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
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
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
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