worse thought of and farre much the worse for it Of this I could say more but I was loath to haue sayed thus much had not M. Nicholas vrged me vnto it To whom therefore I say Qui alterum incusat probi ipsum se intueri oportet he that accuseth another of any fault must looke that himselfe be free from it else in condemning another he condemneth himselfe 11. And would to God the Superiours of other Colledges would teach their subiectes to thinke and speake well of the Bishop and Clergie and other Seminaries I know M. Doctour would be as forward as the most forward to teach and charge his to loue and respect Regulars which mutuall correspondence if there were a peace would not onely follow but also would be conserued and this mutuall peace would be pleasing to God honorable and comfortable to both parties but as S. Gal. 5. Paule saieth If you bite and eate one another by detracting from one another take heed you be not consumed of one another 12. I wonder that M. Nicholas num 7. should say that M. Doctours booke should not be pleasing to the Sea Apostolike it prouing the Catholike Romaine doctrine against Heretiks commending the Hierarchie which the CouÌ„cel of Trent defineth to be of the diuine Institution Cont. Trid. Sess 6. c 22 Can. 3 and to consist of Bishops Priests and other Ministers defending the mission of our most Reuerend Bishop sent to England from the Sea Apostolik with that authoritie ouer England which other Bishops haue ouer their Dioceses and highlie coÌ„mendeth also by the same Sea Apostolik rather M. Nicholas might feare a checke if the Sea Apostolike were rightlie informed seing that he in his Discussion speaketh so coldly of the Sacrament of Confirmation because be would not haue a Bishop and so openly that is by a booke in printe glaunceth at the Bishops person impugneth his mission as not conuenient for these tymes as though he would controlle the chiefe Pastour and knew better then he and his Counsell what times are most sutable for a Bishop Neither can M. Doctours booke whatsoeuer M. Nicholas sayeth n. 8. be vngratefull to our English Catholiks much lesse to the greater and better parte Whome euerie where he commendeth for their zeale and constancie in defending God his cause with hazard of their liberties landes and liues and doth not taxe them of want of obedience or charitie as he saieth in not being vnited to my Lord of Chalcedon for that he knoweth that the most of them are linked to him in loue respect and obedience and if some of them be not so much vnited to him as were to be wished it is rather to be imputed to some regulars who are their Guides and Directours then to them And how the Catholiks are not condemned of sinne for refusing a Bishop as M. Nicholas also saieth shall appeare hereafter in my reply to the third questioÌ„ But whome M. Nicholas meaneth by the better and greater part of Catholiks I know not I had thought when wee talke of matters of faith the Church and her Hierarchie the greater and better parte had beene the Bishop and his Clergie together with those that adhere vnto him as to their lawfull pastour and they as M. Nicholas knoweth are well pleased with M. Doctours booke as the rest also would haue beene had not M. Nicholas and his misinformed them of the contentes 14. Let M. Nicholas reflect vpon himselfe for if he and some others had not terrified them with vaine shaddowes and made them to feare where was no cause of feare they would haue beene as zealous for a Bishop as the most zealous knowing that by the presence of a Bishop God would be glorified our little Church of EnglaÌ„d graced the weake Catholiks in tyme of persecution strengthned and all comforted 15. But I did not thinke that M. Nicholas could Exeodem orefrigidum efflare calidum Out of the same mouth breath could and hoate had I not seene that in diuers places of his Discussion he chargeth M. Doctour as to partialie addicted to the Bishop and Clergie yet in this his first questioÌ„ n. 9. accuseth him as an enemie to his Ordinarieship To which he may easilie be answered that M. Doctour onely saieth in his 15. Chapter n. 10. that the Bishop of Chalcedon hath onelie a generall spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ ouer the Clergie and lay Catholiks in spirituall matters and hath no Title giuen him to any particular Bishopricke in EnglaÌ„d so caÌ„not chaleÌ„ge to himselfe any particular Bishoprick no more then the Priests by their faculties which they haue to preach and minister Sacraments all ouer England can chalenge any particular parish Church Which he sayed to shew that our Protestant Bishops haue no iust occasion to except against our Catholik Bishop Yet who can doubt but that as the Pope hath giuen him that power and authoritie ouer England which other Bishops haue ouer their Dioceses soe he can Ex plenitudine potestatis by fulnesse of power with this generall authoritie make him Ordinarie of England by an extraordinarie manner as at first he was stiled But whether he be De facto Ordinarie or no because M. Doctour in his Hierarchie neuer determined it nether will I. Yet I haue seene certaine writings in which some haue learnedlie disputed for his ordinariship on which he standeth not so much as on the power of an ordinarie which he thinketh sufficient to demaund approbation 16. M. Nicholas as he is verie forwards in that kinde againe chargeth M. Doctour saying that it cannot be pleasing to God to treate of holy things vpon particular designes And so still maketh himselfe iudge of M. Doctours intentions But let him looke into his owne conscience and see whether he cannot there discouer a particular designe in opposing the hauing of a Bishop in our Countrie M. Doctour hath protested before God in his Epistle dedicatorie and other partes of his Hierarchie that he entended onelie that the Bishop should be honoured and all orders in their ranke respected and I haue alreadie in my preface to the Reader layed opeÌ„ his intentioÌ„ And therefore M. Doctour knowing his owne good intention hopeth that he pleased God in writing his Hierarchie for so good an end as to commend all orders in their kind and thereby to induce them all to peace with one another 17. Let M. Nicholas take heed of his Discussion full false dealings wrong imputations wilfull mistakings gibes and tauntes to disgrace M. Doctour as in theire places shal be shewed farsed with many oppositions against a Bishop sent and commended by the chiefe Vicar of Christ derogating to the holy Sacrament of Confirmation whose necessitie he slighteth whose perfection he denyeth in denying that it maketh vs perfect Christians S. Cle. Ep. 4. S. Vr. banus ep decrâ—t opposite to the ancient fathers who as I haue shewed in my Reply to the 4. questioÌ„ n. 15. attribute that perfection vnto it And
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
people vnited to the Bishop which England could not be when it had no Bishop It is true the Pope is Bishop of the whole Church and so of England as it was a member of the whole but he hauing neuer done there the office of a Bishop by himselfe or his delegate nor euer taking vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England he was not Englands particular Bishop and so England by him could be no particular Church 24. To M. Nicholas his similitude which he mamaketh betwixt God the first and vniuersall cause of all effectes and the Pope the vniuersall Bishop I answere that as God can supplie the externall actions of second causes called Actiones transeuntes therefore can produce heate without fire a man without a man a tree without a tree as he did in the first creation of things Yet he cannot as some hould produce immanent actiōs without their particular causes and powers so cannot produce the act of seing without the eye of hearing without the eare of loue without the will of vnderstading without the power of vnderstanding But how soeuer as God can produce the former externall actions without their particular causes and so supplie the second cause So the Pope if he be not onelie elected Pope but also consecrated can do all the actions by himselfe which Patriarches Archbishops Bishops Priests and other inferiour Ministers can do For he can ordaine Ministers and confirme the baptized with the Bishop he can consecrace absolue and minister other Sacraments and preach with the Priest Yea he can do other inferiour offices with the Deacon Subdeacon and therest though it be not so conuenient he should And soe as God cā be not onely an vniuersall but also a particular cause supplying the particular cause so the Pope can be a particular Bishop but then he must do the office of a particular Bishop by himselfe or his delegate or take the Title of that particular Church vnto him 25. That the Pope hath founded Seminaries of Priests for our countrie that he hath sent thether first Priests and then Religious men as M. Nicholas telleth vs n 8. and we all gratefullie acknowledge to preach and minister Sacramentes in our Countrie as this argueth his greate care of England and his no lesse charitie so it arguerh not as M. Nicholas would make his reader beleiue that he was our particular Bishop he neither by himselfe nor by his delegate doing the office of a Bishop in England nor euer hauing taken vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England And so since the decease of our ould Bishops to these late yeares in which his Holines sent vs twoe most worthie Bishops England was no particular Church because it had no particular Bishop to make it a particular Church 26. And by this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to all that he sayeth n. 8.9.10.12.13 In his 11. nūber he obiecteth against this that many places and persons are exempt from the Iurisdiction of a Bishop be fides the Pope neither did any man euer dreame that for that cause they ceased to be particular Churches I here pitie M. Nicholas his arguing and the necessitie he is driuen to which Cogit ad turpia For although monasteries be exempt from the Bishop and immediatlie subiect to the Pope yet no particular cōgregation or multitude that is a particular Church can be exempt from a particular Bishop as we haue proued out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church vnlesse the Pope make himselfe particular Bishop of it And therefore monasteries subiect onely to the Pope and exēpt from particular Bishops are indeed members of the Church but not a particular Church vnlesse M. Nicholas will make euerie nunnerie of woemen a particular Church 27. But here I cannot but meruayle that M. Nicholas thinketh it so strange that M. Doctour sayeth that there cannot be a particular Church without a Bishop and it should seeme thereby that he hath not much considered S. Thomas his doctrine in this pointe For that this learned Doctour sayeth D. Th. libr. 4. gent. c. 76. n. 4.1 p. q. 108. art 1.2.3 that the Church militant is deriued by similitude from the Triumphant and he sayeth also that euerie Order of the Angels consisteth of diuers Angels subordinate to one Prince who in this Doctours opinion is higher and perfecter in nature thē the rest and is the particular Prince of that Order and all the orders with their particular Princes are subiect to one supreme Angel who is Prince of the three Hierarchies and nine Orders of Angels And therefore in the Church militant in euerie notable parte of it there must be and most commonlie is a Bishop a spirituall Prince of that Church and all the particular Churches with their particular Hierarches and Bishops are subordinate to one supreme Bishop the Pope as M. Doctour hath proued in the 3. and 4. Chapter of his Hierarchie And therefore in his 2. Chapter he sayeth that the Church is compared to a Kingdome in which besides the King are Dukes Earles Marquises Barons c. who are princes in their kinde of their particular dominions and all are with their Dominions Lordships subordinate to the King and if any of these particular dominions be quite depriued of their Duke or Earle they are no more Dutchies or Earledomes though still they be members of the Kingdome and so that particular Prouince depriued of its Duke or Earle giueth not that lustre to the Kingdome which it hath by other particular Lordships and bodyes of the Kingdome 28. In like manner the Church being a Hierarchie is cōposed of diuers particular Churches of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop who is not the Popes delegate but an ordinarie and a Prince in his kind and the Church receiueth by this varietie of particular Bishops particular Churches a greate lustre And when any notable parte of it wanteth its particular Bishop and spirituall prince although the Church remaine still a Hierarchie in respect of other particular Churches which haue their particular Hierarche and Bishop yet in respect of that parte of the Church which hath no Bishop and which therefore is not a particular Church or body it is not perfectlie Hierarchicall nor hath it by that parte of the Church that varietie and lustre which it hath by other parts of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop 29. Wherefore when the Pope giueth to a countrie a delegated Bishop though many times he giueth to the delegate more power then the ordinarie hath although that countrie then be in its kinde a particular Church yet it wanteth some perfection it being not gouerned by an ordinarie Bishop and Pastour as other Churches are it being more perfect and more honorable to haue an ordinarie then a delegate And likewise if the Pope should send a simple Priest into Englād with power to confirme England should be in its kinde a particular Church but not in that degree of
perfection as if it had an ordinarie Bishop and Pastour 30. Whereas M. Nicholas n. 14. saieth that his last taske in this question was to shew that although he should freelie graunt that a particular Church cannot be without a Bishop Yet it were not sufficiente to proue that a Bishop could not be refused by reason of persecution He bringeth in this out of its place and somust expect his answere in the next question Whereas he demaundeth a precept to receiue a Bishop and that also indispensable Hath not M. Doctour in his 12. Chapter of his Hierarchie proued at large that by the diuine lawe and institution besides one supreme Bishop there must be other Bishops in the Church without which the Church cannot subsist because without particular Bishops of particular Churches the whole Churches should not be Hierarchicall Hath he not in his 13. Chapter proued also that Bishops by the diuine institution and law are so necessarie that euen in tyme of persecution they are to gouerne the Church as they euer haue done in the greatest persecution Hath he not proued in his 12. Chapter that by the diuine ordinance euerie great parte of the Church such as England France Spaine is to haue its Bishop But more of this in due place where also I shall shew whether this diuine lawe houldeth in all circunstances What need then had Maister Nicholas to demande a precept where the Diuine law is so often inculcated M. NICHOLAS SMITH The reason which M. Doctour addeth that as the whole Church hath one supreme Bishop to gouerne it so euerie particular Church also must haue its Bishop or Bishops else it should not be a particular Church and so the whole and vniuersall Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches n. 16. REPLIE M. Nicholas wresteth M. Doctours argument to a wrong and odious sense 31. M. Doctours argument is good and solid for as the whole and vniuersall Church requireth a a supreme and vniuersall Bishop ouer all to make it a whole Church so a particular Church requireth a particular Bishop to make it a particular Church as aboue is often proued and otherwise if particular Churches had not their particular Bishop the whole and vniuersall Church which consisteth of many particular Churches should not be a Hierarchie as Christ hath instituted But M. Nicholas not so modestlie as were to be expected of one of his coate sayeth that this argument deserueth no answere and why Because sayeth hee who dare say that there is as great necessitie or obligation to haue a Bishop in euerie particular Church as to haue one supreme head of the Whole Calike Church 32. And thus as he vseth to doe taking M. Doctour wilfullie or ignorantlie in a wrong sense he runneth on For M. Doctour onely sayed that as the whole and vniuersall Church cannot be a whole Church without a supreme and vniuersall Bishop so a particular Church cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop whence by no Logick it followeth that there is absolutelie as greate necessitie of a particular Bishop as of the vniuersall and supreme Bishop Because the Church cannot be at all without a supreme Bishop or nor without order to him when the Sea is vacāt but it may subsist though a particular Bishop and his Church also should fall from the Church by Schisme or heresie and it should still remaine Hierarchicall in other particular Churches which haue their particular Bishops as is easie to see by that which is allreadie saied For although the Greeke Church for the greatest parte be cutte of from the Romaine Church by schisme and heresie and so the Roman Church in it is not Hierarchicall yet the Roman Church still subsisteth and is Hierarchicall in other Churches And this I shall illustrate by an example The Empire is an vniuersall Kingdome which containeth in it diuers particular Kingdomes Wherefore as the whole Kingdome of the Empire cannot be a whole Kingdome without a supreme King and Emperour so a particular Kingdome of the whole Empire cannot be a particular Kingdome without a particular King but yet there is not absolutelie such necessitie of a particular King or Kingdome as of the Emperour who is supreme King For that although that a particular King and Kingdome should be cassired and should be no more a Kingdome nor haue its particular King yet the Empire might still subsist by its supreme King and Emperour and by other Kingdomes which are gouerned by him And therefore M. Nicholas forceth me to say that he sheweth a greate deale of splene towards M. Doctour in taking M. Doctour in a wrong sense as though he had sayed that there was as great necessitie of a particular as of a supreme Bishop and then inferring that his doctrine is subiect to a deeper censure then he is willing to expresse 33. And what Censure I pray you M. Nicholas deserueth it to say that as the whole Catholike Church cannot be without a supreme and vniuersall Bishop so a particular Church cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop In what councell doth M. Nicholas find this censured And doth not common sense and reason censure M. Nicholas for calling this in question Is it any more then to saye that as an Empire and vniuersall Kingdome requireth a supreme King and Emperour so a particular Kingdome of the sayed Empire requireth a particular King And to inferre hence that M. Doctour sayeth a particular Bishop is as necessarie as the supreme Bishop is to vphould the Church of God is as absurd as to inferre that a particular King is as necessarie to vphould the Empire as the Emperour himselfe is 34. And so when M. Nicholas addeth what Catholike dare auouch that because England for the space of 60. yeares wanted a Bishop the vniuersall Church that tyme was not as Christ instituted a Hierarchie composed of diuers particulars is of the same stuffe for where or when did M. Doctour euer say thus as M. Nicholas maketh him to say I confesse M. Nicholas his cauilling in this manner and false construing yea false alledging would moue some litle passion in mee but that I am resolued to imitate M. Doctours temper and milde manner of writing of which he giueth mee example in his Hierarchie M. Doctour sayed onely that the Church cannot subsiste a Hierarchie as Christ instituted vnlesse it be composed in generall of diuers particular Churches which haue their particular Bishops but he neuer sayed that the Church cannot subsist without a particular Church nor that all the time England was without a Bishop the rest of the Church composed of particular Churches which were and are and euer shal be subordinate to the supreme Bishop was not as Christ instituted a Hierarchie as aboue he is sufficiently tould onely he sayed that England so long as it wanted a Bishop was not a particular Church and that the whole Church should not be a Hierarchie if it
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
A REPLY TO M. NICHOLAS SMITH HIS DISCVSSION of some pointes of M. DOCTOVR KELLISON his Treatise of the Hierarchie BY A DIVINE Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse qui tacere noluerit Aug. l. 5. de Ciu. cap. 27. It is easie for any man to seeme to haue ansvvered that vvill not hold his peace PRINTET AT DOWAY By the Widovve of Marke Wyon 1630. GENTLE AND CATHOLIQVE READER MAISTER Doctour Kellison as he hath vvritten diuers bookes tending to the Reconciliation of heretickes to the Catholique Church so of late he sette forthe a Treatise entitled The Hierarchie of the Church that thereby he might reconcile some Catholiques the one to the other to vvit the secular Clergie and Regulars vvho though both vvorthie members of the Catholique Church seemed to be at some litle variance The reason vvhy he published this Treatise vvas as I haue heard him saye because he vvas informed by letters and perceiued by certaine vvritinges and Pamphlets vvritten toe and froe that there vvas some diuision betvvixt the most Reuerend Bishop and Clergie on the one side and the Regulars on the other side to the greate griefe I am sure of both sides to the edification of fevv and dishonour of all Wherfore partlie out of compassion vvhich hee tooke to see tvvo so vvorthie bodyes vvhich beare no litle svvaye in our litle Church of England and vvhich heretofore ioyned both labours and bloud in setting forth the Catholique cause to be so deuided in opinions and affections and partlie at the request of some friendes vvho vvished vvell to bothe for setting these tvvo motiues aside he vvould not haue entermedled in so ticklish a busines vvherin he might offend one partie and peraduenture both though he honoreth and loueth both he vnder tooke the vvriting of the aforesayd Treatise of the Hierarchie and of diuers orders of the Church that so he might take occasion to vvrite of the dignirie and necessitie of Bishop and secular Clergie vvhich seemed by many clamours vvhich he heard of and vvritings also vvhich he savve to be opposed in so much that Episcopall authoritie in England and in these tymes vvas counted a noueltie odious contrarie to ancient lavves of England and preiudiciall to soules and yet to speake also of the state and perfection belonging to Regulars vvho seemed to bee opposers and so to dispose both partyes to peace and concord And therfore he vvrote a long Dedicatorie Epistle to all the Catholiques of England exhorting all to agree in affections as they doe in matters of fayth and Religion and the Regulars to honour the seculars and the seculars to imbrace the Regulars as their fellovv missioners ayders and cooperatours VVhich exhortation he oftentymes vpon occasion repeateth in his Treatise and hath not in all the booke so much as one bitter or tarte vvord against person or state vnles novv and then a glaunce against Luther and Caluin but so he extolleth the Bishop and Clergie as he depresseth not the Regulars but giueth them as much as S. Thomas of Aquin an holy and learned regular doth yeeld vnto them Jn so much that diuers vvere of opinioÌ„ and he him self also verilie hoped that this Treatise vvould not haue offended any but rather vvould haue pleased all and by pleasing all induced all to an attonemeÌ„t Out of vvhich hope and opinion he feared not to put his name vnto his booke nor to present it as a gratefull guift to the cheefe of our English Regulars in Dovvay vvhere the booke vvas printed But he hath vnderstood by letters from England and novv latelie by a certaine Discussion fathered on a Regular deceased the Father belike vvas ashamed to behold his Posthumus and therfore dyed that the Regulars tooke 〈◊〉 this his Treatise in that good paâ—â— he vvished and hoped but rather thought them selues dishonored by it vvhich the more grieued him because as he sincerelie protested in his Epistle Dedicatorie and often tymes hath made the same protestation by vvord of mouth he intended in noe vvise to disgrace the venerable and approoued state of Regulars but so tâ— commend the state of the Bishoâ— and Clergie vvhich he savv vvamainely opposed as yet to giue to the Regulars as much as the learnedst Regulars doe yeeld vnto them and consequentlie so to right one partie as not to vvrong the other but rather to commend both Some freinds haue vrged him to make a Replye to this Discussion fathered on M. Nicholas Smith but M. Doctour had not as he sayd the harte to vvrite against a Catholique and him a Regular counting it no grace to disgrace a Catholique noe victorie to ouercome him and fearing least in vvriting against him he might contristate other Catholiques and noe lesse make glad our common enemyes vvho imagine our vvarre to be their peace Yea M. Doctour vsed to saye To vvhat purpose should J ansvvere one vvho vvriteth not against mee For I neuer think that he vvriteth against mee vvho vvilfullie or ignorantlie mistaketh my vvords and meaning and putteth vpoÌ„ mee vvhat I neuer sayd or meÌ„t that so he may haue the greater aduantage and make a shovv of a victorie But he vvriteth against mee sayd the Doctour vvho vvriteth against my vvords and meaning and if he fathereth on mee as M. Nicholas vseth to doe that vvhich J neuer sayd or ment and in that sorte maketh his assault hee assaulteth not mee but a supposed and fayned aduersarie And yet if M. Nicholas had not fayned such an aduersarie he could not haue made so much as a shovv of an ansvvere to the Hierarchie as shall euerie vvhere be shevved in the decourse of this reply And besides sayd M. Doctour I ame imployed in more important businesses and if I vvere not yet doe I not think a Reply necessarie vvhere there vvas noe ansvvere but only vvresting of vvords vvittingly or vnvvittingly mistakinge scanning of intentions imposition of vntruthes so to make a shovv of a victorie vvhere indeed M. Nicholas him selfe vvas foyled And moreouer he sayd the booke vvill ansvver for it selfe and the iudicious Reader as he heareth a learned deuine in his Jnquisition and some others haue done vvill out of it ansvvere for him And last of all he sayd vvhy should I encounter vvith an aduersarie that dareth not shevv him selfe in the field and therfore goeth masked vnder another maÌ„s name though it is thought he vvalketh rather in a nette the question vvho he should be being not so hard to solue as Gordius his Knotte vvas to bee dissolued Yet out of the respect and affection J beare to M. Doctour and in regard of the obligation vvherby J ame obliged to him as hauing liued vnder his gouernment and out of the care I haue of his good name and reputation vvhich I thought could not be impeached vvithout some preiudice to the common cause J haue vndertaken to ansvver for him and in this my Reply to imitate the temper and moderation vvhich hee in his Hierarchie hath vsed and not to
saculis quae fuerunt ante nos Nothing vnder the sunne is new neither is any man able to say behould this is new for it hath alreadie gone in the ages that were before vs. Aug. lib 1. de Tâ—inâ—t cap. 3. Let S. Austin answere for M. Doctour Vtile est plures libros à pluribus fieri diuer so stylo non diuersa fide etiam de quaestionibus eisdem vt ad plurimos res ipsae perueniat ad alios sic ad alios autem sic It is profitable that many bookes should be made by many in a diuers style not a diuers faith euen of the same questions that the thing it selfe may come to manie to some so to others so 5. Before I goe any further I obserue that M. Nicholas euen in the beginning coÌ„tradicteth the trueth and himselfe also and that within a few lines VVhich is an euill presage of future lapses in which M. Nicholas will be founde tripping For in his 2. page n. 3. he saieth that M. Doctour is the first who hath put in printe a Treatise to wit of the Hierarchie in the English tongue In which words he contradicteth the trueth wittinglie which redoubleth his fault and himselfe also The trueth because he knoweth that before M. Doctour set penne to paper about this subiect there was a booke of the like subiect published first in French then in Latin printed as is pretended at Herbipolis in the yeare 1626. then in English at Roan where the Discussion was printed and in Latin this booke is stiled Vindiciae priuilegiorum gratiarum quibus in Ecclesiastica Hierarchia c. in which booke the Authour in his second reason endeauoureth to prooue Regulars to be of the Hierarchie by the arguments which M. Nicholas in his sixt question hath borrowed of him to prooue the same as we shall see hereafter And soe he contradicteth the trueth in saying that M. Doctour was the first who hath put in printe a Treatise of the Hierarchie in the English tongue seing that the Treatise mentioned was printed and diuulged in England before And in Queen Elizabethes tyme as M. Nicholas or some of his brethren must needs know a treatise was set forth in a lay mans name to shew that Religions were fitter to heare Confessions then Secular Priests 6. He seemeth also to contradict himselfe for that n. 2. he saieth that diuers haue handled this argument before M. Doctour most learnedlie copiouslie and eloquentlie both in Latin and vulgar languages as the alledged English booke doth and yet he sayeth M. Doctour was the first and consequentlie he saieth M. Doctour was the first and not the first which is a contradiction in himselfe VVhereby also it appeareth that it is farre froÌ„ trueth which he saieth n. 4. that this Treatise of M. Doctour hath renewed the no lesse improfitable then odious comparison betwixt the perfection of secular Pastours and that of religous men for that by his owne confession this argument was alreader that is before M. Doctour wrote handed by diuers both in Latin and vulgar languages And he is not ignoraÌ„t that Suarez Suarez tom 3. de Rel. l. 1. c. 18. Et 21. Platus de bon stat Rel. l. 1 c a. c. 37. and Hieronymus Platus meÌ„ of his owne coate haue handled this argument and comparison more largelie then M. Doctour hath done and not more moderatelie 7. He calleth M. Doctours exhortation to peace and charitie Verball n. 3. 4. as though it came not from the harte Which all they who knowe M. Doctours sinceritie and realitie will not thinke to be true but rather that M. Nicholas taketh to much vpon him in iudging of mens hartes which is a thing belonging ether to God who is therefore saied to search mens hartes Ierem. 17 1. Cor. 2. or to the Spirit of man which is in him or to the Prophete or Sainct to whom God reuealeth such secrets 8. I agree to that he saieth n. 5. that to conserue peace and charitie it is good to let religious alone with their priuiledges So that he agree with mee that it is good also that the Clergie and laytie be let alone with their rightes amongst which one is to haue a Bishop to gouerne the Clergie and Confirmation to strengthen the laitie in a time of persecution But what priuiledges haue beene taken from them Or what offer hath beene madde to despoile them of the same They will say that before a Bishop was sent into England Regulars were free from asking Approbation of the Bishop But to this they are easilie answered that exemption from asking Approbation of the Bishop to heare confessions of seculars is not any priuiledge annexed to their order and therefore in all Catholicke Countries Religious men are obliged by commaundement of the Councel of Trent and were before commanded by Bonifacius VIII Conc. Trid. sess 23 cap 15. Clemens V. in the Generall CouÌ„cel of Vienna Ioannes XXII and Pius quintus to aske the Bishops Approbation as they doe to heare confessions of seculars but it was a priuiledge grauÌ„ted to secular Priests as well as to Regulars all the while they had no Bishop And with good reason also for how could they aske Approbation of a Bishop when they had no Bishop But now since we haue had a Bishop it is a question whether they should not aske approbation in England as they doe in other Countries which question MY LORD OF CHALCEDON and others haue learnedlie disputed I will not meddle with it in this Reply because M. Doctour did not in his Hierarchie 10. I allow also of that which M. Nicholas addeth n. 6. that it would much auaile towards the conseruation of charitie if all Superiours and Presidents of Seminaries were effectuallie carefull that their subiects speake of religious men with respect and charitie And as for M. Doctour PresideÌ„t of Doway Colledge at whome M. Nicholas aymeth I may say boldlie because truelie if some that come from other Colledges did not sometymes vtter their grieuances against some Regulars there would not a word be spoaken against theÌ„ scarcelie of them in his Colledge and I know some that haue beene brought vp in other Colledges who haue beene sharpelie reprehended by him for speaking against some of them And therefore vnlesse many lye that come from thence there is more muttering against them in their owne Colledges them in Doway Colledge where the greatest part scarselie thinke of theÌ„ much lesse speake of their affaires And if the Rectours Superiours of other Colledges did seeke to instille into their subiectes a reuerence to the Bishop and respect to the Clergie many clamours and harsh speaches cast out against the Bishop and Clergie might haue beene stopped preueÌ„ted But vnlesse also many who come from theÌ„ce do tell vs vntrueths if any in those Colledges speake but a worde in commendation of the Bishop and Clergie vnder whom yet they must liue when they come into England they are the
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
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
had inferred out of that definitiō that the English Catholikes all the while they wāted a Bishop were schismatikes out of the Church as the Nouatians to whome S. Cyprian applieth his definition were Which is no lesse then a false calumniation For although out of that definition of a Church S. Cyprian inferred that the Nouatians werenot onely no Church for wāt of a Bishop but also Schismatikes out of the Church because they were separated from the Bishop by Schisme which not onely hindereth from being a particular Church but also separateth and cutteth of frō the whole Church Yet M. Doctour inferred not that odious conclusion against the English Catholikes as M. Nicholas seemeth to say and therefore sayeth that M. Doctours application is iniurious to English Catholikes and giueth the reason Because S. Cyprian saied the Nouatians are out of the Church they haue no peace with the Priests of God c. but he onely inferred out of the same definition as I haue tould him aboue that out of the same place or seate of arguments as definition is many conclusions may be deduced that the English Catholikes all the while they had no Bishop were no particular Church because then the definition of a Church which is A people vnited to its Bishop did not agree to English Catholikes for how could they be a people vnited to their proper Bishop who had none at all And so M. Doctour is not iniurious to Catholikes who pleadeth for a Bishop for thē to make thē a particular Church and to haue other honours and commodities by a Bishop but M. Nicholas is iniurious to them who labours to hinder them frō a Bishop by whome they should be a particular Church as formerlie they haue beene and that so glorious that after the Church of Rome they might contend with the most glorious Churches of Europe M. NICHOLAS SMITH The second point which I vndertooke to make good namely that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop is easilie proued c. pagin 20. num 8. THE REPLY England was not a particular Church without a Bishop 19. It is easilie sayed M. Nicholas but not so easilie proued as partelie may appeare by that which is alreadie sayed and S. Cyprians definition will still be a blocke in your way at which you will infalliblie stumble and perchance breake your shinnes 20. But how prooueth he that the Catholikes of England may be a Church without a Bishop Because saieth hee the Pope in defect of particular Bishops is the particular Bishop Ordinarie and Diocesan of such Churches as Philosophers do teach that almightie God the supreme and vniuersall cause of all effectes concurreth not onelie as an immediate but also as a particular cause to the producing of effectes when second particular causes doe faile Thus he 21. And if he meane that the Pope hath beene a particular Bishop to England he must shewe it else M. Doctour may still say that all the while England was without a particular Bishop it was no particular Church or if he thinke he may argue à possibili ad esse from possibilitie to actuall being as if because the Pope can be Englands proper Bishop therefore be hath beene so then euerie one should be what he may be and so M. Nicholas should be generall of his order because he may be and he should be a man of fourescore yeares of age because he may be and be should now be at Rome againe because he may be If he meane that the Pope so soone as a countrie or Diocese wanteth a Bishop is actuallie that countries or Prouinces particular Bishop no Bishoprike should be vacant because so soone as the particular Bishop is dead that Pope is the particular Bishop And so when a Rectour of a Colledge is dead the Prouinciall should be Rectour and when the Prouinciall is deceased the Generall should be Prouinciall and no office should euer be vacant because the Superiour officer should supply it which is absurd and yet be it neuer so absurde it seemeth M. Nicholas his opiniō For he saieth that the Pope in defect of a particular Bishop is the particular Bishop ordinaie and Diocesan of such Churches to wit which want a particular Bishop Which is a strange opinion of M. Nicholas his owne inuention And by this his doctrine it would follow that if per impossibile there were neuer a particular Bishop in all the Church but the Pope the Church should still be Hierarchicall composed of diuers particular Churches because the Pope should be in that case not onelie an vniuersall Bishop of all the Church but also a particular Bishop of euerie particular Church and so one sole Bishop the Pope should make a Hierarchie which consisteth of diuers particular Churches 22. Yet I will not denie but that the Pope to honour a Bishoprick which before his Popedome he enioyed may retaine still the Title of that Bishopricke Ex Baron anno 1849. Leon Papa 9 anno 1. as Leo IX did the Title of the Bishopricke of Tulle Yea he may though vniuersall Bishop of the vniuersall Church be also the particular Bishop of a particular Church as he is de facto particular Bishop of S. Ihon Lateran but then he must ether do the office there of a Bishop by himselfe or by his delegate or at least he must take vnto himselfe the Title of that Church not onelie in name but in verie deed else he shall not be a particular Bishop I say or at least he must take vnto himselfe he Title for that seemeth to be sufficient to make a particular Bishop as we may gather by diuers examples for that there is a Patriarch of Hierusalem in Rome who neither doth the office there by himselfe or anie delegate because he cannot be permitted and my Lord of Chalcedon though he do the office of a Bishop onely in England and not at Chalcedon ether by himselfe or his delegate because it will not be permitted him to do so Yet he is truelie the particular Bishop of Chalcedon because he hath the Title and right to gouerne that Church graunted vnto him 23. Now therefore if M. Nicholas can shew me that the Pope hath done the office of a Bishop in England by himselfe or his delegate or that he hath taken to himselfe the Title of the Bishop of England I shall graunte that all this while wee had no particular Bishop in Englād he hath beene our particular Bishop If he cannot as all the world knoweth he cannot for nether hath the Pope beene in England in person nor hath he sent before these twoe most Reuerend Bishops anie Bishop into England to do there the offices of a Bishop which is to confirme and ordaine nor hath he euer takē vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England then M. Doctours assertion is true to wit that all the while England had no particular Bishop it was no particular Church because as S. Cyprian sayeth the Church is a
were not composed of particular Churches and Bishops Which it may be and was in other particular Churches when England wanted a Bishop and should still be so although as God forbidde England were quite cutte of from the whole Church and had not one Catholike in it 35. Hauing thus demonstrated M. Doctours doctrine which auerred that a people Prouince or Countrie cānot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop and consequentlie that all the time England wanted a Bishop it was not a particular Church and hauing also detected in M. Nicholas wilfull or ignorāt mistakings which commonly are the groūds of all his arguments hauing answered to all his arguments I will go to the next question if first I adde this that seing that England when it had no particular Bishop was no particular Church M. Nicholas and his brethren out of the loue they ought to beare to their countrie should labour with the Clergie that we may alwayes haue a Bishop or Bishops by whome we may haue the honour to be a particular Church and enioy many other comforts and commodities which other countries enioye by their Bishops which to English Catholikes seeme most necessarie by reason of their persecution THE THIRD QVESTION VVhether by the diuine law euerie particular Church must haue its Bishop MAISTER NICHOLAS TO proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter alledgeth that it is De Iure diuino of the diuine lawe to haue a particular Bishop in euerie particular Church and for proofe he citeth Sotus affirming it to be of the diuine lawe c. and Bannes teaching c. n. 1. THE REPLY 1. I Confesse M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter auerreth that a particular Countrie cannot except against a Bishop sent by lawfull authoritie one grounde there of is because by the diuine law institution not onlie the whole and vniuersall Church must haue an vniuersall and supreme Bishop but also there must be in the whole Church diuers particular Churches gouerned by particular Bishops euen in time of persecutiō as he hath prooued in his 13. Chapter And this also he proueth in the beginning of his 14. Chapter n. 1. Yea M. Nicholas num 4. saieth that certaine it is that Iure diuino by the diuine lawe the Church must be gouerned by Bishops that is in the whole Church there must be some Bishops but to affirme that it is De iure diuino to haue a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England and not onelie that there is such a precept but moreouer that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof or giue sufficient cause of dispensation all which he must proue if be will speake home is a paradox 2. But softe M. Nicholas bona verba quaeso Remember your ould fault of which you haue beene so often tould By your leaue you make M. Doctour to say more then he doth that he may seeme to speake Paradoxes and you may haue more aduantage For M. Doctour in the same Chapter num 3. which M. Nicholas would not see graunteth that if the persecution be so great that a Bishop would not be permitted to enter into England or would presentlie be taken and put to death then it was to no purpose to send a Bishop with euident hazard of his life and no hope of good to the people by sending him and so in that case the obligation of hauing a Bishop should cease But sayeth M. Doctour in the same place If a Bishop may be bad and may so liue in a Countrie as he may in England that as there is feare least he be apprehended so there is hope he may escape sometime and so do some notable good I do not thinke that the Catholikes of that Countrie can except against his entrance 3. Nor doth M. Doctour denie that the Pope may dispense in the diuine lawe or declare that in some cases it ceaseth to oblige yea he speaketh not at all of dispensation in the diuine lawe Yet M. Doctour knoweth that the chiefe Pastour may dispense in vowes and in Matrimonie contracted onelie not consummated which yet are of the diuine lawe 4. And he knoweth also the diuine lawes in many circunstances do not oblige As for example euerie one is bound by the diuine lawe to receaue the B. Sacrament at the hower of his death least he aduenture on that so dangerous iorney from this life to the next without his Viaticum and yet though a Priest be present if he haue not holie vestements without which the Church commandeth not to celebrate Masse he must not say Masse because he cannot say it in that manner as he should and the sicke person is in that occurance of the ecclesiasticall law freed from diuine obligation to communicate 5. So that Priest by the diuine law is bound not to giue the B. Sacrament to any whome he koweth to be in mortall sinne and so vnworthie and yet if this partie be a secret sinner though knowne to the Priest and demaund of the Priest in publike to communicate he is bound to communicate him least he defame him and the diuine lawe which forbiddeth the Priest to giue the B. Sacrament to vnworthie Persons according to that do you not giue the holie to dogges Mat. 7. doth in that case cease to oblige the Priest 6. Soe it is a common opinion of deuines whome Vasquez alledgeth Vasq tom 3. disp 207. c. 4. 1. Cor. 11. Conc. Trid. Sess 13 cap. 7. that by the diuinelaw whosoeuer is in mortall sinne must confesse that sinne before he presume to receaue the B. Sacrament which they proue out of those words of S. Paul But let a man proue himselfe and so let him cate of the breade and drinke of the Chalice which probation of ones selfe the Councell of Trent defineth to be by Confession and yet if the Priest at Masse or the lay partie that is in companie kneeling before the altar remember at that time his sinne he may communicate if by omitting to do so he should defame himselfe And so in that case also the diuine lawe ceaseth to bind to confession and it will excuse him from the sinne of vnworthie receauing if he endeauour to get contrition 7. And Nauarre feareth not to say Nanar in Silma c. 27 n. 263. that it is Omnium vna conclusio c. it is a conclusion of all that many lawes agreeing to many by the diuine and naturall lawe are restrained by the chiefe Prince 〈◊〉 the Church in regard of spirituall things and of the secular Prince in respect of temporall matters as well by interpretation betwixt right and equitie interposed as by imposition of punishment as by inst dispensation as by iust and naturallreason and Felinus Decius and others do copiouslie deliuer 8. Wherefore M. Doctour doth not say that the Pope cannot in some cases dispense in the diuine lawe of hauing a Bishop or declare that in
sonne case it bindeth not and therefore did not persume to say that the Pope all this whlie he gaue not England a Bishop did commit a sinne against the diuine law rather he defendeth him from all sinnein his 14. chapter n. 3. Onelie he saieth that the CouÌ„trie cannot except against the entraÌ„ce of a Bishop soe he be sent by lawfull authoritie as our two last most Reuerend Bishops were for that then the Pope rather declareth that the diuine lawe ceaseth not to oblige and therefore let our Regulars looke how they can be excused who except against a Bishop whome the Pope hath sent and who no doubt was informed of all circumstances and therefore knew whether it were conuenient to send him at that time or not And truelie seing the Pope hath sent him all Regulars and they especiallie who haue bouÌ„d themselues particularlie to the Pope by a fourth vowe should by a perfect resignation conforme their willes to his will receiue and embrace his Bishop with all obedience and humilitie M. NICHOLAS SMITH But although we should graunt that as M. Doctour affirmeth a great or notable parte of the Church could not Iure diuino be gouerned without a Bishop yet that would be farre from proouing that England as thinges now stand must needs haue a Bishop For if our Countrie be considered not materiallie but formallie as diuines expresse themselues that is not the extent of Land c. n. 7. THE REPLY Supposing it be of the diuine law that a greate or notable parte of the Church could not be without a Bishop whether England as things now stand must needs haue a Bishop 9. M. Nicholas saieth first that although we should suppose that a notable part cannot be without a Bishop yet England see how fauorable he is to his countrie might spare a Bishop or at lest must not needs haue one And why M. Nicholas because sayeth he we must not consider the extent of the land but the number of Catholikes in England which as he telleth vs is so farre from a great or notable parte of the Church that the Catholikes in England would scarce make one Bishopricke or Diocese And saieth he to affirme that one Diocese or Cittie is a notable parte of the Church is a thing which noe diuine yea no man of Iudgement will say But by this wee may see into what absurdities partialitie may lead men 10. See how to hinder English Catholikes from a Bishop what an handfull of people he maketh them The Ancient Fathers and writers as Iustinus Martyr Tertullian S. Leo cited by M. Doctour in his Epistles Dedicatories to his Suruey and Hierarchie gloried in the encrease of Christians maugre the furie of persecution and M. Doctour in the same Epistles comforteth and encourageth the Catholikes of England that notwithstaÌ„ding the like rage of persecutioÌ„ there are Catholikes in the Court in the Vniuersities Cities Townes Cottages prisons are fouÌ„d amidst the Magistrates yea Ministers if we regard their hartes and amongst all sortes of people And this is a comfort to Catholikes a glorie to God and an honour to Chuste his Church and Religion for which Catholikes suffer But M. Nicholas to hinder England from a Bishop who seemeth to be an eye sore vnto him maketh English Catholikes an handfull of men a litle and as it were a contemptible number not worthie a Bishop But thankes be God who hath the more multiplied English Catholikes Exod. 1. the more with the Israelites they haue beene oppressed they are not so few Deut. 12. as M. Nicholas maketh them and in this Inimicinostri sunt Iudices Our enemies our persecutors may herein be Iudges 11. But if they were not so many as they be yet Confirmation and consequentlie a Bishop especiallie in time of persecution were necessarie to confirme them virtute exalto with vertue of the holy Ghost from aboue which vertue and force Luca. 24. is the effect of Confirmation Neither is the case of England and of one particular Diocese annearing and ioyning to others all one For that one Diocese may be helped by another adioyning to it or by recourse to the Bishop of it if there shal be heed whereas England as the Poët sayeth is Deuided by Sea from the whole world and cannot haue conuenient succour but by its owne Bishop with in it selfe 12. And againe M. Nicholas sayeth not truely that the multitude of Catholikes not the extent of the place is onelie to be considered Dist â—o cap. In illis vere ciuitatibus Suarez to 3. l. 1 destatu perf c. â— 17. n. 5 for in the primatiue Church as S. Clement in his Epistle to S. Tames called the brother of our Lord or as diuers thinke to S. Simeon S. Iames his successour which is alledged in the Canonlaw and by Suarez and other diuines sayeth that in the primatiue Church in those Cities which before their conuersion were esteemed Capitall Cities and were gouerned by Archflamines primates and Patriarches were constituted and in lesser cities which had before their conuersion lesser Flamines Archbishops were placed and in other lesser Cities one onelie Bishop in one Citie not two in one were appointed And Pope Auaclete Anacl ep 3 refert d 90. c. Episcopi alledging out of S. Clement whome he calleth his predecessour the same words in effect sayeth that this was done by S. Peter and S. Clement and himselfe ORDINANTE DOMINO Our Lord so ordaining And the same S. Anaclete as M. Doctour had alledged in the fift Chapter of his Hierarchie n. 11. in the same third Epistle hath these words Episcopi autem non in castellis aut modicis Ciuitatibus debent constitui sed presbyteriper castella aut modicas ciuitates atque villas debent ab Episcopis constitui Bishops not in castels or litle walled townes must be constituted but Priests must by the Bishop be placed in Castels or litle Cities And he giueth the reason Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi lest the name of a Bishop should be lesse esteemed 13. Soe that a regard was had whatsoeuer M. Nicholas saieth to the extent of the place where a Bishop was to be placed and not onelie to the number of Christian Catholikes there liuing When S. Peter chose Rome the Heade Citie of the Empire for himselfe and his successours wheÌ„ S. Marke was placed at Alexandria S. Euodius and after him S. Ignatius at Antioche and S. Iames and after him S. Simeon at Hierusalem they had respect to the materiall greatenesse and the dignitie of the place in such places appointed Patriarches or primates who had vnder them other Bishops because the extent of the place required it And although at first in some of these Citties there were not so many ChristiaÌ„s as were afterward in one Diocese Yet they perceiuing that in these great Cities and extentes of place there might be many more ChristiaÌ„s which might be encreased by the presence and industrie of their Prelate they
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
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
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
actuall member of the Church So though one might get more grace by other workes then by Confirmation yet he should be no more Sacramentallie and by character a perfect Christian then a Cathecumen vnbaptized should be a Christian and so although as M. Nicholas sayeth n. S. Tho. 2 2 q. 184. ar 3. ad 3. 4. out of S. Thomas by obseruing the counsailes as religious men do a man may haue greater perfection then other Christians haue yet that will not make him a perfect Christian in S. Thomas his meaning For as a man may haue as much strength and skill in fencing and fighting as the best soldiour yet till he be admitted and doth receaue his militarie liuerie hee is not a soldiour by profession So a Christian may peraduenture haue as much grace as one that is confirmed but till he be confirmed he shall not be an enroulled spirituall soldiour nor a perfect Christian 10. And although a man may haue grace without this Sacrament to professe his faith and to suffer death for it as many in England not coÌ„firmed haue done and as M. Doctour graunteth in his Epistle dedicatorie n. 18. and in his booke pagin 384. n. 7. Yet that grace was merelie gratuitely and freelie bestowed and is not so infalliblie giueÌ„ without Confirmation as by it because to the confirmed that grace is due by reason of the Sacrament and Character which they haue receiued God by promise and couenant obliging himselfe to giue the speciall grace of the Sacrament to them that receaue it And they that write against this Sacrament or they that neglect it when they may haue it without any imminent or certaine daunger for I do not heare that any haue beene particularlie persecuted for hauing beene confirmed though thousands haue beene coÌ„firmed may feare lest they may be denyed this speciall grace as neglecting the ordinarie meanes to get it which is Confirmation To that he sayeth n. 3.4.5 he may gather his answere by what is sayed To that he alledgeth n. 7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14 he is partelie answered partelie shal be anone For M. Doctour sayeth onely that a Countrie for feare of persecution cannot except against a Bishop or Confirmation Whereas M. Nicholas would make M. Doctour say that euery particular man is bouÌ„d to suffer persecution rather then not admit a Bishop or Confirmation and M. Doctour by a Bishop meaneth him who hath Episcopall authoritie to giue Confirmation M. Nicholas would haue him meane an Ordinarie though I know M. Nicholas for his parte desireth no Ordinarie M. NICHOLAS Then he alledgeth S. Clement ep 4. saying omnibus ergo festinandum est sine mora renasci Deo demum consignariab Episcopo c. but first M. Doctour should not haue grounded so hard a doctrine vpon an Epistle which I suppose he knoweth not to be so authenticall c. n. 15. 16. THE REPLY S. Clements Testimonie that without Confirmation one is not a perfect Christian is defended and M. Nicholas his answeres plainely refuted 11. M. Nicholas sayeth M. Doctour should not haue grounded so hard a doctrine vpon an Epistle not so authenticall as thereon to settle a doctrinall pointe as he may see in Bellarmine Sel. de Script Eccl. I note heare first that M. Nicholas counteth it an hard doctrine to say that one is not a perfect Christian without Confirmation S. Tho. 3 p q. 65. ar z. Vrban ep decretali And yet S. Thomas as we haue seene S. Clement already alledged S. Vrban S. Cyprian and other Fathers yea and Diuines whome I shall adde after S. Clement do affirme and heretikes onely deny it with whome M. Nicholas ioyneth in this point 11. Cal. l 9 Instit c. 19 n. 9. Let vs heare Caluin speake These are his words Addunt praeterea fideles omnes Spiritum sanctum per manuum impositionem accipere debere post Baptismum vt pleni Christiani inueniantur They Catholikes adde also that all the faithfull must receiue the holie Ghost by imposition of hands after Baptisme that they may be found full Christians which Caluin in his next words condemneth with M. Nicholas who sayeth it is an hard doctrine And Bellarmin To. 2. l. 2. de effectu Sacramentorum cap. 29. sayeth that S. Cyprian l. 2. ep 1. S. Cornelius Pope ep ad Fabianum apud Eusebium l. 6 hist c. 53 feare not to say that they are not fullie sanctified nor perfect Christians who want the Sacrament of Chrisme although Caluin and Kemnitius call this word an ould calumnie But see how disaffection can transporte euen a Catholike and a Religious man Because for sooth he would haue no Bishop in England he would not haue ConfirmatioÌ„ necessarie to make a perfect Church or perfect ChristiaÌ„s and therefore sayeth against the ancient Fathers and all diuines euen Iesuites that treate of this matter that a man may be a perfect Christian without Confirmation yea that it is an hard doctrine to say that without Confirmation wee cannot be perfect Christians He vrgeth censures against M. Doctour where no censure but good can be giuen as I partlie haue and partlie shall she we But if this M. Nicholas his proposition It is an hard doctrine to saye that without confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians were proposed to superiours I feare it would be hardly censured it being against ancient Fathers and the common opinion of Diuines and onely being applauded by Caluin and other heretikes who because they deney CoÌ„firmation caÌ„not abide to heare what the Fathers say to wit that it perfecteth Baptisme and maketh vs perfect Christians And therefore Caluin saieth lib. 4. Inst c. 19. n. 8. Adeò nihil eos pudet vt negent Baptismum ritè sine Confirmatione perficiposse They are so shamelesse as that they deney Baptisme to be rightlie perfected without Confirmation These Fathers and diuines I shall alledge after S. Clement 12. Secondlie here I obserue M. Nicholas his boldenesse in daring to reiect S. Clements epistles and in particular the 4. Epistle alledged by M. Doctour it being alledged to proue Confirmation a Sacrament by Coccius tom 2. lib. 3. ar 20. Cocc Suarez Conin Bellar. Estius Cateâ—â— Baius Valontia Suarez 3. p. tom 3 disp 32. art 1. Conincke 3. p. qu. 72. art 1. Bellarmin l. 1. de Confirm c. 3. Est in 4. d. 7. § 13. the Catechisme ad Parochos Confirm Sacram. Baius l. 2. de Instit c. 6. Valentia in Controu lib. de numero Sacramentorum cap. 1. obiecteth against decretall Epistles as M. Nicholas doth against S. Clements epistles which are parte of them illas epistolas decretales PoÌ„tificum esse suppositias that these decretall Epistles of the Popes are CouÌ„terfaite Gregorie of ValeÌ„tia a Iesuite answereth Sed defensionem earum Epistolarum suscepit Franciscus Turrianus in lib. quem pro illis aduersus Magdeburgenses CeÌ„turiatores eruditissimè conscripsit qui hactenus illi non responderunt neque satis vnquam respondere poterunt But a defense of those
significabatur c. by which thing it was signified plainely that by Confirmation Baptisme was in some sorte perfected which being sayed by some Bishops of Rome he citeth in the margent Vrbanus and Melchiades heretiks do not onely impudently but also vnlearnedly laugh at it And Canisius also sayeth he is no perfect Christian who is not confirmed And so M. Nicholas whilest he condemneth M. Doctour for saying that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians and for alledging S. Clement for proofe of that he sayed condemneth also the ancient Fathers and all Diuines who write of this matter yea Iesuites themselues and so I cannot tell how hereafter he can looke them in the face Yea he fauoureth Caluin as wee haue seene M. Doctour immediatelie after S. Clement citeth S. Dionisius Areop lib. de Eccles Hierar c. 5. calling the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfecting Sacrament pag. 8. n. 17. THE REPLY S. Denis calleth the Sacrament of Confirmation à perfecting and consummating action 27. M. Doctour in calling the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfecting and consummating action sayeth no more then Card. Bellarmin doth who to proue Confirmation a Sacrament alledgeth some Greeke Fathers Dion l. di Eccl. Hier. c. 2 p. 3. C 4. p. 3. and first S. Denis in these words perficiens illa vnctio facit perfectum that perfecting vnction maketh perfect and againe Sed ipsis c. But to them also who are consecrated by the most holy misterie of Regeneration the consummating vnction of the ointment doth giue the comming of the holy Ghost Suarez also a learned Iesuite and Estius and others doe attribute perfection and consummation to Confirmation as M. Doctour did Let vs heare Estius whoÌ„ M. Nicholas tooke for his frieÌ„d in explicating how the Fathers say that without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians He saieth that the proper effect of this Sacrament is robur Spiritus sancti id est Gratia c. the strength of the holy Ghost that is a grace by meanes of which the mynd of a Christian confirmed and corroborated by the holy Ghost may persist and resist impugners Hee addeth Hinc apud veteres c. Hence in the ancient fathers in many places wee read that perfection consuÌ„mmation Confirmation augmentatioÌ„ constaÌ„cie streÌ„gth fortit uâ—le are giuen to this Sacrament as effectes thereof And for this he alleadgeth S. Dionysius S. Clement euen in the place aboue alleadge by M. Doctour and sayeth that S. Clement sayeth Dion l Eccl. Hier c. 4. p. 3. Clem. l. 3 coÌ„s Apost c 17 epist 4 Fabia cp 2. ad cp orien Corn. aoud Euscb l. 6. c. 35 Melch. ep ad epist Hisp Dyon Carth. in Elucidat c 4 in initiâ—ar 8. one cannot be a perfect Christian without it and citeth to this end S. Fabian Pope S. Cornelius S. Melchiades and others And this M. Nicholas would not see nor acknowledge for feare least thence might be inferred that without Confirmation one cannot be a perfect Christian onely hee could espy cap. 5. for c. 4. which fault if he had bene corrector of the print might haue bene preuented 28. Whereas M. Nicholas sayeth that S. Denys in that 4. chapter speaketh of Baptisme and some tymes generallie of oyle and Vnction vsed not onely in diuers Sacraments but also in Consecration of Altars as though in that Chapter he spake not of ConfirmatioÌ„ Dionysius Carthusianus standeth against him in the verie beginning of his Elucidation of that 4. Chapter saying Postquam praehabito immedtatè capitulo c. after that by S. Denys it hath bene treated in the immediate a foresayed Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist of the celebration rites or Hierarchicall Actes about it here in the 4. Chapter the same now is done of the Sacrament of Confirmation M. NICHOLAS His other chiefe argument is out of Estius in these words Quod si quaeras c. but if thou aske whether the omission of Confirmation when it can commodiously be had c. pagin 87. numero 18. THE REPLY M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctour say more then he doth to wit that euery one in particular is bound to take Confirmation with hazard of persecution whereas M. Doctour sayeth onely that a countrie should hazard persecution rather then want Confirmation Estius in 4. d. c. 29. Estius proposeth a question whether the omission of Confirmation when it may be had commodiouslie be a mortall or veniall sinne And answereth that it cannot be omitted without mortall sinne in tyme and place of persecution of faith when forsooth by reason of infirmitie there is danger to a man least he deny his faith in word or deede or at least be ash imed to confesse his faith when he should And M Doctour sayeth the same as appeareth by his words which immediatlie follow these words of Estius For if the reader turne ouer to the page 386. and 8. number he shall find these words of M. Doctours But howsoeuer although euerie man in particular caÌ„not be condemned of sinne for omitting Confirmation for feare of loosing his life lands or libertie Yet I thinke that neither any countrie or any one of the countrie for feare of persecution can oppose against the coming in of a Bishop though thereby onely the Sacrament of Confirmation hould be wanting 30. So that M Nicholas playeth not faire playe with M. Doctour in making him say that Catholikes in particular are bound to receiue Confirmation with losse of life libertie or goods whereas as M. Doctour confesseth in the a foresayed place and before it also num 3. 4. graunteth that none in particular are bound with such danger and onelie sayeth that neither a countrie nor any one of the countrie which yet he humblie submitteth to authoritie can except against a Bishop or Confirmation for feare of persecution in generall notwithstanding which generall persecution many commodiouslie and without danger may receiue Confirmation And this Estius when he sayeth that if Confirmation can commodiouslie be had in time of persecution it cannot be refused by particular persons vnder mortuall sinne supposeth 31. The reason of this is because there may be a generall persecution and yet many in particular may commodiouslie haue Confirmation for as notwithstanding persecution and the generall lawes of England enacted against receiuing a Priest hearing Masse or going to ConfessioÌ„ many Catholikes in particular without morall danger may many tymes receiue a Priest heare Masse and goe to Confession as thousands haue done so many Catholikes may receiue the Bishop and Confirmation of him without any imminent or morall danger and therefore hetherto not any haue suffered losse in life libertie or goods for receiuing of coÌ„firmation though thousaÌ„ds haue receiued it And as although persecution in England is the greater for Priests Iesuites and other regulars yet many can and do without morall danger heare Masse as they are bound on holy dayes when they can commodiouslie can goe to Confession and the like so although the persecution in
England were greater for the Bishop as it is not there being no speciall lawes in force against him yet many might receiue him and Confirmation of him without any imminēt danger and consequentlie according to Estius his opinion are bound vnder mortall sinne to receiue Confirmation when there is danger by reason of infirmitie of denying their faith or of fearing to professe it when they should And so I meruaile that M. Nicholas could not see the difference betwixt persecution in generall and in particular for that persecution in generall doth not excuse particular men from receiuing Confirmation they notwithstanding a generall persecution hauing commoditie to receiue it without danger but when the persecution is particular to men in particular then they cannot without danger and so are excused yet nether a countrie nor any of the countrie can except against Priests coming into the countrie by reason of a generall persecution because notwithstanding such a persecution many in particular may heare Masse receiue the B. Sacrament goe to confessiō heare a sermon now and then without imminent danger and so for respect and regard of these who haue right to the Sacrament none can except against the coming in of Priests into a countrie seing that if the countrie were depriued of Priests none could heare Masse goe to confession receiue the Sacraments or heare exhortations and so at this day if Priests had not bene sent into England maugre persecution there had now scarce any Catholike or Catholike Religion bene left in England nisi Dominus exercituum reliquisset nobis semen quasi Sodoma suissemus quasi Gomorrha similes essemus Vnlesse the Lord of Hostes had left vs this seed we had bene as Sodome and we should be like to Gomorrha Isai 1. 32. So although no man in particular be bound to receiue the Bishop into his house or Confirmation of him with imminent danger of the aforesayed temporall losses Yet a countrie could not except against a Bishop or Confirmation for feare of persecution in generall for that notwithstanding such a generall persecution many might without the aforesayed danger receiue a Bishop and Confirmation at his hands as wee see they haue done in England And so in regard of these who haue right to a Bishop and to Confirmation none can except against the coming in of a Bishop lawfullie sent vnlesse as M. Doctour sayeth p. 378. n 3. the persecution were so great that the Bishop could not enter or would presently be apprehended or put to death because without a Bishop many should want the confort encouragement and example of such a Pastour they should want Confirmation which as Estius sayeth cannot in tyme of persecution and when there is danger of falling to many who might commodiouslie receiue it be omitted without mortall sinne as we shall proue anone M. NICHOLAS His last argument is out of a coniecture that without Confirmation if one fall not others probablie will as he sayeth Nouatus did n. 19. THE REPLY That Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation and that in time of persecution without that Sacrament if one fall not others will 33. M. Doctour indeed sayed pag. 387. n. 8. that if in tyme of persecution there were not a Bishop to giue Confirmation if one fall not others probablie would as Nouatus did for want of it But M. Nicholas sayeth that of Nouatus he findeth no such thing in Eusebius to wit that in tyme of persecution hefell for want of Confirmation 34. And indeed neither Eusebius nor Cornelius by him alleadged doe say so in expresse termes but they do so insinuate and so it followeth out of their words that as other writers haue done so M Doctour might say that Noutatus others as Baronius ad Pamelius call him Nouatianus did fall in time of persecution for want of Confirmation 35. Euseb l 6 c. 33 alias 35. iuxta vers Christophor soni For Eusebius saieth first that Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus telleth all the particulars quis qualis suerit vita vel moribus quomodo ab Ecclesia Dei declinauerit Who what manner of man he was in life and manners and how he declined from the Church And after he sayeth of him Et quod iacens in lecto pronecessitate perfusus sit c. and that lying in his bed he was baptized out of necessitie and that the rest which are wont to follow Baptisme were not solemnelie fulfilled and that he was not consummated by the seale of Chrisme where upon neither could he euer deserue the holy Ghost that is in that speciall manner as he is giuen by Confirmation that is to giue courage to professe our faith in tyme of persecution Li. aduersus Luciferia◠nos For as S. Hierome auerreth the Holie Ghost is also giuen by Baptisme yea as Diuines graunte by other Sacraments so oft as by them wee receiue instifying grace but not in that speciall manner nor to that particular end which is to giue force to professe our faith in time of persecution maugre all threates and tormentes of the Tyrant And therefore Eusebius a little after addeth that Cornelius writeth also of Nouatus that in time of persecution when he lurked in a certaine little celle for feare and was desired by the Deacons as the manner is helpe the Catechumenes at their departure out of this life he fearing to come out denyed himselfe to be a Priest And presentlie after hee telleth how he also fell into Schisme And so seing that he fell in persecution and wanted the holy Ghost for ant of Confirmation if we put all this together we shall find it at least verie probable that hee fell for want of Confirmation though other causes might concurre as ambition which M. Nicholas alleadgeth in that manner as though he meant couertelie to glaunce at the ambition of Priests who desire a Bishop though as aboue I haue tould him in this tyme there is little cause why out of ambition any should desire a Bishop and I pray God there be not ambition also in seeking to hinder the Catholikes from hauing a Bishop 36. But that Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation diuers before M. Doctour haue affirmed As first The venerable and learned Authours of the Rhemes Testament of whom M. Doctour had it who writing on the eight Chapter of the Actes haue deliuered these words To conclude neuer none denied or contemned this Sacrament of Confirmation and holy Chrisme but knowne heretikes S. Cornelius that B. Martyr so much praised of S. Cyprian ep ad Fabium apud Euseb l. 6. c. 35. affirmeth that Nouatus fell to heresie for that he had not receiued the holy Ghost by the consignation of a Bishop whom all the Nouatians did fellow neuer vsing that bolie Chrisme 37. Fulke in his answere to the notes of the Rhemists on this place answereth that Nouatus omitted the ceremonie of anointing yet doth not Cornelius say that he fell into heresie because he
Electours take place of all Patriarches and are in dignitie next to the Pope And so Cardinalles though they haue noe order as most of them haue holy orders yea many of them are Bishops yet in this respect to wit as the Hierarchie consisteth of diuers degrees in povver of iurisdiction and dignitie which is the second way by which M. Doctour sayd that men are of the Hierarchie are of the Hierarchie and aboue Bishops Archbishops and Patriarches next to the Pope Now whether this their dignitie of Cardinall be of the diuine lawe as Turrecremata thinketh or of the Ecclesiasticall law I will not dispute but referre the reader to M. Doctours tēth chapter certaine at least it is that the Pope could institute such a dignitie by which the Cardinall though not in orders is Counseller to the Pope Electour of him hath his decisiue voice in a generall Councell and taketh his precedence aboue all other Prelates and next vnto the Pope And therfore Cardinall Bellarmine sayth that if we compare the iurisdiction which the Bishop hath ouer his owne proper Church with that which the Cardinall hath ouer his title then ordinarilie the Bishop hath the greater iurisdiction To. 1. 3. 1. de Cler. c. 16. But if we consider the gouernmēt of the whole Church in which the Cardinall hath his parte in that he is one of the Popes Counseller then the Cardinall Priest or Deacō only is greater then the Bishop The same learned Cardinall in another place sayth that Bishops haue an ordinarie right of discipline and suffrage in prouinciall and generall Councelles To. 1. l 1. de Conc. c. 15. and by priuiledge and by custome Cardinalles and Abbots and Generalles of orders haue the same right And if by this custome or priuiledge graunted by the Church Generalles of Religious orders and Abbots be of the Hierarchie I will not giane saye it onlie I say with M. Doctour yea with S. Denys S. Paules Scholler that Regulars as Regulars and Abbots as Abbots are not of the Hierarchie and therfore were excluded by S. Denys but if they bee now it is by the Churches priuiledge or custome which priuiledge and custome M. Nicholas shall neuer be able to show for other Regulars 44. And therfore wheras M. Nicholas n. 10. sayth that he hath laboured rather for Cardinalles then Regulars in labouring to proue Regulars to be of the Hierarchie he hath laboured in vayne not hauing been able te proue Regulars as Regulars to be of the Hierarchie and he doth wrong to those most eminent Prelates and Pillars of Gods Church as though they could not be of the Hierarchie vnles Regulars also were wheras Cardinalles by their dignitie and by the care which they haue in gouerning vnder the Pope the vniuersall Church are assuredly of the Hierarchie as it consisteth of diuers degrees in power of iurisdiction and dignitie as M. Doctour sayd they euen as Cardinalles though not Priests hauing the highest rāke and Ecclesiasticall dignitie and office in the externall courte of all the Prelates of the Church wheras Regulars as Regulars beare noe rule nor office in the Church and so are not of the gouerning Hierarchie 45. Thus I haue proued sufficientlie that to be true which M. Doctour auerred to wit that Regulars as Regulars are not of the ruling and perfecting Hierarchie and this by the testimonie of S. Denys S. Paules Scholler of whom S. Thomas and all diuines haue learned that which they teache of the Hierarchie as also by his Transtatours and Expositours yea and by theologicall arguments and I haue answered clearlie all the arguments which M. Nicholas hath been able to alleage to the contrarie And therfore I conclude that Regulars as Regulars though their institutes and orders be most holy and which adde much ayde and greate splendour to the Church and though they be eminent members of the Church yet they are not of the Hierarchie in that sense as S. Denys and his Translatours and Expositours or as the Councell of Trent taketh the name Hierarchie 46. S. Denys l. Eccl. Hier. c. 5. 6. Conc. Trid. sess 23. can 6. But let not therfore either Priests or Bishops glorie vnles it be in our lord that they are of the Hierarchie for that their charge encreaseth with their dignitie and their burden is the heauier the greater their honour is and if they liue not accordinglie that dignitie will not suffice to their saluation but rather it will serue to their greater damnation For as their ranke and degree is higher in the Churche of God so it is more exposed to danger and the higher they stād the more subiect they are to falling and the lower and greater is their fall if they fall because as S. Hierome sayth Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not easie to stand in the place of Paule to hold the degree of Peter And let not Regulars be deiected or grieued in mynd because as Regulars they are not of the Hierarchie let it suffice them that of later yeares they are also assumpted to the Clergie and Hierarchie most of them being Priests and some Bishops and let it content them as indeed it may both content and confort them that their life is more secure and free from all occasions of sinne and that they haue better meanes to dompte their passiōs to curbe sensualitie to mortifie their bodyes to satisfie for sinne to attaine to perfection and to gaine an higher degree in glorie so that they vse their meanes fulfill their vowes and obserue their rules and orders THE SEAVENTH QVESTION VVhether by the precedent questions vvee haue sufficientlie ansvvered M. Doctours Treatise for such points as ether deserued confutation or required explication M. NICHOLAS J must ingeniouslie confesse that J haue not laboured to examine all c. n. 1. THE REPLY YOV haue not left any one of M. Doctours propositions or assertions vnexamined but you haue not refuted any one as is euident by my Reply to the former questions For neither haue you proued against M. Doctour that without a particular Bishop there may be a particular Church nor that euerie notable part of the Church such as England France or Spaine is ought not by the diuine lawe to haue at least one Bishop nor that such a countrie as England Spaine or France is can except against a Bishop for feare of persecution though it should be increased by occasion of the Bishops presence nor that Regulars are in an higher state then Bishops nay you haue not proued sufficiently that Regulars are in an higher state then inferiour Pastours nor that Religious as Religious are of the Hierarchie nor haue you answered any one of M. Doctours arguments grounded in reason or authoritie of fathers or diuines by which he proued the former positions as is euident by my Reply And therfore this your last question being principallie a recapitulation only of what you haue done I might heere make an end
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
Bishops maugre all the threates and crueltie of the tyrants therby to practise the gouernment of the Church instituted by Christe to strengtheÌ„ the ChristiaÌ„s by the grace of confirmatioÌ„ and by their authoritie preseÌ„ce example and encouragement to put life into them affirmeth that from the cruell Tyrant Nero to the clement Emperour Constantine the greate there vvas scarse any Bishop of Rome vvho vvas not a martyr vvho at the least suffered not greate persecution Tvventie seuen of them are commonlie auouched for martyrs to vvit Peter Linus Cletus c. 22. M. Nicholas because he can not disproue any one of M. Doctours positions as I haue shewed euidentlie impugneth by-speeches which be they true or not it skilleth not at all for whether iust so many Popes were martyrs or moe and whether before Constantine or after it is not to the purpose it being true that many Popes were martyrs and that the creatioÌ„ of theÌ„ was not intermitted for feare of persecutioÌ„ as M. Nich. would haue the succession of Bishops in England to cease for feare euen of an imaginarie or vncertayne persecution But let vs see how M. Nicholas cauilleth and imputeth to M. Doctour this errour in the number of the Popes martyrs which indeed is none 23. M. Doctour sayd first that from Nero to Constantine there was scarse any Bishop of Rome vvho vvas not a martyr vvho at least suffered not great persequution And there M. Doctour maketh a full point And theÌ„ he addeth Tvventie seuen of them that is of the Popes in generall are commonlie auouched for martyrs but he sayth not that all the twentie seuen which he reckeneth liued before CoÌ„stantine as M. Nicholas imposeth True it is that in the margent there is this note 27. Popes martyrs before the tyme of ConstaÌ„tine But M. Doctour after he had finished his booke trusted others with the setting it forth and did neither make the contents of the chapters nor all the marginall notes and so that was put in by the errour of one who marked not the full point which I euen now specified as neither M. Nicholas did or would not 24. And that M. Doctour meaÌ„t not onlie those Popes who liued before Constantine but the Popes in generall of which he sayd 27. were martyrs it may clearelie be gathered For that M. Doctour was not ignorant for who knoweth it not that there was diuersitie amongst Auctours concerning the number of Popes who were martyrs some reckening 27. some 33. some 35. some more some lesse But he that he might be sure to speake within compas contented him selfe with the lesser number according to Bozius his reckening whom he cited in the margeÌ„t l. 8. c. 3. And to the end that the number twentie seueÌ„ might not seeme a Catalogue of his own making he put their names in a distinct caracter and cited Bozius in the margent VVhich M. Nicholas if he had dealt fayrelie should haue mentioned or noted that therby the Reader might haue seene M. Doctours intention and whether he had falsified Bozius whom he cited 25. Moreouer it well appeared that M. Doctour confined not him selfe in setting downe that Catalogue of Bozius to the Popes before Constantine because in that Catalogue he left out Hyginus who succeded Thelesphorus and in the next paragraphe or number which is the sixt he putteth him in his place after Thelesphorus whom all they who recite their Breuiarie know to haue been a glorious martyr 26 If M. Doctour had himselfe made a Catalogue of the Popes martyrs yea and of those only before Constantines death he would not haue sette downe 27. Popes only as Bozius doth but rather thirtie according to the RomaÌ„ martyrologe Baronius and others which Popes that the Reader may see at how small matters he cauilleth I will sette downe To wit Petrus Linus Clemens Cletus Anacletus Euaristus Alexander Xistus Thelesphorus Hyginus Pius Anicetus Soter Eleutherius Victor Zepherinus Callistus Vrbanus Pontianus Anterus Fabianus Cornelius Lucius Stephanus Xistus H. Foelix Eutichianus Caius Marcellinus and Marcellus And Rishton in his Synopsis with other Auctours numbreth three moe to vvit S. Dionysius vvho in the Register of Popes follovveth Xistus the second and Eusebius and Melchiades vvho succeed Marcellus All vvhich thirtie vvere before Constantines death yet these three last I vvill not enrolle in this Catalogue there being not so great certaintie vvhether they vvere martyrs or noe and therfore I vvill content my selfe vvith the former thirtie vvheras M. Doctour contented him selfe vvith 27. Popes martyrs in generall according to Bozius it being not to his purpose in that place to examin the number of Popes martyrs 27. Thus I haue ansvvered to all M. Nicholas his questions I haue made good all M. Doctours assertions and arguments grouned ether in reasoÌ„ or authoritie and I haue shewed that he hath not beeÌ„ vnfortunate in alleaging Auctours as M. Nicholas to ofteÌ„ affirmeth I haue also disproued M. Nicholas his assertions refuted his reasons and answered to all his arguments as the Reader will plainelie see And this I haue doone not to disgrace M. Nicholas nor his or any approued order of the Church nor in any sorte to auerte any one from a Religious state which as I ought to doe I honour froÌ„ my hearte but only to defend M. Doctour and the truth by him deliuered Rather I wish and Counselle euerie one to embrace that state of life to which God shall call him and in which he is perswaded he may saue his owne foule and promote the glorie of God For that Christe to prouide for euerie man and to condescend to euerie ones liking hath furnished his Church with diuers orders Ps 44. and hath cloathed her rouÌ„d aboute vvith varieties that euerie one may make choise of what he best liketh and which he thinketh most sutable and proportionable to his own forces And therfore he that fyndeth him selfe able to ouercome the teÌ„ptations of the world and with the grace of God hath confideÌ„ce not onely to worke his owne saluatioÌ„ but also the saluation of many others let him if he like that state take vpon him an Apostolicall Priestlie course of life Priests being to liue in the middest of the difficulties of the world by reasoÌ„ of their preaching teaching and administring of the SacrameÌ„ts if he otherwise be weake feeble and is hardlie able to passe through those temptations and alluremeÌ„tes with the safetie of his owne soule let him hasten to some religious course of life proportionable ro his force and liking with the aduice of his Ghostlie Father and those that are sufficient by their wisdome and discretion to giue him counsell herein and if he hath not those talents which are required in Priests and that he can not brooke the austeritie of Religion 2. Cor. 9. let him endeauour to serue God in the world Vnusquisque prout destinauit in corde suo euerie one as by God his grace and inspiration he hath determined in his harte and as he shall think most conducing to God his glorie and his own saluation FINIS A MYRROVR OF M. NICHOLAS SMITH'S pretended Modestie IT could not be put into Heretickes haÌ„ds for their conuersioÌ„ vnlesse vve vvould haue them scaÌ„dalized pag. 2. By it be giueth a grat blovve against charitie pag. 2. His Dedicatorie Epistle is full of verball exhortations to charitie pag. 3. Jniurions to the Vicar of Christ pag. 21. They deserue no ansvvere pag. 28. They are against him selfe pag. 181. They are licke vnto Beza pag. 130. His argument is a doughtie one pag. 16. Jnsufficient pag. 199. VVeake pag. 49. Directly against him selfe pag. 17. 51. His forme of disputing seemeth the same vvhich Heretikes vse against Catholikes as vttering contradictories and non-sense pag. 25. He treateth of holy things vpon particular designes and humane respects pag. 6. He proueth his conclusions against all Logicke by principles more barsh incredible and vvorse then the conclusion pag. 7.8 He serueth him selfe of strang and vntovvard propositions pag. 7. He must ansvvere his ovvne arguments or contradict him selfe and taxe his Holinesse pag. 10. 26. 37. His assertion must vvrong the Sea Apostolicke and can subsist on no better grovvnd then by Heretickes is vvont to be obiected against the sayed holy Sea pag. 12. He is mistaken in things for the true vnderstanding of vvhich is required no greater labour then looking on the booke nor deaper learning then vnderstanding latin pag. 19. Js a thing that no diuine but euen no man in his right iudgement can affirme pag. 39. He citeth Suarez against all Grammer pag. 53. He teacheth in effect vvith one breath to desire a Bishop and to disobeye Bishops pag. 59 He contradicteth him selfe and impugneth his ovvne reason pag. 198. M. Nicholas taxeth him of vvant of good manners pag. 4. of vvant of prudence pag. 7. of not vsing fairedealing pag. 80. of speaking partially pag 92. 126. 187. By this scantling of the vvhole peece vvhich is entervvouen in enery leafe almost vvith the like stuffe the iudicious and impartiall Reader vvill after he hath read this defence of M. Doctours Hierarchie easilie gather hovv litle he deserued these aspersions of M. Nicholas ERRATA Pag. Lin. Faults Corrected 8 7 farre fare 9 in mat Sess c. 21. can 3. Sess 23 c. 2. can 6. 2â— 17 full false full of false  26 my Reply this my Reply 2â— 6 my Reply this my Reply â—â— 22 this the  30 first other â—â— 11 constance constancie â—â— in mat l. 9. l. 4.  17 cap. 29. cap. 28.  19 c. 53. c. 35. 101 21 Christianistiall Christian 10â— 30. 31. and by vvater by vvater and 20â— 18 carelessesse carelesnesse 2â—â— 12 baptized confirmed 2â—â— 6 c. 53. c. 35. 2â—â— 10 vse vsed 2â—â— 17 vvant vvent 2â—â— 15 these those 2â—â— 3 can care 250 17 vovv ovve 252 15 is it 253 12 fitesse fitnesse  15 Bishop Bishops 267 30 contradicted contradicteth 26â— 20 regious religious 26â— 22 glorious gloriosius 269 20 doth doe  33 regular regulars 270 9 an on 275 22 before vvherefore 278 5 Prelates VVe Prelates vve 29â— 13 quitesse quietnesse  18 stilled stiled  22 hovv vvho 295 21 Palladias Palladius â—â—â— in mat 1. 11. â—38 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  9 solie holie  9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
state which is not in the state of a Bishop though this state absolutelie surpasse that 26. But M. Nicholas obiecteth that to vow not to be religious is wicked and inualid to vow not to accept a Bishoprick is laudable and valid ergo a religious state hath some good which a Bishops state hath not else this might be vowed as well as that I answere first that to sweare at least in some case not to be religious is not wicked yet an oath hath a greate affinitie with a vowe For M. Nicholas knoweth that the Sea Apostolike hath commanded all these who will enioy the benefit of the Popes Seminaries to sweare that they wil be Priests and will not enter into any religious order or congregation without licence of the Pope vnlesse they first labour in the missioÌ„ the space of three yeares And Nauarre sayeth Naua in Mâ—nuali ca. 12. n. 16. that for one to sweare that he will not enter into religion or receiue holy orders is but a veniall sinne ergo it is not to be called wicked for saith he if to sweare to commit a veniall sinne be but a veniall sinne to sweare not to be religious to which vnder noe sinne he is bound can be but a veniall sinne 27. Nau. c. 12. n. Secondlie I answere with the same Nauarre more directlie that to vow not to be religious byndeth not and therefore notwithstanding that vow one may be religious yet such a vow is but a veniall sinne and so cannot be called wicked as M. Nicholas calls it because in our English tongue wicked soundeth as doth impium in the Latin tongue and is taken for a grieuous or mortall sinne And therefore M. Nicholas could not call him that committeth onelie a veniall sinne a wicked or impious man 28. Thirdely I answere that although to vow not to procure to be a Bishop may be holy and valid yet to vow not to accept a Bishopricke when it is imposed on a maÌ„ by the Pope and in necessitie of the Church is not holie and valid but it is rather wicked and inualid For that to vow not to accept a Bishopricke in that case is to vow a great disobedience against authoritie and which also in that case is against the Charitie we vow to God his Church and so the vow is wicked being a vow of a mortall sinne and it is inualid because it is not de meliori bono not of an act which is better done then vndone for that in that case it is not better not to accept a Bishopricke imposed by Authoritie then to accept it 2. 2. q. 185. ar 2. Wherefore S. Thomas sayeth that to refuse finallie the office of a Bishop pertaineth to an inordination of the will for twoe causes The one because it is against charitie S Tho 2. 2. q. 29. ar 7. ad 2. the other because it is against humilitie by which a man subiecteth himselfe to the commandement of the superiour And in another place he sayeth cum aliquis iurat quod non accipiet praelationem in casu quo expedit eum accipere c. VVhen one sweareth that be will not accept of a prelacie when it is expedient be should that he sinneth because his oath hundereth a greater good Nauarre also sayeth Nau. in man c 12. n. 16. that he who sweareth that he will not enter into Religion or that he will not receiue holie orders or that he will not accept of a Bishopricke sinneth though not mortallie and he citeth S. S. Thomas in the last place Angelus Sylu. v. Iâ— rameÌ„tum Angelus Syluester And he sayeth that such an oath doth not bynde Azorius who citeth for himselfe Antoninus sayeth that the oath which one maketh not to accept of a Bishopricke may be broken by the priuate authoritie of him that sweareth Azor. to 1. l. 11. c. 5. And so to vow absolutelie not to accept a Bishopricke is vnlawfull because in a necessitie one may be bound to accept is and to desire it and if it be imposed by authoritie it cannot be refused Onely it is lawfull and laudable to vow not to seeke for a Bishopricke or to accept of it when it is offerred and when there is no necessitie and when it is not imposed by a commanding authoritie 29. Lastelie I answere that although to vow to procure to be a Bishop or to seeke after that dignitie where there is no necessitie of the church be sinfull and of no force to bynd and to vow to be a Religious man be an holie and valid vow and to vow absolutelie not to procure a Bishopricke is holie and valid to vow absolutely not to be a religious maÌ„ is absolutelie vnholie and not valid Yet that is not because to be a religious man is absolutelie better then to be a Bishop for as S. Paul saieth if a man desire a Bishops office he desireth a good worke 1. Tim. 3. Yom. 3. de Relig. c. 18. and as we haue seene and as Suarez affirmeth a worke more perfect then the proper actes and functions of a religion are but because the office of a Bishop though good and of greater charitie perfection then religious professioÌ„ in that respect fit to be vowed as much as other good workes is subiect to auarice by reason of the riches annexed vnto it to ambition by reason of the splendour and honour and to presumption by reason of mans improportion to such a dignitie and lastlie to other dangers by reason of many destractions caused by Episcopall affaires and so cannot be so much as desired as S. Thomas affirmeth yet as he also auerreth S Tho 2 2. q. 185. ar â— to desire to doe good to others in the exercise of the Episcopal function is of it selfe laudable and vertuous According to which S. Chrysostome cited by S. Thomas Chrys bom 35. in Mat. sayth opus quidem desiderate bonum bonum est primatum tameu bonoris concupiscere vanitas est primatus enim fugientem se desiderat desider antem so odit To desire a good worke is good but to couet the primacie of honour is vanitie for that primacie desireth him that flyeth it and hateth him that desireth it 30. But in necessitie of the Church when there want men able and willing or when other wise an vnworthie person would be preferred to defire or to vow to be a Bishop is noe sinne nor is the vow inualid Suarez hauing sayed that though the state of a Bishop be better then the state of a religious man obliging to more perfect operations and requiring more and greater vertues yet cannot be vowed because that onely can be vowed Szarez to 3. l. 1. c. 18. n. 5. 11. 12. which is not onely good but also hath no danger annexed yet notwithstanding sayeth he it is not intrinsecallie euill to vow to accept a Bishops office if it be abstracted from these temporall commodities as honour riches
splendour as now it is in England and especiallie if it be ioyned with the contrarie incommodities to which it was ioyned in the primatiue Church and as it is now in Iaponia and China yea and in England I speake sayeth he of a vow of accepting a Bishops office for theÌ„ the iudgement of the fitesse and worthinesse of the person is left to the Superiour and so the danger of presumption is taken awaye and other dangers are supposed not to be Wherefore to procure a Bishop office though the sayed conditioÌ„s be supposed can hardlie be approued much lesse counselled or vowed yet he also addeth that if there were greate necessitie of the Church to haue a Bishop and yet such discommodities annexed to the Bishopricke or daÌ„ger of death c. and none could be fouÌ„d fit and willing then to offer ones selfe to be a Bishop would be a worke of perfection and matter of vow By this it is euident that the state of a Bishop farre passeth in perfectioÌ„ of state the state of religious and that which M. Nicholas bringeth to exalte the religious proues onelie that in it is lesse danger and some good meanes to attaine to prefection and that therefore religioÌ„ may more frequeÌ„tlie securelie be vowed 31. But M. Nicholas sayeth n. 6. p. 99. that to desire a Bishopricke eueÌ„ for that is best in it namely for the good of soules according to S. Thomas 2.2 q. 185. ar 1. seemes presumption and there wants not who sayeth that coÌ„monly it is a deadly sinne and he citeth in the margeÌ„t Valentia to 3. disp 10.9.3 puncto 228. 32. I answere that this spoken so rawlie as it is by M. Nicholas may derogate to the most perfect and most necessarie state in God his Church yea and to S. Thomas also and therefore needeth examination S. Thomas in that place sayeth that in the office of a Bishop three thinges are to be considered The first principall is the good worke of a Bishop by which he attendeth to the profit if his flocke in gouerning them fieeding theÌ„ by the word of God and Sacraments c. The 2. is the height of his degree ouer others The 3. is that which followeth these twoe to wit riches honour reuerence c. Wherefore sayeth he to desire a Bishopricke for the third is auarice or ambition for the second it seemeth to be presumption but for the first it is of it selfe laudable and vertuous But because the first which is the worke of a Bishop hath annexed vnto it the height of degree praesumptuosum videtur quod aliquis praeesse appetat ad boc quod subditis prosit nisi manifesta necessitate imminete it seemeth presumptuous that one should desire to beare rule to profit others vnlesse in an euident and imminent necessitie So that M. Nicholas left out his answere in the last wordes vnlesse in an euident and imminent necessitie For theÌ„ it is lawfull to desire a Bishopricke so to exercise the function and to profit others else S. Paul would not haue sayed he that desireth a Bishops office desireth a good worke He alleadgeth ValeÌ„tia also as though he sayed absolutely that it is a mortall sinne to desire a Bishopricke to profit others but he also serueth him in the same maÌ„ner Tom 3 disp 10. q. 3. puncto 2. CoÌ„clus 3. V. Epis Tolet. l 5. c. 3. Nau. tom 3. Miscel 36. 37. Hour l. 10. c. 32. § 3. Valentia sup Concl. 2. for he also sayeth In casu necessitatis laudabile potest esse vt qui dignus est appetat Episcopatum In case of necessitie it may be laudable for him that is worthie to desire a Bishopricke And this he sayeth is the common opinioÌ„ as in deed it is Emanuel Sa sayeth that for the necessitie or vtilite of the Church a Bishopricke may be desired The same do also Nauarre and Tolet auerre So doth Henriquez And Nauarre against Valentia saieth that to desire a Bishopricke with the honour and reuenewes annexed is no sinne but merite if it be principallie desired for the honour of God and the good of our neighbour And although ValeÌ„tia thinketh that ofteÌ„times it is a mortall sinne to desire a Bishopricke though he that desireth it be worthie and doe also desire it for the end to doe his office and to doe good to others yet Nauarre holdeth against him and indeed if for the danger of sinne in the discharging of the office as Valentia saieth one that is worthie and intendeth God his honour and the good of others may not desire a Bishopricke he may not accept of a pastorship or seeke for it though in many places pastorships be giuen by concurse because though the danger be not so great yet if it be a great Parish it is sometymes not much lesse and if for danger one might not desire a Bishopricke in this case we could not accept of our mission to England where there is more danger But as this danger in England is not immineÌ„t nor morall so we prepare our selues well and demaund God his grace so neither is the danger of a Bishop immineÌ„t or morall if otherwise he be fit and haue a good intention And Vasquez a learned Iesuite sayeth In op dub 1. de Episcopatu that as to desire vertue or to doe an act of vertue for honour or prayse is but a veniall sinne of vaine glorie so to desire a Bishopricke for the honour and dignitie so that one intend withall God his honour and the good of others and be also fit is but a veniall sinne and that therefore S. Thomas sayeth 2. 2. q. 185. ar 1. onely that it is vnlawfull and seemeth presumption but sayeth not that it is a mortall sinne as Valentia doth MAISTER NICHOLAS If you demaund wherein this particular perfection of a religious life consisteth c. I say it may seeme to consist in multitude facilitie continuation of perpetuall actes of vertue and effectuall meanes speedilie to get it c. n. 7. THE REPLIE How M. Nicholas herein contradicteth S. Thomas and Suarez and how religious perfection according to Suarez consisteth not in actes but in habit 33. S. Tho. 2 2. q. 184. ar 3. ad 1. in â—orp M. Nicholas herein flatlie contradicteth S. Thomas who in his answere to the first argument which obiected those words Math. 19. Si visperfectus esse vade vende omnia c. If thou wilt be perfect goe fell the thinges that thou bast and giue to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen and come fellow mee sayeth that in those words of our Lord something is put as the way to perfection to wit that which is saied goe sell all the things that thou hast and giue to the poore But another thing is added in which perfection consisteth to wit follow me VVhereupon S. Hierom saieth that because it is not sufficient onely to leaue what he hath Peter addeth what is perfect and we haue fellowed