for no other cause but because he cannot brook a Bishop Let him I say take heed least his discussion fraught with this ill marchandise be neither pleasing to God nor man 18. As for the manner hold by M. Doctour in preouing his Tenets which M. Nicholas n. 11. auerreth not to be correspondent to the opinion of his learning but to be easilie answered and without any studie the trueth thereof shall appeare in my Reply by which I shall defend all M. Doctours positions and shall shew M. Nicholas his answere to be altogether deficient or not to the purpose Whereby I think in the end he will not haue the face and I ame sure not the cause to bragge as he doth 19. I cannot here omit how n. 12. he accuseth M. Doctour of want of Logike and prudence though he hath taught Diuinitie alone longer then M. Nicholas hath beene in studying Logik Philosophie and diuinitie There are many manners of arguing and all good in their degree for the Logician sometimes argueth from the cause to the effect which manner of arguing is called demoÌ„stratio propter quid sometimes he proceedeth from the effect to the cause which is demonstratio quia and sometimes he argueth from intrinsecall sometimes from extrinsecall causes and all these formes of arguing are good because there is a connexion betwixt the cause and the effect and soe one inferreth another and the cause is notior naturâ then the effect and the effect is notior nobis then the cause and soethey may inferre one another And it were to be meruailed if M. Dectour should hit vpon none of these formes and manners 20. But let vs heare what M. Nicholas saieth for example saieth he to proue the necessitie of a Bishop in England he serueth himselfe of these strange and vnto ward propositions that it is a diuine law for euery such particular Church as EnglaÌ„d is to hauea Bishop that without a Bishop England cannot be a particular Church that vnlesse euerie particular Church haue it Bishop or Bishops the whole Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hier archie composed of diuers particular Churches That without a Bishop we cannot haue Confirmation which whosoeuer wanteth is not as M. Doctour saieth a perfect Christian And are these harsh strange and vnto ward propositions they being grounded in Scripture and the diuine law To speake with in compas this saying of M. Nicholas is a verie rash assertion 21. That these propositioÌ„s are true according to Scripture and the diuine law and consequeÌ„tlie not harsh I shall proue more at large in their proper places Here I briefelie argue thus It is of the diuine law that there must be Bishops in the Church as M. Doctour hath proued in his 12.13 14. chap. and as M. Nicholas confesseth q. 3. n. 4. 17. and cannot denie if he wil be a Catholik And why But to supplie the wants the Church hath of Preaching Sacraments and in particular of Confirmation of which onely the Bishop is ordinarie Minister but one Bishop cannot supplie the wantes of twoe notable partes such as are England Spaine and France Ergo euerie notable part such as these Countries are must at least haue one Bishop and that also by the deuine lawe Soelikewise that without a Bishop a people cannot be a particular Church I shall proue in the next question n. 2. For if it be true which S. Cypr. Ep. 69. ad Florâ— Cyprian sayeth that the Church is Sacerdoâ—i plebs adunata Apeople vnited to the Priest that is Bishop then that people which hath no Bishop cannot be a Church and consequently also the whole Church cannot as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches vnles these Churches haue euerie one their Bishop And hence it followeth also that without a Bishop who is the Ordinarie minister of Confirmation we cannot by ordinarie course be perfect Christians because we cannot haue Confirmation which maketh vs perfect Christians as S. Clement and S. Vrban hereafter alledged doe auerre as also other fathers and S. Thomas of Aquin and sundrie deuines euen Iesuites as we shall see in the 4. question n. 15. These argumeÌ„ts are à priore and are inferred from the extrinsecall cause to wit God his commandement and institution which is a cause why Bishops are necessarie in the Church And therefore as we may argue from the ecclesiasticall law as from an extrinsecall cause and say the Church hath coÌ„manded to fast in Lent Therefore we must fast So we may argue from the deuine law as from an extrinsecall cause and say God hath commanded that Bishops shal be in the Church and that euerie particular greate Church must haue it Bishop ergo it must haue him And so it was harhlie and vntowardlie saied of M. Nicholas that the aboue rehearsed propositions are harsh and vntoward they being grounded in Scripture and Fathers 23. Th 3. p. q. 72 art 11. ad 1. And although S. Thomas of Aquin and many diuines doe affirme that by commission from the Pope a Priest not Bishop may confirme yet diuers also hould the contrarie as S. Bonauenture Durand Adrian VI. Estius in 4. d. 17. Alphonsus à Castro Verbo Confirmatio and they prooue their opinion out of Eusebius Ep. 3. Pope Damasus Epist. 4. Innocentius III. de consuetud cap. quando Who expressely affirme that Confirmation cannot be giuen but by the Bishop as in the primitiue Church is was giuen by the Apostles onely to whome Bishops succeede and not by the disciples to whome Priests succeede 24. Yea they want not apparent reason For say they the acte of Confirming either it is appertaining to the Bishop by reason of his power of Iurisdiction or by reason of his power of Order If by reason of his power of Iurisdiction then a Bishop elected and confirmed but not consecrated might confirme For that he hath Episcopall Iurisdiction which yet neuer was seene yea then this might be coÌ„mitted to a deacon or an inferiour minister for he also is capable of Episcopall Iurisdiction as when one is elected and confirmed Bishop before he be Priest or deacon If by reason of the power of Order then as the Pope cannot giue power to a deacon to consecrate because that is proper to the Character and Order of a Priest so he cannot giue power to a Priest to confirme that appertaining to the Character and Order of a Bishop If the authours of the other opinion say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme they should contradict the Fathers alledged who say that to confirme is proper to the Bishop and cánot agree to the Priest not Bishop Besides thence it would follow that though the Priest in confirming might sinne Confirmation being reserued to Bishops yet as a Priest suspended if he coÌ„secrate though he sinneth yet consecration is valid so if a Priest should confirme he should sinne yet Confirmation would be valid it being not
aboue his character And this opinion would answere to the fact of Saint Gregorie vpoÌ„ which the contrarie opinioÌ„ much relieth that S. Gregorie onely permitted certaine Priests who before had presumed it Greg. l. 3. ep 9 ad Ianuarium dist 90 cap peruenit to anoint the baptized in the forhead but not with the vnction proper to Confirmation nor with the forme of words which the Bishop vseth Others answere otherwise 25. And to the Councells of Florence and Trent which say that the ordinarie Minister of Confirmation is the Bishop as though the extraordinarie minister might be the Priest They answere that these two Councells define that at least the Bishop is the Ordinarie Minister because it was disputed whether by commission and as an extraordinarie Minister the Priest might confirme And whereas the Councell of Florence sayeth that It is read that sometimes by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike a simple Priest hath confirmed they answere the Councell defineth not that this indeed hath euer beene done but that it is read soe Thus they 26. But for all this S. Thomas his opinion is most probable being now especiallie most common though not most secure And this opinion would alledge for it the fact of S. Gregorie and the twoe councells alledged And to the Fathers it would answere that they meane onely that the Bishop is the onely Ordinarie Minister of Confirmation yet that the Priest may by commission from the Pope confirme and they would say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme so that the Pope commit this to him not that the Pope giueth him any power of Order for that this Priests owne Character is sufficient so that this condition be also put to wit that the Pope commit him and if he attempt to confirme without this commission he shall not validlie confirme because he wanteth a condition necessarie But although this be a probable peraduenture the more probable opinion as being the more common yet the first opinion is houlden of all as vndoubted and so is most secure 27. And so we haue more reason to demande a Bishop then a Priest committed by the Pope for that it is most certaine that he can confirme and by Confirmation giue vs strength against persecution and make vs perfect Christians And therefore M. Doctour vseth to say that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church nor haue Confirmation because the Bishop is the Ordinarie and most assured Minister and therefore this hereafter I will suppose 28. M. Nicholas n. 13. affimerth that M. Doctour doth not a right coÌ„pare Religious with Secular Priests But to this he is fullie answered in the sixt question n. 1. Where he is tould that if we take the Regular as Regular according to that state and qualitie onely he is not as soe taken of the Hierarchie though as Regular he be aboue the laitie and an eminent member of the Church but the Secular Priest as a Secular Priest considered in that state of a Priest is of the Hierarchie But more of this in that place shal be saied 29. M. Nicholas numer 14. saieth the thing which I most wonder in a man of learning is that those Fathers and Schooles diuines which be produceth for witnesses of his doctrine are in deed against himselfe as the Reader will see in his allegation of S. Cyprian S. Clement Sotus Bannes c. And I admire M. Nicholas for many things as for his conning carriage of things wilfull mistakings false impositions c. But most of all I wonder at his audacitie and that he hath the face to vtter the aforesaied words so considentlie Noe doubt the Reader cannot but thinke he affirming it so boldely that M. Doctour hath not alledged well these Fathers and Doctours but let him suspend his Iudgement vntill he come to the 2. question in M. Nicholas n. 2.9.10.11.17 Where he shall finde it so cleare and plaine that those Fathers and Doctours are for M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas that when he hath read the places alledged he will haue cause neuer to credit M. Nicholas in this kinde vpon his word albeit he make neuer so great or solemne protestations 30. Lastlie M. Nicholas n. 15. accuseth againe M. Doctour for derogating to my Lord of Chalcedons Ordinariship but to this he is alreadie answered and may haue a fuller answere hereafter 31. Thus in a cursorie manner I haue runne ouer M. Nicholas his first question not staying any long time about it partely because the matter by him proposed did not require any longer discourse partely because in his first question he seemeth principally to bragge onely what he will doe as in his seuenth and last questioÌ„ he boasteth of what he hath done But I hauing in the fiue middle questions answered him fullie to all and hauing shewed that he hath not beene able to disproue any one of M. Doctours assertions nor to answere to any one of his arguments it will plainelie appeare that in his firstquestion he breaketh promise and in his last boasteth of more then he hath performed THE SECOND QVESTION VVhether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church MAISTER NICHOLAS MAISTER Doctour in diuers partes of his Treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church And in his 14. Chapter where he endeanoureth to proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution one of his maine arguments is n. 9. because without a Bishop there can be no particular Church n. 1. REPLIE M. Nicholas Smith mistaketh M. D. Kellisons arguments 1. TRVE it is that M. Doctour Kellison in diuers places of his Treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church But as concerning that which M. Nichulas addeth that one of his maine arguments chap. 14. numer 9. is be cause without a Bishop theâ—â— cannot be a particular Church I denie that this is one of M. Doctours maine arguments to proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution For that in that 14. Chapter numer 4. M. Doctour hauing affirmed that as England cannot except against the comming in of Priestes by reason of persecution so England cannot except against the comming in of a Bishop for feare of persecution He addeth And my reasons are twoe The first is that which I haue often alledged because the gouernement of Bishops is instituted by Christ and hath beene in practise in the greatest persecution as wee haue seene in the former Chapter My secondreason is because the commoditie which a prouince reapeth by a Bishop is so greate and the want of him is such a losse that wee should rather hazard persecution as the AsricaÌ„ Catholiks did theÌ„ to be depriued of a Bishop And in this his secoÌ„d maine reason he includeth 1. the necessitie of a Bishop to make a perfect Christian 2. the vtilitie or necessitie of Confirmation 3. that without a Bishop
inferiour Pastour because he hath no vow to tye him to that state but may leaue it if he will goe to Religion without the Bishops licence S. Th. sup 19 q. 2. cap. due sunt yea against his will as S. Thomas prooueth out of Pope Vrban wheras the Religious by reason of his vowe cannot forsake his state of life To this Suarez answereth that if S. Thomas require a proper vowe to make a state then the Bishops state should not bee a perfect state because when he is made Bishop he maketh no vowe But if by a vow he meane a pact Suar l. 〈…〉 17. supra conuenant or mutual promise betwixt him and his Church such a promise or pact is to be found in the Pastour as well as in the Bishop 51. Caietan sayth Suarez answereth that the inferiour Pastour hath not a diuine commandement to stick to his Pastourslip nor any humane precept because none can be alleaged To whom Suarez replyeth that nether the Bishop by any diuine law is tyed to his Bishopricke though Vasquez in this coÌ„tradicteth him as aboue we haue seene only by the Ecclesiasticall lawe he is wedded to his Bishopricke and by this lawe the inferiour Pastour also is wedded to his Pastourship It is true that the inferiour Pastour may enter into Religion without the Popes or Bishops leaue as S. Vrban affirmeth in the place alleaged yet 19. q. 2. cap. dua snnt Suar. l. 1. c. 17. n. 9. as Suarez assureth vs that is no signe that he is not in a state with obligation sufficient to stick to it but onlie that his obligation is not absolute but includeth this coÌ„dition to wit so that he ascend not to an higher or securer state For so also a religious man professed in a laxer religion Cap. sand ca. licet de regular Cap. admonet de renunciat ca. hath a state yet he may leaue it to enter into a stricter Religion as the canons doe teach vs. But vnlesse the Archdeacon or inferiour Pastour enter into Religion he cannot leaue his office or Pastorship without licence of the Pope or Bishop as may appeare by diuers textes of the canon lawe And this sayth Suarez S. Thomas supposeth when he sayth that an Archdeacon or Curate may leaue his Church by the licence of the Bishop insinuating that otherwise he cannot It is true that the Bishop hath a greater obligatioÌ„ to stick to his Bishoppricke because he caÌ„not forsake it without dispensation or leaue from the Pope Si quis veroÌ„ ca. Episcopus de loco 17. q. 1. the inferiour Pastour may leaue his Pastorship with licence of the Bishop but the reason of this may bee because the Bishop hath noe Superiour but the Pope to liceÌ„ce him the inferiour Pastour hath the Bishop who may dispense with him To which may be added that the Pope hiÌ„selfe who hath the highest state in the Church may renouÌ„ce it and yet because he cannot do this without great and vrgent cause he is in a state of perfection Wherefore because the Curate or Archdeacon cannot leaue their charges without licence of the Bishop their state is morallie immoueable because that which we can not doe without dispensation of the Superiour is counted to vs morallie impossible And so the state of an inferiour Pastour is morallie immoueable and vnchaungeable and so in that respect wanteth nothing required to a state And that their state is an higher and perfecter state it may be proued because Pastours euen inferiour to the Bishop are in a state of perfection to be exercised and coÌ„munscated to others the regular is in a state of acquiring or tending to perfection and so the Pastours state though in an inferiour manner is as the Bishops state is to wit a state of Illuminators the regulars is of those that are illuminated the Pastours state is of perfectors the regulars state is of those that are perfected that state is of masters this of Schollers that of Agentes this of patients And so that the perfecter state this the lesse perfect 52. For as S. Anstine sayth the Agent in that respect is more noble then the patient and therefore the soule or spirit is more noble then the bodye Aug. l. 12. de gen ad lie c. 16. S. Th. 22. q. 84. a. 6. in â—â—g Sed centra Dionys l. de Lecies Hier. c. 5. S. Th. 2.2 q. 185 art 8. Isidorl 2. de dimnis officijs c. 7. that being the Agent this the patient And we see that the Sunnes office in illuminating is more noble then the ayres condition in being illuminated the fiers in heating then the waters in being heated the maisters in teaching then the Schollers in being taught And as S. Thomas out of S. Denis sayth that Pontisiâ—um ordo consummatiuns est perfectiuns sacerdolum autem illuminatiuns the order of Bishops is consummatiue and perfectiue the order of Priests illuminatiue so the order of inferiour Pastours is illuminatiue and perfectiue and as hee sayth that the state of a Regular is compared to the Episcopal state as discipline to Magisterie and as a disposition to perfection so the same may be sayd of inferiour Pastours in their degree for that they are in state not of Schollers but of maisters and perfecters hence it is that S. Isidore sayth Sacerdotibus ficut Episcopis dispensatio my steriorum Dei commissa est praesunt enim Ecclesiae in confectione diuina corporis sanguinis consortes cuÌ„ Episcopo sunt similiter in doctrina PopuloraÌ„ in officio praedicationis To Priests as to Bishops the dispensation of the mysteries of God is committed for that they be are rule in the Church and in the diuine consecration of the body and bloud of Christe they are consores with the Bishop like wise in teaching of tâ—e people and in the office of preaching And the Councell of Trent sayth That to all to whom the care of soules is committed it is commanded by the diuine commandement to know their sheepe to offer for them the sacrifice and to feed them by preaching of the word of God administration of sacraments and by example of good workes 53. But Suarez obiecteth against inferiour Pastours out of S. Thomas S. Th. 2. 2. q 184. ar 6. ad 2. that Archdeacons and inferiour Pastour haue but vnder-administrations vnder the Bishop and are to the Bishop as Bayliues are to the Prince And Caietan cited by Suarez sayth the Pastoral office a. 2. 20. and obligation to yeeld ones life for the sheepe pertaineth principally to Bishops and onlie secuÌ„darilie and ministeriallie to inferiour Pastours and that Curates and vnder Pastours doe vndertake the care of soules as Ministers and Officiales of the Bishops who are the principal agentes and so are not in a state but Ministers and Officiales of the Bishops who onelie are in state of perfection to be exercised on others But Suarez answereth verie well that Curates are
follovv the splene bitternes immodestie and smale respect of M. Nicholas Many vvho haue redde M. Doctours booke haue much commended him to my knovvledge by letters from England and other places for his mildnes temper and discretion and therfore as many doe vvonder vvhy M. Nicholas and he a Regular should ansvvere him vvith such bitternes and immodestie VVhat is there in M. Doctours booke vvhich so moueth his patience J ame sure there is not one tarte vvord in all M. Doctours booke and he vvriteth against noe person noe state noe order nor meddleth he vvith the late controuersie and for no other reason but because he vvould not offend It is true he vvriteth of the Hierarchie of the Church and of all orders but that is a point of the Catholique fayth vvhich as M. Nicholas confesseth in his first question n. 2. Hath beene handled most learnedlie copiously and eloquentlie by diuers both in latine and vulgartongues as indeed it hath by S. Thomas of Aquin Suarez and others in latine VVhy then vvriteth not M. Nicholas against them as vvell as against M. Doctour they hauing not handled the matter vvith more temper then he nor hauing yeelded more to regulars then hee vvhat then is it M. Nicholas that so moueth your Choler M. Doctour exalteth the Bishop and Clergie So doe S. Jgnatius S Ambrose S. Chrysostome cited by M. Doctour in his 7. chapter so doe all that vvrite of the Hierarchie so doth the Councell of TreÌ„t Conc. Trid. seff 23. c. 4. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 185. art 8. vvhich sayth that Bishops doe appertaine principallie to Hierarchicall order so doth S. ThomaÌ„s of Aquin alleaged by M. Doctour in his 11. chapter n. 18. And as M. Doctour exalteth the Bishop and Clergie so doth he the Regulars in their ranke But he giueth the precedence in dignitie and state of perfection to the Bishop as S. Thomas and all deuines and Fathers doe hee shevveth the necessitie of Bishops in the Church of God the need that all countries haue of Confirmation vvhich ordinarilie can not be had vvithout a Bishop vvhose splendour M. Nicholas peraduenture feareth vvould obscure his ovvne This then may bee the cause for J can fynd no other hincillae lachrymae This is the cause of his rough ansvver vvhich in euerie page allmost is so bitter that as the lavves of Draco the Legislatour of the Athenians vvere sayd to haue been vvritten vvith mans bloud by reason of their crueltie so M. Nicholas his DiscussioÌ„ may bee sayd to haue been vvritten not vvith inke but vvith galle it is so byting and bitter Certes although I vvill not iudge of his spirit yet he seemeth to shevve litle of the spirit of a Religious man vvhich is the spirit of humilitie patience modestie charitie and of respect to Bishops Prelats Priests and Pastours such as vvas the Spirit of S. Benedict S. Bernard S. Dominike S. Jgnatius S. Xauier For that he striueth to depresse the state of Bishops and Pastours and to extenuate the necessitie both of Bishops and of the Sacrament of Confirmation VVherfore I protest sincerelie and as God knovveth from my harte that I ame hartilie sorrie that 〈◊〉 hath giuen me a iust cause and â—â—â—â—osed a necessitie on me to ansvver his Discussion and defend M. Doctour and the true doctrine deliuered by him because I feare I can not doe this sufficientlie as I must seing J haue vndertaken to ansvver for M. Doctour vvithout dishonour to M. Nicholas a Catholique and Religious man and in credit and estimation in his Order Yet vvhat I can doe vvithout preiudice to D. Kellison vvhose honour is deare vnto mee and to the true doctrine vvhich he hath taught I shall doe And therfore J meane not to imitate his odious manner of vvriting vvhich J heare is displeasing to all iudicious and indifferent Readers rather I vvill passe ouer his harsh speeches vvith patience though not allvvayes vvith silence and vvheras it is his vsuall manner to insult before the victorie vvith these and the like speeches A doughtie argument pag. 16. J vvill not say noe diuine but euen no man in his right iudgement can affirme pag. 48. J can not but meruaile that a learned man should vse such a forme of argument pag. 48 still M. Doctour citeth Authours against him selfe pag. 89. c. J shall not insult ouer him though as the Reader shall see J get the maistrie ouer him and the victorie of him holding it a base thing and not vvorthie a generous mynd to strike his aduersarie or insult vpon him vvhen he lyeth on the ground But rather I vvill proceede vvith patience and charitie and vvill content my selfe to ouercome and to put my aduersarie to silence by argument not by cryes and clamours and though J be noe Regular yet I vvill endeauour to giue him example of religious humilitie modestie and charitie But to returne to the Reader to vvhom this preface is addressed J shall desire him not to be scandalized to see one Catholique vvrite against another Catholiques as Catholiques agree allvvayes in matters of fayth and good Catholiques neuer breake charitie but the best Catholiques Gal. 3. Act. 15. Hieron Ep. 86. seq Aug. Ep. 8. seq Eus l. 5. c. 24. 25. Beda l. 3. hist Angl c. 24. 25. l. 5. c. 16. Daniel 10. as men may varie in other opinions S. Peter S. Paule and S. Barnabas and S. Augustine and S. Hierome disagreed in some opinions vvithout breach of fayth or charitie About the obseruation of Easter there vvas greate debate betvvixt Saintes and Saintes till the Church decided the controuersie yea Angels haue dissented in opinion And so long as the dissensioÌ„ is not in matters of fayth it may be vvithout preiudice to faith and vvithout breach of charitie And hovvsoeuer this vvriting of one Catholique against another is to be imputed to M. Nicholas vvho vvas the first that vvrote against a Catholique for that M. Doctour vvrote against noe maÌ„ and J vvould neuer haue vvriten against M. Nicholas but in defence of a Catholique and Catholique Doctrine And as thou Gentle Reader art to be a spectatour of the encounter and combat betvvixt me and M. Nicholas so I desire thou shouldst be the iudge and vmpier also so that thou follovvest not affection vvhich oftentymes blindeth but vnblinded reason vvhich neuer deceiueth but vvill cause thee to pronounceÌ„ sentenceÌ„ vvhere thou seest most reason not vvhere thou settlest most thy affection TO THE VENERABLE CLERGIE OF ENGLAND BOTH SECVLAR AND REGVLAR ALthough in this my reply vvhich I haue made for the iust defence of M. Doctour and of the truth deliuered by him I may offend some for that veritas odiuÌ„ parit and be it neuer so discreetlie deliuered is dispeasing to some yet my desire is peace and as the end of vvarre ought to be peace so my intentioÌ„ in this my disputatioÌ„ vvas to shevveuerie order the truth vvhich all men vvhen they see doe imbrace and
had inferred out of that definitiō that the English Catholikes all the while they wāted a Bishop were schismatikes out of the Church as the Nouatians to whome S. Cyprian applieth his definition were Which is no lesse then a false calumniation For although out of that definition of a Church S. Cyprian inferred that the Nouatians werenot onely no Church for wāt of a Bishop but also Schismatikes out of the Church because they were separated from the Bishop by Schisme which not onely hindereth from being a particular Church but also separateth and cutteth of frō the whole Church Yet M. Doctour inferred not that odious conclusion against the English Catholikes as M. Nicholas seemeth to say and therefore sayeth that M. Doctours application is iniurious to English Catholikes and giueth the reason Because S. Cyprian saied the Nouatians are out of the Church they haue no peace with the Priests of God c. but he onely inferred out of the same definition as I haue tould him aboue that out of the same place or seate of arguments as definition is many conclusions may be deduced that the English Catholikes all the while they had no Bishop were no particular Church because then the definition of a Church which is A people vnited to its Bishop did not agree to English Catholikes for how could they be a people vnited to their proper Bishop who had none at all And so M. Doctour is not iniurious to Catholikes who pleadeth for a Bishop for thē to make thē a particular Church and to haue other honours and commodities by a Bishop but M. Nicholas is iniurious to them who labours to hinder them frō a Bishop by whome they should be a particular Church as formerlie they haue beene and that so glorious that after the Church of Rome they might contend with the most glorious Churches of Europe M. NICHOLAS SMITH The second point which I vndertooke to make good namely that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop is easilie proued c. pagin 20. num 8. THE REPLY England was not a particular Church without a Bishop 19. It is easilie sayed M. Nicholas but not so easilie proued as partelie may appeare by that which is alreadie sayed and S. Cyprians definition will still be a blocke in your way at which you will infalliblie stumble and perchance breake your shinnes 20. But how prooueth he that the Catholikes of England may be a Church without a Bishop Because saieth hee the Pope in defect of particular Bishops is the particular Bishop Ordinarie and Diocesan of such Churches as Philosophers do teach that almightie God the supreme and vniuersall cause of all effectes concurreth not onelie as an immediate but also as a particular cause to the producing of effectes when second particular causes doe faile Thus he 21. And if he meane that the Pope hath beene a particular Bishop to England he must shewe it else M. Doctour may still say that all the while England was without a particular Bishop it was no particular Church or if he thinke he may argue à possibili ad esse from possibilitie to actuall being as if because the Pope can be Englands proper Bishop therefore be hath beene so then euerie one should be what he may be and so M. Nicholas should be generall of his order because he may be and he should be a man of fourescore yeares of age because he may be and be should now be at Rome againe because he may be If he meane that the Pope so soone as a countrie or Diocese wanteth a Bishop is actuallie that countries or Prouinces particular Bishop no Bishoprike should be vacant because so soone as the particular Bishop is dead that Pope is the particular Bishop And so when a Rectour of a Colledge is dead the Prouinciall should be Rectour and when the Prouinciall is deceased the Generall should be Prouinciall and no office should euer be vacant because the Superiour officer should supply it which is absurd and yet be it neuer so absurde it seemeth M. Nicholas his opiniō For he saieth that the Pope in defect of a particular Bishop is the particular Bishop ordinaie and Diocesan of such Churches to wit which want a particular Bishop Which is a strange opinion of M. Nicholas his owne inuention And by this his doctrine it would follow that if per impossibile there were neuer a particular Bishop in all the Church but the Pope the Church should still be Hierarchicall composed of diuers particular Churches because the Pope should be in that case not onelie an vniuersall Bishop of all the Church but also a particular Bishop of euerie particular Church and so one sole Bishop the Pope should make a Hierarchie which consisteth of diuers particular Churches 22. Yet I will not denie but that the Pope to honour a Bishoprick which before his Popedome he enioyed may retaine still the Title of that Bishopricke Ex Baron anno 1849. Leon Papa 9 anno 1. as Leo IX did the Title of the Bishopricke of Tulle Yea he may though vniuersall Bishop of the vniuersall Church be also the particular Bishop of a particular Church as he is de facto particular Bishop of S. Ihon Lateran but then he must ether do the office there of a Bishop by himselfe or by his delegate or at least he must take vnto himselfe the Title of that Church not onelie in name but in verie deed else he shall not be a particular Bishop I say or at least he must take vnto himselfe he Title for that seemeth to be sufficient to make a particular Bishop as we may gather by diuers examples for that there is a Patriarch of Hierusalem in Rome who neither doth the office there by himselfe or anie delegate because he cannot be permitted and my Lord of Chalcedon though he do the office of a Bishop onely in England and not at Chalcedon ether by himselfe or his delegate because it will not be permitted him to do so Yet he is truelie the particular Bishop of Chalcedon because he hath the Title and right to gouerne that Church graunted vnto him 23. Now therefore if M. Nicholas can shew me that the Pope hath done the office of a Bishop in England by himselfe or his delegate or that he hath taken to himselfe the Title of the Bishop of England I shall graunte that all this while wee had no particular Bishop in Englād he hath beene our particular Bishop If he cannot as all the world knoweth he cannot for nether hath the Pope beene in England in person nor hath he sent before these twoe most Reuerend Bishops anie Bishop into England to do there the offices of a Bishop which is to confirme and ordaine nor hath he euer takē vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England then M. Doctours assertion is true to wit that all the while England had no particular Bishop it was no particular Church because as S. Cyprian sayeth the Church is a
people vnited to the Bishop which England could not be when it had no Bishop It is true the Pope is Bishop of the whole Church and so of England as it was a member of the whole but he hauing neuer done there the office of a Bishop by himselfe or his delegate nor euer taking vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England he was not Englands particular Bishop and so England by him could be no particular Church 24. To M. Nicholas his similitude which he mamaketh betwixt God the first and vniuersall cause of all effectes and the Pope the vniuersall Bishop I answere that as God can supplie the externall actions of second causes called Actiones transeuntes therefore can produce heate without fire a man without a man a tree without a tree as he did in the first creation of things Yet he cannot as some hould produce immanent actiōs without their particular causes and powers so cannot produce the act of seing without the eye of hearing without the eare of loue without the will of vnderstading without the power of vnderstanding But how soeuer as God can produce the former externall actions without their particular causes and so supplie the second cause So the Pope if he be not onelie elected Pope but also consecrated can do all the actions by himselfe which Patriarches Archbishops Bishops Priests and other inferiour Ministers can do For he can ordaine Ministers and confirme the baptized with the Bishop he can consecrace absolue and minister other Sacraments and preach with the Priest Yea he can do other inferiour offices with the Deacon Subdeacon and therest though it be not so conuenient he should And soe as God cā be not onely an vniuersall but also a particular cause supplying the particular cause so the Pope can be a particular Bishop but then he must do the office of a particular Bishop by himselfe or his delegate or take the Title of that particular Church vnto him 25. That the Pope hath founded Seminaries of Priests for our countrie that he hath sent thether first Priests and then Religious men as M. Nicholas telleth vs n 8. and we all gratefullie acknowledge to preach and minister Sacramentes in our Countrie as this argueth his greate care of England and his no lesse charitie so it arguerh not as M. Nicholas would make his reader beleiue that he was our particular Bishop he neither by himselfe nor by his delegate doing the office of a Bishop in England nor euer hauing taken vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England And so since the decease of our ould Bishops to these late yeares in which his Holines sent vs twoe most worthie Bishops England was no particular Church because it had no particular Bishop to make it a particular Church 26. And by this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to all that he sayeth n. 8.9.10.12.13 In his 11. nūber he obiecteth against this that many places and persons are exempt from the Iurisdiction of a Bishop be fides the Pope neither did any man euer dreame that for that cause they ceased to be particular Churches I here pitie M. Nicholas his arguing and the necessitie he is driuen to which Cogit ad turpia For although monasteries be exempt from the Bishop and immediatlie subiect to the Pope yet no particular cōgregation or multitude that is a particular Church can be exempt from a particular Bishop as we haue proued out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church vnlesse the Pope make himselfe particular Bishop of it And therefore monasteries subiect onely to the Pope and exēpt from particular Bishops are indeed members of the Church but not a particular Church vnlesse M. Nicholas will make euerie nunnerie of woemen a particular Church 27. But here I cannot but meruayle that M. Nicholas thinketh it so strange that M. Doctour sayeth that there cannot be a particular Church without a Bishop and it should seeme thereby that he hath not much considered S. Thomas his doctrine in this pointe For that this learned Doctour sayeth D. Th. libr. 4. gent. c. 76. n. 4.1 p. q. 108. art 1.2.3 that the Church militant is deriued by similitude from the Triumphant and he sayeth also that euerie Order of the Angels consisteth of diuers Angels subordinate to one Prince who in this Doctours opinion is higher and perfecter in nature thē the rest and is the particular Prince of that Order and all the orders with their particular Princes are subiect to one supreme Angel who is Prince of the three Hierarchies and nine Orders of Angels And therefore in the Church militant in euerie notable parte of it there must be and most commonlie is a Bishop a spirituall Prince of that Church and all the particular Churches with their particular Hierarches and Bishops are subordinate to one supreme Bishop the Pope as M. Doctour hath proued in the 3. and 4. Chapter of his Hierarchie And therefore in his 2. Chapter he sayeth that the Church is compared to a Kingdome in which besides the King are Dukes Earles Marquises Barons c. who are princes in their kinde of their particular dominions and all are with their Dominions Lordships subordinate to the King and if any of these particular dominions be quite depriued of their Duke or Earle they are no more Dutchies or Earledomes though still they be members of the Kingdome and so that particular Prouince depriued of its Duke or Earle giueth not that lustre to the Kingdome which it hath by other particular Lordships and bodyes of the Kingdome 28. In like manner the Church being a Hierarchie is cōposed of diuers particular Churches of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop who is not the Popes delegate but an ordinarie and a Prince in his kind and the Church receiueth by this varietie of particular Bishops particular Churches a greate lustre And when any notable parte of it wanteth its particular Bishop and spirituall prince although the Church remaine still a Hierarchie in respect of other particular Churches which haue their particular Hierarche and Bishop yet in respect of that parte of the Church which hath no Bishop and which therefore is not a particular Church or body it is not perfectlie Hierarchicall nor hath it by that parte of the Church that varietie and lustre which it hath by other parts of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop 29. Wherefore when the Pope giueth to a countrie a delegated Bishop though many times he giueth to the delegate more power then the ordinarie hath although that countrie then be in its kinde a particular Church yet it wanteth some perfection it being not gouerned by an ordinarie Bishop and Pastour as other Churches are it being more perfect and more honorable to haue an ordinarie then a delegate And likewise if the Pope should send a simple Priest into Englād with power to confirme England should be in its kinde a particular Church but not in that degree of
were not composed of particular Churches and Bishops Which it may be and was in other particular Churches when England wanted a Bishop and should still be so although as God forbidde England were quite cutte of from the whole Church and had not one Catholike in it 35. Hauing thus demonstrated M. Doctours doctrine which auerred that a people Prouince or Countrie cānot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop and consequentlie that all the time England wanted a Bishop it was not a particular Church and hauing also detected in M. Nicholas wilfull or ignorāt mistakings which commonly are the groūds of all his arguments hauing answered to all his arguments I will go to the next question if first I adde this that seing that England when it had no particular Bishop was no particular Church M. Nicholas and his brethren out of the loue they ought to beare to their countrie should labour with the Clergie that we may alwayes haue a Bishop or Bishops by whome we may haue the honour to be a particular Church and enioy many other comforts and commodities which other countries enioye by their Bishops which to English Catholikes seeme most necessarie by reason of their persecution THE THIRD QVESTION VVhether by the diuine law euerie particular Church must haue its Bishop MAISTER NICHOLAS TO proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter alledgeth that it is De Iure diuino of the diuine lawe to haue a particular Bishop in euerie particular Church and for proofe he citeth Sotus affirming it to be of the diuine lawe c. and Bannes teaching c. n. 1. THE REPLY 1. I Confesse M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter auerreth that a particular Countrie cannot except against a Bishop sent by lawfull authoritie one grounde there of is because by the diuine law institution not onlie the whole and vniuersall Church must haue an vniuersall and supreme Bishop but also there must be in the whole Church diuers particular Churches gouerned by particular Bishops euen in time of persecutiō as he hath prooued in his 13. Chapter And this also he proueth in the beginning of his 14. Chapter n. 1. Yea M. Nicholas num 4. saieth that certaine it is that Iure diuino by the diuine lawe the Church must be gouerned by Bishops that is in the whole Church there must be some Bishops but to affirme that it is De iure diuino to haue a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England and not onelie that there is such a precept but moreouer that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof or giue sufficient cause of dispensation all which he must proue if be will speake home is a paradox 2. But softe M. Nicholas bona verba quaeso Remember your ould fault of which you haue beene so often tould By your leaue you make M. Doctour to say more then he doth that he may seeme to speake Paradoxes and you may haue more aduantage For M. Doctour in the same Chapter num 3. which M. Nicholas would not see graunteth that if the persecution be so great that a Bishop would not be permitted to enter into England or would presentlie be taken and put to death then it was to no purpose to send a Bishop with euident hazard of his life and no hope of good to the people by sending him and so in that case the obligation of hauing a Bishop should cease But sayeth M. Doctour in the same place If a Bishop may be bad and may so liue in a Countrie as he may in England that as there is feare least he be apprehended so there is hope he may escape sometime and so do some notable good I do not thinke that the Catholikes of that Countrie can except against his entrance 3. Nor doth M. Doctour denie that the Pope may dispense in the diuine lawe or declare that in some cases it ceaseth to oblige yea he speaketh not at all of dispensation in the diuine lawe Yet M. Doctour knoweth that the chiefe Pastour may dispense in vowes and in Matrimonie contracted onelie not consummated which yet are of the diuine lawe 4. And he knoweth also the diuine lawes in many circunstances do not oblige As for example euerie one is bound by the diuine lawe to receaue the B. Sacrament at the hower of his death least he aduenture on that so dangerous iorney from this life to the next without his Viaticum and yet though a Priest be present if he haue not holie vestements without which the Church commandeth not to celebrate Masse he must not say Masse because he cannot say it in that manner as he should and the sicke person is in that occurance of the ecclesiasticall law freed from diuine obligation to communicate 5. So that Priest by the diuine law is bound not to giue the B. Sacrament to any whome he koweth to be in mortall sinne and so vnworthie and yet if this partie be a secret sinner though knowne to the Priest and demaund of the Priest in publike to communicate he is bound to communicate him least he defame him and the diuine lawe which forbiddeth the Priest to giue the B. Sacrament to vnworthie Persons according to that do you not giue the holie to dogges Mat. 7. doth in that case cease to oblige the Priest 6. Soe it is a common opinion of deuines whome Vasquez alledgeth Vasq tom 3. disp 207. c. 4. 1. Cor. 11. Conc. Trid. Sess 13 cap. 7. that by the diuinelaw whosoeuer is in mortall sinne must confesse that sinne before he presume to receaue the B. Sacrament which they proue out of those words of S. Paul But let a man proue himselfe and so let him cate of the breade and drinke of the Chalice which probation of ones selfe the Councell of Trent defineth to be by Confession and yet if the Priest at Masse or the lay partie that is in companie kneeling before the altar remember at that time his sinne he may communicate if by omitting to do so he should defame himselfe And so in that case also the diuine lawe ceaseth to bind to confession and it will excuse him from the sinne of vnworthie receauing if he endeauour to get contrition 7. And Nauarre feareth not to say Nanar in Silma c. 27 n. 263. that it is Omnium vna conclusio c. it is a conclusion of all that many lawes agreeing to many by the diuine and naturall lawe are restrained by the chiefe Prince 〈◊〉 the Church in regard of spirituall things and of the secular Prince in respect of temporall matters as well by interpretation betwixt right and equitie interposed as by imposition of punishment as by inst dispensation as by iust and naturallreason and Felinus Decius and others do copiouslie deliuer 8. Wherefore M. Doctour doth not say that the Pope cannot in some cases dispense in the diuine lawe of hauing a Bishop or declare that in
worse thought of and farre much the worse for it Of this I could say more but I was loath to haue sayed thus much had not M. Nicholas vrged me vnto it To whom therefore I say Qui alterum incusat probi ipsum se intueri oportet he that accuseth another of any fault must looke that himselfe be free from it else in condemning another he condemneth himselfe 11. And would to God the Superiours of other Colledges would teach their subiectes to thinke and speake well of the Bishop and Clergie and other Seminaries I know M. Doctour would be as forward as the most forward to teach and charge his to loue and respect Regulars which mutuall correspondence if there were a peace would not onely follow but also would be conserued and this mutuall peace would be pleasing to God honorable and comfortable to both parties but as S. Gal. 5. Paule saieth If you bite and eate one another by detracting from one another take heed you be not consumed of one another 12. I wonder that M. Nicholas num 7. should say that M. Doctours booke should not be pleasing to the Sea Apostolike it prouing the Catholike Romaine doctrine against Heretiks commending the Hierarchie which the CouÌ„cel of Trent defineth to be of the diuine Institution Cont. Trid. Sess 6. c 22 Can. 3 and to consist of Bishops Priests and other Ministers defending the mission of our most Reuerend Bishop sent to England from the Sea Apostolik with that authoritie ouer England which other Bishops haue ouer their Dioceses and highlie coÌ„mendeth also by the same Sea Apostolik rather M. Nicholas might feare a checke if the Sea Apostolike were rightlie informed seing that he in his Discussion speaketh so coldly of the Sacrament of Confirmation because be would not haue a Bishop and so openly that is by a booke in printe glaunceth at the Bishops person impugneth his mission as not conuenient for these tymes as though he would controlle the chiefe Pastour and knew better then he and his Counsell what times are most sutable for a Bishop Neither can M. Doctours booke whatsoeuer M. Nicholas sayeth n. 8. be vngratefull to our English Catholiks much lesse to the greater and better parte Whome euerie where he commendeth for their zeale and constancie in defending God his cause with hazard of their liberties landes and liues and doth not taxe them of want of obedience or charitie as he saieth in not being vnited to my Lord of Chalcedon for that he knoweth that the most of them are linked to him in loue respect and obedience and if some of them be not so much vnited to him as were to be wished it is rather to be imputed to some regulars who are their Guides and Directours then to them And how the Catholiks are not condemned of sinne for refusing a Bishop as M. Nicholas also saieth shall appeare hereafter in my reply to the third questioÌ„ But whome M. Nicholas meaneth by the better and greater part of Catholiks I know not I had thought when wee talke of matters of faith the Church and her Hierarchie the greater and better parte had beene the Bishop and his Clergie together with those that adhere vnto him as to their lawfull pastour and they as M. Nicholas knoweth are well pleased with M. Doctours booke as the rest also would haue beene had not M. Nicholas and his misinformed them of the contentes 14. Let M. Nicholas reflect vpon himselfe for if he and some others had not terrified them with vaine shaddowes and made them to feare where was no cause of feare they would haue beene as zealous for a Bishop as the most zealous knowing that by the presence of a Bishop God would be glorified our little Church of EnglaÌ„d graced the weake Catholiks in tyme of persecution strengthned and all comforted 15. But I did not thinke that M. Nicholas could Exeodem orefrigidum efflare calidum Out of the same mouth breath could and hoate had I not seene that in diuers places of his Discussion he chargeth M. Doctour as to partialie addicted to the Bishop and Clergie yet in this his first questioÌ„ n. 9. accuseth him as an enemie to his Ordinarieship To which he may easilie be answered that M. Doctour onely saieth in his 15. Chapter n. 10. that the Bishop of Chalcedon hath onelie a generall spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ ouer the Clergie and lay Catholiks in spirituall matters and hath no Title giuen him to any particular Bishopricke in EnglaÌ„d so caÌ„not chaleÌ„ge to himselfe any particular Bishoprick no more then the Priests by their faculties which they haue to preach and minister Sacraments all ouer England can chalenge any particular parish Church Which he sayed to shew that our Protestant Bishops haue no iust occasion to except against our Catholik Bishop Yet who can doubt but that as the Pope hath giuen him that power and authoritie ouer England which other Bishops haue ouer their Dioceses soe he can Ex plenitudine potestatis by fulnesse of power with this generall authoritie make him Ordinarie of England by an extraordinarie manner as at first he was stiled But whether he be De facto Ordinarie or no because M. Doctour in his Hierarchie neuer determined it nether will I. Yet I haue seene certaine writings in which some haue learnedlie disputed for his ordinariship on which he standeth not so much as on the power of an ordinarie which he thinketh sufficient to demaund approbation 16. M. Nicholas as he is verie forwards in that kinde againe chargeth M. Doctour saying that it cannot be pleasing to God to treate of holy things vpon particular designes And so still maketh himselfe iudge of M. Doctours intentions But let him looke into his owne conscience and see whether he cannot there discouer a particular designe in opposing the hauing of a Bishop in our Countrie M. Doctour hath protested before God in his Epistle dedicatorie and other partes of his Hierarchie that he entended onelie that the Bishop should be honoured and all orders in their ranke respected and I haue alreadie in my preface to the Reader layed opeÌ„ his intentioÌ„ And therefore M. Doctour knowing his owne good intention hopeth that he pleased God in writing his Hierarchie for so good an end as to commend all orders in their kind and thereby to induce them all to peace with one another 17. Let M. Nicholas take heed of his Discussion full false dealings wrong imputations wilfull mistakings gibes and tauntes to disgrace M. Doctour as in theire places shal be shewed farsed with many oppositions against a Bishop sent and commended by the chiefe Vicar of Christ derogating to the holy Sacrament of Confirmation whose necessitie he slighteth whose perfection he denyeth in denying that it maketh vs perfect Christians S. Cle. Ep. 4. S. Vr. banus ep decrâ—t opposite to the ancient fathers who as I haue shewed in my Reply to the 4. questioÌ„ n. 15. attribute that perfection vnto it And
Epistles Franciscus Turrianus a Iesuite also hath vndertaken in a booke which for those Epistles he wrote most learnedlie against the Magdeburgian Centurians who haue not hitherto made any answere to it nether shall they euer be able to answere sufficientlie And so M. Nicholas against all these as well as against M. Doctour who alledge this place to proue Confirmation a SacrameÌ„t might haue saied that they should not haue grounded the veritie of a Sacrament so much impugned by heretikes vpon an Epistle which as is to be supposed they knew not to be so Authenticall as to settle thereon a doctrinall point yea a matter of faith Did not they know as well as M. Nicholas how Authenticall Saint Clements workes were 13. But sayeth M. Nicholas Bellarmine in his booke de Scriptoribus Eccles Sayeth that the Epistles of S. Clement are not Authenticall And I graunt that Bellarmine sayeth that the Epistles of S. Clement which now are extant want not a soâ—uple Lib. de Script Eccles in Clement by reason that there are many thinges inserted as that two Epistles were written to Saint Lames who was dead before But sayeth Bellarmine perchaunce they were written to S. Simcon and other thinges there are sayeth he which peraduenture were inserted and are not in the Vatican booke But yet he reiecteth not this Epistle and therefore as we haue seene hee and many others do cite this Epistle and in the Canon law S. ClemeÌ„ts Epistles and other his workes Dist 40 c In illis 16 q. 1. capit Cunctis are alledged and Turrianus Gualterus and many others doe defend these workes and Catholike writers alledge them against heretikes whom M. Nicholas must take heed least he fauour in so slighting the authoritie of these Epistles 14. If this answere in which he denyeth S. Clements Epistles to be of authoritie please not M. Nicholas hath another n. 16. Which he taketh out of Estius whom he sayeth M. Doctour cited for the necessitie of Confirmation but did not cite his explication of Fathers how they say that one is not a perfect Christian without Confirmation which sayeth M. Nicholas is no faire dealing But why was it no sayre dealing for M. Doctour to cite Estius for the necessitie of Confirmation Suppose in the other point he had beene against M. Doctour do not Diuines commonlie alledge a father or Diuine for the pointe wherein he fauoureth them And are they bound to alledge him in another matter wherein hee seemes to be against them And so if Estius had beene against M. Doctour and had sayed that without Confirmation a man might be a perfect Christian he might yet haue cited him for the necessitie of Confirmation without citing him for the point of a perfect Christian Else how could Maister Nicholas cite Estius for this point seing that in another point he holdeth against M. Nicholas that a Priest not consecrated Bishop cannot confirme by any commission of the Pope as we see aboue q. 1. n. But Estius his doctrine of a perfect Christian is not against M. Doctour and so was not by him left out for that cause but ether because he is not so cleare in that point as others or because M Doctour had cited S clement whose words were plaine But let vs heare Estius these be his words in English It must be obserued that the Fathers in such sentences where they say that men cannot be perfect Christians vnlesse they be confirmed doe allude to the name of Christ which signifieth anointed VVhereupon they dency that they are fullie Christians who as yet haue not receiued Episcopall vnction making force in the word Christian Estius in 4. dist 7. § 9. Which his manner of explication may verie well fauour the explication aboue giuen by which it was sayed that although a man may perchaunce by other meanes get as much grace as confirmation giueth yet he is not a perfect Christian because he hath not the Sacrament of perfection which is the Episcopall Vnction 15. But our aduersarie fearing perhappes not to be fortunate enough in these two answeres addeth a third p. 8 1. He telleth vs that the ancient practise was to giue together with Baptisme the Sacrament of Confirmation and that therefore S. Clement his meaning is onely this that they who haue not both these Sacraments for one was not giuen without the other are not perfect Christians and sayeth he I doubt not but that this will fullie satisfie the learned Reader 16. But this answere argueth onelie the hard shiftes to which M. Nicholas is put for else what diuine yea Catechumen who knoweth his Catechisme would haue giuen such an answere For who knoweth not that it is one thing to be a Christian another thing to be a perfect ChristiaÌ„ and how that goeth before this commeth after that Baptisme onelie maketh a Christian Confirmation a perfect Christian and he that wanteth both is no Christian at all And therefore S. Clement could not haue saied of him that wanteth both that he is no perfect Christian but rather he should haue sayed that he is noe Christian at all For that a perfect Christian supposeth a Christian and he that wanteth baptisme is no Christian and so cannot be called an imperfect Christian he being no Christianistiall at all 17. Wherefore S. Clement to shew that he speaketh not of both SacrameÌ„ts when he sayeth that one cannot be a perfect Christian distinguisheth the effectes of both these two Sacraments and therefore sayeth all must make haste to be regenerated without delay behould the effect of Baptisme regeneration And then at length that is after Baptisme to be consigned of the Bishop that is to receiue the seuenfould grace of the holie Ghost See the effect of Confirmation to wit seuenfould grace And then he addeth And when he shal be regenerated by water See the effect of Baptisme regeneration and after wardes as is mentioned confirmed of a Bishop by the seuenfould grace of the spirit see the effect of Confirmation quia alià s perfectus esse Christianus nequaâ—uam potest for otherwise that is vnlesse he be Consigned and confirmed he cannot be a perfect Christian Where otherwise hath a reference onelie to Confirmation of which he spoke last for if it had reference to both Sacraments as M. Nicholas sayed S. Clement should haue sayed he can be no Christian at all because he that is not baptized is not at all a Christian and so cannot be called an imperfect Christian 18. And to confront M. Nicholas the more for I see by experience Bol. l. 1. de CoÌ„firm c 3. he will not he Satisfied with alitle let vs heare Cardinall Bellarmine He after he had cited those words of S. Clement All must make haste without delay to be regenerated and then to be consigned of the Bishop and receiue the seuenfould grace of the holie Ghost addeth Et infra causam reddit Clemens quia non potest aliquis fine eo Sacramento esse perfectus Christianus
England were greater for the Bishop as it is not there being no speciall lawes in force against him yet many might receiue him and Confirmation of him without any imminēt danger and consequentlie according to Estius his opinion are bound vnder mortall sinne to receiue Confirmation when there is danger by reason of infirmitie of denying their faith or of fearing to professe it when they should And so I meruaile that M. Nicholas could not see the difference betwixt persecution in generall and in particular for that persecution in generall doth not excuse particular men from receiuing Confirmation they notwithstanding a generall persecution hauing commoditie to receiue it without danger but when the persecution is particular to men in particular then they cannot without danger and so are excused yet nether a countrie nor any of the countrie can except against Priests coming into the countrie by reason of a generall persecution because notwithstanding such a persecution many in particular may heare Masse receiue the B. Sacrament goe to confessiō heare a sermon now and then without imminent danger and so for respect and regard of these who haue right to the Sacrament none can except against the coming in of Priests into a countrie seing that if the countrie were depriued of Priests none could heare Masse goe to confession receiue the Sacraments or heare exhortations and so at this day if Priests had not bene sent into England maugre persecution there had now scarce any Catholike or Catholike Religion bene left in England nisi Dominus exercituum reliquisset nobis semen quasi Sodoma suissemus quasi Gomorrha similes essemus Vnlesse the Lord of Hostes had left vs this seed we had bene as Sodome and we should be like to Gomorrha Isai 1. 32. So although no man in particular be bound to receiue the Bishop into his house or Confirmation of him with imminent danger of the aforesayed temporall losses Yet a countrie could not except against a Bishop or Confirmation for feare of persecution in generall for that notwithstanding such a generall persecution many might without the aforesayed danger receiue a Bishop and Confirmation at his hands as wee see they haue done in England And so in regard of these who haue right to a Bishop and to Confirmation none can except against the coming in of a Bishop lawfullie sent vnlesse as M. Doctour sayeth p. 378. n 3. the persecution were so great that the Bishop could not enter or would presently be apprehended or put to death because without a Bishop many should want the confort encouragement and example of such a Pastour they should want Confirmation which as Estius sayeth cannot in tyme of persecution and when there is danger of falling to many who might commodiouslie receiue it be omitted without mortall sinne as we shall proue anone M. NICHOLAS His last argument is out of a coniecture that without Confirmation if one fall not others probablie will as he sayeth Nouatus did n. 19. THE REPLY That Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation and that in time of persecution without that Sacrament if one fall not others will 33. M. Doctour indeed sayed pag. 387. n. 8. that if in tyme of persecution there were not a Bishop to giue Confirmation if one fall not others probablie would as Nouatus did for want of it But M. Nicholas sayeth that of Nouatus he findeth no such thing in Eusebius to wit that in tyme of persecution hefell for want of Confirmation 34. And indeed neither Eusebius nor Cornelius by him alleadged doe say so in expresse termes but they do so insinuate and so it followeth out of their words that as other writers haue done so M Doctour might say that Noutatus others as Baronius ad Pamelius call him Nouatianus did fall in time of persecution for want of Confirmation 35. Euseb l 6 c. 33 alias 35. iuxta vers Christophor soni For Eusebius saieth first that Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus telleth all the particulars quis qualis suerit vita vel moribus quomodo ab Ecclesia Dei declinauerit Who what manner of man he was in life and manners and how he declined from the Church And after he sayeth of him Et quod iacens in lecto pronecessitate perfusus sit c. and that lying in his bed he was baptized out of necessitie and that the rest which are wont to follow Baptisme were not solemnelie fulfilled and that he was not consummated by the seale of Chrisme where upon neither could he euer deserue the holy Ghost that is in that speciall manner as he is giuen by Confirmation that is to giue courage to professe our faith in tyme of persecution Li. aduersus Luciferia◠nos For as S. Hierome auerreth the Holie Ghost is also giuen by Baptisme yea as Diuines graunte by other Sacraments so oft as by them wee receiue instifying grace but not in that speciall manner nor to that particular end which is to giue force to professe our faith in time of persecution maugre all threates and tormentes of the Tyrant And therefore Eusebius a little after addeth that Cornelius writeth also of Nouatus that in time of persecution when he lurked in a certaine little celle for feare and was desired by the Deacons as the manner is helpe the Catechumenes at their departure out of this life he fearing to come out denyed himselfe to be a Priest And presentlie after hee telleth how he also fell into Schisme And so seing that he fell in persecution and wanted the holy Ghost for ant of Confirmation if we put all this together we shall find it at least verie probable that hee fell for want of Confirmation though other causes might concurre as ambition which M. Nicholas alleadgeth in that manner as though he meant couertelie to glaunce at the ambition of Priests who desire a Bishop though as aboue I haue tould him in this tyme there is little cause why out of ambition any should desire a Bishop and I pray God there be not ambition also in seeking to hinder the Catholikes from hauing a Bishop 36. But that Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation diuers before M. Doctour haue affirmed As first The venerable and learned Authours of the Rhemes Testament of whom M. Doctour had it who writing on the eight Chapter of the Actes haue deliuered these words To conclude neuer none denied or contemned this Sacrament of Confirmation and holy Chrisme but knowne heretikes S. Cornelius that B. Martyr so much praised of S. Cyprian ep ad Fabium apud Euseb l. 6. c. 35. affirmeth that Nouatus fell to heresie for that he had not receiued the holy Ghost by the consignation of a Bishop whom all the Nouatians did fellow neuer vsing that bolie Chrisme 37. Fulke in his answere to the notes of the Rhemists on this place answereth that Nouatus omitted the ceremonie of anointing yet doth not Cornelius say that he fell into heresie because he
had not receiued the holie Ghost by consignation of a Bishop but onely sheweth what manner a man he was Thus he answereth the Rhemists And M. Nicholas ioyneth with him in his answere to Maister Doctour saying Onely Eusebius out of Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus recounteth that he fell persecutionis tempore metu debilitatus nimia vitae cupiditate adductus in tyme of persecution weakened with feare and moued with too much desire of life And presentlie after sayeth Maister Nicholas It may be well that he fell for want of Confirmation Yet as Fulke sayed so he saieth I deny that Eusebius sayeth so But I had rather giue credit to the Rhemists then to M. Nicholas I hauing especiallie found him tripping so often and their one affirmation ought to be taken before tenne negations or denialls of M. Nicholas Estins also hauing sayed that the Apostles vse to giue Confirmation so soone after batisme as might conuenientlie be Estius in 4. d. 7 § 18. sayeth Quorum alacritatem studium in conferendo hoc Samentum imitari conuenit omnes Episcopos maximè quod huius subsidij neglectu fiat vt persecutionis tempore multi deficiant aut labantur sicut teste Cornelio Papa Nouato accidit Whose alacritie and studiè in giuing this Sacrament it is conuenient that all Bishops should imitate especiallie because by neglect of this helpe it comes to passe in time of persecution that many doe fayle or falle as witnesse Pope Cornelius it happened to Nouatus Behould another authour of greater credit then Maister Nicholas as being a Classicall Authour hauing bene many yeares professour of diuinitie in the famous Vniuersitie of Doway affirmeth also with M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas that Nouatus fell in tyme of persecution for want of Confirmation Bzouius also in his first tome speaking of Nouatus or Nouatianus saieth thus of him morbo tandem clapsus neque caetera quibus post Baptismum secundum Ecclesiae Canonem imbui oportucrat acquisiuit neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus quamobrem neque Spiritum sanctum ex sacro Chrismate adeptus persecutionis metu debilitatus nimia vitae cupiditate adductus se presbyterum esse negauit At lenght hauing escaped his sicknesse he neither got the rest with which according to the Ecclesiasticall Canon he should haue beene imbued or furnished nor was he signed with our Lords seale Wherefore neither hauing by the sacred Chrisme gotten the holie Ghost he in time of persecution being weakened with feare to witt because by Confirmation he had not gotteÌ„ the holie Ghost and moued with too much desire of life he denyed himselfe to be a priest Bzeuius to 1. l. 3 Eccl hist Anno. Christi 254. Corn. Papa an 1. Colu â—49 And after Bzouius relateth how at the request of the Deacons he refused to helpe them that were in danger and necessitie but in a Choler want from them and afterward fell into Schisme in ambitiouslie aspiring to be Pope And why all this but because he had not by Confirmation receiued the holy Ghost Baius lib. 2. Instit c. 631. l. 2. de Conf. c. 63. nam ideo Nouatum ad haeresim procliuiorem fuisse sensit Cornelius Papa quoniam signaculo Chrismatis confirmatus non esset Eusebio teste l. 6. hi c. 33. For Cornelius Pope thought that Nouatus was more proue to heresie because he was not confirmed by the seale of Chrisme Inc 8 Art ve 17. in fine as Eusebius witnesseth libr. 6. Histor cap. 33. Lorinus a Iesuite sayeth that Nouatus was possessed by the derull because he receiued not the Sacrament yea reiected it With these Catholike Authours M. Doctour thought it more honour toioyne then with Fulke the heretike as M. Nicholas in this doth 38. Now whereas M. Nicholas sayeth that he hath answered to M. Doctours coniecture so he calleth it that in time of persecution Confirmation is necessarie for a countrie because if one fall not others will I graunt that he hath endeauoured in the beginning of this question numero 6. and 7. but could neuer yet performe that he hath endeauoured He sayeth numero 6. that the tymes of persecution in our Countrie haue beene most bitter and yet would to God wee could behould the zeale feruour Charitie and constancie which in these dayes Catholikes without Confirmation shewed But why speaketh hee in this manner Doth he thinke a countrie in persecution may doe better without Confirmation then with it or that it helpeth nothing Why then did Christ institute it to the end that in persecution we might with an vndaunted courage professe our faith before the persecutour And sayeth hee I hould it noe rashnesse to saye that since Englands enioying a Bishop more harme hath hefalne Catholik's in generall See how Passion transporteth Maister Nicholas And by whose fault is it that since we had a Bishop more harme hath befalne Catholikes in generall Is it the presence of a Bishop that bringeth such harme Why then did Christ and the holie Ghost appoint Bishops to gouerne the Churche Act. 20. Other Countries in tyme of persecution haue euer receiued greate benefits much comfort and encouragement by their Bishops Why then should we onely receiue a generall harme by hauing a learned Bishop a man of exemplar life and a bishop sent by lawfull and highest authoritie I will not say who are the cause but I referre that to all indifferent mennes iudgements and euen to Maister Nicholas his calmer disposition and better consideration If euerie one had receiued and obeyed him as they ought to haue done Saint Peters successour sending him and if they who found themselues grieued had proposed their grieuances and difficulties vnto Superiours in all quiet modestie and without clamours and had patientie expected their decision and determination there had not arisen such scandall as there did 39. But to come to the matter Ca 14 n. 7. Maister Doctour sayed that although euen in tyme of persecution a man may haue sufficient grace without Confirmation to stand to his faith and Religion as may appeare by them who neither confirmed nor Baptized with water haue endured martyrdome for their faith and so haue bene baptized in their owne blood and as may be seene in our English Catholikes who though many of them were not confirmed shed their blood to seale and signe their faith Yet because Confirmation is the ordinarie meanes instituted to giue force and courage in tyme of persecution to neglect it in such a tyme when euerie man may feare his owne infirmitie is a mortall sinne and if it be neglected for a generall persecution in which as aboue many thousands in particular may commodiouslie receiue it if one fall not as Maister Doctour sayeth Estius in 4. dist 7. § 18. Ca. 14. n. 8. others probablie will as Nouatus did And so a countrie in such a persecution is obliged to receiue a Bishop least it shew it selfe cruell to so many
state which is not in the state of a Bishop though this state absolutelie surpasse that 26. But M. Nicholas obiecteth that to vow not to be religious is wicked and inualid to vow not to accept a Bishoprick is laudable and valid ergo a religious state hath some good which a Bishops state hath not else this might be vowed as well as that I answere first that to sweare at least in some case not to be religious is not wicked yet an oath hath a greate affinitie with a vowe For M. Nicholas knoweth that the Sea Apostolike hath commanded all these who will enioy the benefit of the Popes Seminaries to sweare that they wil be Priests and will not enter into any religious order or congregation without licence of the Pope vnlesse they first labour in the missioÌ„ the space of three yeares And Nauarre sayeth Naua in Mâ—nuali ca. 12. n. 16. that for one to sweare that he will not enter into religion or receiue holy orders is but a veniall sinne ergo it is not to be called wicked for saith he if to sweare to commit a veniall sinne be but a veniall sinne to sweare not to be religious to which vnder noe sinne he is bound can be but a veniall sinne 27. Nau. c. 12. n. Secondlie I answere with the same Nauarre more directlie that to vow not to be religious byndeth not and therefore notwithstanding that vow one may be religious yet such a vow is but a veniall sinne and so cannot be called wicked as M. Nicholas calls it because in our English tongue wicked soundeth as doth impium in the Latin tongue and is taken for a grieuous or mortall sinne And therefore M. Nicholas could not call him that committeth onelie a veniall sinne a wicked or impious man 28. Thirdely I answere that although to vow not to procure to be a Bishop may be holy and valid yet to vow not to accept a Bishopricke when it is imposed on a maÌ„ by the Pope and in necessitie of the Church is not holie and valid but it is rather wicked and inualid For that to vow not to accept a Bishopricke in that case is to vow a great disobedience against authoritie and which also in that case is against the Charitie we vow to God his Church and so the vow is wicked being a vow of a mortall sinne and it is inualid because it is not de meliori bono not of an act which is better done then vndone for that in that case it is not better not to accept a Bishopricke imposed by Authoritie then to accept it 2. 2. q. 185. ar 2. Wherefore S. Thomas sayeth that to refuse finallie the office of a Bishop pertaineth to an inordination of the will for twoe causes The one because it is against charitie S Tho 2. 2. q. 29. ar 7. ad 2. the other because it is against humilitie by which a man subiecteth himselfe to the commandement of the superiour And in another place he sayeth cum aliquis iurat quod non accipiet praelationem in casu quo expedit eum accipere c. VVhen one sweareth that be will not accept of a prelacie when it is expedient be should that he sinneth because his oath hundereth a greater good Nauarre also sayeth Nau. in man c 12. n. 16. that he who sweareth that he will not enter into Religion or that he will not receiue holie orders or that he will not accept of a Bishopricke sinneth though not mortallie and he citeth S. S. Thomas in the last place Angelus Sylu. v. Iâ— rameÌ„tum Angelus Syluester And he sayeth that such an oath doth not bynde Azorius who citeth for himselfe Antoninus sayeth that the oath which one maketh not to accept of a Bishopricke may be broken by the priuate authoritie of him that sweareth Azor. to 1. l. 11. c. 5. And so to vow absolutelie not to accept a Bishopricke is vnlawfull because in a necessitie one may be bound to accept is and to desire it and if it be imposed by authoritie it cannot be refused Onely it is lawfull and laudable to vow not to seeke for a Bishopricke or to accept of it when it is offerred and when there is no necessitie and when it is not imposed by a commanding authoritie 29. Lastelie I answere that although to vow to procure to be a Bishop or to seeke after that dignitie where there is no necessitie of the church be sinfull and of no force to bynd and to vow to be a Religious man be an holie and valid vow and to vow absolutelie not to procure a Bishopricke is holie and valid to vow absolutely not to be a religious maÌ„ is absolutelie vnholie and not valid Yet that is not because to be a religious man is absolutelie better then to be a Bishop for as S. Paul saieth if a man desire a Bishops office he desireth a good worke 1. Tim. 3. Yom. 3. de Relig. c. 18. and as we haue seene and as Suarez affirmeth a worke more perfect then the proper actes and functions of a religion are but because the office of a Bishop though good and of greater charitie perfection then religious professioÌ„ in that respect fit to be vowed as much as other good workes is subiect to auarice by reason of the riches annexed vnto it to ambition by reason of the splendour and honour and to presumption by reason of mans improportion to such a dignitie and lastlie to other dangers by reason of many destractions caused by Episcopall affaires and so cannot be so much as desired as S. Thomas affirmeth yet as he also auerreth S Tho 2 2. q. 185. ar â— to desire to doe good to others in the exercise of the Episcopal function is of it selfe laudable and vertuous According to which S. Chrysostome cited by S. Thomas Chrys bom 35. in Mat. sayth opus quidem desiderate bonum bonum est primatum tameu bonoris concupiscere vanitas est primatus enim fugientem se desiderat desider antem so odit To desire a good worke is good but to couet the primacie of honour is vanitie for that primacie desireth him that flyeth it and hateth him that desireth it 30. But in necessitie of the Church when there want men able and willing or when other wise an vnworthie person would be preferred to defire or to vow to be a Bishop is noe sinne nor is the vow inualid Suarez hauing sayed that though the state of a Bishop be better then the state of a religious man obliging to more perfect operations and requiring more and greater vertues yet cannot be vowed because that onely can be vowed Szarez to 3. l. 1. c. 18. n. 5. 11. 12. which is not onely good but also hath no danger annexed yet notwithstanding sayeth he it is not intrinsecallie euill to vow to accept a Bishops office if it be abstracted from these temporall commodities as honour riches
the solitude of Monkes without comparison I would make choise of that I first spoake of And if the regular be sent in mission to doe the functions of a Pastour then he is in as greate danger as the Pastour in so much the greater as mutations from one extreame to another are more dangerous And therefore in the primatiue Church when regulars were sent abroad into the world to preach or to take care of soules they vsed to send none into the world but such as by long practise of humilitie and mortification in a religious state were as dead to the world in affection as they were by profession But if M. Nicholas may make comparisons with the Bishop because a regular is in greater securitie he may compare the inferiour regular with his Abbot and Generall because their state as it is higher so it is lesse free from danger it being harder to gouerne others then ones selfe and easier to rule one then many 40. Now as concerning immobilitie which is another aduantage that the regular as M. Nicholas affirmeth hath of the Bishop T. 3 li. I.C. 16. n. 23. I answere with Suarez that when the Bishop accepteth the office of a Bishop in such a Church and is accepted of it he maketh a pact and couenant with his Church to remaine with it and to exercise Episcopall functions in it to which saieth Suarez he is bound by charitie and iustice and this is sufficient to make the Bishop to haue a state immoueable Yet this immobilitie is augmented by the ecclesiasticall law as he thinketh or euen by the diuine law as Vasguez affirmeth And saieth Suarez a vow is not required to make a state immoueable because saieth he a vow is not the totall cause of a state Suarez Vasq supra And whereas S. Thomas seemeth to require a vow annexed to the state of the Bishop he answereth with Caretan that S. Thomas meaneth onely the aforesayed pact which the Bishop maketh with his Church when he accepteth it S Th. 2. 2. q 284. ar 58 q. 185 ar 4. And because the Bishop is many times elected and confirmed Bishop of a place before he is consecrated he is also then in a state of perfection because then he maketh a pacte and couenant with his Church electours neuer to leaue that Church without licence or dispensation of the Pope with which difpensation the religious may leaue sus religious state and marrie as aboue we haue shewed M. NICHOLAS Neither is this perfection of a religions state prrfitable to the religions man alone but oftentimes disposeth him further to the helpeing of hes neighbours c. n. 10. THE REPLY Regulars as regulars are by office to haue care of the soules of others 41. Here M. Nicholas must be content to heare againe M. Doctours reduplication of Regulars as Regulars for as Regulars they are not to haue care or charge of others but of their owne soules to the perfecting where of they endeauour and therefore the regular state as we haue seene and as M. Doctour teacheth Chap. 12. is status perfection is acquirendae non exercendae vel conimunicandae a state of perfectiō to be gottē not to be exercised on others or to be cōmunicated vnto thē therefore saieth S. Thomas Bishops are in state of a perfectors of others S. TW 2.2 q. 184. ar 7. regulars are in state of them that are perfected And so the regular state is to get perfectiō for ones selfe the Bishops state is to communicate perfection to others by preaching administration of Sacraments c. Secondlie wee must distinguish bet wixt the obligation which one hath of iustice and by office and the obligation which is onely of charitie By this second obligatiō not onely Pastours but also others not Pastours are bound whē there is opportunitie to haue care and to helpe their neighbour by fraternall correction freindlie counsaile and exhortation And by this obligation of charitie the religions when occasion occurreth are bound to helpe others Ecc. c. 11. 17. Mat. 18. By the first obligation which is of office and iustice onely Pastours and Superioursare bound to assist their neighbours to tender their saluation I graunt that the regular if he practise the counsailes well and obserue his rule exactlie and exercise him selfe in actes of humilitie patience mortification frequentlie doth remoue the impedimentes which hinder the loue of God and so hath good meanes to encrease in himselfe the loue of God and consequentlie of his neighbour this loue being grounded in that and so if he be called to preach teache and minister Sacraments his charitie will much helpe him yea mooue and incite him to doe good to others but this belongeth not to him precisely as he is a regular for then it should belonge to all regulars euen lay brethren women for as aboue I saied quod connenit alioui quà tali conuenit omni tali but as he is Priest and is called to doe the office of a Pastour which office belongeth not to him as due to the state of a regular but as Suarez sayeth in the words aboue alleadged by priuiledge by delegation and by participation And therefore sayeth Suarez the obligation of exercising such actions Suarez l. 1. c 18 p. 18. and procuring the saluation of soules and loofing life for thē is farre greater higher in a Bishop as it is also in an inferiour Pastour who also by office is to giue his life for his sheepe Io. 10. thē in any whatsoeuer simple religious of what institute soeuer he be that is although by his institute he be to preach teach and minister Sacraments as the Dominicans Franciscans Iesuites are And so when regulars haue beene sent to preach to infidelles as many haue beene who also haue performed these functions with greate successe as M. Doctour confesseth in his Hierarchie they did these offices as Suarez sayeth by commission delegation and priuiledge and not by any ordinarie right 42. I graunt therefore that religious and some by their in stitute doe many of the functions of Pastours for as Pastours do preach Cap. ◠n. 8. so doe they as Pastours doe minister Sacraments so doe they at least some Sacraments but in regulars this is accessorie in Pastours principall in regulars it is volūtarie in Pastours necessarie in regulars it is will and pleasure in pastours obligatiō in regulars it is free offer in Pastours boūden duty Regulars assiste soules without charge or obligation to answere for thē the pastours must answere soule for soule yea for as many soules as he hath charge of the regulars doth minister Sacraments sometimes and to those that come to them Pastours in sommer winter by day and by night in rayne and snow in heate and cold must oftentimes goe to their penitentes howses there to heare their confessions there to minister vnto thē the B. Sacrament there to giue them the last Sacrament
The regulars meddle not with Baptisme marriage and extreme vnction the Pastour ministreth all In fine the Pastour with Iacob day and night is parched with heate and forst Genes 31. 35. Math. 20. and is by office vigilant and carefull for his sheepe that the sleepe flyeth from his eyes and with the first workers in the vinyeard he beares the burden of the day and heate Whereas the regular as they are the later workers so they worke at plea fure And as one saieth the Priests or Pastours of the Church are the body of the armie regulars are the ayding wings Priests are pressed souldiers regulars are voluntaries Priests by office and ordinary right do minister Sacraments and preach regulars only by priuiledge And therefore S. Denys sayeth that because that the monkes when they were innitiated did not kneele an both knees nor had the Diuine bookes layed on their head but were neere the Priests whilest he recited the prayer Declarat monachorum ordinis non esse alios deducere sed in se ac per se stare in singulari sanctoque statu Lib de Eccl. Hier. co S. Contéplatio se cundū vers periotium M. NICHOLAS The perfection of a Bishop consists in this that by his office he is obliged to enlighten others and if occasion require to giue his life for his Flocke which occasion seldome happeneth To these two obligations the Bishop is tyed by iustice in regard of maintenāce and honour afforded him by his flocke or by vertue of sideline c. but religions men meerelie vpē charitie or religion more noble vertues then iustice or fidelitie to illuminate others and venture their liues for the sauing of soules n. 11. THE REPLY M. Nicholas speaketh to baselie of the Bishops office and dutie 43. when I redde these words of M. Nicholas I confesse I noe litle wondered to heare a religious man who should honour Bishops and Pastours speake in this manner But speake truth M. Nicholas da gloriam Deo giue glorie to God in giuing the due to his Bishop Is not the Bishop also boūd and especiallie bound out of charitie to vndertake and execute his office in illuminating and perfecting others and in giuing his life for thē If he be not why did Christ three times demaund of S. Peter whether be loued him Ioan 21 before he would cōmitte the gouernement of the Church vnto him Doe not those words of our Sauiour a good shepheard giueth his life for his sheepe Ioan. 10. pertaine especially more principallie to Bishops yea and to inferiour Pastours then to regulars Suarez a regular as well as M. Nicholas Lib 1. c 18 n. 14. and farre more learned and modest in the place last alleadged sayeth that the obligation of exercising actions ordained to the perfecting of others and the procuring the saluation of soules and loosing life for them is farre greater and higher in a Bishop then in any whatsoeuer simple religious of what Institute soeuer hee be And is there any greater charitie then to expose ones life for his sheepe as the Bishop is bound confesse then M. Nicholas to the honour of God who is honored in his Bishops that the obligation which the Bishop hath to illuminate others to giue his life for thē is greater thē any regular hath vnlesse he be also a Bishop or Pastour Yea as aboue we haue sayed it belongeth not to regulars as regulars to illuminate others or to giue their liues for them for then they should be in statu perfectionis acquisitae exercendae but onlie to seeke to saue and perfect themselues And M. Nicholas see how partiall affection domineereth sometimes euen in Religious men when he sayeth that a Bishop is eyed to illuminate others and to giue his life for his flocke by iustice only in regard of his maintenance and by fidelitie in regard of his coucuant made with his flocke and that regulars meerelie out of charitie expose themselues to dangers for gaining of soules as he commendeth partiallie regulars so he derogateth no litle to all Bishops in making thē all in a māner mercenaries which kind of Pastours Christ discōmēdeth reiecteth For that the mercenarie takes care of the flock not for the sheepes good loue of them but for his owne interest to wit honour maintenance and lucre as M. Nicholas seemeth to say all Bishops doe And so regulars are only the good Pastours who meerely vpon charitie and religion doe illuminate others and aduenture their life for sauing of soules wherefor as all Bishops ought to accept their office principallie for the loue of God and zeale of soules so we must haue that charitable opinion of them as to thinke that they doe so Suarez speaketh more honorablie of the charitie of the Bishop Tertiò desideratur maximè in Episcopo charitas tum in Deum qui est principalis ouium Dominers vt significanit christus Ioan. 21. cum ter interroganit Petrum an se diligeret prinsquam illiones suas commendaret c. Thirdlie saieth he there is required most of all in a Bishop charitie as well towards God who is the principall Lord of the sheepe as Christ signified Ioa. 21. when three times he demaunded of Peter whether he loued him before he commended vnto him his sheepe as also towards his subiectes Suarez c. 18. n. 4. whom he must tolerate receiue beinglie patiētlie suffer releiue their necessities and serue thē according to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 9. I made myselfe the seruāt of all that I might gaine the moe And after To the weake I became weake that I might gaine the weake And finallie he is bound in a particular māner by vertue of his office so to loue his sheepe as to yeeld his life for thē if loit must he as Christ taughe Ioan. 10. Whence it is that patience is necessarie for him which hath a perfect worke because hee must not onely obserue mercie but also iustice that sometymes stoutly and seuerelie Whence also it must needs be that he must suffer many thinges of the naughtie For these causes therefore and the like the Episcopall throne is a place of greatest perfection Thus and thus farre Suarez 44. Whereas M. Nicholas addeth n. 12. that merit doth not consist in office but in actes thereof I must tell him that though merit cōsist not in office only yet there is greate merite in executing a lawfull holy office such as is the office of the Priest Bishop the greater the state office and dignitie is the greater is the merit in executing it And M. Nicholas cannot deny but that the state dignitie of the person addeth merit to his actions For as the regulars actions by reason of his state and vow are more meritorious then are the same actiōs done by other Christiās not regulars so not onely the Bishops actions proper to his state are of greater perfection and merit then the proper
much portionably the power of consecrating which the Priest hath surpasseth the power of absoluing ordayning and confirming And this Suarez graunteth so doth Valentia who sayth Suarezlib 1. c. 17 nu 2. Valen. 2. 2. disp 10. q. 2. De statu epist PuÌ„cto 1. That if in inferiour Prelates We consider the degree of holy order then speaking absolutelie there is some thing more worthie and more perfect in them then in religious as they are religions and net also initiated with holy orders Where by the way I note that he vseth M. Doctours reduplication as religious which so much offendeth M. Nicholas and this no man can deny This holy order of Priesthood in which is grounded this power requireth as S. Thomas saith of a Priest greater sanctitie then the regulars state requireth of him and for that cause also saith S. Thomas the same acte of sinne in a Priest by reason of his holy order is greater then in a Religious man not Priest The state of 2 Priest is so high aÌ„d holy that many S. Th. 2.2 q. 184. a. 8. in Corp. Baro. anno Chris. 378. in fine Hier. ep ad Helio though religious haue seared to vnder goe it as S. Antonie S. Benedict and S. Francis yea S. Hierome though a great saincte Religious and learned did so at lengh permitte himselfe to be ordained Priest that as Baronius obserueth he neuer receiued any Title or charge of any Church saying That it is not an easie thing to stand in Paules place and to holde the degree of Peter And therefore wisheth That it may be farre from him to speake ill of Priests who succeeding to the Apostles doe consecrate the body of Christe and Iudge vs before the later daye and by whom we are made Christians 47. For these and the like reasons there wante not as Suarez out of Antoninus and Augustinus de Ancona relateth who affirme that a simple Priest is in an higher state then a Regular not Priest Suar. l. 1. c. 17. n. 2 Anto. 3. P. in prolog §. 4. S. Aug. de An. con l. de Potest ecâ—l q. 26. a. 1. And although S. Thomas as we haue seen Caietan and others are of opinion that simple Priests are not in a state of perfection because Priests if we except the vow of chastitie are by their ordination bound to noe workes of superegation or Counselles but onlie to keepe the commandements though by reason of their sacred order more sanctitie be required of them then of other Christians and if they sinne their sinne if other circumstances be alike is greater then the like sinne in others yet for the reasons alleaged the state of a Priest by Reason of his eminent and sacred functioÌ„s exceedeth in that respect the state of all Religious not Priests whatsouer 48. L. 1. cir c. 17. n. 4. in sine Suarez concludeth this point in these words Quapropter censeo Sacerdotes ex vi sui ordinis habere statum altioreÌ„ sanctiorem qui ab eis nonnulla perfectionis opera requirit ratione cuius obligationis merito dici possunt esse aliquo modo saltem inchoatiueÌ„ in statu perfectionis Wherefore I thinke that Priests by vertue of their order haue a state higher and holyer which requireth of them certaine workes of perfection by reason of which obligation they worthily may be sayd to be in some manner in a state of perfection at least inchoatiue that is imperfectlie and in a certaine beginning And a litle before he saith that the diuersitie of opinions in this thing is rather in the manner of speaking then in the thing it selfe as indeede it seemeth to bee For if we vnderstand by a state of perfection a state which is immoueable as the Priests is by reason of the Carracter and which is ordained to high and excellent functions and which therefore requireth saÌ„ctitie of the Priest and maketh his sinnes the greater then the state of a simple Priest is higher then any regulars state is but if we vnderstand by a state of perfection a state that is bound to workes of superogatioÌ„ such as are the workes of the thre Counselles pouertie chastitie and obedieÌ„ce then the Priests state is not in that seÌ„se a perfect state of perfection because chastitite excepted he is not bound to the Counsailes and workes of supererogation which are instrumentes by which perfection is attained But yet as not with standing that the Bishop is not obliged to such workes of supererogatioÌ„ for neither is he bound to pouertie nor to obedience to any but the Pope and yet by S Thomas and all mens opinioÌ„ is in an higher State of perfection then the Regular by reason that his state is so immoueable that he cannot leaue his Church without licence of the Pope and he is by his state obliged to more eminent functions and greater charitie which is to die for his sheepe so the Priest because his state is immoueable by his caracter and is ordained to higher functions as the consecrating of Christes body offering of the dreadfull and vnbloudie sacrifice absoluing from sinne if he haue coÌ„pleate IurisdictioÌ„ may seeme to be in an higher state then a Regular not Priest 49. Now as concerning Pastours inferiour to Bishops who are not onlie Priests but also haue charge of soules it seemeth more probable that they are in a state of perfection higher and perfecter then the state of a Regular not Pastour GarsoÌ„ trae de statu perfect alpha 67. l. v. â— p. 〈…〉 12. q. 28 29. 〈…〉 in 4 l. â— â— q. 7. Suaraz c. 17. n. 5. And this is affirmed by Gerson Henricus de Gandauo and Maior whom Suarez in the same chapter alleageth and thus they proue their opinion because they by their office are bound to workes verie perfect to wit to minister Sacraments to preach and to gouerne soules which is the arte of artes and to take care and charge of them to perfect illuminate and purge them and to yeeld when the occasion is offered their liues for them To which actions Regulars not Pastours are not ordained or obliged This the aforesayd and ours confirme because the disciples whom Christe sent two and two to preache were in a state of perfection next to the Apostles but Pastours succeed to them as Bishops doe to the Apostles Ergo they are in a state of perfection and next to the state of Bishops And for this to wit that inferiour Pastours succeed to the disciples Suarez citeth S. Clements first Epistle against which more is obiected then against the 4. Epistle alleaged by M. Doctour These arguments may seeme much to vrge for a state of perfection in inferiour Pastours 50. Yet S. Thomas whose authoritie is great not onlie in the Schoole S. Th. 2 2. q. 184. a. 7. but also in the Church affirmeth that Curates are not in a state of perfection because to a state is required immobilitie which is not in a Curate or
not instruments ' Officialles or delegates of the Bishops but are trulie Pastours comprehended vnder the name of Proprius Sacerdos to whom euerie Christian of sufficient age is bound to confesse once a yeare Cap. omnit vtrius que â—exus de poenit remis And although the Bishop hath greater and more ample authoritie then the inferiour Pastors haue yet they are not Officialles nor ministers nor in instrumental causes in respect of the Bishop but true and ordinarie Pastours though both they and the Bishop also be ministers and instrumentall causes in respect of Christe Supra n. 28. And although saith Suarez the Bishop be in an higher state yet that hindereth not but that Curats also be in a state though inferiour for so though all religious orders be in states of perfection yet one is a perfecter state then another Out of all this which for the most parte is grounded in Suarez it seemeth verie probable that inferiour Pastours haue not onlie an higher and perfecter office which S. Thomas insinuateth saying that they rather haue an office pertaining to perfectioÌ„ then a state of perfectioÌ„ but also an higher state of perfection their state being of perfection to be exercised S. Th. 2.2 q. 184. a. 6. ad 3. not to be acquired as the Regulars state is and being ordained to higher actions and functions and they making a pacte and conuenant with their Church as Bishops doe which in a Bishop as Suarez confesseth causeth an immobilitie 54. Wherefore Suarez at length concludeth l. 1. c. 2. n. 5. that the state of Inferiour Pastours and Regulas doe exceed and are exceeded of one another in diuerse respects for sayth hee if wee demaund which state is more profitable to ones selfe lesse daungerous and more sure then the Religious state in this respect taketh the precedence but if you demaund which state contineth n. 6. Mains Dei obsequium greater seruice of God perfectiora opera ex genete she requirit and requireth more perfect operations of their kind then sayth hee the state of these inferiour Pastours is in it selfe and of it selfe perfecter then the state of a Religious man And in this sorte speculatiuelie It may be grauÌ„ted that the Pastoral state is perfecter then the Regular state S. Th. in c. 5. Mat. and this S. Thomas vpon S. Matthew seemeth to fauour as Suarez confesseth 55. And so wheras M. Nicholas nu 14. proueth that a Regular state is perfecter then the state of an inferiour Pastour because 2 Pastour may enter into Religion without dispensation his argument proueth onely that a Regulars state is more sure for ones owne saluation S. Th. 2.2 q 184.7 arg sed cütra and so may be elected and vowed but not that it is an higher or perfecter state I graunt that S. Thomas Proueth that a Religious state is inferiour to the state of a Bishop because a Religious man may become a Bishop and his argument is good Because a Religious man cannot accept of a Bishops office because it is more sure as is manifest and therefore if he may accept of it it must be because it is a perfecter state But an inferiour Pastour may vndertake the state of a Regular not because it is more perfect as Azorius Regular confesseth but because in it he may more surelie saue his owne soule which he may preferre before the soule of others Azar to 1. l. 11. ca. 24. charitie first tendring ones owne saluation and so although the inferiour Pastour doth thus descend in state yet he doth not properlie Retrocedere nor Retrospicere goe backe or looke backe because he thus auaunceth his owne saluatioÌ„ And so it is a good argument A regular may be a Bishop ergo a Bishops state is perfecter but is not a good argument an Inferiour Pastour may be a Religious man ergo a Religious man hath a perfecter state but only ergo a Religious man hath a more secure state 56. But in a controuersie so much disputed and wherin to giue senteÌ„ce may prouoke the one partie or the other I will leaue the Iudgement thereof to the Iudicious Reader who by what is said for inferiour Pastours will peraduenture Iudge it more probable that inferiour Pastours should worthilie be preferred in state of perfection And as M. Nicholas Pag. 103. Num. 7. referreth his reader to Platus a Regular concerning the Regular state so will I and with lesse exception referre him to one Philippe de Harueing a Regular and learned Abbot concerning the Clergie and all Pastours euen inferiour 57. This man was Abbot of a Monasterie called Bona Spes Good Hope and he wrote aboue fowre hundred and fiftie yeares agoe His workes were printed in Doway in the yeare M. D C. X X. and approued by Doctour Colvenerius Chauncelour of the Vniuersitie and Censor of Bookes in that Vniuersitie He in his worke De Dignitate Scientia Iustieia Continentia Clericorum commendeth highlie Regulars amongst whom he was verie eminent yet in euery chapter almost he preferreth the Clergie I will for breuities sake cite only a fewe passages In his 17. Chapter he sayth as M. Nicholas will not saye Nostrum est nouissimum locum eligere nec ad altiora volatu praesumptuoso nos ipsos erigere It is our parte that is the part of Religious to cboose the last place and not by a presumptuous flight to eleuate our selues to higher thing In his 17. Epistle he sayth that from all the bounds and limits of the earth all aÌ„tiquitie did euer extoll the Clericall order and euer gaue it amongst the other orders the principall ranke and degree and though by the diuine disposition a soldier or Rustique doe excellin sanctitie yet the Clergie man in excellencie of Ecclesiastical dignitie and although the Clergie man as we doe sometimes decline to wordlie things and To the weake and poore elements yet their order declineth not in authoritie In his 84. chapter he sayth that the Blessed S. Benedict sounded many Monasteries and instructed and informed many monks by the good and holsome documents he left to posteritie and is not read to haue been Priest yet wanted not perfectioÌ„ of a monke nor did he think it any disparagement to his monasticall institute that his monkes should not coÌ„tend to excell others in holy orders but in holy manners considering that the promotion to orders maketh not a monke but abiection and vilifying of ones selfe labour silence discipline rest Religion And in his 99. chapter Habeant sibi matorem monachi sanctitatem relinquentes Clericis maiorem humiliter dignitatem Let monkes keepe to themselues greater sanctitie leauing humblie to Clergie men greater dignitie And in his 98. and 97. Chapters Pag. 462. he sayth that S. Hierome did therefore inuite Heliod Paulinus and Rusticus to be moÌ„kes not because he thought more baselie of the Clergie but because he esteemed their state as more worthie so not so secur and therefore sayth
so comprehendeth both that order only will make a man of the Hierarchie as it importeth distinction in order and iurisdiction onely will make him of the Hierarchie as it implyeth distinction in power of iurisdiction and if he haue both then by both titles he is of the Hierarchie To his other demaund n. 4. he is also answered in the Hierarchie chap. 5. n. 18. and 21. for if the fowre lesser orders be of the institutition of the Church as some Authours cited by M. Doctour affirme then they who are vnder Subdeacons are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the Churches lawe and institution and not by the diuine lawe and institution but if they be of the diuine institution then these Ministers who are vnder Subdeacons are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the diuine institutiō And seing that Regulars who are neither Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons nor Accolytes c. haue neither order nor iurisdiction ouer the Church as other Ministers of the Hierarchie haue they cannot as Regulars be of the Hierarchie And therfore if an Abbot had only primam Tonsuram the first Tonsure which is no order although he haue iurisdiction ouer his Monkes Yet he should not be of the Hierarchie of the Church because he hath neither order nor Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but only Regular And so an Abbot as Abbot though he haue ordinarie power in his Religious order is not so much of the Hierarchie as a Bishop delegated because an Abbot not Bishop Priest c. is not of the Hierarchie at all but the delegated Bishop hath both order and iurisdiction and so by both wayes is of the Hierarchie And therfore S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars from the Hierarchie and yet some of them had iurisdiction ouer other Monkes VVherefore Regulars must not take this in euill parte for I giue them as much as S. Denys and learned Regulars giue them and would giue them alfo this dignitie to be of the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie if ether Christe or his Church had giuen it vnto them M. NICHOLAS That Religious Superiours as such bee of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie S. Bernard cited by M. Doctour chap. 1. n. 17. doth expressely teache c. n. 5. THE REPLY S. Bernard is explicated I answere that S. Bernard must be so explicated S. Bernard l. 3. de consid c. 4. as that he doe not contradict S. Denys from vvhom as Mr Nicholas in this trulie sayth q. 6. n. 1. vve have the best and allmost onlie Treatises of the Hierarchie Certaine it is that S. Denys and his Translatours and Interpreters doe giue not place to Regulars amongest vvhom some vvere Abbots in the Hierarchie but doe place them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie and only about the laitie and therfore perchance S. Bernard putteth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie not because they are properlie of the Hierarchie but because they are eminent mēbers in the Churche and haue some resemblance by reason of their high ranke in their Religious orders with those that are of the Hierarchie And if I would take hold of euerie thing as M. Nicholas vseth to doe I could confirme this because S. Bernard in that place placeth Abbots after Priests S. Ber. l. 3. de consid c. 4. Or else S. Bernard rekeneth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie because in his tyme most of thē were Priests many had Episcopall authoritie in some things Bel. to 1. l. 1. de concil c. 15. and many were perchance then as according to Bellarmine they are now admitted by priuiledge or custome to haue their voice in generall Councels and so by the Ecclesiasticall lawe were of the Hierarchie as we shall hereafter in the end of this question declare 31. Now wheras M. Nicholas in the same place sayth that he hath reason to complaine of M. Doctours dealing in alleaging S. Bernard as if he had sayd that the Hierarchie of the Church is perturbed vvhen Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops iurisdiction vvheras S. Bernard in the verie same place vvhich M. Doctour cites doth in expresse vvords approue the exemption of Abbots from Bishops and only disliketh exemption procured out of a spirit of disobedience pride and ambition wheras I say he sayth he hath reason to complaine on M. Doctour it will proue that M. Doctour hath reason to complaine on him in making him say more then he doth for doth not S. Bernard say as much as M. Doctour imputeth to him Doth he not complaine in that chapter that the order of the Hierarchie was then perturbed by exemptions hath he not these complayning words Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis Episcopi Archiepiscopis Archiepiscopi Patriarchis sen Primatibus Bona ne species hac mirum si excusari queatvel opus Sic fac titando probatis vos habere plenitudinem potestatis sed iustitiae forte non ita Facit is hoc quia potestis sed virum debeatis quaestio est Honorum ac dignitatum gradus ordines quibusque suos seruare positi estis non inuidere Abbots are subtracted from Bishops Bishops from Archbishops Arch-Bishops frō Patriarches or Primates And these words only M. Doctour alleaged But S. Bernard as we haue seen goeth on further Bona ne species hac Is this a good shovve forsoothe if euē the vvorke it selfe can be excused by so doing You he speaketh to Pope Eugenius proue that you haue the fulnes of povver but perchance not so of iustice you doe this because you can but vvhether you should there is a question Wherfore If S. Bernard in speaking thus much against exemptiōs to wit which haue no lawfull cause doth not deny but that the Pope hath power and iust cause to exempte Abbots and Monasteries from the iurisdiction of the Bishop much lesse can M. Nicholas inferre against M. Doctour who sayd not so much as he that he is against all exemptions but as S. Bernard for all those words doth allow of exemptions when there is iust cause as when a Monasterie from the beginning hath been exempte so might M. Doctour and so he doth M. NICHOLAS Mauclerus also vvhom M. Doctour in his 10. chapter n. 23. stileth a learned Doctour of Sorbon compareth Superiours in Religion to the Principalities secular Pastours inferiours to Bishops to Archangels and Priests not Curates to Angelles n. 5. THE REPLY Mauclerus meaneth only that Superiours in Religion haue some similitude vvith Principalities 32. M. Nicholas now would place Superiours of Religion not only in the Hierarchie but in one of the highst rankes also for that he sayth Mauclerus compareth them to Principalities And I also honour them not only for their Religious state but also for their dignitie in Religion But if S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars amongest whō were Abbots from the Hierarchie and placeth them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie and aboue the laytie they cā not be of the Hierarchie vnles they be