were not composed of particular Churches and Bishops Which it may be and was in other particular Churches when England wanted a Bishop and should still be so although as God forbidde England were quite cutte of from the whole Church and had not one Catholike in it 35. Hauing thus demonstrated M. Doctours doctrine which auerred that a people Prouince or Countrie cānot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop and consequentlie that all the time England wanted a Bishop it was not a particular Church and hauing also detected in M. Nicholas wilfull or ignorāt mistakings which commonly are the groūds of all his arguments hauing answered to all his arguments I will go to the next question if first I adde this that seing that England when it had no particular Bishop was no particular Church M. Nicholas and his brethren out of the loue they ought to beare to their countrie should labour with the Clergie that we may alwayes haue a Bishop or Bishops by whome we may haue the honour to be a particular Church and enioy many other comforts and commodities which other countries enioye by their Bishops which to English Catholikes seeme most necessarie by reason of their persecution THE THIRD QVESTION VVhether by the diuine law euerie particular Church must haue its Bishop MAISTER NICHOLAS TO proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter alledgeth that it is De Iure diuino of the diuine lawe to haue a particular Bishop in euerie particular Church and for proofe he citeth Sotus affirming it to be of the diuine lawe c. and Bannes teaching c. n. 1. THE REPLY 1. I Confesse M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter auerreth that a particular Countrie cannot except against a Bishop sent by lawfull authoritie one grounde there of is because by the diuine law institution not onlie the whole and vniuersall Church must haue an vniuersall and supreme Bishop but also there must be in the whole Church diuers particular Churches gouerned by particular Bishops euen in time of persecutiō as he hath prooued in his 13. Chapter And this also he proueth in the beginning of his 14. Chapter n. 1. Yea M. Nicholas num 4. saieth that certaine it is that Iure diuino by the diuine lawe the Church must be gouerned by Bishops that is in the whole Church there must be some Bishops but to affirme that it is De iure diuino to haue a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England and not onelie that there is such a precept but moreouer that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof or giue sufficient cause of dispensation all which he must proue if be will speake home is a paradox 2. But softe M. Nicholas bona verba quaeso Remember your ould fault of which you haue beene so often tould By your leaue you make M. Doctour to say more then he doth that he may seeme to speake Paradoxes and you may haue more aduantage For M. Doctour in the same Chapter num 3. which M. Nicholas would not see graunteth that if the persecution be so great that a Bishop would not be permitted to enter into England or would presentlie be taken and put to death then it was to no purpose to send a Bishop with euident hazard of his life and no hope of good to the people by sending him and so in that case the obligation of hauing a Bishop should cease But sayeth M. Doctour in the same place If a Bishop may be bad and may so liue in a Countrie as he may in England that as there is feare least he be apprehended so there is hope he may escape sometime and so do some notable good I do not thinke that the Catholikes of that Countrie can except against his entrance 3. Nor doth M. Doctour denie that the Pope may dispense in the diuine lawe or declare that in some cases it ceaseth to oblige yea he speaketh not at all of dispensation in the diuine lawe Yet M. Doctour knoweth that the chiefe Pastour may dispense in vowes and in Matrimonie contracted onelie not consummated which yet are of the diuine lawe 4. And he knoweth also the diuine lawes in many circunstances do not oblige As for example euerie one is bound by the diuine lawe to receaue the B. Sacrament at the hower of his death least he aduenture on that so dangerous iorney from this life to the next without his Viaticum and yet though a Priest be present if he haue not holie vestements without which the Church commandeth not to celebrate Masse he must not say Masse because he cannot say it in that manner as he should and the sicke person is in that occurance of the ecclesiasticall law freed from diuine obligation to communicate 5. So that Priest by the diuine law is bound not to giue the B. Sacrament to any whome he koweth to be in mortall sinne and so vnworthie and yet if this partie be a secret sinner though knowne to the Priest and demaund of the Priest in publike to communicate he is bound to communicate him least he defame him and the diuine lawe which forbiddeth the Priest to giue the B. Sacrament to vnworthie Persons according to that do you not giue the holie to dogges Mat. 7. doth in that case cease to oblige the Priest 6. Soe it is a common opinion of deuines whome Vasquez alledgeth Vasq tom 3. disp 207. c. 4. 1. Cor. 11. Conc. Trid. Sess 13 cap. 7. that by the diuinelaw whosoeuer is in mortall sinne must confesse that sinne before he presume to receaue the B. Sacrament which they proue out of those words of S. Paul But let a man proue himselfe and so let him cate of the breade and drinke of the Chalice which probation of ones selfe the Councell of Trent defineth to be by Confession and yet if the Priest at Masse or the lay partie that is in companie kneeling before the altar remember at that time his sinne he may communicate if by omitting to do so he should defame himselfe And so in that case also the diuine lawe ceaseth to bind to confession and it will excuse him from the sinne of vnworthie receauing if he endeauour to get contrition 7. And Nauarre feareth not to say Nanar in Silma c. 27 n. 263. that it is Omnium vna conclusio c. it is a conclusion of all that many lawes agreeing to many by the diuine and naturall lawe are restrained by the chiefe Prince 〈◊〉 the Church in regard of spirituall things and of the secular Prince in respect of temporall matters as well by interpretation betwixt right and equitie interposed as by imposition of punishment as by inst dispensation as by iust and naturallreason and Felinus Decius and others do copiouslie deliuer 8. Wherefore M. Doctour doth not say that the Pope cannot in some cases dispense in the diuine lawe of hauing a Bishop or declare that in
is not materiall for that according to Sotus the diuine law stillis generall commanding in generall that all Dioceses diuided by the Church be they more or fewer of greater or lesse extent each must haue its Bishop in it 19. So our B. Sauiour hauing instituted in generall that vnder euerie host rightlie consecrated there shall infalliblie be his sacred bodie be the host consecrated diuided into many or fewe greate or small partes which determination depēdeth of man as the diuision of Dioceses dependeth of the Church the bodie of Christ is in each of them by vertue of the consecration And that this is the meaning and scope of Sotus may appeare by these words of Sotus himselfe Nunquid propterea quod per Ministrum Dei illa factà fuerit applicatio continuo fit consequens non fuisse diuinam Doth it therefore follow that it is not the diuine Institution that euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop because that application of a particular Bishop to a particular Diocese was made by the minister of God Out of which M. Doctour may inferre against M. Nicholas that in the opiniō of Sotus according to the diuine lawe euerie Diocese must haue its Bishop and M. Nicholas can inferre nothing against but rather for M. Doctour to witte that at lest by the diuine law euerie notable parte of the Church as England France c. must haue its Bishop 20. To this M. Nicholas answereth n. 10. that Sotus his meaning is not that the Pope is obliged by the diuine law to giue particular Bishops to euerie particular Diocese but onelie that when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and giue him charge of some particular Diocese in such cases he doth a particular action which in generall was instituted and commaunded by our Sauiour Christ who ordained in generall that in the whole Church there should alwayes be some Bishops This M. Nicholas confirmeth by Sotus his owne words in the same place where he sayeth Dum Dei minister c. Whilest the minister of God by his command dispenseth that which he God instituted the action is to be esteemed of the diuine law but when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and apply him to some Church he executeth that which Christ in generall Marke did institute and which he commanded them to do therefore such an action ought to be sayed of the diuine law Whence M. Nicholas sayeth it is plaine against M. Doctour that Sotus speaketh of the Institution of Christ onely in generall 21. But M. Nicholas goeth about to deceiue men in generalities when he biddes vs Marke that Sotus sayeth that Christ onely instituted and cōmaunded in generall that there should be Bishops For that this may haue two meanings the one that Christ instituted and communded onely in generall that there should be Bishops in the Church and this is M. Nicholas his interpretation The other that Christ in generall instituted and commanded that not onely in generall there should be Bishops in the Church but also that euerie particular Church or Diocese after the diuision of Dioceses made should haue its Bishop and this is Sotus his meaning as I haue shewed out of his words aboue alledged and as may appeare euen by his last words cited by M. Nicholas for Sotus sayeth there that when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and apply him to some Church he executeth that which Christ commanded in generall to do that is to confirme and consecrate and apply a Bishop to the Church ouer which he giueth him charge And Sotus in the former place alledged by M. Doctour sayeth not onely that there must in generall by the diuine law be Bishops in the Church Sotus supra l 10. q. q. 1. ar 4. but also that it is of the diuine law that in generall to euery particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision their proper Bishops are to be applyed 22. Sotus l. 10 de Iust iure q 3 ar 4. That this is Sotus his opinion it may appeare also by other places as where he sayeth Cum enim ius diuinum sit vt vnicuique suus mancipetur Episcopus idgue vt demonstratum est propter peculiarem curam vigilantiam quae eidem Ecclesiae est necessaria c. For seing that it is the diuine law that to euerie Diocese it s owne Bishops should be mancipated or bound he sayeth not onely that in generall there must by the diuine law be some Bishops in the Church but also that by the diuine law to euerie Diocese it s owne Bishop must be bound and mancipated and then he giueth the reason Sot in 4 dist 20 q 1. art 5 Concl. 1. for the peculiar care and vigilancie which is necessarie to that Church And in another place he giueth also the reason why the Pope onely is not sufficient to gouerne the whole Church without Bishops nor a Bishop the whole Diocese without Pastours Si autem aliorum rationem desideres haec est egregia quod officium Pastoris est ad salutem gregis oculatè attendere supremus autem Ecclesiae Pastor non sufficit toti Ecclesiae prospicere nisi singulis Dioecesibus Episcopos praeficiat neque Episcopus toti Dioecesi nisi parochijs parochiales Sacerdotes praeponat But if thou desire the reason of others this is a notable reason because the office of a Pastour is to attend with a vigilant eye to the safetie of the flocke but the supreme Pastour is not sufficient to looke to the whole Church vnlesse he ordaine to each Diocese a Bishop and vnlesse the Bishop constitute Parish Priests to the Parochiall Churches So that seing the Pope is bound by the diuine law to haue care of the whole Church and that according to Sotus he cannot looke sufficiently to the Church vnlesse he appoint to eche Diocese a Bishop it followeth in Sotus his opinion that by the diuine law he is bound to giue euerie Diocese his Bishop as the Bishop is bound to giue to euerie Parish its Pastour 23. But M. Nicholas n. 10. sayeth that Sotus also sayeth that sacramentall absolution and the like are to be esteemed of the diuine law and yet it were a madnesse out of these words to inferre that the minister is bound by the diuine law to administer Sacraments I answer that the Sacraments are of the diuine law though men dispense them and so according to Sotus that euerie Church should haue its Bishop it is of the diuine law though the Pope elect him This is the Scope of Sotus as appeareth by these words Nunquid propterea quod per ministerium Dei c. Is it therefore any consequence that the application is not diuine because it was done by the Minister of God And M. Nicholas out of this cannot inferre any thing for his purpose 24. Now whether all this which Sotus saieth be true or no M. Doctour did not examine he intending onely to shew that his owne
they be notable partes of the Church all hauing the like necessitie and there being the same reason of one which is of another And so M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter n. 2. pag. 376. argueth well from the like necessitie in this manner By the diuine law there must be particular Bishops in the Church to supply the necessities of particular Churches but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France for he speaketh especiallie of greate particular Churches which are notable partes of the whole Church should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops more or fewer according to the extent of the Countrie rather then the Church of Spaine or the Church of England Ergo France Spaine and England and all other such particular Churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops and euerie one by his owne all hauing the like necessitie 29. M. Nicholas numer 12. wondreth that a learned man should vse such a forme of argument and therefore to make a shew against this argument of M. Doctour be bringeth other arguments verie ridiculous which though they may seeme to the ignorante to be like yet indeed are not so like as chalke and cheise His first argument of diuers meates doth argue that hee was hungrie for wāt of arguments else he would not haue made vse of one so weake and leane Thus he argueth Some meate is necessarie for the maintenance of man but there is no more reason why egges or fish should be necessarie rather then other particular meates Ergo egges fish and all meates are necessarie 30. But I meruaile that M. Nicholas if he be learned could not see the difference betwixt his owne and M. Doctours argument For that hee arargueth from the necessitie of some indeterminate meanes to the necessitie of some determinate meanes Maister Doctour argueth from like ends to the like necessarie meanes The first manner of arguing which Maister Nicholas vseth is ridiculous For it followeth not Meate which is an indeterminate meane is necessarie for mans life Ergo this meate Bishops are necessarie in the Church Ergo this Bishop in particular Marriage of some men is necessarie to maintaine lawfullie mankind Ergo this man must marrie M. Doctours manner of arguing is good and solid for that it is grounded in paritie and equalitie of reason Lib. 1. Post or c. 4. 5. or in this principle knowne by the light of reason Quod conuenit alicui quâtale conuenit omni tali that which agreeth to a thing as it is such a thing agreeth to euerie such thing as for example sayeth Aristotele because it agreeth to a Triangle as it is a Triangle to haue three angles equall to two right angles it agreeth to euerie Triangle to haue three angles equall to two right angles but because it agreeth not to a triangle as it is a triangle to be of brasse euerie triangle is not of brasse And so because it is necessarie to a notable parte of the Church as it is a notable parte to haue a Bishop and that also by the diuine law because one Bishop cannot serue sufficientlie two notable partes of the Church euerie notable parte must haue its Bishop And there being the same reason of England Frāce Spaine euerie one of these countries being of such extent that one Bishop cannot serue two of them euerie one of them must haue its Bishop by paritie of reason and for that it being necessarie to a Church to haue a Bishop because it is a notable parte euerie such notable part must haue a Bishop Because quod conuenit alicui quâ tale conuenit omnitali that which agreeth to a thing as it is such a thing agreeth to euerie such thing And if it be necessarie to one it is necessarie to another 31. If M. Nicholas his argument had beene thus framed it had beene good Meate or food in generall is necessarie to mās life but there is nomore reason of one man then another for that all mortall men do need meate or food Ergo meate or food is necessarie ot euerie mās life but this food in particular as egges or fish is not necessarie 32. M. Nicholas his second argument is as ridiculous for that by it he argueth from an indeterminate meane to wit from men whoe are necessarie to maintaine by marriage mankinde to euerie particular man Which kinde of argument is not the same with that of M. Doctour but as fond as this A shippe indeterminatelie is necessarie to passe from Douer to Calais Ergo euerie particular shippe 33. His thirde argument is of the same or of a worse forme and stampe Religious institute in generall is of the diuine iustitution and the Supreme Bishop is by his office obliged on his parte to procure that in the Catholike Church so sacred an institute be maintained but there is no reason why it should be be maintained rather in France or Spaine then in England Ergo the Pope is obliged to maintaine the religious institute in England To his maior or first proposition I answere that religious orders can be no more norso much necessarie in the Church I. 2. q. 108. ar 4. then the Counsailes in which according to S. Thomas they are grounded which counsailes are instituted by Christe but as M. Doctour saieth in his Hierarthie pag. 300. they are not commanded to anie but counsailed onely And so M. Nicholas cannot fynde out a diuine precept to oblige the Pope to admitte any religious order as he is bound to giue Bishops to the Church and hence it is that the Pope doth much deliberate before he admitte of any new Religious order and whē he admitteth it he admitteth it onely as profitable to the Church not as necessarie by any diuine law 34. But suppose it were of the diuine law that religious orders indeterminatelie and in generall should be in the Church yet no Religious order is necessarie by the diuine law in euerie notable part of the Church as Bishops are And so it would not be a good argument Religious orders must by the diuine institution be in the Church Ergo in Englād or in this or in that particular Coutrie But as I haue proued it is of the diuine law that in euerie notable parte of the Church there must be a Bishop and so there being no more reason of one such parte then another all such partes must haue their Bishops This I suppose would be M. Doctours answer to that argument Now let M. Nicholas make what he can of this answere Who verie politikelie perhappes as he thought saied n. 13. pag. 50. When M. Doctour shall tell me what he 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 35. And by this M. Nicholas his fourth argument will proue to haue the same fault that the others had It is not of the diuine law as M. Doctour confesseth to haue a Bishop in
actuall member of the Church So though one might get more grace by other workes then by Confirmation yet he should be no more Sacramentallie and by character a perfect Christian then a Cathecumen vnbaptized should be a Christian and so although as M. Nicholas sayeth n. S. Tho. 2 2 q. 184. ar 3. ad 3. 4. out of S. Thomas by obseruing the counsailes as religious men do a man may haue greater perfection then other Christians haue yet that will not make him a perfect Christian in S. Thomas his meaning For as a man may haue as much strength and skill in fencing and fighting as the best soldiour yet till he be admitted and doth receaue his militarie liuerie hee is not a soldiour by profession So a Christian may peraduenture haue as much grace as one that is confirmed but till he be confirmed he shall not be an enroulled spirituall soldiour nor a perfect Christian 10. And although a man may haue grace without this Sacrament to professe his faith and to suffer death for it as many in England not coÌ„firmed haue done and as M. Doctour graunteth in his Epistle dedicatorie n. 18. and in his booke pagin 384. n. 7. Yet that grace was merelie gratuitely and freelie bestowed and is not so infalliblie giueÌ„ without Confirmation as by it because to the confirmed that grace is due by reason of the Sacrament and Character which they haue receiued God by promise and couenant obliging himselfe to giue the speciall grace of the Sacrament to them that receaue it And they that write against this Sacrament or they that neglect it when they may haue it without any imminent or certaine daunger for I do not heare that any haue beene particularlie persecuted for hauing beene confirmed though thousands haue beene coÌ„firmed may feare lest they may be denyed this speciall grace as neglecting the ordinarie meanes to get it which is Confirmation To that he sayeth n. 3.4.5 he may gather his answere by what is sayed To that he alledgeth n. 7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14 he is partelie answered partelie shal be anone For M. Doctour sayeth onely that a Countrie for feare of persecution cannot except against a Bishop or Confirmation Whereas M. Nicholas would make M. Doctour say that euery particular man is bouÌ„d to suffer persecution rather then not admit a Bishop or Confirmation and M. Doctour by a Bishop meaneth him who hath Episcopall authoritie to giue Confirmation M. Nicholas would haue him meane an Ordinarie though I know M. Nicholas for his parte desireth no Ordinarie M. NICHOLAS Then he alledgeth S. Clement ep 4. saying omnibus ergo festinandum est sine mora renasci Deo demum consignariab Episcopo c. but first M. Doctour should not haue grounded so hard a doctrine vpon an Epistle which I suppose he knoweth not to be so authenticall c. n. 15. 16. THE REPLY S. Clements Testimonie that without Confirmation one is not a perfect Christian is defended and M. Nicholas his answeres plainely refuted 11. M. Nicholas sayeth M. Doctour should not haue grounded so hard a doctrine vpon an Epistle not so authenticall as thereon to settle a doctrinall pointe as he may see in Bellarmine Sel. de Script Eccl. I note heare first that M. Nicholas counteth it an hard doctrine to say that one is not a perfect Christian without Confirmation S. Tho. 3 p q. 65. ar z. Vrban ep decretali And yet S. Thomas as we haue seene S. Clement already alledged S. Vrban S. Cyprian and other Fathers yea and Diuines whome I shall adde after S. Clement do affirme and heretikes onely deny it with whome M. Nicholas ioyneth in this point 11. Cal. l 9 Instit c. 19 n. 9. Let vs heare Caluin speake These are his words Addunt praeterea fideles omnes Spiritum sanctum per manuum impositionem accipere debere post Baptismum vt pleni Christiani inueniantur They Catholikes adde also that all the faithfull must receiue the holie Ghost by imposition of hands after Baptisme that they may be found full Christians which Caluin in his next words condemneth with M. Nicholas who sayeth it is an hard doctrine And Bellarmin To. 2. l. 2. de effectu Sacramentorum cap. 29. sayeth that S. Cyprian l. 2. ep 1. S. Cornelius Pope ep ad Fabianum apud Eusebium l. 6 hist c. 53 feare not to say that they are not fullie sanctified nor perfect Christians who want the Sacrament of Chrisme although Caluin and Kemnitius call this word an ould calumnie But see how disaffection can transporte euen a Catholike and a Religious man Because for sooth he would haue no Bishop in England he would not haue ConfirmatioÌ„ necessarie to make a perfect Church or perfect ChristiaÌ„s and therefore sayeth against the ancient Fathers and all diuines euen Iesuites that treate of this matter that a man may be a perfect Christian without Confirmation yea that it is an hard doctrine to say that without Confirmation wee cannot be perfect Christians He vrgeth censures against M. Doctour where no censure but good can be giuen as I partlie haue and partlie shall she we But if this M. Nicholas his proposition It is an hard doctrine to saye that without confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians were proposed to superiours I feare it would be hardly censured it being against ancient Fathers and the common opinion of Diuines and onely being applauded by Caluin and other heretikes who because they deney CoÌ„firmation caÌ„not abide to heare what the Fathers say to wit that it perfecteth Baptisme and maketh vs perfect Christians And therefore Caluin saieth lib. 4. Inst c. 19. n. 8. Adeò nihil eos pudet vt negent Baptismum ritè sine Confirmatione perficiposse They are so shamelesse as that they deney Baptisme to be rightlie perfected without Confirmation These Fathers and diuines I shall alledge after S. Clement 12. Secondlie here I obserue M. Nicholas his boldenesse in daring to reiect S. Clements epistles and in particular the 4. Epistle alledged by M. Doctour it being alledged to proue Confirmation a Sacrament by Coccius tom 2. lib. 3. ar 20. Cocc Suarez Conin Bellar. Estius Cateâ—â— Baius Valontia Suarez 3. p. tom 3 disp 32. art 1. Conincke 3. p. qu. 72. art 1. Bellarmin l. 1. de Confirm c. 3. Est in 4. d. 7. § 13. the Catechisme ad Parochos Confirm Sacram. Baius l. 2. de Instit c. 6. Valentia in Controu lib. de numero Sacramentorum cap. 1. obiecteth against decretall Epistles as M. Nicholas doth against S. Clements epistles which are parte of them illas epistolas decretales PoÌ„tificum esse suppositias that these decretall Epistles of the Popes are CouÌ„terfaite Gregorie of ValeÌ„tia a Iesuite answereth Sed defensionem earum Epistolarum suscepit Franciscus Turrianus in lib. quem pro illis aduersus Magdeburgenses CeÌ„turiatores eruditissimè conscripsit qui hactenus illi non responderunt neque satis vnquam respondere poterunt But a defense of those