that may lesse exalt Religious state whereas indeed through the sides of Religious men the whole Cleargy is wounded For while he telleth meÌ„ so indistinctly as he doth that Vowes are but instruments of perfection that perfection consists in preparation of mind that actuall leaning of all things is no perfection and the like Maried people may vse the same discourse concerning the vowed Chastity of Priests and so while he speaketh lesse honourably of our two Counsails of Pouerty and Obedience he much extenuateth that of Chastity common to Religious and all Priests in whome the Church is not content with only preparation of minde but in so perfect a profession requireth actuall Chastity which is a signe that voluntary actuall Chastity is some especiall perfection Besides this Euangelicall Counsaile of Chastity is so prized by Gods Church that in Concessions otherwise most ample for chaunging Vowes this is alwaies excepted as likewise a vow to be Religious wherein God grant people be as tender as they ought seeing vnlesse the cause be very sufficient all such Dispensation is inualid and can serue only to send a man to Hell with a kind of quiet conscience 32 I will not say the spirit but sure I am the stile of some of this age is far different from the writers of ancient dayes in commendation of Religious State and some are wont to obserue that oftentimes those who either haue had greatest obligation to Religious men or vocation to such a State are the men who to say no worse speake most reseruedly in commendation of Religion which although perhaps for its part may well say Tob. 3. as Sara said of her husbands Illi forsitan me non fuerunt digni yet on their behalfe I wish they may in this businesse so proceed that when the true colour of things shall begin to appeare by the light of an approaching future life they may haue no iust cause to frame a different iudgement and fill their soules with other wishes theÌ„ at this present they do S. Thomas to prooue that it was conuenient to Institute Euangelicall Counsels S. Thâ— 1.2 〈…〉 4. hath this weighty syllogisine Bâ—ms amici consiliis anima dulcoratur Frâ—tterb 27. Sed Christus maxime est sapiâ—ns amicus ergo eius consilia maximam vtilitatem continent The soule is comforted by the good counsels of a friend as Salomon saith But our Sauiour Christ is most wise most friendly Therefore his Counsels are most profitable If it be so hearty a comfort to heare the good and wholesome Counsels of a friend Let them consider whether they may with ground looke for so sweet a cordiall who reiect the Counsells not of a mortall man but of God and man not in some particular businesse but for the whole course of their life One thing such men must giue me leaue not to conceale because I hold it for a certaine truth and it concerneth them to know so much That one of the greatest punishments which God can inflict vpon such as haue neglected his vocation to a Religious State is to permit them to runne a course in opposition against Religious men who if they be carefull to answere to their vocation may in all occasions find comfort enough in what they haue so often heard alleadged out of that good Religious man S. Bernard S. Bern. HaÌ„ Sur. est â—egâ—um Calor hum queâ— bonas Marg. Quae est ista tam pretiosa Margarita pro qua vuinersa dare debemus id est nâ—smetipsos quia totum Deo dedit qui seipsum obtulit ve possimus eam habere Nonne haec est Religio sancta in qua homo viuit puriùs cadit rariùs surgit velociùs incedit cautiùs irroratur frequentiùs moritur considentiùs remuneratur copiosiùs What is that so pretious aiewell for which we ought to giue all that is our selues because he giues all to God who maketh an oblation of himselfe for the obtaining of it Is it not holy Religious State wherein a man liues more purely falls more rarely rises more speedily walks more circumspectly receiues diuine influence more frequently dies more confidently and is rewarded more abundantly THE SIXTH QVESTION Whether Religious as Religious be of the Hierarchie of the Church 1 NOthing is more frequent then that some persons who I dare say scarcely euer red S. Dennys nor euer were much conuersant in S. Thomas of Aquin from whom we haue the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchie will be discoursing of the Secular Cleargy as if they onely were of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie And M. Doctour after his wonted manner is heere reduplicating Religious as Religious but neuer Secular as Secular as he ought to haue donne if he would make the comparison aright But that had bene against his designe for in such a comparison it would instantly haue appeared that Religious would haue had the better who if moreouer they be Priests or Bishops in those respects are equall to Secular Priests or Bishops and at least as much of the Hierarchie as they which were enough for my purpose Neuerthelesse I will endeauour also to shew that Religious euen as Religious according to S. Dennys and S. Thomas cannot be excluded from the Hierarchie of the Church and so Religious Priests Pastours and Bishops shal be in more respects of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy then Secular Priests Pastours and Bishops namely not onely as Priests or Bishops but also as they are Religious 2 I grant if we limit the name of Hierarchie to Bishops Priests Deacons c. then to say that Religious not Priests or Bishops are not of the Hierarchie is noe more theÌ„ to say that Religious not Priests or Bishops are noe Priests or Bishops which surely is noe great mystery But it should be prooued with what grouÌ„d the name of Hierarchie should be so limited The holy Councell of Trent defineth against some moderne heretickes Sess 23. can 6. who would take away all Order and distinction of Degrees in Gods Church That there is a Hierarchie and distinction consisting of Bishops Priests and other Ministers But it were temerity to affirme that the Councell intended to dâ—â—â—â—e as a matter of Faith that vnder the name of Hierarchie could be comprehended only Bishops Priests or other Ministers indued with Order and Iurisdiction 3 And first of all it caÌ„not be demed but that the name of Hierarchy hath a latitude For if it hath not I demaund whether it signifieth onely Order or only Iurisdiction If onely Order then Bishops Archbishops Primates and Patriarches clected and confirmed and consequently indued with full Iurisdiction of Ordinaries shall not be of the Hierarchy till they be consecrated so the Supreame Head of the whole Hierarchie a Pope elected shall not so much as be of the same Hierarchie which I suppose M. Doctour will not grant If the word Hierarchie signify only Iurisdiction then Priests Bishops Deacons c. shall not be of he Hierarchie till they be
Authority without an especiall new Grant 4 To prooue that a Bishop is of an higher ranke in the Church Chapter 6. then a Priest n. 4. he alleadgeth S. Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. But I wish he had brought a better proofe for so true and certain a Doctrine For it is much doubted whether those Commentaries vpon S. Paules Epistles be indeed S. Ambrose his worke Pet. Aroud lib. 2.6.15 Petrus Arcudius writeth that the Authour of the commentaries vpon the Epistles of S. Paul affirmeth Ecclesiasticall functions to haue bene promiscuously performed in the primitiue Church so that the Priest did the Office of the Bishop and the Deacon that of a Priest and in particular that the Priests of Aegypt euen in those tymes did Confirme in absence of Bishops How doth M. Doctour like this doctrine about Confirmation In this same Chapter n. 7. M. Doctour saith that the ancient Fathers relying on scriptures haue euer taught that the Sacrament of Confirmation is to be ministred only by the Bishop which hath also euer bene the practise of the Church But concerning the Minister of Confirmation I referre the Reader to my Quest 4. 5 Heere num 14. He teacheth Chapter 7. that Catholicks ought to coÌ„tribute maintenaÌ„ce to my Lord of Chalcedon This point toucheth lay Catholicks nor will I further medle with it then to say that M. Doctours arguments prooue only of an Ordinary as Scriptures and Fathers commonly speake of Bishops And accordingly S. Thomas sayeth Plebs fidelis non tenetur S. The. 2.2 q. 188. a. 4. ad 5. ex debito Iuris ad sumptus ministrandos nisi Ordinarijs Praelatis Faithfull people are not bound in Iustice to prouide for the expenses of others beside Ordinary Prelates I know some do further say That except for the SacrameÌ„t of Confirmation which yet hath not been administred to many and which also may be committed to a Priest they find not what greater benefit Lay Catholicks haue reaped by my Lord Bishop then they may receiue from Secular and Regular Priests That rather since my Lords comming some inconueniences haue happened which they will not easily be perswaded they are bound to buy with mony That they cannot take much comfort to spare from their owne necessities arising from daily pressures for the maintenance of Agents in diuers places which they conceyue may help to make that weed grow faster which all should wish were wholy rooted out That this point of exacting maintenance should haue been particularly made knoweÌ„ to his Holinesse when the sending a Bishop to England was treated And finally That all concurre in desire that what they bestow may be giuen propriomotu freely and not importuned by the negotiation or sollicitation of other men These things I say the like are spoken but truly I haue no mind to intermeddle in such matters nor would I for a world diuert the charity of any man from my Lord of Chalcedon or any other Secular or Regular Priest Rather I wish all would excite themselues wish that noble saying Chrysost â—om vlt. in â—atth of S. Iohn Chrysostome That he is more honoured by almighty God who hath receiued ability to help the poore then if he had receiued the power to vphold the Heauens if they were ready to fall What happinesse then O what an incomparable happinesse is it to haue the occasion power and will to maintaine those good seruants of God without whose continued labours the Heauen of mankind true Religion could not but fall in England 6 In this Chapter he treateth Chapter 8 Who in particular belong to the Hierarchy of the Church Which point I haue haÌ„dled Quest 6. and prooued that Religious as Religious haue a very principall place in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy His example of S. FraÌ„cis Xauiers respect to Bishops prooues nothing but where there are Ordinaries certaine it is whatsoeuer submission he yeelded euen to Ordinaries it was of Humility not of Obligation himselfe being the Popes Legate and aboue Ordinaries to whome he could not in conscience subiect himselfe if it had bene claimed as due as likewise Religious men cannot lawfully renounce Priuiledges graunted by the Sea Apostolick His saying n. 10. that the tytles of Patriarches Archbishops Priests and Pastours are tytles only of the Secular Cleargy is reiected Quest 5. and shewed to be full of partiality 7 Num. 13. Chapter â— He citeth the Councell of Trent Sess 24. cap. 4. for bidding Regulars to preach euen in the Churches of their owne Orders against the will of the Bishop But why doth he not cite the Councell entirely The words of the Councell are Nullus autem Secularis siue Regularis c. Let no Secular or Regular enen in Churches of their owne Order presume to preach agaynst the Bishops will Heere is no more against Regulars then Seculars yea Regulars need no leaue of the Bishop for preaching in their owne Churches Only they must not do it if he absolutely contradict them which are two things much different But Secular Priests must haue leaue to preach in what place soeuer vnlesse they be Curates and so may do it by their Office which also Religious may if likewise they be Curates Moreouer the CouÌ„cel speaketh only where there are Ordinaries and according to the Councel no Bishop can preach out of that Diocesse of which he hath his Tytle without particular Priuiledge as also Religious men may do if to that end they be priuiledged Num. 15. He cites certaine sayings as that the Office of a Monke is not teaching but weeping c. which out of S. Thomas I haue answered Quest 5. where likewise is confuted the reason he giues n. 16. why Regulars came to haue care of the Church and his saying that their assumption to the Cleargy was extraordinary Num. 18. he writeh thus some may obiect that some Religions Orders are instituted to preach and to conuert Nations Ergo to these at least it appertaineth as well as to the secular Cleargy to do these functions I answere that these Orders are indeed instituted to that purpose but yet to help only and assist the Cleargy and to this they were not ordained by the deuine law as Bishops and Priests are but by the Churches Institution To this answere of M. Doctour I answere that as I sad aboue in England Regulars are no more ordained to help Secular Priests then Secular to help Regulars but both a like are sent endued with Priuiledges to be helpers of soules Superious of Regulars haue as much authority to send their subiects as Presidents or Rectours of Seminaries to send Secular Priests And because M. Doctour in the obiection speakes particularly of conuerting Nations where it is cleare there is no diuision of Parishes or Diocesses or institution of Parish Priests and the like I vnderstand not how he can imagine that in such a worke Regulars are only to help the Secular Priests yea according to my Lord Philip Rouenius
A MODEST BRIEFE DISCVSSION OF SOME POINTS TAVGHT BY M. DOCTOVR KELLISON IN HIS TREATISE OF THE ECCLESIASTICALL HIERARCHY BY NICHOLAS SMYTH In a Religious State a man liues more purely fals more rarely rises more speedily walks more circumspectly dies more confidently and is rewarded more aboundantly S. Bern. Hom. Sim. est regn Cael. c. Printed at ROVAN Anno. M.DC.XXX TO MY WORTHY FRIEND Mr. A. M. SrR your letter contained a request which I must needs say was to my tast bitter-sweet It could not but be pleasing as proceeding froÌ„ your selfe and yet the quality of it to my disposition could not but seeme bitter Your dem und was that I should giue a briefe Censure in generall and make some obseruations vpon such particular passages as might seeme to need explication in M. Doctour Kellison his Treatise of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy You know the naturall antipathy of my complexion with such businesses as may haue any face of Controuersy besids the want of many helpes requisite for such an employment Neuerthelesse I haue submitted my iudgement and will to your Commaund do heere present you with such notes as I haue gathered professing not to haue set downe all that occurred to my mind and to say the truth I was willing to beleeue the best for my owne ease to omit the examine of some passages which yet I might suspect would haue giuen iust aduantage I doubt not but some more diligent and exact pen will supply my defects The method I hold is to reduce all to certaine heades or Questions out of which may easily be drawne answere to the particulars for it had bene a tedious busines to answere M. Doctour line for line Yet to the end the Reader may know where to finde the answere of euery particular my seauenth Question is imployed in a suruey of M. Doctours booke chapter by chapter pointing in what Question of mine euery chapter and number of his is answered If this my labour doe not satisfy your expectation yet I doubt not but my endeauour wil be the more grateful in that for your sake I haue done my best And so you will remaine the more assured that without any exception I am wholy Your humble seruant in Christ Iesus Nicholas Smyth AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER BE pleased gentle Reader to know that the Authour of this Discussion while he liued was wholy against the publishing thereof But he being departed to a better life the lay gentleman a worthy and vertuous Catholick at whose request it was written and whome the Authour by reason of distance could not satisfy by word of mouth finding M. Doctour Kellisons Treatise to be much dispersed among all sorts of persons many of which are not able of themselues to iudge of some points therein contained as they deserue caused it as thou seest to be printed for the right information common good of Catholicks in England A TABLE OF THE QVESTIONS CONTEINED IN THIS DISCVSSION QVESTION 1. What Iudgement may be framed of M. Doctour his Treatise in generall pag. 1. Question 2. Whether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church pag. 11. Question 3. Whether by the deuine Law euery particular Church must haue a Bishop pag. 31. Question 4. Whether a Countrey although the persecution should be increased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were onely for the Sacrament of Confirmation pag. 62. Question 5. Concerning M. Doctours coÌ„parison betweene Bishops Inferiour Pastours and Religious men pag. 92. Question 6. Whether Religious as Religious be of the Hierarchy of the Church pag. 163. Question 7. Whether by the precedent Questions we haue sufficiently answered M. Doctours Treatise for such Points as either deserued confutation or required explication pag. 181. THE FIRST QVESTION What iudgment may be framed of M. Doctour his treatise in generall 1. MY meaning is not to set downe what CeÌ„sure others euen Secular Priests to my certaine knowledg giue of M. Doctour his booke because my desire is to giue noe offence My owne opinion with dâ—e submission to better iudgment may be reduced to the ensuing considerations 2 It may iustly seeme strange why M. Doctour should at this very time write against Caluin concerning an argument in these daies not particularly spoken of and already most learnedly copiously and eloquently handled by diuers both in Latine and vulgar languages especially seeing men do not in M. Dâ—â—tour bâ—oke discouer any thiâ— sâ—â—g 〈◊〉 â—o◠〈◊〉 or manner and althoâ—gh here â—ere something more the â—oâ—diâ—â—â—ry yet the â—ooke coâ—ld not be puâ— into the hâ—ds of any herâ—ticle for his conuâ—â—sion vâ—lesse 〈◊〉 would haue him scâ—nâ—dized by sorâ—iâ—es of more vnâ—â—erfull disseâ—tion then â—â—â—â—ed thâ—â—e is And as for Câ—tholickes they hâ—ue no neede to be confirmeâ— in the beliefe of the Ecclesiâ—â—â—icâ—l Hierarchy Wherfore it is easy to fâ—ll vpon the trâ—e motâ—â—e of his writing that if he had vttered what he meâ—nt he should haue chaged the title and insteed of Against Caluin put Against some other PersoÌ„s whoÌ„ he thought good not to name 3 And whatsoeuer he speaketh of Charity in his Epistle and through his booke yet he could haue giuen no greater blowe against that vertue then by being the first to print a treatise in the English tongue which euery vnlearned person might vnderstand and to which he could not but expect answere whereby it would be almost impossible some office should not either be giuen or taken with returne of new answeres replies Charity more and more indamaged 4 This treatise hath renewed that no lesse improfitable then odious comparisoÌ„ betwixt the perfectioÌ„ of Secular Pastours and that of Religious men wheras it were to be wished that men should rather be carefull to perfect themselues in their seuerall callings then waxe curious in coÌ„paring them with others 5 If Regulars printed any booke it was in latin vpon a necessary occasion for their owne defence concerning one particular point the coÌ„trary of â—ll which circumstaÌ„ces concuâ—re in M. Doctour his treatise It is not M. Doctour beleeue me the way to maintaine charity is not to labour in writing of bookes in the English tongue with dedicatory epistles full of verball exhortation to charity but the true way requires no more painâ—s then only to let Religious men alone with those priuiledges of which for so many yeares they haue had peaceabâ—e possâ—ssâ—â—â— and in practise whereof they haue faithfully lâ—boured many of them in swâ—â—t of their bâ—oud by gâ—oâ—ious Mâ—â—tyrdome 6 It would also much auâ—uâ— towards the conseruation of charity if all Superiours PresideÌ„ts of Seminaries were effectâ—â—â—lly â—arefull that their subiects speake of Religious meÌ„ with due respect Charity Heli â—hough for his owne persoâ— 1. Reg. 1. a man of commâ—ndable life yet he was not free frâ— blame in not correcting his ChildreÌ„ otheâ—wise then in a cold remisse maÌ„ner as if he had bene halfe consenting to their misdemeanour whereby men
were auerted froÌ„ the Sacrifices of God as S. Thomas auoucheth S. Thom. 2.2 q. 184. â—7 8 Religion to be the most perfect of all Sacrifices an Holocaust 7 This treacise cannot â—e pleasing to the Holy Sea Apostolick froÌ„ whence it had bin good maÌ„ners for vs to learne what is by Christs iâ—stitution necessary for Gods Church ingeneral expedieÌ„t in particular coÌ„cerning our hauing a Bishop in EnglaÌ„d But to tel euery maÌ„ womaÌ„ in a laÌ„guage vnderstood only by those who ought to obey and which could not serue for information of those who were to be our Vmpiers that it is a deuine commandement to haue a Bishop in England is but to lead men into temptation of disobedience in case his Holinesse should euer put in prctaise the contrary and of condemning the iudgments and facts of so many learned and holy Popes who for diuers yeares deemed it nether necessary nor expedient togrant vs a Bishop 8 The greater and better part of English Catholicks wil be nothing well contented with this booke wherein they are plainely enough taxed of want of Charity and Obedience in not being so vnited subordinate to my Lord of Calcedon as it seemes M. Doctour thinkes they should They are also in effect coÌ„demned of mortal sinne by refusing so longe time a Bishop against the law of God for being occasioÌ„ on their partes that our country wanted the Sacrament of Confirmation which according to M. Doctour is so necessary in time of persecution that neither any country Chap 14â— â— nor any one of the country for feare of persecutioÌ„ can oppose against the comming in of a Bispop though thereby only the Sacrament of confirmation should be wanting auouching moreouer al those who haue not had the Sactament of Confirmation not to be perfect Christians which is a saying by him more then once repeated but how true it is I hope the reader wil be able to iudge by what shal be said in the folloâ—wing questions as also how litle probability his other reasons carry for euincing the necessity of a Bishop in England 9 Neither can my Lord of Chalcedon much like this booke wherein the reader will finde some passages by me noted whereby my Lord his Ordmariship is quite demolished and other authority by him pretended either extenuated or made odious dreadfull to Catholicks 10 It cannot be pleasing to Almighty God to treate of holy things vpon particular designe and humane respects For I know not how deuotion is lessened euen towards sacred things when they are commended by exaggeration and for some priuate end as in this treatise M. Doctour doth extoll Episcopall dignity aboue Religious state vrge the necessity of Confirmation prayse the Secular Clergy and enforce the obligation of hauing a Bishop much more then according to true deuinity he could and more then I feare he would haue done if all mortall men were as free from emulation as the Saints in heauen And as he hath written of the Hierarchie so perhaps we shall in tyâ—e see some printed treatise of the Saâ—rament of Confirmation and the generall ambiguous speaches of some antient Fathers or the particular opinions of some few deuines misapplyed for the necessity of that Sacrament or in proofe that it cannot be administred but by a Bishop or some such like subject busines 11 As for the manner helâ— by M Doctour in proouing his Tenets I feare it will not correspond to that opinion which hath bene conceiued of his learning and in truth excepting those points which all Catholicks beleeue there is no one thing in his whole booke which will put a man to study for the answere 12 Against all good Logicke and as it may seeme against prâ—dence he prooueth his conclusion by principlâ—s more harsh and incredible then the conclusion it selfe For example to prooue the necessity of a Biâ—hop in Engâ—and he serueth himselfe of these straÌ„ge vntoward propositioÌ„s That it is de iure diuiâ—â— a deuine Law for euery such pâ—rticular Church as England is to haue a Bâ—â—hop That without a Bishop England cannot be a paâ—ticular Church That vnlesse euery â—â—rticular Church haue is Bishop or Bishops the whole and Vniuersall Câ—urch should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie coÌ„posed of diuers particular Churches That without a Bishop we cannot haue Confirmation which whosoeuer wants is not as M. Doctour sayth a perfect Christian All which principles are worse then the conclusion and are by vs demonstrated to haue no ground at all 13 He still doth not aright compare Religious with Secular Priests alwayes reduplicating Religious as Religious but neuer â—ecular as Secular For example he saith that Religious as Religious haue not authority to preach gouerne the Church or the like but neuer telleth vs whether Secular as Secular can do it as certainly they cannot till authority be granted theÌ„ which being graÌ„ted also to Religious they may performe the same actions no lesse then Seculars as in due place shal be declared In other points likewise he speaketh not so distinctly as a schollar would expect 14 But the thing at which I most woÌ„der in a maÌ„ of his learning is that those Fathers schoole Deuines which he produceth for witnesses of his doctrine are indeed against himselfe Sâ—â— quest â— 3 â— as the reader wil see in his allegatioÌ„ of S. Cyprian S. ClemeÌ„t Sotus BaÌ„nes etâ— 15 Lastly I desire the reader to be still carefully obseruing throughout his whole treatise that whereas he maketh profession to abstaine from the mayne question betwixt my Lord of Chalcedon and others and further affirmeth in his fiftenth chapter num 10. that my Lord can challenge no Bishopricke no not so much as the poorest parish in England And whereas likewise my Lord of Chlacedon by his Breife of Delegation was to haue no power in England or Scotland till his arriuall in those Kingdomes and then onely ouer Catholicks and as long as his Holinesse should thinke good all which are manifest arguments that he is not Ordinary as other Bishops in Catholicke countries are who although they should neuer set foote in their owne Diocesses yet they haue true Ordinary power ouer both Catholickes and Hereticks within such diocesses and are Ordinaries both personarum et loci of persons and place both in fore interno externâ— and that not onely ad bene placitum but permanently as alwayes in the Church of God some Ecclesiasticall princes must be Notwithstanding I say all this yet the arguments by which M. Doctour would prooue the necessty of a Bishop in England either prooâ—e nothing at all or else more then he himselfe inâ—endeth or my Lord of Chalcedon challâ—geth namely that he must haue authority â—lso ouer heretickes that he may lay claime to some or all the Diocesses in England as well as to that of Chalcedon that he must not be onely ad beneplacetum c. and â—o M. Doctour must be forced either to arswere his
owne arguments or else both contradict himselfe taxe his Holinesse as hauing not yet sufficiently prouided for the Churches of England and Scotland because the Institution of Christ the practise of the Church the decrees of Canons the sayings of ancieÌ„t Fathers the doctrine of all Catholicks concerning the necessity of hauing some Bishops in Gods Church coÌ„cerne Ordinary Pastors Prelats in the proper sence about mentioned not Delegates in an extraordinary manner And therefore as I said M. Doctour must defend himselfe against his owne argumeÌ„ts But least I may seeme to wrong so learned a maÌ„ I desire the reader not to giue me credit till in the following seuerall Questions he finde by particulars the truth of what I haue deliuered in generall THE SECOND QVESTION Whether without a Bishop here can be a particular Church 1 M. Doctor in diuers parts of his treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church in his 14. chapter where he endeauoureth to prooue that a particular courtry may not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution one of his maine argumeÌ„ts is nuÌ„ 9. because without a Bishop there can be no particular Church thence deduceth that Catholicks of England al the while they had no Bishop were no particular Church shall no longer be a particular Church then they shall haue a Bishop but shal be a flocke with out a Pastour â—â—army without a General a ship without a Pylot a speritualkingdoÌ„ without asperitualking a family without a Goodman of the house 2 This assertion he prooueth out of S. Cyprian who sayth Cypr. epâ—â— 69. ad 〈◊〉 that the Church is Sacerdoâ—i plebs adunata et Pastori suo grex 〈◊〉 arâ—us the Churches the people vritâ—d to the Preâ—â—â— Bishop and the flocke adhering â—â—to its Pâ—â—â—our In the sime place M Doâ—toâ—â— a lioy 〈◊〉 this reason that as the â—hâ—le Church hath me supreâ—me Bishop to gouerne it so â—â—â—ry particular Church must haue its Bishop 〈◊〉 Bishops else it should not he a particular Church and so the whole and vnâ—â—â— saâ—â— Church should not as Christ hath instituted he a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches 3. Three thing I will endeauour to performe First that the alleadged wordes of S. Cyprian vpon which M. Doctour doth so maynely and extreamely often insist make nothing against vs but rather are for vs against himselfe and with all that his application of them may seeme iniurious to English Catholickes Secondly I will de nonstrate that England without a Bishop may hath bene a particular Church and that the contrary assertion must both wrong the Sea Apostolicke and can subsist vpon no better ground then by hereticks is wont to be obiected against the sayd holy Sea Thirdly I will shew that although we should freely grant what M. Doctour assumeth that without a Bishop we cannot be a â—â—rticular Church â—et it could not proue hiâ—â—â—ent 〈◊〉 particular country may not rosuse Bishâ—ps by reason of persecution 4 For the first it might be answered in a word that S. â—â—prâ—m doth not define the Church to be the people vnited and the flocke adbering to a particular Priest and Pastour but onely inâ—iffiâ—itely to the Priest and Pastour which is verified as long as we haue for our Bishop Pastour the Pope of Rome Besides S. CypriaÌ„ speaks of Ordinary Pastors with power ouer both places persons Catholicks hereâ—icksâ—permanently and not onely ad bâ—neplacitum therefore by a Delegate 〈◊〉 Cyprians definition is not fulfdd but still we must acknowledg the Pope for our immediate and particular Ordinary 5 But for the â—â—â—e vnderstanding of S. Cyprians meaning we are to know that the foresayd epistle was written to one Florinus or Florentius surnamed Pupianus who as Pamelius obserueth in his notes vpon that epistle was a NouatiaÌ„ heretick and with too much credulity and temerity had giuen credit to certayne faâ—sly reported crimes against S. CypriaÌ„ for which he esteemed that the Saint ought to haue beene forsâ—ken by the people of his Diocesse as if he had not beene true Bishop Against this false seditious imputation S. Cyprian prooueth not that a Church wanting a Bishop is no particular Church but that a Church haâ—iâ—g its true and lawfull Bishop as S. Câ—prian was yet deuiding it selfe and falling in schisme with him is indeed â—oe Church at all but a schismaticall congiegatioÌ„ That this is so S. Cyprians owne words demnostrate for hauing alleadged out of Scripture Nos credimus Ioan. 6. et cognouimus quia tu es filius Dei vini addeth Loquitur â—llic Petrus supra quem adificatafuit Ecclesia Ecclesia nomine doceÌ„s et ofterdes quia et si contumax ac superba obedire nolemiuÌ„ multâ—udo discedat EcclesiatameÌ„ à Christo non recedit et illi simt Ecclesia plâ—bs â—acerdoti adunata et Pastori sui grex adhaerens vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse EcclesiaÌ„ in Episcopo si qui cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacordotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latemer apud quosdam communicaâ—e se credunt quando Ecclesia quae Catholica vna est scissa non sit nequo diuisa sed sit vrique connexa et cohareâ—tium sibi inudeem Sacerdotum glutino copulaâ—a We beleâ—ue and know Ioan. 6. that thou art the sonnâ— of the liung God These words are spoken by Peter vpon whom the Church was builded teaching vs in behalfe of the Church that although the stubborne and proude multitude of disobedient persons do go away yet the Church doth not depart from Christ and they are the Church the people vaited to the Priest and the flocke adhering to its Pastour Wherefore thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that if any be not with the Bishop he is not in the Church marke and they do in vaine flatter themselues who hauing not peace with the Priests of God creepe in and beleeue that secretly they are in Communion with some where as the Church which is Catholicke and one cannot be rent nor deuided but must be conioyned and vnited with the tye of priests succeeding one to another 6 Behould S. Cyprian neuer thinking of the necessity that euery particular Church hath of a Bishop if it neane to be a particular Church but affirming that theirue Church doth not depart from Christ that he who is not with the bishop is not in the Church that in vaine they flater theÌ„selues who haue not peace with the true priests of God but are in secret communion with some schismaticall or hereticall factions whereas the Church which is Catholick and one can not be rent nor deuided And what is all this to prooue that no particular Church can be such without a Bishop no more then if one should say King Henry the 8. and his
adherents in Schisme deuiding themselues from their lawfull Pastours were no true Church ergo English Catholicks liuing in perfect obedience to the Vicar of Christ cannot be truely a Church which in effect is as doughty an argument as this The soule and boâ—y seperated can make no true maâ—â—ergo if they be coÌ„icyâ—ed they cannot make a true man for as the coniunction of the soule with the body giues life to the body so the life of the Church consisteth in obedience to true lawfull Pastours to whom English Catholicks being still subordmate they did and do most perfectly fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian which therefore maketh nothing against but for vs that it is rather against M. Doctour himselfe may be euinced out of an argument of his chap. 12. num 4. where hauing cited the sayd authority of S. Cyprian that the Church is the people vnited to the Bishop he argueth thus seeing there cannot be a people vnited to the Bishop without a Bishop it follâ—weth that there cannot be a Church without Bishops Now according to the cleare sence of S. Cyprians words namely that a people which is in disobedience schisme against their lawfull Bishops cannot be a true Church I may vse the very same forme of argument thus Whosoeuer are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian but those who haue no Bishop are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop ergo those who haue no Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian This argument is directly against M. Doctour yet is more truely deduced out of S. Cyprians words then what he did â—â—ferie I know the Church must alwayes for other respects haue Bishops and therefore what I haue here sayd is onely ad hominem to M. Doctours manner of disputing and onely if we respect S. Cyprians words according to the true meaning purpose and occasion as by him they were vttered 7 That his application of S. Cyprians definition is iniurious to English Catholicks is manâ—fest by euery word of the Saint who affirmeth that they who are not vnited to the Bishop in that sense in which he speaketh are not in the Church that they haue not peace with the Priests of God that they are in secret communion with schismâ—ticks that they are opposite to that Catholicke Church which is one and not rent nor deuedâ—dâ— which gentle Epithetons or rather most â—oâ—le aspertions to cast vpon the most â—eâ—lo is Catholicks of England who for their vnion with the Sea Apostolicke constancy in profession of their Faith ioyfâ—ll suffering losse of goods liberty and life haue bene a spectâ—cle grations in the sight of God and his Angels and admirâ—ble to the eyes of men to apply I say such Epithetons to those glorious Confessours Martyrs our English Catholicks cannot be done without great iniury and yet by M. Doctour the sayd definition of S. Cyprian is to them more then once applyed And truely I should not be able to wonder enough how a learned man could lay the foundation of so strange a doctrine vpon a ground so weake so much mistaken for the true vnderstaÌ„ding wherof was required no greater I bour then looking on the booke nor deeper learning then vnderstanding latine vnlesse I did consider that such a doctrine could haue but such a foundation But I will vrge this point no further Onely M. Doctour may gather froÌ„ what hath bene said that the true explicatioÌ„ reasoÌ„ of those wordes in S. Cyprian alleadged by him in his 12 chap. num 4 vnde seire debes EpiscopuÌ„ in Ecclesia esse et Ecclesiam in Episcopo where vpon thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop which words wee also euen now cited is not that which M. Doctour giueth because the Church cannot be without a Bishop nor a Bishop without a Church but that supposing a Church haue a true Bishop they must not be deuided one from another and therfore S. Cyprian immediatly after the said wordes addeth Qui cum Episcopo non est in Ealesia non est He that is not with the Bishop is not in the Church And yet I hope English Catholicks while they waÌ„ted a Bishop were in the Church other wise they had not bene capable of falcation But by this we may see how groundedly M. Doctour doth speake and still confirmeth what I sayd of the iâ—â—ury done to English Catholicks by applying to them the definition of S. Cyprian 8 The second point wich I vndertooke to make good namely that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop is easily prooued For the Pope in defect of particular Bishops is the particular Bishop Ordinary Diocesan of such Churches as Philosophers doe teach that almighty God the supreme and vmucâ—sall cause of all effects concurreth not only as immediate but also as a Particular Agent or Cause to the producing of effects when second particular causes doe faile For seeing the Pope hath plenitudinem potestatis fulnesse eminency of power he may and is to performe whatsoeuer belongeth to inferiour Pastours when necessity so requireth which is a doctrine so receaued by all Canomsts and deuines that I suppose M. Doctour will not gaâ—nesay it Seing then EnglaÌ„d for many yeares was destitute of Bishops the Pope himselfe was our particular Bishop and to say that while we wanted 〈◊〉 Bishop we were a flocke without a Pastour an Army without a Generall a ship without a Pylot c. as M. Doctour avoucheth seemeth iniurious to the Vicar of Christ as if he wanted either power or good will to be our particular Bishop and Pastour And indeed to singular hath bene the care of Popes ouer our distressed EnglaÌ„d that in fact they euer shewed themselues to be our particular Bishops and may truly say to our Church as Almighty God said to his elected people Quid est quod debui vltrà facere vineae meae non feci Isa 5. v. 4 what ought I to haue done to my vinyard more then I haue done We erected Seminaries we sent learned Priests both Secular and Regular we indued them with aâ—ple faculties as iudges we composed difrerences as maisters we resolued doubts as Fathers wee wrote letters of Comfor of Exhortation of Admonition as Bishops we prounded all spirituall helpes requisite for the times in nothing belonging â—o particular Pastours we haue bene wâ—nting Quid debuimus vltra facâ—â—e et non fecimus what more could we haue done then we haue performed for the good of our beloued English Catholicks The Church of S. Ihon Lateran or the particular Diocesses of Rome is I trow a paâ—ticular Chuâ—ch a perfect oâ—e yet it hath noe other Bishop for Ordinary besids the Pope Leo the 9. Famous for sanctity and miâ—â—cles being before his Popedoâ— Bâ—shop of Tul for his affection to that Church did still remaine particular
Ordinary thereof Baron Tom. 11. ann Dai. 1049. Leon. 9. ann â— n. 6. Adeò fuit saith Baroâ—ius suae Tullensis Ecclesia amator vt licet Romanus Pontifex creatus esset tamen titulum priorem non reliquerit volueritque dum vixiâ— dici etiam Tullensis Episcopus I demand whether the Church of Tull was not a particular Church or rather whether it was not a Fauourite Church singularly graced by hauing him for particular Bishop who was Pastour of the whole world If Leo onely for deuotion to that particular Church thought he did it no wrong in leauing it without any Ordinary beside himselfe with what shaddow of probâ—bâ—â—ty can any man say that England when of necessity it was destitute of Bishops could not be a particular Church and haue for immeâ—â—te partilâ—r Bishop the Successonâ— of Leo the 9. Vrbaâ—e the 8 whome I beseech God â—ong to preserue for the common good of his vniuersall Church and particular comfort of our afflicted Catholicks 10 Loreto and Recanati in Italy and the like may be said of other plâ—ces but I willingly name that most saded house wherein the eternall Word was made flesh and dwelled in vs are two distincte Diocesses vnder one Bishop and my Lord Bishop once styled himselfe Ordinary both of England and Scotland beside the Church of Chalcedon ergo euery particular Church need not haue it owne particular distinct Bishop much more may the Pope be particular Bishop of more theÌ„ one Church In the Church of God there are many places persons exempt from the iurisdiction of al Bishops beside the Pope neither did any maÌ„ euer dreame that for that câ—use they ceased to be particular Churches Rather such exaÌ„ptions were accouÌ„ted fauours such immeâ—iat subiectioÌ„ to the Pope a great honourâ—til now M. Doctour tels the world that the Church of Saiui Iohn Lateâ—an of Tull of all exempted places persoÌ„s neither haue bene nor shal be particular Churches till they be taken from the Popes particular chardge and put in the hands of some other Bishop that in coâ—setence they are oblâ—ged to endure whatsoeuer presecution for the enioying such a Bishop 12 I thinke M. Doctour wil not say if a Bishop vpon iust causes should take the particular care of some one parish gouerne it by his delegates or Chaplines himselfe remayning the only Ordinary Pastour of it that it should therefore ceâ—se to be a particular parish or if a King to grace some city or Prouince of his Kingdom should make himselfe the particular gouernour of such a prouince or city that therefore they should not be particular cityes or prouinces and the like may be sayd of a Generall of an army in respect of some particular Regiment with what reason then can we say that the Pope who is Bishop of the whole Church may not also be particular Bishop of some one country and that country still remaine a particular Church Truly I cannot imagin vpon what ground any man can frame such a conceit except vpon this inference The Pope is vniuersall Bishop of the vniuersal Church ergo he cannot be particular Bishop of a particular Church because vniuersal and particular are termes incompatible and repugnant to be in one and the same person or subiect To which argument I will vouchsafe noe other answere then that it seemeth the very same forme of disputing which hereticks vulgarly vse against Catholicks as vttering contradictories and non-sence while we ioyne together Ecclesia Catholica Romana the vniuersall Roman Church because forsooth a Church Vniuersal and Particular are contradictory tearmes 13 But let vs suppose that which caÌ„ neuer be proued or rather the coÌ„trary wherof is most manifest let vs I say suppose that the Pope cannot be a particular Bishop of a particular church I aske whether for the existeÌ„ce of a particular church it be not sufficieÌ„t that it be gouernd by such as froÌ„ his Holines receiue Delegated power for al occasions that may require iurisdictioÌ„ If he affirme that such a particular Church may be then I inferre that a Bishop is not necessary for the making a particular Church because whatsoeuer iurisdictioÌ„ any Bishop hath the like may be grated to others not Bishops If he deny that Delegate authority is sufficient to make a particular Church then he must shew me how England by hauing a Bishop is yet become a particular Church if so it be that the sayd Bishop be onely Delegate and not Ordinary of place of all sortes of persons both Catholickes and hereticks not onely ad beneplacitum c. as Scriptures Fathers and Canons speake of Bishops which power my Lord of Chalcedon doth not challenge and M. Doctour professeth to abstayne from that whole controuersie and so he must eyther answere his owne argument or else confesse that as yet we are no particular Church 14 My last taske was to shew that although we shoulâ— freely yeild our selues to be no particular Church without a Bishop yet it were not sufficient to prooue that a Bishop could not be refused by reason of persecution This is easily done by requiring of M. Doctour that which of his owne accord he should first of all haue performed namely seeing he will needs haue a particular Church to be only that which hath a particular Bishop he ought to bring some precept of God or the Church obligeing vs to be a particular Church in his sense and why it is not sufficient for vs to be members of the Catholicke Church in obedieÌ„ce to our Supreame Pastour the Vicar of Christ as our constant Confessours and glorious Martyrs before we had a Bishop liued in sâ—nctity and dyed for iustice in profession of the Catholicke fayth 15 Neyther were this sufficientâ— though it be more then euer he wil be able to performe vnlesse he could further prooue that such a precept were vndispensable or did binde with whatsoeuer inconuenience because there are many deuine precepts for example Vowes materiall Integrity of Confession Residence of Bishops c. which do not binde alwayes nor in all cases or are not by the Vicar of Christ dispensable and vntill he haue prooued this his imaginary precept not to be of such a kinde he is as neere as he was For certainâ—ly if any cause may yeild a lawfull excuse or require dispensation a iust feaâ—e of loosing goods liberty and life which case M. Doctour directly supposeth in his assertioÌ„ may yeild a most reasonable excuse oâ— cause of dispensation and for the transgressour plead not guilty 16 The reason which M Doctour added that as the whole Church hath one Supreame Bishop to gouerne it so euery particular Church also must haue us Bishop or Bishops else it should not be a particular Church and so tâ—e whole and Vniuersall Church should no as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composeâ— of diuers particular Churches deâ—erâ—eâ—n no answere For who dare say that there is as much necessity or obligation to haue a Bishop
in eaâ—ry particular Church as to haue one Supreame head of the whole Catholicke Church When Gregory Clement Paule and other Popes stood in deliberation whether it were expedient to haue a Bishop in England as for many yeares it was by them iudged inconuement might they as well haue doubted of the necessity or â—onueniency of hauing any Pope of Rome for the gouernement of the whole Catholick Church to say that a particular Bishop hâ—th not power to gouerne the whole Catholicke Church ergo the Bishop of the whole Catholicke Church cannot goâ—erne a particular one is as good as to say the feete cannot guide the head eâ—go the head cannot guide the feete His assertion or inference vpoÌ„ his ownâ— pâ—emisses that vnlesse euery particular Church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuert particular Churches if it be vnderstood of particular Churches indeterminately that is the whole Church cannot be a Hierarchie vnles some particular Churches haue Bishops it is very true but sâ—rueth nothing at all to his purpose of proouing that England must haue a Bishop because although England or some other particular country want Bishops other Churches and countries may haue them and so the Vniuersâ—ll Church shall still be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churcher But if he vnderstand as his wâ—res euery particular Church and his whole drife seeme to demonstrate that vnlesse euery particular determinate Church haue a Bishop the whole and Vuiuersall Church should not as Christ â—ath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches I must needs say his doctrine is clearely subject to a deeper Censure then I am willing to expresse For what Catholick dare aâ—onch that because England for the space of threescore yeares wanted a Bishop the Vniuersall Church all that time was not as Christ hath institutea a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches yea if my Lord of Chuâ—â—edon be not properly Ordinary both of England and Scotland M. Doctour must consequently affirme that the Vniuersall Church at this day is not as Christ hath instituted a Hierarchâ—â— composed of diuers particular Churches O to now great inconueniences is a man subject if once he vndertake the defence of a very hard cause THE THIRD QVESTION Whether by the deuine Law euery particular Church must haue it Bishop 1 TO prooue that a particular Country â—â—y not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution M. Doctour in his 14. chapter alleadgeth that it is de luâ—e diuino of the diuine Law to haue a Bishop in euery particular Church And for proofe theoeof citeth Soâ—us affirming Sot lib. 10. deâ—â—uâ—â—â—et iure q. 1. a. 4. posâ— sâ—â— undâ—â— conclusionâ— it to be de iure diuino of the deuine Law quòd in genere singulis Ecclsiâ—s secundum Ecclesiasticum diuisionem sut aâ—plicentur Episcopi That in generall to euery particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision proper Bishops are to be applyed And Bannes teaching Baâ—â—es 2.2 q. 1. a 10. Coclu 6. ad vâ—â— that Bishops cannot by the Pope be remoâ—uea from the whole Church or a great or not able part of it Hauing cited these two learned authours he argueth thus By the deuine Law there must be particular Bishops in the Church but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France for I speake especially of great particular Churches which are not able parts of the whole Church should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops rather then the Church of Spaine or the Church of Spaine rather then the Church of England or Flanders ergo France Spaire England Flanders and all other particular Churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops 2 These be the best grounds that M. Doctour in the said chapter bringeth for proofe that it is de iure deuino a command of God to haue a Bishop in England I wil adde such other arguments as can be afforded from his 13. chapter wherein although he affirme but that which al Catholicks do grant speaking in general that cueÌ„ in time of persecutioÌ„ the whol Church may not be gouerned without some Bishops yet because some of the proofes brought for the said verity may perhaps seeme pertinent to this present question Suar. tom 4. in 3. p. d. 25. I will not dissemble them Suareâ—â— saith he concludeth that the Church cannot change this kinde of gouernment by Bishops Then he alleadgeth examples of the African Church When Hunericus began his raigne he offered to the Catholicks of Carthage to chuse in that Church a Bishop which ornament sayth Victor Carthage had wanted for 24. Victor Vticenâ—â—t lib. 2. perseq vad inâ—â—â—o yeares but yet vpon this condition that the Arrtans at Constantinople might enioy the free vse of their Churches otherwise saith Hunericus not onely the Bishop that shal be ordained in carthage with his Cleargy but also all other Bishops of the African prouinces with their Cleargie shal be sent to the Mooâ—es The which when Victor Primate of Africke and others heard they refused his courtesie with so cruell a condition and says â—iâ—ita est interposius his condâ—tionibus periculosis haec Ecclesia Episcopum noâ— delectatur habere Gubernat eam Christus qui semper dignatur guberuare If it be so with these perilous conditions the Church of Carthage is not dilighted to haue a Bishop But the people so cryed out for a Bishop that they could not be appeased without one 3 A second argument M. Doctour â—raweth from another example of Huneticus his cruelty and of the African Catholicks zeale to their Bishops and Pastoâ—rs Victor Vâ—â—censis lib 2. Hunericus his cruelty Victor Vâ—â—censis descriâ—â—th rather by teares then words saying Quibus autem prosequar flumâ—â—bus â—â—â—â—ryâ—aâ—um quando â—â—pâ—sâ—opâ—s Presbâ—â—eros Dâ—â—conoâ— eâ—alia â—â—â—lsiae membra id est quatuor willia D. cccc Lxvi ad exilium eremi dastiâ—auâ—â— in quibus â—rant podagrici quamplurims aly per aetatem anâ—oâ—uâ—n lumine â—emporali priuaâ—â— c. But with what fâ—â—ds of teares shall I proosecute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rs his crucltâ— woen he sent Best ops Priests Deacous and other members of the Church â—â—to â—â—â—ashmeÌ„t in the wilaernesse amongst whom were â—â—my troubled with the gout others by age â—â—â—nd and dâ—priueâ— of sight c. Behould Huâ—â—â—cus his cruâ—â—ty Now let vs behould the zeale of the Catholicks of these countries for their Bishops and Priests They complantned pâ—â—â—ufâ—ly that they were deprined of their Pastours saâ—ing or rather crying Victor lib. 2. peâ—ses Vad. Quibus nos miseros relinquiâ—ts dum pergites ad coronas qui â—os baptizatuâ—â— sunt parunlos fonâ—â—bus aqua perernis qui nobis paenâ—tentiae munus collaturi sunt et reconciliationis induigentâ—s obstrictos peccatorum vinculis solâ—tuâ—i quiâ— vobis dictum est quaecunque solueritis super terram erunt solâ—â—a et on cales Qui nos soleÌ„ntbus or ationâ—bus sepulturi sunt mortentes quibus diâ—â—ni
Sacrifictâ—â—â—tuâ—â—xhibedus estâ— Vobiscum et not â—â—eebat pergere siliceret vs tali modo filios a patribus nulla necessit at separaret To whom do you leane vs maser able wretches whilst you goe to receaue your crownes Who shall giue vs the Sacrament of pennance and loose vs tyed with the bords of sinnes by the Indulgence of reconciliaâ—â—on For to you it was said whatsoeuer you shall loose vpoÌ„ earth it shal be loosed in heaneÌ„ Who shall bury vs with solemne prayers when we shall dy to whom the rite of the acuâ—â—â— sacrifice is to be exhibited We might haue gonne with you that so no necessâ—tâ— might separate the children from their Fathers After this example M. Doctour sayth thus Wherefore aâ— for otheâ— poynts of our Fayth we must dye rather then deny them so we must dye rather then aâ—â—y the Hierarchy of the Church it being a poynt of Fayth 4 His third example is out of Orosius relating how the Aâ—ian Tyrant Trâ—samundus commanced that the African Bishops should not ordayne any more Bishops in the place of those that dyed Orosius 〈…〉 â— 10 The Bishops considering that without Bishops their churches could not long subsist but would fall without any other persecuâ—â—on or violence vsed against them resolued to call a Councell And in that Councell all the Bishops with one consâ—â—t decreed notwithstanding the Tyrants Edict to the contrary to ordaine Bishops Cogitantes aut regis iâ— acundâ—am siqua forsan existeret mitigandam quo facilius ordinatâ—â—â—suis plebibus vâ—uerent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coranaâ—dos etiaâ— sides confessione quos dignos inuentebant promotione c. Thinking that the Kings wrath if any perchance should be would be mitigated or that they who were found worthy of promotion would be crowned with confessioâ— of their ministerie And good reason had they so to doe For as sayth Baronius Quaenam shes de Ecclesiâ—s â—astoribus destitutis vlterius reliqua esse poterat Baron An. Daâ— 504. conuulsis earum fundameÌ„tis ipâ—is quibus initibantur Episcopis What hope could there remayne for the Churches when their foundations to wit the Bishops to which they leaned and on which they depended were ruined and pulled vp Thus farre out of M. Doctour whose words I hane related at large that the reader might see all the force of these examples and out of the narrations themselues gather the answeres to them 5 In this question certaine it is that de â—ure diuino the Church must be goueâ—ned by Bishops that is in the whole Church of God there must be some Bishops but to affirme as M. Doctour doth that it is de iure diuino to haue a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England nâ—â—â—nely that there is such a precept but moreouer that hoe persecuioÌ„ can excuse the obligation therof or giue sufficieÌ„t cause of dispensation all which he must prooue if he will speake home is a paradox to speake sparingly without any shew of probability and which may seeme to taxe those Popes as ignorant of the deuine Law who for so many yeares esteemed it neither necessary nor expedient to send a Bishop into England neither when he was sent did they euer disputeâ— whether it was necessary â—ure diuino but all the deliberation was quid expediret what was expedient yea M. Doctour must finally answere his owne arguments which either prooue nothing at all or else prooue that his Holinesse is obliged to give vs an Ordinary for his reasons and examples are for such which is more then M. Doctour himselfe will â—uouch 6 And truly I cannot inâ—agine what way one should go about to prooue that vpon noe cause whatsoeuer the Pope can make himselfe particular Bishop of some particular Church especially for a tyme and gouerne it by his Delegates endued with sufficient power and still prouided that the sayd particular Church within or without it selfe haue meanes to be furnished with sufficient Priests and necessary Sacraments and helps 7 But although we should grant that as M. Doctour affirmeth a great or notable part of the church could not iuâ—re diuino be gourned without a Bishop yet that would be far from proouing that England as things now stand must needes haue a Bishop For if our country be considered not materially but formally as Deuines expresse themselues that is not the extent of land or multitude of people but the number of Catholickes which only can make a true church we shall find it to be more then far from a great or notable part of the Catholick church spred ouer the whole world And God grant that I might not with truth affirme the whole number of Catholicks in EnglaÌ„d ScotlaÌ„d also to be much lesse theÌ„ the nuÌ„ber of people in some one citty in this Kingdom Sure I am that my Lord of Chaloâ—don or some other in his behalfe in a certine writing called a Paralâ—â— sect 4. saith that all the Catholicks would scarce make one of diuers Bishopricks in England Now to affirme that one Dicocesse or citty or indeede not so much as one Diocesse or citty is a great or notable part of that Church which reacheth as far as the rising and setting of the sunne and that it must therefore iure diuino haue a Bishop so as no cause can excuse the want of one is a thing that I will not say noe deuine but euen noe man in his right Iudgment can affirme But by this we may see into what absurdities partiality may lead men though other wayes learned 8 Enough hath bene said to disprooue M. Doctours Tenet in this present question yet nothing will more disaduâ—â—age his assertion then when the reader shall by my answers clearely peÌ„rceiue his owne arguments either to go beside the matter or to prooue against himselfe 9 His first was taken out of Sotus affirming it to be deiure diuiâ—e of the dideuine lawe quôd in genere singulis c. that in generâ—l to euery paâ—ticular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision proper Bishops are to be applyed This authority is eyther against M. Doctour or nothing against vs. For ether we suppose that the antient diuision of diocesses remaine â—ot in England and Scotland and then according to M. Doctours vnderstanding of Sotus euery Diocesse in England and Scotland must â—ure diuino haue a particular Bishop which is absurd could neuer be the true meaning of so learned a man as Sotus was Or els we suppose that al Ecclesiastical deuision of Diocesseâ— in England hath ceased and then there is not by the deuine law due to England any Bishop according to this authority of Soto who only saith it is deiure diuino of deuine law that to euery particular Church proper Bishops are to be applyed according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision and therefore where there is no such diuision the wordes of Sotus haue noâ— place so that Deuine as he is alledged by M. Doctour is aginst himselfe 10 If the Reader
aske me what indeed is the true meaning of Sotus I answere his meaning is not that the Pope is obliged iure diuÌ„ino by deuine precept to institute this or that particular Diocesse or to giue particular Bishops to euery such particular Diocesse instituted but only that when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and giues him charg of some particular Diocesse in such eases he doth a particular action which in generall was instituted and commanded by our Sauiour Christ who ordained in generall that in the whole Church there should alwaies be some Bishops which in effect is noe more theÌ„ we grant but cometh far short of what M. Doctor inteÌ„deth That this is the true meaning of Sotus is plaine by his onwe words For hauing taught what M. Doctour cyted out of him he proues it in this maÌ„nter Dum Dei minister id quod ipsâ— instituit ipsius iussu dâ—spensat actio est de iure diuino censenda cum autem Pupa Episcopum confirmat et consecrat alicuique attribuit Ecclesiae id exequitur quod Christus in genere instituit quodque facere iussit ergo id iuris diuini censenduÌ„ est WheÌ„ the minister of God by his command performeth that which he instituted such an action is to be esteemed of deâ—ine law But when the Pope doth confirme and coâ—secrate a Bishop â—â—d applies him to some Church he eâ—â—ecâ—â—etâ— that which Christ in generall Mâ—rke did institute which he coÌ„maÌ„dâ—d him to â—o theâ—fore suâ—â— an actioÌ„ ought to be said to be of the deuine lawe Can aâ—y thing be more deâ—re or more direct to shew that according to Sot ' the InstitutioÌ„ precept of Christ was only in gineral which is plainly for vs against M. Doctour Yet to take away all doubt Sotus bringeth this example Sacrament 〈◊〉 absilutio c. sacrameÌ„tal absolutio the like although they be immâ—dâ—aâ—ly peâ—formed by the minesters of the Chuâ—ch neuerthelesse they are to be esteemed aâ— of deuine law beâ—â—â—se Christ did â—astitute them and comâ—aâ—dâ—ed them to be so done and dispeâ—sed in his â—â—me â—â—â—vere a â—â—â—nesse by these words to â—aser our of Soâ—us that euery one hauing authority to administer sacraments were therefore by deuiâ—e law and precept bound to do it but all that could be rightly deduced according to Sotus would be that in case he did administer such sacraments such an action should be said to be de â—ure diuinâ— of the deuine law â—s a thing in generall not of humane but deuine enstitution Mariage in generall was instituted and commanded by God in the newe law by Christs institution it is a Sacraâ—â—â—t and therefore when ChristiaÌ„s marry they performe an actioÌ„ in geâ—erall commanded and instituted to be a â—â—crameÌ„â— shall we therefore out of Sotus inter that euery Christian or communite is bound to marry M. Doctonr I suppose knowes well enough why Sotus did so much vrge this manner of speach that the confirmation consecration and appling of Bishops to particular Churches is of deuine instiâ—ution The cause was more stroÌ„gly against his antagonist Catharinus to inforce the residence of Bishops to be a Deuyne and not only an Ecclesiasticall precept which precept neuertheles as Sotus himself affirmeth indeede none caÌ„deny doth not oblige in altâ—ms place therfore although Sotê° should affirm that ther were a deuine precept to apply Bishops to euery particular determinate Church yet that precept being affiâ—matiâ—â— as Deuines speak it would not bind in al occasioÌ„s as Sotê° teacheth coÌ„cerning the resideÌ„ce of Bishops Finally by this ocasion M. Dâ—â—â—er I doubt not wil be more circoÌ„spect in â—â—adging authours least he doth wrong his oâ—ne reputation the authors then deiues the reader and most of all the truth For Sotus doth not speak only of such particular Churches as are great or notable parts of the whole Church as M Doctour doth but of particular Diocesses to say that it is de â—ure â—iuâ—â— a deuine commaund that euery Diocesse haue a particular Bishop and in such maÌ„ner as for noe cause whatsoeuer it can be otherwaâ—es is a proposition farre from Sotus his thoughts which neither M. Doctour nor any other â—â—ill or can defend 11 The second authour alleadged by M. Doctour is Bannes saying that Bishops â—â—nâ—aâ— by the Pope be remooued from the whole Church or a great or not able part thereof I wonder M. Doctour would alleadge this learned deame to prooue that â—â—â—s de iure deuino to haue a Bishop in England the coutrary whereof is clearely deduced from this very authority of the same authour who hauing taught that Bishops haue all their authority immediately from the Pope frameth this obiection against himselfe That if the Bishops haue their authority immediately from the Pope it were in his power to remooue all Bishops from their Churches and so the Catholick Church should be without Bishops To this obiection BaÌ„nes answers Quòd licet Summus Pontifex posset prosâ—â— arbetrâ—tu vnum aut alterum Episcopum amouere nec in locum corum ali quem designâ—re non tamè admittenduÌ„ est quod in tota Ecclesia aut in magna eius parte taÌ„temere sua potestate abutaâ—ur Although the Pope might as he should thinke good remooue one 〈◊〉 two Bishops and designe none in their place yet it is not to be admitted that he can so rashly abuse his power in the whole Church or in a great part thereof By the only reading of Bannes his words which M. Doâ—â—our ought to baue alleadged at large not by halfes as much as might seeme for his purpose the reader will quickly perceiue that it is not de iure diuino a commandement of God that euery particular Church haue a Bishop seeing according to this Authour the Pope may leaue some Churches without Bishops Now I would aske M. Doctour whether such Churches should cease to be particular Churches and whatsoeuer he answereth will either be against his other Principle that without a Bishop there can be noâ— particular church of else if he say that they should not remaine particular Churches he must consider that then aâ—cording to Bannes it is not de iure diuiâ—o a deuire laâ— that euery Church should be a particulâ—r Church because as we haue seene Bannes teacheth that without breach of â—eâ—â—e law the Pope may leaue some churches without Bishops Besides the 〈◊〉 will see that Bannes onely speaketh of remoouing Bishops from the whole Church or from a great part of it and thence he would deduce a contrâ—rio sensu that seeing the flocke of Christ in England is farre from being a great part of the Catholick church and lesse then some one Dioâ—â—sse from which Bannes granted the Pope may remooue a Bishop yea he teacheth that all Bishops may be remooued from more Diocesses then one he would I say out of his owne assertion deduce that the Pope may not onely deny a Bishop to England but also if the thinke good remooue one
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
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
blasphemous Arians who denâ—â—â—our deare Sauiours Deuinity in sonâ—â—iefest Catholicke citty haue free vse their abhominable churches and thâ— otherwise not onely the Bishop that shâ— ordayned in EnglaÌ„d with the whole tholicke Cleargy of that country but aâ— all Bishops of some other large Cathoâ—e Prouynces with their Cleargy shalbâ—nt to forrayne barbarous countries anâ—â—is you must doe and not be appeased 〈◊〉 though your Superiour and the Superâ—â—ur of the Bishop himselfe to wit your and his lawfull Primate togeather with ther Bishops should be of another mind and should vtterly dislike the hauing oâ— Bishop vpoÌ„ such conditions for so did â—he people of Carthage against the iudgâ—â—ent of Victor their Primate and of the â—ther African Bishops Were not this a vey pious exhortation teaching men with the same breath to desire a Bishop and disobey Bishops And yet M. Doctour in effect sayth so while very pathetically he beggs of English catholicks an imitation of the Carthaginian peoples fact 22 His second example maketh nothing to our present purpose For it telleth vs onely that the catholicks lamented and who would not haue so done when their Bishops Priests Deacons other Catholicks to the number of foure thousand nine hundred sixâ—â—e six which number why did M. Doctour omit to translate into English hauing translated the words immediately both precedent and subsequent were sent into banishment But what is all this Can we not haue Priests be baptized absolued from our sinnes buryed enioy the comfort of the holy Masse without Bishops and yet as we haue seene want of the sayd helps was that which caused such lamentations amoÌ„g those good Catholicks who at one time were depriued not onely of Bishops but also of their Preists and Deacons This example being so farre from the purpose I meruaile he would coople with it a certayne wherefore saying wherefore as for other poynts of fayth we must dye so we must dye rather then deny the Hier aroby of the church Which consisteth principally of Bishops To dye for the defence of the Hierarchie of the church is indeed sufficient cause of martyrdome but I neither vnderstand how that truth is aptly deduced from the sayd example nor can any body beleeue that he were a martyr who should dye for defence of the necessity of a Bishop in Englard or for defence of some particuler pretence of authority which a Bishop in England might make although perhapps M. Doctour might not thinke it impossible but that his booke being in English â—ome vnlearned person might take all these for one and so thinke himselfe a happy man and a martyr by defending and dying for whatsoeuer authority a particular Bishop might pretend I deleeue M. Doctour himselfe would be loath to die for such causes 23 To his third example of Trasamundus commanding noe Bishops to be ordayned in place of those that dyed that so without further persecution the churches might faâ—le I haue answered already and now will onely note M. Doctours translation of a word for his purpose Cogitantes â—uâ—â—regis iracundiam mitig andam aut coronandos etiam sidei confessione quos dignos inueniebant promotione Thinking that cyther the Kings wrath would be mitigated or that they who were found worthy of promotion should also be crowned by the câ—fession of their fayth this M. Doctour translateth with the confession of their ministery that so some might thinke it a point of martyrdome to confesse the practise of some particular Bishops pretended authority otherwise I see not why he should change fayth into ministery THE FOVRTH QVESTION whether a country although the persecution should be eâ—creased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were only for the sacrament of Confirmation 1 FIRST we protest that by Gods holy assistance we doe euer will reuerence the sacrament of Confirmation noe lesse then others who nowe vpon particular designes doe so much vrge the necessity thereof And further I declate that for my particular I am ready to followe any mâ—st seuere opinions of whatsoeuer approoued Catholick Deuine when that Sacrament may conueniently be had and am persawded that in such case the neglect of so great a benefit cannot be pleasing to almighty God But to put vpon mens consciences so strict an obligation notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution to be raised by the very occasion of enioying that Sacrament is more then can be warranted by scripture or any tradition or definition of the Church or by any Decree of any Pope or for ought I know by the testimony of any one sinâ—le Catholick Deuine whose works are come to publick view or can be prooued by any good Theologicall argument And besides this to affirme that not withstanding whatsoeuer persecution we must not only receiue that Sacrament but must haue it only from a Bishop and from a Bishop of England or bâ—longiâ—g to that Kingdome all which points M. Doctour must prooue before he prooue his intent is a thing which noe Author Thomist Scotist or Nominalist not Doctour Secular or Regular euer taught or caÌ„ enter into the deliberate thought of any reasonable Deuine much lesse is it a doctrine to be broached vpoÌ„ so weake mistaken or ill applied grounds as I hope todemoÌ„strat M. Doctours reason to be 2 True it is the Sacrament of Confirmation was instituted for giuing of grace to professe our Faith and S Thomas teacheth that by it a man receiueth augmentation S. Tho. 3. p. q. 65. a â—â—n corp and groweth which yet cannot be so vnderstood as if this Sacrament were the only meanes to attaine such spirituall groweth Tanner Tom. 4. disp 4 q 4. dub 2. n. 43. profâ—ssio fideâ— debita suo quidem tempore est necessaria sed ad quaÌ„ eliaÌ„ ord naria gratiae aâ—xilia suâ—â—iciut For the cofâ—ssio of our paith the ordinary beâ—ps of grace are suâ—â—câ—e it S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. a. 2. ad 1. because by other Sacraments ordinary helps of almighty God we may receaue the effect of that same grace which is giuen in confirmation euery one according to the measure of grace communicated by God and secoÌ„ded with the cooperation of mans free-will as the Apostles in Pentecost in an extraordinary measure receaued the holy Ghost without the Sacrament of Confirmation rem Sacramenti sine sacarmento faith S. Thomas the grace of the Sacrament without the sacrament and the like he teacheth of those Christians of whom S. Peter Act. 11. Saieth Cùm caepissem loqui cecidit Spiritus Sanctus super cos sicut et in nos in principio when I had begun to speake the Holy Gost descended vpon them as it did vpon vs in the beginning 3 There is great difference betwixt corporall and spirituall growth Corporal growth is by augmentation or extention of Quantity and although one should neuer so much increase in health strength good colour and the like yet because these are within the compasse of the Predicament of Quality different toto genere
Trent that the same doctrine is declayed in the Councell of Florence decreto vnionts I haue bene credibly informed that the Abbot of Monte Cassino of the holy order of S. Bennet hath authority to confirme and Petrus Arcudius in a learned volume written of the agreement betwixt the Latine Pelr. Arcudius de concordia Ecclesâ—e Ocâ—idemalis Oâ—â—etalis in sâ—ptâ—m Sacramen or iâ— administration 〈◊〉 â— 2 cap. and Greeke Church in the administration of the seauen Sacraments witnesseth that in the hearing of diuers other of the Greeke Colledge in Rome he was told by a graue Father of the Society of Iesus by name Petrus Fonseca who came to Rome the yeare 1593. that some principal meÌ„ of the sayd Order had authority to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and further the same Father certainely auouched that himselfe was wont to administer the said SacrameÌ„t in Brasile where there was kept the Popes Graunt of such authority Also the same Arcudius writes that others relate how Adrian the 6 a very learned and pious Pope the yeare 1521. vpon the 25. of Aprill graunted for the Indies and countrie destitute of Bishops that Priests Minorites might confirme and that an Authenticall of the Graunt is kept at Seuill in the conuent of glorious S. Francis his Order Moreouer Arcudius alleadgeth ancieÌ„nt Greeke Fathers to prooue that euen before the schisme it was the practise of the Greeke Church to haue confirmation administred by Priests with particular commission to that effect And to take away all scruple Ita Suarez coninck Henriquez quos citat sâ—quitur Pauâ—us â—atâ—â—â— lib. 5. trâ—ctâ—t 3. cap. â— a. 1 some great Deuines doe teach that although such commission ought not to be graÌ„ted without iust cause yet it is of force and valid howsoeuer it be graunted because it is not properly a dispensaâ—ion in the lawe of Christ but rather a commission of power according to Christs insticution which is that the Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation should be a Priest by coÌ„mission from the supreame Pastour of Gods Church If M. Doct. hold against the common doctrine of Deuines and practise of most learned and holy Popes who haue committed the Sacrament of confirmation to Priests then he must vndertake a new and hard taske and prooue that euen for that slender probability which his opinion hath if it hath any Catholicks must rather suffer increase of persecution then not make all sure by hauing a Bishop for coÌ„firmation which is a thing he will neuer be able to prooue espcially seeing Popes content themselues with the said doctrine euen in countries where Bishops might be emoyed with lesse danger then in England 9 Yet although we should grant that Catholicks were bound to receiue the Sacrament of Confirmation and to receiue it from a Bishop it followes not that it must be had from a Bishop subiect at least to all those penall lawes which are enacted against English Catholicks and Priests For matters might be so disposed as some Bishop from abroad and onely taking England â—s it were by the way might coÌ„firme more in three moneths then my Lord of Chalcedon in seauen yeares according to the proportion kept since the tymes waxed more hard especially if such a Bishop did administer Confirmation to children according to the common practise of the Church in auntient times and of the Easterne Church at this day and as some relate of some countrey neerer vs where children two or three yeares old are wont to be confirmed See Layman lib. 5. tract 3. cap. 6. n. 1. which practise may seeme very fit for our countrey both because Confirmation cannot often and easily be had and also that by this meanes children during the time of innocency when they are sure to receiue the grace of the Sacrament might be armed against the dangers of future persecution But in this if any difficulty appeare his Holinesse would vouchsafe to ordaine what might be most expedient for the particular case of England and by this meanes within some compasse of yeares most Catholicks liuing would finde themselues to haue the Sacrament of Confirmation 10 Further if we did yeild to M. Doctour that for some sort of persecution though very great we ought not to want the Sacrament of confirmation yet when the persecution is of such nature that it hindereth the Bishop from administring that very Sacrament for which he comes except but to a fewe no man can with reason say that such a persecution doth not excuse from obligation of receuing that Sacrament from a Bishop That our persecution is of this quality experience tels vs. 11 Moueroner we must still remember the nuÌ„ber of Catholickes in England which I haue touched in the precedent question and that of those Catholicks all the clergy haue had Confirmation abroad as likewise diuers of the layety either in Seminaries or otherwise in theâ—r trauels those who are in England being so secret and dispersed as they are diuers of them could scarcely haue that Sacrament although a Bishop should be still in England all which considered we shall finde that the nuÌ„ber of those who want and can receiue the foresaid Sacrament is not so great as at first sight may seeme therefore still the difficulty on M. Doctors side is greater to prooue that for such a nuÌ„ber it is necessary to haue a Bishop for ConfirmatioÌ„ although by that meanes the persecutioÌ„ should be increased against all 12 Finally though we should grant all and more then with reason can be desired yet M. Doctour will not haue prooued his intent till first he effect an impossibility namely that this his opinion which he is the first to put in print is so euident and certaine that the contray is voide of probability For till then Catholicks are sure they may with a safe consience keepe their goods liberties and liues for some more necessary and better warranted oâ—casion by conforming their practise to the coÌ„trary of that which M. Doctour teacheth especially seeing he himselfe in his 14. chap. n. 3. doth but fearefully deliuer this doctrine saying I am of opinion which I humbly sâ—bmit to authority that a particulâ—r Church cannot except any long time against hauing a Bishop for feare of persecution And n 8. he only sayth I thinke neyther any Country nor any one of the Country for feare of persecutioÌ„ can oppose against the comming in of a Bishop though thereby only the sacrament of Confirmation should be wanting We see according to his owne confession it is but his opinion and thinking which I hope he will not not binde all other to followe although it were in deede probable as I haue demonstrated it not to be 13 And I should wish M. Doctour to be of my mind if it were but least otherwise he might seeme to dissent in iudgment from my Lord of Chalcedon himselfe who vpon occasion of speach about some authority nothing touching Confirmation which his Lordship pretended said plainely that
of a Religious man without his Superiours leaue is vnlawfull and inualide But a Bishop elected may freely without any leaue enter into Religion becauâ—â— by his election â—ll he be confiâ—med in his Bishoprick there is contracted noe spirituall mariage bâ—â—wixt him and his Church and in this there is the same reason of a Bishop only Delegate in respect of that countrey for which he hath no more then a Breue of Delegation and ad beneplacitum because a Bishops spirituall mariage is only with that Church of which he hath his Tytle for Mariages are not ad beneplacitum but require permanency yea a Bishop both elected and confirmed if without leaue he Professe in Religion the act is valid and that it is not also lawfull proceedes not from the nature or any intrinsecall and inseparable perfection of Episcopall dignity but only from the Churches prohibition as likewise the inseparable Mariage betwixt the Bishop and his Church ariseth only from Ecclesiasticall command according to the truer opinion of Deuines for we dayly see renunciations of Bishopricks and translations of Bishops from one Diocesse to another vpon ordinary occasions which could neyther be lawfull nor valid if the mariage betwixt the Bishop and his Church were de iure diuino a deuine precept For in deuine precepts the Pope cannot validly dispense without some particular cause and yet if the Pope once giue leaue for a Bishop to renounce his Bishopricke the renunciation is valid although we should suppose no cause at all And finally to giue a Bishop leaue to become Religious there is required no other cause beside the priuate good of the Bishops soule supposing his Church be otherwise prouided of a sufficient Pastour All which considerations are manifest arguments that somewhat may be found in a Religious state wanting in the state of a Bishop although still it is true that the state of a Bishop is higher If any demannd wherein this particular perfection of a Religious state consists My answere is that for full satisfaction to this question I wish the Reader could once peruse that golden booke of Hieronymus Platus de bono Status Religiosi where he shall finde this argumeÌ„t so copiously solidly and eloquently handled that he will neuer repent himselfe of hauing red so pleasant and profitable a volume In briefe I say that it may seeme to consist in multitude facility continuation perfection of perpetuall acts of vertue and effectuall meanes speedily to get securely to conserue and plentifully to increase perfection which if we speake properly as it is intended to be gotten by a staâ—e of perfection consisteth not in charity howsoeuer but eyther in multitude and perfection of Acts of charity with as much continuation and litle interruption as our mortall life will giue leaue or els in an Habit with particular reference to the sayd frequency and continuation of such Acts as Suâ—rez doth well explicate this matter Suarez de Rel. tom 3. l. c. 4. And cleare it is that for attaining of such a perfection as we haue described vpon earth there is no state Suarez loc cit c. 19. n. 22. like to that of a Religious life wherein sayth the same learned Deuine a man both auoydes the dauÌ„gers to which Bishops are exposed and by multitude of holy works may recompense the want of some perfect actions proper to Episcopall state 8 To all which we must add that these aduantages are found in Religious state in a particulari excellent manner namely in a kinde of life proper to the time of Grace by obseruance of the three Euangelicall Counsells Pouerty Chastity Obedience which S. Tho. 1.2 q. 104. a. 4. in corp as 〈◊〉 Thomas teacheth are proper to the New law And truly abstracting from all other respects the Counsells of Pouerty and Chastity haue I knowe not what prerogatiue by being in a manner consecrated by the Practise and as I may say deïfied in the Person of him who for our sake and to giue example of all vertue vouchsafed to assume our nature And in this particular there appeares a maine difference betwixt a Religious man and a Bishop who is not at all bound to pouerty and to chastity he is obliged only as other Priests by a vow annexed to holy Orders which yet proceedes but from the Churches Ordination in so much as a Bishop not in holy Orders Elected may lawfully marry and some also hold that a Bishop confirmed may doe the same but of this I doe not dispute yet if he marry it is valid For my parte I had rather want whatsoeuer perfection wherein a Bishop may surpasse a Religious man then be in a state not requiring of its nature and essence Chastity as the state of a Bishop doth not whereas the state of a Religious man doth necessarily and essentially imply that Angel-like perfection Besides if by occasion of sollicitous exact endeauour to obserue the only vow of Chastity with great purity and perfection all vertuous Priests by experience finde how many other vertues must be practised and come annexed with that one what shall we say of the triple knot of Chastity Pouerty and Obedience How many vertues must in it be necessarily tied togeather 9 With these commodities proper to Religious state are to be ioined two other most important considerations of security and Immobility wherin a Religious state exceedeth that of a Bishop Security from euill and Immobility in good are great points of happynes and participations of the Saints felicity in Heauen And in the busines of our saluation euery small addition to true and not presumptuous Hope ought to be greatly esteemed For as Philosophers say that a lesse knowledge of more perfect obiects for example of God or Angels is to be preferred before a greater knowledge of inferiour things as of the elements or mixt bodies so in maters that concerne Eternity a state more secure lesse subiect to change is in that to be preferred before a state higher but not so secure or immoueable It was a worthy saying of a great Preacher that men in election of Episcopall state are apt to haue their eyes vpon certayne considerations which would quickly vanish if they made another reckoning and duly pondered for how many soules they are accountable and perhaps they would finde that euen in a rich Bishopricke they pawne their owne soule for so great a number of other mens that for each one they receaue in payement not a shilling by the yeare and inferiour pastours scarce two pence for each soule comitted to their chardge A dreadfull reckoning It was likewise a wise and witty conceipt of another great man that in this world meÌ„ are most esteemed for Gratiis gratis datis that is for such guifts of God as haue reference to our neighbour as learning power of working miracles c. and I may adde highnes of degree and the like But in the next life he shal be most regarded who is most
replenished with gratiis gratium facientibus such guifts as render a soule amiable in the eyes of almighty God as Humility Pouerty Obedience Chastity mortification of our will and passions and the like and that the distribution of Superiours Inferiours theare wil be in a farre different fashion froÌ„ what we behold here Whatsoeuer therefore in speculatioÌ„ be truly sayd of the height dignity of Episcopall state which indeed cannot be too much exalted yet in practise and for election a Religious state by a particular man ordinarily is to be preferred as more secureâ— yea for this respect of security and in regard of innumerable other helps Ita docent Rich. in 4. d 38. art 6 quest 1. Angel verb Religioâ— num 16. cited by Suar. de Rel. tom 3. l. 5. c. 8. n. 2. who sayth that it is a thing to be noted which make sweet easy the apprehended burthen yoke of a Religious life some good Deuins expressely teach that euery one should iudge a Religious state to be agreeable to his forces vnlesse by certaine coÌ„iecture or experience he be assured of the contrary That a Religious state is also more immoueable then that of a Bishop hath beene already sufficiently proued because Bishops dayly leaue or change their Bishopricks by diuers wayes but a Religious man neuer ceaseth to be such euen although he be assumed to the highest state in Gods Church which is that of a Bishop Besides the immobility of a Religious state ariseth from the obligation of perpetuall vowes which certainely bind by the law of God but it is not certayne that the Mariage of a Bishop with his Church proceedeth from any Deuine precept yea it is more probable that it comes only from the Ordination of the Church as before hath beene touched 10 Neither is this perfecton of a Religious state profitâ—ble to the Religious maÌ„ alone but oftentimes disposeth him further to the helping of his neighbours with much security profit freedom extensioÌ„ as S. Fer ardirus Senensis after refusall of three Bishopricks professed that he would not be tied to such a dignity to the end he might mors pleÌ„tifulâ—y and freely bestowe himself vpon the helping of his neighbour and a certaine famors preacher after he had bene from Religion assumed to a Bishopricke was accustomed to say that it hapened to him as to a virgin who before mariage is respected much sought after but being placed in wedlock is as it were forgotten soe he while he remained a priuat Religious man was followed by innumerable multituds but after his contract with a particular Church few did looke after him And not vnlike to this was that prudent saying of a holy learned and wise Bishop who was most willing that one of his clargie should enter into a certaine Religious Order because said truly zealous Prelate wheras otherwise might haue a Parish Priest but in some one Church by taking a Religious course he would be as it were a Curate in many Oâ—ocesses And there haue not wanted Religious men who refused a greâ—ter honour then Episcopall not onely for humility but particularly that by remayning in Religion they might be more vsefull for the common good of soules 11 The perfection of a Bishop consists in this that by his office he is obliged to enlighten others if occasion require to giue his life for his flocke which occasion seldom happeneth To those two obligations the Bishop is tyed by Iustice in regard of maintenance and honour afforded him by his flocke or by the vertue of Fidelity in respect of a centaine implicit pact where by he obligeth himselfe when he is made Bishop But Religions men meerely vpon charity or Religion more noble vertues then Iustice or Fidelity do illuminate others aduenture their liues for the sauing of soules whereto some Religious are obliged not only by their Institute but by particular vowe made to that effect And here I cannot but cast my selfe at the feete of our Reuerend English Cleargy who for sole Charity without expectation of any recompence except from God doe faithfully labour the coÌ„uersion of our CouÌ„try and I make bold to say they would be vntimely Counsellers if any should be making I know not what propositions of Parishes and Parish Priests whereby nothing else could be in these times gayned but the change of Charity into some inferiour vertue and forfeyture of that glory comended by our Sauiour to his Apostles Gratis accopâ—stis gratis date Matt. 10.8 what you haue freely receiued bestowe freely to say nothing of the strict obligation which by being Curates they should vndergo for so poore wages as before hath bene touched Sure I am that diuers of our Clergly would neuer haue bene Preists but that by occasion of the present state of England they might without any recompence helpe and voluntarily expose their liues for the good of others 12 Merit doth not consist in office but in the acts thereof Let the whole worlds experience decyde whether Secular Pastours or Religious men do in fact more enlighten mankind by preaching reaching filling libraries with learned volumes reducing hereticks through Europe and conuerting infidels in both the Indies Iaponia China c. So as their vncessant labours with howerly hazard of their liues haue no more narrowe extent then the vast course of the Sunnes motion And the late Feast of one of these good men namely S. Francis Xauier puts me in mind of a Disticke made of him to this very purpose Nascitur occiduis at Eôis occidit oris Hoc tantum differt caetera Solis habet He sets in th' East but riseth in the West Except in this a Sunne hee 's for the rest This Charity of Religious men in exposing their liues for the conuersion of Infidels of their greater fitnes for that purpose theÌ„ of secular Priests my Lord Phillip Rouenius Archiepiscopus Philippensis and the Popes vicar for Holland doth plainely acknowledge in his Treatise Demissionibus parte tertia with this addition that such places being once prepared by Religious men the secular Clergy were to enter into them as if there could be a better nurse for the Child then the mother that brought it forth S. Paul sayth 1. Cor. 4.15 If you haue ten thousand Pedagogues yet not many Fathers for I begot you in Iesus Christ insinuating that one who hath begotten a soule in Christ by his conuersion ought with him to be in greater reckoning then ten thousand Instructours which yet the sayd Archbishop a sauourer of the secular Clergy makes secular Priests to be compared to Religious men into whose labours he would haue them enter But of the fitnes of Religious men to preach administer Sacraments c. I shall haue occasion to speake after a while and now will addresse my selfe to the second comparison betwixt Religious men and Pastours inferiour to Bishops to whose sacred Dignity we willingly yeild precedency and therefore none can take it ill
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
c. but not that by being Monks they haue any thing repugnant to the performance of such actions And secular Priests and Bishops not only as secular but also as Priests or Bishops haue no power lawfully to performe such actions till it be granted them by lawfull Superiours 18 And conformable to this Doctrine hath also bene the practise of Gods Church which thought it selfe best furnished wheÌ„ Prelacy Religious state were ioyned together For as Baronius witnesseth Negari non potest Baron Ann. 328. n. 25. fuisse MonachismuÌ„ Seminarium in Ecclefia Dei sanctissimoruÌ„ Episcoporum It cannot be denied but that Monasticall Institute hath bene in the Church of God a Seminary of most holy Bishops the same most famous Author in the same place num 23. hauing related how that Conquerour of the Arians S. Athanasius chose Monks for Bishops of diuers Churches giueth this reason for it Quòd forâ—ssimos hos fore sciret aduersus ingrueÌ„tem Ary haeresim in pugnatores et quasi munitissimas turres contra Miletianos Schismaticos Because he was sure that they Monkes would prooue stoutest against the approaching Arian haeresie and as it were most strong Forts against the Miletian Schismaticks It is therfore very strang and full of partiality what M. D. auoucheth in his 8. Chap. num 12. that the titles of Patriarhes Archbishops Priests and Pastours are not titles of Orders of Religious as they are Religious but only of the secular Cleargy Doth the name of Bishop Priests c. signify only a secular Bishop or Priest I alwaies conceiued that there had bene both Regular and Secular Priests till now I heare a new doctrine that the title of Priest is a title of the Secular Cleargy The names of Bishop and Priests are I grant names of the Clergy but that they are names of the Secular Cleargy I doe not vnderstand If I would make comparisons I could say that Religious men as Religious although they haue not so much as primaâ—â— tousuram which is but a disposition to Orders yea euen before they be Religious and are but in their Nouiship or way to a Religious life yet they enioy the Priuiledge Canonis Fori as if in act they were Cleargy men which is not granted to Secular persons as Secular But my meaning is not to say al that with great truth might be spokeÌ„ of a Religious state in comparision of the Secular Cleargy therfore I wil go foreward to note what I finde in M. Doctours 9. Chapter n. 19. That the assumption of Regulars to the Cleargy is extraorainary and n. 13. that Regulars were admitted and sent to preach to the Gentils yet that office doth not appertaine to them â—ure ordinarto by the ordinary lawe but by Priniledg and extraordinarily I wish M. Doctour would explicat what he meanes by extraordinary or ordinary lawe Is there any Lawe forbidding Religious men to be made Priests or to receaue authority to preach if once they be Priests or will be saie that Secular Priests only by being Priests may lawfully preach without any other CommissioÌ„ I am sure neither he nor any Catholicke can say so Wherein then consists this difference of Ordinary and extrordinary betwixt Secular Religious It is well knowne that in some countries none but Religious men can be made Bishops and in our cuntry the Monkes of S. Benets most holy Order were so much of the Cleargy that a mere comparatiue or conditionall mention of like Right in these dayes made such impression in some that there was to that particular framed an answere with title of a Paralel 19 As for conuersion of Infidels it is manifest with how prosperous successe Religious men haue in these our daies do still employ themselues in that laborious good worke more then the secular Cleargy And although some misapply the old saying that Monkes out of their Monasteries are like fish out of the water yet they may be pleased to remember that if those fishes had neuer bene out of the water English men might haue bene in an euerlasting fire For such fishes are also Fishers of soules as our Sauiour stiled his Apostles and fishermen make no profession to liue onely in the water Yet Religious men cannot but acknowledge it for a singular benefit that for repayring the vigour of their soules they may vpon occasion retire themselues to their Religious houses and so returne to the helpe of others with lesse danger to theÌ„selues Moreouer that those Fishers who conuerted England were of the very same Order of S. Bennet Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Angliâ— which now is soe much impugned hath bene prooued in a learned Treatise by better arguments then M. Doctour will easily answere if he chance to be of a contrary opinion 20 And indeed there is great reasoÌ„ why Religious persons in regard of their state should be fit for the conuersion of soules because by sâ—nctity of life they are more vnited to him whose instruments mens endeauours are in that great worke and he who with profit and security will shine to others must first burne within himselfe Our Sauiour Christ hauing called a certaine person to be his follower Luc. 9â— and he demanding â—espit only for the burying of his father was bid to leaue the dead and that he should goe and preach the Ghosple Tu â—utem vade eâ— annuÌ„tia regnum Det whereby our Blessed Lord gaue men to vnderstand that a good disposition to be an excellant preacher is a resolute and actuall leauing all S. Ambrose in this point is round â— â—â—â—rosâ—â—s 10. in Luc. and cleare Ille sayth he confirmare iubetuâ— fratres suos qui dixit Omnia reliquimus et secuti sumus te The charge of strengthening his brethren is committed to him who sayd Behold we haue left all and followed thee Which are the very wordes from which Catholicks prooue the three Euangelicall Counsels of Pouerty Chastity and Obedience vowed by Religious men 21 M. Doctour in his 9. chap. n. 16. sayth That Popes sent Regulars to conuert Countries because Bishops Priests were busied in gouerning their subiects and so could not be spared But this reason is insufficient For besides Pastours who haue subiects to be gouerned there are numbers of the Secular cleargy free from any such charge yea all Pastours except such Bishops as are maried to some particular Church may easily leaue their charge employ theÌ„selues vpon the conuersion of Infidels And I know M. Doctour will not approoue his owne reason when he shall finde it to be so very like to that of Beza cited by Breâ—lay in his liues of Luther c. chap. 7. Non magnopâ—râ— saith Beza nobis de legatione ad vemotissimas aliquas gentes laboraÌ„dum cum nobis domi et in propinquo sit satis superque quod nos posteros nostros exerceat Has igitur potius taÌ„ longinquas peregrinationes locustis illis lesu nomeÌ„ ementieÌ„tibê° relinquamus We are not much
made Pastours and receiue power of Iurisdiction which likewise is against M. Doctour chap. 8. n. 2. Therefore I inferre that the word Hierarchie hath a latitude and signifieth distinction both in Order and in Iurisdiction 4 Moreouer I demaund whether the name of Hierarchie must signify onely such Order Iurisdiction Office or Ministerie as haue their Institution immediately froÌ„ Christ or else that to make one of the Hierarchie it is sufficient they be instituted by the Church If none be compreheÌ„ded but such as are instituted by Christ then it will remaine doubtfull whether such as haue only lesser Orders as Ostiarij Lectours Exorcists and Acolythes be of the Hierarchie because diuers Deuines hold that those Orders were instituted onely by the Church and Patriarches Primates Archbishops Deanes Vicar Generals Archdeacons c. shal certainly be excluded from the Hierarchie because as such they are not of Dâ—uine Institution yea parish Priest abstracting from their Orders may doubt whether they be of the Hierarchie because it is not certaine that their Institution is Deuine If to make one of the Hierarchie Deuine Institution be not requiâ—ed it is a signe that it hath a great latitude and that it may comprehend Religious Superiours whose particular Iurisâ—ictions Offices are not immediately from the deuine Institution as neyther Archbishops Patriarches Primates Archdeacons Vicars c. are although the Institution of Bishops in generall be from our Sauâ—our Christ who likewise instituted Reâ—â—â—â—â—â—s state in generall So as Religious Sâ—â—â—â—â—â— ours must be of the Hierarchie 〈…〉 we will also exclude Archbisâ—â—ps Pâ—â—â—archs c. who ne no man â—oth 〈◊〉 exclude yea seeing Superioâ—â—s to 〈◊〉 ous Orders are properly Oraâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 Pastours of their subâ—ects iâ— that t◠〈◊〉 of ordinary Iurisdiction and as 〈…〉 Pastourship they are more of the Hierarchy then a Bishop only Deleâ—â—te in â—espect of that place for which 〈…〉 then Delegate Moâ—eoâ—er those Râ—lâ—gâ—oâ—â— Superiours who by their Office are immoueable and perpetuall whereby they are properly in a State and are obliged to gouerne illuminate perfect others which are acts of perfection are truly in a State of PerfectioÌ„ both to be acquired already acquired in that respect are in some particular manner degree of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy more than Secular Bishops euen Ordinaries although no doubt in other respects Bishops do farre excell them 5 That Religious Superiours as such be of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy S. Bernard cited by M. Doctour chap. 1. n. 17. to another purpose doth expresly teach while together which Primates Patriarchs Archbishops Bishops and Priests he puts Abbots in Hierarchie of the Church saying as that there in heauen the â—erâ—phâ—â—s and Cherubins Caeteri quoquâ—â—sâ—ue ad â—â—â—gelos 〈…〉 caâ— 4. Archangelos and all the rest euen to the Angels Archangels which M. Doctour translates all the rest of the Angelles and Archangels as if Seraphins and Cherubins were Angels and Archangels strictly vnderstood and as they are of distinct orders as S. Bernard heere taketh them are ordered vnder one head God so here also vpon earth vnder one cheife Bishop Primates or Patriarches Archbishops Bishops Priests or Abbots and the rest in the same manner Behold according to S. Bernard Abbots as distinct from Bishops and Priests belong to the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy yea he giueth the true reason thereof namely because all are ordered vnder one chiefâ— Bishop Christs Vicar And heere I haue reason to complaine of M. Doctours dealing in the said place for alledging S. Bernard as if he said that the Hierarchy of the Church is perturbed when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction whereas S. Bernard in the very same place which M. Doctour cites doth in expresse words approue the exemption of Abbots from Bishops and only disliketh exemption procured out of a spirit of disobedience pride and Ambition His words are Nonnulla tamen Monasteria sita in diuersis Episcopatibus quòd specialiùs pertinuerint ab ipsa sua fundatione ad SedeÌ„ Apostolicam pro volunt are fundatorum quis nesciat sed aliud est quod largitur deuotio aliud quod molitur ambitio impatiens subicetionis Neuerthelesse who can be ignorant that some Monasteries seated iâ— diuers Bishopricks haue from their very foundation particulary belonged to the Sea Apostolick according to the will of the founders But it is one thing what deuotion bestoweth and another what ambition not brooking subiection doâ—h atempt But doth M. Doctour indeede thinke that Popeâ— perturbe the Hierarchy of the Church by exempting Religious men from the IurisdictioÌ„ of Bishops or would he father on S. Bernard a thing which neither himselfe nor any good Catholick will auow Mauclerus also whom M. Doctour in his 10. chapter n. 23. stileth a learned Doctour of Sorbon Mancler de Monarchia 1. partis l. 5. cap. 5. compareth Superiours in ReligioÌ„ to the Principalities Secular Pastours inferiours to Bishops to Archangels and Priests not Curates to Angeles So that this learned Deuine not only placeth Religious Superiours in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy but also preferreth theÌ„ before Secular Pastours other Priests not Pastours as in the Celestiall Hierarchy Principalities are an Order aboue Archangels Angels But let vs now out of S. Deunys S. Thomas prooue that Religious as Religious be of the Hierarchy This I will do in that manner which M. Doctour ought to haue vsed by giuing the Definition of a Hierarchy by that to haue comprehended or excluded Religious or other persons whatsoeuer 6 S. Dennys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. defineth a Hierarchy in this manner Qui Hierarchiam dixit omnium simul sacrorum Ordinum dixit dispositionem He that names a Hierarchy names the disposition or due ranking of all sacred Orders What words are heere to exclude Religious men I am sure M. Doctour knowes well that by sacred Orders S. Dennys is farre from vnderstanding as some vnlearned person might imagine Holy Orders of Priesthood Deacon and Subdeacon But by Orders he vnderstands Professions Institutes Offices Degrees c. as before he had said Hierarchia nostra dicitur estque ratio complectens sacra omnia quae ad eam pertinent Our Hierarchy is a certaine manner comprchending all sacred things which belong to it Otherwise all in lesser Orders all Bishops Archbishops yea Popes elected but not consecrated should not belong to the Hierarchy But why should I seeke a better interpreter of S. Dennys then S. Dennys himselfe Who in his 6. chapt Titulo Contemplatio doth expressely put Monks to be one of the Orders in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy and a little after the beginning of the same Chapter he plainely saith Summus corum omnium qui initiantur perficiuntur Ordo est sanctorum Monachorum The highest of those who are initiated and perfected is the Order of holy Monks Before you heard him saying that a Hierarchy was the disposition of holy Orders and now almost word for word he saith that ReligioÌ„ is
already shewed and in a word he saith that it is Ad summam perfectionem euectus raised to the hight of perfection Innumerable more praises of Religious life I might alleadg out of the holy Fathers but by these already produced the reader cannot but rest satisfied what place Religious men do hoâ—d in the Ecclessiasticall Hierarchy Let vs returne to S. Thomas 9 In the said Question a. 8. he demandes whether Men be assumed to the Orders of Angels And his resolution is That by grace men may merit so great glory that they may be made equall to Angels according to euery degree of Angels which is as much as to say that men are assumed to the Orders of Angels If Gratia consummata Grace in his full perfectioÌ„ can place Men in the same Orders with Angels in the Celestiall Hierarchy we haue no reason to doubt but that a profession and star of life most powerfull for attaining of perfection in grace and charity of this life may suffice to place the professours thereof among the cheifest Orders of the Ecclesiâ—sticall Hierarchy which is framed to the similitude of that other in Heauen yea seing the end of the whole Hierarchy is the perfection of Charity that profession cometh neerest to the very end and scope of the whole Hierarchy which tendeth most to perfection of our soules consisting in Charity and loue of God without which it importeth nothing to be or not to be of the Hierarchy And therefore S. Paule after he had set downe the Hierarchy of the Church S. Paul 1. Cor. 12. wherein he saith God hath placed Apostles Doctours c. coÌ„cludeth Aemulamini auteÌ„ charismatameliora let your cheife endeauour be to attaine Charity and other vertues 10 What we haue labored in proouing that Religious as such truly and properly are of the Hierarchy hath not bene so much in regard of ourselues as out of Duty and Gratitude to those Pillars of Gods Church those Counselours and sole Electours of Christs Vicar those whose sacred Roabes signify their ardent charity and ready mindes freely to Sacrifice their life for the good of the vniuersall Church I meane the most Illustrious Cardinals of the holy Roman Church whoso care protecton and sage aduice next vnder God and our Supreame Pastour the Pope haue kept our Church of England in a flourishing state maugre all heate of a long continued persecution For if we restraine the Notion of a Hierarchy only to such as are endued with Order or Iurisdiction those Peeres of Gods Church must be excluded from the Churches Hierarchy noe lesse then Religious men Because the name of Cardinals as Cardinals that is as they are Counsellers and Electours of the Pope signifies neither Iurisdiction nor Order although accidentally as Priests or Bishops they may haue both as likewise Religious men may haue And although a Cardinall hath power in his Church and title yet saith M. Doctour Chap. 10. n. 19. out of Belarmine it is but like to the Iurisdiction of a Parish Priest in his Parish besides that such a power is also of it selfe separable from the dignity of Cardinall as Cardinall whose charge is the vniuersall good of the whole Church But according to the grounds we haue laied out of S. Dennys S. Thomas and reason itselfe to proue that Religious are of the Hierarchy it is euident that the most Illustrious Cardinals as Cardinals are not only of the Hierarchy but haue a most aminent place therein THE SEAVENTH QVESTION Whether by the precedent Questions we haue sufficiently answered M. Doctours Treatise for such points as eyther deserued confutation or required explication 1. I must ingenuously confesse that I haue not laboured to examine all that might haue bene discussed in M. Doctours Treatise But whether I haue sufficiently answered the points by me handled must in reason be left to the intelligent vnpartiall Readers iudgement whom I intreate to consider whether I had not iust cause in my first Question to saie that the Reasons and Authorities by M. Doctour produced for the most part proue against himselfe Wherfoâ—e in this Question for the Readers ease I will runne ouer all the Chapters of M. Doctours Treatise A suruey of M. Doctours and when any difficulty occurreth point in what Question of mine he may meete with the answere 2 His Epistle in words exhorts to Charity Epistle but how much in deeds he hath by writing this Booke preiudiced Charity the Reader will find in my first Question What he saith n. 12. that Secular Priests are by the deuine Institution gouernours of the Church I haue shewed to be a saying without all ground Question 5. The Church must be gouerned by the Cleargy I grant but I neuer heard that it must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy May not Bishops and other Pastours in Gods Church be Religious men How then is it the Deuine Institution that the Church must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy In the same Number M. Doctour saith the Seculars must honour the Regulars as helps S. Paule vseth the word Opitulations 1. Cor. 12. v 28. But he must giue vs leaue to hold that in England Regulars are no more ordained to help Secular Priests then they to help Regulars because all are Missionary Priests equally sent by the Vicar of Christ for the conuersion of soules The literall sence of S. Paul according to good Interpreters is that by Opitulations or Helpes are vnderstood those who helpe others by exercising the works of mercy towards the sicke poore distressed persons S. Th 2.2 q. 184. a. 6. ad 2. Pilgrimes c. S. Thomas applies the word Opitulations to Archdeacons in respect of the Bishop His saying n. 17 That without a Bishop English Catholiks are a stock without a Pastour a spirituall Kingdom without a spirituall King c. which similitudes through his whole Treatise he often and tediously repeates is disprooued Quest 2. where also is confuted that other Assertion of his n. 18. That without a Bishop we can be no particular Chruch and his proofe out of S. Cyprian affirming that the Church is the people vnited to the Bishop c. is clearely answered All that he hath in the same number concerning the necessity of Confirmation without which he saith we are not perfect Christians and the fall of Nouatus is answered Quest 4. 3 For his first seauen Chapters as I imbrace the Doctrine His first seauen Chapters in generall so I cannot but be sory that Articles of Faith and Deuine verities are no better imployed then to vsher a fewe Chapters writen vpon Humane designe Chapter 4. In his fourth Chapter n. 2. he writeth That an Ordinary must haue others to succeed him in the same authority without any especiall new Graunt and that in this consisteth the difference betwixt an Ordinary and a Delegate Out of these words it most euidently followeth that my Lord of Chalcedon is no Ordinary because he hath no successour in his
as I related in my 5. Question Regulars are more sit for that employment then Seculars What he saith that such Religious were not by the deuine law ordained to preach as Bishops and Priests are hath been answered in the same 5. Question where I shewed that neither Secular nor Regular Priests caÌ„n preach without authority and that Religious be as capable of such authority and Office as Seculars So as if he compare a right Secular with Religious he will in this find no difference And I may add that Regular Priests of such orders as M. Doctour mentioned in the obiection haue a particular kind of right or as I may say dispositionem proximam to such functions which secular Priests precisely by being Priests haue not For although Regular Priests of such Orders haue no actuall Iurisdiction or authority for the exercise of such Actions till they receiue it from their Superiours yet by their Institute they haue a kind of right to haue such authority graunted by their Superiours who without iust cause ought not to debarre them of that to which they haue obliged themselues by vndertaking that particular course of Religious life But Secular Priests haue no obligation to such functions vnlesse they be made Pastours and take care of soules which thousands neuer do nor haue any obligation to vndertake such a charge Of the Apostles vow of pouerty whereof n. 19. he taketh a needlesse occasion to treate by reason of an obiection which himselfe maketh I haue spoken something in my 5. Question wish that some more able would do it more at large In the end of the same number he saith that although we suppose the Apostles had bene Religious men yet Christ gaue them not power to preach c. as they were Religious but as they were Bishops and Priests so in this not the Regulars but the Seculars to wit Bishops Priests do succeed the Apostles A strange speach Because Bishops succeed the Apostles therefore not the Regulars but the Seculars succeed the Apostles as if the name of Bishop necessarily implied to be a Secular or as if Religious Bishops because they are not Secular cannot succeed the Apostles in the office of preaching c. 7 In his 10. Chap. 10. Chapter he treateth of the Dignity of Cardinals whom we Quest 6. haue shewed to be in a most eminent place of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy euen abstracting from all Power of Order or Iurisdiction 8 Here he treateth of the state of Religious men Chap. 11. and to this his Chapter answereth our 5. Question Num. 10. To proue that by loue two frindes are one soule he aleadgeth S. Augustine lib. 4. Confesse cap. 6. saying He thought himselfe halfe dead when his other halfe Nebridius was dead But euery woman that reades S. Augustines Confessions translated into English will see that M. doctour in this is much mistaken For that friend whose death S. Augustine in that place mentioneth died before the Saints owne conuersion as is cleare out of the 4. chap. of the 4. booke by M. Doctour cited whereas Nebridius was conuerted after S. Augustine as may be seene lib. 9. chap. 3. That friend died before S. Augustine went out of Africke Nebridius was with him in Italy And although this errour be not for the matter of much importance yet it sheweth how litle exact M. Doctour is in looking vpon his Authours In the 15 num he saith Some inferre that the Bishops mariage with his Church is fiâ—mer and more indissoluble then is mariage betwixt man aâ—d wifâ— which is contracted but not consummated because Matrimony conctracted only is dissolued by entrance into Religion but the mariage betwixt a Bishop and his Câ—urch cannot so be dissoâ—ued But M Doctour might heÌ„ce haue rather inferred the excellency of Religious Profession which dissolueth Matrimony only contracted which Episcopall Dignity doth not dissolue For certaine it is that the Bond of Mariage is more strict then the conctract of a Bishop with his Church that being certainely of the Deuine lawe this at least probably being only of the Churches Ordinance Daily we see Bishops leaue their Bishopricks by renounciation translation to some other Bishoprick c. But men cannot so leaue or change their wiues because the bond of mariage is more indissoluble If a Bishop elected and confirmed not in holy Orders do marry it is valid and the former contract with his Church is dissolued But if he were first married and afterward should take a Bishoprick the first bond as I said still remaineth All which are manifest arguments that the contract of Matrimony is stronger then that of the Bishop with his Church Wherfore the opinion of those â—uthors by M. Doctour not named must â—ot if we will haue it passe for good be â—nderstood absolutly as he seemeth to alâ—â—adge them but in some one particular respect namely that a Bishop cannot enter into Religion without particular leaue as maried persons may after Matrimony only contracted I say particular leaue for if we examine the matter well it wil be found that the bound of Matrimony is dissolued by Religious Profession only in vertue of the Churches Ordination and as it were by a generall dispensation thereby to testify the singular excellency of Religious State and so euen in this point there is not much difference bewixt maried persons and a Bishop who with leaue may also enter into Religion Num 16. he alleadgeth out of S. Hierom S. Hieron Ep. ad Rust Monach. Sic viue in Mâ—nasterio vt Clericus esse merearis So liue in thy mâ—â—aâ—â—eâ—y that thou mayst deserue to be a Clearke to pâ—ooue that when a Relâ—â—â—â—us man is made a Pastour he is preferred to an higher calling and to a vocation of greater perfection But by M. Doctours good leaue I find a man whom I must prefer before him bring a far different explication of S. Hieroms words S. Tho. 2.2 q. 184. a. 8. ad 4. For S. Thomas interprets those words as exhorting lay Religious men so to liue as they may deserue to be made Clearkes and noe doubt but Religious men being promoted to Orders are in a more perfect calling then Religious men who haue no such Orders and this interpretation saith S. Thomas is apparent by the very manner of speaking vsed by S. Hierom. And it is worth the noting that S. Thomas obiecteth against himselfe the said words of S. Hierom answereth them in the manner we haue seene in that very place where of set purpose he teacheth and prooueth that Religious Priests haue a more perfect calling then Secular Pastours So as M. Doctour both in the Assertion and in his Proofe expresly and directly opposeth S. Thomas whom yet he stiles the Prince of Deuines Vtri credendum Whom shall we beleiue S. Thomas or M. Doctour 9 For as much as may seeme doubtfull in his 12. chapt hath bene examined Quest 2. and 3. Particularly in my 2. Question his allegation and
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
my Lord in that particular challenged an authority not due he might in some occasion practise a Right granted as due Finally if such Authority be not practizable why should it be pretended especially with so great feare and offence of many worthy Catholicks Rather the very pretending it will put men in feare that something else is intended beside a bare power neuer to be practised But as I sayd my meaning is not to meddle with my Lords Authority further theÌ„ is necessary for Discussion of some propositions deliuered by M. Doctour concerning that point 14 Num. 11. He endeauours to prooue that Religious neede not feare least my L. Bishop incroach vpon their Priuiledges and that although there be some difference betwixt him and them concerning approbation yet they neede not feare their other Priuiledges as if their other Priuiledges were more priuiledged then this or had power to hinder men from making whatsoeuer clayme against them Rather by what hath bene attempted in one we may coniecture what may befall the other Num. 12. He sayth there are no other lawes against a Bishop then are already enacted and in force against Priests and Religious What the lay gentlemen who are skilfull in the moderne and antient lawes of England iudge of the particular danger to which they might be hable if they should accept my Lord as Ordinary M. Doctour will finde in their sayd letter That which more properly belongs to me is that although there were in this the same reason of a Bishop and Priests yet the necessity of hauing Priests and a Bishop is not alike Without the one we cannot haue remission of our sinnes the holy Sacrifice of the Masse the blessed Sacrament of the Aultar c. Without the other we may haue all things euen the Sacrament of Confirmation for as for ordaining Priests in England it is neither needfull nor for any thing I know practised by my Lord of Chalcedon 15 And thus hauing set downe some few of those many things which might haue bene obserued in M. Doctours Treatise I will make an end if first I haue sincerly told the reader what was my wish when I vndertooke this Discussion and what at this present my harty desire is I hope in God for euer shall be My wish at the first was That rather then I should vtter any thing in diminution of Charity in disparagement of sacred Episcopall Dignity in preiudice of the common good of Catholicks Almighty God would forbid my penne to cast inke and if that were not enough benumbe my right hand as it happened to the Emperour Valens while he was penning a Decree to banish that holy Monk and Bishop S. Basil the Great out of his Church My present desire is that howsoeuer Regulars may by some be esteemed to oppose for their own ends the hauing a Bishop in englaÌ„d or some authority by him chaleÌ„ged yet in testimony of the contrary I who acknowledg my selfe of all others the most imperfect am not so insensible of the good of soules but that I would most willingly spend my bloud for the purchasing of times sutable with the enioying of a Catholick Bishop in England endued with as much Authority as any particular Bishop in the whole Church of God And vpon this happy condition I cordially wish that the last moment of writing these lines might prooue the longest tearme of my life FINIS Faults escaped in the printing Page Line Fault Correction 22 6 Diocesses Diocesse 44 1 he doth wronge he wronge 64 1 reason reasons 95 24 meanes measure ibid 25 measure meanes 110 1 sayd truely said this truly 123 15 as man a man 131 17 Relious Religious 151 Add in the margent ouer against the word S. Hierome this Note Ep. 22. de Custod virg ad Eustoch  Â