Trent that the same doctrine is declayed in the Councell of Florence decreto vnionts I haue bene credibly informed that the Abbot of Monte Cassino of the holy order of S. Bennet hath authority to confirme and Petrus Arcudius in a learned volume written of the agreement betwixt the Latine Pelr. Arcudius de concordia Ecclesâ—e Ocâ—idemalis Oâ—â—etalis in sâ—ptâ—m Sacramen or iâ— administration 〈◊〉 â— 2 cap. and Greeke Church in the administration of the seauen Sacraments witnesseth that in the hearing of diuers other of the Greeke Colledge in Rome he was told by a graue Father of the Society of Iesus by name Petrus Fonseca who came to Rome the yeare 1593. that some principal meÌ„ of the sayd Order had authority to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and further the same Father certainely auouched that himselfe was wont to administer the said SacrameÌ„t in Brasile where there was kept the Popes Graunt of such authority Also the same Arcudius writes that others relate how Adrian the 6 a very learned and pious Pope the yeare 1521. vpon the 25. of Aprill graunted for the Indies and countrie destitute of Bishops that Priests Minorites might confirme and that an Authenticall of the Graunt is kept at Seuill in the conuent of glorious S. Francis his Order Moreouer Arcudius alleadgeth ancieÌ„nt Greeke Fathers to prooue that euen before the schisme it was the practise of the Greeke Church to haue confirmation administred by Priests with particular commission to that effect And to take away all scruple Ita Suarez coninck Henriquez quos citat sâ—quitur Pauâ—us â—atâ—â—â— lib. 5. trâ—ctâ—t 3. cap. â— a. 1 some great Deuines doe teach that although such commission ought not to be graÌ„ted without iust cause yet it is of force and valid howsoeuer it be graunted because it is not properly a dispensaâ—ion in the lawe of Christ but rather a commission of power according to Christs insticution which is that the Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation should be a Priest by coÌ„mission from the supreame Pastour of Gods Church If M. Doct. hold against the common doctrine of Deuines and practise of most learned and holy Popes who haue committed the Sacrament of confirmation to Priests then he must vndertake a new and hard taske and prooue that euen for that slender probability which his opinion hath if it hath any Catholicks must rather suffer increase of persecution then not make all sure by hauing a Bishop for coÌ„firmation which is a thing he will neuer be able to prooue espcially seeing Popes content themselues with the said doctrine euen in countries where Bishops might be emoyed with lesse danger then in England 9 Yet although we should grant that Catholicks were bound to receiue the Sacrament of Confirmation and to receiue it from a Bishop it followes not that it must be had from a Bishop subiect at least to all those penall lawes which are enacted against English Catholicks and Priests For matters might be so disposed as some Bishop from abroad and onely taking England â—s it were by the way might coÌ„firme more in three moneths then my Lord of Chalcedon in seauen yeares according to the proportion kept since the tymes waxed more hard especially if such a Bishop did administer Confirmation to children according to the common practise of the Church in auntient times and of the Easterne Church at this day and as some relate of some countrey neerer vs where children two or three yeares old are wont to be confirmed See Layman lib. 5. tract 3. cap. 6. n. 1. which practise may seeme very fit for our countrey both because Confirmation cannot often and easily be had and also that by this meanes children during the time of innocency when they are sure to receiue the grace of the Sacrament might be armed against the dangers of future persecution But in this if any difficulty appeare his Holinesse would vouchsafe to ordaine what might be most expedient for the particular case of England and by this meanes within some compasse of yeares most Catholicks liuing would finde themselues to haue the Sacrament of Confirmation 10 Further if we did yeild to M. Doctour that for some sort of persecution though very great we ought not to want the Sacrament of confirmation yet when the persecution is of such nature that it hindereth the Bishop from administring that very Sacrament for which he comes except but to a fewe no man can with reason say that such a persecution doth not excuse from obligation of receuing that Sacrament from a Bishop That our persecution is of this quality experience tels vs. 11 Moueroner we must still remember the nuÌ„ber of Catholickes in England which I haue touched in the precedent question and that of those Catholicks all the clergy haue had Confirmation abroad as likewise diuers of the layety either in Seminaries or otherwise in theâ—r trauels those who are in England being so secret and dispersed as they are diuers of them could scarcely haue that Sacrament although a Bishop should be still in England all which considered we shall finde that the nuÌ„ber of those who want and can receiue the foresaid Sacrament is not so great as at first sight may seeme therefore still the difficulty on M. Doctors side is greater to prooue that for such a nuÌ„ber it is necessary to haue a Bishop for ConfirmatioÌ„ although by that meanes the persecutioÌ„ should be increased against all 12 Finally though we should grant all and more then with reason can be desired yet M. Doctour will not haue prooued his intent till first he effect an impossibility namely that this his opinion which he is the first to put in print is so euident and certaine that the contray is voide of probability For till then Catholicks are sure they may with a safe consience keepe their goods liberties and liues for some more necessary and better warranted oâ—casion by conforming their practise to the coÌ„trary of that which M. Doctour teacheth especially seeing he himselfe in his 14. chap. n. 3. doth but fearefully deliuer this doctrine saying I am of opinion which I humbly sâ—bmit to authority that a particulâ—r Church cannot except any long time against hauing a Bishop for feare of persecution And n 8. he only sayth I thinke neyther any Country nor any one of the Country for feare of persecutioÌ„ can oppose against the comming in of a Bishop though thereby only the sacrament of Confirmation should be wanting We see according to his owne confession it is but his opinion and thinking which I hope he will not not binde all other to followe although it were in deede probable as I haue demonstrated it not to be 13 And I should wish M. Doctour to be of my mind if it were but least otherwise he might seeme to dissent in iudgment from my Lord of Chalcedon himselfe who vpon occasion of speach about some authority nothing touching Confirmation which his Lordship pretended said plainely that
inference out of S. Cyprians wordes so often inculcated that the Church is Sacerdoti plebs adunata c. and an explication he giues of those other words of the same Father Thou must knowe that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop are plainly confuted as nothing consonant to S. Cyprians intention 10 This 13. Chapter the Reader will find answered for as much as needes explication in my 3. Question Chapt. 13. where all the examples he draweth from the African Church are at large discussed To prooue that notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution raised particularly by occasion of Bishops yet the Church must of necessity haue Bishops n. 5. he writes thus Wherfore as we may gather out of the Ecclesiasticall histories from the cruell Tyrant Nero to the Clement Emperour Constantine the Great there was scarce any Bishop of Rome who was not a Martyr or who at least suffered not great persecution Twenty seuen of them are commonly auouched for Martyrs to wit Peter Line c. and in his margent he hath 27. Popes Martyrs before the time of Constantine But in this account M. Doctour is much mistaken For the three last Popes by him reckoned namely Ioannes Siluerius and Martinus were long after Constantine who reigned the yeare of our Lord three hundred six two hundred forty nine years after Nero whose raigne was fifty seauen yeares after our Sauiour wheras Ioannes was made Pope foure hundred sixty seauen yeares after Nero and Siluerius thirteene yeares after Ioannes Martinus the yeare of our Lord six huÌ„dred forty nine after Nero fiue hundred ninety two years so that vpon the whole account in the first two M. Doctour erreth more theÌ„ two hundred twenty yeares in the space of only foure hundred sixty seauen and in the last namely Martinus he erreth three huÌ„dred forty three yeares in the space of fiue-hundred ninety two which is more then halfe Besids these last three were made Popes in times which did not particularly oppose the Creation of Popes or Bishops for which M. Doctour produceth them but they suffered in time of Christianity namely Ioannes vnder Iustinus the elder by the hereticall King Theodoricusâ—â— Siluerius by Theodora the Empresse and Martinus vnder Constans the Hereticall Emperour Still M. Doctour is found not to be so exact as one would haue expected 11 For the answere of his 14. Chapter Chap. 14. the Reader may be pleased to read what I haue sayd quest 2.3.4 Num. 3. He sayth that England was long without a Bishop because Superiours were informed that he would presently be taken and put to death If any reasons were proposed to Superiours concerning the difficulties of hauing a Bishop in England I suppose they were other reasons then this mentioned by M. Doctour But this is a businesse which belongs not to me Neuerthelesse M. Doct. in his next following 15. chapter seemeth to contradict what heere he sayth and to make good this very reason which heere he impugneth For in that chapter n. 6. he telleth vs that King â—ames of famous memory after he knew that the Bishop was entred and was in London he would not coÌ„maund him to be apprehended as he might easily both in London and any part of England Kings hauing long and powerfull armes 12 His 15. chapter Chapt. 15. is to prooue that to haue a Bishop in England cannot probably increase persecution It were easie to shew how insufficient M. Doctours arguments are if it were conuenient to enter into some particulars from which it is better to abstaine although M. Doctour hath taken the freedome to do otherwise Wherefore the iudicious reader wil be pleased to excuse me from answering M. Doctours arguments in patticular which may be done onely by distinguishing what indeed ought to be and what is likely will or rather hath already happened by reason of the present circumstances in our countrey and his arguments do also prooue that the whose profession and practise of Catholicke Religion ought in reason to be tollerated in England which is a thing in it selfe most true yet we finde the contrary by experience 13 Num. 10. He sayth that my Lord of Chalcedon hath onely a generall â—â—â—rituall power and Iurisdiction ouer the Cleargy and lay Catholicks in spirituall matters I haue noe intention to dispute of my Lords authority But this proposition of M. D. makes good what I said in my first Question that he will either displease my Lord by extenuating his Authority or else make such his authority dreadfull to Catholicks For if this generall authority which he giues to my Lord be onely in foro interno then it taketh from my Lord power to make a certaine Hierarchy of Vicar Generals Arch deacons c. for such offices are for authority in fâ—ro externo to meddle with Matrimoniall causes to prooue Wills dispose of pious Legacies visit Catholicks houses erect a Tribunall c. and hence it further is clearely deduced that my Lord is Ordinary neyther in name nor power For Ordinaries can do these things mentioned yea this is also manifest by what M. Doctour teacheth that my Lord of Chalcedon can challenge No Bishopricke no not so much as the poorest Parish in England Ergo according to M. Doctour my Lord of ChalcedoÌ„ hath not for England all the Faculties which other Ordinaries haue who certainly can challenge some one particular Diocesse and diuers particular Parishes Moreouer seeing M. Doctour teacheth that my Lord hath noe Title giuen him to any particular Bishopricke in England but onely to Chalcedon he must consequently auerte that my Lord cannot giue the â—â—â—les of Vicar Generall Archdeacon c. of London or any other place seeing my Lord himselfe hath noe such Title nor is Bishop of London or any other Diocesse If M. Doctours meaning be that my Lords generall spirituall power ouer lay Catholicks is also in foro externo and exteÌ„ds it selfe to the things aboue meÌ„tioned then Catholicks haue already told my L. in a letter directed to his Lordship how preiudiciall such an Authority must be to them To say my Lord hath such power but is resolued not to practise it will not satisfy because they are loath all their security should depend vpon the free will or particular dictamen of a man although neuer soe learned and wise who either vpon some new occurring motiues and reasons or by the instigation of others may alter his minde and practise that which himselfe once had no intention to practise And they will thinke that they are lesse to be blamed for such a feare seeing my Lord claymed an authority for example of approouing regulars for hearing the Confessions of secular persons which prooued not to be due vnto him which did concerne euen the lay Catholicks in highest degree for who would not rather haue their bodies disioynted on the racke then their soules tormented with scruple of inualid Confessions they will I say thinke it no vnreasonable feare that if
Ordinary thereof Baron Tom. 11. ann Dai. 1049. Leon. 9. ann â— n. 6. Adeò fuit saith Baroâ—ius suae Tullensis Ecclesia amator vt licet Romanus Pontifex creatus esset tamen titulum priorem non reliquerit volueritque dum vixiâ— dici etiam Tullensis Episcopus I demand whether the Church of Tull was not a particular Church or rather whether it was not a Fauourite Church singularly graced by hauing him for particular Bishop who was Pastour of the whole world If Leo onely for deuotion to that particular Church thought he did it no wrong in leauing it without any Ordinary beside himselfe with what shaddow of probâ—bâ—â—ty can any man say that England when of necessity it was destitute of Bishops could not be a particular Church and haue for immeâ—â—te partilâ—r Bishop the Successonâ— of Leo the 9. Vrbaâ—e the 8 whome I beseech God â—ong to preserue for the common good of his vniuersall Church and particular comfort of our afflicted Catholicks 10 Loreto and Recanati in Italy and the like may be said of other plâ—ces but I willingly name that most saded house wherein the eternall Word was made flesh and dwelled in vs are two distincte Diocesses vnder one Bishop and my Lord Bishop once styled himselfe Ordinary both of England and Scotland beside the Church of Chalcedon ergo euery particular Church need not haue it owne particular distinct Bishop much more may the Pope be particular Bishop of more theÌ„ one Church In the Church of God there are many places persons exempt from the iurisdiction of al Bishops beside the Pope neither did any maÌ„ euer dreame that for that câ—use they ceased to be particular Churches Rather such exaÌ„ptions were accouÌ„ted fauours such immeâ—iat subiectioÌ„ to the Pope a great honourâ—til now M. Doctour tels the world that the Church of Saiui Iohn Lateâ—an of Tull of all exempted places persoÌ„s neither haue bene nor shal be particular Churches till they be taken from the Popes particular chardge and put in the hands of some other Bishop that in coâ—setence they are oblâ—ged to endure whatsoeuer presecution for the enioying such a Bishop 12 I thinke M. Doctour wil not say if a Bishop vpon iust causes should take the particular care of some one parish gouerne it by his delegates or Chaplines himselfe remayning the only Ordinary Pastour of it that it should therefore ceâ—se to be a particular parish or if a King to grace some city or Prouince of his Kingdom should make himselfe the particular gouernour of such a prouince or city that therefore they should not be particular cityes or prouinces and the like may be sayd of a Generall of an army in respect of some particular Regiment with what reason then can we say that the Pope who is Bishop of the whole Church may not also be particular Bishop of some one country and that country still remaine a particular Church Truly I cannot imagin vpon what ground any man can frame such a conceit except vpon this inference The Pope is vniuersall Bishop of the vniuersal Church ergo he cannot be particular Bishop of a particular Church because vniuersal and particular are termes incompatible and repugnant to be in one and the same person or subiect To which argument I will vouchsafe noe other answere then that it seemeth the very same forme of disputing which hereticks vulgarly vse against Catholicks as vttering contradictories and non-sence while we ioyne together Ecclesia Catholica Romana the vniuersall Roman Church because forsooth a Church Vniuersal and Particular are contradictory tearmes 13 But let vs suppose that which caÌ„ neuer be proued or rather the coÌ„trary wherof is most manifest let vs I say suppose that the Pope cannot be a particular Bishop of a particular church I aske whether for the existeÌ„ce of a particular church it be not sufficieÌ„t that it be gouernd by such as froÌ„ his Holines receiue Delegated power for al occasions that may require iurisdictioÌ„ If he affirme that such a particular Church may be then I inferre that a Bishop is not necessary for the making a particular Church because whatsoeuer iurisdictioÌ„ any Bishop hath the like may be grated to others not Bishops If he deny that Delegate authority is sufficient to make a particular Church then he must shew me how England by hauing a Bishop is yet become a particular Church if so it be that the sayd Bishop be onely Delegate and not Ordinary of place of all sortes of persons both Catholickes and hereticks not onely ad beneplacitum c. as Scriptures Fathers and Canons speake of Bishops which power my Lord of Chalcedon doth not challenge and M. Doctour professeth to abstayne from that whole controuersie and so he must eyther answere his owne argument or else confesse that as yet we are no particular Church 14 My last taske was to shew that although we shoulâ— freely yeild our selues to be no particular Church without a Bishop yet it were not sufficient to prooue that a Bishop could not be refused by reason of persecution This is easily done by requiring of M. Doctour that which of his owne accord he should first of all haue performed namely seeing he will needs haue a particular Church to be only that which hath a particular Bishop he ought to bring some precept of God or the Church obligeing vs to be a particular Church in his sense and why it is not sufficient for vs to be members of the Catholicke Church in obedieÌ„ce to our Supreame Pastour the Vicar of Christ as our constant Confessours and glorious Martyrs before we had a Bishop liued in sâ—nctity and dyed for iustice in profession of the Catholicke fayth 15 Neyther were this sufficientâ— though it be more then euer he wil be able to performe vnlesse he could further prooue that such a precept were vndispensable or did binde with whatsoeuer inconuenience because there are many deuine precepts for example Vowes materiall Integrity of Confession Residence of Bishops c. which do not binde alwayes nor in all cases or are not by the Vicar of Christ dispensable and vntill he haue prooued this his imaginary precept not to be of such a kinde he is as neere as he was For certainâ—ly if any cause may yeild a lawfull excuse or require dispensation a iust feaâ—e of loosing goods liberty and life which case M. Doctour directly supposeth in his assertioÌ„ may yeild a most reasonable excuse oâ— cause of dispensation and for the transgressour plead not guilty 16 The reason which M Doctour added that as the whole Church hath one Supreame Bishop to gouerne it so euery particular Church also must haue us Bishop or Bishops else it should not be a particular Church and so tâ—e whole and Vniuersall Church should no as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composeâ— of diuers particular Churches deâ—erâ—eâ—n no answere For who dare say that there is as much necessity or obligation to haue a Bishop
blasphemous Arians who denâ—â—â—our deare Sauiours Deuinity in sonâ—â—iefest Catholicke citty haue free vse their abhominable churches and thâ— otherwise not onely the Bishop that shâ— ordayned in EnglaÌ„d with the whole tholicke Cleargy of that country but aâ— all Bishops of some other large Cathoâ—e Prouynces with their Cleargy shalbâ—nt to forrayne barbarous countries anâ—â—is you must doe and not be appeased 〈◊〉 though your Superiour and the Superâ—â—ur of the Bishop himselfe to wit your and his lawfull Primate togeather with ther Bishops should be of another mind and should vtterly dislike the hauing oâ— Bishop vpoÌ„ such conditions for so did â—he people of Carthage against the iudgâ—â—ent of Victor their Primate and of the â—ther African Bishops Were not this a vey pious exhortation teaching men with the same breath to desire a Bishop and disobey Bishops And yet M. Doctour in effect sayth so while very pathetically he beggs of English catholicks an imitation of the Carthaginian peoples fact 22 His second example maketh nothing to our present purpose For it telleth vs onely that the catholicks lamented and who would not haue so done when their Bishops Priests Deacons other Catholicks to the number of foure thousand nine hundred sixâ—â—e six which number why did M. Doctour omit to translate into English hauing translated the words immediately both precedent and subsequent were sent into banishment But what is all this Can we not haue Priests be baptized absolued from our sinnes buryed enioy the comfort of the holy Masse without Bishops and yet as we haue seene want of the sayd helps was that which caused such lamentations amoÌ„g those good Catholicks who at one time were depriued not onely of Bishops but also of their Preists and Deacons This example being so farre from the purpose I meruaile he would coople with it a certayne wherefore saying wherefore as for other poynts of fayth we must dye so we must dye rather then deny the Hier aroby of the church Which consisteth principally of Bishops To dye for the defence of the Hierarchie of the church is indeed sufficient cause of martyrdome but I neither vnderstand how that truth is aptly deduced from the sayd example nor can any body beleeue that he were a martyr who should dye for defence of the necessity of a Bishop in Englard or for defence of some particuler pretence of authority which a Bishop in England might make although perhapps M. Doctour might not thinke it impossible but that his booke being in English â—ome vnlearned person might take all these for one and so thinke himselfe a happy man and a martyr by defending and dying for whatsoeuer authority a particular Bishop might pretend I deleeue M. Doctour himselfe would be loath to die for such causes 23 To his third example of Trasamundus commanding noe Bishops to be ordayned in place of those that dyed that so without further persecution the churches might faâ—le I haue answered already and now will onely note M. Doctours translation of a word for his purpose Cogitantes â—uâ—â—regis iracundiam mitig andam aut coronandos etiam sidei confessione quos dignos inueniebant promotione Thinking that cyther the Kings wrath would be mitigated or that they who were found worthy of promotion should also be crowned by the câ—fession of their fayth this M. Doctour translateth with the confession of their ministery that so some might thinke it a point of martyrdome to confesse the practise of some particular Bishops pretended authority otherwise I see not why he should change fayth into ministery THE FOVRTH QVESTION whether a country although the persecution should be eâ—creased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were only for the sacrament of Confirmation 1 FIRST we protest that by Gods holy assistance we doe euer will reuerence the sacrament of Confirmation noe lesse then others who nowe vpon particular designes doe so much vrge the necessity thereof And further I declate that for my particular I am ready to followe any mâ—st seuere opinions of whatsoeuer approoued Catholick Deuine when that Sacrament may conueniently be had and am persawded that in such case the neglect of so great a benefit cannot be pleasing to almighty God But to put vpon mens consciences so strict an obligation notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution to be raised by the very occasion of enioying that Sacrament is more then can be warranted by scripture or any tradition or definition of the Church or by any Decree of any Pope or for ought I know by the testimony of any one sinâ—le Catholick Deuine whose works are come to publick view or can be prooued by any good Theologicall argument And besides this to affirme that not withstanding whatsoeuer persecution we must not only receiue that Sacrament but must haue it only from a Bishop and from a Bishop of England or bâ—longiâ—g to that Kingdome all which points M. Doctour must prooue before he prooue his intent is a thing which noe Author Thomist Scotist or Nominalist not Doctour Secular or Regular euer taught or caÌ„ enter into the deliberate thought of any reasonable Deuine much lesse is it a doctrine to be broached vpoÌ„ so weake mistaken or ill applied grounds as I hope todemoÌ„strat M. Doctours reason to be 2 True it is the Sacrament of Confirmation was instituted for giuing of grace to professe our Faith and S Thomas teacheth that by it a man receiueth augmentation S. Tho. 3. p. q. 65. a â—â—n corp and groweth which yet cannot be so vnderstood as if this Sacrament were the only meanes to attaine such spirituall groweth Tanner Tom. 4. disp 4 q 4. dub 2. n. 43. profâ—ssio fideâ— debita suo quidem tempore est necessaria sed ad quaÌ„ eliaÌ„ ord naria gratiae aâ—xilia suâ—â—iciut For the cofâ—ssio of our paith the ordinary beâ—ps of grace are suâ—â—câ—e it S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. a. 2. ad 1. because by other Sacraments ordinary helps of almighty God we may receaue the effect of that same grace which is giuen in confirmation euery one according to the measure of grace communicated by God and secoÌ„ded with the cooperation of mans free-will as the Apostles in Pentecost in an extraordinary measure receaued the holy Ghost without the Sacrament of Confirmation rem Sacramenti sine sacarmento faith S. Thomas the grace of the Sacrament without the sacrament and the like he teacheth of those Christians of whom S. Peter Act. 11. Saieth Cùm caepissem loqui cecidit Spiritus Sanctus super cos sicut et in nos in principio when I had begun to speake the Holy Gost descended vpon them as it did vpon vs in the beginning 3 There is great difference betwixt corporall and spirituall growth Corporal growth is by augmentation or extention of Quantity and although one should neuer so much increase in health strength good colour and the like yet because these are within the compasse of the Predicament of Quality different toto genere
as I related in my 5. Question Regulars are more sit for that employment then Seculars What he saith that such Religious were not by the deuine law ordained to preach as Bishops and Priests are hath been answered in the same 5. Question where I shewed that neither Secular nor Regular Priests caÌ„n preach without authority and that Religious be as capable of such authority and Office as Seculars So as if he compare a right Secular with Religious he will in this find no difference And I may add that Regular Priests of such orders as M. Doctour mentioned in the obiection haue a particular kind of right or as I may say dispositionem proximam to such functions which secular Priests precisely by being Priests haue not For although Regular Priests of such Orders haue no actuall Iurisdiction or authority for the exercise of such Actions till they receiue it from their Superiours yet by their Institute they haue a kind of right to haue such authority graunted by their Superiours who without iust cause ought not to debarre them of that to which they haue obliged themselues by vndertaking that particular course of Religious life But Secular Priests haue no obligation to such functions vnlesse they be made Pastours and take care of soules which thousands neuer do nor haue any obligation to vndertake such a charge Of the Apostles vow of pouerty whereof n. 19. he taketh a needlesse occasion to treate by reason of an obiection which himselfe maketh I haue spoken something in my 5. Question wish that some more able would do it more at large In the end of the same number he saith that although we suppose the Apostles had bene Religious men yet Christ gaue them not power to preach c. as they were Religious but as they were Bishops and Priests so in this not the Regulars but the Seculars to wit Bishops Priests do succeed the Apostles A strange speach Because Bishops succeed the Apostles therefore not the Regulars but the Seculars succeed the Apostles as if the name of Bishop necessarily implied to be a Secular or as if Religious Bishops because they are not Secular cannot succeed the Apostles in the office of preaching c. 7 In his 10. Chap. 10. Chapter he treateth of the Dignity of Cardinals whom we Quest 6. haue shewed to be in a most eminent place of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy euen abstracting from all Power of Order or Iurisdiction 8 Here he treateth of the state of Religious men Chap. 11. and to this his Chapter answereth our 5. Question Num. 10. To proue that by loue two frindes are one soule he aleadgeth S. Augustine lib. 4. Confesse cap. 6. saying He thought himselfe halfe dead when his other halfe Nebridius was dead But euery woman that reades S. Augustines Confessions translated into English will see that M. doctour in this is much mistaken For that friend whose death S. Augustine in that place mentioneth died before the Saints owne conuersion as is cleare out of the 4. chap. of the 4. booke by M. Doctour cited whereas Nebridius was conuerted after S. Augustine as may be seene lib. 9. chap. 3. That friend died before S. Augustine went out of Africke Nebridius was with him in Italy And although this errour be not for the matter of much importance yet it sheweth how litle exact M. Doctour is in looking vpon his Authours In the 15 num he saith Some inferre that the Bishops mariage with his Church is fiâ—mer and more indissoluble then is mariage betwixt man aâ—d wifâ— which is contracted but not consummated because Matrimony conctracted only is dissolued by entrance into Religion but the mariage betwixt a Bishop and his Câ—urch cannot so be dissoâ—ued But M Doctour might heÌ„ce haue rather inferred the excellency of Religious Profession which dissolueth Matrimony only contracted which Episcopall Dignity doth not dissolue For certaine it is that the Bond of Mariage is more strict then the conctract of a Bishop with his Church that being certainely of the Deuine lawe this at least probably being only of the Churches Ordinance Daily we see Bishops leaue their Bishopricks by renounciation translation to some other Bishoprick c. But men cannot so leaue or change their wiues because the bond of mariage is more indissoluble If a Bishop elected and confirmed not in holy Orders do marry it is valid and the former contract with his Church is dissolued But if he were first married and afterward should take a Bishoprick the first bond as I said still remaineth All which are manifest arguments that the contract of Matrimony is stronger then that of the Bishop with his Church Wherfore the opinion of those â—uthors by M. Doctour not named must â—ot if we will haue it passe for good be â—nderstood absolutly as he seemeth to alâ—â—adge them but in some one particular respect namely that a Bishop cannot enter into Religion without particular leaue as maried persons may after Matrimony only contracted I say particular leaue for if we examine the matter well it wil be found that the bound of Matrimony is dissolued by Religious Profession only in vertue of the Churches Ordination and as it were by a generall dispensation thereby to testify the singular excellency of Religious State and so euen in this point there is not much difference bewixt maried persons and a Bishop who with leaue may also enter into Religion Num 16. he alleadgeth out of S. Hierom S. Hieron Ep. ad Rust Monach. Sic viue in Mâ—nasterio vt Clericus esse merearis So liue in thy mâ—â—aâ—â—eâ—y that thou mayst deserue to be a Clearke to pâ—ooue that when a Relâ—â—â—â—us man is made a Pastour he is preferred to an higher calling and to a vocation of greater perfection But by M. Doctours good leaue I find a man whom I must prefer before him bring a far different explication of S. Hieroms words S. Tho. 2.2 q. 184. a. 8. ad 4. For S. Thomas interprets those words as exhorting lay Religious men so to liue as they may deserue to be made Clearkes and noe doubt but Religious men being promoted to Orders are in a more perfect calling then Religious men who haue no such Orders and this interpretation saith S. Thomas is apparent by the very manner of speaking vsed by S. Hierom. And it is worth the noting that S. Thomas obiecteth against himselfe the said words of S. Hierom answereth them in the manner we haue seene in that very place where of set purpose he teacheth and prooueth that Religious Priests haue a more perfect calling then Secular Pastours So as M. Doctour both in the Assertion and in his Proofe expresly and directly opposeth S. Thomas whom yet he stiles the Prince of Deuines Vtri credendum Whom shall we beleiue S. Thomas or M. Doctour 9 For as much as may seeme doubtfull in his 12. chapt hath bene examined Quest 2. and 3. Particularly in my 2. Question his allegation and