giue me credit till in the following seuerall Questions he finde by particulars the truth of what I haue deliuered in generall THE SECOND QVESTION Whether without a Bishop here can be a particular Church 1 M. Doctor in diuers parts of his treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church in his 14. chapter where he endeauoureth to prooue that a particular courtry may not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution one of his maine argumeÌ„ts is nuÌ„ 9. because without a Bishop there can be no particular Church thence deduceth that Catholicks of England al the while they had no Bishop were no particular Church shall no longer be a particular Church then they shall haue a Bishop but shal be a flocke with out a Pastour â—â—army without a General a ship without a Pylot a speritualkingdoÌ„ without asperitualking a family without a Goodman of the house 2 This assertion he prooueth out of S. Cyprian who sayth Cypr. epâ—â— 69. ad 〈◊〉 that the Church is Sacerdoâ—i plebs adunata et Pastori suo grex 〈◊〉 arâ—us the Churches the people vritâ—d to the Preâ—â—â— Bishop and the flocke adhering â—â—to its Pâ—â—â—our In the sime place M Doâ—toâ—â— a lioy 〈◊〉 this reason that as the â—hâ—le Church hath me supreâ—me Bishop to gouerne it so â—â—â—ry particular Church must haue its Bishop 〈◊〉 Bishops else it should not he a particular Church and so the whole and vnâ—â—â— saâ—â— Church should not as Christ hath instituted he a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches 3. Three thing I will endeauour to performe First that the alleadged wordes of S. Cyprian vpon which M. Doctour doth so maynely and extreamely often insist make nothing against vs but rather are for vs against himselfe and with all that his application of them may seeme iniurious to English Catholickes Secondly I will de nonstrate that England without a Bishop may hath bene a particular Church and that the contrary assertion must both wrong the Sea Apostolicke and can subsist vpon no better ground then by hereticks is wont to be obiected against the sayd holy Sea Thirdly I will shew that although we should freely grant what M. Doctour assumeth that without a Bishop we cannot be a â—â—rticular Church â—et it could not proue hiâ—â—â—ent 〈◊〉 particular country may not rosuse Bishâ—ps by reason of persecution 4 For the first it might be answered in a word that S. â—â—prâ—m doth not define the Church to be the people vnited and the flocke adbering to a particular Priest and Pastour but onely inâ—iffiâ—itely to the Priest and Pastour which is verified as long as we haue for our Bishop Pastour the Pope of Rome Besides S. CypriaÌ„ speaks of Ordinary Pastors with power ouer both places persons Catholicks hereâ—icksâ—permanently and not onely ad bâ—neplacitum therefore by a Delegate 〈◊〉 Cyprians definition is not fulfdd but still we must acknowledg the Pope for our immediate and particular Ordinary 5 But for the â—â—â—e vnderstanding of S. Cyprians meaning we are to know that the foresayd epistle was written to one Florinus or Florentius surnamed Pupianus who as Pamelius obserueth in his notes vpon that epistle was a NouatiaÌ„ heretick and with too much credulity and temerity had giuen credit to certayne faâ—sly reported crimes against S. CypriaÌ„ for which he esteemed that the Saint ought to haue beene forsâ—ken by the people of his Diocesse as if he had not beene true Bishop Against this false seditious imputation S. Cyprian prooueth not that a Church wanting a Bishop is no particular Church but that a Church haâ—iâ—g its true and lawfull Bishop as S. Câ—prian was yet deuiding it selfe and falling in schisme with him is indeed â—oe Church at all but a schismaticall congiegatioÌ„ That this is so S. Cyprians owne words demnostrate for hauing alleadged out of Scripture Nos credimus Ioan. 6. et cognouimus quia tu es filius Dei vini addeth Loquitur â—llic Petrus supra quem adificatafuit Ecclesia Ecclesia nomine doceÌ„s et ofterdes quia et si contumax ac superba obedire nolemiuÌ„ multâ—udo discedat EcclesiatameÌ„ à Christo non recedit et illi simt Ecclesia plâ—bs â—acerdoti adunata et Pastori sui grex adhaerens vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse EcclesiaÌ„ in Episcopo si qui cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacordotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latemer apud quosdam communicaâ—e se credunt quando Ecclesia quae Catholica vna est scissa non sit nequo diuisa sed sit vrique connexa et cohareâ—tium sibi inudeem Sacerdotum glutino copulaâ—a We beleâ—ue and know Ioan. 6. that thou art the sonnâ— of the liung God These words are spoken by Peter vpon whom the Church was builded teaching vs in behalfe of the Church that although the stubborne and proude multitude of disobedient persons do go away yet the Church doth not depart from Christ and they are the Church the people vaited to the Priest and the flocke adhering to its Pastour Wherefore thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that if any be not with the Bishop he is not in the Church marke and they do in vaine flatter themselues who hauing not peace with the Priests of God creepe in and beleeue that secretly they are in Communion with some where as the Church which is Catholicke and one cannot be rent nor deuided but must be conioyned and vnited with the tye of priests succeeding one to another 6 Behould S. Cyprian neuer thinking of the necessity that euery particular Church hath of a Bishop if it neane to be a particular Church but affirming that theirue Church doth not depart from Christ that he who is not with the bishop is not in the Church that in vaine they flater theÌ„selues who haue not peace with the true priests of God but are in secret communion with some schismaticall or hereticall factions whereas the Church which is Catholick and one can not be rent nor deuided And what is all this to prooue that no particular Church can be such without a Bishop no more then if one should say King Henry the 8. and his
adherents in Schisme deuiding themselues from their lawfull Pastours were no true Church ergo English Catholicks liuing in perfect obedience to the Vicar of Christ cannot be truely a Church which in effect is as doughty an argument as this The soule and boâ—y seperated can make no true maâ—â—ergo if they be coÌ„icyâ—ed they cannot make a true man for as the coniunction of the soule with the body giues life to the body so the life of the Church consisteth in obedience to true lawfull Pastours to whom English Catholicks being still subordmate they did and do most perfectly fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian which therefore maketh nothing against but for vs that it is rather against M. Doctour himselfe may be euinced out of an argument of his chap. 12. num 4. where hauing cited the sayd authority of S. Cyprian that the Church is the people vnited to the Bishop he argueth thus seeing there cannot be a people vnited to the Bishop without a Bishop it follâ—weth that there cannot be a Church without Bishops Now according to the cleare sence of S. Cyprians words namely that a people which is in disobedience schisme against their lawfull Bishops cannot be a true Church I may vse the very same forme of argument thus Whosoeuer are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian but those who haue no Bishop are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop ergo those who haue no Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian This argument is directly against M. Doctour yet is more truely deduced out of S. Cyprians words then what he did â—â—ferie I know the Church must alwayes for other respects haue Bishops and therefore what I haue here sayd is onely ad hominem to M. Doctours manner of disputing and onely if we respect S. Cyprians words according to the true meaning purpose and occasion as by him they were vttered 7 That his application of S. Cyprians definition is iniurious to English Catholicks is manâ—fest by euery word of the Saint who affirmeth that they who are not vnited to the Bishop in that sense in which he speaketh are not in the Church that they haue not peace with the Priests of God that they are in secret communion with schismâ—ticks that they are opposite to that Catholicke Church which is one and not rent nor deuedâ—dâ— which gentle Epithetons or rather most â—oâ—le aspertions to cast vpon the most â—eâ—lo is Catholicks of England who for their vnion with the Sea Apostolicke constancy in profession of their Faith ioyfâ—ll suffering losse of goods liberty and life haue bene a spectâ—cle grations in the sight of God and his Angels and admirâ—ble to the eyes of men to apply I say such Epithetons to those glorious Confessours Martyrs our English Catholicks cannot be done without great iniury and yet by M. Doctour the sayd definition of S. Cyprian is to them more then once applyed And truely I should not be able to wonder enough how a learned man could lay the foundation of so strange a doctrine vpon a ground so weake so much mistaken for the true vnderstaÌ„ding wherof was required no greater I bour then looking on the booke nor deeper learning then vnderstanding latine vnlesse I did consider that such a doctrine could haue but such a foundation But I will vrge this point no further Onely M. Doctour may gather froÌ„ what hath bene said that the true explicatioÌ„ reasoÌ„ of those wordes in S. Cyprian alleadged by him in his 12 chap. num 4 vnde seire debes EpiscopuÌ„ in Ecclesia esse et Ecclesiam in Episcopo where vpon thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop which words wee also euen now cited is not that which M. Doctour giueth because the Church cannot be without a Bishop nor a Bishop without a Church but that supposing a Church haue a true Bishop they must not be deuided one from another and therfore S. Cyprian immediatly after the said wordes addeth Qui cum Episcopo non est in Ealesia non est He that is not with the Bishop is not in the Church And yet I hope English Catholicks while they waÌ„ted a Bishop were in the Church other wise they had not bene capable of falcation But by this we may see how groundedly M. Doctour doth speake and still confirmeth what I sayd of the iâ—â—ury done to English Catholicks by applying to them the definition of S. Cyprian 8 The second point wich I vndertooke to make good namely that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop is easily prooued For the Pope in defect of particular Bishops is the particular Bishop Ordinary Diocesan of such Churches as Philosophers doe teach that almighty God the supreme and vmucâ—sall cause of all effects concurreth not only as immediate but also as a Particular Agent or Cause to the producing of effects when second particular causes doe faile For seeing the Pope hath plenitudinem potestatis fulnesse eminency of power he may and is to performe whatsoeuer belongeth to inferiour Pastours when necessity so requireth which is a doctrine so receaued by all Canomsts and deuines that I suppose M. Doctour will not gaâ—nesay it Seing then EnglaÌ„d for many yeares was destitute of Bishops the Pope himselfe was our particular Bishop and to say that while we wanted 〈◊〉 Bishop we were a flocke without a Pastour an Army without a Generall a ship without a Pylot c. as M. Doctour avoucheth seemeth iniurious to the Vicar of Christ as if he wanted either power or good will to be our particular Bishop and Pastour And indeed to singular hath bene the care of Popes ouer our distressed EnglaÌ„d that in fact they euer shewed themselues to be our particular Bishops and may truly say to our Church as Almighty God said to his elected people Quid est quod debui vltrà facere vineae meae non feci Isa 5. v. 4 what ought I to haue done to my vinyard more then I haue done We erected Seminaries we sent learned Priests both Secular and Regular we indued them with aâ—ple faculties as iudges we composed difrerences as maisters we resolued doubts as Fathers wee wrote letters of Comfor of Exhortation of Admonition as Bishops we prounded all spirituall helpes requisite for the times in nothing belonging â—o particular Pastours we haue bene wâ—nting Quid debuimus vltra facâ—â—e et non fecimus what more could we haue done then we haue performed for the good of our beloued English Catholicks The Church of S. Ihon Lateran or the particular Diocesses of Rome is I trow a paâ—ticular Chuâ—ch a perfect oâ—e yet it hath noe other Bishop for Ordinary besids the Pope Leo the 9. Famous for sanctity and miâ—â—cles being before his Popedoâ— Bâ—shop of Tul for his affection to that Church did still remaine particular
in eaâ—ry particular Church as to haue one Supreame head of the whole Catholicke Church When Gregory Clement Paule and other Popes stood in deliberation whether it were expedient to haue a Bishop in England as for many yeares it was by them iudged inconuement might they as well haue doubted of the necessity or â—onueniency of hauing any Pope of Rome for the gouernement of the whole Catholick Church to say that a particular Bishop hâ—th not power to gouerne the whole Catholicke Church ergo the Bishop of the whole Catholicke Church cannot goâ—erne a particular one is as good as to say the feete cannot guide the head eâ—go the head cannot guide the feete His assertion or inference vpoÌ„ his ownâ— pâ—emisses that vnlesse euery particular Church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuert particular Churches if it be vnderstood of particular Churches indeterminately that is the whole Church cannot be a Hierarchie vnles some particular Churches haue Bishops it is very true but sâ—rueth nothing at all to his purpose of proouing that England must haue a Bishop because although England or some other particular country want Bishops other Churches and countries may haue them and so the Vniuersâ—ll Church shall still be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churcher But if he vnderstand as his wâ—res euery particular Church and his whole drife seeme to demonstrate that vnlesse euery particular determinate Church haue a Bishop the whole and Vuiuersall Church should not as Christ â—ath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches I must needs say his doctrine is clearely subject to a deeper Censure then I am willing to expresse For what Catholick dare aâ—onch that because England for the space of threescore yeares wanted a Bishop the Vniuersall Church all that time was not as Christ hath institutea a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches yea if my Lord of Chuâ—â—edon be not properly Ordinary both of England and Scotland M. Doctour must consequently affirme that the Vniuersall Church at this day is not as Christ hath instituted a Hierarchâ—â— composed of diuers particular Churches O to now great inconueniences is a man subject if once he vndertake the defence of a very hard cause THE THIRD QVESTION Whether by the deuine Law euery particular Church must haue it Bishop 1 TO prooue that a particular Country â—â—y not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution M. Doctour in his 14. chapter alleadgeth that it is de luâ—e diuino of the diuine Law to haue a Bishop in euery particular Church And for proofe theoeof citeth Soâ—us affirming Sot lib. 10. deâ—â—uâ—â—â—et iure q. 1. a. 4. posâ— sâ—â— undâ—â— conclusionâ— it to be de iure diuino of the deuine Law quòd in genere singulis Ecclsiâ—s secundum Ecclesiasticum diuisionem sut aâ—plicentur Episcopi That in generall to euery particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision proper Bishops are to be applyed And Bannes teaching Baâ—â—es 2.2 q. 1. a 10. Coclu 6. ad vâ—â— that Bishops cannot by the Pope be remoâ—uea from the whole Church or a great or not able part of it Hauing cited these two learned authours he argueth thus By the deuine Law there must be particular Bishops in the Church but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France for I speake especially of great particular Churches which are not able parts of the whole Church should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops rather then the Church of Spaine or the Church of Spaine rather then the Church of England or Flanders ergo France Spaire England Flanders and all other particular Churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops 2 These be the best grounds that M. Doctour in the said chapter bringeth for proofe that it is de iure deuino a command of God to haue a Bishop in England I wil adde such other arguments as can be afforded from his 13. chapter wherein although he affirme but that which al Catholicks do grant speaking in general that cueÌ„ in time of persecutioÌ„ the whol Church may not be gouerned without some Bishops yet because some of the proofes brought for the said verity may perhaps seeme pertinent to this present question Suar. tom 4. in 3. p. d. 25. I will not dissemble them Suareâ—â— saith he concludeth that the Church cannot change this kinde of gouernment by Bishops Then he alleadgeth examples of the African Church When Hunericus began his raigne he offered to the Catholicks of Carthage to chuse in that Church a Bishop which ornament sayth Victor Carthage had wanted for 24. Victor Vticenâ—â—t lib. 2. perseq vad inâ—â—â—o yeares but yet vpon this condition that the Arrtans at Constantinople might enioy the free vse of their Churches otherwise saith Hunericus not onely the Bishop that shal be ordained in carthage with his Cleargy but also all other Bishops of the African prouinces with their Cleargie shal be sent to the Mooâ—es The which when Victor Primate of Africke and others heard they refused his courtesie with so cruell a condition and says â—iâ—ita est interposius his condâ—tionibus periculosis haec Ecclesia Episcopum noâ— delectatur habere Gubernat eam Christus qui semper dignatur guberuare If it be so with these perilous conditions the Church of Carthage is not dilighted to haue a Bishop But the people so cryed out for a Bishop that they could not be appeased without one 3 A second argument M. Doctour â—raweth from another example of Huneticus his cruelty and of the African Catholicks zeale to their Bishops and Pastoâ—rs Victor Vâ—â—censis lib 2. Hunericus his cruelty Victor Vâ—â—censis descriâ—â—th rather by teares then words saying Quibus autem prosequar flumâ—â—bus â—â—â—â—ryâ—aâ—um quando â—â—pâ—sâ—opâ—s Presbâ—â—eros Dâ—â—conoâ— eâ—alia â—â—â—lsiae membra id est quatuor willia D. cccc Lxvi ad exilium eremi dastiâ—auâ—â— in quibus â—rant podagrici quamplurims aly per aetatem anâ—oâ—uâ—n lumine â—emporali priuaâ—â— c. But with what fâ—â—ds of teares shall I proosecute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rs his crucltâ— woen he sent Best ops Priests Deacous and other members of the Church â—â—to â—â—â—ashmeÌ„t in the wilaernesse amongst whom were â—â—my troubled with the gout others by age â—â—â—nd and dâ—priueâ— of sight c. Behould Huâ—â—â—cus his cruâ—â—ty Now let vs behould the zeale of the Catholicks of these countries for their Bishops and Priests They complantned pâ—â—â—ufâ—ly that they were deprined of their Pastours saâ—ing or rather crying Victor lib. 2. peâ—ses Vad. Quibus nos miseros relinquiâ—ts dum pergites ad coronas qui â—os baptizatuâ—â— sunt parunlos fonâ—â—bus aqua perernis qui nobis paenâ—tentiae munus collaturi sunt et reconciliationis induigentâ—s obstrictos peccatorum vinculis solâ—tuâ—i quiâ— vobis dictum est quaecunque solueritis super terram erunt solâ—â—a et on cales Qui nos soleÌ„ntbus or ationâ—bus sepulturi sunt mortentes quibus diâ—â—ni
as I related in my 5. Question Regulars are more sit for that employment then Seculars What he saith that such Religious were not by the deuine law ordained to preach as Bishops and Priests are hath been answered in the same 5. Question where I shewed that neither Secular nor Regular Priests caÌ„n preach without authority and that Religious be as capable of such authority and Office as Seculars So as if he compare a right Secular with Religious he will in this find no difference And I may add that Regular Priests of such orders as M. Doctour mentioned in the obiection haue a particular kind of right or as I may say dispositionem proximam to such functions which secular Priests precisely by being Priests haue not For although Regular Priests of such Orders haue no actuall Iurisdiction or authority for the exercise of such Actions till they receiue it from their Superiours yet by their Institute they haue a kind of right to haue such authority graunted by their Superiours who without iust cause ought not to debarre them of that to which they haue obliged themselues by vndertaking that particular course of Religious life But Secular Priests haue no obligation to such functions vnlesse they be made Pastours and take care of soules which thousands neuer do nor haue any obligation to vndertake such a charge Of the Apostles vow of pouerty whereof n. 19. he taketh a needlesse occasion to treate by reason of an obiection which himselfe maketh I haue spoken something in my 5. Question wish that some more able would do it more at large In the end of the same number he saith that although we suppose the Apostles had bene Religious men yet Christ gaue them not power to preach c. as they were Religious but as they were Bishops and Priests so in this not the Regulars but the Seculars to wit Bishops Priests do succeed the Apostles A strange speach Because Bishops succeed the Apostles therefore not the Regulars but the Seculars succeed the Apostles as if the name of Bishop necessarily implied to be a Secular or as if Religious Bishops because they are not Secular cannot succeed the Apostles in the office of preaching c. 7 In his 10. Chap. 10. Chapter he treateth of the Dignity of Cardinals whom we Quest 6. haue shewed to be in a most eminent place of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy euen abstracting from all Power of Order or Iurisdiction 8 Here he treateth of the state of Religious men Chap. 11. and to this his Chapter answereth our 5. Question Num. 10. To proue that by loue two frindes are one soule he aleadgeth S. Augustine lib. 4. Confesse cap. 6. saying He thought himselfe halfe dead when his other halfe Nebridius was dead But euery woman that reades S. Augustines Confessions translated into English will see that M. doctour in this is much mistaken For that friend whose death S. Augustine in that place mentioneth died before the Saints owne conuersion as is cleare out of the 4. chap. of the 4. booke by M. Doctour cited whereas Nebridius was conuerted after S. Augustine as may be seene lib. 9. chap. 3. That friend died before S. Augustine went out of Africke Nebridius was with him in Italy And although this errour be not for the matter of much importance yet it sheweth how litle exact M. Doctour is in looking vpon his Authours In the 15 num he saith Some inferre that the Bishops mariage with his Church is fiâ—mer and more indissoluble then is mariage betwixt man aâ—d wifâ— which is contracted but not consummated because Matrimony conctracted only is dissolued by entrance into Religion but the mariage betwixt a Bishop and his Câ—urch cannot so be dissoâ—ued But M Doctour might heÌ„ce haue rather inferred the excellency of Religious Profession which dissolueth Matrimony only contracted which Episcopall Dignity doth not dissolue For certaine it is that the Bond of Mariage is more strict then the conctract of a Bishop with his Church that being certainely of the Deuine lawe this at least probably being only of the Churches Ordinance Daily we see Bishops leaue their Bishopricks by renounciation translation to some other Bishoprick c. But men cannot so leaue or change their wiues because the bond of mariage is more indissoluble If a Bishop elected and confirmed not in holy Orders do marry it is valid and the former contract with his Church is dissolued But if he were first married and afterward should take a Bishoprick the first bond as I said still remaineth All which are manifest arguments that the contract of Matrimony is stronger then that of the Bishop with his Church Wherfore the opinion of those â—uthors by M. Doctour not named must â—ot if we will haue it passe for good be â—nderstood absolutly as he seemeth to alâ—â—adge them but in some one particular respect namely that a Bishop cannot enter into Religion without particular leaue as maried persons may after Matrimony only contracted I say particular leaue for if we examine the matter well it wil be found that the bound of Matrimony is dissolued by Religious Profession only in vertue of the Churches Ordination and as it were by a generall dispensation thereby to testify the singular excellency of Religious State and so euen in this point there is not much difference bewixt maried persons and a Bishop who with leaue may also enter into Religion Num 16. he alleadgeth out of S. Hierom S. Hieron Ep. ad Rust Monach. Sic viue in Mâ—nasterio vt Clericus esse merearis So liue in thy mâ—â—aâ—â—eâ—y that thou mayst deserue to be a Clearke to pâ—ooue that when a Relâ—â—â—â—us man is made a Pastour he is preferred to an higher calling and to a vocation of greater perfection But by M. Doctours good leaue I find a man whom I must prefer before him bring a far different explication of S. Hieroms words S. Tho. 2.2 q. 184. a. 8. ad 4. For S. Thomas interprets those words as exhorting lay Religious men so to liue as they may deserue to be made Clearkes and noe doubt but Religious men being promoted to Orders are in a more perfect calling then Religious men who haue no such Orders and this interpretation saith S. Thomas is apparent by the very manner of speaking vsed by S. Hierom. And it is worth the noting that S. Thomas obiecteth against himselfe the said words of S. Hierom answereth them in the manner we haue seene in that very place where of set purpose he teacheth and prooueth that Religious Priests haue a more perfect calling then Secular Pastours So as M. Doctour both in the Assertion and in his Proofe expresly and directly opposeth S. Thomas whom yet he stiles the Prince of Deuines Vtri credendum Whom shall we beleiue S. Thomas or M. Doctour 9 For as much as may seeme doubtfull in his 12. chapt hath bene examined Quest 2. and 3. Particularly in my 2. Question his allegation and
inference out of S. Cyprians wordes so often inculcated that the Church is Sacerdoti plebs adunata c. and an explication he giues of those other words of the same Father Thou must knowe that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop are plainly confuted as nothing consonant to S. Cyprians intention 10 This 13. Chapter the Reader will find answered for as much as needes explication in my 3. Question Chapt. 13. where all the examples he draweth from the African Church are at large discussed To prooue that notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution raised particularly by occasion of Bishops yet the Church must of necessity haue Bishops n. 5. he writes thus Wherfore as we may gather out of the Ecclesiasticall histories from the cruell Tyrant Nero to the Clement Emperour Constantine the Great there was scarce any Bishop of Rome who was not a Martyr or who at least suffered not great persecution Twenty seuen of them are commonly auouched for Martyrs to wit Peter Line c. and in his margent he hath 27. Popes Martyrs before the time of Constantine But in this account M. Doctour is much mistaken For the three last Popes by him reckoned namely Ioannes Siluerius and Martinus were long after Constantine who reigned the yeare of our Lord three hundred six two hundred forty nine years after Nero whose raigne was fifty seauen yeares after our Sauiour wheras Ioannes was made Pope foure hundred sixty seauen yeares after Nero and Siluerius thirteene yeares after Ioannes Martinus the yeare of our Lord six huÌ„dred forty nine after Nero fiue hundred ninety two years so that vpon the whole account in the first two M. Doctour erreth more theÌ„ two hundred twenty yeares in the space of only foure hundred sixty seauen and in the last namely Martinus he erreth three huÌ„dred forty three yeares in the space of fiue-hundred ninety two which is more then halfe Besids these last three were made Popes in times which did not particularly oppose the Creation of Popes or Bishops for which M. Doctour produceth them but they suffered in time of Christianity namely Ioannes vnder Iustinus the elder by the hereticall King Theodoricusâ—â— Siluerius by Theodora the Empresse and Martinus vnder Constans the Hereticall Emperour Still M. Doctour is found not to be so exact as one would haue expected 11 For the answere of his 14. Chapter Chap. 14. the Reader may be pleased to read what I haue sayd quest 2.3.4 Num. 3. He sayth that England was long without a Bishop because Superiours were informed that he would presently be taken and put to death If any reasons were proposed to Superiours concerning the difficulties of hauing a Bishop in England I suppose they were other reasons then this mentioned by M. Doctour But this is a businesse which belongs not to me Neuerthelesse M. Doct. in his next following 15. chapter seemeth to contradict what heere he sayth and to make good this very reason which heere he impugneth For in that chapter n. 6. he telleth vs that King â—ames of famous memory after he knew that the Bishop was entred and was in London he would not coÌ„maund him to be apprehended as he might easily both in London and any part of England Kings hauing long and powerfull armes 12 His 15. chapter Chapt. 15. is to prooue that to haue a Bishop in England cannot probably increase persecution It were easie to shew how insufficient M. Doctours arguments are if it were conuenient to enter into some particulars from which it is better to abstaine although M. Doctour hath taken the freedome to do otherwise Wherefore the iudicious reader wil be pleased to excuse me from answering M. Doctours arguments in patticular which may be done onely by distinguishing what indeed ought to be and what is likely will or rather hath already happened by reason of the present circumstances in our countrey and his arguments do also prooue that the whose profession and practise of Catholicke Religion ought in reason to be tollerated in England which is a thing in it selfe most true yet we finde the contrary by experience 13 Num. 10. He sayth that my Lord of Chalcedon hath onely a generall â—â—â—rituall power and Iurisdiction ouer the Cleargy and lay Catholicks in spirituall matters I haue noe intention to dispute of my Lords authority But this proposition of M. D. makes good what I said in my first Question that he will either displease my Lord by extenuating his Authority or else make such his authority dreadfull to Catholicks For if this generall authority which he giues to my Lord be onely in foro interno then it taketh from my Lord power to make a certaine Hierarchy of Vicar Generals Arch deacons c. for such offices are for authority in fâ—ro externo to meddle with Matrimoniall causes to prooue Wills dispose of pious Legacies visit Catholicks houses erect a Tribunall c. and hence it further is clearely deduced that my Lord is Ordinary neyther in name nor power For Ordinaries can do these things mentioned yea this is also manifest by what M. Doctour teacheth that my Lord of Chalcedon can challenge No Bishopricke no not so much as the poorest Parish in England Ergo according to M. Doctour my Lord of ChalcedoÌ„ hath not for England all the Faculties which other Ordinaries haue who certainly can challenge some one particular Diocesse and diuers particular Parishes Moreouer seeing M. Doctour teacheth that my Lord hath noe Title giuen him to any particular Bishopricke in England but onely to Chalcedon he must consequently auerte that my Lord cannot giue the â—â—â—les of Vicar Generall Archdeacon c. of London or any other place seeing my Lord himselfe hath noe such Title nor is Bishop of London or any other Diocesse If M. Doctours meaning be that my Lords generall spirituall power ouer lay Catholicks is also in foro externo and exteÌ„ds it selfe to the things aboue meÌ„tioned then Catholicks haue already told my L. in a letter directed to his Lordship how preiudiciall such an Authority must be to them To say my Lord hath such power but is resolued not to practise it will not satisfy because they are loath all their security should depend vpon the free will or particular dictamen of a man although neuer soe learned and wise who either vpon some new occurring motiues and reasons or by the instigation of others may alter his minde and practise that which himselfe once had no intention to practise And they will thinke that they are lesse to be blamed for such a feare seeing my Lord claymed an authority for example of approouing regulars for hearing the Confessions of secular persons which prooued not to be due vnto him which did concerne euen the lay Catholicks in highest degree for who would not rather haue their bodies disioynted on the racke then their soules tormented with scruple of inualid Confessions they will I say thinke it no vnreasonable feare that if
Trent that the same doctrine is declayed in the Councell of Florence decreto vnionts I haue bene credibly informed that the Abbot of Monte Cassino of the holy order of S. Bennet hath authority to confirme and Petrus Arcudius in a learned volume written of the agreement betwixt the Latine Pelr. Arcudius de concordia Ecclesâ—e Ocâ—idemalis Oâ—â—etalis in sâ—ptâ—m Sacramen or iâ— administration 〈◊〉 â— 2 cap. and Greeke Church in the administration of the seauen Sacraments witnesseth that in the hearing of diuers other of the Greeke Colledge in Rome he was told by a graue Father of the Society of Iesus by name Petrus Fonseca who came to Rome the yeare 1593. that some principal meÌ„ of the sayd Order had authority to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and further the same Father certainely auouched that himselfe was wont to administer the said SacrameÌ„t in Brasile where there was kept the Popes Graunt of such authority Also the same Arcudius writes that others relate how Adrian the 6 a very learned and pious Pope the yeare 1521. vpon the 25. of Aprill graunted for the Indies and countrie destitute of Bishops that Priests Minorites might confirme and that an Authenticall of the Graunt is kept at Seuill in the conuent of glorious S. Francis his Order Moreouer Arcudius alleadgeth ancieÌ„nt Greeke Fathers to prooue that euen before the schisme it was the practise of the Greeke Church to haue confirmation administred by Priests with particular commission to that effect And to take away all scruple Ita Suarez coninck Henriquez quos citat sâ—quitur Pauâ—us â—atâ—â—â— lib. 5. trâ—ctâ—t 3. cap. â— a. 1 some great Deuines doe teach that although such commission ought not to be graÌ„ted without iust cause yet it is of force and valid howsoeuer it be graunted because it is not properly a dispensaâ—ion in the lawe of Christ but rather a commission of power according to Christs insticution which is that the Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation should be a Priest by coÌ„mission from the supreame Pastour of Gods Church If M. Doct. hold against the common doctrine of Deuines and practise of most learned and holy Popes who haue committed the Sacrament of confirmation to Priests then he must vndertake a new and hard taske and prooue that euen for that slender probability which his opinion hath if it hath any Catholicks must rather suffer increase of persecution then not make all sure by hauing a Bishop for coÌ„firmation which is a thing he will neuer be able to prooue espcially seeing Popes content themselues with the said doctrine euen in countries where Bishops might be emoyed with lesse danger then in England 9 Yet although we should grant that Catholicks were bound to receiue the Sacrament of Confirmation and to receiue it from a Bishop it followes not that it must be had from a Bishop subiect at least to all those penall lawes which are enacted against English Catholicks and Priests For matters might be so disposed as some Bishop from abroad and onely taking England â—s it were by the way might coÌ„firme more in three moneths then my Lord of Chalcedon in seauen yeares according to the proportion kept since the tymes waxed more hard especially if such a Bishop did administer Confirmation to children according to the common practise of the Church in auntient times and of the Easterne Church at this day and as some relate of some countrey neerer vs where children two or three yeares old are wont to be confirmed See Layman lib. 5. tract 3. cap. 6. n. 1. which practise may seeme very fit for our countrey both because Confirmation cannot often and easily be had and also that by this meanes children during the time of innocency when they are sure to receiue the grace of the Sacrament might be armed against the dangers of future persecution But in this if any difficulty appeare his Holinesse would vouchsafe to ordaine what might be most expedient for the particular case of England and by this meanes within some compasse of yeares most Catholicks liuing would finde themselues to haue the Sacrament of Confirmation 10 Further if we did yeild to M. Doctour that for some sort of persecution though very great we ought not to want the Sacrament of confirmation yet when the persecution is of such nature that it hindereth the Bishop from administring that very Sacrament for which he comes except but to a fewe no man can with reason say that such a persecution doth not excuse from obligation of receuing that Sacrament from a Bishop That our persecution is of this quality experience tels vs. 11 Moueroner we must still remember the nuÌ„ber of Catholickes in England which I haue touched in the precedent question and that of those Catholicks all the clergy haue had Confirmation abroad as likewise diuers of the layety either in Seminaries or otherwise in theâ—r trauels those who are in England being so secret and dispersed as they are diuers of them could scarcely haue that Sacrament although a Bishop should be still in England all which considered we shall finde that the nuÌ„ber of those who want and can receiue the foresaid Sacrament is not so great as at first sight may seeme therefore still the difficulty on M. Doctors side is greater to prooue that for such a nuÌ„ber it is necessary to haue a Bishop for ConfirmatioÌ„ although by that meanes the persecutioÌ„ should be increased against all 12 Finally though we should grant all and more then with reason can be desired yet M. Doctour will not haue prooued his intent till first he effect an impossibility namely that this his opinion which he is the first to put in print is so euident and certaine that the contray is voide of probability For till then Catholicks are sure they may with a safe consience keepe their goods liberties and liues for some more necessary and better warranted oâ—casion by conforming their practise to the coÌ„trary of that which M. Doctour teacheth especially seeing he himselfe in his 14. chap. n. 3. doth but fearefully deliuer this doctrine saying I am of opinion which I humbly sâ—bmit to authority that a particulâ—r Church cannot except any long time against hauing a Bishop for feare of persecution And n 8. he only sayth I thinke neyther any Country nor any one of the Country for feare of persecutioÌ„ can oppose against the comming in of a Bishop though thereby only the sacrament of Confirmation should be wanting We see according to his owne confession it is but his opinion and thinking which I hope he will not not binde all other to followe although it were in deede probable as I haue demonstrated it not to be 13 And I should wish M. Doctour to be of my mind if it were but least otherwise he might seeme to dissent in iudgment from my Lord of Chalcedon himselfe who vpon occasion of speach about some authority nothing touching Confirmation which his Lordship pretended said plainely that
vnlesse he did compasse those pretences he would leaue all which my Lord a man of so great learning and zeale would neuer haue vttered if he had conceiued the very receiuing of Confirmation to be of so great necessity that for it alone all Catholicks are obliged to endure increase of persecution for if the matter be so that sacrament alone were likewise a verie sufficient cause of my Lords stay in England although other pretences should not sucseede especially it being a certaine doctrine of Deuâ—nes that Bishops haue greater obligation to administer Confirmation then people to receue it Moreouer seeing my Lord hath stiled himselfe Ordinary of Scotland doubtlesse he would extend his charity to that kingdome if he were of M. Doct. opinion coÌ„cerning the necessity of Confirmation in a countrey groaning vnder a heauy persecution as at this present the Catholicks of Scotland do and therfore stand in greater neede of that Sacrament Neither do I thinke M. Doctour will condemne of deadly sinne the Catholicks of Scotland for not seeking to haue a Bishop to administer that Sacrament or my Lord of Chalcedon for not going to administer it But now let vs see what M. Doctour in his 14. chapter where he handleth this point doth bring in proofe of his doctrine 14 His first argument is because without confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians seeing according to S. Thomas by confirmation we receiue our perfect growth To this I haue already answered now onely wish the reader to be mindfull that according to S. Thomas confirmation and consequently the effect thereof for example perfect growth and whatsoeuer else may be had without a Bishop and so if M. Doctour will sticke to S. Thomas his opinion must go downe 15 Then he alleadgeth S. Clement Epist 4. saying thus Omnibus ergo festinandum est sine morarenasci Deo demum consignari ab Episcopo id est septiformem gratiam Spiritus Sancti percipere quia incertus est vniuscuiusque exitus vitae Quum autem regeneratus fuerit per aquam postmodum septiformis spiritus gratia ab Episcopo confirmatus quia aliter perfectus esse Christianus nequaquam poterit c. All therefore must make haste without delay to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop that is to receiue the seuenfold grace of the Holy Ghost because the end of euery ones life is vncertaine But when he shal be regenerated by water and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfold grace of the Spirit because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian c. To this authority I answere 16 First M. Doctour should not haue grounded so hard a doctrine vpon an Epistle which I suppose he knoweth not to be so authenticall as to settle thereon a doctrinall point as he may see by Bellarmine in his booke de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Secondly I may answere out of Estius in that very place which M. Doctour cyted out of him for the necessity of confirmation in time of persecution and it seemeth not faire dealing to bring Estius as farre as he seemeth for his purpose and not so much as take notice or confute what in the same authour in the same place and to the same purpose he finds against him Estius therefore obserueth that the Fathers when they say that without Confirmation faithfull people are not perfectly or fully Christians doe generally allude to the name of Christ which signifieth Annoynted therefore they deny that they are fully Christians who haue not receiued Episcopall Vnction namely hauing reference to the word Christians as S. Augustinel 17. ciuit cap. 4. sayth that all who are annoynted with Chrisme may rightly be called Christi Christs By this is clearâ— on what sense the words of Clement cyted by M. Doctour are to be vnderstood Thus farre Estius whom M. Doctour highly commends for a learned and holy man the reader may see how directly he doth not onely answere M. Doctours argument but also saith that it is cleare in what sense the words of S. Clement are to be vnderstood It seemes a hard case when M. Doctour is forced to alleadge Estius as his chiefe Authour for the necessity of Confirmation as afterwards we shall see who in the very same place destroyeth a maine groâ—d brought by M. Doctour for the necessity of the same Sacrament Thirdly there occurreth an answere clearely deduced out of S. Clements owne words and I doubt not but will fully satisfye the learned reader The common practise of the antient Church was and is yet in the Easterne Church and at Rome when conuerted lewes or Turkes arâ— solemnely baptized together with Baptisme to giue the Sacrament of Confirmation and so whosoeuer in those times was not confirmed wanted also Baptisme hence S. Clement might well say that he that was not baptized and confirmed was not a perfect Christian But this is farre from proouing that without confirmation as separated from Baptisme we cannot be perfectly Christians This sense is manifest if we ponder S. Clements words for hauing sayd All must make haste to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop he sayth not afterwards But when he shal be confirmed by the Bishop because otherwise he cannot be a perfect christian but still ioyneth it with baptisme and sayth But when he shal be regenerated by water and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian stil as I said repeating together both those sacraments because they were wont to be administred at one time and whosoeuer had or wanted one infallibly had or wanted both of them in that manner it was all one to say one was not confirmed as to say he was not baptized Besides S. Clements discourse All must make hast to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop because the end of euery ones life as vncertaine makes it cleare that his speach is of Baptisme For howesoeuer necessary Confirmation be yet certainely it is not of so great hast as S. Clement vrgeth yea it is cheâ—fly for those who are to liue haue occasion to professe there faith as S. Thomas alledgeth out of Pope Melchiades S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. a. 8. 〈◊〉 4. therefore it had bene an vnfit reason of S. Clement to hasten men to confirmation because the end of euery ones life is vncertaine for as I said the lesse certainety we haue of life and more vicinity to death the lesse necessity we haue of Confirmation but for Baptisme his reason of the vncertainty of mans last end is very fit and vrgent therefore it is cleare S. Clements speach is refered to the sacrament of Baptisme My fourth answere is that S. Clement is not faithfully alledged by M. Doctour For S. Clement after he had said When he shal be regenerated by water and afterward Confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfold grace of the Spirits because otherwise he