Sacrifictâ—â—â—tuâ—â—xhibedus estâ— Vobiscum et not â—â—eebat pergere siliceret vs tali modo filios a patribus nulla necessit at separaret To whom do you leane vs maser able wretches whilst you goe to receaue your crownes Who shall giue vs the Sacrament of pennance and loose vs tyed with the bords of sinnes by the Indulgence of reconciliaâ—â—on For to you it was said whatsoeuer you shall loose vpoÌ„ earth it shal be loosed in heaneÌ„ Who shall bury vs with solemne prayers when we shall dy to whom the rite of the acuâ—â—â— sacrifice is to be exhibited We might haue gonne with you that so no necessâ—tâ— might separate the children from their Fathers After this example M. Doctour sayth thus Wherefore aâ— for otheâ— poynts of our Fayth we must dye rather then deny them so we must dye rather then aâ—â—y the Hierarchy of the Church it being a poynt of Fayth 4 His third example is out of Orosius relating how the Aâ—ian Tyrant Trâ—samundus commanced that the African Bishops should not ordayne any more Bishops in the place of those that dyed Orosius 〈…〉 â— 10 The Bishops considering that without Bishops their churches could not long subsist but would fall without any other persecuâ—â—on or violence vsed against them resolued to call a Councell And in that Councell all the Bishops with one consâ—â—t decreed notwithstanding the Tyrants Edict to the contrary to ordaine Bishops Cogitantes aut regis iâ— acundâ—am siqua forsan existeret mitigandam quo facilius ordinatâ—â—â—suis plebibus vâ—uerent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coranaâ—dos etiaâ— sides confessione quos dignos inuentebant promotione c. Thinking that the Kings wrath if any perchance should be would be mitigated or that they who were found worthy of promotion would be crowned with confessioâ— of their ministerie And good reason had they so to doe For as sayth Baronius Quaenam shes de Ecclesiâ—s â—astoribus destitutis vlterius reliqua esse poterat Baron An. Daâ— 504. conuulsis earum fundameÌ„tis ipâ—is quibus initibantur Episcopis What hope could there remayne for the Churches when their foundations to wit the Bishops to which they leaned and on which they depended were ruined and pulled vp Thus farre out of M. Doctour whose words I hane related at large that the reader might see all the force of these examples and out of the narrations themselues gather the answeres to them 5 In this question certaine it is that de â—ure diuino the Church must be goueâ—ned by Bishops that is in the whole Church of God there must be some Bishops but to affirme as M. Doctour doth that it is de iure diuino to haue a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England nâ—â—â—nely that there is such a precept but moreouer that hoe persecuioÌ„ can excuse the obligation therof or giue sufficieÌ„t cause of dispensation all which he must prooue if he will speake home is a paradox to speake sparingly without any shew of probability and which may seeme to taxe those Popes as ignorant of the deuine Law who for so many yeares esteemed it neither necessary nor expedient to send a Bishop into England neither when he was sent did they euer disputeâ— whether it was necessary â—ure diuino but all the deliberation was quid expediret what was expedient yea M. Doctour must finally answere his owne arguments which either prooue nothing at all or else prooue that his Holinesse is obliged to give vs an Ordinary for his reasons and examples are for such which is more then M. Doctour himselfe will â—uouch 6 And truly I cannot inâ—agine what way one should go about to prooue that vpon noe cause whatsoeuer the Pope can make himselfe particular Bishop of some particular Church especially for a tyme and gouerne it by his Delegates endued with sufficient power and still prouided that the sayd particular Church within or without it selfe haue meanes to be furnished with sufficient Priests and necessary Sacraments and helps 7 But although we should grant that as M. Doctour affirmeth a great or notable part of the church could not iuâ—re diuino be gourned without a Bishop yet that would be far from proouing that England as things now stand must needes haue a Bishop For if our country be considered not materially but formally as Deuines expresse themselues that is not the extent of land or multitude of people but the number of Catholickes which only can make a true church we shall find it to be more then far from a great or notable part of the Catholick church spred ouer the whole world And God grant that I might not with truth affirme the whole number of Catholicks in EnglaÌ„d ScotlaÌ„d also to be much lesse theÌ„ the nuÌ„ber of people in some one citty in this Kingdom Sure I am that my Lord of Chaloâ—don or some other in his behalfe in a certine writing called a Paralâ—â— sect 4. saith that all the Catholicks would scarce make one of diuers Bishopricks in England Now to affirme that one Dicocesse or citty or indeede not so much as one Diocesse or citty is a great or notable part of that Church which reacheth as far as the rising and setting of the sunne and that it must therefore iure diuino haue a Bishop so as no cause can excuse the want of one is a thing that I will not say noe deuine but euen noe man in his right Iudgment can affirme But by this we may see into what absurdities partiality may lead men though other wayes learned 8 Enough hath bene said to disprooue M. Doctours Tenet in this present question yet nothing will more disaduâ—â—age his assertion then when the reader shall by my answers clearely peÌ„rceiue his owne arguments either to go beside the matter or to prooue against himselfe 9 His first was taken out of Sotus affirming it to be deiure diuiâ—e of the dideuine lawe quôd in genere singulis c. that in generâ—l to euery paâ—ticular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision proper Bishops are to be applyed This authority is eyther against M. Doctour or nothing against vs. For ether we suppose that the antient diuision of diocesses remaine â—ot in England and Scotland and then according to M. Doctours vnderstanding of Sotus euery Diocesse in England and Scotland must â—ure diuino haue a particular Bishop which is absurd could neuer be the true meaning of so learned a man as Sotus was Or els we suppose that al Ecclesiastical deuision of Diocesseâ— in England hath ceased and then there is not by the deuine law due to England any Bishop according to this authority of Soto who only saith it is deiure diuino of deuine law that to euery particular Church proper Bishops are to be applyed according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision and therefore where there is no such diuision the wordes of Sotus haue noâ— place so that Deuine as he is alledged by M. Doctour is aginst himselfe 10 If the Reader
aske me what indeed is the true meaning of Sotus I answere his meaning is not that the Pope is obliged iure diuÌ„ino by deuine precept to institute this or that particular Diocesse or to giue particular Bishops to euery such particular Diocesse instituted but only that when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and giues him charg of some particular Diocesse in such eases he doth a particular action which in generall was instituted and commanded by our Sauiour Christ who ordained in generall that in the whole Church there should alwaies be some Bishops which in effect is noe more theÌ„ we grant but cometh far short of what M. Doctor inteÌ„deth That this is the true meaning of Sotus is plaine by his onwe words For hauing taught what M. Doctour cyted out of him he proues it in this maÌ„nter Dum Dei minister id quod ipsâ— instituit ipsius iussu dâ—spensat actio est de iure diuino censenda cum autem Pupa Episcopum confirmat et consecrat alicuique attribuit Ecclesiae id exequitur quod Christus in genere instituit quodque facere iussit ergo id iuris diuini censenduÌ„ est WheÌ„ the minister of God by his command performeth that which he instituted such an action is to be esteemed of deâ—ine law But when the Pope doth confirme and coâ—secrate a Bishop â—â—d applies him to some Church he eâ—â—ecâ—â—etâ— that which Christ in generall Mâ—rke did institute which he coÌ„maÌ„dâ—d him to â—o theâ—fore suâ—â— an actioÌ„ ought to be said to be of the deuine lawe Can aâ—y thing be more deâ—re or more direct to shew that according to Sot ' the InstitutioÌ„ precept of Christ was only in gineral which is plainly for vs against M. Doctour Yet to take away all doubt Sotus bringeth this example Sacrament 〈◊〉 absilutio c. sacrameÌ„tal absolutio the like although they be immâ—dâ—aâ—ly peâ—formed by the minesters of the Chuâ—ch neuerthelesse they are to be esteemed aâ— of deuine law beâ—â—â—se Christ did â—astitute them and comâ—aâ—dâ—ed them to be so done and dispeâ—sed in his â—â—me â—â—â—vere a â—â—â—nesse by these words to â—aser our of Soâ—us that euery one hauing authority to administer sacraments were therefore by deuiâ—e law and precept bound to do it but all that could be rightly deduced according to Sotus would be that in case he did administer such sacraments such an action should be said to be de â—ure diuinâ— of the deuine law â—s a thing in generall not of humane but deuine enstitution Mariage in generall was instituted and commanded by God in the newe law by Christs institution it is a Sacraâ—â—â—t and therefore when ChristiaÌ„s marry they performe an actioÌ„ in geâ—erall commanded and instituted to be a â—â—crameÌ„â— shall we therefore out of Sotus inter that euery Christian or communite is bound to marry M. Doctonr I suppose knowes well enough why Sotus did so much vrge this manner of speach that the confirmation consecration and appling of Bishops to particular Churches is of deuine instiâ—ution The cause was more stroÌ„gly against his antagonist Catharinus to inforce the residence of Bishops to be a Deuyne and not only an Ecclesiasticall precept which precept neuertheles as Sotus himself affirmeth indeede none caÌ„deny doth not oblige in altâ—ms place therfore although Sotê° should affirm that ther were a deuine precept to apply Bishops to euery particular determinate Church yet that precept being affiâ—matiâ—â— as Deuines speak it would not bind in al occasioÌ„s as Sotê° teacheth coÌ„cerning the resideÌ„ce of Bishops Finally by this ocasion M. Dâ—â—â—er I doubt not wil be more circoÌ„spect in â—â—adging authours least he doth wrong his oâ—ne reputation the authors then deiues the reader and most of all the truth For Sotus doth not speak only of such particular Churches as are great or notable parts of the whole Church as M Doctour doth but of particular Diocesses to say that it is de â—ure â—iuâ—â— a deuine commaund that euery Diocesse haue a particular Bishop and in such maÌ„ner as for noe cause whatsoeuer it can be otherwaâ—es is a proposition farre from Sotus his thoughts which neither M. Doctour nor any other â—â—ill or can defend 11 The second authour alleadged by M. Doctour is Bannes saying that Bishops â—â—nâ—aâ— by the Pope be remooued from the whole Church or a great or not able part thereof I wonder M. Doctour would alleadge this learned deame to prooue that â—â—â—s de iure deuino to haue a Bishop in England the coutrary whereof is clearely deduced from this very authority of the same authour who hauing taught that Bishops haue all their authority immediately from the Pope frameth this obiection against himselfe That if the Bishops haue their authority immediately from the Pope it were in his power to remooue all Bishops from their Churches and so the Catholick Church should be without Bishops To this obiection BaÌ„nes answers Quòd licet Summus Pontifex posset prosâ—â— arbetrâ—tu vnum aut alterum Episcopum amouere nec in locum corum ali quem designâ—re non tamè admittenduÌ„ est quod in tota Ecclesia aut in magna eius parte taÌ„temere sua potestate abutaâ—ur Although the Pope might as he should thinke good remooue one 〈◊〉 two Bishops and designe none in their place yet it is not to be admitted that he can so rashly abuse his power in the whole Church or in a great part thereof By the only reading of Bannes his words which M. Doâ—â—our ought to baue alleadged at large not by halfes as much as might seeme for his purpose the reader will quickly perceiue that it is not de iure diuino a commandement of God that euery particular Church haue a Bishop seeing according to this Authour the Pope may leaue some Churches without Bishops Now I would aske M. Doctour whether such Churches should cease to be particular Churches and whatsoeuer he answereth will either be against his other Principle that without a Bishop there can be noâ— particular church of else if he say that they should not remaine particular Churches he must consider that then aâ—cording to Bannes it is not de iure diuiâ—o a deuire laâ— that euery Church should be a particulâ—r Church because as we haue seene Bannes teacheth that without breach of â—eâ—â—e law the Pope may leaue some churches without Bishops Besides the 〈◊〉 will see that Bannes onely speaketh of remoouing Bishops from the whole Church or from a great part of it and thence he would deduce a contrâ—rio sensu that seeing the flocke of Christ in England is farre from being a great part of the Catholick church and lesse then some one Dioâ—â—sse from which Bannes granted the Pope may remooue a Bishop yea he teacheth that all Bishops may be remooued from more Diocesses then one he would I say out of his owne assertion deduce that the Pope may not onely deny a Bishop to England but also if the thinke good remooue one
adherents in Schisme deuiding themselues from their lawfull Pastours were no true Church ergo English Catholicks liuing in perfect obedience to the Vicar of Christ cannot be truely a Church which in effect is as doughty an argument as this The soule and boâ—y seperated can make no true maâ—â—ergo if they be coÌ„icyâ—ed they cannot make a true man for as the coniunction of the soule with the body giues life to the body so the life of the Church consisteth in obedience to true lawfull Pastours to whom English Catholicks being still subordmate they did and do most perfectly fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian which therefore maketh nothing against but for vs that it is rather against M. Doctour himselfe may be euinced out of an argument of his chap. 12. num 4. where hauing cited the sayd authority of S. Cyprian that the Church is the people vnited to the Bishop he argueth thus seeing there cannot be a people vnited to the Bishop without a Bishop it follâ—weth that there cannot be a Church without Bishops Now according to the cleare sence of S. Cyprians words namely that a people which is in disobedience schisme against their lawfull Bishops cannot be a true Church I may vse the very same forme of argument thus Whosoeuer are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian but those who haue no Bishop are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop ergo those who haue no Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian This argument is directly against M. Doctour yet is more truely deduced out of S. Cyprians words then what he did â—â—ferie I know the Church must alwayes for other respects haue Bishops and therefore what I haue here sayd is onely ad hominem to M. Doctours manner of disputing and onely if we respect S. Cyprians words according to the true meaning purpose and occasion as by him they were vttered 7 That his application of S. Cyprians definition is iniurious to English Catholicks is manâ—fest by euery word of the Saint who affirmeth that they who are not vnited to the Bishop in that sense in which he speaketh are not in the Church that they haue not peace with the Priests of God that they are in secret communion with schismâ—ticks that they are opposite to that Catholicke Church which is one and not rent nor deuedâ—dâ— which gentle Epithetons or rather most â—oâ—le aspertions to cast vpon the most â—eâ—lo is Catholicks of England who for their vnion with the Sea Apostolicke constancy in profession of their Faith ioyfâ—ll suffering losse of goods liberty and life haue bene a spectâ—cle grations in the sight of God and his Angels and admirâ—ble to the eyes of men to apply I say such Epithetons to those glorious Confessours Martyrs our English Catholicks cannot be done without great iniury and yet by M. Doctour the sayd definition of S. Cyprian is to them more then once applyed And truely I should not be able to wonder enough how a learned man could lay the foundation of so strange a doctrine vpon a ground so weake so much mistaken for the true vnderstaÌ„ding wherof was required no greater I bour then looking on the booke nor deeper learning then vnderstanding latine vnlesse I did consider that such a doctrine could haue but such a foundation But I will vrge this point no further Onely M. Doctour may gather froÌ„ what hath bene said that the true explicatioÌ„ reasoÌ„ of those wordes in S. Cyprian alleadged by him in his 12 chap. num 4 vnde seire debes EpiscopuÌ„ in Ecclesia esse et Ecclesiam in Episcopo where vpon thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop which words wee also euen now cited is not that which M. Doctour giueth because the Church cannot be without a Bishop nor a Bishop without a Church but that supposing a Church haue a true Bishop they must not be deuided one from another and therfore S. Cyprian immediatly after the said wordes addeth Qui cum Episcopo non est in Ealesia non est He that is not with the Bishop is not in the Church And yet I hope English Catholicks while they waÌ„ted a Bishop were in the Church other wise they had not bene capable of falcation But by this we may see how groundedly M. Doctour doth speake and still confirmeth what I sayd of the iâ—â—ury done to English Catholicks by applying to them the definition of S. Cyprian 8 The second point wich I vndertooke to make good namely that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop is easily prooued For the Pope in defect of particular Bishops is the particular Bishop Ordinary Diocesan of such Churches as Philosophers doe teach that almighty God the supreme and vmucâ—sall cause of all effects concurreth not only as immediate but also as a Particular Agent or Cause to the producing of effects when second particular causes doe faile For seeing the Pope hath plenitudinem potestatis fulnesse eminency of power he may and is to performe whatsoeuer belongeth to inferiour Pastours when necessity so requireth which is a doctrine so receaued by all Canomsts and deuines that I suppose M. Doctour will not gaâ—nesay it Seing then EnglaÌ„d for many yeares was destitute of Bishops the Pope himselfe was our particular Bishop and to say that while we wanted 〈◊〉 Bishop we were a flocke without a Pastour an Army without a Generall a ship without a Pylot c. as M. Doctour avoucheth seemeth iniurious to the Vicar of Christ as if he wanted either power or good will to be our particular Bishop and Pastour And indeed to singular hath bene the care of Popes ouer our distressed EnglaÌ„d that in fact they euer shewed themselues to be our particular Bishops and may truly say to our Church as Almighty God said to his elected people Quid est quod debui vltrà facere vineae meae non feci Isa 5. v. 4 what ought I to haue done to my vinyard more then I haue done We erected Seminaries we sent learned Priests both Secular and Regular we indued them with aâ—ple faculties as iudges we composed difrerences as maisters we resolued doubts as Fathers wee wrote letters of Comfor of Exhortation of Admonition as Bishops we prounded all spirituall helpes requisite for the times in nothing belonging â—o particular Pastours we haue bene wâ—nting Quid debuimus vltra facâ—â—e et non fecimus what more could we haue done then we haue performed for the good of our beloued English Catholicks The Church of S. Ihon Lateran or the particular Diocesses of Rome is I trow a paâ—ticular Chuâ—ch a perfect oâ—e yet it hath noe other Bishop for Ordinary besids the Pope Leo the 9. Famous for sanctity and miâ—â—cles being before his Popedoâ— Bâ—shop of Tul for his affection to that Church did still remaine particular
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
in eaâ—ry particular Church as to haue one Supreame head of the whole Catholicke Church When Gregory Clement Paule and other Popes stood in deliberation whether it were expedient to haue a Bishop in England as for many yeares it was by them iudged inconuement might they as well haue doubted of the necessity or â—onueniency of hauing any Pope of Rome for the gouernement of the whole Catholick Church to say that a particular Bishop hâ—th not power to gouerne the whole Catholicke Church ergo the Bishop of the whole Catholicke Church cannot goâ—erne a particular one is as good as to say the feete cannot guide the head eâ—go the head cannot guide the feete His assertion or inference vpoÌ„ his ownâ— pâ—emisses that vnlesse euery particular Church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuert particular Churches if it be vnderstood of particular Churches indeterminately that is the whole Church cannot be a Hierarchie vnles some particular Churches haue Bishops it is very true but sâ—rueth nothing at all to his purpose of proouing that England must haue a Bishop because although England or some other particular country want Bishops other Churches and countries may haue them and so the Vniuersâ—ll Church shall still be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churcher But if he vnderstand as his wâ—res euery particular Church and his whole drife seeme to demonstrate that vnlesse euery particular determinate Church haue a Bishop the whole and Vuiuersall Church should not as Christ â—ath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches I must needs say his doctrine is clearely subject to a deeper Censure then I am willing to expresse For what Catholick dare aâ—onch that because England for the space of threescore yeares wanted a Bishop the Vniuersall Church all that time was not as Christ hath institutea a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches yea if my Lord of Chuâ—â—edon be not properly Ordinary both of England and Scotland M. Doctour must consequently affirme that the Vniuersall Church at this day is not as Christ hath instituted a Hierarchâ—â— composed of diuers particular Churches O to now great inconueniences is a man subject if once he vndertake the defence of a very hard cause THE THIRD QVESTION Whether by the deuine Law euery particular Church must haue it Bishop 1 TO prooue that a particular Country â—â—y not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution M. Doctour in his 14. chapter alleadgeth that it is de luâ—e diuino of the diuine Law to haue a Bishop in euery particular Church And for proofe theoeof citeth Soâ—us affirming Sot lib. 10. deâ—â—uâ—â—â—et iure q. 1. a. 4. posâ— sâ—â— undâ—â— conclusionâ— it to be de iure diuino of the deuine Law quòd in genere singulis Ecclsiâ—s secundum Ecclesiasticum diuisionem sut aâ—plicentur Episcopi That in generall to euery particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision proper Bishops are to be applyed And Bannes teaching Baâ—â—es 2.2 q. 1. a 10. Coclu 6. ad vâ—â— that Bishops cannot by the Pope be remoâ—uea from the whole Church or a great or not able part of it Hauing cited these two learned authours he argueth thus By the deuine Law there must be particular Bishops in the Church but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France for I speake especially of great particular Churches which are not able parts of the whole Church should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops rather then the Church of Spaine or the Church of Spaine rather then the Church of England or Flanders ergo France Spaire England Flanders and all other particular Churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops 2 These be the best grounds that M. Doctour in the said chapter bringeth for proofe that it is de iure deuino a command of God to haue a Bishop in England I wil adde such other arguments as can be afforded from his 13. chapter wherein although he affirme but that which al Catholicks do grant speaking in general that cueÌ„ in time of persecutioÌ„ the whol Church may not be gouerned without some Bishops yet because some of the proofes brought for the said verity may perhaps seeme pertinent to this present question Suar. tom 4. in 3. p. d. 25. I will not dissemble them Suareâ—â— saith he concludeth that the Church cannot change this kinde of gouernment by Bishops Then he alleadgeth examples of the African Church When Hunericus began his raigne he offered to the Catholicks of Carthage to chuse in that Church a Bishop which ornament sayth Victor Carthage had wanted for 24. Victor Vticenâ—â—t lib. 2. perseq vad inâ—â—â—o yeares but yet vpon this condition that the Arrtans at Constantinople might enioy the free vse of their Churches otherwise saith Hunericus not onely the Bishop that shal be ordained in carthage with his Cleargy but also all other Bishops of the African prouinces with their Cleargie shal be sent to the Mooâ—es The which when Victor Primate of Africke and others heard they refused his courtesie with so cruell a condition and says â—iâ—ita est interposius his condâ—tionibus periculosis haec Ecclesia Episcopum noâ— delectatur habere Gubernat eam Christus qui semper dignatur guberuare If it be so with these perilous conditions the Church of Carthage is not dilighted to haue a Bishop But the people so cryed out for a Bishop that they could not be appeased without one 3 A second argument M. Doctour â—raweth from another example of Huneticus his cruelty and of the African Catholicks zeale to their Bishops and Pastoâ—rs Victor Vâ—â—censis lib 2. Hunericus his cruelty Victor Vâ—â—censis descriâ—â—th rather by teares then words saying Quibus autem prosequar flumâ—â—bus â—â—â—â—ryâ—aâ—um quando â—â—pâ—sâ—opâ—s Presbâ—â—eros Dâ—â—conoâ— eâ—alia â—â—â—lsiae membra id est quatuor willia D. cccc Lxvi ad exilium eremi dastiâ—auâ—â— in quibus â—rant podagrici quamplurims aly per aetatem anâ—oâ—uâ—n lumine â—emporali priuaâ—â— c. But with what fâ—â—ds of teares shall I proosecute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rs his crucltâ— woen he sent Best ops Priests Deacous and other members of the Church â—â—to â—â—â—ashmeÌ„t in the wilaernesse amongst whom were â—â—my troubled with the gout others by age â—â—â—nd and dâ—priueâ— of sight c. Behould Huâ—â—â—cus his cruâ—â—ty Now let vs behould the zeale of the Catholicks of these countries for their Bishops and Priests They complantned pâ—â—â—ufâ—ly that they were deprined of their Pastours saâ—ing or rather crying Victor lib. 2. peâ—ses Vad. Quibus nos miseros relinquiâ—ts dum pergites ad coronas qui â—os baptizatuâ—â— sunt parunlos fonâ—â—bus aqua perernis qui nobis paenâ—tentiae munus collaturi sunt et reconciliationis induigentâ—s obstrictos peccatorum vinculis solâ—tuâ—i quiâ— vobis dictum est quaecunque solueritis super terram erunt solâ—â—a et on cales Qui nos soleÌ„ntbus or ationâ—bus sepulturi sunt mortentes quibus diâ—â—ni
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
of a Religious man without his Superiours leaue is vnlawfull and inualide But a Bishop elected may freely without any leaue enter into Religion becauâ—â— by his election â—ll he be confiâ—med in his Bishoprick there is contracted noe spirituall mariage bâ—â—wixt him and his Church and in this there is the same reason of a Bishop only Delegate in respect of that countrey for which he hath no more then a Breue of Delegation and ad beneplacitum because a Bishops spirituall mariage is only with that Church of which he hath his Tytle for Mariages are not ad beneplacitum but require permanency yea a Bishop both elected and confirmed if without leaue he Professe in Religion the act is valid and that it is not also lawfull proceedes not from the nature or any intrinsecall and inseparable perfection of Episcopall dignity but only from the Churches prohibition as likewise the inseparable Mariage betwixt the Bishop and his Church ariseth only from Ecclesiasticall command according to the truer opinion of Deuines for we dayly see renunciations of Bishopricks and translations of Bishops from one Diocesse to another vpon ordinary occasions which could neyther be lawfull nor valid if the mariage betwixt the Bishop and his Church were de iure diuino a deuine precept For in deuine precepts the Pope cannot validly dispense without some particular cause and yet if the Pope once giue leaue for a Bishop to renounce his Bishopricke the renunciation is valid although we should suppose no cause at all And finally to giue a Bishop leaue to become Religious there is required no other cause beside the priuate good of the Bishops soule supposing his Church be otherwise prouided of a sufficient Pastour All which considerations are manifest arguments that somewhat may be found in a Religious state wanting in the state of a Bishop although still it is true that the state of a Bishop is higher If any demannd wherein this particular perfection of a Religious state consists My answere is that for full satisfaction to this question I wish the Reader could once peruse that golden booke of Hieronymus Platus de bono Status Religiosi where he shall finde this argumeÌ„t so copiously solidly and eloquently handled that he will neuer repent himselfe of hauing red so pleasant and profitable a volume In briefe I say that it may seeme to consist in multitude facility continuation perfection of perpetuall acts of vertue and effectuall meanes speedily to get securely to conserue and plentifully to increase perfection which if we speake properly as it is intended to be gotten by a staâ—e of perfection consisteth not in charity howsoeuer but eyther in multitude and perfection of Acts of charity with as much continuation and litle interruption as our mortall life will giue leaue or els in an Habit with particular reference to the sayd frequency and continuation of such Acts as Suâ—rez doth well explicate this matter Suarez de Rel. tom 3. l. c. 4. And cleare it is that for attaining of such a perfection as we haue described vpon earth there is no state Suarez loc cit c. 19. n. 22. like to that of a Religious life wherein sayth the same learned Deuine a man both auoydes the dauÌ„gers to which Bishops are exposed and by multitude of holy works may recompense the want of some perfect actions proper to Episcopall state 8 To all which we must add that these aduantages are found in Religious state in a particulari excellent manner namely in a kinde of life proper to the time of Grace by obseruance of the three Euangelicall Counsells Pouerty Chastity Obedience which S. Tho. 1.2 q. 104. a. 4. in corp as 〈◊〉 Thomas teacheth are proper to the New law And truly abstracting from all other respects the Counsells of Pouerty and Chastity haue I knowe not what prerogatiue by being in a manner consecrated by the Practise and as I may say deïfied in the Person of him who for our sake and to giue example of all vertue vouchsafed to assume our nature And in this particular there appeares a maine difference betwixt a Religious man and a Bishop who is not at all bound to pouerty and to chastity he is obliged only as other Priests by a vow annexed to holy Orders which yet proceedes but from the Churches Ordination in so much as a Bishop not in holy Orders Elected may lawfully marry and some also hold that a Bishop confirmed may doe the same but of this I doe not dispute yet if he marry it is valid For my parte I had rather want whatsoeuer perfection wherein a Bishop may surpasse a Religious man then be in a state not requiring of its nature and essence Chastity as the state of a Bishop doth not whereas the state of a Religious man doth necessarily and essentially imply that Angel-like perfection Besides if by occasion of sollicitous exact endeauour to obserue the only vow of Chastity with great purity and perfection all vertuous Priests by experience finde how many other vertues must be practised and come annexed with that one what shall we say of the triple knot of Chastity Pouerty and Obedience How many vertues must in it be necessarily tied togeather 9 With these commodities proper to Religious state are to be ioined two other most important considerations of security and Immobility wherin a Religious state exceedeth that of a Bishop Security from euill and Immobility in good are great points of happynes and participations of the Saints felicity in Heauen And in the busines of our saluation euery small addition to true and not presumptuous Hope ought to be greatly esteemed For as Philosophers say that a lesse knowledge of more perfect obiects for example of God or Angels is to be preferred before a greater knowledge of inferiour things as of the elements or mixt bodies so in maters that concerne Eternity a state more secure lesse subiect to change is in that to be preferred before a state higher but not so secure or immoueable It was a worthy saying of a great Preacher that men in election of Episcopall state are apt to haue their eyes vpon certayne considerations which would quickly vanish if they made another reckoning and duly pondered for how many soules they are accountable and perhaps they would finde that euen in a rich Bishopricke they pawne their owne soule for so great a number of other mens that for each one they receaue in payement not a shilling by the yeare and inferiour pastours scarce two pence for each soule comitted to their chardge A dreadfull reckoning It was likewise a wise and witty conceipt of another great man that in this world meÌ„ are most esteemed for Gratiis gratis datis that is for such guifts of God as haue reference to our neighbour as learning power of working miracles c. and I may adde highnes of degree and the like But in the next life he shal be most regarded who is most
vnlesse he did compasse those pretences he would leaue all which my Lord a man of so great learning and zeale would neuer haue vttered if he had conceiued the very receiuing of Confirmation to be of so great necessity that for it alone all Catholicks are obliged to endure increase of persecution for if the matter be so that sacrament alone were likewise a verie sufficient cause of my Lords stay in England although other pretences should not sucseede especially it being a certaine doctrine of Deuâ—nes that Bishops haue greater obligation to administer Confirmation then people to receue it Moreouer seeing my Lord hath stiled himselfe Ordinary of Scotland doubtlesse he would extend his charity to that kingdome if he were of M. Doct. opinion coÌ„cerning the necessity of Confirmation in a countrey groaning vnder a heauy persecution as at this present the Catholicks of Scotland do and therfore stand in greater neede of that Sacrament Neither do I thinke M. Doctour will condemne of deadly sinne the Catholicks of Scotland for not seeking to haue a Bishop to administer that Sacrament or my Lord of Chalcedon for not going to administer it But now let vs see what M. Doctour in his 14. chapter where he handleth this point doth bring in proofe of his doctrine 14 His first argument is because without confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians seeing according to S. Thomas by confirmation we receiue our perfect growth To this I haue already answered now onely wish the reader to be mindfull that according to S. Thomas confirmation and consequently the effect thereof for example perfect growth and whatsoeuer else may be had without a Bishop and so if M. Doctour will sticke to S. Thomas his opinion must go downe 15 Then he alleadgeth S. Clement Epist 4. saying thus Omnibus ergo festinandum est sine morarenasci Deo demum consignari ab Episcopo id est septiformem gratiam Spiritus Sancti percipere quia incertus est vniuscuiusque exitus vitae Quum autem regeneratus fuerit per aquam postmodum septiformis spiritus gratia ab Episcopo confirmatus quia aliter perfectus esse Christianus nequaquam poterit c. All therefore must make haste without delay to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop that is to receiue the seuenfold grace of the Holy Ghost because the end of euery ones life is vncertaine But when he shal be regenerated by water and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfold grace of the Spirit because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian c. To this authority I answere 16 First M. Doctour should not haue grounded so hard a doctrine vpon an Epistle which I suppose he knoweth not to be so authenticall as to settle thereon a doctrinall point as he may see by Bellarmine in his booke de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Secondly I may answere out of Estius in that very place which M. Doctour cyted out of him for the necessity of confirmation in time of persecution and it seemeth not faire dealing to bring Estius as farre as he seemeth for his purpose and not so much as take notice or confute what in the same authour in the same place and to the same purpose he finds against him Estius therefore obserueth that the Fathers when they say that without Confirmation faithfull people are not perfectly or fully Christians doe generally allude to the name of Christ which signifieth Annoynted therefore they deny that they are fully Christians who haue not receiued Episcopall Vnction namely hauing reference to the word Christians as S. Augustinel 17. ciuit cap. 4. sayth that all who are annoynted with Chrisme may rightly be called Christi Christs By this is clearâ— on what sense the words of Clement cyted by M. Doctour are to be vnderstood Thus farre Estius whom M. Doctour highly commends for a learned and holy man the reader may see how directly he doth not onely answere M. Doctours argument but also saith that it is cleare in what sense the words of S. Clement are to be vnderstood It seemes a hard case when M. Doctour is forced to alleadge Estius as his chiefe Authour for the necessity of Confirmation as afterwards we shall see who in the very same place destroyeth a maine groâ—d brought by M. Doctour for the necessity of the same Sacrament Thirdly there occurreth an answere clearely deduced out of S. Clements owne words and I doubt not but will fully satisfye the learned reader The common practise of the antient Church was and is yet in the Easterne Church and at Rome when conuerted lewes or Turkes arâ— solemnely baptized together with Baptisme to giue the Sacrament of Confirmation and so whosoeuer in those times was not confirmed wanted also Baptisme hence S. Clement might well say that he that was not baptized and confirmed was not a perfect Christian But this is farre from proouing that without confirmation as separated from Baptisme we cannot be perfectly Christians This sense is manifest if we ponder S. Clements words for hauing sayd All must make haste to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop he sayth not afterwards But when he shal be confirmed by the Bishop because otherwise he cannot be a perfect christian but still ioyneth it with baptisme and sayth But when he shal be regenerated by water and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian stil as I said repeating together both those sacraments because they were wont to be administred at one time and whosoeuer had or wanted one infallibly had or wanted both of them in that manner it was all one to say one was not confirmed as to say he was not baptized Besides S. Clements discourse All must make hast to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop because the end of euery ones life as vncertaine makes it cleare that his speach is of Baptisme For howesoeuer necessary Confirmation be yet certainely it is not of so great hast as S. Clement vrgeth yea it is cheâ—fly for those who are to liue haue occasion to professe there faith as S. Thomas alledgeth out of Pope Melchiades S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. a. 8. 〈◊〉 4. therefore it had bene an vnfit reason of S. Clement to hasten men to confirmation because the end of euery ones life is vncertaine for as I said the lesse certainety we haue of life and more vicinity to death the lesse necessity we haue of Confirmation but for Baptisme his reason of the vncertainty of mans last end is very fit and vrgent therefore it is cleare S. Clements speach is refered to the sacrament of Baptisme My fourth answere is that S. Clement is not faithfully alledged by M. Doctour For S. Clement after he had said When he shal be regenerated by water and afterward Confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfold grace of the Spirits because otherwise he
to trouble ourselues with missions to certaine remote couÌ„tries seing at home and neere at hand there is enough and more then enough to busie vs and our posterity Let vs then leaue such farre pilgrimages to those locusts who vsurpâ— the name of Iesus Wherefore we must of necessity finde some better cause why Relious men haue bene so much emploied in conuerting Infidels then that which was by M. Doctour alleadged which I doubt not will be obuious to the reader out of the reasons which haue bene giueÌ„ of the great fitnes of Religious men to deale with soules But it must not be expected from mee who am resolued not to giue any offence to yeild likewise a reason why Secular Priests doâ— not bestow themselueâ— vpon those â—â—â—ssions as much as Regulars doe 22 Out of what hath â—ine said the indicious Reader will of himselfe infeâ— two thinges First that for such as intend to be made fit to be of the Cleargy the neerer their education comes to a Religious life the better it will dispose and more enable them for their intended course of profitably dealing with their neighbours Secondly in how great an errour they are who conceiue that although it be not vnlawfull for Religious men to imploy themselues in helpe of their neighbour yet such functions are not so connaturall to them as to Secular Preists but do as it were put them out of their element and straine their proper vocation as if Religion were ordamed only to perfect a mans owne soule But the contrary is manifest out of what hath bene said in this Question For seeing the proper and essentiall end of Religious State is the perfection of charity which according to S. Thomas consists not only in the loue of God 8. Tho. 2 2. â— 18 â— a 3. 〈◊〉 corp but also of our neighbour it clearely followeth that when Religious men attend to help their neighbours either in regard of their proper Iustitute or by particular commission and Mission from lawfull Superiours they do a thing most connaturall to their state as the end of euery thing is most connaturall to that thing in respect whereof it is the end That the loue of God our neighbour is the very end of a Religious state â— Tho 2.2 q. 188. a. 2. in corp is a propositioÌ„ by S. Thomas taught in these expresse tearmes Religiouâ—s Status ordinatur ad perfectioneÌ„ charitatis quae se extendit ad dilectionem Det et proximi A Religious State is ordained to the prefection of Charity which extends it selfe to the loue of God and of our neighbour Wherefore the Genericall Notion of Religious State which tends to the perfection of charity finds it self as it were in his naturall center and at home when it doth compasse the full latitude perfection of Charity by being contracted by a Difference or a Particular state imploied in perfitting both our selues and others and the conâ—ary persuasion cannot I must needs say be intertaâ—â—ed by any man well grounded in Dâ—uinity or who rightly vnderstands the nature of a Religious state of perfection for it were in effect to say that it is not connaturall for Charity to loue both God and our neighbour or for the Beauficall vision in God to represent created obiects No No Mary and Martha Contemplation and Action are two yet sisters diuers but not disagreing noe more then the loue of God doth hinder the louing of our neighbour S. Th. 2.2 q. 188. â— 2 in corp S. Greg. Naz. â—at 20. For as S. Thomas teacheth Contemplation belongs to the loue of God Action to the loue of our neighbour And therfore S. Gregory Nazianzen mentions it as a singular commendation of Saint Basil that he conioyned the Actiue and Contemplatiue life vt quemadmodum terra mare ita etiam hae duae vita commoda sua inter se communicantes ad vnicam Des gloriam concurrerent That as the Sea and Land doe so these two kindes of life communicating with one another their seuerall commodites might both concurre to the only glory of God S. Th 2.2 q. 188. artis â— 3.4 S. Thomas hauing taught that a Religion may be instituted for the works of an Actiue life and also for a holy warfar thence makes a most reasonable inference that it is Conuenientissimum Most conuenient that a Religion be instituted to preach and exercise the like spirituall functions which the Religious of â—he sacred Order of S. Domiusck who haue their very name froÌ„ Preaching haue and doe still most happily performe to the vnspeakeable good of soules If then it be most conuenient that Religious men should preach heare confessions and the like certainely it is very coÌ„naturall to their vocation so to doe And out of this discourse may be taken a cleare and weighty reason in confirmation of all that hath bene said of the great fitnes of Religious men to deale with soules For in what proportion a Religious state is more fit to attaine the perfection of Charity then a secular vocation in the same degree it maketh a Religious man more fit to help his neighbour then secular as secular are because as hath bene said charity extends it selfe also to our neighbour I might add that in Gods Church there waÌ„t not many who either are about election of a Religious state or else desier in the world to imitate the practise of Religious men by contemplation and such like meanes of vnion with almighty God and to the direction of those well minded persons noe doubt but experience of such exercises gotten in Religion doth much conduce And this shall sâ—ffice concerning the comparison of Religious men with secular Pastours or Prelates wherein all that hath bene said is to be vnderstood only of the States Vocations in themselues not of the Persons whose merites are knowne only to him Act. 1. Qui cord a nouit omnium Who knowes the hearts of all men It remaineth that I explicate a point or two handled by M. Doctour obscurely with disaduantage to Religious state 23 The first is That perfection coÌ„sists in Charity and that the three Euangelicall Counsels are noe perfection but instruments and meanes to atraine perfection by which manner of speach so indistinctly proposed the reacer may be apt to value the Luargelicall Counsels much vnder their true worth And therefore to cleare the matter We must obserue that the sayd Counsells may be considered either as of themselues they are apt to remooue impediments of Charity and loue of God for example Pouerty and Chastity euen of their owne nature do necessarily free a man from the daungers temptations and impediments of the loue of God which arise our of the actuall possession of riches enioying the pleasures of sensuall delights and in this sen se they may be tearmed but meanes or instruments to get perfection or else they may be considered as proceeding from particular vertues of Religion Temperance