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
so comprehendeth both that order only will make a man of the Hierarchie as it importeth distinction in order and iurisdiction onely will make him of the Hierarchie as it implyeth distinction in power of iurisdiction and if he haue both then by both titles he is of the Hierarchie To his other demaund n. 4. he is also answered in the Hierarchie chap. 5. n. 18. and 21. for if the fowre lesser orders be of the institutition of the Church as some Authours cited by M. Doctour affirme then they who are vnder Subdeacons are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the Churches lawe and institution and not by the diuine lawe and institution but if they be of the diuine institution then these Ministers who are vnder Subdeacons are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the diuine institutiō And seing that Regulars who are neither Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons nor Accolytes c. haue neither order nor iurisdiction ouer the Church as other Ministers of the Hierarchie haue they cannot as Regulars be of the Hierarchie And therfore if an Abbot had only primam Tonsuram the first Tonsure which is no order although he haue iurisdiction ouer his Monkes Yet he should not be of the Hierarchie of the Church because he hath neither order nor Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but only Regular And so an Abbot as Abbot though he haue ordinarie power in his Religious order is not so much of the Hierarchie as a Bishop delegated because an Abbot not Bishop Priest c. is not of the Hierarchie at all but the delegated Bishop hath both order and iurisdiction and so by both wayes is of the Hierarchie And therfore S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars from the Hierarchie and yet some of them had iurisdiction ouer other Monkes VVherefore Regulars must not take this in euill parte for I giue them as much as S. Denys and learned Regulars giue them and would giue them alfo this dignitie to be of the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie if ether Christe or his Church had giuen it vnto them M. NICHOLAS That Religious Superiours as such bee of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie S. Bernard cited by M. Doctour chap. 1. n. 17. doth expressely teache c. n. 5. THE REPLY S. Bernard is explicated I answere that S. Bernard must be so explicated S. Bernard l. 3. de consid c. 4. as that he doe not contradict S. Denys from vvhom as Mr Nicholas in this trulie sayth q. 6. n. 1. vve have the best and allmost onlie Treatises of the Hierarchie Certaine it is that S. Denys and his Translatours and Interpreters doe giue not place to Regulars amongest vvhom some vvere Abbots in the Hierarchie but doe place them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie and only about the laitie and therfore perchance S. Bernard putteth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie not because they are properlie of the Hierarchie but because they are eminent mēbers in the Churche and haue some resemblance by reason of their high ranke in their Religious orders with those that are of the Hierarchie And if I would take hold of euerie thing as M. Nicholas vseth to doe I could confirme this because S. Bernard in that place placeth Abbots after Priests S. Ber. l. 3. de consid c. 4. Or else S. Bernard rekeneth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie because in his tyme most of thē were Priests many had Episcopall authoritie in some things Bel. to 1. l. 1. de concil c. 15. and many were perchance then as according to Bellarmine they are now admitted by priuiledge or custome to haue their voice in generall Councels and so by the Ecclesiasticall lawe were of the Hierarchie as we shall hereafter in the end of this question declare 31. Now wheras M. Nicholas in the same place sayth that he hath reason to complaine of M. Doctours dealing in alleaging S. Bernard as if he had sayd that the Hierarchie of the Church is perturbed vvhen Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops iurisdiction vvheras S. Bernard in the verie same place vvhich M. Doctour cites doth in expresse vvords approue the exemption of Abbots from Bishops and only disliketh exemption procured out of a spirit of disobedience pride and ambition wheras I say he sayth he hath reason to complaine on M. Doctour it will proue that M. Doctour hath reason to complaine on him in making him say more then he doth for doth not S. Bernard say as much as M. Doctour imputeth to him Doth he not complaine in that chapter that the order of the Hierarchie was then perturbed by exemptions hath he not these complayning words Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis Episcopi Archiepiscopis Archiepiscopi Patriarchis sen Primatibus Bona ne species hac mirum si excusari queatvel opus Sic fac titando probatis vos habere plenitudinem potestatis sed iustitiae forte non ita Facit is hoc quia potestis sed virum debeatis quaestio est Honorum ac dignitatum gradus ordines quibusque suos seruare positi estis non inuidere Abbots are subtracted from Bishops Bishops from Archbishops Arch-Bishops frō Patriarches or Primates And these words only M. Doctour alleaged But S. Bernard as we haue seen goeth on further Bona ne species hac Is this a good shovve forsoothe if euē the vvorke it selfe can be excused by so doing You he speaketh to Pope Eugenius proue that you haue the fulnes of povver but perchance not so of iustice you doe this because you can but vvhether you should there is a question Wherfore If S. Bernard in speaking thus much against exemptiōs to wit which haue no lawfull cause doth not deny but that the Pope hath power and iust cause to exempte Abbots and Monasteries from the iurisdiction of the Bishop much lesse can M. Nicholas inferre against M. Doctour who sayd not so much as he that he is against all exemptions but as S. Bernard for all those words doth allow of exemptions when there is iust cause as when a Monasterie from the beginning hath been exempte so might M. Doctour and so he doth M. NICHOLAS Mauclerus also vvhom M. Doctour in his 10. chapter n. 23. stileth a learned Doctour of Sorbon compareth Superiours in Religion to the Principalities secular Pastours inferiours to Bishops to Archangels and Priests not Curates to Angelles n. 5. THE REPLY Mauclerus meaneth only that Superiours in Religion haue some similitude vvith Principalities 32. M. Nicholas now would place Superiours of Religion not only in the Hierarchie but in one of the highst rankes also for that he sayth Mauclerus compareth them to Principalities And I also honour them not only for their Religious state but also for their dignitie in Religion But if S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars amongest whō were Abbots from the Hierarchie and placeth them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie and aboue the laytie they cā not be of the Hierarchie vnles they be
his cogitation preferre thee before him self and againe vvhilest thou seest that he hath vvhat thou hast not thou mayst in cogitation ranke thy selfe after him that vvhat is vvritten moy be fulfilled Superiores sibi inuicem arbitrantes Eche counting others better then them selues So the same father a litle after sayth Philip. 2. hat S. Paule euen after his conuersion vvheÌ„ in sanctitie and perfection he vvas peraduenture inferiour to none yet considering vvhat the rest of the Apostles by Christe his grace then vvere and vvhat he by his sinne and hatred of Christians had been counted him selfe Apostolorum minimum the least of all the Apostles 1. Cor. â—â— and S. Peter not regarding his ovvne perfection admireth S. Paules vvisdome and learning shevved in his Epistles 2. Petr. 3. This hath beene the practise of Christe and his Mother as I sayd before in vvhich all the Sanctes of God haue imitated them And if vve practise the same mutuall consideratioÌ„ and comparison of our defectes vvith others perfections this mutuall consideration vvould cause mutuall loue and mutuall loue vvould cause mutuall prayse and mutuall prayse vvould cause mutuall humilitie for that the more vve prayse another the lesse vve esteened our selues and mutuall humilitie vvould take avvye all contention for that into humble mens consideration it neuer entreth vvhich is or should be greater and contention taken avvay a peace vvould fellovv Luc. 9. And indeed novv that the Regulars in England are all allmost Priests and haue the same authoritie that Priests haue the secular Priest hath inste cause to loue the Regular and in him his ovvne state and order and the Regular Priest hath good reason to respect the secular Priest Priesthood being the richest pearle of his crovvne and the fayrest flovver of his garland and not to think that he is dispraysed vvhen the Priest is commended The secular Priests vvho labour in the shippe of Peter vvilbe conteÌ„t to beckeÌ„ to their fellovve fishermen that are in another shippe that is in another state Luc 5. to come and helpe theÌ„ And the Regulars vvill vvith all charitie and respect also yeeld their helping â—arde The secular Priests hauing louinglie inuited them and the cheefe Pastour hauing sent them to that end And seing the haruest is great Gers de statu Curatorum confid 15. and the vvorke men fevve the secular Priests vvill as Gerson sayth they must benignelie and louinglie receiue them so that sayth Gerson they doe not de tract from the Pastours or seeke to bring them in contempt vvith their parishioners If both secular and Regular Priests vvould but looke backe to former freindlie offices vvhich haue passed betvvixt them it vvould be sufficient to make them renevv former freindship The tyme hath been vvhen the Clergie of England inuited the Iesuites to be partakers vvith theÌ„ of their merit and labours in the mission Our most learned and zelous Cardinal of most pious memorie the first founder of the English Seminarie to vvit of Dovvay and of the mission of Priests in to England in this tyme of Schisme vvriteth thus in his Apologie for the Priests chap. 6. Cum itaque nos ante aduerteremus paucis ab hinc mensibus cerneremus Anglorum nonnullos a superioribus Societatis Iesu ad Indos amandatos c. vvhen therfore vve perceiued and fevv monethes since did see that some English men by the Superiours of the Societie of Iesus vvere sent to the Indians vve demanded of them the Superiours that they vvho vvere of this nation should rather be reserued for the profit of their countrie then of externe nations to vvhich petition after mature deliberation had of that matter vvith great affection of charitie they yeelded The like D. Worthington President also of Dovvay College relateth in his Catalogue of our late English Martyrs Doctour Pitse also in his booke of the famous vvriters of England In Edmundo Campiano Conformablie to Cardinal Allen sayth Videntes autem sacerdotes nostri multam esse messem c. Our Priests seing that the Harnest vvas greate and Worke men fevv did earnestlie request the Fathers of the Societie of Iesus that they vvould adioine them selues as cooperatours and vvould send if not earlie in the morning at least at the third sixt or ninth hower of the day some of theirs to labour in the vineyeard of our lord And vvith vvhat charitie and respect the Priests receiued the first Jesuites extolled their order conducted them from place to place for their more safetie and to bring them acquainted vvhere they vvere not knovvn some yet liuing can tell and that trulie Religious and learned Iesuite Father Campion acknovvledgeth no lesse in an Epistle to his Generall saing Presbyteri nostrates ipsi doctrina sanctimonia prestantes tantam opinionem nostri ordinis excitarunt vt venerationem quam nobis exhibent Catholici non nisi timâ—dè commemorandam existimeÌ„ Our Priests they them selues excelling in learning and sanctitie haue raysed such an opinion of our order that I think the veneration which the Catholiques giue vs is not to be spoken of but fearefullie And vvill the Jesuites novv de tract from the good name of them vvho haue so much extolled their order and giuen â—t the first name and credit it had in England noe it can not be imagined And vvill the Jesuites seeke novv to supplante those vvho first planted them in England noe they vvill not and if heretofore any vvould hereaster they vvill not Nor vvill the secular Priests seeke novv to exclude Iesuites from the mission vvhom they haue louinglie inuited knovving that Turpius eijcitur quam non admittitur hospes T is better to deny a guest no doubt Admittance then admitted turne him out Rather both orders reflecting vppon these former friendlie offices vvill endeauour to renevv the former friendship The tyme also vvas vvhen the secular Priests shevved courtesies to the Benedictins and vvere so farre from hindering their vnion or mission into England that they helped to set forvvard both and had the Clergie opposed their mission as some others did and not rather furthered theÌ„ in their sute vvee should not haue had perchaunce at this Day a Benedictine in England This the Benedictins haue heretofore acknovvledged and must therfore haue respecte to the Clergie And if they reflect vpon the many good offices the Clergie hath done them and if the Clergie like vvise looke backe to the forner loue and old freindship vvhich bath been betvvixt them it vvill I hope renevv old friendship and take a vvaye all iarres and diuisions The tyme also vvas vvhen the Franciscans obteyned their mission of Clement the eight at the instance of Cardinall Allen vvhich notvvithstaÌ„ding the Pope had before refused at the instance of Cardinall Caietan as some yet aliue doe affirme vvho liued in Rome at that tyme. And the Reuerend Father F. Francis Nugent intending a mission of English Capucins vvrote to M. Birchet then Archpriest about the yeare 1611.
people vnited to the Bishop which England could not be when it had no Bishop It is true the Pope is Bishop of the whole Church and so of England as it was a member of the whole but he hauing neuer done there the office of a Bishop by himselfe or his delegate nor euer taking vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England he was not Englands particular Bishop and so England by him could be no particular Church 24. To M. Nicholas his similitude which he mamaketh betwixt God the first and vniuersall cause of all effectes and the Pope the vniuersall Bishop I answere that as God can supplie the externall actions of second causes called Actiones transeuntes therefore can produce heate without fire a man without a man a tree without a tree as he did in the first creation of things Yet he cannot as some hould produce immanent actiōs without their particular causes and powers so cannot produce the act of seing without the eye of hearing without the eare of loue without the will of vnderstading without the power of vnderstanding But how soeuer as God can produce the former externall actions without their particular causes and so supplie the second cause So the Pope if he be not onelie elected Pope but also consecrated can do all the actions by himselfe which Patriarches Archbishops Bishops Priests and other inferiour Ministers can do For he can ordaine Ministers and confirme the baptized with the Bishop he can consecrace absolue and minister other Sacraments and preach with the Priest Yea he can do other inferiour offices with the Deacon Subdeacon and therest though it be not so conuenient he should And soe as God cā be not onely an vniuersall but also a particular cause supplying the particular cause so the Pope can be a particular Bishop but then he must do the office of a particular Bishop by himselfe or his delegate or take the Title of that particular Church vnto him 25. That the Pope hath founded Seminaries of Priests for our countrie that he hath sent thether first Priests and then Religious men as M. Nicholas telleth vs n 8. and we all gratefullie acknowledge to preach and minister Sacramentes in our Countrie as this argueth his greate care of England and his no lesse charitie so it arguerh not as M. Nicholas would make his reader beleiue that he was our particular Bishop he neither by himselfe nor by his delegate doing the office of a Bishop in England nor euer hauing taken vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England And so since the decease of our ould Bishops to these late yeares in which his Holines sent vs twoe most worthie Bishops England was no particular Church because it had no particular Bishop to make it a particular Church 26. And by this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to all that he sayeth n. 8.9.10.12.13 In his 11. nūber he obiecteth against this that many places and persons are exempt from the Iurisdiction of a Bishop be fides the Pope neither did any man euer dreame that for that cause they ceased to be particular Churches I here pitie M. Nicholas his arguing and the necessitie he is driuen to which Cogit ad turpia For although monasteries be exempt from the Bishop and immediatlie subiect to the Pope yet no particular cōgregation or multitude that is a particular Church can be exempt from a particular Bishop as we haue proued out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church vnlesse the Pope make himselfe particular Bishop of it And therefore monasteries subiect onely to the Pope and exēpt from particular Bishops are indeed members of the Church but not a particular Church vnlesse M. Nicholas will make euerie nunnerie of woemen a particular Church 27. But here I cannot but meruayle that M. Nicholas thinketh it so strange that M. Doctour sayeth that there cannot be a particular Church without a Bishop and it should seeme thereby that he hath not much considered S. Thomas his doctrine in this pointe For that this learned Doctour sayeth D. Th. libr. 4. gent. c. 76. n. 4.1 p. q. 108. art 1.2.3 that the Church militant is deriued by similitude from the Triumphant and he sayeth also that euerie Order of the Angels consisteth of diuers Angels subordinate to one Prince who in this Doctours opinion is higher and perfecter in nature thē the rest and is the particular Prince of that Order and all the orders with their particular Princes are subiect to one supreme Angel who is Prince of the three Hierarchies and nine Orders of Angels And therefore in the Church militant in euerie notable parte of it there must be and most commonlie is a Bishop a spirituall Prince of that Church and all the particular Churches with their particular Hierarches and Bishops are subordinate to one supreme Bishop the Pope as M. Doctour hath proued in the 3. and 4. Chapter of his Hierarchie And therefore in his 2. Chapter he sayeth that the Church is compared to a Kingdome in which besides the King are Dukes Earles Marquises Barons c. who are princes in their kinde of their particular dominions and all are with their Dominions Lordships subordinate to the King and if any of these particular dominions be quite depriued of their Duke or Earle they are no more Dutchies or Earledomes though still they be members of the Kingdome and so that particular Prouince depriued of its Duke or Earle giueth not that lustre to the Kingdome which it hath by other particular Lordships and bodyes of the Kingdome 28. In like manner the Church being a Hierarchie is cōposed of diuers particular Churches of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop who is not the Popes delegate but an ordinarie and a Prince in his kind and the Church receiueth by this varietie of particular Bishops particular Churches a greate lustre And when any notable parte of it wanteth its particular Bishop and spirituall prince although the Church remaine still a Hierarchie in respect of other particular Churches which haue their particular Hierarche and Bishop yet in respect of that parte of the Church which hath no Bishop and which therefore is not a particular Church or body it is not perfectlie Hierarchicall nor hath it by that parte of the Church that varietie and lustre which it hath by other parts of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop 29. Wherefore when the Pope giueth to a countrie a delegated Bishop though many times he giueth to the delegate more power then the ordinarie hath although that countrie then be in its kinde a particular Church yet it wanteth some perfection it being not gouerned by an ordinarie Bishop and Pastour as other Churches are it being more perfect and more honorable to haue an ordinarie then a delegate And likewise if the Pope should send a simple Priest into Englād with power to confirme England should be in its kinde a particular Church but not in that degree of
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
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