that countrey For a Church cannot be a particular Church by vnion to a Vicar but by vnion to him whose Vicar he is My Lord of Chalcedon is not called Bishop of England or of any Church or Diocesse thereof and yet the Replyer thinkes he maketh vs a particular Church because he hath the power of a Bishop of England which no man can deny the Pope to haue in as immediate and more ample high manner and therefore he may make vs a particular Church although he take not the Name therof 9. Yea wheras the Replyer n. 22.23 teacheth that the Pope could not be particular Bishop of England vnlesse he did eyther the office of a Bishop himselfe or by his Delegate or as lest styled himselfe Bishop of England I answere that it is sufficient he do the Office of a Bishop according as the circumstances of the tyme and place permit or require which his Holinesse most carfully hath and doth performe by sending into England Priests or also a Bishop with authority from him delegated c. and the Replyer pleades agaynst himselfe telling vs in effect that the Pope by the very delegating my Lord of Chalcedon and not making him Bishop of England hath declared himself to be the sole particular Bishop of that Countrey where he doth the office of a Bishop by his Delegates As Ireland is not a Kingdome in respect of his Maiesties Deputy but because it is vnited to his Maiesty as to its King so England cannot be a particular Church in respect of my Lord of Chalcedon but in regard of the Pope whose Deputy my Lord is being not spirituall Prince and Bishop of England If to be Ordinary in an extraordinary manner be sufficient to make vs a Church how will the Replyer proue that before my lord of Chalcedons comming his Holinesses Nuntio in Paris did not make vs a particular Church 10. Against the Discussours doctrine n. 11. That persons exempt from all Bishops and subiect only to the Pope are a particular Church without a particular Bishop the Replyer n. 26. obiecteth That Monasteryes subiect only to the Pope are no particular Churches vnles we wil make euery Nunnery of women a particular Church I answere the Discussour speaketh in generall of places and persons exempt from Bishops And it is well knowne that there be diuers Territoryes of extent sufficient to make a Diocesse subiect to no Bishop These Nicolas Smith affirmes to be particular churches One Monastery or Nūnery immediatly subiect to the Pope are as much a particular Church as if they had a particular Bishop as we sayd aboue n. 2.3 11. In his numbers 28.29 he teacheth that it is a great Lustre to a Church to haue a particular Bishop That a Church gouerned by a Delegate wanteth some perfection of that which is gouerned by an Ordinary That if a Pope should send a Priest into England with power to confirme England should be in its kind a particular Church but not in the degree and perfection as if it had an Ordinary Bishop What Is the necessity of hauing a Bishop come only to a greater Lustre Must Catholickes be troden vnder foote for a greater lustre Doth all this dispute end in degrees of Comparison Hath our being or not being a particular Church so great latitude that it may reach to a Church with a Bishop Ordinary a Bishop Delegate a simple Priest I confesse the Replyer is forced to steppe backe and not to stand so punctually on his ground of Englands not being a particular Church without a Bishop I desire he would speake plainly Doth the diuine law in these sore tymes oblige vs to be a particular Church in the greatest perfection you mention by a Bishop Ordinary You wil not say so Is the diuine law of our being a particular Church well satisfied by persons endued with authority sufficient and proportionable to these dayes let them be Priests or Bishops Ordinaryes or Delegates So you must say Let vs then speake no more of being a particular Church or of hauing determinatly a Bishop by the diuiuine law but let our care be in the sight of God vnpartially to consider and with indifferency to desire what may be most expedient for Catholickes not in France Spayne Italy and other Countreyes happy with peaceable possession of Ecclesiasticall splendour but in Englād blessed only with ioyful suffering a longe continued persecution 12. Well to leaue speculations Schoolpoynts seing you constantly persist in this that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church before you burthen our consciences with a heauy obligation to purchase our being a particular Church with hazard of goods liberty and life you must not blame vs if we request you to produce some precept of God or the Church commaunding vs to be a particular Church in your sense why we may not content our selues with being good Catholickes and members of the Vniuersall Church as Nicholas Smith n. 14. proposed to M. Doctour In this consisteth the poynt of the difficulty The Replyer answereth that this demaund is by the Discussour brought out of its place so must expect answere in the next question which treateth Whether by the diuine law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop What is this but to auoyd the difficulty for M. Doctour proposeth as two reasons or titles The deuine precept of hauing a Bishop in euery particular Church and The necessity of hauing a Bishop because without him we cannot be a particular Church as may be seene Chap. 14. n. 4. 5. 6. 7. and in other places Now the Replyer will make M. Doctour walke in a circle and proue that we are bound to be a particular Church because we are obliged to haue a Bishop and we are obliged to haue a Bishop because we are bound to be a particular Church If the Replyer will defend M. Doctour he must tell vs what commaund we haue precisely to be a particular Church so that if a Bishop were not necessary in other respects yet for this cause alone he could not be refused This the Replyer doth not proue in the next question nor is it a thing in it selfe factible or credible 13. From the number 13. to the end of this Question he taxeth the Discussour as stretching M. Doctours wordes Chap. 14. n. 9. further then he intended But those wordes which he seeketh to defend must eyther teach as farre as the Discussour extendeth them or else they will come short of prouing M. Doctours purpose For if it be as necessary to haue a particular Bishop to make a particular church as to haue an Vniuersall Bishop for the making an Vniuersal church and that by the diuine law euery country of extent must be a particular Church it followeth clearly that according to M. Doctour there is as much necessity to haue a Bishop in England which in his opinion is a particular church of extent as to haue a Pope of Rome You will perhaps say that the
Place by makinge my Lord not Bishop of the countrey but only giuing him authority referred to the persons Ordinaries haue iurisdiction in respect both of place and person Catholickes and Heretiques and therfore in them extent of place is much more considerable Lastly although it were granted as a thing not making much for our present purpose that the extent of place in England were much considerable thence at the most could be inferred that England is capable of a Bishop not that it must of necessity haue one which is our only Question As there be some Diocesses for extent of place wel capable of too or more Bishops and yet it doth not follow that of necessity they must haue too or more if by one they can be sufficiently gouerned yea there are diuers places capable of one or more Bishops who haue no Bishop at all but are gouerned by other superiours 10. Likewise the Replyer n. 9. about this poynt citeth the wordes of the Discussour n. 7. very imperfectly in this manner To affirme that one Diocesse or Citty is a notable part of the Church is a thinge which no deuine yea no man of iudgment will say The words entirely cited are these To affirme that one Diocesse or City or indeed not so much as one Diocesse or Citty is a great or notable part of that Chuch which reacheth as farre as the rising and setting of the Sunne and that it must therfore iure diuino by the diuine law haue a Bishop so as no cause can excuse the want of one is a thing which no Deuine c. This saying of Nicolas Smith is so euident as no man can deny it to be true and yet for this speach he is deeply charged by the Inquisitour and Replyer of great immodesty Besides Nicolas Smith neuer say d M. Doctour affirmed all this but only by good consequence he shewed that this and diuers other hard conclusions must follow out of his Principles 11. What he citeth n. 14. out of the Regulars Answere to my Lord of Calcedons letter is by him odiously forced to a sense by the neyther meant nor written It is cleare they speake not of Episcopall authority in generall but of a Bishop in these tymes with power of Ordinary in foro externo coactiue to erect a Tribunall c. which they say would in these tymes proue pernicions to soules c. as M. Doctour Chap. 15. confesseth my Lord of Chalcedon to say that such a Tribunal is not sutable to these tymes Preaching is a holy thinge and as auncient as our Sauiour Christ yet to do it publickly in these tymes may be called a Nouelty and pernicious to Catholikes 12. In more then three whole leaues frō n. 16. he laboureth to make good that Sotus fauoureth M. Doctour All his discourse is reduced to this When Sotus teacheth it to be of diuine law that in generall to euery Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision proper Bishops are to be applyed those wordes in generall are to be interpreted as if one should say Christ in generall hath ordayned that euery man shall be baptized and therfore by our Sauiours commaund euery particular man is to be baptized The Discussour interpreteth Sotus by the word ingenerall to meane indeterminatly of some Diocesses according as particular circumstances of persons tyme and place shall require not that Sotus did teach an absolute precept of placing Bishops in euery determinate particular Diocesse This interpretation is gathered out of Sotus his whole drift which was to proue afterward agaynst Catharines that the Residence of Bishops is de iure diuino of the diuine law and also out of his wordes cited by the Replyer n. 22. that the Bishop must adsalutem gregis oculate attendere looke as it were with his eye to the good of his flocke propter peculiarem curam vigilantiam for the peculiar care and vigilācy necessary to his Church All which demonstrate Sotus his meaning only to be that Bishops by the diuine law must be so applyed to particular Churches as may suffice for the good gouernment of the same but not so absolutely that when they may be otherwise prouided for euery Diocese must of necessity haue its Bishop which Sotus knew well to be agaynst the practise of the Church wherin diuers Territoryes as great as Diocesses are exempt from all particular Bishops As Sotus teacheth that Bishops must be applyed to particular Diocesses so he teacheth that Parish Priests must be applyed to particular Parishes as may be seene in the wordes cited by the Replyer it were strange that Sotus should therfore be alleadged to hold it a diuine law that euery Parish haue its Parish Priest if otherwise it be sufficiently prouided Sotus then must be vnderstoode only indeterminately that some Diocesses must haue their Bishops because otherwise they cannot be sufficiently gouerned but not absolutely that by the diuine law ech one must haue its Bishop although otherwise it can be furnished with all necessaryes And this in effect is no more then we sayd in this Question n. 1. and euinceth the no necessity of a Bishop in Englād by the diuine law if without a Bishop we can be sufficiently prouided for According to this true meaning of Sotus it followeth not as the Replyer thinkes Sotus teacheth that there must be a Bishop in euery particular Diocesse Ergo much more in euery notable part of the Church because if a notable part of the Church can be otherwise well gouerned it will no more according to Sotus require a Bishop then a particular Diocesse Yea there may happe to be a greater obligation of placing a Bishop in some particular Diocesse then in a great Country where the Bishop cannot performe his office or cannot come without great domage to Catholikes which are considerations depēding wholly vpon particular circumstances and not to be determined by generall notions of greater or lesse extent of place Besides M. Doctour alleadged Sotus absolutely now the Replyer hath recourse to inferences If Sotus meane as the Replyer will haue him That by the diuine lawe the Pope must apply a particular Bishop to euery Diocesse or rather to euery place capable to be a Diocesse the doctrine is not true in it selfe and is agaynst the Replier pag. 30. n. 12. who granteth that the Pope may gouerne some litle Prouinces otherwise then by a Bishop as we see frequently practised in Territoryes of good extent It was then a hard shift out of a doctrine not true by inference to proue a poynt so preiudiciall to Catholikes as M. Doctours conclusion was At least it cannot be denyed but Sotus his wordes by this diuersity of Interpretatiō appeare to be obscure and therfore could yield but vncertayne reliefe to M. Doctours hard assertion 13. Concerning Bannez see the Discussour n. 11. who truly affirmed that he made nothinge for M. Doctour When he teacheth that the Pope cannot remoue Bishops from a great part of the Church
diuine Law of hauing a particular Bishop in euery particular church doth not so generally bynd as the other doth but may cease to oblige by reason of some particular circumstances of tyme or place This answere ouerthoweth M. Doctours whole edifice Because if any reason may take away the obligation of a diuine law certainly a generall persecution threatned to a whole Countrey may free vs from such a bond How then will M. Doctour conclude that by the diuyne law we are bound to haue a Bishop in a case wherein the diuine law ceaseth to bynd You see the Discussour had reason to say That M. Doctours wordes imported too much or else you must yeald they proued too litle 14. In like manner what M. Doctour sayd in the same place That vnlesse euery particular church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchy composed of diuers particular churches is rightly taxed by the Discussour as eyther not sound or not sufficient for M. Doctours purpose If it be vnderstood only indeterminatly that is The whole church cannot be a Hierarchy vnlesse some particular churches haue Bishops it proueth not that England must haue a Bishop because although England want a Bishop other churches may haue them so the Vniuersall church remayne a Hierarchy If he vnderstand of euery determinate particular church then it followeth that the church of God cannot be a Hierarchy vnles the determinate particular church of England haue a Bishop as the Discussour vrged n. 16. and the Replyer doth not confute 15. By the way I espy in his n. 32. a word for my purpose which ouerthroweth the Repliers whole discourse in this Question The church sayth he cannot be at al without a supreme Bishop or not without order to him when the sea is Vacant This I take as granted and very true and hence I inferre That as the Vniuersall church may be an Vniuersall church without actuall vnion to a supreme Bishop while the sea is Vacant because it still hath Order reference and aptitude to be gouerned by an Vniuersall Bishop as soone as he shall be elected so a particular church may be such by Order and aptitude to be vnited with a particular Bishop whensoeuer he shall be appoynted so S. Cyprians definition The Church is the people vnited to the Bishop doth not require that the people be actually vnited to the Bishop but only in readines of mynd or aptitudinally And thus England while it wanted a Bishop was a particular church because it was alwayes in disposition to be vnited to a Bishop Where now is that argument so often inculcated by M. Doctour the Inquisitour and the Replyer S. Cyprian defines a church to be the people vnited to the Bishop But the people cannot be vnited to a Bishop vnlesse they haue one Ergo they cannot be a church vnlesse they haue a Bishop For the Replyer himselfe hath told vs that when the Sea is vacant the people may be a church with only Order to a Bishop which implyeth not the actuall hauing a Bishop but only a fit disposition to haue one THE III. QVESTION Whether by the diuine Law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop THE diuine precept of hauing Bishops in the Church is only to be vnderstod indeterminatly or in generall that in the whole church there must be some Bishops as many or few as may be necessary or requisite to the end of gouerning the same Church But in respect of particular and determinate churches the commaund is not absolute but beareth a great respect to circumstances of tyme place and the like as the Vicar of Christ shall iudge it best fitting for gouerning and prouiding such churches of al things necessary to saluation Wherfore from the diuine precept of hauing Bishops in generall we cannot infer a necessity of hauing Bishops in this or that particular countrey although otherwise of extent For there may occur good reason why some other gouernment in some particular circumstances may conduce more to the glory of God and particular good of such a country Contrarywise it may happen that some church of small extent may in particular circumstances more require the gouernment of a Bishop then a larger countrey The thing therfore which is as I may say formally to be considered is the quality or greater or lesse necessity not the greater or lesse quantity of place or number of persons but in as much as these may induce a greater necessity of hauing Bishops 2. For this cause in the primitiue church euen in tyme of hoatest persecution Bishops were multiplied and placed in diuers Cittyes because those tymes did so require In so much that some Authors write that in those first dayes of Christianity in a manner all Priests were Bishops contrary to the present practise of Gods church The reason was the paucity of Priests of which if many had not binne made Bishops to ordayne Priests particular churches would haue remayned vnfurnished of Priests to conuert infidells assist thē being conuerted Euery church hauing inough to do within it self could not affoard help to others For this same cause Bishops were allotted to smaller flockes then is now eyther vsuall or lawful to be commonly practised S. Gregory the Thaumaturge cited by the Replyer n. 14. was created Bishop ouer only 17. persons A number competent for those old not these latter tymes in places where by neighbour-churches the want of other may be relieued The more the Vniuersall church is dilated the lesse euery particular church needeth a a Bishop of its own Because other churches without much preiudice vnto themselues may frequently lend them a helping hand In countreys by vast distance remote from helpe and comfort of Christian Nations a Bishop may be needfull for a few In Europe the case is otherwise If one shippe be in want it can becken to those who abound in diuers others 3. Hence it followeth that to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England in vayne we haue recourse to the diuine precept in generall of hauing some Bishops in the church All the question must setle on this Whether England can be sufficiently furnished of Priests and prouided of all necessaries for our iourney to heauen without a Bishop Or whether the inconueniece of comming might not counterpoyse the commodityes he would bring This should be the only Question and the answere ought to be referred to the same Bishop to whose charge Christ hath committed England all other countreys In the meane tyme let not Catholickes be frighted with diuine precepts where none are 4. The Replyer doth not rightly state the Question while he telleth vs n. 8. that M. Doctour only teacheth that Catholickes cannot refuse a Bishop although by his comming persecution should be increased supposing he be sent by lawfull authority Because sayth he in that case the Pope rather declareth that the diuine law ceaseth not to oblige A goodly construction of M. Doctours
both ought to haue by the diuine law their proper Bishop be he Ordinary or Delegate If Doth he beginne to doubt whether they be both notable parts of the Church or Churches of extent Or can he assigne vs a diuine law for England not for Scotland I see he may in tyme accorde with Nicholas Smith whome ere while he so much taxed for saying that England as now thinges stand is no notable part of Gods whole Church Moreuer the diuine law of hauing some Bishops in the Church is of Ordinaryes in an ordinary manner not of Delegates and therfore if Delegates suffice in England or Scotland it is a signe the diuine law doth not oblige in those Coūtreys and if by Bishops Delegates the diuine law be fulfilled it may be fulfilled by Priests Delegates for as much as concerneth iurisdiction 20. I will answere his n. 37. only by adding what he leaueth out in citing the Discussours wordes q. 7. n. 15. I sayth Nicholas Smith would most willingly spend my bloud for purchasing of tymes sutable with the enioying a Catholicke Bishop in England Where the Replyer leaueth off and maketh a longe needlesse descant vpon a poynt euery playne if he had added the wordes immediatly following namely indued with as much authority as any particular Bishop in the whole Church of God Which tymes almighty God grant vs with speed if so it be his diuine will 21. The confutation of M. Doctours arguments drawne from the Affrican Church is by the Replyer answered with a gentle implicit concession of all that the Discussour had obiected For omitting all particulars he telleth vs that they were alleadged by M. Doctour only to shew their zeale and great desire of a Bishop But seeing Nicholas Smith did shew that there was no parity betwixt their case and ours and also that the Affrican Bishops did not approue the peoples zeale but rather gaue a president that zeale is to be tempered with discretion the sayd examples were neyther rightly alleadged by M. Doctour nor is M. Doctour well defended by the Replyer As farre as Knowledge will giue way English Catholickes will yielde to none in zeale to haue a Bishop THE IIII. QVESTION Whether a Countrey although the Persecution should be increased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were only for the Sacrament of Confirmation THE Replyer chargeth Nicholas Smith for changing the question as if he had imposed vpō M. Doctour that he taught euery man in particular to be obliged to hazard goods liberty lyfe for enioying Confirmation wheras M. Doctour only spake of persecution in general But Nicholas Smith neuer imposed vpon M. Doctour that saying nor do the Discussours wordes alleadged by the Replyer import any such matter but he euer spake of persecution to be increased by the comming of a Bishop which might as well fall vpon this as that man and in that sense euery one in particular might feare it for himselfe Yet Nicholas Smith neuer disputed whither some in particular might not without danger receaue Confirmation supposing we had a Bishop which touched not the question in hand For certayne it is that Confirmation cannot be sayd to be had commodiously which was the poynt that made most for the purpose if it cannot be receaued without a Bishop whose very comminge was supposed to cause increase of persecution to Catholickes in generall which is more considerable then if it were certayne that by his comming some one man only were to suffer domage as Nicolas Smith n. 17. sayd truly but is not rightly taken by the Replyer n. 5. And by this is answered his long discourse n. 29. 30. 31. 32. 2. His arguments concerning Perfect Christianity are examined in the Qualification sect 4. where it is explicated in what sense we are by Confirmation made perfect Christians and is demonstrated that Nicholas Smith neuer denyed it in the sense in which the holy Fathers spake 3. Likewise the Qualificatour sect 3. sheweth that Nicolas Smith concerning the authority of S. Clements Epistles hath no more yea lesse then is to be read in Bellarmine Possouinus Sixtus Senensis and Baronius And further sheweth that Nicolas Smith doth not reiect them as Heretickes do and lastly that the sayd Epistles make nothing agaynst the Discussour 4. That which M. Doctour and the Replyer should haue done and by Nicolas Smith n. 16. were vrged to do should haue bin to prooue that to be perfect Christians in the Fathers sense was of so great necessity that for attayning thereof Catholickes ought to endure persecution But this neyther M. Doctour did performe nor doth the Replyer as much as take notice of And truly in what sense soeuer we take S. Clement and other Fathers or Councels teaching that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians nor properly Christians yea not Christians at all for so some speake it is allwayes to be vnderstood if that Sacrament be omitted voluntarily when it may be had otherwise we may be perfect Christians that is it shall not be imputed to vs that we are not perfect Christians but God will supply that want by other meanes As if a Cathecumen belieuing perfectly in Christ dye without Baptisme yet with intense Contrition not hauing possibility to be actually baptized he may be sayd to dye a Christian yea a good and holy Christian because the want of Baptismal Character is not imputed to him as it would to one who by his fault had omitted it in regard he wantes it only negatiue not priuatiue he hath it not yet wāts it not by reason in that case he was not boūd to haue it in act but only in effectuall desire As after Baptisme remission of deadly sins the proper effect of the Sacrament of Pennance may be obtayned by Contrition as it includes a desire of that Sacrament which desire in that case is reputed for the act This is a cleere explication of those words left out by M. Doctour in citing S. Clement si non necessitate c. Jf he shall remaine so not vpon necessity but by carelesnesse or voluntarily Which were wordes of chiefe importance when we disputed of omitting Confirmation not carelesly but for iust feare of persecution because we are not bound to be perfect Christians in that peculiar sense with so great domage nor will the want of such perfection in that case be imputed to vs but God of his goodnesse will be ready to supply the effect of Confirmation for as much as concerneth actuall grace and assistance without the Character because vpon that supposition of persecution to be increased there is a morall kind of impossibility to receaue it By which obseruation falleth downe all that the Replyer obiects n. 16. about Baptisme not actually receaued and Confirmation n. 22. and both Baptisme and Confirmation n. 23. as the Reader wil perceaue by applying to his obiections what euen now I haue noted For we do not say that without vnction one can be annoynted although