Place by makinge my Lord not Bishop of the countrey but only giuing him authority referred to the persons Ordinaries haue iurisdiction in respect both of place and person Catholickes and Heretiques and therfore in them extent of place is much more considerable Lastly although it were granted as a thing not making much for our present purpose that the extent of place in England were much considerable thence at the most could be inferred that England is capable of a Bishop not that it must of necessity haue one which is our only Question As there be some Diocesses for extent of place wel capable of too or more Bishops and yet it doth not follow that of necessity they must haue too or more if by one they can be sufficiently gouerned yea there are diuers places capable of one or more Bishops who haue no Bishop at all but are gouerned by other superiours 10. Likewise the Replyer n. 9. about this poynt citeth the wordes of the Discussour n. 7. very imperfectly in this manner To affirme that one Diocesse or Citty is a notable part of the Church is a thinge which no deuine yea no man of iudgment will say The words entirely cited are these To affirme that one Diocesse or City or indeed not so much as one Diocesse or Citty is a great or notable part of that Chuch which reacheth as farre as the rising and setting of the Sunne and that it must therfore iure diuino by the diuine law haue a Bishop so as no cause can excuse the want of one is a thing which no Deuine c. This saying of Nicolas Smith is so euident as no man can deny it to be true and yet for this speach he is deeply charged by the Inquisitour and Replyer of great immodesty Besides Nicolas Smith neuer say d M. Doctour affirmed all this but only by good consequence he shewed that this and diuers other hard conclusions must follow out of his Principles 11. What he citeth n. 14. out of the Regulars Answere to my Lord of Calcedons letter is by him odiously forced to a sense by the neyther meant nor written It is cleare they speake not of Episcopall authority in generall but of a Bishop in these tymes with power of Ordinary in foro externo coactiue to erect a Tribunall c. which they say would in these tymes proue pernicions to soules c. as M. Doctour Chap. 15. confesseth my Lord of Chalcedon to say that such a Tribunal is not sutable to these tymes Preaching is a holy thinge and as auncient as our Sauiour Christ yet to do it publickly in these tymes may be called a Nouelty and pernicious to Catholikes 12. In more then three whole leaues frō n. 16. he laboureth to make good that Sotus fauoureth M. Doctour All his discourse is reduced to this When Sotus teacheth it to be of diuine law that in generall to euery Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision proper Bishops are to be applyed those wordes in generall are to be interpreted as if one should say Christ in generall hath ordayned that euery man shall be baptized and therfore by our Sauiours commaund euery particular man is to be baptized The Discussour interpreteth Sotus by the word ingenerall to meane indeterminatly of some Diocesses according as particular circumstances of persons tyme and place shall require not that Sotus did teach an absolute precept of placing Bishops in euery determinate particular Diocesse This interpretation is gathered out of Sotus his whole drift which was to proue afterward agaynst Catharines that the Residence of Bishops is de iure diuino of the diuine law and also out of his wordes cited by the Replyer n. 22. that the Bishop must adsalutem gregis oculate attendere looke as it were with his eye to the good of his flocke propter peculiarem curam vigilantiam for the peculiar care and vigilācy necessary to his Church All which demonstrate Sotus his meaning only to be that Bishops by the diuine law must be so applyed to particular Churches as may suffice for the good gouernment of the same but not so absolutely that when they may be otherwise prouided for euery Diocese must of necessity haue its Bishop which Sotus knew well to be agaynst the practise of the Church wherin diuers Territoryes as great as Diocesses are exempt from all particular Bishops As Sotus teacheth that Bishops must be applyed to particular Diocesses so he teacheth that Parish Priests must be applyed to particular Parishes as may be seene in the wordes cited by the Replyer it were strange that Sotus should therfore be alleadged to hold it a diuine law that euery Parish haue its Parish Priest if otherwise it be sufficiently prouided Sotus then must be vnderstoode only indeterminately that some Diocesses must haue their Bishops because otherwise they cannot be sufficiently gouerned but not absolutely that by the diuine law ech one must haue its Bishop although otherwise it can be furnished with all necessaryes And this in effect is no more then we sayd in this Question n. 1. and euinceth the no necessity of a Bishop in Englād by the diuine law if without a Bishop we can be sufficiently prouided for According to this true meaning of Sotus it followeth not as the Replyer thinkes Sotus teacheth that there must be a Bishop in euery particular Diocesse Ergo much more in euery notable part of the Church because if a notable part of the Church can be otherwise well gouerned it will no more according to Sotus require a Bishop then a particular Diocesse Yea there may happe to be a greater obligation of placing a Bishop in some particular Diocesse then in a great Country where the Bishop cannot performe his office or cannot come without great domage to Catholikes which are considerations depēding wholly vpon particular circumstances and not to be determined by generall notions of greater or lesse extent of place Besides M. Doctour alleadged Sotus absolutely now the Replyer hath recourse to inferences If Sotus meane as the Replyer will haue him That by the diuine lawe the Pope must apply a particular Bishop to euery Diocesse or rather to euery place capable to be a Diocesse the doctrine is not true in it selfe and is agaynst the Replier pag. 30. n. 12. who granteth that the Pope may gouerne some litle Prouinces otherwise then by a Bishop as we see frequently practised in Territoryes of good extent It was then a hard shift out of a doctrine not true by inference to proue a poynt so preiudiciall to Catholikes as M. Doctours conclusion was At least it cannot be denyed but Sotus his wordes by this diuersity of Interpretatiō appeare to be obscure and therfore could yield but vncertayne reliefe to M. Doctours hard assertion 13. Concerning Bannez see the Discussour n. 11. who truly affirmed that he made nothinge for M. Doctour When he teacheth that the Pope cannot remoue Bishops from a great part of the Church
Florence the other opinion meriteth Censure This poynt is sufficiently handled in the Qualification Heere I add this instance Some few Deuines are also of opinion that the Priest is Minister of the Sacramēt of Matrimony without whome according to these Authors it is only a ciuill Contract not a Sacrament wil therfore the Replyer say that English Catholickes are obliged to receaue Priests with increase of persecution if it were only for to haue the vndoubted Sacrament of Matrimony And yet if the matter be duly considered perhaps one may truly affirme that as great inconueniences and sinnes of enmity iniustice incontinency c. are like to be dayly and hourely incurred for want of grace conferred by the Sacrament of Matrimony as in another kind for want of Confirmation euen in a persecuted Coūtry If those Deuines who teach that the Priest is the Minister of Matrimony had taught that a Bishop were the necessary Minister of the same Sacrament the Replyer would perhaps alledge them for the necessity of a Bishop although with increase of persecution 4. The chiefest point of doctrine in this Question or rather the point which entreth into all the ensuing Questions is touched by the Discussour n. 15. and by the Replyer left without answere It was That M. Doctours arguments for the necessity of a Bishop in England proue more then himselfe intendeth or can auouch For the institution and commaund of our Sauiour that his Church should be gouerned by Bishops concerneth such Bishops as are properly Ordinaryes Princes Bishops of Diocesses not by Delegation Deputation or Ordinaryes in an extraordinary manner which is not of Diuiue institution and is the most that my Lord of Calcedon doth challeng If the diuine instistution and commaund were fulfilled by Ordinaryes in an Extraordinary manner the Pope might gouerne the whole Church by such extraordinary Ordinaryes which no Catholique can grant and therfore as I sayd M. Doctour must answere his owne arguments drawne from the diuine institution for according to that ground we must in England haue properly an Ordinary come to confesse that there is no diuine Positiue Precept for his Holinesse to appoynt vs in England a Bishop but only a diuine naturall command to prouide vs of all things necessary to saluation whether by Bishops or other meanes THE II. QVESTION Whether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church THE substance of all that is conteyned in the first 16. numbers of the Reply is taken out of the Inquisition sect 3. and sect 6 about the wordes of S. Cyprian The Church is a people vnited to the Bishop and the necessity of a particular Bishop to make a particular Church which points are cleared by the Qualificatour in the same Sections And the Reader of himselfe may answere all his obiections if he remember how the Discussour expressy teacheth That in some particular Churches there must be particular Bishops distinct from the Pope That in England while we wanted Bishops properly called Ordinaryes in an ordinary manner the Pope could be was and is our sole particular Bishop That these words of S. Cyprian The Church is a people vnited to the Bishop as they were spoken by him precisely immediatly formally signify that a people deuided from their lawfull Bishop is no church but a Schismaticall multitude not only by inference as the Replyer u. 9.13 in other places doth suppose out of that his owne supposition deduceth absurdities agaynst the Discussour as not distinguishing betwixt meere inculpable want of a Bishop and sinfull separation from a Bishop Whereas indeede S. Cyprian only speaketh of sinnefull separation therfore affirmeth that such as are not vnited with a Bishop in the sense he spake are not in the Church That Catholike writers may fitly agaynst heretickes inferre out of S. Cyprian a necessity of hauing Bishops in Gods Church because it were no crime of Schisme to be deuided frō a Bishop if in the Church there ought not to be Bishops That the sayd wordes of S. Cyprian may be taken for a definition of the Church if the word Bishop be takē indefinitely of a particular Bishop distinct from the Pope or for the Pope himselfe For no multitude can be a Church without vniō eyther to a particular Bishop vnder the Pope or to the Pope himselfe Without Vnion I say eyther actuall or aptitudinall really or in readinesse of will to accept one when he shall be lawfully giuen them which promptitude they may and ought to haue when actually they want one The Replyer himself must yield that S. Cypriā if he meane of a potiue Vnion with a Bishop as he would haue him to meane can not be vnderstood determinatly of a particular Bishop distinct frō the Pope vnlesse he will teach it to be agaynst the very definition and essence of a particular Church to haue the Pope for its particular Bishop which I am sure he will not auerre For who dare say that the particular diocesse of Rome which hath the Pope for its sole Bishop is no particular Church 2. Thus is answered all that he alead geth out of Bellarmine Stapleton c. who only teach that in the Church there must be some particular Bishops and that the Church is a people vnted to the Bishop in the manner I haue now declared Yea all that I haue said is much confirmed by what the Replier citeth out of Stapleton That the word Church in scripture signifyeth properly not a vagrant headlesse multitude but a multitude to which Pastours and Prelates are constituted by God For I trow English Catholickes were no vagrant headlesse multitude as longe as they were and are gouerned by Christ his Vicar And the Replyers obiection n. 9. That euery Catholicke family euery Nunnery yea and Company of Catholicke women shoulde be a particular Church if vnion to the Pope were sufficient to constitute a particular Church is easily answered by demaunding of him whether in a Diocesse enioying its particular Bishop euery Nunnery euery family euery particular Catholicke be a particular Church what he shall answere in that supposition the same I answere in our case who acknowledge the Pope for our particular Bishop S. Paul faluteth the Church in the house of Nimpha Coloss cap. 4. v. 15. and the Church in the house of Philemon ad Philem. v. 2. and S. Gregory Thanmaturgus at first had for his particular Church only 17. Catholiks nor are we certayne that they were not in one house or family But to my purpose it importeth nothing and therfore I will not dispute whether one family can be fitly called a particular Church 3. Heere commeth of it selfe a ready answere to another obiectiō of the Replyer To shew that the oftē cited wordes of S. Cyprian cannot inferre that a Bishop is necessary to make a particular Church the Discussourn 6. retorteth them in this manner Whosoeuer are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop doe fulfill the definition of S. Cyprian
But those who without their owne fault haue no Bishop are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishopp Ergo those who haue no Bishop do fulfill the definition of S. Cyprian This argument the Replyer would returne vpon the Discussour by saying That seeing a Catholicke family without a Bishop is not in schisme with any Bishop it would follow that such a family considered by it selfe fulfilleth the definition of S. Cyprian and consequently is a Church But the answere is already giuen If one man or family may be tearmed a particular Church in case they were positiuely vnited to a particular Bishop much more may they be a Church in S. Cyprians sense which requireth not positiue vnion but only that they be not deuided from their Bishop If one man or family be not capable of the denomination of a particular Church then his obiection toucheth not the Discussour whose argumēt proceeded in respect of a multitude Plebs and Grex a people and multitude such as English Catholickes are capable of the sayd denomination if other requisite conditions were not wantinge Still then it is trew as the Discussour inferred That a people not deuided frō their lawful Bishop is according to S. Cyprian a true Church although they haue no actual vniō with a particular Bishop 4. His proofes n. 17. That M. Doctour was not iniurious to English Catholicks by saying They did not fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian while they wanted a Bishop do still relye vpon a groūd not solide to wit that S. Cyprian by a people vnited to their Bishop vnderstands a positiue Vnion with a Bishop wheras Nicolas Smith proued out S. Cyprians words and whole drift that by Vnion with a Bishop he vnderstands only that the people be not deuided from him this supposed it cleerly followeth That if English Catholikes did not fulfill the sayd definition they must be taxed of diuision from a Bishop consequently of Schisme 5. The Discussour q. 2. n. 8. 13. and the Qualificatour sect 7. answere all he bringeth to proue that the Pope was not our particular Bishop and the Qualificatour sheweth that Nicolas Smith doth not argue à possibili ad esse But sayth the Replyer n. 21. if when a Church is depriued of Bishops the Pope remayne their particular Bishop no Bishopricke should euer be vacant nor any Colledge want a Rectour or Prouince a Prouinciall because the Prouinciall would become Rectour the Generall Prouinciall And if per impossibile there were neuer a Bishop in all the Church but the Pope the Church should still be Hierarchical composed of diuers particular Churches 6. I answere This argument must be solued by the Replyer himselfe who in the next number granteth that the Pope may be the particular Bishop of a particular Church and yet he would not admit that he may make himself sole particular Bishop of all Churches The reason is because our Sauiour hath instituted that there should be some particular Churches gouerned by Bishops distinct from the supreme Pastour not because the Pope alone cannot make a particular Church but because he can not make all Churches particular Churches in the manner our Sauiour hath instituted by their proper Ecclesiasticall Princes distinct from the Pope as is required in a Hierarchy In this sense Bishoprickes are sayd to be Vacant because they want a Bishop distinct from the Pope 7. And heere I must obserue that it is so true that a Church without a Bishop may be a particular Church that the Replyer while he is speaking against it speakes for it by saying That a Bishopricke may be Vacant Ergo say I by the Vacancy it ceaseth not to be a Bishopricke a Diocesse a Church If a Church surely not an Vniuersall but a particular one When the Bishop of a particular Church dyeth do they not demaund a Bishop for such a Church Ergo they suppose that it stil remayneth a Church Otherwise when a Bishop was demaunded for England it might haue bynne answered First fynde a Church in Englande and then aske a Bishop for the Church of Englande M. Doctour pag. 378. n. 3. sayth that when a Byshop cannot be had the particular Church must be gouerned as it may And pag. 374. alluding to Englande he sayth If for a tyme some particular Church be gouerned by Priests or an Archpriest without a Bishop it is a thing accidentall c. Ergo a Church Englande in particular without a Bishop may be and was a particular Church And indeed we can not teach otherwise vnlesse by the death of euery Bishop we will haue all men become speachlesse For when the Bishop of a particular Church dyeth how can we expresse it but by sayinge such a Church hath lost its Bishop The same is demonstrated euen out of the other examples alledged by the Replyer For by the death of a Rectour or Prouinciall the Colledge ceaseth not to be a Colledge nor the Prouince a Prouince neyther doth it follow that a Prouinciall or Generall vpon the death of euery Rectour or Prouinciall must becom Rectours Prouinciass The reason of this dependeth on the knowledge of particular institutes of Religion In generall it is sufficient to say that no Generall hath ouer his whole Order so absolute and vnlimited extent of power as the Pope by our Sauiours institution hath ouer the whole euery member of Gods Church I grant in Catholike Countreys where after the death of the Bishop other officers remaine to gouerne till a new Bishop be elected the Pope need not actuate his immediate power Pastorship as he is obliged to do in countries wholy for a long time destitute of Bishops 8. Because the Pope hath immediate power ouer all particular Churches and is Proprius Pastor of England and all other countreys to make himselfe particular sole Bishop of any church he needs not take the name of that particular church but beginneth to be sole Bishop as soone as it beginneth to be destitute of a Bishop But other particular Bishops who haue no such vniuersall immediate power must acquire it by a new Title to their particular Churches And seeing the Pope in respect of England hath indeed performed the Office of a Bishop no doubt but he would also call himselfe Bishop of England if with the Replyer he conceaued that there were a diuine precept to make England a particular Church and that to make it such it were necessary and sufficient that he tooke the name or title of it as the Replyer n. 22. confesseth For who will say that for a matter of no more difficulty then is to take a Name the Pope will breake a diuine commaund It is then a signe that he may make vs a particular Church without calling himselfe Bishop of England because in very deed so he is His Holynesse styleth not himselfe Bishop of Holland where neuerthelesse he hath a Vicar which supposeth the Pope to be the particular Bishop of
that countrey For a Church cannot be a particular Church by vnion to a Vicar but by vnion to him whose Vicar he is My Lord of Chalcedon is not called Bishop of England or of any Church or Diocesse thereof and yet the Replyer thinkes he maketh vs a particular Church because he hath the power of a Bishop of England which no man can deny the Pope to haue in as immediate and more ample high manner and therefore he may make vs a particular Church although he take not the Name therof 9. Yea wheras the Replyer n. 22.23 teacheth that the Pope could not be particular Bishop of England vnlesse he did eyther the office of a Bishop himselfe or by his Delegate or as lest styled himselfe Bishop of England I answere that it is sufficient he do the Office of a Bishop according as the circumstances of the tyme and place permit or require which his Holinesse most carfully hath and doth performe by sending into England Priests or also a Bishop with authority from him delegated c. and the Replyer pleades agaynst himselfe telling vs in effect that the Pope by the very delegating my Lord of Chalcedon and not making him Bishop of England hath declared himself to be the sole particular Bishop of that Countrey where he doth the office of a Bishop by his Delegates As Ireland is not a Kingdome in respect of his Maiesties Deputy but because it is vnited to his Maiesty as to its King so England cannot be a particular Church in respect of my Lord of Chalcedon but in regard of the Pope whose Deputy my Lord is being not spirituall Prince and Bishop of England If to be Ordinary in an extraordinary manner be sufficient to make vs a Church how will the Replyer proue that before my lord of Chalcedons comming his Holinesses Nuntio in Paris did not make vs a particular Church 10. Against the Discussours doctrine n. 11. That persons exempt from all Bishops and subiect only to the Pope are a particular Church without a particular Bishop the Replyer n. 26. obiecteth That Monasteryes subiect only to the Pope are no particular Churches vnles we wil make euery Nunnery of women a particular Church I answere the Discussour speaketh in generall of places and persons exempt from Bishops And it is well knowne that there be diuers Territoryes of extent sufficient to make a Diocesse subiect to no Bishop These Nicolas Smith affirmes to be particular churches One Monastery or Nūnery immediatly subiect to the Pope are as much a particular Church as if they had a particular Bishop as we sayd aboue n. 2.3 11. In his numbers 28.29 he teacheth that it is a great Lustre to a Church to haue a particular Bishop That a Church gouerned by a Delegate wanteth some perfection of that which is gouerned by an Ordinary That if a Pope should send a Priest into England with power to confirme England should be in its kind a particular Church but not in the degree and perfection as if it had an Ordinary Bishop What Is the necessity of hauing a Bishop come only to a greater Lustre Must Catholickes be troden vnder foote for a greater lustre Doth all this dispute end in degrees of Comparison Hath our being or not being a particular Church so great latitude that it may reach to a Church with a Bishop Ordinary a Bishop Delegate a simple Priest I confesse the Replyer is forced to steppe backe and not to stand so punctually on his ground of Englands not being a particular Church without a Bishop I desire he would speake plainly Doth the diuine law in these sore tymes oblige vs to be a particular Church in the greatest perfection you mention by a Bishop Ordinary You wil not say so Is the diuine law of our being a particular Church well satisfied by persons endued with authority sufficient and proportionable to these dayes let them be Priests or Bishops Ordinaryes or Delegates So you must say Let vs then speake no more of being a particular Church or of hauing determinatly a Bishop by the diuiuine law but let our care be in the sight of God vnpartially to consider and with indifferency to desire what may be most expedient for Catholickes not in France Spayne Italy and other Countreyes happy with peaceable possession of Ecclesiasticall splendour but in Englād blessed only with ioyful suffering a longe continued persecution 12. Well to leaue speculations Schoolpoynts seing you constantly persist in this that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church before you burthen our consciences with a heauy obligation to purchase our being a particular Church with hazard of goods liberty and life you must not blame vs if we request you to produce some precept of God or the Church commaunding vs to be a particular Church in your sense why we may not content our selues with being good Catholickes and members of the Vniuersall Church as Nicholas Smith n. 14. proposed to M. Doctour In this consisteth the poynt of the difficulty The Replyer answereth that this demaund is by the Discussour brought out of its place so must expect answere in the next question which treateth Whether by the diuine law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop What is this but to auoyd the difficulty for M. Doctour proposeth as two reasons or titles The deuine precept of hauing a Bishop in euery particular Church and The necessity of hauing a Bishop because without him we cannot be a particular Church as may be seene Chap. 14. n. 4. 5. 6. 7. and in other places Now the Replyer will make M. Doctour walke in a circle and proue that we are bound to be a particular Church because we are obliged to haue a Bishop and we are obliged to haue a Bishop because we are bound to be a particular Church If the Replyer will defend M. Doctour he must tell vs what commaund we haue precisely to be a particular Church so that if a Bishop were not necessary in other respects yet for this cause alone he could not be refused This the Replyer doth not proue in the next question nor is it a thing in it selfe factible or credible 13. From the number 13. to the end of this Question he taxeth the Discussour as stretching M. Doctours wordes Chap. 14. n. 9. further then he intended But those wordes which he seeketh to defend must eyther teach as farre as the Discussour extendeth them or else they will come short of prouing M. Doctours purpose For if it be as necessary to haue a particular Bishop to make a particular church as to haue an Vniuersall Bishop for the making an Vniuersal church and that by the diuine law euery country of extent must be a particular Church it followeth clearly that according to M. Doctour there is as much necessity to haue a Bishop in England which in his opinion is a particular church of extent as to haue a Pope of Rome You will perhaps say that the
diuine Law of hauing a particular Bishop in euery particular church doth not so generally bynd as the other doth but may cease to oblige by reason of some particular circumstances of tyme or place This answere ouerthoweth M. Doctours whole edifice Because if any reason may take away the obligation of a diuine law certainly a generall persecution threatned to a whole Countrey may free vs from such a bond How then will M. Doctour conclude that by the diuyne law we are bound to haue a Bishop in a case wherein the diuine law ceaseth to bynd You see the Discussour had reason to say That M. Doctours wordes imported too much or else you must yeald they proued too litle 14. In like manner what M. Doctour sayd in the same place That vnlesse euery particular church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchy composed of diuers particular churches is rightly taxed by the Discussour as eyther not sound or not sufficient for M. Doctours purpose If it be vnderstood only indeterminatly that is The whole church cannot be a Hierarchy vnlesse some particular churches haue Bishops it proueth not that England must haue a Bishop because although England want a Bishop other churches may haue them so the Vniuersall church remayne a Hierarchy If he vnderstand of euery determinate particular church then it followeth that the church of God cannot be a Hierarchy vnles the determinate particular church of England haue a Bishop as the Discussour vrged n. 16. and the Replyer doth not confute 15. By the way I espy in his n. 32. a word for my purpose which ouerthroweth the Repliers whole discourse in this Question The church sayth he cannot be at al without a supreme Bishop or not without order to him when the sea is Vacant This I take as granted and very true and hence I inferre That as the Vniuersall church may be an Vniuersall church without actuall vnion to a supreme Bishop while the sea is Vacant because it still hath Order reference and aptitude to be gouerned by an Vniuersall Bishop as soone as he shall be elected so a particular church may be such by Order and aptitude to be vnited with a particular Bishop whensoeuer he shall be appoynted so S. Cyprians definition The Church is the people vnited to the Bishop doth not require that the people be actually vnited to the Bishop but only in readines of mynd or aptitudinally And thus England while it wanted a Bishop was a particular church because it was alwayes in disposition to be vnited to a Bishop Where now is that argument so often inculcated by M. Doctour the Inquisitour and the Replyer S. Cyprian defines a church to be the people vnited to the Bishop But the people cannot be vnited to a Bishop vnlesse they haue one Ergo they cannot be a church vnlesse they haue a Bishop For the Replyer himselfe hath told vs that when the Sea is vacant the people may be a church with only Order to a Bishop which implyeth not the actuall hauing a Bishop but only a fit disposition to haue one THE III. QVESTION Whether by the diuine Law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop THE diuine precept of hauing Bishops in the Church is only to be vnderstod indeterminatly or in generall that in the whole church there must be some Bishops as many or few as may be necessary or requisite to the end of gouerning the same Church But in respect of particular and determinate churches the commaund is not absolute but beareth a great respect to circumstances of tyme place and the like as the Vicar of Christ shall iudge it best fitting for gouerning and prouiding such churches of al things necessary to saluation Wherfore from the diuine precept of hauing Bishops in generall we cannot infer a necessity of hauing Bishops in this or that particular countrey although otherwise of extent For there may occur good reason why some other gouernment in some particular circumstances may conduce more to the glory of God and particular good of such a country Contrarywise it may happen that some church of small extent may in particular circumstances more require the gouernment of a Bishop then a larger countrey The thing therfore which is as I may say formally to be considered is the quality or greater or lesse necessity not the greater or lesse quantity of place or number of persons but in as much as these may induce a greater necessity of hauing Bishops 2. For this cause in the primitiue church euen in tyme of hoatest persecution Bishops were multiplied and placed in diuers Cittyes because those tymes did so require In so much that some Authors write that in those first dayes of Christianity in a manner all Priests were Bishops contrary to the present practise of Gods church The reason was the paucity of Priests of which if many had not binne made Bishops to ordayne Priests particular churches would haue remayned vnfurnished of Priests to conuert infidells assist thē being conuerted Euery church hauing inough to do within it self could not affoard help to others For this same cause Bishops were allotted to smaller flockes then is now eyther vsuall or lawful to be commonly practised S. Gregory the Thaumaturge cited by the Replyer n. 14. was created Bishop ouer only 17. persons A number competent for those old not these latter tymes in places where by neighbour-churches the want of other may be relieued The more the Vniuersall church is dilated the lesse euery particular church needeth a a Bishop of its own Because other churches without much preiudice vnto themselues may frequently lend them a helping hand In countreys by vast distance remote from helpe and comfort of Christian Nations a Bishop may be needfull for a few In Europe the case is otherwise If one shippe be in want it can becken to those who abound in diuers others 3. Hence it followeth that to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England in vayne we haue recourse to the diuine precept in generall of hauing some Bishops in the church All the question must setle on this Whether England can be sufficiently furnished of Priests and prouided of all necessaries for our iourney to heauen without a Bishop Or whether the inconueniece of comming might not counterpoyse the commodityes he would bring This should be the only Question and the answere ought to be referred to the same Bishop to whose charge Christ hath committed England all other countreys In the meane tyme let not Catholickes be frighted with diuine precepts where none are 4. The Replyer doth not rightly state the Question while he telleth vs n. 8. that M. Doctour only teacheth that Catholickes cannot refuse a Bishop although by his comming persecution should be increased supposing he be sent by lawfull authority Because sayth he in that case the Pope rather declareth that the diuine law ceaseth not to oblige A goodly construction of M. Doctours
he vnderstandes as we commonly call one thing a great part of another as certainly one countrey is not a great part of the Catholicke church which extendeth it selfe as farre as the world especially if in such a countrey there be no more Catholickes then are in England 14. The Replyer n. 28. doth his vtmost to proue that by diuine Law euery particular Church must haue a Bishop and when all comes to all the point is reduced to the necessity of Confirmation But this is a weake ground to oblige Catholickes to receaue a Bishop with increase of persecution For first a Bishop for Confirmation only can be no more necessary then Confirmation it selfe which is not a Sacrament of necessity and according to all Deuines may be omitted without sinne when commodiously it cannot be had which certainly happeneth when a Bishop cannot come into the Country but accompanyed with addition to a grieuous persecution 2. That Sacrament may be administred by a Priest with commission frō the Pope 3. Although it were necessarily to be administred by a Bishop yet it requireth only Episcopal Order with voluntary iurisdiction as Priests in England haue ouer their Penitents 4. It requireth not a Bishop belonging to England or residing in that Kingdome 5. M. Doctour alleadgeth the diuine precept of hauing Bishops in euery notable part of the Church as a distinct argument from his other reason of the necessity of Confirmation as may be seene in his chap. 14. n. 4. and the Replyer doth not sufficiently defend M. Doctour by flying frō one to the other The point touching Confirmation belongs to the next Question 15. All that he hath n. 29. 30. 31. 32. is the very same with the obiections of the Jnquisition Sect. 6. and is answered by the Qualificatour in the same section so cleerly as I need adde no more 16. By the same forme of argument wherby M. Doctour proued the necessity of a Bishop in euery Countrey of exent the Discussour sayd it might be proued That in euery Countrey Religious Institute is to be maintayned because the Pope is obliged to conserue it in the whole Church of God But there is no more reason of one Countrey then of another Ergo it is to be mantayned in euery Countrey To this the Replyer answereth n. 33. 34. First that Nicholas Smith can not fynd out a diuine precept obliging the Pope to admit any Religious Order as he is bound to giue Bishops to the Church But I belieue if he consider the matter better he will not aduenture to say That the Pope can depriue the Church of a Religious Estate Instituted by our Sauiour Christ whose Councels faithfull people cannot without iniury be vniuersally hindred to follow Secondly he answereth That he hath proued it to be of the diuine law that euery notable part of the Church haue a Bishop wheras no Religious Order is necessary by the diuine law in euery notable part of the Church But he neyther hath proued what he assumeth as proued nor doth he answere the forme of Nicholas Smiths argument which was the same with that which M. Doctour vsed to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England And so when the Replyer biddeth the Discussour make what he can of this answere till he giue a better this vse any man may make of it to say with truth that it maketh nothing for M. Doctours reason but only to shew the insufficiency of it 17. No lesse deficient is he in satisfying another forme of Argument brought by Nicholas Smith in resemblance of that of M. Doctours It is not of the diuine law to haue a Bishop in euery particular Diocesse of England But if we respect the diuine law there is no more reason of one Diocesse then another Ergo all the Diocesses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop And the same argument may be made of all other Countreys To this forme of argument the Replyer answereth That there is more necessity of a Bishop in a whole Countrey then in euery particular Diocesse which was not the question but whether it was not as good a forme of argument as that which M. Doctour vsed I omit to note that the Replyer misciteth the Discussour who sayd not that M. Doctour confessed that a particular Diocesse may be without a Bishop but spake reseruedly that M. Doctour seemed to confesse it which is true because he stil expresly declared himselfe to speake of a notable great part of the Church Howsoeuer the thinge it selfe is true that the Pope is not by diuine law obliged to giue a Bishop to euery place capable of one as we see often practised Would M. Doctour perhaps haue in England as many Bishops as there be Diocesses What mistery may there be that the Replier doth so purposly conceale M. Doctours opinion in this point To confirme more what Nicholas Smith sayd I argue thus in M. Doctours forme It is not of the diuine law that England haue a Bishop properly called Bishop of England or of any Diocesse therin But there is no more reason of England then of other Countreyes Ergo all other Countreys may be without a Bishop properly called Bishop of such Countreys or of any Diocesse therin This is M. Doctours forme of argument and yet the consequence cannot by any Catholicke be maintayned 18. At length the Replyer n. 36. agreeth with vs that it must be left to the supreme Pastors discretion whether the diuine law obligeth a Countrey to haue a Bishop in this or that circumstance and so M. Doctour and the Replyer might haue spared their paynes in prouing that England must haue a Bishop because there is a diuine law that euery great part of the Church as they conceaue England to be haue its proper Bishop Yet I cannot approue his other saying that when we demaund any thing there is more reason to demaund that which is ordinary then that which is extraordinary and therfore England may demaund an Ordinary For the rule of wise men ought rather to be that they demaund what is most sutable to tyme place and other Circumstances and not what is ordinary or extraordinary God grant our case of England were not extraordinary and much different from that of other Catholicke Countreys 19. He doth likwise not a litle relent in the same n. 36. where fynding M. Doctour sore pressed by the Discussour n. 15.16 that his arguments if they passe for good must also proue that Scotland is obliged to haue its Bishop yea that both England and Scotland must haue an Ordinary properly so called because Scotland is a Countrey of extent and by the diuine law beside the supreme Pastour there must be other Ordinaryes or Ecclesiastical Princes in the whole Church and consequently according to the groundes of M. Doctour the Replyer euery notable part of the Church must haue a Bishop in that proper sense To this the Replyer answereth If England and Scotland be both notable partes of the Church
be hard for the Discussour to looke them in the face if he be yet liuinge as the Replyer will haue him in his Preface to the Reader where also pag. 16. he sayth That the Discussour seemeth to shew litle of the spirit of a Religious man for which if it be true the Discussour I graunt ought to be sorry and endeauour to correspond better to his vocation Howsoeuer I dare say for Nicolas Smith that if he were aliue he would hartily thank the Replyer for the occasion he affoardeth him of merit and so do I in his behalfe wishing that as we are all domestici fidei so we may be charitatis of one beliefe and heart The Questions handled 1. VVHat iudgment may be framed of M Doctours Treatise in generall pag 1. 2. VVhether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church pag. 5. 3. VVhether by the diuine Law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop pag. 19. 4. VVhether a Countrey although the Persecution should be increased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were only for the Sacrament of Confirmatiō pag. 38. 5. Concerning M. Doctours Comparison betweene Bishops inferiour Pastours Religious men pa. 53. 6. VVhether Religious as Religious be of the Hierarchy pag. 68. 7. VVhether by the precedent Questions we haue sufficiently answered M. Doctours Treatise for such points as eyther deserued Confutation or required Explication pag. 75. APPROBATIO LIbellum hunc Anglico idiomate conscriptum inscriptum A Defence of Nicolas Smith against A Reply to his Discussion attentè accuratè perlegi diligenter maturè examinaui inuenio non solum ab omni nota quantum ad doctrinam Fidei Catholicae morumue proborum immunem verum etiam afflictae Patriae nostrae valde vtilem ad conscientias Catholicorum in eâdem serenandas ferè necessarium Tractantur enim in co breuiter solidè tamen modesté quaestiones nonnullae graues difficiles ex quarum veridicâ solutione constabit Catholicis non imminere illis tantam in multis causis obligationem tantumue onus conscientiae quantum nonnulli auctores editis suis libris imponere nituntur ex leuibus fundamentis Quod eo magis in hoc Scriptore laud and um est quo omnia quae dicit docet sunt conformia communiori magisue receptae Theologorum Classicorum auctoritati quinimo recentibus decretis ac responsis à Sede Apostolica insinuatis Quapropter censeo omnino dignum iustum vt hic liber permissu tamen Superiorum praelo mandetur Datum Duaci in Conuentu nostro Sancti Gregorij Magni 10. die Ianuarij 1631. F. Rudesindus Barlo S. Theol. Doctor Professor in Vniuersitate Duacenâ ATtentè legimus Anglicum hoc Scriptum cuint titulus est A Defence of Nicolas Smith agaynst A Reply to his Discussion of some poynts taught by M. Doctour Kellison in his Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy In quo nec Catholicam Fidem nec bonos more 's vllatenus offēdi sed susceptam Defensionem cum plenâ antedicta Replicae satisfactione praestitam inuenimus Datum Louany 16. Ianuarij 1631. Fr. Robertus Chamberlinus S. Theol. Lector in Collegio Fratrum Minorum Louaniensium Fr. Malachias Fallon S. Theol. Lector QVandoquidem à supranominatis doctis viris linguam Anglicanam callentibus liber hic citatus probatus est per me quoque licet vt imprimatur Actum Tornaci Neruiorum 22. Ianuarij 1631. Ioannes Boucher S. Theol. Doctor Sorbonicus nec non Cathedralis Ecclesia Tornacensis Canonicus Archidiaconus Librorum Censor THE I. QVESTION What Judgment may be framed of M. Doctours Treatise in generall THE Replyer thinkes he hath taken the Discussour in a contradictiō for affirming M. Doctour to haue been the first that put in print A Treatise of the Hierarchy in the English tongue and yet confesseth that diuers before him handled this argument both in Latin and vulgar lāguages But it is cleere the Discussour speaketh of such a Treatise concerning the Hierarchy as M. Doctour put in print intended prosecuted appropriated to England for proofe of the obligation Catholiques haue to receaue a Bishop and such like purposes peculiar to our Country This M. Doctour hath done and hath done it the first of any in these dayes Would to God he had not The law of Nature pleadeth for the right men haue to defend themselues from aggression but doth not warrant him that vnprouoked offendeth his neighbour 2. If writing of Bookes in this kind be of small Comfort to Catholiques the inconuenience must be ascribed to him alone who gaue the first blow and imposed vpon the partyes aggrieued a necessity of iust offence To cure a wound giuen at once to a number of worthy persons is but a bounden duty and an obliged acte of common charity This did other Regulars this I doe at this present and noe more M. Doctour and his Second obliged vs to some answer I will tye my selfe to doe it with moderation Likwise Suarcz Platus and others haue written of the calling of secular and state of Religious men but not by way of application to particular circumstances of any persons places or controuersies M. Doctours exhortation to charity is not by the Discussour stiled Verball as though it came not from the heart which the Replyer obiecteth n. 7. for he only is to erect a Tribunall of search into mans heart who made it but because while in wordes he persuadeth to charity euē then in deedes by the writing of this booke he did mightily preiudice Charity as by too much experience we find and was easy to be forseene 3. Nicolas Smith neuer accuseth M. Doctour absolutely of want of Logike or Prudence as the Replyer auerreth n. 12. He sayth that in this Treatise to proue the necessity of Bishops in England M. Doctour serueth himselfe of Principles more hard then the Conclusion which is agaynst the rules of Logike This may argue him to defend a bad cause not vniuersally to want Logike What the Replyer hath n. 19. is also obiected by the Inquisition and answered by the Qualificatour Sect. 6. n. 19. shewing that M. Doctour is not taxed for prouing his Conclusions by Causes or Effectes c. but because he assumeth Principles more vncertayne and lesse warrantable then the Conclusion as in the sayd place is demonstrated I belieue it would be an hard taske for any man to proue That for the onely vndoubtednesse or greater assurednesse of Confirmation Catholiques are obliged to haue a Bishop although we suppose that by his comming their pressures were to be aggrauated with new increase of persecution For why should this affliction be of necessity added to the already afflicted Because forfooth some very few Authours haue taught that Confirmation cannot be administred by a Priest with speciall cōmission from the Pope although the whole streame of Deuines runne to the contrary side with S. Thomas and some hold that since the Councell of
meaning and a fayre account of all his paynes which are reduced to this issue Catholickes are bound by the diuine law to receaue a Bishop if the Pope declare that the diuine law of hauing a Bishop byndeth them As if the Question were whether Catholickes be obliged to belieue the Popes declarations whether or no diuine Lawes do oblige Surely for this there need no writing of Hierarchyes Inquisitions Replyes The answere might speedly haue binne giuen That in all things the Catholickes of England haue binne are and eternally will be as zealous prompt and constant in submitting their vnderstandings and wills to the commaunders or declarations of his Holines as any Catholickes whomâ— the Sunne beholdeth But it is euident that M. Doctour speaketh absolutly and ex natura rei of the necessity we haue to receaue a Bishop abstracting from the Popes declaration or Mission This his reasons demonstate drawne from the diuine precept of hauinge Bishops in euery great parte of the church from the vtility or necessity of Confirmation without which men are in danger to forsake their faith as M. Doctour vrgeth c. as may be seene in the very title and throughout his whole 14. Chapter 5. Neyther is it a good Consequence The Pope sendeth a Bishop to England Ergo he declares that there is a diuine precept to haue a Bishop in England Many thinges are holily done which a man is not obliged to do When the Pope maketh a Diocesse and endueth it with a Bishop distinct from other particular Bishops doth he therfore declare that there was a diuine precept to make such a Diocesse or to place a Bishop in it We see some Territoryes capable of Bishops to be gouerned by Abbots which could not be if there were a diuine precept to place Bishops in such Territoryes although it had not likewise binne against the diuine law to haue placed Bishops in the same Territoryes This is a good Inference The Pope for many yeares sent vs no Bishop Ergo he iudged there was no diuine precept obliginge him to send vs one but the other consequence is of no force as I haue shewed Will the Replyer admit this argument The Pope for many yeares left vs without a Bishop Ergo he iudged there was a diuine precept that we should be left without a Bishop It is as good as his Nicolas Smith n. 4. sayd truly The deliberation about sending a Bishop to England was only Quid expediret what was expedient not what was necessary by the diuine law which as I sayd is only of Churches taken in generall and indeterminately And I cannot but esteeme it iniurious to those Fatherly bowelles of his Holines to thinke that he euer iudged vs obliged to accept a Bishop with a generall increase of persecution If he were persuaded that the comming of a Bishop would occasion to Catholickes a generall persecution I dare say he would neuer impose vpon them such an obligation And yet M. Doctour and the Replyer are rigid Censurers of Catholickes as infingers of the diuine Law if they should refuse a Bishop euen vpon that heauy supposition 6. Supposing the Institution of hauing Bishops do not oblige in all tymes places and other circumstances Nicolas Smith had had reason to say n. 4. That M. Doctour if he will speake home must proue not only that there is a diuine precept for vs to haue a Bishop but also that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof or yield sufficient cause of dispensation For although we should grant a diuine precept in generall yet if in some circumstances it do not bynd the transgressours should not sinne Now if any cause may affoard a lawfull excuse what can be greater then the auoyding of a generall persecution wherby not only goods and life but also christian soules are exposed to danger 7. The Replyer n. 3. speaketh in such manner as one would conceaue Nicolas Smith to haue affirmed that M. Doctour denyed the Pope may dispence in the diuine Law which Nicholas Smith neuer sayd yet because the Replyer first mentioneth this matter I must adde that seeing M. Doctour proueth our obligation to haue a Bishop by the necessity of Confirmation and danger of denying our faith through want of that Sacramet it wil not be easy for him to defend that the Pope can dispence in that obligation For what dispensation can be giuen for exposinge of mens soules to damnation Or if M. Doctour and the Replyer grant that the Pope may dispense in this commaund I must be bold to say their arguments drawne from the necessity of Confirmation are farre-fetched frights not solid reasons 8. Wheras the Replyer n. 12. writeth that Nicholas Smith sayd not truly that in England the multitude of Catholickes not the extent of the place is only to be considered I say truly that Nicholas Smith sayth no such matter but only That if England 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 trae Church we shall find it to be more then sarre from a great or notabic part of the Catholicke Church spread ouer the whole word Whether or no the extent of place or number of persons although not Catholickes be also considerable Nicholas Smith would answere that it dependeth vpon other circumstances which may make such an extent more or lesse or not at all considerable as we haue shewed n. 2. As for England in particular if the extent of place were lesse a Bishop would be more vsefull for the Sacrament of Confirmation which might be administred to more if they were lesse distant in place And this vrgeth much agaynst the Replyer who in prouing the necessity of a Bishop in euery great countrey finally n. 20. reduceth all to the necessity of Confirmation 9. It is strange how zealous the Replyer n. 10. is against Nicholas Smith for makinge the Catholicks as it were a contemptible number only because he sayth they are not a notable great part of Gods Church notwithstanding that Nicholas Smith cited in that behalfe a Writing entituled A Paratell c. the Author whereof is thought to be a person of greater ranke then the Replyer wherin it is sayd that all our Catholickes togeather would scarcsely make one of diuers Bishoprickes in England And it is worth the noting that the Paralellist sayd so in proofe that some Regulars who wrote that the gouernment of certayne Churches anciently belonged to them did therby make a greater Challenge then my lord of Chalcedon which surely must haue respect only to the number of persons and not extent of place For those Regulars neuer chalenged power ouer all Catholickes through England as my lord of Chalcedon doth But by this we may see how the number of Catholickes must be raysed or cryed downe as it maketh most for their purpose It seemeth his Holines had consideration cheifly of Persons not of the
both ought to haue by the diuine law their proper Bishop be he Ordinary or Delegate If Doth he beginne to doubt whether they be both notable parts of the Church or Churches of extent Or can he assigne vs a diuine law for England not for Scotland I see he may in tyme accorde with Nicholas Smith whome ere while he so much taxed for saying that England as now thinges stand is no notable part of Gods whole Church Moreuer the diuine law of hauing some Bishops in the Church is of Ordinaryes in an ordinary manner not of Delegates and therfore if Delegates suffice in England or Scotland it is a signe the diuine law doth not oblige in those Coūtreys and if by Bishops Delegates the diuine law be fulfilled it may be fulfilled by Priests Delegates for as much as concerneth iurisdiction 20. I will answere his n. 37. only by adding what he leaueth out in citing the Discussours wordes q. 7. n. 15. I sayth Nicholas Smith would most willingly spend my bloud for purchasing of tymes sutable with the enioying a Catholicke Bishop in England Where the Replyer leaueth off and maketh a longe needlesse descant vpon a poynt euery playne if he had added the wordes immediatly following namely indued with as much authority as any particular Bishop in the whole Church of God Which tymes almighty God grant vs with speed if so it be his diuine will 21. The confutation of M. Doctours arguments drawne from the Affrican Church is by the Replyer answered with a gentle implicit concession of all that the Discussour had obiected For omitting all particulars he telleth vs that they were alleadged by M. Doctour only to shew their zeale and great desire of a Bishop But seeing Nicholas Smith did shew that there was no parity betwixt their case and ours and also that the Affrican Bishops did not approue the peoples zeale but rather gaue a president that zeale is to be tempered with discretion the sayd examples were neyther rightly alleadged by M. Doctour nor is M. Doctour well defended by the Replyer As farre as Knowledge will giue way English Catholickes will yielde to none in zeale to haue a Bishop THE IIII. QVESTION Whether a Countrey although the Persecution should be increased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were only for the Sacrament of Confirmation THE Replyer chargeth Nicholas Smith for changing the question as if he had imposed vpō M. Doctour that he taught euery man in particular to be obliged to hazard goods liberty lyfe for enioying Confirmation wheras M. Doctour only spake of persecution in general But Nicholas Smith neuer imposed vpon M. Doctour that saying nor do the Discussours wordes alleadged by the Replyer import any such matter but he euer spake of persecution to be increased by the comming of a Bishop which might as well fall vpon this as that man and in that sense euery one in particular might feare it for himselfe Yet Nicholas Smith neuer disputed whither some in particular might not without danger receaue Confirmation supposing we had a Bishop which touched not the question in hand For certayne it is that Confirmation cannot be sayd to be had commodiously which was the poynt that made most for the purpose if it cannot be receaued without a Bishop whose very comminge was supposed to cause increase of persecution to Catholickes in generall which is more considerable then if it were certayne that by his comming some one man only were to suffer domage as Nicolas Smith n. 17. sayd truly but is not rightly taken by the Replyer n. 5. And by this is answered his long discourse n. 29. 30. 31. 32. 2. His arguments concerning Perfect Christianity are examined in the Qualification sect 4. where it is explicated in what sense we are by Confirmation made perfect Christians and is demonstrated that Nicholas Smith neuer denyed it in the sense in which the holy Fathers spake 3. Likewise the Qualificatour sect 3. sheweth that Nicolas Smith concerning the authority of S. Clements Epistles hath no more yea lesse then is to be read in Bellarmine Possouinus Sixtus Senensis and Baronius And further sheweth that Nicolas Smith doth not reiect them as Heretickes do and lastly that the sayd Epistles make nothing agaynst the Discussour 4. That which M. Doctour and the Replyer should haue done and by Nicolas Smith n. 16. were vrged to do should haue bin to prooue that to be perfect Christians in the Fathers sense was of so great necessity that for attayning thereof Catholickes ought to endure persecution But this neyther M. Doctour did performe nor doth the Replyer as much as take notice of And truly in what sense soeuer we take S. Clement and other Fathers or Councels teaching that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians nor properly Christians yea not Christians at all for so some speake it is allwayes to be vnderstood if that Sacrament be omitted voluntarily when it may be had otherwise we may be perfect Christians that is it shall not be imputed to vs that we are not perfect Christians but God will supply that want by other meanes As if a Cathecumen belieuing perfectly in Christ dye without Baptisme yet with intense Contrition not hauing possibility to be actually baptized he may be sayd to dye a Christian yea a good and holy Christian because the want of Baptismal Character is not imputed to him as it would to one who by his fault had omitted it in regard he wantes it only negatiue not priuatiue he hath it not yet wāts it not by reason in that case he was not boūd to haue it in act but only in effectuall desire As after Baptisme remission of deadly sins the proper effect of the Sacrament of Pennance may be obtayned by Contrition as it includes a desire of that Sacrament which desire in that case is reputed for the act This is a cleere explication of those words left out by M. Doctour in citing S. Clement si non necessitate c. Jf he shall remaine so not vpon necessity but by carelesnesse or voluntarily Which were wordes of chiefe importance when we disputed of omitting Confirmation not carelesly but for iust feare of persecution because we are not bound to be perfect Christians in that peculiar sense with so great domage nor will the want of such perfection in that case be imputed to vs but God of his goodnesse will be ready to supply the effect of Confirmation for as much as concerneth actuall grace and assistance without the Character because vpon that supposition of persecution to be increased there is a morall kind of impossibility to receaue it By which obseruation falleth downe all that the Replyer obiects n. 16. about Baptisme not actually receaued and Confirmation n. 22. and both Baptisme and Confirmation n. 23. as the Reader wil perceaue by applying to his obiections what euen now I haue noted For we do not say that without vnction one can be annoynted although
mā should chance voluntarily to exercise the same acts he should not performe them by the same title and obligation of Iustice by which Bishops and Pastours are bound to performe them The souldier by reason of his pay is bound to adueture his lyfe wherin he may exercise acts of Fortitude Charity to his Country Religion in a pious cause and of other vertues and yet his obligation to these acts of vertues radically proceedeth from Iustice Neyther can we rightly affirme that he dyeth for his Pay if he chance to loose his life but only that by reason of his Pay in Iustice he was bound to dye 11. The Discussour n. 12. sayth Merit doth not confist in office but in actes thereof Would any man thinke that in this speach there could be difficulty Or doth any say that we merit otherwise then by actes Yet the Replyer is not pleased with it and entreth into a question which would require a long dispute to wit Whe ther and how farre the dignity of the person dignifyeth the operation Which Axiome requireth many limitations and explications as for example If a Bishop pay his debts fast or the like I see not why by these actes he should merit more then a priuate Person endued with equall degree of iustifying grace and working with equall feruour neyther can I hold for true what the Replyer sayth that the same action done by a Regular and a Bishop are more meritorious in a Bishop then in a Regular not only in respect of actions proper to the State of a Bishop but also of other actions vnlesse the Bishop be more in Gods fauour and do those actions with greater perfection If it were to our present purpose one might adde that in Scholasticall rigour for the poynt in hand there is great difference betwixt height of Office and Dignity of person as our B. Sauiours operations were of insinite valew and merit by reason of the dignity of his person not precisely and formally by any office 12. In his 49. diuers other numbers he treateth of Secular Curates compared with Religious Priests and no doubt but that some things there are wherein Secular Curates excell a Religious Priest not Curate which his arguments do proue no more But the Question is whether all things considered a Religious Preist be not more perfect then a secular Curate as S. Thomas 2.2 q 184. art 8. cited by the Discussour n. 14. proposeth the Question and resolueth it in fauour of Religious Priests as may be seene at large in the Discussion And the Replyer n. 54. citeth Suarez very imperfectly that so he may seeme the more to fauour Secular Curats For he tomo 3. de Relig. lib. 1. cap. 21. absolutly prefers Religious Priests teaching that the state of inferiour Pastors is more perfect only in speculation not in practice or secundumquid in some sort seu ex quadam hypothesi quae moraliter vix adimpletur or vpon a certayne supposition which morally speaking is scarsely fulfilled The Replyers arguments That secular Curats are Illuminators and Agents and therefore more perfect then those who are illuminated do not concerne Religious men in respect of whom Secular Curats are no Illuminators Besides according to S. Thomas Secular Curates do illuminate not principaliter but with limitation and some participation from the Bishop who by office is principall Illuminatour c. 13. Because S. Thomas and out of him M. Doctour proued that the state of a Bishop is more perfect then that of a Religious mā because otherwise a Religious ma could not be made a Bishop for that were retrospicere to looke back The Discussour by the same reason proueth that Religious state is more perfect then the vocation of a Secular Curate because he may lawfully enter into Religion The Replyer answereth that the reason of this is because Religious vocation is more secure then that of a Curate not because it is more noble But he doth not satisfy For according to this answer a Secular Curate might forsake his charge and leading a priuate lyfe attend to himself without obligation to giue account for the soules of others which no doubt were more secure and yet the Replier would not excuse such a one from a Retrospection Moreouer a Religious state is more secure then that of a Bishop and yet a Bishop cannot without leaue enter into Religion as a Secular Curate may Ergo it is a signe that Religious vocation is not only more secure but also more perfect then that of a Secular Curate especially if we adde what the Replyer seemeth to admit that as the Bishop is wedded hath a pact with his Church so also in proportion a Curate hath with his charge 14. He sayth n. 62. that he will not interpret so rigorously the words of the Oath which students in the Seminaryes do take as if they were bound to returne into England so often as the Superiours of the sayd Seminaryes shall commaund Neyther will I dispute of that poynt but only say that what soeuer perfection they haue by reason of that oath they owe it to Regulars by whose motion the taking of that oath was enioyned If we respect the practise I conceaue that the Replyer will find men more eminent in the English Cleargy then himselfe not to admit of so strict an interpretation and consequently that the Replyer cannot by vertue of the sayd oath place Seminary Priests in an immouable state Without doubt Religious men haue an obligation to transferre themselues into England as often as their Superiours shall so commaund Moreouer seeing Regulars in England expose themselues to the same dangers and exercise the same functions with Secular Priests and in the same manner namely by Delegation and Commission not as Ordinary Pastours it followeth that in this Regulars are equall to them and in respect of Religious state surpasse them as Nicholas Smith n. 16. obserued and therefore the comparison betwixt Regular Priests and Secular Curates can only be in respect of such as are Ordinaryes Wherfore the Replyers saying n. 62. that the Seminary Priests vnder the Bishop is the highest calling in the Church of God is not to be approued if he intend to preferre their calling before all Regulars who certainly as Regulars excell them as Seculars and in Calling some are at least equall I say at least because there want not Regulars who are bound by an especiall Vow to expose their liues for the good of soules not only in England or for a limited tyme but perpetually and in whatsoeuer most remote place of the world and euen in that respect although they had no other Vow of obedience are in an immoueable state bynding them to acts of great perfection with hazard of liberty and lyfe forsaking of Countrey kinsfolkes friends c. I will not stand with him whether Pastours in Catholicke Countreys who are properly Ordinaryes will be cōtent that he preferre the Seminary Priests Calling before theyrs whereby they
Bishops Priests and Deacons then M. Doctour Chap. 8. n. 8. doth by the sacred Councell of Trent pronounce hâ—m accursed Thus he writeth Certayne it is that the Orders of Bishops Priests Deacons and Subdeacons are of the diuine Institution Wherfore the Councel of Trent thus pronounceth Sess 23. can 6. Si quis dixerit c. If any one shalâ— say that there is not in the Church a Hierarchy instituted by the diuine Ordinance which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers let him be accursed In which wordes the Councell defyning that there is a Hierarchy instituted by the diuine ordinance which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers in the plural number must needs vnderstand at least Deacons and Subdeacons So that this Hierarchy of Order at least in respect of Bishops Priests Deacons and Subdeacons is instituted by Christ Thus far M. Doctour Wherfore to free your selfe from a Curse and S. Denis from errour in M. Doctours opinion you must grant that you haue not rightly alleadged S. Denis to proue that only Bishops Priests and Deacons are of the Hierarchy in such manner that all other must be excluded For M. Doctour hath tould you as a matter of Faith that Subdeacons also are of the Hierarchy that by diuine Institution You must then explicate S. Denis that he nameth Bishops Priests Deacons not to exclude all other but because these are the highest Orders in the Chutch and so Religious may be of the Hierarchy notwithstanding what you alleadge out of S. Denis who doth expresly place the order of Monkes in the Hierarchy Cap. 6. tit Contemplatio 4. Likewise when the Councell of Trent defineth as a matter of Faith that by diuine Ordinace there is in the Church a Hierarchy which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers which some moderne Heretiques denyed it only followeth that such are certaynly of the Hierarchy but not that they only are as many Deuines hold lesser Orders not to be of the diuine Institution and yet M. Doctour teacheth that all in lesser Orders are of the Hierarchy and no man will affirme that the sacred Councell intended to condemne as Hereticques those Deuines who teach that the Lesser Orders are not of diuine institution or that according to the Councell it is an Heresy to say that Carâ—inals Vicar-Generals ArchdeacoÌ„s c. who are not of the diuine InstitutioÌ„ yea are not necessarily Bishops Priests Deacons or Subdeacons can belong to the Hierarchy And therfore the Replyer had no reason to blame Nicholas Smith so seuerely as he doth n. 11. for saying that it were rashnesse to affirme that the Councell intended to define as a matter of Fayth that vnder the name of Hierarchy could be comprehended only Bishops c. At length the Replyer n. 13. is forced to extend S. Denis his doctrine and to bring in Subdeacons and other inferiour Orders as likwise he must fynd meanes to bring in Cardinals Archdeacons Vicar-generals c. finally giue some place to poore Religious men 5. Thus his reasons from n. 21. to 26. fall of themselues as only prouing that Religious as Religious precisely are not Gouernours or Illuminators in the Hierarchy but not that they are not of it properly and absolutly or not more then Secular formally as Secular And if they be Priests Pastours they are as much of the Hierarchy in euery respect as Secular Priests and Pastours 6. It is strang to see how n. 28. he trifleth as if Nicolas Smith had euer denyed that the Hierarchy comprehendeth both Order and Iurisdiction Wheras he expresly affirmeth it n. 3. and thence inferreth that the word Hierarchy hath a latitude 7. He doth not n. 31. sufficiently free M. Doctour from the Discussours iust complaint for his saying That S. Bernard affirmed the Hierarchy to be perturbed when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction For the Saint expresly approueth Exemptions only reprehendeth such as are granted without cause or procured vpon ambition as at length the Replyer himselfe confesseth and therfore M. Doctour ought not absolutly to haue alleadged S. Bernard as saying the Church is perturbed when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction 8. The Discussour neuer taught Grace or Charity alone can place one in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy For they alone are not sufficieÌ„t to make one a meÌ„ber of the Church militant But he taught that an external Profession and state of Lyfe ordayned to Perfection of Grace and Charity is sufficient to place the Professours thereof in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy in that degree wherin according to their ranke they excell others not in that degree wherin some particular Religious man may chance to excell some Bishop in grace and Charity because that is accidentall to their states as likwise some lay man or woman may exceed some Religious man in perfection of the loue of God And by this is answered what he hath n. 33. about Nauclerus who cannot be denyed to haue placed Religious men in the Hierarchy in a high degree not only accidentally by reason of some particular Religious mens Charity but per se loquendo by reason of their state Also out of what we haue sayd is easily answered the obiection he bringeth n. 42. against the argument which Nicolas Smith made n. 9. where he proueth That if some men by Grace may according to S. Thomas be assumed to the Order of Angels in the Celestiall Hierarchy an externall state of life affoarding most effectuall meanes for perfection of grace in this lyfe may well place men on earth in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy But Nicholas Smith neuer dreamed that men by grace become indeed Angels Archangels c. 9. All that he hath n. 34. 35. about the translation of S. Denis his definition of a Hierarchy is answered in the Admonition to the Reader adioyned to the Qualification 10. The Discussour to proue that one may be of the Hierarchy although by office he do not illuminate or perfect others instanceth in the lowest Angell who is not to illuminate any other and yet cannot be excluded from the Celestiall Hierarchy What doth the Replyer answere Nothing in effect but by denying that the lowest Angell or Order of Angels are absolutly of the Celestiall Hierarchy but only in a certayne sense which indeed he must needes affirme by the same reasons for which he denyeth Religious to be of the Hierarchy because their office is not to illuminate or perfect others But this doctrine is a thing vnheard of amongst Deuines who with the holy Fathers teach that there are nine Orders of Angels comprised in three Hierarchies but now the Replyer will haue one Order of Angels belonging to no Hierarchy If he put Angels out of the Celestiall Religious men haue I confesse lesse reason to wonder or take it ill if he exclude them from the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy 11. What he sayth n. 43. 44. to wit that M. Doctour denyed not Cardinalls to be of the Hierarchy he will not be able
to mantayne without granting that to be of the Hierarchy neyther Iurisdiction nor Order is required For although Cardinalls may be in Orders and actually haue Iurisdiction ouer their titles yet their Iurisdiction as M. Doctour Chap. 10. n. 19. sayth out of Bedarmine is but like to the Iurisdictiō of a Parish Priest in his Parish that Iurisdiction is accidentall to the office of Cardinall as Cardinall which respecteth the common good of the vniuersall Church and yet euen as Cardinalls they haue a most eminent place in the Hierarchy next to the Pope If once it be graunted that neyther Order nor Iurisdiction is required to place one in the Hierarchy then Religious men whose state is in the Church of God much respected yea besides whome none except Bishops are in state of Perfection according to S. Thomas may be are of the Hierarchy in a very perfect māner In a word if Cardinalls be not of the Hierarchy M. Doctour had not byn much wronged although Nicolas Smith had sayd that by his Principles they must be excluded from it and yet for this cause the Replyer n. 43. is much offended with the Discussour If they be of the Hierarchy then not only Bishops Priests and Deacons are of the Hierarchy as the Replyer hath much laboured to proue out of S. Denis and by that labour hath only put himselfe vpon an ineuitable necessity to answere the arguments he made for excluding Religious men 12. Neuerthelesse if to make one of the Hierarchy it be necessary that he illuminate perfect others Religious euē as Religious cannot be excluded because for Regular obseruances they illuminate one another and in that do not necessarily depend but are exempt from Bishops as the King or Mayster of a house dependeth not on the Bishop for the meere temporall administration of his Kingdome or family And so that part of the Hierarchy which by S. Gregory Nazianzen orat in laudem Basil is styled Ecclesiae pars selectior sapientior the more wise choice part of the Church hath its proper Illuminatours touching noble actions and a state of lyfe which for the perfection of it was by our B. Sauiour counselled not commanded as being aboue the reach of Ordinary persons according to that of Matt. 19. Qui potest capere capiat THE VII QVESTION Whether by the precedent Questions we haue sufficiently answered M. Doctours Treatise for such poynts as eyther deserued Cōfutation or required explication 1. THIS Question was proposed by Nicolas Smith not to boast of what he had donne in the precedent Questions as the Replyer pag. 20. n. 31. is pleased to insinuate but to the end the Reader might know where to fynd answere to any difficulty in M. Doctours booke which the Discussour did not answere Chapter for Chapter and number for number 2. The Replyer n. 3. writeth that to him it seemeth a strange speach litle edifying to say as Nicolas Smith sayth that he neuer heard that the Church must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy Nicolas Smith did indeed wonder to heare M. Doctour say in his Epistle n. 12. that Secular Priests are by the diuine Institutiō gouernours of the church The Church sayd he must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy May not Bishops and other Pastours in Gods Church be Religious men How then is it a diuine Institution that the Church must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy Thus the Discussour And what can be more true For if by diuine Institution the gouernment of the Church belong to the Secular Cleargy then is it a breach of the diuine law to assume Religious men to be Bishops or Pastours which is to condemne the dayly practise of Gods Church The Replyer bringeth not one reason to cōfute what Nicolas Smith sayd saue only that the Church for the most part is gouerned by the Secular Cleargy which is farre from prouing that it is a diuine Justitution that the Church be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy as it cannot be proued that Preaching for example or conuerting of Infidels by diuine Institution belonges to the Regular Clergy because they preach at home to faithfull people and are sent to remote Countreys for the Conuersion of Infidels more then Secular Priests Snarez cited by the Replyer n. 5. neuer sayd that Religious Pastours gouerne by Delegation or Priuiledge or that it is against the diuine Institutiō that Religious me be made Pastours 3. From his n. 10. to 15. he goeth about to proue that my Lord of Chalcedon is Ordinary after an extraordinary manner by arguments easy to be answered if it were pertinent to the defence of Nicolas Smith as it is not and therfore I referre the Reader to the answere of the Regulars to my Lord of Chalcedons letter For the Defence of Nicolas Smith it is inough to take what the Repiyer yieldeth to wit that my Lord is not Ordinary in an Ordinary manner as Nicolas Smith proueth by the definition of an Ordinary giuen by M. Doctour For this grant supposed I argue thus The diuine Institution that in the whole Church and as M. Doctour would thence inferre in euery notable part therof there should be Bishops is eyther fulfilled in England by placing there my Lord of Chalcedon or not If it be fulfilled then the Pope might in the whole Church place only Ordinaryes in an extraordinary manner by Deputation or Commission which no Catholicke can grant If it be not fulfilled in England then 〈◊〉 the Pope is yet obliged to giue vs a Bishop Ordinary in an ordinary manner which I belieue he will not admit and therfore he must finally yield to the Discussour That there is no diuine precept to haue a Bishop in England but all must be left to the supreme Pastours discretion whether it be best for vs to be gouerned by a Bishop or otherwise 4. The Discussour n. 5. concerning my Lord of Chalcedons maintenance vttered nothing vpon his owne opinion but truly related what others did and do say himselfe abstayning to intermeddle in that matter yet the Replyers argument n. 17. rather proueth that Catholicks are not obliged to mantayne my Lord of Chalcedon if without his Lordship they can be sufficiently prouided of all spirituall helpes by Priests Secular or Regular because by the law of Nature they are obliged only to prouide themselues of meanes to atrayne saluation Whether or no Catholickes can be sufficiently prouided for without my Lord of Chalcedon Nicolas Smith neuer disputed nor did he euer giue the least insinuation that it were better not to haue a Bishop in Englād wholly referring that point to the determination of his Holines and the Replyer is much to blame for his taxing the Discussour as opposing the comming of a Bishop into England Those Houses which the Replyer n. 18. tearmeth stately and turneth from the singular to the plurall number are knowne by those who haue best reason to know it not to haue put English Catholickes to charges and although