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
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
there can be no particular Church 4. that by Ordinarie course without a Bishop there can be no Hierarchicall functions So that these twoe onely be M. Doctours maine arguments and that which he alledgeth Chap. 14. n. 9. is not as M. Nicholas saieth but onely parte of his second maine argument For if it had beene by it selfe one of his maine arguments he would not haue sayed n. 4. And my reasons are twoe but he should haue saied And my reasons are fiue because the seconde reason includeth fowre which yet do all but make vp one his second maine reason 2. Yet is that reason which M. Nicholas alledgeth a good reason also because it being the diuine lawe that euerie particular Church of extent for he speaketh not of euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop by whome it may be made a particular Church the people that would resist a Bishop sent in by Lawfull and Supreme authoritie as our twoe last most Reuerend Bishops were should resist the diuine Law and Institution and so commit a sinne But of this more hereafter M. NICHOLAS Ep 69. ad Flor. This assertion he proueth out of S. Cyprian who sayeth that the Church is Sacerdoti plebs adunata pastori suo grex adharens the Church is the people vnited to the Priest Bishop and the flocke adbering vnto its Pastour c. And num 3. Three things I will endeauour saieth he to performe First that the alledged words of S. Cyprian c. Make nothing against vs but rather are for vs against himselfe c. n. 2. 3. THE REPLY M. Doctour proueth sufficientlie and euidentlie out of S. Cyprian that without a particular Bishop there can be no particular Church 3 True also it is that M. Doctour alledged those words out of S. Cyprian to proue that a particular Church cannot be without a particular Bishop And what bringeth M. Nicholas to disproue this He answereth num 4. that S. Cyprian doth not define the Church to be the people vnited and the flocke adhering to a particular Priest and Pastour but onelie indefinitlie to the Priest and Pastour and he addeth n. 5. and 6. that Saint Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schisme doe leaue their Bishop 4. But first in that M. Nicholas denyeth that out of this definition of a Church it necessarilie followeth that a particular Church cannot be without a particular Bishop he contradicteth Cardinall Bellarmin who lib. 3. de Eccles militante cap. 5. alledgeth this definition of S. Cyprian word by word and lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 8. he proueth that the Church by no meanes can be without Bishops because S. Cypian sayeth Ecclesians esse Episcope adunatam Episcopum esse in Ecclesia Ecclesiam in Episcopo that the Church is vnited to the Bishop and that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop Where first by the word Sacerdoti Priest he vnderstandeth a particular Bishop not a Priest or Pastour indefinitelie as M. Nicholas saied because in that place he proueth that the Church cannot be without particular Bishops SecoÌ„delie he proueth out of this place that the Church cannot be without Bishops in the plurall number And why But because particular Churches must haue particular Bishops For the whole Church caÌ„ haue but one Supreme Bishop her gouernement being Monarchicall which requireth one Supreme Gouernour as M. Doctour hath shewed in his Hierarchie cap. 3. And there fore if it be necessarie that in the Church there should be other Bishops besides one Supreme Bishop the reason must be because the notable partes of the Church which are of notable exteÌ„t must haue their particular Bishops by whome they may be made particular Churches and so may compose the whole Church and obey their particular Bishops with a subordination to the chiefe Bishop Hence it is that the same Cardinall in the foresaied place alledgeth S. Hierom l. contra Luciferianos who saieth Ecclesia non est quae non babet Sacerdotes the Church is not or it is not a Church which hath not Priests that is Bishops And in his second Tome lib. vnice de Sacramento Confirm cap. 12. § Sextum augmentum he saieth out of S. Hierome contra Lutiferianos Necesse est in singulis Ecclesijs vnum esse Episcopum ne si multi sine pares non ad vnum summa referatur schismata fiant it is necessarie that in euerie Church there be one Bishop least if many were equall and the chiefe place or authorttie not giuen to one Schismes should be And dareth M. Nicholas gaine say so learned a Cardinal and him also a Iesuite 5. To Cardinal Bellarmin I shall adde our learned Countrieman Doctour Stapleton whoin his fift booke De potestatis Ecclesiasticae subiecto cap. 7. saieth non nisi propter Pastores praeposiâ—os Ecclesiae nomine vocari debet aliqua multitudo Vnde Cyprianus Ecclesiam esse in Episcope Sanctus Hieronymus vbi non sunt Sacerdotes Ecclesiam non esse sapienter scripserunt a multitude ought not to be called by the name of a Church but onely for the Pastours and Prelats WhereupoÌ„ it is truelie and wiselie written by S. Cyprian that the Church is in the Bishop and by S. Hierome that there is noe Church where there are noe Priests And againe Stapleton saieth that the word Church in Scripture signifieth properlie and as it were antonomasticallie multitudinem non vagam aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a vagrant or head lesse multitude sed cuiiam Pastores praepositi à Deo constituti sunt But a multitude to which Pastours and Prelates are constituted by God 6. Soe that Cardinall Bellarmin and Stapleton and so do all deuines require in the whole Church many particular Churches and to particular Churches particular Bishops and M. Nicholas in endeauouring to extenuate S. Cyprians definition of a Church depriueth Catholike Authors of a principall authoritie by which they proue against heretikes that the Church cannot be without Bishops and thereby he fauoureth heretikes 7. Out of this definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian to wit that it is the people vnited to the Bishop M. Doctour inferreth that a people without a Bishop can be no particular Church M. Nicholas q 2. n. 5. 6. saieth S. Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schisme do leaue their Bishop and so are no Church But this litle auaileth M. Nicholas for that it is a Maxime in Logike grounded in one of the principall places or seates of argumentes called definitio definition That Cuicunque non conuenit definitio non conuenit definitum to what thing soeuer the definition agreeth not to that thing the thing defined doth not agree and so seing that the definition of a Church according to S. Cyprian is Sacerdoti plebs adunata a people vnited to the Bishop Stapl. l. 6. de potest Eccles Subiecto c 7. which definition Stapleton in his sixt booke Depotestatis Eccles subiecto cap. 7. commendeth
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
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
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
had not receiued the holie Ghost by consignation of a Bishop but onely sheweth what manner a man he was Thus he answereth the Rhemists And M. Nicholas ioyneth with him in his answere to Maister Doctour saying Onely Eusebius out of Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus recounteth that he fell persecutionis tempore metu debilitatus nimia vitae cupiditate adductus in tyme of persecution weakened with feare and moued with too much desire of life And presentlie after sayeth Maister Nicholas It may be well that he fell for want of Confirmation Yet as Fulke sayed so he saieth I deny that Eusebius sayeth so But I had rather giue credit to the Rhemists then to M. Nicholas I hauing especiallie found him tripping so often and their one affirmation ought to be taken before tenne negations or denialls of M. Nicholas Estins also hauing sayed that the Apostles vse to giue Confirmation so soone after batisme as might conuenientlie be Estius in 4. d. 7 § 18. sayeth Quorum alacritatem studium in conferendo hoc Samentum imitari conuenit omnes Episcopos maximè quod huius subsidij neglectu fiat vt persecutionis tempore multi deficiant aut labantur sicut teste Cornelio Papa Nouato accidit Whose alacritie and studiè in giuing this Sacrament it is conuenient that all Bishops should imitate especiallie because by neglect of this helpe it comes to passe in time of persecution that many doe fayle or falle as witnesse Pope Cornelius it happened to Nouatus Behould another authour of greater credit then Maister Nicholas as being a Classicall Authour hauing bene many yeares professour of diuinitie in the famous Vniuersitie of Doway affirmeth also with M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas that Nouatus fell in tyme of persecution for want of Confirmation Bzouius also in his first tome speaking of Nouatus or Nouatianus saieth thus of him morbo tandem clapsus neque caetera quibus post Baptismum secundum Ecclesiae Canonem imbui oportucrat acquisiuit neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus quamobrem neque Spiritum sanctum ex sacro Chrismate adeptus persecutionis metu debilitatus nimia vitae cupiditate adductus se presbyterum esse negauit At lenght hauing escaped his sicknesse he neither got the rest with which according to the Ecclesiasticall Canon he should haue beene imbued or furnished nor was he signed with our Lords seale Wherefore neither hauing by the sacred Chrisme gotten the holie Ghost he in time of persecution being weakened with feare to witt because by Confirmation he had not gotteÌ„ the holie Ghost and moued with too much desire of life he denyed himselfe to be a priest Bzeuius to 1. l. 3 Eccl hist Anno. Christi 254. Corn. Papa an 1. Colu â—49 And after Bzouius relateth how at the request of the Deacons he refused to helpe them that were in danger and necessitie but in a Choler want from them and afterward fell into Schisme in ambitiouslie aspiring to be Pope And why all this but because he had not by Confirmation receiued the holy Ghost Baius lib. 2. Instit c. 631. l. 2. de Conf. c. 63. nam ideo Nouatum ad haeresim procliuiorem fuisse sensit Cornelius Papa quoniam signaculo Chrismatis confirmatus non esset Eusebio teste l. 6. hi c. 33. For Cornelius Pope thought that Nouatus was more proue to heresie because he was not confirmed by the seale of Chrisme Inc 8 Art ve 17. in fine as Eusebius witnesseth libr. 6. Histor cap. 33. Lorinus a Iesuite sayeth that Nouatus was possessed by the derull because he receiued not the Sacrament yea reiected it With these Catholike Authours M. Doctour thought it more honour toioyne then with Fulke the heretike as M. Nicholas in this doth 38. Now whereas M. Nicholas sayeth that he hath answered to M. Doctours coniecture so he calleth it that in time of persecution Confirmation is necessarie for a countrie because if one fall not others will I graunt that he hath endeauoured in the beginning of this question numero 6. and 7. but could neuer yet performe that he hath endeauoured He sayeth numero 6. that the tymes of persecution in our Countrie haue beene most bitter and yet would to God wee could behould the zeale feruour Charitie and constancie which in these dayes Catholikes without Confirmation shewed But why speaketh hee in this manner Doth he thinke a countrie in persecution may doe better without Confirmation then with it or that it helpeth nothing Why then did Christ institute it to the end that in persecution we might with an vndaunted courage professe our faith before the persecutour And sayeth hee I hould it noe rashnesse to saye that since Englands enioying a Bishop more harme hath hefalne Catholik's in generall See how Passion transporteth Maister Nicholas And by whose fault is it that since we had a Bishop more harme hath befalne Catholikes in generall Is it the presence of a Bishop that bringeth such harme Why then did Christ and the holie Ghost appoint Bishops to gouerne the Churche Act. 20. Other Countries in tyme of persecution haue euer receiued greate benefits much comfort and encouragement by their Bishops Why then should we onely receiue a generall harme by hauing a learned Bishop a man of exemplar life and a bishop sent by lawfull and highest authoritie I will not say who are the cause but I referre that to all indifferent mennes iudgements and euen to Maister Nicholas his calmer disposition and better consideration If euerie one had receiued and obeyed him as they ought to haue done Saint Peters successour sending him and if they who found themselues grieued had proposed their grieuances and difficulties vnto Superiours in all quiet modestie and without clamours and had patientie expected their decision and determination there had not arisen such scandall as there did 39. But to come to the matter Ca 14 n. 7. Maister Doctour sayed that although euen in tyme of persecution a man may haue sufficient grace without Confirmation to stand to his faith and Religion as may appeare by them who neither confirmed nor Baptized with water haue endured martyrdome for their faith and so haue bene baptized in their owne blood and as may be seene in our English Catholikes who though many of them were not confirmed shed their blood to seale and signe their faith Yet because Confirmation is the ordinarie meanes instituted to giue force and courage in tyme of persecution to neglect it in such a tyme when euerie man may feare his owne infirmitie is a mortall sinne and if it be neglected for a generall persecution in which as aboue many thousands in particular may commodiouslie receiue it if one fall not as Maister Doctour sayeth Estius in 4. dist 7. § 18. Ca. 14. n. 8. others probablie will as Nouatus did And so a countrie in such a persecution is obliged to receiue a Bishop least it shew it selfe cruell to so many
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
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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
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
this vniuersall and ample Church pleadeth for one Ordinarie or Delegate Bishop one Bishop being not sufficient to serue diuers great partes thereof as aboue is declared 38. By this sayeth M. Nicholas num 17. is answered a demaund of M. Doctour Chapter 14. V V by the Pope and Bishops in the primatiue Church were so diligent in consecrating Bishops yea and making Popes in the midst of persecution but that they thought it was the diuine law that euerie great Church should haue its Bishop M. Nicholas answereth that the reason was because in those times euerie Countrie needed its owne Bishop to ordaine Priests c. And why might not Priests then haue beene sent out of one countrie into another as well as now Was anie one countrie so farre distant from all Catholike coūtries or Churches as none could send Priests vnto them as now they do from Rome Spaine Flāders and other places into England And is not England separated from the whole worlde more thē many of those countries Did not Apostolicall men then go further and do they not now also MAISTER NICHOLAS In the numbers 19.20.21.22.23 he examineth the Examples of the Africans alledged by M. Doctour Chap. 13. n. 7.8 and he saieth examples proue litle vnlesse we were sure of all circumstances THE REPLY Why these examples were alledged by M. Doctour and what they proue 39. M. Doctour brought these examples as he doth professe in his 13. Chapter num 7. to shewe their zele and great desire to haue a Bishop notwithstanding persecution and so M. Nicholas may let them stand as they will to all posteritie If all English Catholikes and especiallie some Regular Catholikes and their adherentes had imitated this zele those oppositions against a Bishop sent by lawfull and highest authoritie would neuer haue beene but rather we should haue allioyned vnanimouslie for the procuring of a Bishop not for priuate interests of which M. Nicholas though he inculcate it sometimes had as much need to take heed of as Secular Priests who cōsidering the times haue litle reason to desire such an office for humane respects to which many labours and daungers no wordly splendour or riches are now annexed but for the good of our countrie the comfort of Catholikes the saluation of soules the honour of our Church of England and the greater glorie of God Yet these examples of those zelous African Catholikes proue also something For why should they so crye for a Bishop but that they knew it was the diuine Institution that the Church in all times should be gouerned by Bishops Victor Vticēs l. 2. de persec .. Vādal but that they reaped great comforte and had much direction in persecution by his presence and great strength by the grace of Confirmation which for twentie fower yeares they had wanted they hauing had all that time no Bishop 40. And thus M. Nicholas his third question being fullie answered though he peraduenture not satisfied M. Doctours position of the necessitie of a Bishop in euerie notable parte of the Church proued and all M. Nicholas hath beene able to say disproued I will make an end of this question THE FOVRTH QVESTION VVhether a countrie although the persecution should be encreased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were onely for the Sacrament of Confirmation MAISTER NICHOLAS FIRST we protest that by Gods holy assistance we do and euer will reuerence the Sacrament of Confirmation c. but to put vpon mennes Consciences so strict an obligation not withstanding whatsoeuer persecution c num 1. THE REPLIE M. Nicholas changeth the Question 1. M. DOCTOVR onely affirmeth that as although no man in particular be bound to receiue a Priest if thereby he should hazard lands libertie or life Yet no countrie can except against the comming in of Priests for feare of persecution in generall because the losse of preaching and Sacraments c. is such a spirituall domage to a whole countrie that it should rather hazard persecution then refuse Priests though none in particular be bound with such temporall losse to receiue a priest his priuate spirituall losse being not cōparable to the spirituall losse which a whole countrie should receiue by want of Priests So M. Doctour sayeth also that although no man in particular be bound to receiue a Bishop into his house or Confirmation of him with any notable temporallosse Yet neither a whole countrie nor any of the countrie can except against the comming in of a Bishop by reason that the spirituall losse which it should sustaine by want of him for that the Countrie should not be a particular Church nor the Catholikes could be perfect Christians nor could they haue so infalliblie the grace of Cōfirmation giuen to that purpose that men may haue force thereby to stand constantly to the profession of their faith nor should they haue the example and encouragement of the Bishop who in that case vseth to put life into his subiectes 2. M. Nicholas changeth the state of the question and imposeth on M. Doctour as though he sayed that euerie Catholike in particular is bound to hazard all for the Bishop and Confirmation 3. That M. Doctour speaketh onely in generall may appeare by those his words which he hath Chapter 14. numer 3. 4. 8. and also by the words which out of Maister Doctour Maister Nicholas himselfe alledgeth q. 4. num 12. Where M. Doctour sayeth I am of opinion which I humblie submitte to authoritie that this particular Church of England France Spaine and such like of which notable partes he before spoake n. 2. cannot except any long tyme against a Bishop Againe M. Doctour sayeth in the same Chapter nu 8. But howsoeuer although euerie man in particular cannot be condemned of sinne for omitting confirmation for feare of losse of his life lands or libertie yet I thinke c. Which words M. Nicholas alledgeth out of M. Doctour p. 85. 4. And yet that M. Nicholas in the beginning of this 4. question chargeth M. Doctour as though he had sayed that euerie one in particular is to hazard temporall losses rather then to omit confirmatiō appeareth because he exaggerateth this as if he had put vpon mens consciences so strict an obligation notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution c. And againe pag 83. endeauouring to answere a place alledged out of S. Clement he sayeth our case is When Confirmatiō cannot be had without hazard of goods libertie life as though M. Doctour had sayed that one in particular is to hazard such losse rather then omit Confirmation 5. But M. Doctour speaketh in generall and if because in particular no man is bound to hazard any notable temporall losse for the Bishop or Confirmation he may inferre that the countrie may except against the Bishop and that Sacrament by the like reason it may be inferred that because no man is bound to receiue a priest secular or regular into his house or to receiue any Sacrament of him
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
munus the chiefe office of a Bishop as indeede it is Cone Trid. sess 5. c. 2. sess 24 c. 4. Marci vlt. according to the commandement of Christ giuen to the Apostles and in them to Bishops their successours praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae preach the Ghospell to all creatures And besides he hath his owne proper functions which they haue not to wit to gouerne a more ample parte of the whole Church to sit in Councells as Iudge to direct and Iudge inferiour Pastours to ordaine ministers to confirme to consecrate Churches Altars Chalices c. which other Pastours cannot doe Likewise it pertaineth most of all to Bishops by their examples to illuminate others euen inferiour Pastours Mat 5 Ioan. 10. Conc. Tol. 11. c. 2. and therefore they especiallie are the light of the world and they especiallie like good Pastours are to goe before their sheepe by illuminating them by doctrine and example For as the eleuenth Councell of Tolet sayeth by how much any one hath the higher place by so much the more it is necessarie that he goe before others in grace of merits c. 6. Thirdlie saieth Suarez in a Bishop especially is required greate charitie as well towards God who is the principall Lord of his sheepe Ioan. 21. therefore Christ calleth them his sheepe as also towords his subiectes whom he must tolerate and assiste with whose infirmities he must beare whose necessities he must releeue and to whom he must be an honorable seruant as S. Paul was 1. Car. 9. when he sayed factus sum omnium seruus vt plures lucrifacerem I made my selfe the seruant of all that I might gaine the more 7. Fourthlie the Bishop peculiarlie and in the first place by his office and state is bound to giue his life for his sheepe which is the greatest charitie Ioan. 10. 15. and which requireth greate patience and fortititude 8. Lastlie the perfection and height of the state of a Bishop may be gathered by what M. Doctour hath sayed in his 6. Chapt. where he hath shewed that the Bishop is higher in dignitie power and authoritie then the simplie Priest by the Diuine Institution for that he can confirme and giue orders and with two other Bishops can ordaine a Bishop Which simple Priests cānot doe at least as ordinarie ministers and therefore the Councell of Trent sayeth that Bishops doe principallie appertaine to the Hierarchicall order Conc. Trid. sess 23. cap. 4. de Sacram Ordin 9. The same may be deduced by what he hath deliuered in his seuēth Chapter were he hath proued that Bishops and Priests are of the highest orders in the Church This he hath proued out of diuers Fathers and examples euen of Emperours who attribute much to the dignitie of Bishops and amongst those Fathers he citeth S. Ignatius Ignat. ep ad Smyrn who sayeth that in the Church of God there is nothing greater then the Bishop 10. The same may be also gathered out of his eleuenth Chapter n. 18. S. Th 2.2 q 185 ar 8. in Corp. Where he alleageth S. Thomas his words Status religionis ad perfectionem pertinet quasi quaedam via in perfectionem tendens Status autem Episcoporum ad perfectionem pertinet tanquam quoddam perfectionis Magisterium Vnde status religionis comparatur ad statum Episcopalem sicut disciplina ad magisteriū dispositio ad perfectionē The state of Religion pertaineth to perfection as a certaine way tending vnto perfection But the state of Bishops pertaineth to perfection as a certaine maistership of perfection Whence it is that the state of Religion is compared to the Episcopall state as instructiō to maistership M. Doctour also alleadgeth there Henricus de Gandauo who hath the like words and thence he concludeth Henr. quodl 12. q. 29. Math. 10. that where the Religious endeth there a Bishop or Pastour beginneth For as Christ sayeth the disciple is not aboue the maister nor the seruant aboue his Lord. It sufficeth the disciple if he be as his maister And seldome it is seene that the Scholler attaineth to the perfection of his maister and if he doth yet the state of a Scholler is lower then the state of a maister and it requireth lesse perfection Henr Supra Wherefore Henricus as M. Doctour alleadged sayeth that the maister ought to be perfecter thē the Scholler and againe that when any Religions is brought ad summum aliquid perfectum to the hight of perfection he is then fit to be assumed for a Prelate 11. Why doth then M. Nicholas so storme against M. Doctour as though he had spoken partially and with disaduantage of a religious state through all his Treatise and particularly in his 11. Chapter Hath he sayed more for Bishops or lesse for Regulars or could he say more for Bishops then S. Thomas Suarez and Henricus haue Yea M. Doctour speaketh principallie out of S. Thomas let him them wreake his anger on S. Thomas and Suarez 12. So that M. Doctour in this needeth neither to leaue S. Thomas nor Henricus de Gandauo as M. Nicholas n. 13. saieth he must For that concerning the state of a Bishop they both agree as their words alleadged will witnesse and although Henricus saieth more then S. Thomas doth to wit that not onelie the Bishop but also inferiour Pastours are in an higher state of perfection then the regulars much more in his opinion the Bishop is in an higher state thē the religious for which onely thing M. Doctour alleadged him And whereas M. Doctour saied that where a religious man endeth there a Bishop or Pastour beginneth which words or Pastour M. Nicholas carpeth at M. Doctour addeth or Pastour because he knewe that Henricus de Gandauo and Gerson doe hold that euen Curats haue a state of perfection aboue regulars which opiniō Suarez as we shall see deemeth not improbable and at least as M. Doctour a litle before had proued they haue a calling and office of greater perfection thē hath the religious Yet M. Doctour not standing on this concludeth onelie that the Bishop he now addeth not or Pastour layeth his foundation on the religious mans roofe and top So that vnlesse M. Nicholas will leaue S. Thomas the Angelicall Doctour Suarez and all Diuines he must Graunt that the Bishop is absolutelie in an higher state of perfection then the state of Regulars is 13. And in deede M. Nicholas cannot bring so much as one argument to equalize the state of a Regular to the state of a Bishop nor hath he or can he answere any one of M. Doctours argumēts by which he preferred the state of a Bishop What then hath he done He telleth vs n. 2. that we must distinguish betwixt the state which is to exercise perfection which is the state of Bishops the state which endeauoureth to attaine to perfection which is the state of Regulars least we erre in generalities as he saied and be deceiued
not instruments ' Officialles or delegates of the Bishops but are trulie Pastours comprehended vnder the name of Proprius Sacerdos to whom euerie Christian of sufficient age is bound to confesse once a yeare Cap. omnit vtrius que â—exus de poenit remis And although the Bishop hath greater and more ample authoritie then the inferiour Pastors haue yet they are not Officialles nor ministers nor in instrumental causes in respect of the Bishop but true and ordinarie Pastours though both they and the Bishop also be ministers and instrumentall causes in respect of Christe Supra n. 28. And although saith Suarez the Bishop be in an higher state yet that hindereth not but that Curats also be in a state though inferiour for so though all religious orders be in states of perfection yet one is a perfecter state then another Out of all this which for the most parte is grounded in Suarez it seemeth verie probable that inferiour Pastours haue not onlie an higher and perfecter office which S. Thomas insinuateth saying that they rather haue an office pertaining to perfectioÌ„ then a state of perfectioÌ„ but also an higher state of perfection their state being of perfection to be exercised S. Th. 2.2 q. 184. a. 6. ad 3. not to be acquired as the Regulars state is and being ordained to higher actions and functions and they making a pacte and conuenant with their Church as Bishops doe which in a Bishop as Suarez confesseth causeth an immobilitie 54. Wherefore Suarez at length concludeth l. 1. c. 2. n. 5. that the state of Inferiour Pastours and Regulas doe exceed and are exceeded of one another in diuerse respects for sayth hee if wee demaund which state is more profitable to ones selfe lesse daungerous and more sure then the Religious state in this respect taketh the precedence but if you demaund which state contineth n. 6. Mains Dei obsequium greater seruice of God perfectiora opera ex genete she requirit and requireth more perfect operations of their kind then sayth hee the state of these inferiour Pastours is in it selfe and of it selfe perfecter then the state of a Religious man And in this sorte speculatiuelie It may be grauÌ„ted that the Pastoral state is perfecter then the Regular state S. Th. in c. 5. Mat. and this S. Thomas vpon S. Matthew seemeth to fauour as Suarez confesseth 55. And so wheras M. Nicholas nu 14. proueth that a Regular state is perfecter then the state of an inferiour Pastour because 2 Pastour may enter into Religion without dispensation his argument proueth onely that a Regulars state is more sure for ones owne saluation S. Th. 2.2 q 184.7 arg sed cütra and so may be elected and vowed but not that it is an higher or perfecter state I graunt that S. Thomas Proueth that a Religious state is inferiour to the state of a Bishop because a Religious man may become a Bishop and his argument is good Because a Religious man cannot accept of a Bishops office because it is more sure as is manifest and therefore if he may accept of it it must be because it is a perfecter state But an inferiour Pastour may vndertake the state of a Regular not because it is more perfect as Azorius Regular confesseth but because in it he may more surelie saue his owne soule which he may preferre before the soule of others Azar to 1. l. 11. ca. 24. charitie first tendring ones owne saluation and so although the inferiour Pastour doth thus descend in state yet he doth not properlie Retrocedere nor Retrospicere goe backe or looke backe because he thus auaunceth his owne saluatioÌ„ And so it is a good argument A regular may be a Bishop ergo a Bishops state is perfecter but is not a good argument an Inferiour Pastour may be a Religious man ergo a Religious man hath a perfecter state but only ergo a Religious man hath a more secure state 56. But in a controuersie so much disputed and wherin to giue senteÌ„ce may prouoke the one partie or the other I will leaue the Iudgement thereof to the Iudicious Reader who by what is said for inferiour Pastours will peraduenture Iudge it more probable that inferiour Pastours should worthilie be preferred in state of perfection And as M. Nicholas Pag. 103. Num. 7. referreth his reader to Platus a Regular concerning the Regular state so will I and with lesse exception referre him to one Philippe de Harueing a Regular and learned Abbot concerning the Clergie and all Pastours euen inferiour 57. This man was Abbot of a Monasterie called Bona Spes Good Hope and he wrote aboue fowre hundred and fiftie yeares agoe His workes were printed in Doway in the yeare M. D C. X X. and approued by Doctour Colvenerius Chauncelour of the Vniuersitie and Censor of Bookes in that Vniuersitie He in his worke De Dignitate Scientia Iustieia Continentia Clericorum commendeth highlie Regulars amongst whom he was verie eminent yet in euery chapter almost he preferreth the Clergie I will for breuities sake cite only a fewe passages In his 17. Chapter he sayth as M. Nicholas will not saye Nostrum est nouissimum locum eligere nec ad altiora volatu praesumptuoso nos ipsos erigere It is our parte that is the part of Religious to cboose the last place and not by a presumptuous flight to eleuate our selues to higher thing In his 17. Epistle he sayth that from all the bounds and limits of the earth all aÌ„tiquitie did euer extoll the Clericall order and euer gaue it amongst the other orders the principall ranke and degree and though by the diuine disposition a soldier or Rustique doe excellin sanctitie yet the Clergie man in excellencie of Ecclesiastical dignitie and although the Clergie man as we doe sometimes decline to wordlie things and To the weake and poore elements yet their order declineth not in authoritie In his 84. chapter he sayth that the Blessed S. Benedict sounded many Monasteries and instructed and informed many monks by the good and holsome documents he left to posteritie and is not read to haue been Priest yet wanted not perfectioÌ„ of a monke nor did he think it any disparagement to his monasticall institute that his monkes should not coÌ„tend to excell others in holy orders but in holy manners considering that the promotion to orders maketh not a monke but abiection and vilifying of ones selfe labour silence discipline rest Religion And in his 99. chapter Habeant sibi matorem monachi sanctitatem relinquentes Clericis maiorem humiliter dignitatem Let monkes keepe to themselues greater sanctitie leauing humblie to Clergie men greater dignitie And in his 98. and 97. Chapters Pag. 462. he sayth that S. Hierome did therefore inuite Heliod Paulinus and Rusticus to be moÌ„kes not because he thought more baselie of the Clergie but because he esteemed their state as more worthie so not so secur and therefore sayth
delineated in these thinges vvhich pertaine to meate drinke cloath habitation and manner of life pouertie obedience chastitie So that neither doth Azorius hold it as certaine that the Apostles or first Christians were religious S. Th. 2.2 q. 88. ar 8. ad 3. though before he had cited S. Thomas who sayth they vovved the thinges that pertaine to perfection yea and S. Austine who sayth that the Apostles vowed pouertie Aug. li. 17. de Ciuit. Dei c. 4. Sarm supra p. 1. defes pag. 887. To which place Franciscus Sarmiento answereth that S. Austine by vowe in that place vnderstandeth a full purpose of keeping pouertie which purpose sayth hee the Apostles left when they were noe more disciples but Maisters and Pastours 78. Caietane a Regular principal Thomist and Cardinall in his commentarie vpon the 19. Chapter of S. Matthevv explicating these words Vade vende omnia c. vent sequere me goe sell all c. and come and follow me Hath these words Attende lector quod nullum indicitur à IESV votum volenti perfectionem vitae assequi quia non in vinculis votorum sed in operibus consistit perfectionis assecutio Laudabilia sunt vota Religionis sed non in illorum professione sed operibus quibus imitamur IESVM CHRISTVM acquiritur perfectio Infinitus est hodie numerus eorum qui acquirunt perfectionis statum profit endo religionis vota sed rari sunt qui volunt esse perfecti imitando IESVM factis humilitatis patientiae mansuetudinis charitatis c. Marke Reader that noe vovve is denounced or commaunded from IESVS-CHRISTE to him that vvill attaine to perfection of life because the attaining of perfection consisteth not in the bonds of vovves but in vvorkes by vvhich vvee imitate IESVS CHRISTE Laudable the vovves of Religion yet not in their profession but in vvorkes by vvhich vve imitate IESVS CHRIST perfection is gotten There is at this day an infinite number of those vvho get a state of perfection by professing the vovves of Religion but rare they are vvho vvilbe perfect by imitatim IESVS in vvorkes of humilitie patience mildenes charitie c. So that Caietan is of opinion that in the place of Scripture alleaged there is noe mention of vowes and yet they who hold that the Apostles were religious out of this place especiallie proue the three vowes of Religion And seing that without vowes a man cannot be religious if out of this place it can not as Caietan thinketh be proued that the Apostles vowed it can not out of this place be proued that the Apostles were religious vowes being necessarie to make a man religious 79. Suarez to 3. de Relig. l. 2. c. 15. n 13.14 15.16 Vasqu to 2. in 1.2 disp 164. c. 4. 5. But suppose the Apostles and first Christians vowed yet doth it not follow that they were religious For that as Suarez and Vasquez doe confesse the three vowes are not sufficient to make one a relig ous man But the order and Institute must be approued ether by the Bishop in his Diocese as ancienthe it was or by the Pope as afterwards was decreed And the religious his vowe must be accepted of the Superiour who hath Iurisdiction ouer him and authoritie to receiue his vowes And what certaintie is there that the Apostles and first Christians liued in an order approued by Christe or S. Peter or that their vowes were accepted by Christe or S. Peter as sufficient to make them religious seing that hâ—ly Scripture sayth nothing of any such acceptation 80. Suarez to 3. l. 3 de auttore orig antiqu status relig c. 2. â— 9. I confesse that the learned Suarez defendeth that the Apostles vowed pouertie chastitie obedienâ—e and were religious that Christ not only instituted a religious state in generall in regard of the three Counselles but also made a religion in particular to which he called the Apostles eis proprium particularem modum vitae religiosae tribuendo giuing to them a proper and particular manner of liuing Nu. 10. And this particuler manner of liuing he saith consisted in a life mixte partly contemplatiue partlie actiue in endeauouring the conuersion of soules But yet his proofes out of Scripture doe only proue that Chariste instituted the Counsels and commended them what he alleageth out of some Authours prooueth only that the Apostles vowed the Counsels which yet is not sufficient to make them religious as we haue seene what he bringeth out of other Authours only proueth that the Apostles gaue examples of religious lâ—fâ— by liuing at first in common and by observing pouertie chastitie and obedience but not that they were religious though I dâ—ny not but that some Authours doe affirme that the Apostles were religious which yet might be vnderstood not that they were properlâ—e and compleatelie religious but only for that they obserued or vowed the three Euangelicall Counsels 81. To. 2. in 1. 2. disp 4. 5. Wherefore Vasquez resolueth the matter thus His praemissis quod attinet ad station religionis distinguendum est c. These thinges premised vvee must distinguish concerning the state of Religion For ether to haue instituted the state of religioÌ„ is all one as to haue inuented excogitated it and to haue proposed it to others to be follovved and in this sense vve must say that the state of religion vvas instituted by Christe our Lord that is proposed and preached as is gathered by the thinges vvee haue said or to institute a state of religion is all one as indeeed to erect it vnder the povver and Iurisdiction of one Heade and so it is not to bee sayd that the institution of this state is of the deume or naturall lavve For seing that to constitute a state of religion it is necessarilie requireâ— that he vvho vovveth should make the three vovves vnder the Iurisdiction of a Superiour praepositi as aboue is explicated and seing that it is in the vvill of the legislatour to accept of the three vovves of him that vovveth them that so he may haue him for his subiect it follovvet that the erection of a religious state doth pertaine to the positiue lavve or to the vvill of the humane legislatour for that the three vovves made haue not this by the lavve of nature or by the diuine lavve to constitute him that vovveth vnder the Iurisdiction peculiarlie required to religion of an head or superiour but this agreeth to them by the constitution of the Church or Cheefe Bishop Thus he And seing it can not be shewed out of Scripture or couÌ„cells or ancieÌ„t Auctours that the Apostles made their vowes of the three counselles vnder the iurisdiction of an Heade who accepted their vowes it can not so clearely be showed that they were properly coÌ„pleatelie religious though they had vowed the three Counselles which are the substance of all religious It is true that Christe was head to the Apostles and
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
and Sotus vvould not have Regulars take care of soules but to attend to their own institute And Rodericus sayth that the Franciscans did ouer fly the heaâ—ie burden of Curats And Gerson sayth Debent parochi Religiosos tanquam coadiutores missos à superioribus benigne ac beneuole recipere modo non obstet rationabilis causa vt si detractor si collusor sicorruptor si seductor appareat parochianos in contemptum parochi addncat c. Pastours ought gentlie to receiue Religious as coadiutours sent from their superiours so that no reasonable cause be to the contrarie as if he be a detractour one that vseth collusion a corruptour if he appeare to be a deceiner or do bring the parishioners to contemne their Pastour c. Whence I gather that M. Nicholas is not so gratefull to the secular Clergie as might haue been expected for that as we haue seen aboue in my Preface to the secular and Regular Clergie Cardinall Allen of famous and pious memorie made sute to the Generall of the Societie of Iesus to send the first English lesuites to England to helpe and ayde the Priests who to the nuÌ„ber of fowrescore were there labouring and end eauouring the conuersion of soules before the first Iesuites were sent And the Pope sent them and the Clergie receiued them as Cooperatours Dâ—â—itse in Edm. Camp And therfore D. Pitse in his booke of the famous writers of England sayth that the Clergie desired the Fathers of the Societie vt sâ—se Cooperatores adiungerent that they vvould adioine them sâ—lues as Cooperatours And yet now M. Nicholas will nor acknowledge him selfe a Cooperatour and ayder but sayth that in England Regulars are noe more ordamed to helpe secular Priests then they to helpe Regulars VVhich I suppose his brethren will not saye M. NICHOLAS In his fourth Chapter n. 2. he vvriteth that an Ordinarie must haue others to succeed him in the same authoritie vvithout any especiall grante c. Out of these vvords it most euidentlie follovveth thut my lord of Chalcedon is no Ordinarie he cause he hath no successour in his authority vvithout an especiall nevv grante THE REPLY What ordinary M. Doctour meaneth 8. M. Doctour speaketh of an Ordinarie made by an ordinarie course and meanes and it is most true that such an one hath others to succeed him in the same authoritie without any new speciall grante and therfore because a Bishop is Ordinarie when he dyeth or leaueth the place another Bishop is to succeèd who in that he is elected and confirmed Bishop of such a place hath the power and iurisdiction belonging to it without any new especiall grant But M. Doctour denyeth not but that by an especiall graÌ„t and by commissioÌ„ the Pope may make my lord of ChalcedoÌ„ Ordinarie of EnglaÌ„d VVhether he hath or noe I thought not to haue disputed but because M. Nicholas not only in this but also in other places still accuseth M. Doctour as though he derogated to my lord of Chalcedon his ordinariship and carpeth at it as though it were most certaine that he is not Ordinarie I will demand only of M. Nicholas what it is that is wanting in my lord to make him ordinarie 9. There wanted not power in the cause efficient or him that gaue him the power of an Ordinarie ouer all England for that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis fulnes of povver gaue him his authoritie And Syluester sayth Ordinariam iurisdictionem dant quatuor Primo lex inanimata vel Canon 2. Silu. verbo iurisd Lex animata vt Papa vel Imperator 3. Consuetude 4. Vniuersitas approbata vt mercatorum c. similiter vniuersitas facultatum artium vel legistarum Fovvre doe giue ordinarie iurisdiction First the dead lavve or Canon 2. The liuing lavve as the Pope or Emperour 3. Custome 4. An approued companie or communitie as of merchants c. and likevvise an vniuersitie or companie of the faculties of artes or of lavviers VVherfore seing the Pope gaue my lord of Chalcedon his iurisdiction there was no waÌ„t of power in him to make him Ordinarie And seing that the Pope made him Pastour of England as his letters doe witnesse there wanted not lex inanimata the dead lavv or canon for that the law and canon giueth to him that is Pastour all power belonging to his Pastourship 10. M. Nicholas will saye that he was made by delegatioÌ„ and commission and so is only delegate not Ordinarie But although this may hinder him froÌ„ being made Ordinarie according to the ordinarie course yet it hindreth him not from being made Ordinarie after an extraordinarie manner that is by delegation and commission 11. For first according to the receiued Axiom of lawâ—ers Delegaius à Principe ad vniuersitatem causarum est ordinarius He that is delegated by the Prince as my lord of ChalcedoÌ„ was by the cheefe visible and spirituall Prince of the Church the Pope to an vniuersitie of causes is an Ordinarie 12. Secondlie a Commissarie Generall who is made by commission is as Rodericus sayth an ordinarie and his reason is Rod. to 1. q. 51. art 3. Glos in c cum ab Eccl. Praelat De Of. Ordin Pan. in c susp de offic del n. 9. Innoc. in c. l. 1 in c. ad hoc de off Archi. Sylis V. del n. 1. because eligitur à communitate he is elected by a communitie VVhich Rodericus sayth is determined by a generall Chapter called PincianuÌ„ confirmed by Apostolicall authoritie And againe he sayth that the rule which sayth that a delegate cannot subdelegate doth not hold in him vvho is delegated ad vniuersitatem causarum to an vniuersitie of causes 13. Thirdly the Popes legate is made by commission and delegation and yet he is ordinarie as Syluester teacheth For sayth he Legatus est is cui a Papa certa patria vel prouincia committitur gubernanda A legate is he to vvhom by the Pope a certaine countrie or prouince is committed to be gouerned And this he proueth out of the Decretalles in the sixt booke where Innocentius the fourth sayth that Legates Cap. leg de of leg in sexto to whom in certaine prouinces the office of a legate is committed are reputed ordinaries 14. Fourthlie a Vicar Generall of the Bishop is Ordinarie and yet he is made by commission as Germonius affirmeth and Sanchez Lib. 1. Anim. c. 6. Sanch. tom 1. l. 3. de consensu cland disp 29. qu. 1. concl 1. ad 2. who affirmeth also that he is Ordinarie proueth it because the Bishop and his Vicar Generall haue one Tribunal And sayth he a vice gerent in a diuers Tribunal is delegate but in the same Tribunal he is Ordinarie and may assist at marriage as an Ordinarie Pastour 15. If M. Nicholas obiect that my lord of ChalcedoÌ„ is constituted ad beneplacitum Papae at the pleasure of the Pope neither will that hinder his Ordinariship for that a legate is
constituted also ad beneplacitum Papae and yet as we haue proued out of Syluester and the Canon law he is Ordinarie And so it wil be hard fellowing the opinion of these Auctours for I will say nothing of my selfe but referre the determination of this to Superiours for M. Nicholas to exclude my lord of Chalcedon from being an Ordinarie by commission or delegation If this anger M. Nicholas let him blame him selfe for that I would not haue touched this point if he had not prouoked me In his fourth number he taxeth M. Doctour for alleaging S. Ambrose 1. Tim. 3. the booke being doubfull But M. Doctour hauing alleaged other proofes to proue that the Bishop hath an higher ranke in the Church then the Priest and writers vsing to alleage diuers bookes of Fathers which yet are doubted of by some this M. Nicholas might haue ouerpassed M. NICHOLAS Here nu 14. he teacheth that Catholiques ought to contribute maintenance to my lord of Chalcedon n. 5. THE REPLY This M. Nicholas should not haue obiected 16. M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctour a beggar for my lord of Chalcedons maintenaunce wherin he sheweth litle respect to my lord M. Doctour only alleaged S. Paule 1. Ti. 5. to proue that Priests or Bishops vvho rule vvell should be esteemed vvorthie of double honour that is not only of the honour of cappe and knee but also of honourable maintenaunce and therfore we see that Bishops and Pastours are by the Church honourably prouided for But M. Nicholas obiecteth that S. S. Th. 2 2.188 ar 4 ad 5. Thomas sayth that the people are not bound in iustice S. Thomas his words are ex debito iuris to prouide for the expenses of others besides Ordinaries To which he is easily answered for that S. Thomas supposeth that the people hath their ordinarie Pastours who receiue their ordinarie Tithes and other renenewes and then if any will voluntarilie preache vnto them they are not bound to maintayne them but when there are no ordinarie Pastors thē the people is bound to giue them competent maintenance whether they be ordinaries or delegates for as S. Paule sayth Who euer playeth the soldior at his ovvne charges vvho planteth a vine and eateth not of the fruite therof vvho feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milke of the flocke And as in the same place he sayth If vve haue sovven vnto you spirituall thinges is it a greate matter if vve reape your carnall thinges and a litle after they that serue the Altar participate vvith the Altar So also our lord ordained for them that preach the Ghospell to liue of the Ghospell S. Th. 2.2 q. 87. a. 1. And S. Thomas and other diuines affirme that by the lawe of nature the people is bound to giue in generall necessaries to them that minister vnto them the thinges that pertaine to the worship of God and their saluation as the same people is bound to minister necessaries to soldiers and Princes that fight for them or haue care of their common wealth though the determinate parte which diuines call quota and which in the old lawe was the tenth parte be of the positine lawe And so the Catholiques in England are bound to giue competent meanes not onely to their Bishop but also to their Priests though the Priests be not ordinarie Pastors To which I adde that in the opinion of the alleaged Auctours my lord of Chalcedon is an Ordinarie by commission VVhere as M. Nicholas n. 5. addeth that except for the Sacrament of Confirmation vvhich yet hath not been administred to many and vvhich also may be cōmitted to a Priest they finde not vvhat greater benefit lay Catholikes haue reaped by my lord Bishop then they may receiue from secular and regular Priests that rather since my lords comming some inconueniences haue happened vvhich they vvill not easilie be persvvaded they are bound to buye vvith mony that they cannot take much comfort to spare frō their ovvne necessities arising from daylie pressures for the maintenance of Agents I leaue this to the consideration of the iudicious and indifferent Reader whether in this he speaketh like a religious man yea or a zealous Catholique But for the like speeche to this he is a litle taken vp aboue pag. 123. n. 38. 18. But I meruayle that M. Nicholas should exaggerate as he doth n. 5. the charges to which the Bishop and Clergie put the Catholiques of England for the maintenance of their Agents in diuers places And many will think that M. Nicholas sheweth noe greate discretion or prudence to complaine of the charges to which the Bishop and Clergie put the Catholiques vnto considering that M. Nicholas and his brethren haue and doe daylie put the Catholiques to farre greater charges as appeareth by the statelie howses purchasses and many other expenses which commeth from the Catholiques states and purses But such thinges should not haue been mentioned but that M. Nicholas giueth the iust occasion 19. To that which M. Nicholas addeth in this questiō concerning a particular Church without a particular Bishop and a notable part of the Church without a Bishop and of a perfect Christian without Confirmation and of the Fathers and diuines alleaged by M. Doctour and of regulars state of perfection and of their being of the Hierarchie and all such pointes he is answered fullie as the reader will confesse if he reade my Reply to his former questions 20. And so that which he sayth n. 8. is litle to the purpose because M. Doctour in his cleuenth chapter of his Hierarchie intended only to shew that charitie is the perfection of a Christian life in that it vniteth vs to our first efficiēt and last end God That charitie vniteth vs to God M. Doctour proueth out of Scriptures and also by the effect of all loue which is to make two freinds one soule by affection in two bodyes as sayth M. Doctour S. Augustine confessed of him selfe and his freind who were he Nebridius of whom S. Augustine spake before in the third chapter stiling him charissimus mous amicus my most deare freind or another it was all one to M. Doctours purpose and so might by M. Nicholas haue been omitted but that he not able to answere to any maine point is enforced to take hold of euerie trifle The rest which M. Nicholas alleageth in this question is answered or else is not worthie any answere Only there resteth one thing which I shall examine in the next number M. NICHOLAS Jn this account of Popes martyrs M. Doctour is much mistaken for the 3. last Popes by him reckened namely Ioannes Syluerius and Martinus vvere long after Constantine c. qu. 7. n. 10. THE REPLY This errour is vvrongfullie fathered on M. Doctour 21. M. Doctour in his thirteenth chapter n. 5. to shew that in the greatest furie of persecution it was the custome of the primatiue Church not to except against Bishops as some now doe in England but to consecrate Popes and