sonne case it bindeth not and therefore did not persume to say that the Pope all this whlie he gaue not England a Bishop did commit a sinne against the diuine law rather he defendeth him from all sinnein his 14. chapter n. 3. Onelie he saieth that the CouÌ„trie cannot except against the entraÌ„ce of a Bishop soe he be sent by lawfull authoritie as our two last most Reuerend Bishops were for that then the Pope rather declareth that the diuine lawe ceaseth not to oblige and therefore let our Regulars looke how they can be excused who except against a Bishop whome the Pope hath sent and who no doubt was informed of all circumstances and therefore knew whether it were conuenient to send him at that time or not And truelie seing the Pope hath sent him all Regulars and they especiallie who haue bouÌ„d themselues particularlie to the Pope by a fourth vowe should by a perfect resignation conforme their willes to his will receiue and embrace his Bishop with all obedience and humilitie M. NICHOLAS SMITH But although we should graunt that as M. Doctour affirmeth a great or notable parte of the Church could not Iure diuino be gouerned without a Bishop yet that would be farre from proouing that England as thinges now stand must needs haue a Bishop For if our Countrie be considered not materiallie but formallie as diuines expresse themselues that is not the extent of Land c. n. 7. THE REPLY Supposing it be of the diuine law that a greate or notable parte of the Church could not be without a Bishop whether England as things now stand must needs haue a Bishop 9. M. Nicholas saieth first that although we should suppose that a notable part cannot be without a Bishop yet England see how fauorable he is to his countrie might spare a Bishop or at lest must not needs haue one And why M. Nicholas because sayeth he we must not consider the extent of the land but the number of Catholikes in England which as he telleth vs is so farre from a great or notable parte of the Church that the Catholikes in England would scarce make one Bishopricke or Diocese And saieth he to affirme that one Diocese or Cittie is a notable parte of the Church is a thing which noe diuine yea no man of Iudgement will say But by this wee may see into what absurdities partialitie may lead men 10. See how to hinder English Catholikes from a Bishop what an handfull of people he maketh them The Ancient Fathers and writers as Iustinus Martyr Tertullian S. Leo cited by M. Doctour in his Epistles Dedicatories to his Suruey and Hierarchie gloried in the encrease of Christians maugre the furie of persecution and M. Doctour in the same Epistles comforteth and encourageth the Catholikes of England that notwithstaÌ„ding the like rage of persecutioÌ„ there are Catholikes in the Court in the Vniuersities Cities Townes Cottages prisons are fouÌ„d amidst the Magistrates yea Ministers if we regard their hartes and amongst all sortes of people And this is a comfort to Catholikes a glorie to God and an honour to Chuste his Church and Religion for which Catholikes suffer But M. Nicholas to hinder England from a Bishop who seemeth to be an eye sore vnto him maketh English Catholikes an handfull of men a litle and as it were a contemptible number not worthie a Bishop But thankes be God who hath the more multiplied English Catholikes Exod. 1. the more with the Israelites they haue beene oppressed they are not so few Deut. 12. as M. Nicholas maketh them and in this Inimicinostri sunt Iudices Our enemies our persecutors may herein be Iudges 11. But if they were not so many as they be yet Confirmation and consequentlie a Bishop especiallie in time of persecution were necessarie to confirme them virtute exalto with vertue of the holy Ghost from aboue which vertue and force Luca. 24. is the effect of Confirmation Neither is the case of England and of one particular Diocese annearing and ioyning to others all one For that one Diocese may be helped by another adioyning to it or by recourse to the Bishop of it if there shal be heed whereas England as the Poët sayeth is Deuided by Sea from the whole world and cannot haue conuenient succour but by its owne Bishop with in it selfe 12. And againe M. Nicholas sayeth not truely that the multitude of Catholikes not the extent of the place is onelie to be considered Dist â—o cap. In illis vere ciuitatibus Suarez to 3. l. 1 destatu perf c. â— 17. n. 5 for in the primatiue Church as S. Clement in his Epistle to S. Tames called the brother of our Lord or as diuers thinke to S. Simeon S. Iames his successour which is alledged in the Canonlaw and by Suarez and other diuines sayeth that in the primatiue Church in those Cities which before their conuersion were esteemed Capitall Cities and were gouerned by Archflamines primates and Patriarches were constituted and in lesser cities which had before their conuersion lesser Flamines Archbishops were placed and in other lesser Cities one onelie Bishop in one Citie not two in one were appointed And Pope Auaclete Anacl ep 3 refert d 90. c. Episcopi alledging out of S. Clement whome he calleth his predecessour the same words in effect sayeth that this was done by S. Peter and S. Clement and himselfe ORDINANTE DOMINO Our Lord so ordaining And the same S. Anaclete as M. Doctour had alledged in the fift Chapter of his Hierarchie n. 11. in the same third Epistle hath these words Episcopi autem non in castellis aut modicis Ciuitatibus debent constitui sed presbyteriper castella aut modicas ciuitates atque villas debent ab Episcopis constitui Bishops not in castels or litle walled townes must be constituted but Priests must by the Bishop be placed in Castels or litle Cities And he giueth the reason Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi lest the name of a Bishop should be lesse esteemed 13. Soe that a regard was had whatsoeuer M. Nicholas saieth to the extent of the place where a Bishop was to be placed and not onelie to the number of Christian Catholikes there liuing When S. Peter chose Rome the Heade Citie of the Empire for himselfe and his successours wheÌ„ S. Marke was placed at Alexandria S. Euodius and after him S. Ignatius at Antioche and S. Iames and after him S. Simeon at Hierusalem they had respect to the materiall greatenesse and the dignitie of the place in such places appointed Patriarches or primates who had vnder them other Bishops because the extent of the place required it And although at first in some of these Citties there were not so many ChristiaÌ„s as were afterward in one Diocese Yet they perceiuing that in these great Cities and extentes of place there might be many more ChristiaÌ„s which might be encreased by the presence and industrie of their Prelate they
this vniuersall and ample Church pleadeth for one Ordinarie or Delegate Bishop one Bishop being not sufficient to serue diuers great partes thereof as aboue is declared 38. By this sayeth M. Nicholas num 17. is answered a demaund of M. Doctour Chapter 14. V V by the Pope and Bishops in the primatiue Church were so diligent in consecrating Bishops yea and making Popes in the midst of persecution but that they thought it was the diuine law that euerie great Church should haue its Bishop M. Nicholas answereth that the reason was because in those times euerie Countrie needed its owne Bishop to ordaine Priests c. And why might not Priests then haue beene sent out of one countrie into another as well as now Was anie one countrie so farre distant from all Catholike coūtries or Churches as none could send Priests vnto them as now they do from Rome Spaine Flāders and other places into England And is not England separated from the whole worlde more thē many of those countries Did not Apostolicall men then go further and do they not now also MAISTER NICHOLAS In the numbers 19.20.21.22.23 he examineth the Examples of the Africans alledged by M. Doctour Chap. 13. n. 7.8 and he saieth examples proue litle vnlesse we were sure of all circumstances THE REPLY Why these examples were alledged by M. Doctour and what they proue 39. M. Doctour brought these examples as he doth professe in his 13. Chapter num 7. to shewe their zele and great desire to haue a Bishop notwithstanding persecution and so M. Nicholas may let them stand as they will to all posteritie If all English Catholikes and especiallie some Regular Catholikes and their adherentes had imitated this zele those oppositions against a Bishop sent by lawfull and highest authoritie would neuer haue beene but rather we should haue allioyned vnanimouslie for the procuring of a Bishop not for priuate interests of which M. Nicholas though he inculcate it sometimes had as much need to take heed of as Secular Priests who cōsidering the times haue litle reason to desire such an office for humane respects to which many labours and daungers no wordly splendour or riches are now annexed but for the good of our countrie the comfort of Catholikes the saluation of soules the honour of our Church of England and the greater glorie of God Yet these examples of those zelous African Catholikes proue also something For why should they so crye for a Bishop but that they knew it was the diuine Institution that the Church in all times should be gouerned by Bishops Victor Vticēs l. 2. de persec .. Vādal but that they reaped great comforte and had much direction in persecution by his presence and great strength by the grace of Confirmation which for twentie fower yeares they had wanted they hauing had all that time no Bishop 40. And thus M. Nicholas his third question being fullie answered though he peraduenture not satisfied M. Doctours position of the necessitie of a Bishop in euerie notable parte of the Church proued and all M. Nicholas hath beene able to say disproued I will make an end of this question THE FOVRTH QVESTION VVhether a countrie although the persecution should be encreased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were onely for the Sacrament of Confirmation MAISTER NICHOLAS FIRST we protest that by Gods holy assistance we do and euer will reuerence the Sacrament of Confirmation c. but to put vpon mennes Consciences so strict an obligation not withstanding whatsoeuer persecution c num 1. THE REPLIE M. Nicholas changeth the Question 1. M. DOCTOVR onely affirmeth that as although no man in particular be bound to receiue a Priest if thereby he should hazard lands libertie or life Yet no countrie can except against the comming in of Priests for feare of persecution in generall because the losse of preaching and Sacraments c. is such a spirituall domage to a whole countrie that it should rather hazard persecution then refuse Priests though none in particular be bound with such temporall losse to receiue a priest his priuate spirituall losse being not cōparable to the spirituall losse which a whole countrie should receiue by want of Priests So M. Doctour sayeth also that although no man in particular be bound to receiue a Bishop into his house or Confirmation of him with any notable temporallosse Yet neither a whole countrie nor any of the countrie can except against the comming in of a Bishop by reason that the spirituall losse which it should sustaine by want of him for that the Countrie should not be a particular Church nor the Catholikes could be perfect Christians nor could they haue so infalliblie the grace of Cōfirmation giuen to that purpose that men may haue force thereby to stand constantly to the profession of their faith nor should they haue the example and encouragement of the Bishop who in that case vseth to put life into his subiectes 2. M. Nicholas changeth the state of the question and imposeth on M. Doctour as though he sayed that euerie Catholike in particular is bound to hazard all for the Bishop and Confirmation 3. That M. Doctour speaketh onely in generall may appeare by those his words which he hath Chapter 14. numer 3. 4. 8. and also by the words which out of Maister Doctour Maister Nicholas himselfe alledgeth q. 4. num 12. Where M. Doctour sayeth I am of opinion which I humblie submitte to authoritie that this particular Church of England France Spaine and such like of which notable partes he before spoake n. 2. cannot except any long tyme against a Bishop Againe M. Doctour sayeth in the same Chapter nu 8. But howsoeuer although euerie man in particular cannot be condemned of sinne for omitting confirmation for feare of losse of his life lands or libertie yet I thinke c. Which words M. Nicholas alledgeth out of M. Doctour p. 85. 4. And yet that M. Nicholas in the beginning of this 4. question chargeth M. Doctour as though he had sayed that euerie one in particular is to hazard temporall losses rather then to omit confirmatiō appeareth because he exaggerateth this as if he had put vpon mens consciences so strict an obligation notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution c. And againe pag 83. endeauouring to answere a place alledged out of S. Clement he sayeth our case is When Confirmatiō cannot be had without hazard of goods libertie life as though M. Doctour had sayed that one in particular is to hazard such losse rather then omit Confirmation 5. But M. Doctour speaketh in generall and if because in particular no man is bound to hazard any notable temporall losse for the Bishop or Confirmation he may inferre that the countrie may except against the Bishop and that Sacrament by the like reason it may be inferred that because no man is bound to receiue a priest secular or regular into his house or to receiue any Sacrament of him
his cogitation preferre thee before him self and againe vvhilest thou seest that he hath vvhat thou hast not thou mayst in cogitation ranke thy selfe after him that vvhat is vvritten moy be fulfilled Superiores sibi inuicem arbitrantes Eche counting others better then them selues So the same father a litle after sayth Philip. 2. hat S. Paule euen after his conuersion vvheÌ„ in sanctitie and perfection he vvas peraduenture inferiour to none yet considering vvhat the rest of the Apostles by Christe his grace then vvere and vvhat he by his sinne and hatred of Christians had been counted him selfe Apostolorum minimum the least of all the Apostles 1. Cor. â—â— and S. Peter not regarding his ovvne perfection admireth S. Paules vvisdome and learning shevved in his Epistles 2. Petr. 3. This hath beene the practise of Christe and his Mother as I sayd before in vvhich all the Sanctes of God haue imitated them And if vve practise the same mutuall consideratioÌ„ and comparison of our defectes vvith others perfections this mutuall consideration vvould cause mutuall loue and mutuall loue vvould cause mutuall prayse and mutuall prayse vvould cause mutuall humilitie for that the more vve prayse another the lesse vve esteened our selues and mutuall humilitie vvould take avvye all contention for that into humble mens consideration it neuer entreth vvhich is or should be greater and contention taken avvay a peace vvould fellovv Luc. 9. And indeed novv that the Regulars in England are all allmost Priests and haue the same authoritie that Priests haue the secular Priest hath inste cause to loue the Regular and in him his ovvne state and order and the Regular Priest hath good reason to respect the secular Priest Priesthood being the richest pearle of his crovvne and the fayrest flovver of his garland and not to think that he is dispraysed vvhen the Priest is commended The secular Priests vvho labour in the shippe of Peter vvilbe conteÌ„t to beckeÌ„ to their fellovve fishermen that are in another shippe that is in another state Luc 5. to come and helpe theÌ„ And the Regulars vvill vvith all charitie and respect also yeeld their helping â—arde The secular Priests hauing louinglie inuited them and the cheefe Pastour hauing sent them to that end And seing the haruest is great Gers de statu Curatorum confid 15. and the vvorke men fevve the secular Priests vvill as Gerson sayth they must benignelie and louinglie receiue them so that sayth Gerson they doe not de tract from the Pastours or seeke to bring them in contempt vvith their parishioners If both secular and Regular Priests vvould but looke backe to former freindlie offices vvhich haue passed betvvixt them it vvould be sufficient to make them renevv former freindship The tyme hath been vvhen the Clergie of England inuited the Iesuites to be partakers vvith theÌ„ of their merit and labours in the mission Our most learned and zelous Cardinal of most pious memorie the first founder of the English Seminarie to vvit of Dovvay and of the mission of Priests in to England in this tyme of Schisme vvriteth thus in his Apologie for the Priests chap. 6. Cum itaque nos ante aduerteremus paucis ab hinc mensibus cerneremus Anglorum nonnullos a superioribus Societatis Iesu ad Indos amandatos c. vvhen therfore vve perceiued and fevv monethes since did see that some English men by the Superiours of the Societie of Iesus vvere sent to the Indians vve demanded of them the Superiours that they vvho vvere of this nation should rather be reserued for the profit of their countrie then of externe nations to vvhich petition after mature deliberation had of that matter vvith great affection of charitie they yeelded The like D. Worthington President also of Dovvay College relateth in his Catalogue of our late English Martyrs Doctour Pitse also in his booke of the famous vvriters of England In Edmundo Campiano Conformablie to Cardinal Allen sayth Videntes autem sacerdotes nostri multam esse messem c. Our Priests seing that the Harnest vvas greate and Worke men fevv did earnestlie request the Fathers of the Societie of Iesus that they vvould adioine them selues as cooperatours and vvould send if not earlie in the morning at least at the third sixt or ninth hower of the day some of theirs to labour in the vineyeard of our lord And vvith vvhat charitie and respect the Priests receiued the first Jesuites extolled their order conducted them from place to place for their more safetie and to bring them acquainted vvhere they vvere not knovvn some yet liuing can tell and that trulie Religious and learned Iesuite Father Campion acknovvledgeth no lesse in an Epistle to his Generall saing Presbyteri nostrates ipsi doctrina sanctimonia prestantes tantam opinionem nostri ordinis excitarunt vt venerationem quam nobis exhibent Catholici non nisi timâ—dè commemorandam existimeÌ„ Our Priests they them selues excelling in learning and sanctitie haue raysed such an opinion of our order that I think the veneration which the Catholiques giue vs is not to be spoken of but fearefullie And vvill the Jesuites novv de tract from the good name of them vvho haue so much extolled their order and giuen â—t the first name and credit it had in England noe it can not be imagined And vvill the Jesuites seeke novv to supplante those vvho first planted them in England noe they vvill not and if heretofore any vvould hereaster they vvill not Nor vvill the secular Priests seeke novv to exclude Iesuites from the mission vvhom they haue louinglie inuited knovving that Turpius eijcitur quam non admittitur hospes T is better to deny a guest no doubt Admittance then admitted turne him out Rather both orders reflecting vppon these former friendlie offices vvill endeauour to renevv the former friendship The tyme also vvas vvhen the secular Priests shevved courtesies to the Benedictins and vvere so farre from hindering their vnion or mission into England that they helped to set forvvard both and had the Clergie opposed their mission as some others did and not rather furthered theÌ„ in their sute vvee should not haue had perchaunce at this Day a Benedictine in England This the Benedictins haue heretofore acknovvledged and must therfore haue respecte to the Clergie And if they reflect vpon the many good offices the Clergie hath done them and if the Clergie like vvise looke backe to the forner loue and old freindship vvhich bath been betvvixt them it vvill I hope renevv old friendship and take a vvaye all iarres and diuisions The tyme also vvas vvhen the Franciscans obteyned their mission of Clement the eight at the instance of Cardinall Allen vvhich notvvithstaÌ„ding the Pope had before refused at the instance of Cardinall Caietan as some yet aliue doe affirme vvho liued in Rome at that tyme. And the Reuerend Father F. Francis Nugent intending a mission of English Capucins vvrote to M. Birchet then Archpriest about the yeare 1611.
placed in them Patriarches or Archbishops or Bishops according to the extent of the place Who as spirituall Fathers may beget many thousands to Christ and may rule them when they are begotten as the carnall Father first begetteth then gouerneth his children 14. M. Nicholas hath read in his Breuiarie 17. Nou. how S. Gregorie called Thaumaturgus of the wonderous miracles he wrought at the hower of his death demaūding how many infidels there were remanent in his Citie and answere being made that there were seuenteen God be thanked saied hee I found so many when I accepted of my Bishopricke Where M. Nicholas may see that for the placing of a Bishop there was had a regard not onely to the number of the Christians but also to the extent and greatenesse of the place otherwise seuenteene Christians should not by M. Nicholas his counte haue had a Bishop And the reason is which M. Nicholas considered not for that a Bishop is appointed not onely as a Ruler to gouerne Christians already conuerted but as a Father to beget Christians by his preaching and example as Saint Paule and the Apostles did who at their first preaching found few or none to gouerne yet by their preaching were Fathers of the whole world And so although in England there were not so many Catholikes as there are in one Diocese in a Catholike Countrie though thankes be to God there are many thousand Catholikes and many hundred Priests who deserue a Bishop to gouerne them and to confirme those that haue not Confirmation yet England by reason of the extent of the Island might require a Bishop yea many Bishops in that so greate an Island is capable of many more Catholikes then a Diocese cā hould especiallie if it may enioye the benefit of a Bishop or Bishops 15. But I doe not meruaile that M. Nicholas laboureth so hard to hinder Englād from a Bishop for that peraduēture he is of the opinion of those who in An answere to the Bishop of Chalcedons letter to the Lay Catholikes of England which was sent vnto him by the Heades of three Regular Orders do call Episcopall authoritie in Englād and in these times a Noueltie though as ould as Christ and his Apostles Odious though proceeding from Christ his loue to his Church vnto which it is much beneficiall Derogating to the ancient lawes of England though England by Bishops hath many hundred yeares beene conserued in religion pietie sanctitie all ecclesiasticall splendour Pernicious to soules though instituted for their gaining gouernement and saluation Which opinion in a manner is worse then Caluins opinion for that it is lesse iniurious to Christ to denie all Episcopall authoritie as Caluin doth then to say that Christ hath iustituted and giuen to his Church an authoritie which is a Noueltie odious derogating to temporall laws of Kings pernicious to soules I say In a manner for that these Regulars do not absolutelie speake in these termes of Episcopall authoritie but onely in England in this time of persecutiō they counte it a Noueltie wee hauing not had till of late a Bishop of long time odious derogating to ancient lawes and pernicious at this time Which yet will hardly serue for a iust excuse Christ hauing instituted this authorities and giuen it to the Apostles in the beginning of the greatest persecution and they hauing exercised it in the greatest furie of persecution maugre all the lawes threates and menaces of the cruell persecutours And if Episcopall authoritie in time of persecution be odious and pernicious when shall it be gratefull and profitable Certes if when the wolfe inuadeth the flocke the Pastours presence be odious and pernicious when can it be profitable M. NICHOLAS SMITH Enough hath beene sayed to disproue M. Doctours Tenet in this present question yet nothing will more disaduātage his assertion that when the reader shall by my answere clearly perceiue his owne augments ether to goe beside the matter or to proue against himselfe n. 8. And n. 9. his first argument is taken out of Sotus affirming it to be De Iure diuino of the diuine law c. REPLIE Sotus his opinion concerning that point whether by the diuine law euerie Church must haue its Bishop maketh for M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas 16. M. Nicholas braggeth that he hath sayed enough and in deed to much vnlesse he had saied more to the purpose as partely hath beene shewed partely shall but sayeth he nothing will more disaduantage his assertion then when the Reader shall see by my answers that M. Doctours arguments are besides the matter or against himselfe Thus he but by his leaue he still continueth his ould fault in making M. Doctour say more then he doth For M. Doctour doth not impose vpon Sotus more then he sayeth as M. Nichoas imposeth on M. Doctour M. Doctour onely relateth Sotus his words leauing the Reader to conceiue that sense which the words offer And although M. Doctour doth not say so much of him or his words Yet his words may verie well haue Yea indeed haue a sense which fauoureth M. Doctour 17. Sotus l 10. de Iust Iure q. 1. ar 4. Let vs therefore heare Sotus his words He sayeth it is Deiure diuino quodin genere singulis Ecclesijs secundum Ecclesiasticam diutsionem sui applicentur Episcopi it is of the diuine law that in generall to euerie particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision their proper Bishops are to be applyed Which words may verie well haue and indeed haue another interpretation then M. Nicholas giueth and they doe clearelie fauour that which M. Doctour sayed to wit that by the diuine law euerie particular Church at lest which is a notable parte of the whole Church of which M. Doctour speaketh should haue its Bishop For supposing that Christ hath instituted a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches gouerned by particular Bishops and hath giuen to the Church authoritie to make this diuision of diuers Churches and Dioceses Sotus as by the former words may be gathered is of opiniō that supposing the diuision of Dioceses euerie Diocese much more euerie notable part of the Church as England France c. is by the diuine law and appointement to haue its Bishop not Peter or Paul but one indeterminatelie and this by vertue of our Sauiours institution in generall whereby that order is sette generallie and euerie where to be obserued Singulis Ecclesijs vt sui applicentur Episcopi that to euerie particular Church their proper Bishop should be applyed And thus in generall the election of Bishops is Deiure diuino of the diuine law And therefore when a Pope doth applie a Bishop to a Diocese he doth but that which our Sauiour hath before instituted in his generall institution and commandement Vt singulis Ecclesijs sui applicentur Episcopi that to euerie Church their proper Bishops should be applyed 18. That the diuision of Dioceses is Ecclesiasticall that is introduced by the Church it
significabatur c. by which thing it was signified plainely that by Confirmation Baptisme was in some sorte perfected which being sayed by some Bishops of Rome he citeth in the margent Vrbanus and Melchiades heretiks do not onely impudently but also vnlearnedly laugh at it And Canisius also sayeth he is no perfect Christian who is not confirmed And so M. Nicholas whilest he condemneth M. Doctour for saying that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians and for alledging S. Clement for proofe of that he sayed condemneth also the ancient Fathers and all Diuines who write of this matter yea Iesuites themselues and so I cannot tell how hereafter he can looke them in the face Yea he fauoureth Caluin as wee haue seene M. Doctour immediatelie after S. Clement citeth S. Dionisius Areop lib. de Eccles Hierar c. 5. calling the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfecting Sacrament pag. 8. n. 17. THE REPLY S. Denis calleth the Sacrament of Confirmation à perfecting and consummating action 27. M. Doctour in calling the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfecting and consummating action sayeth no more then Card. Bellarmin doth who to proue Confirmation a Sacrament alledgeth some Greeke Fathers Dion l. di Eccl. Hier. c. 2 p. 3. C 4. p. 3. and first S. Denis in these words perficiens illa vnctio facit perfectum that perfecting vnction maketh perfect and againe Sed ipsis c. But to them also who are consecrated by the most holy misterie of Regeneration the consummating vnction of the ointment doth giue the comming of the holy Ghost Suarez also a learned Iesuite and Estius and others doe attribute perfection and consummation to Confirmation as M. Doctour did Let vs heare Estius whoÌ„ M. Nicholas tooke for his frieÌ„d in explicating how the Fathers say that without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians He saieth that the proper effect of this Sacrament is robur Spiritus sancti id est Gratia c. the strength of the holy Ghost that is a grace by meanes of which the mynd of a Christian confirmed and corroborated by the holy Ghost may persist and resist impugners Hee addeth Hinc apud veteres c. Hence in the ancient fathers in many places wee read that perfection consuÌ„mmation Confirmation augmentatioÌ„ constaÌ„cie streÌ„gth fortit uâ—le are giuen to this Sacrament as effectes thereof And for this he alleadgeth S. Dionysius S. Clement euen in the place aboue alleadge by M. Doctour and sayeth that S. Clement sayeth Dion l Eccl. Hier c. 4. p. 3. Clem. l. 3 coÌ„s Apost c 17 epist 4 Fabia cp 2. ad cp orien Corn. aoud Euscb l. 6. c. 35 Melch. ep ad epist Hisp Dyon Carth. in Elucidat c 4 in initiâ—ar 8. one cannot be a perfect Christian without it and citeth to this end S. Fabian Pope S. Cornelius S. Melchiades and others And this M. Nicholas would not see nor acknowledge for feare least thence might be inferred that without Confirmation one cannot be a perfect Christian onely hee could espy cap. 5. for c. 4. which fault if he had bene corrector of the print might haue bene preuented 28. Whereas M. Nicholas sayeth that S. Denys in that 4. chapter speaketh of Baptisme and some tymes generallie of oyle and Vnction vsed not onely in diuers Sacraments but also in Consecration of Altars as though in that Chapter he spake not of ConfirmatioÌ„ Dionysius Carthusianus standeth against him in the verie beginning of his Elucidation of that 4. Chapter saying Postquam praehabito immedtatè capitulo c. after that by S. Denys it hath bene treated in the immediate a foresayed Chapter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist of the celebration rites or Hierarchicall Actes about it here in the 4. Chapter the same now is done of the Sacrament of Confirmation M. NICHOLAS His other chiefe argument is out of Estius in these words Quod si quaeras c. but if thou aske whether the omission of Confirmation when it can commodiously be had c. pagin 87. numero 18. THE REPLY M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctour say more then he doth to wit that euery one in particular is bound to take Confirmation with hazard of persecution whereas M. Doctour sayeth onely that a countrie should hazard persecution rather then want Confirmation Estius in 4. d. c. 29. Estius proposeth a question whether the omission of Confirmation when it may be had commodiouslie be a mortall or veniall sinne And answereth that it cannot be omitted without mortall sinne in tyme and place of persecution of faith when forsooth by reason of infirmitie there is danger to a man least he deny his faith in word or deede or at least be ash imed to confesse his faith when he should And M Doctour sayeth the same as appeareth by his words which immediatlie follow these words of Estius For if the reader turne ouer to the page 386. and 8. number he shall find these words of M. Doctours But howsoeuer although euerie man in particular caÌ„not be condemned of sinne for omitting Confirmation for feare of loosing his life lands or libertie Yet I thinke that neither any countrie or any one of the countrie for feare of persecution can oppose against the coming in of a Bishop though thereby onely the Sacrament of Confirmation hould be wanting 30. So that M Nicholas playeth not faire playe with M. Doctour in making him say that Catholikes in particular are bound to receiue Confirmation with losse of life libertie or goods whereas as M. Doctour confesseth in the a foresayed place and before it also num 3. 4. graunteth that none in particular are bound with such danger and onelie sayeth that neither a countrie nor any one of the countrie which yet he humblie submitteth to authoritie can except against a Bishop or Confirmation for feare of persecution in generall notwithstanding which generall persecution many commodiouslie and without danger may receiue Confirmation And this Estius when he sayeth that if Confirmation can commodiouslie be had in time of persecution it cannot be refused by particular persons vnder mortuall sinne supposeth 31. The reason of this is because there may be a generall persecution and yet many in particular may commodiouslie haue Confirmation for as notwithstanding persecution and the generall lawes of England enacted against receiuing a Priest hearing Masse or going to ConfessioÌ„ many Catholikes in particular without morall danger may many tymes receiue a Priest heare Masse and goe to Confession as thousands haue done so many Catholikes may receiue the Bishop and Confirmation of him without any imminent or morall danger and therefore hetherto not any haue suffered losse in life libertie or goods for receiuing of coÌ„firmation though thousaÌ„ds haue receiued it And as although persecution in England is the greater for Priests Iesuites and other regulars yet many can and do without morall danger heare Masse as they are bound on holy dayes when they can commodiouslie can goe to Confession and the like so although the persecution in
constituted also ad beneplacitum Papae and yet as we haue proued out of Syluester and the Canon law he is Ordinarie And so it wil be hard fellowing the opinion of these Auctours for I will say nothing of my selfe but referre the determination of this to Superiours for M. Nicholas to exclude my lord of Chalcedon from being an Ordinarie by commission or delegation If this anger M. Nicholas let him blame him selfe for that I would not haue touched this point if he had not prouoked me In his fourth number he taxeth M. Doctour for alleaging S. Ambrose 1. Tim. 3. the booke being doubfull But M. Doctour hauing alleaged other proofes to proue that the Bishop hath an higher ranke in the Church then the Priest and writers vsing to alleage diuers bookes of Fathers which yet are doubted of by some this M. Nicholas might haue ouerpassed M. NICHOLAS Here nu 14. he teacheth that Catholiques ought to contribute maintenance to my lord of Chalcedon n. 5. THE REPLY This M. Nicholas should not haue obiected 16. M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctour a beggar for my lord of Chalcedons maintenaunce wherin he sheweth litle respect to my lord M. Doctour only alleaged S. Paule 1. Ti. 5. to proue that Priests or Bishops vvho rule vvell should be esteemed vvorthie of double honour that is not only of the honour of cappe and knee but also of honourable maintenaunce and therfore we see that Bishops and Pastours are by the Church honourably prouided for But M. Nicholas obiecteth that S. S. Th. 2 2.188 ar 4 ad 5. Thomas sayth that the people are not bound in iustice S. Thomas his words are ex debito iuris to prouide for the expenses of others besides Ordinaries To which he is easily answered for that S. Thomas supposeth that the people hath their ordinarie Pastours who receiue their ordinarie Tithes and other renenewes and then if any will voluntarilie preache vnto them they are not bound to maintayne them but when there are no ordinarie Pastors thē the people is bound to giue them competent maintenance whether they be ordinaries or delegates for as S. Paule sayth Who euer playeth the soldior at his ovvne charges vvho planteth a vine and eateth not of the fruite therof vvho feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milke of the flocke And as in the same place he sayth If vve haue sovven vnto you spirituall thinges is it a greate matter if vve reape your carnall thinges and a litle after they that serue the Altar participate vvith the Altar So also our lord ordained for them that preach the Ghospell to liue of the Ghospell S. Th. 2.2 q. 87. a. 1. And S. Thomas and other diuines affirme that by the lawe of nature the people is bound to giue in generall necessaries to them that minister vnto them the thinges that pertaine to the worship of God and their saluation as the same people is bound to minister necessaries to soldiers and Princes that fight for them or haue care of their common wealth though the determinate parte which diuines call quota and which in the old lawe was the tenth parte be of the positine lawe And so the Catholiques in England are bound to giue competent meanes not onely to their Bishop but also to their Priests though the Priests be not ordinarie Pastors To which I adde that in the opinion of the alleaged Auctours my lord of Chalcedon is an Ordinarie by commission VVhere as M. Nicholas n. 5. addeth that except for the Sacrament of Confirmation vvhich yet hath not been administred to many and vvhich also may be cōmitted to a Priest they finde not vvhat greater benefit lay Catholikes 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 vvhich they vvill not easilie be persvvaded they are bound to buye vvith mony that they cannot take much comfort to spare frō their ovvne necessities arising from daylie pressures for the maintenance of Agents I leaue this to the consideration of the iudicious and indifferent Reader whether in this he speaketh like a religious man yea or a zealous Catholique But for the like speeche to this he is a litle taken vp aboue pag. 123. n. 38. 18. But I meruayle that M. Nicholas should exaggerate as he doth n. 5. the charges to which the Bishop and Clergie put the Catholiques of England for the maintenance of their Agents in diuers places And many will think that M. Nicholas sheweth noe greate discretion or prudence to complaine of the charges to which the Bishop and Clergie put the Catholiques vnto considering that M. Nicholas and his brethren haue and doe daylie put the Catholiques to farre greater charges as appeareth by the statelie howses purchasses and many other expenses which commeth from the Catholiques states and purses But such thinges should not haue been mentioned but that M. Nicholas giueth the iust occasion 19. To that which M. Nicholas addeth in this questiō concerning a particular Church without a particular Bishop and a notable part of the Church without a Bishop and of a perfect Christian without Confirmation and of the Fathers and diuines alleaged by M. Doctour and of regulars state of perfection and of their being of the Hierarchie and all such pointes he is answered fullie as the reader will confesse if he reade my Reply to his former questions 20. And so that which he sayth n. 8. is litle to the purpose because M. Doctour in his cleuenth chapter of his Hierarchie intended only to shew that charitie is the perfection of a Christian life in that it vniteth vs to our first efficiēt and last end God That charitie vniteth vs to God M. Doctour proueth out of Scriptures and also by the effect of all loue which is to make two freinds one soule by affection in two bodyes as sayth M. Doctour S. Augustine confessed of him selfe and his freind who were he Nebridius of whom S. Augustine spake before in the third chapter stiling him charissimus mous amicus my most deare freind or another it was all one to M. Doctours purpose and so might by M. Nicholas haue been omitted but that he not able to answere to any maine point is enforced to take hold of euerie trifle The rest which M. Nicholas alleageth in this question is answered or else is not worthie any answere Only there resteth one thing which I shall examine in the next number M. NICHOLAS Jn this account of Popes martyrs M. Doctour is much mistaken for the 3. last Popes by him reckened namely Ioannes Syluerius and Martinus vvere long after Constantine c. qu. 7. n. 10. THE REPLY This errour is vvrongfullie fathered on M. Doctour 21. M. Doctour in his thirteenth chapter n. 5. to shew that in the greatest furie of persecution it was the custome of the primatiue Church not to except against Bishops as some now doe in England but to consecrate Popes and
A REPLY TO M. NICHOLAS SMITH HIS DISCVSSION of some pointes of M. DOCTOVR KELLISON his Treatise of the Hierarchie BY A DIVINE Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse qui tacere noluerit Aug. l. 5. de Ciu. cap. 27. It is easie for any man to seeme to haue ansvvered that vvill not hold his peace PRINTET AT DOWAY By the Widovve of Marke Wyon 1630. GENTLE AND CATHOLIQVE READER MAISTER Doctour Kellison as he hath vvritten diuers bookes tending to the Reconciliation of heretickes to the Catholique Church so of late he sette forthe a Treatise entitled The Hierarchie of the Church that thereby he might reconcile some Catholiques the one to the other to vvit the secular Clergie and Regulars vvho though both vvorthie members of the Catholique Church seemed to be at some litle variance The reason vvhy he published this Treatise vvas as I haue heard him saye because he vvas informed by letters and perceiued by certaine vvritinges and Pamphlets vvritten toe and froe that there vvas some diuision betvvixt the most Reuerend Bishop and Clergie on the one side and the Regulars on the other side to the greate griefe I am sure of both sides to the edification of fevv and dishonour of all Wherfore partlie out of compassion vvhich hee tooke to see tvvo so vvorthie bodyes vvhich beare no litle svvaye in our litle Church of England and vvhich heretofore ioyned both labours and bloud in setting forth the Catholique cause to be so deuided in opinions and affections and partlie at the request of some friendes vvho vvished vvell to bothe for setting these tvvo motiues aside he vvould not haue entermedled in so ticklish a busines vvherin he might offend one partie and peraduenture both though he honoreth and loueth both he vnder tooke the vvriting of the aforesayd Treatise of the Hierarchie and of diuers orders of the Church that so he might take occasion to vvrite of the dignirie and necessitie of Bishop and secular Clergie vvhich seemed by many clamours vvhich he heard of and vvritings also vvhich he savve to be opposed in so much that Episcopall authoritie in England and in these tymes vvas counted a noueltie odious contrarie to ancient lavves of England and preiudiciall to soules and yet to speake also of the state and perfection belonging to Regulars vvho seemed to bee opposers and so to dispose both partyes to peace and concord And therfore he vvrote a long Dedicatorie Epistle to all the Catholiques of England exhorting all to agree in affections as they doe in matters of fayth and Religion and the Regulars to honour the seculars and the seculars to imbrace the Regulars as their fellovv missioners ayders and cooperatours VVhich exhortation he oftentymes vpon occasion repeateth in his Treatise and hath not in all the booke so much as one bitter or tarte vvord against person or state vnles novv and then a glaunce against Luther and Caluin but so he extolleth the Bishop and Clergie as he depresseth not the Regulars but giueth them as much as S. Thomas of Aquin an holy and learned regular doth yeeld vnto them Jn so much that diuers vvere of opinioÌ„ and he him self also verilie hoped that this Treatise vvould not haue offended any but rather vvould haue pleased all and by pleasing all induced all to an attonemeÌ„t Out of vvhich hope and opinion he feared not to put his name vnto his booke nor to present it as a gratefull guift to the cheefe of our English Regulars in Dovvay vvhere the booke vvas printed But he hath vnderstood by letters from England and novv latelie by a certaine Discussion fathered on a Regular deceased the Father belike vvas ashamed to behold his Posthumus and therfore dyed that the Regulars tooke 〈◊〉 this his Treatise in that good paâ—â— he vvished and hoped but rather thought them selues dishonored by it vvhich the more grieued him because as he sincerelie protested in his Epistle Dedicatorie and often tymes hath made the same protestation by vvord of mouth he intended in noe vvise to disgrace the venerable and approoued state of Regulars but so tâ— commend the state of the Bishoâ— and Clergie vvhich he savv vvamainely opposed as yet to giue to the Regulars as much as the learnedst Regulars doe yeeld vnto them and consequentlie so to right one partie as not to vvrong the other but rather to commend both Some freinds haue vrged him to make a Replye to this Discussion fathered on M. Nicholas Smith but M. Doctour had not as he sayd the harte to vvrite against a Catholique and him a Regular counting it no grace to disgrace a Catholique noe victorie to ouercome him and fearing least in vvriting against him he might contristate other Catholiques and noe lesse make glad our common enemyes vvho imagine our vvarre to be their peace Yea M. Doctour vsed to saye To vvhat purpose should J ansvvere one vvho vvriteth not against mee For I neuer think that he vvriteth against mee vvho vvilfullie or ignorantlie mistaketh my vvords and meaning and putteth vpoÌ„ mee vvhat I neuer sayd or meÌ„t that so he may haue the greater aduantage and make a shovv of a victorie But he vvriteth against mee sayd the Doctour vvho vvriteth against my vvords and meaning and if he fathereth on mee as M. Nicholas vseth to doe that vvhich J neuer sayd or ment and in that sorte maketh his assault hee assaulteth not mee but a supposed and fayned aduersarie And yet if M. Nicholas had not fayned such an aduersarie he could not haue made so much as a shovv of an ansvvere to the Hierarchie as shall euerie vvhere be shevved in the decourse of this reply And besides sayd M. Doctour I ame imployed in more important businesses and if I vvere not yet doe I not think a Reply necessarie vvhere there vvas noe ansvvere but only vvresting of vvords vvittingly or vnvvittingly mistakinge scanning of intentions imposition of vntruthes so to make a shovv of a victorie vvhere indeed M. Nicholas him selfe vvas foyled And moreouer he sayd the booke vvill ansvver for it selfe and the iudicious Reader as he heareth a learned deuine in his Jnquisition and some others haue done vvill out of it ansvvere for him And last of all he sayd vvhy should I encounter vvith an aduersarie that dareth not shevv him selfe in the field and therfore goeth masked vnder another maÌ„s name though it is thought he vvalketh rather in a nette the question vvho he should be being not so hard to solue as Gordius his Knotte vvas to bee dissolued Yet out of the respect and affection J beare to M. Doctour and in regard of the obligation vvherby J ame obliged to him as hauing liued vnder his gouernment and out of the care I haue of his good name and reputation vvhich I thought could not be impeached vvithout some preiudice to the common cause J haue vndertaken to ansvver for him and in this my Reply to imitate the temper and moderation vvhich hee in his Hierarchie hath vsed and not to
for no other cause but because he cannot brook a Bishop Let him I say take heed least his discussion fraught with this ill marchandise be neither pleasing to God nor man 18. As for the manner hold by M. Doctour in preouing his Tenets which M. Nicholas n. 11. auerreth not to be correspondent to the opinion of his learning but to be easilie answered and without any studie the trueth thereof shall appeare in my Reply by which I shall defend all M. Doctours positions and shall shew M. Nicholas his answere to be altogether deficient or not to the purpose Whereby I think in the end he will not haue the face and I ame sure not the cause to bragge as he doth 19. I cannot here omit how n. 12. he accuseth M. Doctour of want of Logike and prudence though he hath taught Diuinitie alone longer then M. Nicholas hath beene in studying Logik Philosophie and diuinitie There are many manners of arguing and all good in their degree for the Logician sometimes argueth from the cause to the effect which manner of arguing is called demoÌ„stratio propter quid sometimes he proceedeth from the effect to the cause which is demonstratio quia and sometimes he argueth from intrinsecall sometimes from extrinsecall causes and all these formes of arguing are good because there is a connexion betwixt the cause and the effect and soe one inferreth another and the cause is notior naturâ then the effect and the effect is notior nobis then the cause and soethey may inferre one another And it were to be meruailed if M. Dectour should hit vpon none of these formes and manners 20. But let vs heare what M. Nicholas saieth for example saieth he to proue the necessitie of a Bishop in England he serueth himselfe of these strange and vnto ward propositions that it is a diuine law for euery such particular Church as EnglaÌ„d is to hauea Bishop that without a Bishop England cannot be a particular Church that vnlesse euerie particular Church haue it Bishop or Bishops the whole Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hier archie composed of diuers particular Churches That without a Bishop we cannot haue Confirmation which whosoeuer wanteth is not as M. Doctour saieth a perfect Christian And are these harsh strange and vnto ward propositions they being grounded in Scripture and the diuine law To speake with in compas this saying of M. Nicholas is a verie rash assertion 21. That these propositioÌ„s are true according to Scripture and the diuine law and consequeÌ„tlie not harsh I shall proue more at large in their proper places Here I briefelie argue thus It is of the diuine law that there must be Bishops in the Church as M. Doctour hath proued in his 12.13 14. chap. and as M. Nicholas confesseth q. 3. n. 4. 17. and cannot denie if he wil be a Catholik And why But to supplie the wants the Church hath of Preaching Sacraments and in particular of Confirmation of which onely the Bishop is ordinarie Minister but one Bishop cannot supplie the wantes of twoe notable partes such as are England Spaine and France Ergo euerie notable part such as these Countries are must at least haue one Bishop and that also by the deuine lawe Soelikewise that without a Bishop a people cannot be a particular Church I shall proue in the next question n. 2. For if it be true which S. Cypr. Ep. 69. ad Florâ— Cyprian sayeth that the Church is Sacerdoâ—i plebs adunata Apeople vnited to the Priest that is Bishop then that people which hath no Bishop cannot be a Church and consequently also the whole Church cannot as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches vnles these Churches haue euerie one their Bishop And hence it followeth also that without a Bishop who is the Ordinarie minister of Confirmation we cannot by ordinarie course be perfect Christians because we cannot haue Confirmation which maketh vs perfect Christians as S. Clement and S. Vrban hereafter alledged doe auerre as also other fathers and S. Thomas of Aquin and sundrie deuines euen Iesuites as we shall see in the 4. question n. 15. These argumeÌ„ts are à priore and are inferred from the extrinsecall cause to wit God his commandement and institution which is a cause why Bishops are necessarie in the Church And therefore as we may argue from the ecclesiasticall law as from an extrinsecall cause and say the Church hath coÌ„manded to fast in Lent Therefore we must fast So we may argue from the deuine law as from an extrinsecall cause and say God hath commanded that Bishops shal be in the Church and that euerie particular greate Church must haue it Bishop ergo it must haue him And so it was harhlie and vntowardlie saied of M. Nicholas that the aboue rehearsed propositions are harsh and vntoward they being grounded in Scripture and Fathers 23. Th 3. p. q. 72 art 11. ad 1. And although S. Thomas of Aquin and many diuines doe affirme that by commission from the Pope a Priest not Bishop may confirme yet diuers also hould the contrarie as S. Bonauenture Durand Adrian VI. Estius in 4. d. 17. Alphonsus à Castro Verbo Confirmatio and they prooue their opinion out of Eusebius Ep. 3. Pope Damasus Epist. 4. Innocentius III. de consuetud cap. quando Who expressely affirme that Confirmation cannot be giuen but by the Bishop as in the primitiue Church is was giuen by the Apostles onely to whome Bishops succeede and not by the disciples to whome Priests succeede 24. Yea they want not apparent reason For say they the acte of Confirming either it is appertaining to the Bishop by reason of his power of Iurisdiction or by reason of his power of Order If by reason of his power of Iurisdiction then a Bishop elected and confirmed but not consecrated might confirme For that he hath Episcopall Iurisdiction which yet neuer was seene yea then this might be coÌ„mitted to a deacon or an inferiour minister for he also is capable of Episcopall Iurisdiction as when one is elected and confirmed Bishop before he be Priest or deacon If by reason of the power of Order then as the Pope cannot giue power to a deacon to consecrate because that is proper to the Character and Order of a Priest so he cannot giue power to a Priest to confirme that appertaining to the Character and Order of a Bishop If the authours of the other opinion say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme they should contradict the Fathers alledged who say that to confirme is proper to the Bishop and cánot agree to the Priest not Bishop Besides thence it would follow that though the Priest in confirming might sinne Confirmation being reserued to Bishops yet as a Priest suspended if he coÌ„secrate though he sinneth yet consecration is valid so if a Priest should confirme he should sinne yet Confirmation would be valid it being not
aboue his character And this opinion would answere to the fact of Saint Gregorie vpoÌ„ which the contrarie opinioÌ„ much relieth that S. Gregorie onely permitted certaine Priests who before had presumed it Greg. l. 3. ep 9 ad Ianuarium dist 90 cap peruenit to anoint the baptized in the forhead but not with the vnction proper to Confirmation nor with the forme of words which the Bishop vseth Others answere otherwise 25. And to the Councells of Florence and Trent which say that the ordinarie Minister of Confirmation is the Bishop as though the extraordinarie minister might be the Priest They answere that these two Councells define that at least the Bishop is the Ordinarie Minister because it was disputed whether by commission and as an extraordinarie Minister the Priest might confirme And whereas the Councell of Florence sayeth that It is read that sometimes by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike a simple Priest hath confirmed they answere the Councell defineth not that this indeed hath euer beene done but that it is read soe Thus they 26. But for all this S. Thomas his opinion is most probable being now especiallie most common though not most secure And this opinion would alledge for it the fact of S. Gregorie and the twoe councells alledged And to the Fathers it would answere that they meane onely that the Bishop is the onely Ordinarie Minister of Confirmation yet that the Priest may by commission from the Pope confirme and they would say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme so that the Pope commit this to him not that the Pope giueth him any power of Order for that this Priests owne Character is sufficient so that this condition be also put to wit that the Pope commit him and if he attempt to confirme without this commission he shall not validlie confirme because he wanteth a condition necessarie But although this be a probable peraduenture the more probable opinion as being the more common yet the first opinion is houlden of all as vndoubted and so is most secure 27. And so we haue more reason to demande a Bishop then a Priest committed by the Pope for that it is most certaine that he can confirme and by Confirmation giue vs strength against persecution and make vs perfect Christians And therefore M. Doctour vseth to say that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church nor haue Confirmation because the Bishop is the Ordinarie and most assured Minister and therefore this hereafter I will suppose 28. M. Nicholas n. 13. affimerth that M. Doctour doth not a right coÌ„pare Religious with Secular Priests But to this he is fullie answered in the sixt question n. 1. Where he is tould that if we take the Regular as Regular according to that state and qualitie onely he is not as soe taken of the Hierarchie though as Regular he be aboue the laitie and an eminent member of the Church but the Secular Priest as a Secular Priest considered in that state of a Priest is of the Hierarchie But more of this in that place shal be saied 29. M. Nicholas numer 14. saieth the thing which I most wonder in a man of learning is that those Fathers and Schooles diuines which be produceth for witnesses of his doctrine are in deed against himselfe as the Reader will see in his allegation of S. Cyprian S. Clement Sotus Bannes c. And I admire M. Nicholas for many things as for his conning carriage of things wilfull mistakings false impositions c. But most of all I wonder at his audacitie and that he hath the face to vtter the aforesaied words so considentlie Noe doubt the Reader cannot but thinke he affirming it so boldely that M. Doctour hath not alledged well these Fathers and Doctours but let him suspend his Iudgement vntill he come to the 2. question in M. Nicholas n. 2.9.10.11.17 Where he shall finde it so cleare and plaine that those Fathers and Doctours are for M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas that when he hath read the places alledged he will haue cause neuer to credit M. Nicholas in this kinde vpon his word albeit he make neuer so great or solemne protestations 30. Lastlie M. Nicholas n. 15. accuseth againe M. Doctour for derogating to my Lord of Chalcedons Ordinariship but to this he is alreadie answered and may haue a fuller answere hereafter 31. Thus in a cursorie manner I haue runne ouer M. Nicholas his first question not staying any long time about it partely because the matter by him proposed did not require any longer discourse partely because in his first question he seemeth principally to bragge onely what he will doe as in his seuenth and last questioÌ„ he boasteth of what he hath done But I hauing in the fiue middle questions answered him fullie to all and hauing shewed that he hath not beene able to disproue any one of M. Doctours assertions nor to answere to any one of his arguments it will plainelie appeare that in his firstquestion he breaketh promise and in his last boasteth of more then he hath performed THE SECOND QVESTION VVhether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church MAISTER NICHOLAS MAISTER Doctour in diuers partes of his Treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church And in his 14. Chapter where he endeanoureth to proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution one of his maine arguments is n. 9. because without a Bishop there can be no particular Church n. 1. REPLIE M. Nicholas Smith mistaketh M. D. Kellisons arguments 1. TRVE it is that M. Doctour Kellison in diuers places of his Treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church But as concerning that which M. Nichulas addeth that one of his maine arguments chap. 14. numer 9. is be cause without a Bishop theâ—â— cannot be a particular Church I denie that this is one of M. Doctours maine arguments to proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution For that in that 14. Chapter numer 4. M. Doctour hauing affirmed that as England cannot except against the comming in of Priestes by reason of persecution so England cannot except against the comming in of a Bishop for feare of persecution He addeth And my reasons are twoe The first is that which I haue often alledged because the gouernement of Bishops is instituted by Christ and hath beene in practise in the greatest persecution as wee haue seene in the former Chapter My secondreason is because the commoditie which a prouince reapeth by a Bishop is so greate and the want of him is such a losse that wee should rather hazard persecution as the AsricaÌ„ Catholiks did theÌ„ to be depriued of a Bishop And in this his secoÌ„d maine reason he includeth 1. the necessitie of a Bishop to make a perfect Christian 2. the vtilitie or necessitie of Confirmation 3. that without a Bishop
for a good definition saying Quenadmodum Ecclesiam bene definit Cyprianus as Cyprian well defineth the Church to be a people vnited to its Priest Bishop to what company or multitude soeuer that definition of a Church agreeth not that multitude can not be a Church Now a multitude may be without a Bishop ether because by Schisme it cutteth it selfe disobedientlie from its Bishop or because without its fault it wanteth a Bishop and which way soeuer it want a Bishop it is no Church because which way soeuer it want a Bishop it is not a people vnited to its Bishop Euen as a bodie is not a perfect bodie without a head whether it be depriued of its head by a iust or by an vniust sentēce or whether it neuer had a head Wherefore as S. Cyprian out of the a foresaied definition of a Church which Stapleton commendeth for a good definition inferred that the Nouatians were no Church because they had separated themselues by Schisme from their Bishop so M. Doctour might well also inferre that what countrie or people soeuer hath not a Bishop it is not a Church because as M. Nicholas is taught in Logike Cui non conuenit definitio non conuenit definitum to whome the definition agreeth not the thing defined agreeth not This onely is the difference that they who separate themselues by Schisme frome the Bishop are not onely no particular Church for want of a Bishop but also are no members of the whole and vniuersall Church by reason of their Schisme which cutteth them of from the whole Church as Bellarmin proueth in the place alledged Bellar. lib. 3 de Eccles milit c 5. But they who without Schisme or heresie want a Bishop though they be no particular Church by S. Cyprians definition yet they are members of the whole Church 8. And so the Catholikes of England who many yeares without their fault wanted a Bishop wereindeed no particular Church yet they were most worthie members of the whole Church and the heretikes of England who by Schisme and heresie separated themselues from all particular lawfull Bishops yea from the vniuersall Bishop himselfe were not onely no particular Church but also were no members of the whole and vniuersall Church being cutte of from it by schisme and heresie 9. But M. Nicholas cryeth out that S. Cyprian out of that definition inferreth onely that the Nouatians who had cutte themselues of by schisme were no Church It is true and what then May not out of the negation of the definition diuers conclusions be inferred and cōsequentlie that they also who without schisme want a Bishop be no Church Else if M. Nicholas inferreth that a horse is not a man because to a horse agreeth not the definition of a man which is Animalrationale M. Doctour must not inferre that a mule is not a man though the definition of a man agree not to it And therefore this Maxime Cui non conuenit definitio non conuenit definitum to whome the definition agreeth not to it the thing defined agreeth not as it is anvniuersall propositiō so it is vniuersallie true and seing that the definition of a Church is a people vnited to a Bishop that people which wāteth a Bishop whether by Schisme or otherwise can be no Church because it cannot be a people vnited to a Bishop vnlesse it haue a Bishop And so all the while English Catholikes wanted a Bishop they were no particular Church because all that while they could not be a people vnited to the Bishop 10. M. Doctours grounde being so fullie proued to wit that a people cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop his conclusion followeth in good consequence to wit that Englād euen as Catholike all the while it wanted a Bishop was not a particular Church and M. Nicholas his foundation which was that a people Catholike is a Church though it haue no Bishop being shaken and refuted all which M. Nicholas buildeth thereon falleth of it selfe Nemine impellente 11. As for example that which he saieth pag. 13. ◠4. that S. Cyprian speaketh of a Preist indefinitelie whē he saieth the Church is a people vnited to the Priest and that therefore England so long as it is vnited by obedience to the Bishop or Rome is a particular Church without a particular Bishop is reiected by that which is already saied and proued For as a Church in generall is a Church in that it is vnited to a Bishop so a particular Church is that which is vnited to a particular Bishop To be vnited to the vniuersall and Supreme Bishop is sufficient to be a member of the Church but to be a particular Church is required also that the multitude haue a particular Bishop else euerie Catholike familie euerie Nunnerie yea and companie of Cathōlike weomen should be a particular Church because they are subordinate to the Supreme Bishop 12. And I wonder M. Nicholas cannot see this For that as more is required to be a particular body of the Kingdome then to be a member so more is requisite to a particular Church then to a member of the Church For as if the King should take frō a dutchie the honour of a dutchie by depriuing it for euer of a duke that parte of his Kingdome should still be a member of the kingdome and subiect to the King but it should be no more a dutchie So if the Pope should depriue some one little prouince of its Bishop as he may though that Prouince be neither schismaticall nor hereticall that Prouince should cease to be a particular Church or Diocese but yet should still remaine a member of the vniuersall Church 13. Soe likewise that which M. Nicholas saieth pag. 16. num 6. falleth because S. Cyprian in the Epistle alledged by this definition of a Church Which is The people vnited to the Bishop excludeth the Nouatians not onely frō being a Church but also from being of the Church in that by Schisme they had separated themselues from their Bishop But M. Nicholas demaundeth And what is all this to proue that a particular Church can be no such without a Bishop no more thē if one should say King Henrie the 8. and his adherents in Schisme deuiding themselues from their lawfull Pastours were no true Church Ergo English Catholikes liuing in perfect obedience to the Vicar of Christ cannot truelie be a Church Which is in effect as doughtie an argument as this The soule and body separated can make no true man Ergo if they be conioyned they cannot make a true man Behould M. Nicholas his litle subtilitie who could not distinguish betwixt Schismaticall separation and faultelesse or meerelie negatiue separation The Catholiks of England in King Henrie the 8. his tyme who remained in harte and profession subiect to the Bishop of Rome were onely negatiuely separated from their particular Bishops because King Henrie tooke them from them by vrging them to follow him in his Schisme And so
those Catholiks not ioyned in that Schisme with their Schismaticall Bishops or King were still members of the Catholik Church by their subordination and obedience to it and its vniuersall Bishop but they were not a particular Church because they wanted a particular Bishop But the Schismatiks who left their law full Bishops and the chiefe Bishop also or ioyned with their schismaticall Bishops were not onelie no particular Church for want of a lawfull particular Bishop but also were no more members of the Catholik Church by reason of their Schisme 14. And so his example of the soule and body is not to the purpose or is nothing against that I haue sayed For that as the soule vnited to the body maketh a man and separated from it maketh no man so the people vnited to the particular Bishop maketh a particular Church and if it be not vnited to him maketh no particular Church because it is not a people vnited to the particular Bishop yet it may be a member of the whole and vniuersall Church if it be vnited to the rest of the Catholik Church and her chiefe pastour Whereas they who are separated from their Bishop by schisme are not onelie no particular Church as being not vnited to their Bishop but also are no members of the Church because they are separated by Schisme So they who are separated onelie negatiuelie are no particular Church because they haue no Bishop yet are members of the whole Church because they are not separated by Schisme 15. And M. Nicholas may learne by that which I saied be fore if he knew it not before that it is not all one to be a particular Church or body and and to be a member of the Church and that euerie particular Church is a member of the whole Church but not euerie member of the Church is a particular Church because M. Nicholas alone is a member of the Church but no particular Church and euery Catholike familie is a member of the Church but not a particular Church as euerie subiect euerie towne or village is a mēber of the Empire which contayneth many particular Kingdomes yet is it not a particular Kingdome for that a particular Kingdome requireth not onely to be subiect to the Emperour but also to haue a particular King vnder the Emperour And therefore if the Emperour would for euer depriue a countrie of the dignitie of a Kingdome by decreeing that it should neuer haue a King againe it should cease to be a Kingdome but should still remaine a member subiect to the Emperour in qualitie of a parte and member of the Empire but not in qualitie of a particular Kingdome And I wonder M. Nicholas doth not see this as it seemeth he doth not in that he so often inculcateth it and seemeth to thinke it most certaine that the Catholikes in England remaining still good Catholikes not separated by Schisme must needs haue beene a particular Church all the while they had no Bishop 16. In like manner that argument which he frameth against M. Doctour num 6. out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church is groūded in M. Nicholas his errour so often refuted by which he thinketh it is all one not to be cutte of from the Bishop by Schisme and to be a particular Church whereas how soeuer a people wanteth a particular Bishop whether by Schisme or not schisme it can be no particular Church because it cannot be a people vnited to its Bishop when it hath no Bishop Yet let vs heare his argument Thus then he argueth Whosoeuer are not in Schisme with any lawfull Bishop doe 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 But M. Doctour I am sure would deny the first and Maior proposition of this M. Nicholas his Syllogisme for that the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian is Plebs Sacerdoti Episcopo adunata Pastori suo grex adhaerens a people vnited to the Priest Bishop and the flocke adhering to its Pastour Which definition is not fulfilled by those who though free from Schisme haue no particular Bishop because they also are not a people adhering to their particular Bishop they hauing none at all and so are no Church And if I should retorte the like argument on M Nicholas he would peraduenture see his errour and the weakenesse of his owne argument For I could argue in the like manner whosoeuer are not in Schisme with any lawfull Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian But a Catholike familie consisting of the good man of she howse his wife children and seruantes and considered by it selfe without a Bishop is not in Schisme with any lawfull Bishop Ergo such a familie considered by it selfe without a Bishop doth fulfill the defifinition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian and consequenlie is a Church Which yet M. Nicholas cannot graunt for although that Catholike familie be a member of the whole yet taken by it selfe it is not a particular Church as aboue is demonstrated and by examples declared MAISTER NICHOLAS SMITH That his M. Doctour Kellisons application of S. Cyprians definition is iniurious to English Catholikes n. 7. THE REPLY M. Doctour Kellison is vniustlie calumniated as iniurious to English Catholikes for applying vnto them S. Cyprians definition 17. It will proue that M. Nicholas is iniurious to M. Doctour but not M. Doctour to English Catholikes when the matter shal be examined For as we haue seene aboue S. Cyprian out of the definition of a Church Sacerdoti plebs adunata a people vnited to its Priest Bishop inferreth that the Nouatians were not onely no Church because they had no Bishop hauing left him but also were not of the Church because they had separated themselues by schisme from Bishop and Church also Cypr. ep 69. And so saieth hee If any be not with the Bishop to wit by reason of Schisme hee is not in the Church and they do in vaine flatter themselues who hauing not peace with the Priests of God creepe in and beleine that secretlie they are in communion with some c. 18. But M. Doctour goeth not so farre nor did he euer affirme or thinke that the English Catholikes were not of the Catholike Church but in his Hierarchie diuers times calleth them most worthie members of the Church and a mirrour to all other Catholikes for their zeale towards God his cause and their constance in Religion Onely he inferred out of the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian that they were not all the time they had no Bishop a particular Church but yet were a worthie member of the whole Church And so M. Nicholas wrongeth M. Doctour in saying that in his application of S. Cyprians definition he is Iniurious to English Catholikes as though M. Doctour
had inferred out of that definitiō that the English Catholikes all the while they wāted a Bishop were schismatikes out of the Church as the Nouatians to whome S. Cyprian applieth his definition were Which is no lesse then a false calumniation For although out of that definition of a Church S. Cyprian inferred that the Nouatians werenot onely no Church for wāt of a Bishop but also Schismatikes out of the Church because they were separated from the Bishop by Schisme which not onely hindereth from being a particular Church but also separateth and cutteth of frō the whole Church Yet M. Doctour inferred not that odious conclusion against the English Catholikes as M. Nicholas seemeth to say and therefore sayeth that M. Doctours application is iniurious to English Catholikes and giueth the reason Because S. Cyprian saied the Nouatians are out of the Church they haue no peace with the Priests of God c. but he onely inferred out of the same definition as I haue tould him aboue that out of the same place or seate of arguments as definition is many conclusions may be deduced that the English Catholikes all the while they had no Bishop were no particular Church because then the definition of a Church which is A people vnited to its Bishop did not agree to English Catholikes for how could they be a people vnited to their proper Bishop who had none at all And so M. Doctour is not iniurious to Catholikes who pleadeth for a Bishop for thē to make thē a particular Church and to haue other honours and commodities by a Bishop but M. Nicholas is iniurious to them who labours to hinder them frō a Bishop by whome they should be a particular Church as formerlie they haue beene and that so glorious that after the Church of Rome they might contend with the most glorious Churches of Europe M. NICHOLAS SMITH The second point which I vndertooke to make good namely that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop is easilie proued c. pagin 20. num 8. THE REPLY England was not a particular Church without a Bishop 19. It is easilie sayed M. Nicholas but not so easilie proued as partelie may appeare by that which is alreadie sayed and S. Cyprians definition will still be a blocke in your way at which you will infalliblie stumble and perchance breake your shinnes 20. But how prooueth he that the Catholikes of England may be a Church without a Bishop Because saieth hee the Pope in defect of particular Bishops is the particular Bishop Ordinarie and Diocesan of such Churches as Philosophers do teach that almightie God the supreme and vniuersall cause of all effectes concurreth not onelie as an immediate but also as a particular cause to the producing of effectes when second particular causes doe faile Thus he 21. And if he meane that the Pope hath beene a particular Bishop to England he must shewe it else M. Doctour may still say that all the while England was without a particular Bishop it was no particular Church or if he thinke he may argue à possibili ad esse from possibilitie to actuall being as if because the Pope can be Englands proper Bishop therefore be hath beene so then euerie one should be what he may be and so M. Nicholas should be generall of his order because he may be and he should be a man of fourescore yeares of age because he may be and be should now be at Rome againe because he may be If he meane that the Pope so soone as a countrie or Diocese wanteth a Bishop is actuallie that countries or Prouinces particular Bishop no Bishoprike should be vacant because so soone as the particular Bishop is dead that Pope is the particular Bishop And so when a Rectour of a Colledge is dead the Prouinciall should be Rectour and when the Prouinciall is deceased the Generall should be Prouinciall and no office should euer be vacant because the Superiour officer should supply it which is absurd and yet be it neuer so absurde it seemeth M. Nicholas his opiniō For he saieth that the Pope in defect of a particular Bishop is the particular Bishop ordinaie and Diocesan of such Churches to wit which want a particular Bishop Which is a strange opinion of M. Nicholas his owne inuention And by this his doctrine it would follow that if per impossibile there were neuer a particular Bishop in all the Church but the Pope the Church should still be Hierarchicall composed of diuers particular Churches because the Pope should be in that case not onelie an vniuersall Bishop of all the Church but also a particular Bishop of euerie particular Church and so one sole Bishop the Pope should make a Hierarchie which consisteth of diuers particular Churches 22. Yet I will not denie but that the Pope to honour a Bishoprick which before his Popedome he enioyed may retaine still the Title of that Bishopricke Ex Baron anno 1849. Leon Papa 9 anno 1. as Leo IX did the Title of the Bishopricke of Tulle Yea he may though vniuersall Bishop of the vniuersall Church be also the particular Bishop of a particular Church as he is de facto particular Bishop of S. Ihon Lateran but then he must ether do the office there of a Bishop by himselfe or by his delegate or at least he must take vnto himselfe the Title of that Church not onelie in name but in verie deed else he shall not be a particular Bishop I say or at least he must take vnto himselfe he Title for that seemeth to be sufficient to make a particular Bishop as we may gather by diuers examples for that there is a Patriarch of Hierusalem in Rome who neither doth the office there by himselfe or anie delegate because he cannot be permitted and my Lord of Chalcedon though he do the office of a Bishop onely in England and not at Chalcedon ether by himselfe or his delegate because it will not be permitted him to do so Yet he is truelie the particular Bishop of Chalcedon because he hath the Title and right to gouerne that Church graunted vnto him 23. Now therefore if M. Nicholas can shew me that the Pope hath done the office of a Bishop in England by himselfe or his delegate or that he hath taken to himselfe the Title of the Bishop of England I shall graunte that all this while wee had no particular Bishop in Englād he hath beene our particular Bishop If he cannot as all the world knoweth he cannot for nether hath the Pope beene in England in person nor hath he sent before these twoe most Reuerend Bishops anie Bishop into England to do there the offices of a Bishop which is to confirme and ordaine nor hath he euer takē vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England then M. Doctours assertion is true to wit that all the while England had no particular Bishop it was no particular Church because as S. Cyprian sayeth the Church is a
assertion pag. 376. n. 2. which affirmeth it to be the diuine law that euerie notable part of the Church such as is England Spaine France should haue its Bishop was moderate in respect of the assertion of Sotus who sayed that euerie Diocese by the diuine law in the aforesayed sense must haue its Bishop And to this purpose onelie he cited Sotus And therefore that was not modestlie nor truelie saied of M. Nicholas but odiouslie and not so charitablie as might be expected of him in the 10. number towards the end where he he sayeth Finallie M. Doctour I doubt not wil be more circumspect in alledging authours lest he doth wrong his owne reputation the Authours themselues the Reader and most of all the trueth Rather M. Nicholas should haue beene more modest and more carefull of the trueth in his words For that M. Doctour doth not say so much as Sotus doth as M. Nicholas would make him but onelie alledged him to shew that this assertion in respect of that of Sotus was moderate M. Doctour affirming onely that it was of the diuine law that euerie notable parte of the Church such as England France Spaine should haue its Bishop Sotus auerring that by the same diuine law euerie Diocese ought to haue its Bishop which is much more then M. Doctour sayed and that this was Sotus his opinion is shewed out of his words and so not M. Doctour but M. Nicholas alledgeth authours contrarie to their meaning MAISTER NICHOLAS The second Authour alledged by M. Doctour is Bannes saying that Bishops cannot by the Pope be remoued from the whole Church or a great or notable parte thereof I wonder M. Doctour would alledge this learned diuine c. num 11. REPLIE Bannes his opinion concerning that point whether it be a diuine law that cuerie notable part of the Church must haue its Bishop and whether Bannes maketh for M. Nicholas Bann 2.2 q. 1. ar 10 Concl. 6. ad vlt. and against M. Doctour 25. To this I shall endeauour to answere with much more moderation then M. Nicholas vseth I answere thē that M. Doctour did not alledge Bannes to proue that euerie particular Church of Diocese is to haue a Bishop neither doth M. Doctour euer say so as M. Nicholas himselfe obserueth n. 14. but he alledged the sense of that Authour as he did of Sotus to shew that his assertion or opinion was moderate And that which is cited as the sense of Bannes is manifestlie there in these words Non tamen admittendum est quòd in tota Ecclesia aut in magna eius parte tam temere Pontifex sua potestate abutatur Yet it is not to be admitted that the Pope in the whole Church or in a great parte of it should so rashly abuse his authoritie And what is this but what M. Doctour sayed to wit that Bishops according to Bannes cannot be remoued from the whole Church or a great or notable parte of it And further that Bānes did beleiue that the Pope could not do this by reason of the diuine law it is easilie gathered by the example he bringeth and by those words tam temerè sua potestate abutatur that he should so rashlie abuse his authoritie for were it an Ecclesiasticall impediment and law he could take it away That Bannes sayeth the Pope may remoue one Bishop and not appoint another may seeme to be against Sotus but not against M. Doctour who sayeth not that euerie Diocese must haue by the diuine law a Bishop but onely that at lest euerie notable parte as England France c. is to haue a Bishop by the diuine precept Yet neither doth Bannes herein plainelie contradict Sotus because Sotus would also graūt that it pertaineth to the Pope to diuide Dioceses and to make them greater or lesse and so to make of two one and consequentlie he would graunt to Bannes that the Pope may take from a Diocese its proper Bishop which it had and subiect it to another Bishop by making it parte of his Diocese onelie Sotus saieth that supposing the diuision of Dioceses made by the Church it is of Christes institution and the diuine law that euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop M. NICHOLAS The reason that M. Doctour did inferre from the saied authorities maketh for him iust as they did It was this By the diuine law c. n. 12. The trueth in the foresaied pointe setting a side opinions of authours 26. Before I shew the force of M. Doctours argument and the faulte of M. Nicholas his māner of arguing I shall explicate and confirme M. Doctour his assertion by which he auerreth that by the diuine law in euerie notable parte of the Church there must be a Bishop Which I shall easilie do supposing M. Doctours ground to wit that the Church must not be gouerned by one onelie supreme Bishop but also by other particular Bishops who are to gouerne particular Churches because the supreme Bishop alone cannot by himselfe gouerne the Church and because the Church is a Hierarchie This groūd M. Doctour hath proued in his 9. Chapter of his Hierarchie where he hath shewed how Bishops inferiour Pastours are to gouerne the Church to preach and administer Sacraments Secondly in his 12. Chapter where he hath proued that Bishops are so necessarie in the Church that it cannot subsist without them And thirdlie in his 13. Chapter where he hath could vs how euen in the time of persecution though it was the greater for the Bishops presence the Church was and ought to be gouerned by Bishops Whence it is consequent that by the diuine law the Church must be gouerned by Bishops and that in generall there must be particular Bishops in the Church of God Which M. Nicholas also graūteth with Suarez n. 17. And why are Bishops necessarie but to gouerne to preach and minister Sacraments 27. Out of which assured ground I argue in this manner There must be by the diuine law Bishops in the Church to gouerne it and consequentlie as manie as may suffice to supplie the necessities the Church hath of gouernment preaching and Sacraments therefore by the same diuine Institution and precept there must be at lest a Bishop in euerie notable parte of the Church such as is France Spaine England for that fewer will not suffice one Bishop being not sufficient to serue all France England Spaine and in particular to confirme by the Sacrament of Confirmation all French and English 28. I instance in Confirmation because other Sacraments may more easilie be in some sort supplyed without a Bishop especiallie in the countrie for that neither the English can go all into France nor all the French into Englād to receaue Confirmation neither can one Bishop go to one Countrie to serue it of Confirmation without preiudice to the other countrie nor can he being but one suffice for so many Wherefore England must haue its owne Bishop France its owne Spaine it s owne and so of the rest if
euerie particular Church or Diocese but if we respect the diuine law there is not more reason of one then another Ergo all the Dioceses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop But M. Doctour would deny his maior as it is Fathered on him for he neither affirmeth nor denyeth that euerie Diocese must haue its Bishop onely he sayeth pag. 375. that it is not so certaine that by the diuine law there must be a Bishop in this or that particular Church as that in generall there must be Bishops in the Church pag. 376. he saieth that it is of the diuine law that euerie notable parte of the Church should haue its Bishop It is true Sotus saieth that it is of the diuine law that euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop but M. Doctour neither affirmeth it nor denyeth it Secondly I answere that there is more reason and necessitie of a Bishop in a whole countrie or Kingdome which is a notable parte of the Church then in euerie particular Diocese because one Bishop may in some sort gouerne two Dioceses but not all France Spaine or England or any such notable parte as I haue shewed and one Diocese may be assisted by the Bishop of the next Diocese but not one great Coūtrie by the Bishop of another countrie as I haue also proued 36. By this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to that his questiō n. 16. whether that England Scotland Iure diuino must also haue an Ordinarie For if England Scotland be both notable partes of the Church both ought to haue by the diuine law their proper Bishop be he Ordinarie or delegate when men demaund any thing there is more reason to demaūd that which is ordinarie thē that which is extraordinarie And if the Pope thinke best to giue a Delegate as so he may supplie Englāds wantes so that is not the ordinarie course obserued in other Churches And so Englād may demaund an Ordinarie and leaue the rest to the Chiefe Pastours discretion who is to Iudge whether he should giue an Ordinarie or delegate whether the diuine law obligeth to giue vnto a countrie a Bishop in this or that circumstance 37. Out of all this I gather how vnwilling M. Nicholas is to haue a Bishop I graunt that he sayeth pag. 204. that he would most willinglie spend his blood for the purchassing of times sutable with the enjoying of a Catholike Bishop in England But what is that time which M. Nicholas deemeth sutable for the enioying of a Bishop Would he haue a time which the supreme Pastour whose office it is to giue Pastours to eueriē Church thinketh in his iudgement sutable That tyme is alreadie come Would he haue a time in which the countrie hath men of its owne in it to be Bishops that time is also come for that two most worthie Prelates haue beene thought by the supreme Pastour sit and worthie to be sent the one after the other Would he haue a tyme in which there are not particular lawes enacted against the Bishop no confiscation of goods no losse of libertie or life executed on them that receiue Confirmation of him That tyme also is come Would he haue England altogether Catholike and no vse of any other religion to be permitted in it but Catholike before he would haue a Bishop come If that tyme onely be in M. Nicholas his opinion sutable the primatiue Church liued in no time sutable for a Bishop and yet Christ constituted his Apostles Bishops and they constituted others in the greatest rage and furie of persecution as M. Doctour hath shewed in his 13. Chapter n. 3. And to say that a time of persecution is not sutable for a Bishop is to say that when the enemie is in the field it is not a time sutable to haue a Generall when the woulfe is ready to set on the flocke it is not a time sutable to haue a Pastour And so the tyme of the primatiue Church in which the Church was assalted by persecutours in all Countries and on all sides was not a time sutable for enioying a Bishop And yet that is the tyme in which there is most need of him to giue them by Confirmation spirituall force and strength to direct them by his counsaile to encourage them by his presence and example If none of these tymes be sutable for a Bishop in M. Nicholas his opinion The primitiue Christians should haue beene without a Bishop till the Emperour Constantine appeased persecution and Christ should not haue sent his Apostles to gouerne preach and confirme till the saied tyme of Constantine for all the tymes before being times of persecutiō were not by M. Nicholas his counte sutable to the enioying of a Bishop If then neither the tyme that Christ thought fit to send Bishops nor the tyme that the Apostles ordained Bishops nor the time that Christ his chiefe Vicaires haue thought sutable for the enioying of a Bishop in England be sutable in M. Nicholas his Iudgement Let him name vs another tyme which is sutable least if he except against so many times men may thinke that M. Nicholas deemeth no time sutable for enioying a Bishop in England M. NICHOLAS What he alledgeth out of Suarez to proue that the gouernement c. n. 17. THE REPLY Suarez is not against M. Doctour but for him 37. Suarez in the place alledged by M. Doctour hath two reasons Suarez tom 4. in 3. p. disput 26. sect 1. n 8. and it sufficed M. Doctour to cite the one because the other matter which the second reason toucheth was not controuerted nor in question Euerie Reader of Iudgement would obserue that in the citation nothing is wanting but an c. which was not necessarie because the first reason serued M. Doctours turne which was that the Pope cannot change the gouernement of the Church because the Church by Christ his institution is a Monarchie and a monarchie requireth not onelie one chiefe Monarche but also other subordinate princes Which was enough to confirme what M. Doctour there intended to wit that in the Church there must be diuers particular Bishops and Churches And the second reason which Suarez alledgeth as it was not necessarie to be alledged for M. Doctours purpose so it was not left out as M. Nicholas rashlie iudgeth because it made against M. Doctour as it is manifest His second reason therefore was tum etiam quia in republica Christiana c. and also because in the Christian commonwealth this was most necessarie for it is most ample and most vniuersall and its gouernement is spirituall and interne which is not done exactlie bu◠by proper Pastours and Princes of the Church And what is this against M. Doctour rather it is for him For as the Church is a must ample and most vniuersall Monarchie and therefore according to Suarez his second reason needeth more spirituall Princes and Bishops then a Kingdome doth neede temporall Princes so euerie notable parte of
and after he Clemēt giueth the reasō because without that Sacrament Confirmatiō one cannot be a perfect Christian Where the Reader must note that Cardinall Bellasmine sayeth not as M. Nicholas doth that without both Sacraments but without that Sacrament to wit of Confirmation one cannot be a perfect Christian And so without Confirmation according to S. Clement one cānot be a perfect Christian 19. But as they who haue neuer a good answere are forced to vse many whereas one good answere alwayes satisfieth so M. Nicholas knowing belike that none of his answers will abide the touchstone nor stand the examination bringeth many answeres not so much to satisfie vs as to presse vs with the multitude He therefore hath in store for vs a fourth answere and what is that He sayeth pag. 83. that S. Clement is not faithfullie alledged by M. Doctour And why because he alledgeth not all his words but ends at these words before alledged otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian And what needed M. Doctour alledge anie more words seing he had alledged those that proued what he intended to wit that without confirmation one cannot be a perfect Christian And truely M. Doctour alledged more of S. Clements words then Cardinall Bellarmine in the place aboue cited did and yet Bellarmine who saw those words that follow as well as M. Nicholas without alledging them feared not to say Et infra causam reddit Clemens quia non potest aliquis sine co Sacramento esse perfectus Christianus and after he S. Clement yeeldeth the reason because one cannot without that Sacrament be a perfect Christian 20. But what are these words which M. Doctour left out Let vs heare them from M. Nicholas his owne mouth My 4. answere is that S. Clemēt is not faithfullie alledged by M. Doctour for S. Clement after he had sayed VVhen he shal be regenerated and by water afterward confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfould grace of the spirit because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian where M. Doctour ends with an c. immediatelie addeth words wherein the verie point in question consisteth saying si non necessitate sed incuriâ sic aut voluntate remanserit If be shall remaine so not by necessitie but by carelessenesse or voluntarilie But first here I might if I were is foreward in carping at leauing out word though not to the purpose as M. Nicholas is obserue the like fault in him euen in this place in which he taxeth Maister Doctour for that he omitteth those words nec sedem habere inter perfectos nor haue place amongst the perfect which are the immediate words that go before those which M. Nicholas sayeth M. Doctour lift out to wit If he shall remaine so not of necessitie And M. Doctour hath indeed cause to thinke M. Nicholas left them out of purpose for that as wee shall see they made against him and for M. Doctour 21. Yet let vs heare how M. Nicholas argueth out of these words which not onely M Doctour but also Bellarmin left out as also others aboue cited do S. Clement sayeth he pag. 83. sayeth that he who after Baptisme is not Confirmed cannot be a perfect Christian if he want it out of carelessenesse not out of necessitie ergo sayeth he the Catholikes of England who want it out of necessitie may be perfect Christians without it but what necessitie is there now or hath there bene since the Pope sent our two last most Reuerend Bishops to want Confirmation For we haue thankes be to God a Bishop willing to giue that Sacrament and there is no speciall law against him and neuer any as yet hath bene persecuted for hauing taken it Confirmation at least the persecution is not so great but that thousandes haue taken it And these words which M Doctour left out as they are some what obscure so they are as much against M. Nicholas as M. Doctour 22. For first he sayeth out of Estius that when S. Clement or other Fathers saye that a man cannot be a perfect Christian without Confirmation they say so because till he haue it he hath not the perfect vnction of which wee are called Christians that is anointed And then will I adde these words in which M. Nicholas sayeth the point of the controuersie consisteth if not by necessitie but by carelessenesse or voluntarilie he shall remaine so ergo if not by carelessesse but out of necessitie he want Confirmation he may he a perfect Christian that is perfectlie anointed without it which were to say he may be perfectlie anointed without perfect vnction and so haue it without hauing it 23. Secondlie his third answere to S. Clements words pag. 81. as aboue we haue seene was that the ancient practise was to giue baptisme and Confirmation together and that therefore when S. Clement sayeth that otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian he meaneth that vnlesse he haue both Sacraments that is Baptisme and Confirmation he cannot be a perfect Christian and then will I come M. Nicholas with those words following if he shall remaine so not by necessitie but by carelessenesse or voluntarilie Ergo if by necessitie he want both Baptisme and Confirmation he may be a perfect Christian and yet without Baptisme he is no Christian at all and consequentlie no perfect Christian Wherefore vnlesse we will make S. Clement absurdlie contradict himselfe and make all Diuines allmost absurd who alledge as Suarez also alledgeth these last words Suarez Supra which M. Doctour omitted as not necessarie to his purpose we must say that S. Clement meaneth not to say as M. Nicholas inferreth that if of necessitie one want Confirmation he may be a perfect Christian without it for that were to contradict himselfe he hauing sayed before that vnlesse one be consigned he cannot be a perfect Christian And so whether he want Confirmation voluntarilie or of necessitie he cannot be a perfect Christian Sacramentallie as aboue is sayed as whether voluntarilie or by necessitie he want Baptisme he is no Christian Wherefore the sense of these words must not be that which M. Nicholas gathereth but some other and as it is verie probable it is this sense following which is gathered out of the words which M Nicholas left out which are those nor haue place amongst the perfect if he remaine so not by necessitie c. 24. This then is the sense of S Clements words All therefore must make haste without delay to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop that is to receiue the seuenfould grace of the holy Ghost because the end of euerie ones life is vncertaine which he may say because Baptisme and Confirmation then were giuen together and so Baptisme at least was not to be delayed least one should dye without Baptisme and when he shal be regenerated by water and afterward confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfould grace of the spirit as is memorated for otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian
England were greater for the Bishop as it is not there being no speciall lawes in force against him yet many might receiue him and Confirmation of him without any imminēt danger and consequentlie according to Estius his opinion are bound vnder mortall sinne to receiue Confirmation when there is danger by reason of infirmitie of denying their faith or of fearing to professe it when they should And so I meruaile that M. Nicholas could not see the difference betwixt persecution in generall and in particular for that persecution in generall doth not excuse particular men from receiuing Confirmation they notwithstanding a generall persecution hauing commoditie to receiue it without danger but when the persecution is particular to men in particular then they cannot without danger and so are excused yet nether a countrie nor any of the countrie can except against Priests coming into the countrie by reason of a generall persecution because notwithstanding such a persecution many in particular may heare Masse receiue the B. Sacrament goe to confessiō heare a sermon now and then without imminent danger and so for respect and regard of these who haue right to the Sacrament none can except against the coming in of Priests into a countrie seing that if the countrie were depriued of Priests none could heare Masse goe to confession receiue the Sacraments or heare exhortations and so at this day if Priests had not bene sent into England maugre persecution there had now scarce any Catholike or Catholike Religion bene left in England nisi Dominus exercituum reliquisset nobis semen quasi Sodoma suissemus quasi Gomorrha similes essemus Vnlesse the Lord of Hostes had left vs this seed we had bene as Sodome and we should be like to Gomorrha Isai 1. 32. So although no man in particular be bound to receiue the Bishop into his house or Confirmation of him with imminent danger of the aforesayed temporall losses Yet a countrie could not except against a Bishop or Confirmation for feare of persecution in generall for that notwithstanding such a generall persecution many might without the aforesayed danger receiue a Bishop and Confirmation at his hands as wee see they haue done in England And so in regard of these who haue right to a Bishop and to Confirmation none can except against the coming in of a Bishop lawfullie sent vnlesse as M. Doctour sayeth p. 378. n 3. the persecution were so great that the Bishop could not enter or would presently be apprehended or put to death because without a Bishop many should want the confort encouragement and example of such a Pastour they should want Confirmation which as Estius sayeth cannot in tyme of persecution and when there is danger of falling to many who might commodiouslie receiue it be omitted without mortall sinne as we shall proue anone M. NICHOLAS His last argument is out of a coniecture that without Confirmation if one fall not others probablie will as he sayeth Nouatus did n. 19. THE REPLY That Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation and that in time of persecution without that Sacrament if one fall not others will 33. M. Doctour indeed sayed pag. 387. n. 8. that if in tyme of persecution there were not a Bishop to giue Confirmation if one fall not others probablie would as Nouatus did for want of it But M. Nicholas sayeth that of Nouatus he findeth no such thing in Eusebius to wit that in tyme of persecution hefell for want of Confirmation 34. And indeed neither Eusebius nor Cornelius by him alleadged doe say so in expresse termes but they do so insinuate and so it followeth out of their words that as other writers haue done so M Doctour might say that Noutatus others as Baronius ad Pamelius call him Nouatianus did fall in time of persecution for want of Confirmation 35. Euseb l 6 c. 33 alias 35. iuxta vers Christophor soni For Eusebius saieth first that Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus telleth all the particulars quis qualis suerit vita vel moribus quomodo ab Ecclesia Dei declinauerit Who what manner of man he was in life and manners and how he declined from the Church And after he sayeth of him Et quod iacens in lecto pronecessitate perfusus sit c. and that lying in his bed he was baptized out of necessitie and that the rest which are wont to follow Baptisme were not solemnelie fulfilled and that he was not consummated by the seale of Chrisme where upon neither could he euer deserue the holy Ghost that is in that speciall manner as he is giuen by Confirmation that is to giue courage to professe our faith in tyme of persecution Li. aduersus Luciferia◠nos For as S. Hierome auerreth the Holie Ghost is also giuen by Baptisme yea as Diuines graunte by other Sacraments so oft as by them wee receiue instifying grace but not in that speciall manner nor to that particular end which is to giue force to professe our faith in time of persecution maugre all threates and tormentes of the Tyrant And therefore Eusebius a little after addeth that Cornelius writeth also of Nouatus that in time of persecution when he lurked in a certaine little celle for feare and was desired by the Deacons as the manner is helpe the Catechumenes at their departure out of this life he fearing to come out denyed himselfe to be a Priest And presentlie after hee telleth how he also fell into Schisme And so seing that he fell in persecution and wanted the holy Ghost for ant of Confirmation if we put all this together we shall find it at least verie probable that hee fell for want of Confirmation though other causes might concurre as ambition which M. Nicholas alleadgeth in that manner as though he meant couertelie to glaunce at the ambition of Priests who desire a Bishop though as aboue I haue tould him in this tyme there is little cause why out of ambition any should desire a Bishop and I pray God there be not ambition also in seeking to hinder the Catholikes from hauing a Bishop 36. But that Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation diuers before M. Doctour haue affirmed As first The venerable and learned Authours of the Rhemes Testament of whom M. Doctour had it who writing on the eight Chapter of the Actes haue deliuered these words To conclude neuer none denied or contemned this Sacrament of Confirmation and holy Chrisme but knowne heretikes S. Cornelius that B. Martyr so much praised of S. Cyprian ep ad Fabium apud Euseb l. 6. c. 35. affirmeth that Nouatus fell to heresie for that he had not receiued the holy Ghost by the consignation of a Bishop whom all the Nouatians did fellow neuer vsing that bolie Chrisme 37. Fulke in his answere to the notes of the Rhemists on this place answereth that Nouatus omitted the ceremonie of anointing yet doth not Cornelius say that he fell into heresie because he
thousands who haue right to the Sacrament and might notwithstanding a generall persecution commodiouslie receiue and may fall for want of it 40. Of this I shall giue these ensuing reasons The first is this Euen in tyme of a ganerall persecution of which we speake many and sometymes manie thousands as aboue is shewed may receiue this holie Sacrament of Confirmation without any morall danger as now in England since we had our two most Reuerend Bishops many thousands haue done and seing that all these by Christ his institution haue right to Confirmation the rest of the countrie cannot for a generall persecution refuse this Sacrament least they should doe greate iniurie to so many Secondlie they who in tyme of a generall persecution when they may in particular receiue this Sacrament doe neglect it though they know not how soone they may be called to make profession of their faith doe seeme to presume to much of God his extraordinarie grace for seing that Confirmation is the ordinarie meanes to get this grace thereby to confesse their faith if they neglect it presuming of God his grace without this meanes it cannot be but a great presumption 41. Thirdelie in tyme of persecution when one is apprehended and brought before the persecutour he vseth to threaten losse of Landes and goods libertie and life it selfe hee therefore who in tyme of persecution seeth himselfe exposed to all these difficulties had neede to arme himselfe by all the meanes he can and whatsoeuer Maister Nicholas sayeth he may feare his owne infirmitie for that it is not an easie thing euen with ordinarie grace to forsake Landes goods libertie life Father mother wife and children rather then to deny or not to professe his faith and it is aboue the force of flesh and blood and although he may haue grace sufficient as manie in our Countrie without Confirmation haue had yet this grace which giueth force to professe our faith before the Tyrant is not due to anie but these who are confirmed to whom it is due by the Sacrament and character which it imprinteth as ahoue I haue declared 3. par q. 72. art 8. n. 89 Wherefore AEgidius Coninck a Iesuite saieth that it may be a mortall sinne not to receiue this Sacrament by reason of ones conscience Vt si omnino crederet sibi imminere periculum nisi hoc Sacramentum susciperet quod saepe posset contingere in ijs qui versantur continuò inter haereticos vel minis vel promissis aut alia ratione ad defectionem sollicitantur nam est singulare Dei donum in talibus casibus fidem constanter tueri quod etsi Deus paratus est omnibus dare tamen saepe minus liberaliter illud dat iis qui non vtuntur medijs ab ipso ad hoc institutis qualis est Confirmatio As if one should altogether beleeue that he should be in danger vnlesse he receiued this Sacraement which might oftentymes happen in thsse who liue continuallie amongst heretikes as English Catholikes doe and who there by threates or promises or otherwise are sollicited to forsake their faith as English Catholikes are For it is a singular guift of God to defend constantlie ones faith in such cases which guift though God be readie to giue yet oftentymes he lesse liberallie bestoweth it on these who vse not the meanes by him instituted to this as is Confirmation And so as a Vigilant and prudent soldiour when he is in the field and knoweth not how soone the enemie will assault him is alwayes armed and euen sleepeth in his armour So the prudent Christian in tyme of persecution when he knoweth not how soone the persecutour may set vpon him ought alwayes to be armed and especially with the armour of proofe Confirmation it being the proper armour instituted by Christ to be vsed in time of persecution 42. But M. Nicholas pagin 88. 89. sayeth that when Estius sayeth that Confirmation cannot be omitted without mortall sinne in time of persecution he speaketh in time and place of such persecution of faith as bringeth with it danger of a mans denying his faith which thankes be to God we may sayis not our case in England where c. And is there not danger in England of a mans denying his faith I would to God there were not Is there not danger of a mans denying his faith in England where not longe since a Priest and a lay man were executed for their faith at Lancraster and where many also not so long since were enforced to abiure their faith not onely for the tyme present but also for the tyme to come where so many not longe since had their Landes seazed on Where the Pursiuantes do lye in waite and watch continuallie to apprehend Catholikes where the Lawes are still in force and may be executed euerie day M. Nicholas saieth in the hoatest persecution the zeale of many was admirable I graunte it and the greater was Gods grace to them but many also then fell of whom some no doubt would haue stood constantlie to their faith if they had had Confirmation 42. Fourthlie although heretofore in Queene Elizabethes raigne or whē we had not the honour nor hoppines to haue a Bishop and so consequentlie were depriued of Cōfirmation God out of his greate mercie supplied the want of Confirmation and gaue to many the grace of confirmation without Confirmation Yet now when we may haue a Bishop as thankes be God we haue and may commodiouslie in tyme of persecution receiue Confirmation as thousands haue done without any temporall losse or domage to excepte against a Bishop and consequētlie against Confirmation of which the Bishop onely is at least the ordinarie Minister almightie God might iustlie and should haue iust reason to deny vs that grace and many for want of it would fayle and fall as Nouatus and others haue done 43. Lastlie it cannot be denyed but that Christians are more able and likely with this Sacramē to professe their faith thē they are without it and that more in a countrie persecuted are like to stand to the profession of their faith with this Sacramēt the without else this Sacrament should be needlesse and Christ tolitle purpose should haue instituted it ergo in a countrie persecuted destitute of this Sacrament many doe full who otherwise would stand and for euerie one that standeth perhaps twentie will fall 44. For these reasons in the primatiue Church the custome was to giue Cōfirmatiō presētlie after baptisme that so the baptized might neuer want his speciall armour instituted against persecution Act. 2. Saint Peter by his first sermon hauing conuerted about three thousand bad them doe pennance and be cuerie one haptized and what else and you shall saieth he receine the guift of the holy ghost the proper effect of Confirmation giuen presentlie after Baptisme And when S. Philipp had conuerted and baptized the Samaritans because hee as being no Bishop could not confirme them the Apostles who