in eaâ—ry particular Church as to haue one Supreame head of the whole Catholicke Church When Gregory Clement Paule and other Popes stood in deliberation whether it were expedient to haue a Bishop in England as for many yeares it was by them iudged inconuement might they as well haue doubted of the necessity or â—onueniency of hauing any Pope of Rome for the gouernement of the whole Catholick Church to say that a particular Bishop hâ—th not power to gouerne the whole Catholicke Church ergo the Bishop of the whole Catholicke Church cannot goâ—erne a particular one is as good as to say the feete cannot guide the head eâ—go the head cannot guide the feete His assertion or inference vpoÌ„ his ownâ— pâ—emisses that vnlesse euery particular Church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuert particular Churches if it be vnderstood of particular Churches indeterminately that is the whole Church cannot be a Hierarchie vnles some particular Churches haue Bishops it is very true but sâ—rueth nothing at all to his purpose of proouing that England must haue a Bishop because although England or some other particular country want Bishops other Churches and countries may haue them and so the Vniuersâ—ll Church shall still be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churcher But if he vnderstand as his wâ—res euery particular Church and his whole drife seeme to demonstrate that vnlesse euery particular determinate Church haue a Bishop the whole and Vuiuersall Church should not as Christ â—ath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches I must needs say his doctrine is clearely subject to a deeper Censure then I am willing to expresse For what Catholick dare aâ—onch that because England for the space of threescore yeares wanted a Bishop the Vniuersall Church all that time was not as Christ hath institutea a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches yea if my Lord of Chuâ—â—edon be not properly Ordinary both of England and Scotland M. Doctour must consequently affirme that the Vniuersall Church at this day is not as Christ hath instituted a Hierarchâ—â— composed of diuers particular Churches O to now great inconueniences is a man subject if once he vndertake the defence of a very hard cause THE THIRD QVESTION Whether by the deuine Law euery particular Church must haue it Bishop 1 TO prooue that a particular Country â—â—y not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution M. Doctour in his 14. chapter alleadgeth that it is de luâ—e diuino of the diuine Law to haue a Bishop in euery particular Church And for proofe theoeof citeth Soâ—us affirming Sot lib. 10. deâ—â—uâ—â—â—et iure q. 1. a. 4. posâ— sâ—â— undâ—â— conclusionâ— it to be de iure diuino of the deuine Law quòd in genere singulis Ecclsiâ—s secundum Ecclesiasticum diuisionem sut aâ—plicentur Episcopi That in generall to euery particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision proper Bishops are to be applyed And Bannes teaching Baâ—â—es 2.2 q. 1. a 10. Coclu 6. ad vâ—â— that Bishops cannot by the Pope be remoâ—uea from the whole Church or a great or not able part of it Hauing cited these two learned authours he argueth thus By the deuine Law there must be particular Bishops in the Church but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France for I speake especially of great particular Churches which are not able parts of the whole Church should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops rather then the Church of Spaine or the Church of Spaine rather then the Church of England or Flanders ergo France Spaire England Flanders and all other particular Churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops 2 These be the best grounds that M. Doctour in the said chapter bringeth for proofe that it is de iure deuino a command of God to haue a Bishop in England I wil adde such other arguments as can be afforded from his 13. chapter wherein although he affirme but that which al Catholicks do grant speaking in general that cueÌ„ in time of persecutioÌ„ the whol Church may not be gouerned without some Bishops yet because some of the proofes brought for the said verity may perhaps seeme pertinent to this present question Suar. tom 4. in 3. p. d. 25. I will not dissemble them Suareâ—â— saith he concludeth that the Church cannot change this kinde of gouernment by Bishops Then he alleadgeth examples of the African Church When Hunericus began his raigne he offered to the Catholicks of Carthage to chuse in that Church a Bishop which ornament sayth Victor Carthage had wanted for 24. Victor Vticenâ—â—t lib. 2. perseq vad inâ—â—â—o yeares but yet vpon this condition that the Arrtans at Constantinople might enioy the free vse of their Churches otherwise saith Hunericus not onely the Bishop that shal be ordained in carthage with his Cleargy but also all other Bishops of the African prouinces with their Cleargie shal be sent to the Mooâ—es The which when Victor Primate of Africke and others heard they refused his courtesie with so cruell a condition and says â—iâ—ita est interposius his condâ—tionibus periculosis haec Ecclesia Episcopum noâ— delectatur habere Gubernat eam Christus qui semper dignatur guberuare If it be so with these perilous conditions the Church of Carthage is not dilighted to haue a Bishop But the people so cryed out for a Bishop that they could not be appeased without one 3 A second argument M. Doctour â—raweth from another example of Huneticus his cruelty and of the African Catholicks zeale to their Bishops and Pastoâ—rs Victor Vâ—â—censis lib 2. Hunericus his cruelty Victor Vâ—â—censis descriâ—â—th rather by teares then words saying Quibus autem prosequar flumâ—â—bus â—â—â—â—ryâ—aâ—um quando â—â—pâ—sâ—opâ—s Presbâ—â—eros Dâ—â—conoâ— eâ—alia â—â—â—lsiae membra id est quatuor willia D. cccc Lxvi ad exilium eremi dastiâ—auâ—â— in quibus â—rant podagrici quamplurims aly per aetatem anâ—oâ—uâ—n lumine â—emporali priuaâ—â— c. But with what fâ—â—ds of teares shall I proosecute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rs his crucltâ— woen he sent Best ops Priests Deacous and other members of the Church â—â—to â—â—â—ashmeÌ„t in the wilaernesse amongst whom were â—â—my troubled with the gout others by age â—â—â—nd and dâ—priueâ— of sight c. Behould Huâ—â—â—cus his cruâ—â—ty Now let vs behould the zeale of the Catholicks of these countries for their Bishops and Priests They complantned pâ—â—â—ufâ—ly that they were deprined of their Pastours saâ—ing or rather crying Victor lib. 2. peâ—ses Vad. Quibus nos miseros relinquiâ—ts dum pergites ad coronas qui â—os baptizatuâ—â— sunt parunlos fonâ—â—bus aqua perernis qui nobis paenâ—tentiae munus collaturi sunt et reconciliationis induigentâ—s obstrictos peccatorum vinculis solâ—tuâ—i quiâ— vobis dictum est quaecunque solueritis super terram erunt solâ—â—a et on cales Qui nos soleÌ„ntbus or ationâ—bus sepulturi sunt mortentes quibus diâ—â—ni
aske me what indeed is the true meaning of Sotus I answere his meaning is not that the Pope is obliged iure diuÌ„ino by deuine precept to institute this or that particular Diocesse or to giue particular Bishops to euery such particular Diocesse instituted but only that when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and giues him charg of some particular Diocesse in such eases he doth a particular action which in generall was instituted and commanded by our Sauiour Christ who ordained in generall that in the whole Church there should alwaies be some Bishops which in effect is noe more theÌ„ we grant but cometh far short of what M. Doctor inteÌ„deth That this is the true meaning of Sotus is plaine by his onwe words For hauing taught what M. Doctour cyted out of him he proues it in this maÌ„nter Dum Dei minister id quod ipsâ— instituit ipsius iussu dâ—spensat actio est de iure diuino censenda cum autem Pupa Episcopum confirmat et consecrat alicuique attribuit Ecclesiae id exequitur quod Christus in genere instituit quodque facere iussit ergo id iuris diuini censenduÌ„ est WheÌ„ the minister of God by his command performeth that which he instituted such an action is to be esteemed of deâ—ine law But when the Pope doth confirme and coâ—secrate a Bishop â—â—d applies him to some Church he eâ—â—ecâ—â—etâ— that which Christ in generall Mâ—rke did institute which he coÌ„maÌ„dâ—d him to â—o theâ—fore suâ—â— an actioÌ„ ought to be said to be of the deuine lawe Can aâ—y thing be more deâ—re or more direct to shew that according to Sot ' the InstitutioÌ„ precept of Christ was only in gineral which is plainly for vs against M. Doctour Yet to take away all doubt Sotus bringeth this example Sacrament 〈◊〉 absilutio c. sacrameÌ„tal absolutio the like although they be immâ—dâ—aâ—ly peâ—formed by the minesters of the Chuâ—ch neuerthelesse they are to be esteemed aâ— of deuine law beâ—â—â—se Christ did â—astitute them and comâ—aâ—dâ—ed them to be so done and dispeâ—sed in his â—â—me â—â—â—vere a â—â—â—nesse by these words to â—aser our of Soâ—us that euery one hauing authority to administer sacraments were therefore by deuiâ—e law and precept bound to do it but all that could be rightly deduced according to Sotus would be that in case he did administer such sacraments such an action should be said to be de â—ure diuinâ— of the deuine law â—s a thing in generall not of humane but deuine enstitution Mariage in generall was instituted and commanded by God in the newe law by Christs institution it is a Sacraâ—â—â—t and therefore when ChristiaÌ„s marry they performe an actioÌ„ in geâ—erall commanded and instituted to be a â—â—crameÌ„â— shall we therefore out of Sotus inter that euery Christian or communite is bound to marry M. Doctonr I suppose knowes well enough why Sotus did so much vrge this manner of speach that the confirmation consecration and appling of Bishops to particular Churches is of deuine instiâ—ution The cause was more stroÌ„gly against his antagonist Catharinus to inforce the residence of Bishops to be a Deuyne and not only an Ecclesiasticall precept which precept neuertheles as Sotus himself affirmeth indeede none caÌ„deny doth not oblige in altâ—ms place therfore although Sotê° should affirm that ther were a deuine precept to apply Bishops to euery particular determinate Church yet that precept being affiâ—matiâ—â— as Deuines speak it would not bind in al occasioÌ„s as Sotê° teacheth coÌ„cerning the resideÌ„ce of Bishops Finally by this ocasion M. Dâ—â—â—er I doubt not wil be more circoÌ„spect in â—â—adging authours least he doth wrong his oâ—ne reputation the authors then deiues the reader and most of all the truth For Sotus doth not speak only of such particular Churches as are great or notable parts of the whole Church as M Doctour doth but of particular Diocesses to say that it is de â—ure â—iuâ—â— a deuine commaund that euery Diocesse haue a particular Bishop and in such maÌ„ner as for noe cause whatsoeuer it can be otherwaâ—es is a proposition farre from Sotus his thoughts which neither M. Doctour nor any other â—â—ill or can defend 11 The second authour alleadged by M. Doctour is Bannes saying that Bishops â—â—nâ—aâ— by the Pope be remooued from the whole Church or a great or not able part thereof I wonder M. Doctour would alleadge this learned deame to prooue that â—â—â—s de iure deuino to haue a Bishop in England the coutrary whereof is clearely deduced from this very authority of the same authour who hauing taught that Bishops haue all their authority immediately from the Pope frameth this obiection against himselfe That if the Bishops haue their authority immediately from the Pope it were in his power to remooue all Bishops from their Churches and so the Catholick Church should be without Bishops To this obiection BaÌ„nes answers Quòd licet Summus Pontifex posset prosâ—â— arbetrâ—tu vnum aut alterum Episcopum amouere nec in locum corum ali quem designâ—re non tamè admittenduÌ„ est quod in tota Ecclesia aut in magna eius parte taÌ„temere sua potestate abutaâ—ur Although the Pope might as he should thinke good remooue one 〈◊〉 two Bishops and designe none in their place yet it is not to be admitted that he can so rashly abuse his power in the whole Church or in a great part thereof By the only reading of Bannes his words which M. Doâ—â—our ought to baue alleadged at large not by halfes as much as might seeme for his purpose the reader will quickly perceiue that it is not de iure diuino a commandement of God that euery particular Church haue a Bishop seeing according to this Authour the Pope may leaue some Churches without Bishops Now I would aske M. Doctour whether such Churches should cease to be particular Churches and whatsoeuer he answereth will either be against his other Principle that without a Bishop there can be noâ— particular church of else if he say that they should not remaine particular Churches he must consider that then aâ—cording to Bannes it is not de iure diuiâ—o a deuire laâ— that euery Church should be a particulâ—r Church because as we haue seene Bannes teacheth that without breach of â—eâ—â—e law the Pope may leaue some churches without Bishops Besides the 〈◊〉 will see that Bannes onely speaketh of remoouing Bishops from the whole Church or from a great part of it and thence he would deduce a contrâ—rio sensu that seeing the flocke of Christ in England is farre from being a great part of the Catholick church and lesse then some one Dioâ—â—sse from which Bannes granted the Pope may remooue a Bishop yea he teacheth that all Bishops may be remooued from more Diocesses then one he would I say out of his owne assertion deduce that the Pope may not onely deny a Bishop to England but also if the thinke good remooue one
already granted Moreouer the Reader caÌ„not forget how M. Doctour alleadged first Sotus as teaching that iure diuino by deuiâ—â— Precept euery particular Church must haue it Bishop and afterwardes to the sâ—me purpose he â—iâ—ed Bannes who yâ—â— expressâ—â—â— affirmeth the contrary and teacheth that the Pope may leâ—ue some particular Chuâ—ches without Bishops How do these two things cohere It passeth my vnderstaÌ„ding that two authours should be rightly alleâ—â—ged as teaching that very poâ—â—â— wherein they are coÌ„trary CoÌ„trary I say as Sotus is vnderstood by M. Doctours for â—ccording to his true meaning he is nothing â—gâ—inst Bannes for as much as concernes out present purpose as I haue she wed ouâ— of their owne words And thus I hope to haue made good that BaÌ„nes alleaâ—ged by M. Doctour is indeed mainely agâ—yâ—st him And this is soe much the more strange because Sotus and Bannes were alleaâ—ged as teaching some singular matter in his fauour who both vpon examiâ—e are found to be his aduersaryes 12. The reasoÌ„ that M. Doctour did inserâ—â— froÌ„ the sayd authorities maketh for him iust as they did It was this By the deuine law there must be particular Bishopâ— in the Church but there is noe more reason why the Church of France for exaÌ„ple should be gouerned by a Bishop then the church of England ergo England and all other particular churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops Truely I cannot but wonder that a learned man should vse such a forme of argument which he cannot but know doth fayle in a thousand instances For example some meate is absolutely necessary for the mainetenaÌ„ce of man but there is no more reason why egs or fish should be necessary to the maintenance of man rather then other particular meates ergo eggs fish and all other particular meates are necessary for the mainetenance of man Or to bring an example neerer the purpose It is of the law of God and nature that some men do marry for the preseruing of mankinde but if we precisely respect the law of nature there is noe more reason why one person village or citty should be obliged rather then another ergo euery particular person village and citty is obliged to marry To these instances M. Doct. must answere by distinguishing the minor proposition If we compare one particular meate to another paricular determinate meate then the minor is true that there is no more reason of one then another and so neither one nor other determinately is necessary But if we compare one particular meate with other particular meates taken in generall or indeterminately then there is more reason why one particular meate is not so necessary as others taken indeterminatly because in that indeterminate sence they signify all particular meats in generall which no doubt are more necessary for the maintenance of man then any one determinate meate Or to say all in one word some meate is necessary but not this or that in particular And so we may easily answere M. Doctours argument by the like destruction that iure diuino Bishops are necessary in some parts of the church indeterminately but not determinately in this or that part of the church And this were sufficient to answere that sophisme Yet that the reader may see how weake an argument it is his Minor proposition might be easily denyed although we should coÌ„pare one particular church with another particular church determinately taken for there may reasons occurre of persecution or the like to make the case of one church different from that of another And as for England in particular beside the knowne reason of persecution different from other countries which we also suppose should be encreased by the comming of a Bishop for of that case M. Doctour speakes ioyned neuerthelesse with the paternal care of Christs Vicar whereby in so long tyme of persecution we were abundantly prouided of all meanes for our soules good euen according to M. Doctour his owne assumpt there is a different reason of EnglaÌ„d which as it signifieth a particular true church is neyther a great nor not able part of the whole church nor to vse M. Doctours owne words a church of extent 13 I desire to knowe of M. Doctour whether this forme of argument be good Religious institute in generall is of the deuine institution and the Supreame Pastour of Gods church by his office is obliged on his part to procure that in the Catholicke church so sacred an institution be maintayned but there is noe more reason why it should be maintayned in France or Spayne then in England ergo the Pope is obliged to mainteyne the being of religious institute in England When M. Doct. shall tell me what be thinketh of this manner of argument I will then let him know what good vse I shal be able to make of his answere whatsoeuer it be 14 Lastly here also I must craue leaue to shew that M. Doctor his maÌ„ner of argument is rather against himselfe and may be thus retorted especiall if we take what he himselfe seemeth to confesse in it selfe is most euident to wit â—hâ—t it is not de iure diâ—ino to haue a Bishop in euery particular litle Church or Diocesse but at most in such Churches as are great of extent It is nor de iure diuino that there be a particulaâ— Bishop in euery Diocesse of England but if we respect the deuine law there is no more reason of oâ—e Diocesse then of another ergo all the Diocesses of England may be without a Bishop which is directly against that which M. Doctour by his said argumeÌ„t intended to proue Moreouer in the same manner one might go foreward and say There is noe more reason why all the Diocesses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop then those of France nor of France more then of Spaine and so of all other particular Churches ergo all particular churches of the whole world may be gouernd with out Bishops A thing both false in it selfe and directly contrary to what M Doctour intendeth Neuertheles it is the very same manner of disputing which he himselfe vseth and so his owne arguments ouerthrow their owe grounds and distroie themselues 15 And here I would be glad to knowe wherther his arguments doe not prooue that ScotlaÌ„d must also haue it particular Bishop Sure I am that if they prooue any thing they must prooue that and so M. Doctour both tels my Lord of Chalcedon that he cannot be Bishop of Scotland which being a Country of extent must haue its particular Bishop and lets his holynesse know that he hath not satisfied the deuine lawe till he place a Bishop in Scotland But I think M. Doctour will not proceed so far yet by this he may see how his arguments outreach his owne intention and so while they prooue too much they effect nothing 16 Neither need I againe put M. Doctour in mynd that if he prooue any thing his argument prooues that England and Scotland also
Ordinary thereof Baron Tom. 11. ann Dai. 1049. Leon. 9. ann â— n. 6. Adeò fuit saith Baroâ—ius suae Tullensis Ecclesia amator vt licet Romanus Pontifex creatus esset tamen titulum priorem non reliquerit volueritque dum vixiâ— dici etiam Tullensis Episcopus I demand whether the Church of Tull was not a particular Church or rather whether it was not a Fauourite Church singularly graced by hauing him for particular Bishop who was Pastour of the whole world If Leo onely for deuotion to that particular Church thought he did it no wrong in leauing it without any Ordinary beside himselfe with what shaddow of probâ—bâ—â—ty can any man say that England when of necessity it was destitute of Bishops could not be a particular Church and haue for immeâ—â—te partilâ—r Bishop the Successonâ— of Leo the 9. Vrbaâ—e the 8 whome I beseech God â—ong to preserue for the common good of his vniuersall Church and particular comfort of our afflicted Catholicks 10 Loreto and Recanati in Italy and the like may be said of other plâ—ces but I willingly name that most saded house wherein the eternall Word was made flesh and dwelled in vs are two distincte Diocesses vnder one Bishop and my Lord Bishop once styled himselfe Ordinary both of England and Scotland beside the Church of Chalcedon ergo euery particular Church need not haue it owne particular distinct Bishop much more may the Pope be particular Bishop of more theÌ„ one Church In the Church of God there are many places persons exempt from the iurisdiction of al Bishops beside the Pope neither did any maÌ„ euer dreame that for that câ—use they ceased to be particular Churches Rather such exaÌ„ptions were accouÌ„ted fauours such immeâ—iat subiectioÌ„ to the Pope a great honourâ—til now M. Doctour tels the world that the Church of Saiui Iohn Lateâ—an of Tull of all exempted places persoÌ„s neither haue bene nor shal be particular Churches till they be taken from the Popes particular chardge and put in the hands of some other Bishop that in coâ—setence they are oblâ—ged to endure whatsoeuer presecution for the enioying such a Bishop 12 I thinke M. Doctour wil not say if a Bishop vpon iust causes should take the particular care of some one parish gouerne it by his delegates or Chaplines himselfe remayning the only Ordinary Pastour of it that it should therefore ceâ—se to be a particular parish or if a King to grace some city or Prouince of his Kingdom should make himselfe the particular gouernour of such a prouince or city that therefore they should not be particular cityes or prouinces and the like may be sayd of a Generall of an army in respect of some particular Regiment with what reason then can we say that the Pope who is Bishop of the whole Church may not also be particular Bishop of some one country and that country still remaine a particular Church Truly I cannot imagin vpon what ground any man can frame such a conceit except vpon this inference The Pope is vniuersall Bishop of the vniuersal Church ergo he cannot be particular Bishop of a particular Church because vniuersal and particular are termes incompatible and repugnant to be in one and the same person or subiect To which argument I will vouchsafe noe other answere then that it seemeth the very same forme of disputing which hereticks vulgarly vse against Catholicks as vttering contradictories and non-sence while we ioyne together Ecclesia Catholica Romana the vniuersall Roman Church because forsooth a Church Vniuersal and Particular are contradictory tearmes 13 But let vs suppose that which caÌ„ neuer be proued or rather the coÌ„trary wherof is most manifest let vs I say suppose that the Pope cannot be a particular Bishop of a particular church I aske whether for the existeÌ„ce of a particular church it be not sufficieÌ„t that it be gouernd by such as froÌ„ his Holines receiue Delegated power for al occasions that may require iurisdictioÌ„ If he affirme that such a particular Church may be then I inferre that a Bishop is not necessary for the making a particular Church because whatsoeuer iurisdictioÌ„ any Bishop hath the like may be grated to others not Bishops If he deny that Delegate authority is sufficient to make a particular Church then he must shew me how England by hauing a Bishop is yet become a particular Church if so it be that the sayd Bishop be onely Delegate and not Ordinary of place of all sortes of persons both Catholickes and hereticks not onely ad beneplacitum c. as Scriptures Fathers and Canons speake of Bishops which power my Lord of Chalcedon doth not challenge and M. Doctour professeth to abstayne from that whole controuersie and so he must eyther answere his owne argument or else confesse that as yet we are no particular Church 14 My last taske was to shew that although we shoulâ— freely yeild our selues to be no particular Church without a Bishop yet it were not sufficient to prooue that a Bishop could not be refused by reason of persecution This is easily done by requiring of M. Doctour that which of his owne accord he should first of all haue performed namely seeing he will needs haue a particular Church to be only that which hath a particular Bishop he ought to bring some precept of God or the Church obligeing vs to be a particular Church in his sense and why it is not sufficient for vs to be members of the Catholicke Church in obedieÌ„ce to our Supreame Pastour the Vicar of Christ as our constant Confessours and glorious Martyrs before we had a Bishop liued in sâ—nctity and dyed for iustice in profession of the Catholicke fayth 15 Neyther were this sufficientâ— though it be more then euer he wil be able to performe vnlesse he could further prooue that such a precept were vndispensable or did binde with whatsoeuer inconuenience because there are many deuine precepts for example Vowes materiall Integrity of Confession Residence of Bishops c. which do not binde alwayes nor in all cases or are not by the Vicar of Christ dispensable and vntill he haue prooued this his imaginary precept not to be of such a kinde he is as neere as he was For certainâ—ly if any cause may yeild a lawfull excuse or require dispensation a iust feaâ—e of loosing goods liberty and life which case M. Doctour directly supposeth in his assertioÌ„ may yeild a most reasonable excuse oâ— cause of dispensation and for the transgressour plead not guilty 16 The reason which M Doctour added that as the whole Church hath one Supreame Bishop to gouerne it so euery particular Church also must haue us Bishop or Bishops else it should not be a particular Church and so tâ—e whole and Vniuersall Church should no as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composeâ— of diuers particular Churches deâ—erâ—eâ—n no answere For who dare say that there is as much necessity or obligation to haue a Bishop
Sacrifictâ—â—â—tuâ—â—xhibedus estâ— Vobiscum et not â—â—eebat pergere siliceret vs tali modo filios a patribus nulla necessit at separaret To whom do you leane vs maser able wretches whilst you goe to receaue your crownes Who shall giue vs the Sacrament of pennance and loose vs tyed with the bords of sinnes by the Indulgence of reconciliaâ—â—on For to you it was said whatsoeuer you shall loose vpoÌ„ earth it shal be loosed in heaneÌ„ Who shall bury vs with solemne prayers when we shall dy to whom the rite of the acuâ—â—â— sacrifice is to be exhibited We might haue gonne with you that so no necessâ—tâ— might separate the children from their Fathers After this example M. Doctour sayth thus Wherefore aâ— for otheâ— poynts of our Fayth we must dye rather then deny them so we must dye rather then aâ—â—y the Hierarchy of the Church it being a poynt of Fayth 4 His third example is out of Orosius relating how the Aâ—ian Tyrant Trâ—samundus commanced that the African Bishops should not ordayne any more Bishops in the place of those that dyed Orosius 〈…〉 â— 10 The Bishops considering that without Bishops their churches could not long subsist but would fall without any other persecuâ—â—on or violence vsed against them resolued to call a Councell And in that Councell all the Bishops with one consâ—â—t decreed notwithstanding the Tyrants Edict to the contrary to ordaine Bishops Cogitantes aut regis iâ— acundâ—am siqua forsan existeret mitigandam quo facilius ordinatâ—â—â—suis plebibus vâ—uerent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coranaâ—dos etiaâ— sides confessione quos dignos inuentebant promotione c. Thinking that the Kings wrath if any perchance should be would be mitigated or that they who were found worthy of promotion would be crowned with confessioâ— of their ministerie And good reason had they so to doe For as sayth Baronius Quaenam shes de Ecclesiâ—s â—astoribus destitutis vlterius reliqua esse poterat Baron An. Daâ— 504. conuulsis earum fundameÌ„tis ipâ—is quibus initibantur Episcopis What hope could there remayne for the Churches when their foundations to wit the Bishops to which they leaned and on which they depended were ruined and pulled vp Thus farre out of M. Doctour whose words I hane related at large that the reader might see all the force of these examples and out of the narrations themselues gather the answeres to them 5 In this question certaine it is that de â—ure diuino the Church must be goueâ—ned by Bishops that is in the whole Church of God there must be some Bishops but to affirme as M. Doctour doth that it is de iure diuino to haue a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England nâ—â—â—nely that there is such a precept but moreouer that hoe persecuioÌ„ can excuse the obligation therof or giue sufficieÌ„t cause of dispensation all which he must prooue if he will speake home is a paradox to speake sparingly without any shew of probability and which may seeme to taxe those Popes as ignorant of the deuine Law who for so many yeares esteemed it neither necessary nor expedient to send a Bishop into England neither when he was sent did they euer disputeâ— whether it was necessary â—ure diuino but all the deliberation was quid expediret what was expedient yea M. Doctour must finally answere his owne arguments which either prooue nothing at all or else prooue that his Holinesse is obliged to give vs an Ordinary for his reasons and examples are for such which is more then M. Doctour himselfe will â—uouch 6 And truly I cannot inâ—agine what way one should go about to prooue that vpon noe cause whatsoeuer the Pope can make himselfe particular Bishop of some particular Church especially for a tyme and gouerne it by his Delegates endued with sufficient power and still prouided that the sayd particular Church within or without it selfe haue meanes to be furnished with sufficient Priests and necessary Sacraments and helps 7 But although we should grant that as M. Doctour affirmeth a great or notable part of the church could not iuâ—re diuino be gourned without a Bishop yet that would be far from proouing that England as things now stand must needes haue a Bishop For if our country be considered not materially but formally as Deuines expresse themselues that is not the extent of land or multitude of people but the number of Catholickes which only can make a true church we shall find it to be more then far from a great or notable part of the Catholick church spred ouer the whole world And God grant that I might not with truth affirme the whole number of Catholicks in EnglaÌ„d ScotlaÌ„d also to be much lesse theÌ„ the nuÌ„ber of people in some one citty in this Kingdom Sure I am that my Lord of Chaloâ—don or some other in his behalfe in a certine writing called a Paralâ—â— sect 4. saith that all the Catholicks would scarce make one of diuers Bishopricks in England Now to affirme that one Dicocesse or citty or indeede not so much as one Diocesse or citty is a great or notable part of that Church which reacheth as far as the rising and setting of the sunne and that it must therefore iure diuino haue a Bishop so as no cause can excuse the want of one is a thing that I will not say noe deuine but euen noe man in his right Iudgment can affirme But by this we may see into what absurdities partiality may lead men though other wayes learned 8 Enough hath bene said to disprooue M. Doctours Tenet in this present question yet nothing will more disaduâ—â—age his assertion then when the reader shall by my answers clearely peÌ„rceiue his owne arguments either to go beside the matter or to prooue against himselfe 9 His first was taken out of Sotus affirming it to be deiure diuiâ—e of the dideuine lawe quôd in genere singulis c. that in generâ—l to euery paâ—ticular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision proper Bishops are to be applyed This authority is eyther against M. Doctour or nothing against vs. For ether we suppose that the antient diuision of diocesses remaine â—ot in England and Scotland and then according to M. Doctours vnderstanding of Sotus euery Diocesse in England and Scotland must â—ure diuino haue a particular Bishop which is absurd could neuer be the true meaning of so learned a man as Sotus was Or els we suppose that al Ecclesiastical deuision of Diocesseâ— in England hath ceased and then there is not by the deuine law due to England any Bishop according to this authority of Soto who only saith it is deiure diuino of deuine law that to euery particular Church proper Bishops are to be applyed according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision and therefore where there is no such diuision the wordes of Sotus haue noâ— place so that Deuine as he is alledged by M. Doctour is aginst himselfe 10 If the Reader
must iure diuino haue an Ordinarie because by the deuine law beside the Supreme Pastour there must be in the Church of God other Ordinaries And this be saide concerning such arguments as M. Doctour hath in his 14 chapter Let vs now examine those of his 13. chapter 17 What he alleadgeth out of Suarez to prooue that the gouernment of the Church by Bishops speaking in generall cannot be altered by the Church is most true Only I wish M. Doctour had not so abruptly broken of Suarez his discourse who being to prooue that in a Monarchy there must be not only one supreme but also other inferiour as it were Princes of the Church saith thus the minor is declared both because a monarchy must haue somthing admixt of Aristocracy because there must be in the Church many Princes vnder one the first Thus he cyteth Suarez against all Grammar not giuing any word answering to both which therefore I must do and tell the reader that in Suarez there followe immediatly these words tum etiaÌ„ quia in rep Christana erat hoc maximè necessarium nam est amplissima vniuersalissima eius regimen est spirituale internum quod non fit exactè â—â—si per proprios Pastores Principes Ecclesiae also because in the Christian commoÌ„ wâ—lth this to haue some other Bishops beside the supreme Pastour was most necessarie because it is most large most vniuersall the gouernment of it is spirituall and internall which is not exactly pâ—rformed but by proper Pastours Princes of the Church If M. Doctour had not omitted this reâ—sâ— Imcane the amplitude and vniuersality of Christes Church the reader might haue seene that what Suarez affirmed with all Deuines of the necessity to haue some Bishops in the Church in generall could not be verified of the catholick Church in England which is neither amplissima nor vniuersalissima mostlarge nor most vneuersall neither doth the want of a Bishop in EnglaÌ„d infer that the Church shall not be a perfect Monarchie gouerned by one supreme Pastour other inferiour Ecclesiasticall Princes in some parts of it For England is not the whole world You see theÌ„ that I had reason to wish Suarez had bene by M. Doctour cited not by halfes for he being entirely cited makes for vs against him 18 His examples drawne from the African church may be answered all at once if we consider First that examples prooue little vnlesse we were sure that all circumstances concurre alike and as those of Africke could best iudge what was fit for that Church so English men can best tell how things stand in England and what is most expedient for that Church Secondly it is cleere their case was farre different from ours in England For the African Bishops and people had open meetings yea the Bishops celebrated Councels The Catholcks were many publicke or rather the whole face of the country was catholicke They had their knowne Primate and other Bishops and lastly which I desire the reader still to obserue if there had not bene Bishops in Africke their Church would haue wholy fâ—yled because for ordayning of Priests they had noe such meanes as England by the mercifull goodnesse of God and singular care of Popes haue had and still enioy with such education for Cleargy men as God grant we may retayne the like if England be catholicke For other helps also there was not betwixt Africke and Rome that entercourse which wee now enioy 19 And by this last obseruation is answered a demand of M. Doctour in his 14. chap. num 2. Why the Popes and Bishops in the Primatiue Church were so diligent in consecrating Bishops yeâ— and making Popes euen in the middest of the greatest persecutions but that they thought it was iuris diuini that euery church should haue its Bishop The true reason was because in those times euery country needed his owne Bishop for ordayning of Priests and the like without which their churches could not subsist least of all could the vniuersall Catholicke Church subsist without a head the Pope and I wonder at M. Doctour his yea and making Popes in his foresaid demaund as if it were more strange that Popes then that particular Bishops should be ordayned in time of persecution 20 All this that I haue said of the different case betwixt Africke and England is cleere out of the history and wordes alleadged by M. Doctour himselfe which I cyted in the beginning of this question and in particular of this last mayne difference you shall fiâ—de in Baronius Anno â—04 these wordes Eo consilio ista preceperat Trasamundus vt absque exerto ad persequendum gladio ipsae Orthodoxorum Eccelsiae aliquo temporis spatio orbatae vniuersae Pastoribus sponte concidereat To that end Trasamundus had commanded those thinges namely that no more Bishops should be ordayned in the place of those that dyed to the end that without dint of sword the Catholicke Churches being all for some space of tyme destitute of Pastours might of themselues fall And for this reason Baronius sayd what hope could there remayne for the churches when their foundations to wit the Bishops were taken away And this I hope will satisfie the iudicious reader that the three examples drawne from the African Church prooue nothing for our case in England yet by way of supererogation I will touch euery one of them apart 21 Concerning the first of the peoples crying on t for a Bishop for the Church of Certhage which Hunericus offered them but vpon condition that the Arians of Constantinople might enioy the free vse of their Churches otherwise not onely the Bishop that should be ordayned in Carthage with his cleargy but also all other Bishops of the Africanâ— prouinces with their cleargy should be sent to the Moores I aske M. Doctour whether in good earnest he thinke it necessary or lawfull rather to admit such conditioÌ„s then â—o lec a particular Diocesse as Carthâ—ge was be without a Bishops I doe not beleeue but he will grant that it is not lawfull at least Victor Primate of all Africke with other Bishops was of opinion that vpon such conditions a Bishop wos not to be desireâ— Interpositâ—s his Conditionibus c. say they with such conditions as these the church of Carthage is not willing to haue a Bishop And therefore the people who with such a resolution cryed for a Bishop did either hope that the threatned conditions would not take effect or else their zeale is more to be admired then imitated Wherefore when M. Doctour out of his zeale also to haue a Bishop num 7. turnes his speach to Catholicks in England desiring them to imitate this zeale of the Carthaginians for a Bishop to imprint it in their hearts although it must be with characters of their owne blood doth in effect say O my deere câ—â—atrymen you Catholicks of EnglaÌ„d be sure to cry for a Bishop although it were vpon condition 〈◊〉 the
vnmentioned In that place he writes as if he were not vnwilling the Reader should beleiue that the Apostles made no vow of pouerty and consequently were not Religious men My meaning is not purposely to handle this question contenting my selfe with saying That it is the doctrine of the greatest Deuine S. Thomas S. Th. 2.2 q. 88. a. 4. ad 3. S Aug. 17. ciu c. 4. of the greatest Doctour of Gods Church S. Augustine Of one of the greatest authority vnder heaueÌ„ a Pope namely Pius the fourth affirming that certaine Religious meÌ„ are of that Order Nau. comment 4 de Regular n. 7. apud Suar. Tom. 3. de Râ—l lib. 3. â— 3 nâ—m 6. which was instituted by the Apostles as Nauar relateth And no maÌ„ I thinke can with reason deny that the Apostles themselnes were Religious men if once he grant that they did institute a Religious Order of Cleargy men Lastly M. Doctour according to what himselfe writeth must yeild to this verity For in his 11 Chap. num 9. He saith that those words Matth. 19. There are Eunuches which haue gelded themselues for the Kingdome of heauen are most properly to be vnderstood of those that vow Chastity because such haue neither the act nor morall or lawfull power of generation By the same reason I may say when the Apostles answered our Sauiour Behold we haue left all and followed thee those words are most properly verified in those who haue riches neither in act nor power For it is but an imperfect leauing of a thing if it may be retaken at ones pleasure And if M. Doctour out of those words Behold we haue left all deduce not a vow of Pouerty how will he out of the same words prooue a vow of Chastity because after our Sauiour had explicated the Counsell of Chastity by the name of voluntary Eunuches the Apostles said Behold we haue left all namely both wiues and goods and to say the same words We haue left all as they signify Chastity imply a vow and not as they signify Pouerty or leauing of goods were a meere voluntary explication And therefore S. Augustine in the place aboue cited explicated the words of the Apostles Behold we haue left all of a vow of Pouerty as S. Epiphaniuâ— out of those words of our Sauiour There are Eunuches who haue gelded themselues c. teacheth that the Apostles had a vow of Chastity saying Quinam hi fuerunt S. Epiph. Hâ—ref 58. qui se castrauerunt propter regnum caelorum nisi generosi Apostoli aâ— Monasticam vitam dâ—gentes Who were those who gelded themselues for the Kingdome of Heauen but the generous Apostles and such as lead a Monasticall life 30 And it is most conformable to all reason that the Apostles who were not only Maisters but also paternes of of all perfection should haue all the perfection of other Christians not repugnant to their state as certainely Religious vowes are not which is cleare in Regular Bishops who still remaine true Religious men yea a Bishop not Regular may with merit make a simple vowe of Pouerty because there is no Deuine or Humane law to the contrary by an happy necessity it compelleth him more to auoide superfluous expences besides that the vowe it selfe as an act of ReligioÌ„ is very meritorious As for Hospitality Religious Bishops may keepe it noe lesse then other not Religious who are likewise bound to imploy in good vses what is superfluous to their state and to more Regular Bishops are not obliged It is well knowne that in England none kept greater Hospitality then Religious men Certainely in all reason none are more like to be liberall to others then who by vowe are bound not to make any thing their owne If the Apostles obserued the Euangelicall Counsails there is no reason to thinke but that they did it by vowe which of it selfe addeth a great perfection and as S. Thomas saith it is a point of perfection Opusc 18. de perf viâ— spirit c. 15. not only to performe a perfect worke but also to vowe it because both the worke and the vowe are Counsails And who will deny but the Apostles were carefull to doe their works in the most perfect manner All this will be much confirmed if we call to minde what in this Question I alleadged out of S. Thomas That the Counsails of which we speake are proper to the New Law S. Th. 1.2 q. 108. a. â— and it is no way credible that the Apostles would want a great perfection proper to the Law which they themselues first promulgated to the world 31 What he citeth out of Vasquez Vasq 1.2 disp 165. that the three vowes of Pouerty c. are not sufficient to make a Religious man vnles the Church by her Decree or Consent admit them and ordaine that the same vowes made before a Superiour shall make a man Religious is nothing against vs who for the present only intend that the Apostles obserued the three Euangelicall Counselles by obligation of vowe and abstaine from other particular disputes debated amoÌ„g moderne Deuines as may be seene in Vasquez cited by M. Doctour Vasq loc cit Suar. de Rel. tom 3. l. 2. c. 4.15.16 in Suarez at large particularly in the places noted in the margent Neither is it vnknowen to M. Doctour that for diuers times there haue bene different conditions required to make one a Relious man as also that Religious Profession hath not alwaies had the same effects which nowe do necessarily accompanie it Only in generall we must say that if to be Religious men did well agree to the Persons and Office of the Apostles as I haue already proued none knew better then they what was requisit to place them in that State neither would they be carelesse in performing whatsoeuer they knew necessary to that end M. Doctour citeth also Vasquez as affirming that out of the facts of the Apostles nothing could be gathered of certaintie wheras Vasquez although he saith the thing is not certaine yet he expresly unbraceth the doctrine of S. Thomas that the Apostles made a vow of Pouerty which M. Doctour concealed and only brought as much as seemed for his purpose He also citeth Vasquez in such a fashion as one would easily thinke that he prooued the state of Bâ—shops not to require Pouerty because they must be Hospitall whereas Vasquez giueth no such reason As for that which M. Doctour seemeth willing to hold that Ananias and Saphira vowed not Pouerty Coffeteau a Reuerend Coffeteau Discuss cap. 12. lib. 2. 01 learned Father of the Order of glorious S. Dominicke in his booke against Marcus Antonius de Dominis sheweth that it is against the whole streame of Fathers citing to that purpose S. Augustine S. Fulgentius S. Gregory S. Athanasius Saint Basil Ruffinus Cassianus and saith he almost all besides But truly I must needs say M. Doctour seemeth propense enough to take hold of any occasion Authour or Opinion
Ordo sanctorum monachoruÌ„ The Order of holy Monks addeth that this Order indeâ—uoureth to expresse the State of the perfecting Order of Bishops with many other Encomiums of Religious Order inculcating againe that it is not Medij eorum qui initiantur Ordinis sed summi omnium That it is not of the midle Order of these that are initiated but of the chiefe of all What could S. Dennys haue written more for declaration that Religious are of the Hierarchy And not only that they are of the Hierarchy but that they are of it in a high Degree 7 Out of S. Thomas it wil be no lesse easy to prooue That Religious men are of the Hierarchy He therefore 1. p. q. 108. art 1. in corp saith thus Hierarchia est sacer principatus In nomine autem principatus duo intelliguntur scilicet ipse Princeps multitudo ordinata sub principe A Hierarchy is a holy Principality By which name of Principality two things are vnderstood namely the Prince himselfe and a multitude ordered vnder the Prince Are not I pray you Religious men a multitude ordered vnder one Prince the Vicar of Christ S. Peters successour And if we will put force in the word Ordered what multitude is more Ordered theÌ„ that of Religious meÌ„ which hath his very name from Order In his second Article he demands Whether in one Hierarchy there be more Orders of Angels And he answers that there are Because it should not be an ordered but a confused multitude if in it there were not diuers orders Which diuersity of Orders is considered according to diuers offices and acts as in one Citty there are diuers orders according to diuers actions for their is one order of Iudges another of fighting men another of such as tille the ground Marke how S. Thomas doth hold that diuerse functions and Acts are sufficient for the distinction of Hierachies although they do not alwaies presuppose Iurisdiction And as temporall functions not implying Iurisdiction may make one of a Ciuill Commonwealth so in the same manner spirituall Acts professions or functions are sufficient to place one in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy This is also cleare out of S. Paul in those very Texts placed by M. Doctour in the Frontispice of his Booke for proofe of diuerse Hierachicall Orders in the Church Are all Apostles are all Prophetes are all Doctours haue all the guift of Curing Do all speake with Tongues Do all Interpret 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. Likewise And he gaue some Apostles and some Prophets and some other Euangelists and other some Pastours and Doctours to the consummation of the Saints vnto the worke of the Ministery Ephes 4. v. 2. In which testimonies there are placed functions ministeries and acts which import neither Order nor Iurisdiction as Prophets Euangelists Doctours Working of Miracles guift of Tongues c. 8 S. Thomas goeth forward saying In Cities there is a threefold Order Some are the highest as the Chiefe men Some of the lowest ranke as the vulgar people Some are of the midle sort as Persons of better ranke and so in euery Angelicall Hierarchy Orders are distinguished Out of which words we may gather this ground That all persons coipso that they are parts of a Community do belong to some Order thereof according as the community it selfe is gouerned by way of Democratie Aristrocratie or of a Monarchy and so if it be a Monarchy as the Church of Christ is all persons that are parts of it must like wise be of some Order and ranke in such a Monarchy for in Gods Church there is no confusion yet so as euery one haue a greater or lesse eminent place according to the perfection of his calling and Profession as we see S. Thomas placeth the common people in the lowest Order in a Citty and S. Dennys c. 6. placeth in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy Penitents in infimo loco scilicet inter Purgandos in the lowest place namely among such as were to be purged from their sinnes and no Deuine will deny that the very lowest Angels belong to the Celestiall Hierarchy as euen now we haue heard out of S. Thomas Now in what degree Religious men are to be placed in the Monarchy of Gods Church if themselues were to determine they would according to our blessed Sauiours aduise most gladly sit in the lowest place but others who are well instructed in the whole disposition of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy Iâ—c 14.10 come and say Amici ascendite superiùs S. Greg. Nazian orat in laudem Basilii Ascend higher S. Gregory Nazianzen tells them that their Order is a very great one in the Church Ecclesiae pars selectior sapientior The more choise and wiser part of the Church and in another place he tearmeth them The Seruants and Disciples of God Orat 1. in Iulian. the first fruites ef our Lords stocke Pillars Crownes of Fayth pretious Margarites c. S. Hierom. ep 17. ad Marcellam S. Hierom saith that the Quyre of Religious men is Flos quidam pretiosissimus lapis inter Ecclesiastica ornamenta A certaine Flowre and most pretious stone among the ornaments of the Church S. Bern. lib. de Praecepto Dispensâ—â— S. Bernard demaunding why a Religious life is called a second Baptisme giueth this answere Arbitror ob perfectam mundi abrenunciationem ac singularem excellentiam vitae spiritualis quae praeeminet vniuersis vitae humanae generibus Huiuscemodi conuersatio professores amatores suos Angelis similes dissimiles facit imò diuinam in homine reformat imaginem configurans nos Christo instar Baptismi quasi denique secundò Baptizamur dum per id quòd mortificamus membra nostra quae sunt super terram Christum induimus complantati similitudini mortis eius I thinke it is so called by reason of perfect renunciation of the world and singular excellency of spirituall life which surpasseth all other kindes of humane life This kind of conuersation makes the Professours thereof like and vnlike to the Angels yea it reformes in man the image of God configuring vs to Christ like to Baptisme and finally we receiue a second Baptisme while by mortifying our members which are vpon earth we put on Christ being complanted to the similitude of his death S. Augustine by saying that it is not in his power worthely to commend a Religious life S. Aug. l. de â—orth Eccl. cap. 31. doth by such silence highly speake in commendation thereof Hunc Ordinem saith he si laud are velim neque dignè valeo vereor ne iudicare videar per seipsum tantummodo expositum placere non posse If I would praise this Order I am not able worthily to doe it and am afrayd least I should seeme to be of opinion S. Dioryâ— eccles Hâ—r cap. 6. that of it selfe alone it hath not power enough to please What S. Dennys his esteeme was of the Order of Religious we haue
inference out of S. Cyprians wordes so often inculcated that the Church is Sacerdoti plebs adunata c. and an explication he giues of those other words of the same Father Thou must knowe that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop are plainly confuted as nothing consonant to S. Cyprians intention 10 This 13. Chapter the Reader will find answered for as much as needes explication in my 3. Question Chapt. 13. where all the examples he draweth from the African Church are at large discussed To prooue that notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution raised particularly by occasion of Bishops yet the Church must of necessity haue Bishops n. 5. he writes thus Wherfore as we may gather out of the Ecclesiasticall histories from the cruell Tyrant Nero to the Clement Emperour Constantine the Great there was scarce any Bishop of Rome who was not a Martyr or who at least suffered not great persecution Twenty seuen of them are commonly auouched for Martyrs to wit Peter Line c. and in his margent he hath 27. Popes Martyrs before the time of Constantine But in this account M. Doctour is much mistaken For the three last Popes by him reckoned namely Ioannes Siluerius and Martinus were long after Constantine who reigned the yeare of our Lord three hundred six two hundred forty nine years after Nero whose raigne was fifty seauen yeares after our Sauiour wheras Ioannes was made Pope foure hundred sixty seauen yeares after Nero and Siluerius thirteene yeares after Ioannes Martinus the yeare of our Lord six huÌ„dred forty nine after Nero fiue hundred ninety two years so that vpon the whole account in the first two M. Doctour erreth more theÌ„ two hundred twenty yeares in the space of only foure hundred sixty seauen and in the last namely Martinus he erreth three huÌ„dred forty three yeares in the space of fiue-hundred ninety two which is more then halfe Besids these last three were made Popes in times which did not particularly oppose the Creation of Popes or Bishops for which M. Doctour produceth them but they suffered in time of Christianity namely Ioannes vnder Iustinus the elder by the hereticall King Theodoricusâ—â— Siluerius by Theodora the Empresse and Martinus vnder Constans the Hereticall Emperour Still M. Doctour is found not to be so exact as one would haue expected 11 For the answere of his 14. Chapter Chap. 14. the Reader may be pleased to read what I haue sayd quest 2.3.4 Num. 3. He sayth that England was long without a Bishop because Superiours were informed that he would presently be taken and put to death If any reasons were proposed to Superiours concerning the difficulties of hauing a Bishop in England I suppose they were other reasons then this mentioned by M. Doctour But this is a businesse which belongs not to me Neuerthelesse M. Doct. in his next following 15. chapter seemeth to contradict what heere he sayth and to make good this very reason which heere he impugneth For in that chapter n. 6. he telleth vs that King â—ames of famous memory after he knew that the Bishop was entred and was in London he would not coÌ„maund him to be apprehended as he might easily both in London and any part of England Kings hauing long and powerfull armes 12 His 15. chapter Chapt. 15. is to prooue that to haue a Bishop in England cannot probably increase persecution It were easie to shew how insufficient M. Doctours arguments are if it were conuenient to enter into some particulars from which it is better to abstaine although M. Doctour hath taken the freedome to do otherwise Wherefore the iudicious reader wil be pleased to excuse me from answering M. Doctours arguments in patticular which may be done onely by distinguishing what indeed ought to be and what is likely will or rather hath already happened by reason of the present circumstances in our countrey and his arguments do also prooue that the whose profession and practise of Catholicke Religion ought in reason to be tollerated in England which is a thing in it selfe most true yet we finde the contrary by experience 13 Num. 10. He sayth that my Lord of Chalcedon hath onely a generall â—â—â—rituall power and Iurisdiction ouer the Cleargy and lay Catholicks in spirituall matters I haue noe intention to dispute of my Lords authority But this proposition of M. D. makes good what I said in my first Question that he will either displease my Lord by extenuating his Authority or else make such his authority dreadfull to Catholicks For if this generall authority which he giues to my Lord be onely in foro interno then it taketh from my Lord power to make a certaine Hierarchy of Vicar Generals Arch deacons c. for such offices are for authority in fâ—ro externo to meddle with Matrimoniall causes to prooue Wills dispose of pious Legacies visit Catholicks houses erect a Tribunall c. and hence it further is clearely deduced that my Lord is Ordinary neyther in name nor power For Ordinaries can do these things mentioned yea this is also manifest by what M. Doctour teacheth that my Lord of Chalcedon can challenge No Bishopricke no not so much as the poorest Parish in England Ergo according to M. Doctour my Lord of ChalcedoÌ„ hath not for England all the Faculties which other Ordinaries haue who certainly can challenge some one particular Diocesse and diuers particular Parishes Moreouer seeing M. Doctour teacheth that my Lord hath noe Title giuen him to any particular Bishopricke in England but onely to Chalcedon he must consequently auerte that my Lord cannot giue the â—â—â—les of Vicar Generall Archdeacon c. of London or any other place seeing my Lord himselfe hath noe such Title nor is Bishop of London or any other Diocesse If M. Doctours meaning be that my Lords generall spirituall power ouer lay Catholicks is also in foro externo and exteÌ„ds it selfe to the things aboue meÌ„tioned then Catholicks haue already told my L. in a letter directed to his Lordship how preiudiciall such an Authority must be to them To say my Lord hath such power but is resolued not to practise it will not satisfy because they are loath all their security should depend vpon the free will or particular dictamen of a man although neuer soe learned and wise who either vpon some new occurring motiues and reasons or by the instigation of others may alter his minde and practise that which himselfe once had no intention to practise And they will thinke that they are lesse to be blamed for such a feare seeing my Lord claymed an authority for example of approouing regulars for hearing the Confessions of secular persons which prooued not to be due vnto him which did concerne euen the lay Catholicks in highest degree for who would not rather haue their bodies disioynted on the racke then their soules tormented with scruple of inualid Confessions they will I say thinke it no vnreasonable feare that if
that I haue made longer stay in a lower place 13 Yet before I end this point I must set downe what M. Doctour in the end of his 11. Chapter sayth out of S. Thomas S. Th. 2.2 q. 185. a 8. in coâ—p That the State of Religion is in way to perfection and the State of a Bishop belonges to perfection as a certayne maistership of perfection Henâ— Gand. quod lib. 12. 〈◊〉 29. and sayth he Henricus de Gandauo handling this question whether the Religious â—or the Bishop be in the greater state of perfection concludeth in thâ—se words Status Praelatorum so hâ—thet ad statum Religiosorum c. the state of Prelates hath that Comparison to the state of Religious which the stâ—te of maisters hath to the state of schollers but the maister ought to be perfecter thâ—n his schâ—ller And agayne Quando aliques Religiosus deductus est ad summum aliquid perfecâ—um tunc primum est idoneus vt assummatur in Praelatum When a Religious man is brought ta an high and perfect degree of perfection then fiâ—st he is fit to be assumed for a Prelate And so sayth M. Doctour where a Religious man endeth there a Bishop or pastour beginneth and the Bishop layeth his foundation on the Religious mans toppe and roofe But truly this inference of M. Doctour is builâ—ed vpon a sandy foundation and he must eyther renounce the auctority of S. Thomas or of Gandensis for this Authour speakes of Prelates inferiour to Bishops wherin his doctrine is directly against S Thomas who as we shall see anone ex profâ—sso doth prefer Religious Priests before such Pastours And Henricus de Gandauo holdeth also that all such Pastours euen Parish Priests are properly in a state which is both agaynst S. Th. 2.2 q. 84. art 6. and M. Doctour himselfe who in his 11. chap. num 14. expressely sayth To a state immobility is required which the Pastour nor Bishop hath not And lastly the same Gandensis in the question by M. Doctour cyted holds that to be in a State is sufficient to haue a purpose to remayne therein without any other obligation or immobility which is not only against the common doctrine of Deuines but also agaynst M. Doctour in the sayd 11. Chapter num 13. for which he alleadgeth likewise S. Thomas 2.2 q. 184. art 4. where this doctrine is ex professo deliuered And I wonder M. Doctour would alleadge Gandensis particularly for Bishops he speaking of inferiour Pastours and why in his inference vpon the sayd Authours words he should put in Bishop or Pastour saying where a Religious man endeth there a Bishop or Pastour beginneth whereas before the sayd Authours words he had put only Bishop saying Henricus a Gandauo handling this question whether the Religious or the Bishop be in the greater state of perfection concludeth c. But most of all I wonder that M. Doctour would ground his saying that a Bishop layeth his foundation on the Religious mans top and roofe vpon a doctrine not true whatsoeuer the thing inferred be in it fâ—lfe I meane concerning the dignity of Bishops whereof we haue already spoken at large Certes if Bishops lay their foundation vpon the most perfect in Religious perfection such as are taken immediatly from a secular life haue reason to looke in good earnest vpon what toppe of perfection they lay their foundation And truly this doctrine of Gandensis ought to be a point of dayly meditation for all secular Pâ—stouis Finally out of this same place of Gaâ—densis M. Doctour might rightly haue inferred that Religious perfection is an excellent disposition to make a good worthy Pastour with greater profit to others and lesse daunger to ones selfe For there is great diffâ—rence betwixt a maister of Perfection as Gandensis sayd Pastours are a maister of Sciences by teaching whereof the maister himselfe both renewes the memory of old increaseth in new knowledg But while a man teacheth his neighbour to be perfect he may be in daunger to forget and impaire his owne soules good vnlesse he come well furnished with the spirituall substance of solid vertues 14 Now as for the second comparison of Religious men with inferiour Pastours it may be done eyther by comparing them absolutly which oâ— them are more perfect in themselues or els relatiuely to others which of them is more fit to help soules by preaching teaching administring Sacraments c. In both questions I will refer my selfe to that Cherubim for knowledge and Seraphim for sanctity the Angelicall Doctour S. Thomas of Aquin. He therefore 2.2 q. 184. art 8. hath this expresse question Vtrum presbytri Curati Archâ—dâ—aconâ— sint maiorâ—s perfectionis quam Religiosi Whether Priests hauing câ—re of soules and Archdeacons be of greater perfection then Religious men His resolutâ—on is that in State the Religious as Religious excelleth the secular Pastour as Secular If both of them be Priests and both haue care of soules as sayth he plertque Monachi Canonici Regulares habent Most part of Monks and Canon Regulars haue they wil be equall in Order and Office so as the only question remaining is Whether a Religious Priest by reason of his State be of greater perfection then a Secular Priest Curate in regard of his Office The Saints answere is that in goodnesse the Religious Priest excells and the secular Curate in difficulty bonè conuersandi of liuing vertuously amongst so many occasioÌ„s of dangers in the world which difficulty saith he in his answere ad 6. doth not increase merit because that difficulty only increaseth merit which ariseth from the nature of the works in themselues and not from extrinsecall occasions not auoided by secular persons which difficulty of works in themselues is greater in Religion by reason of the strictnesse of Regular obseruance besides that the Religions doe also merite much by voluntary quitting themselues of all such dangers impediments as swarme in the world Wherefore according to S. Thomas the Religious Priest excelleth secular Pastours in goodnesse and in that difficulty which is both full of merit security beside that particular increase of merit by flying from those impediments of the world which mâ—ke the paths of vertue far more difficult in so much as the same Saint teacheth that the Religious state in comparison of the Office of Pastours is like an Holocaust the most perfect of all Sacrifices wherein the whose victim was bestowed on almighty God compared to other sacrifices which were in a manner parted betwixt God man The same verity S. Thomas proueth because a Pastour may enter into Reliâ—ion wholy cease to be a Pastour but a Relâ—gious man is neuer so made Pastour as he doth not retaine his Religious stat whiâ—h is a signe that the calling of a Pastour is not so perfect as is a Religious vocation Moreouer the Canons of the Church do not only permit but also much commend the entering of Secular Pastours
into Religion Quia meliorem vitam seâ—ui cupiunt 〈…〉 Because they desire to embrace a better 〈◊〉 de of life saith the Toleran Councell And Gregory the Great lib. 10. epist 39. exhotteth that by all meanes such a spirit be nourished saying Quibus valetis adhortationibus Pastorali admonitione suâ—â—endite vt feruor huius desiderit in eo noâ—â—epeâ— eat By the best exhortation you are aâ—â—â— inflame him a secular Cleargy man desirous to enter into Religion that the feruour of such a desire may not in him wax cold Yea S. Thomas 2.2 q. 189. art 7. proueth out of the Canon law 19. q. 2. â— Due sunt leges that a secular Curate may enter into Religion although his Bishop should exprestely be against it Etiam contradicente Episcopo eat liber nostra authoritate Although the Bishop oppose himselfe let him frâ—elâ—eâ—ter your Authority sayth the Pope Now as M. Doctour in his 11. Chapter n. 15. proueth out of S. Thomas S. Th 22 q. 184. a. 7. that the state of a Bishop is a state of greâ—ter perfection then that of a Religiouâ— man because otherwise it were not lawfull for him to be made a Bishop because that were retrò aspicere to looke backe So we may say that seing secular Pastours may enter into Religion it must be an argument that Religious state is more perfect for the very same reason least otherwise they should be conuinced retrò aspicere to looke back Which reason will wax more strong on our side if we call to mind that a Religious man cannot yield consensent to his election to be a Bishop without his own superiours leaue whereas a secular Curate may lawfully enter into Religion euen agaynst the will of his Bishop This whole resolution of Saint Thomas is much confirmed by an other doctrine deliuered by him in the same 184 question art 6. That only Bishops not inferiour Prelates are in a State of perfection wheras in the next precedent Article he bad purposely taught that Religious men are in suâ—h a State 15 To these determinations of S. Thomas I will aâ—de nothing saue only that Religious state is of Deuine institution as certaineâ—y Archdeacons Deanes Vicars c. are not and Suarez in the same place Suarez to 4. in 3. p. disp 25. n. 17. which M. Doctour cited to prooue that Bishops are of Deume Ordinance is of opinion that the Diuision of Parishes with Institution of Parish Priests euen in generall is not de iure diuino of Deuine iustitution because sayth he the Church might deuide more Bishopricks and assigne to each one a lesse territory ordayning that the Bishop himselfe should be immediate Pastour in his whole Diocesse which he might gouerne by Vicars and Chaplins which although were not perhaps vniuersally expedient yet it is not directly and clearly against the law of God S. Thomas also sayth of all inferiour Pastours that in respect of the Bishop S. Th. 2.2 q. 184. a 6. ad 2. they are sicut Baliui ad Regem in his answere ad â— he teacheth that they haue not principall care of soules but some particular administration by Commission from the Bishop But howsoeuer this matter be at least it is not so certaine that the Institution of Parish Priests is de iure Dirino a Deuine institution as it is that Religious state was instituted by our Sauiour Christ 16 And this shall suffice for the comparison of Religious men with Curats if their callings be considered in themselues Which comparison is alwais to be vnderstood betwixt Religious men such Secular Priests as are Ordinary Pastours or Curats For in England where all Priests both Regular Secular attend to the help of soules only by particular Mission Priuiledge and Delegation there is no doubt but Religious men are to be preferred seeing both in Order of Priesthood Iurisdiction or Office they are equall and still the state of Religious as Relâ—gious is more noble theÌ„ that of Secular as Secular which no Catholike can deny 17 For the second comparison whether Religious or secular are more fit to help soules by preaching and other such Ecclesiasticall functions let vs heare Saint Thomas teaching that Religious men are made more fit for the performance of such functions of Preaching S. Th. 2.2 q. 187. a. 1. teaching c. by reason of the exercise of sanctity which they haue vndertaken adding Stulium est dicere quod per hoc quòd aliquis in sanctitate promouetur efficiatur minus idoneus ad spiritualia officia exercenda Et ideo stult a est quorundam opinto dicentium quòd ipse status Religionis impedimentum affert talia exequendi It is a foolery to say that by being improued in sanctity as man is made lesse fit for the performance of Ecclesiasticall functions And therefore the opinion of some who say that the very state of Religion brings an impediment to such functions is a foolish opinion Quorum errorem saith the same Saint Bonifactus Papa exeludit dicens vt habetur 16. q. 1. Sunt nonnulls nullo dogmate fulti andacissimè quidem zelo magis amaritudinis quà m dilectionis inflammati asserentes Monachos qui mundo mortui sunt Deo vinunt Sacerdot alis officii potenti â indignos Sed omninò labuntur Quod oftendit primò quidem quia non soâ—â—r â—riatur Regulae subdit enim neque enim Beatus Benedictus Monachorum Praeceptor Almificus huiuscemodirei aliquo modofuit interdictor Et similiter nec in aliis regulis hoc prohibetur Secundò improbat praedictum errorem ex ideoneitate Monachorum cum in fine Capâ—tuli subdit Quanto quisque est excellentior tanto in illis scilicet spiritualibus operâ—bus potentior Whose errour Pope Boniface doth reiect saying There are some supported by no verity who inflammed with zeale of bitternes rather then of charity do most boldly affirme that Monks who are dâ—ad to the world and liue to God are not worthy of the power of Priestly office But they are altogeather deceyued Which he prooueth First because it is not agaynst the Rule For â—e addeth S. Bennet the Father of Monks did not any way in his Rule forbid it And likewise it is not forbid in other Rules Secondly he disproueth the foresayd errour by the fitnes of Monks for such functions saying By how much a man is more excellent by so much he is more powerfull in those spirituall functions Behold the doctrine of the greatest Prelate and one of the greatest Schollers vpon earth a Pope and a most learned Saint To those vulgar obiections Vita Monachorum c. The life of Monks signifies subiection not an office of teaching or gouerning others Monachus non Doctoris c. The profession of a Morke is not teaching but weeping the like S. Thomas in the same place ad 3. answeres that such sayings only signify that Monks precisely by being Monks doe not acquire authority to preach