were auerted froÌ„ the Sacrifices of God as S. Thomas auoucheth S. Thom. 2.2 q. 184. â—7 8 Religion to be the most perfect of all Sacrifices an Holocaust 7 This treacise cannot â—e pleasing to the Holy Sea Apostolick froÌ„ whence it had bin good maÌ„ners for vs to learne what is by Christs iâ—stitution necessary for Gods Church ingeneral expedieÌ„t in particular coÌ„cerning our hauing a Bishop in EnglaÌ„d But to tel euery maÌ„ womaÌ„ in a laÌ„guage vnderstood only by those who ought to obey and which could not serue for information of those who were to be our Vmpiers that it is a deuine commandement to haue a Bishop in England is but to lead men into temptation of disobedience in case his Holinesse should euer put in prctaise the contrary and of condemning the iudgments and facts of so many learned and holy Popes who for diuers yeares deemed it nether necessary nor expedient togrant vs a Bishop 8 The greater and better part of English Catholicks wil be nothing well contented with this booke wherein they are plainely enough taxed of want of Charity and Obedience in not being so vnited subordinate to my Lord of Calcedon as it seemes M. Doctour thinkes they should They are also in effect coÌ„demned of mortal sinne by refusing so longe time a Bishop against the law of God for being occasioÌ„ on their partes that our country wanted the Sacrament of Confirmation which according to M. Doctour is so necessary in time of persecution that neither any country Chap 14â— â— nor any one of the country for feare of persecutioÌ„ can oppose against the comming in of a Bispop though thereby only the Sacrament of confirmation should be wanting auouching moreouer al those who haue not had the Sactament of Confirmation not to be perfect Christians which is a saying by him more then once repeated but how true it is I hope the reader wil be able to iudge by what shal be said in the folloâ—wing questions as also how litle probability his other reasons carry for euincing the necessity of a Bishop in England 9 Neither can my Lord of Chalcedon much like this booke wherein the reader will finde some passages by me noted whereby my Lord his Ordmariship is quite demolished and other authority by him pretended either extenuated or made odious dreadfull to Catholicks 10 It cannot be pleasing to Almighty God to treate of holy things vpon particular designe and humane respects For I know not how deuotion is lessened euen towards sacred things when they are commended by exaggeration and for some priuate end as in this treatise M. Doctour doth extoll Episcopall dignity aboue Religious state vrge the necessity of Confirmation prayse the Secular Clergy and enforce the obligation of hauing a Bishop much more then according to true deuinity he could and more then I feare he would haue done if all mortall men were as free from emulation as the Saints in heauen And as he hath written of the Hierarchie so perhaps we shall in tyâ—e see some printed treatise of the Saâ—rament of Confirmation and the generall ambiguous speaches of some antient Fathers or the particular opinions of some few deuines misapplyed for the necessity of that Sacrament or in proofe that it cannot be administred but by a Bishop or some such like subject busines 11 As for the manner helâ— by M Doctour in proouing his Tenets I feare it will not correspond to that opinion which hath bene conceiued of his learning and in truth excepting those points which all Catholicks beleeue there is no one thing in his whole booke which will put a man to study for the answere 12 Against all good Logicke and as it may seeme against prâ—dence he prooueth his conclusion by principlâ—s more harsh and incredible then the conclusion it selfe For example to prooue the necessity of a Biâ—hop in Engâ—and he serueth himselfe of these straÌ„ge vntoward propositioÌ„s That it is de iure diuiâ—â— a deuine Law for euery such pâ—rticular Church as England is to haue a Bâ—â—hop That without a Bishop England cannot be a paâ—ticular Church That vnlesse euery â—â—rticular Church haue is Bishop or Bishops the whole and Vniuersall Câ—urch should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie coÌ„posed of diuers particular Churches That without a Bishop we cannot haue Confirmation which whosoeuer wants is not as M. Doctour sayth a perfect Christian All which principles are worse then the conclusion and are by vs demonstrated to haue no ground at all 13 He still doth not aright compare Religious with Secular Priests alwayes reduplicating Religious as Religious but neuer â—ecular as Secular For example he saith that Religious as Religious haue not authority to preach gouerne the Church or the like but neuer telleth vs whether Secular as Secular can do it as certainly they cannot till authority be granted theÌ„ which being graÌ„ted also to Religious they may performe the same actions no lesse then Seculars as in due place shal be declared In other points likewise he speaketh not so distinctly as a schollar would expect 14 But the thing at which I most woÌ„der in a maÌ„ of his learning is that those Fathers schoole Deuines which he produceth for witnesses of his doctrine are indeed against himselfe Sâ—â— quest â— 3 â— as the reader wil see in his allegatioÌ„ of S. Cyprian S. ClemeÌ„t Sotus BaÌ„nes etâ— 15 Lastly I desire the reader to be still carefully obseruing throughout his whole treatise that whereas he maketh profession to abstaine from the mayne question betwixt my Lord of Chalcedon and others and further affirmeth in his fiftenth chapter num 10. that my Lord can challenge no Bishopricke no not so much as the poorest parish in England And whereas likewise my Lord of Chlacedon by his Breife of Delegation was to haue no power in England or Scotland till his arriuall in those Kingdomes and then onely ouer Catholicks and as long as his Holinesse should thinke good all which are manifest arguments that he is not Ordinary as other Bishops in Catholicke countries are who although they should neuer set foote in their owne Diocesses yet they haue true Ordinary power ouer both Catholickes and Hereticks within such diocesses and are Ordinaries both personarum et loci of persons and place both in fore interno externâ— and that not onely ad bene placitum but permanently as alwayes in the Church of God some Ecclesiasticall princes must be Notwithstanding I say all this yet the arguments by which M. Doctour would prooue the necessty of a Bishop in England either prooâ—e nothing at all or else more then he himselfe inâ—endeth or my Lord of Chalcedon challâ—geth namely that he must haue authority â—lso ouer heretickes that he may lay claime to some or all the Diocesses in England as well as to that of Chalcedon that he must not be onely ad beneplacetum c. and â—o M. Doctour must be forced either to arswere his
in eaâ—ry particular Church as to haue one Supreame head of the whole Catholicke Church When Gregory Clement Paule and other Popes stood in deliberation whether it were expedient to haue a Bishop in England as for many yeares it was by them iudged inconuement might they as well haue doubted of the necessity or â—onueniency of hauing any Pope of Rome for the gouernement of the whole Catholick Church to say that a particular Bishop hâ—th not power to gouerne the whole Catholicke Church ergo the Bishop of the whole Catholicke Church cannot goâ—erne a particular one is as good as to say the feete cannot guide the head eâ—go the head cannot guide the feete His assertion or inference vpoÌ„ his ownâ— pâ—emisses that vnlesse euery particular Church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuert particular Churches if it be vnderstood of particular Churches indeterminately that is the whole Church cannot be a Hierarchie vnles some particular Churches haue Bishops it is very true but sâ—rueth nothing at all to his purpose of proouing that England must haue a Bishop because although England or some other particular country want Bishops other Churches and countries may haue them and so the Vniuersâ—ll Church shall still be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churcher But if he vnderstand as his wâ—res euery particular Church and his whole drife seeme to demonstrate that vnlesse euery particular determinate Church haue a Bishop the whole and Vuiuersall Church should not as Christ â—ath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches I must needs say his doctrine is clearely subject to a deeper Censure then I am willing to expresse For what Catholick dare aâ—onch that because England for the space of threescore yeares wanted a Bishop the Vniuersall Church all that time was not as Christ hath institutea a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches yea if my Lord of Chuâ—â—edon be not properly Ordinary both of England and Scotland M. Doctour must consequently affirme that the Vniuersall Church at this day is not as Christ hath instituted a Hierarchâ—â— composed of diuers particular Churches O to now great inconueniences is a man subject if once he vndertake the defence of a very hard cause THE THIRD QVESTION Whether by the deuine Law euery particular Church must haue it Bishop 1 TO prooue that a particular Country â—â—y not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution M. Doctour in his 14. chapter alleadgeth that it is de luâ—e diuino of the diuine Law to haue a Bishop in euery particular Church And for proofe theoeof citeth Soâ—us affirming Sot lib. 10. deâ—â—uâ—â—â—et iure q. 1. a. 4. posâ— sâ—â— undâ—â— conclusionâ— it to be de iure diuino of the deuine Law quòd in genere singulis Ecclsiâ—s secundum Ecclesiasticum diuisionem sut aâ—plicentur Episcopi That in generall to euery particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision proper Bishops are to be applyed And Bannes teaching Baâ—â—es 2.2 q. 1. a 10. Coclu 6. ad vâ—â— that Bishops cannot by the Pope be remoâ—uea from the whole Church or a great or not able part of it Hauing cited these two learned authours he argueth thus By the deuine Law there must be particular Bishops in the Church but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France for I speake especially of great particular Churches which are not able parts of the whole Church should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops rather then the Church of Spaine or the Church of Spaine rather then the Church of England or Flanders ergo France Spaire England Flanders and all other particular Churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops 2 These be the best grounds that M. Doctour in the said chapter bringeth for proofe that it is de iure deuino a command of God to haue a Bishop in England I wil adde such other arguments as can be afforded from his 13. chapter wherein although he affirme but that which al Catholicks do grant speaking in general that cueÌ„ in time of persecutioÌ„ the whol Church may not be gouerned without some Bishops yet because some of the proofes brought for the said verity may perhaps seeme pertinent to this present question Suar. tom 4. in 3. p. d. 25. I will not dissemble them Suareâ—â— saith he concludeth that the Church cannot change this kinde of gouernment by Bishops Then he alleadgeth examples of the African Church When Hunericus began his raigne he offered to the Catholicks of Carthage to chuse in that Church a Bishop which ornament sayth Victor Carthage had wanted for 24. Victor Vticenâ—â—t lib. 2. perseq vad inâ—â—â—o yeares but yet vpon this condition that the Arrtans at Constantinople might enioy the free vse of their Churches otherwise saith Hunericus not onely the Bishop that shal be ordained in carthage with his Cleargy but also all other Bishops of the African prouinces with their Cleargie shal be sent to the Mooâ—es The which when Victor Primate of Africke and others heard they refused his courtesie with so cruell a condition and says â—iâ—ita est interposius his condâ—tionibus periculosis haec Ecclesia Episcopum noâ— delectatur habere Gubernat eam Christus qui semper dignatur guberuare If it be so with these perilous conditions the Church of Carthage is not dilighted to haue a Bishop But the people so cryed out for a Bishop that they could not be appeased without one 3 A second argument M. Doctour â—raweth from another example of Huneticus his cruelty and of the African Catholicks zeale to their Bishops and Pastoâ—rs Victor Vâ—â—censis lib 2. Hunericus his cruelty Victor Vâ—â—censis descriâ—â—th rather by teares then words saying Quibus autem prosequar flumâ—â—bus â—â—â—â—ryâ—aâ—um quando â—â—pâ—sâ—opâ—s Presbâ—â—eros Dâ—â—conoâ— eâ—alia â—â—â—lsiae membra id est quatuor willia D. cccc Lxvi ad exilium eremi dastiâ—auâ—â— in quibus â—rant podagrici quamplurims aly per aetatem anâ—oâ—uâ—n lumine â—emporali priuaâ—â— c. But with what fâ—â—ds of teares shall I proosecute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rs his crucltâ— woen he sent Best ops Priests Deacous and other members of the Church â—â—to â—â—â—ashmeÌ„t in the wilaernesse amongst whom were â—â—my troubled with the gout others by age â—â—â—nd and dâ—priueâ— of sight c. Behould Huâ—â—â—cus his cruâ—â—ty Now let vs behould the zeale of the Catholicks of these countries for their Bishops and Priests They complantned pâ—â—â—ufâ—ly that they were deprined of their Pastours saâ—ing or rather crying Victor lib. 2. peâ—ses Vad. Quibus nos miseros relinquiâ—ts dum pergites ad coronas qui â—os baptizatuâ—â— sunt parunlos fonâ—â—bus aqua perernis qui nobis paenâ—tentiae munus collaturi sunt et reconciliationis induigentâ—s obstrictos peccatorum vinculis solâ—tuâ—i quiâ— vobis dictum est quaecunque solueritis super terram erunt solâ—â—a et on cales Qui nos soleÌ„ntbus or ationâ—bus sepulturi sunt mortentes quibus diâ—â—ni
Sacrifictâ—â—â—tuâ—â—xhibedus estâ— Vobiscum et not â—â—eebat pergere siliceret vs tali modo filios a patribus nulla necessit at separaret To whom do you leane vs maser able wretches whilst you goe to receaue your crownes Who shall giue vs the Sacrament of pennance and loose vs tyed with the bords of sinnes by the Indulgence of reconciliaâ—â—on For to you it was said whatsoeuer you shall loose vpoÌ„ earth it shal be loosed in heaneÌ„ Who shall bury vs with solemne prayers when we shall dy to whom the rite of the acuâ—â—â— sacrifice is to be exhibited We might haue gonne with you that so no necessâ—tâ— might separate the children from their Fathers After this example M. Doctour sayth thus Wherefore aâ— for otheâ— poynts of our Fayth we must dye rather then deny them so we must dye rather then aâ—â—y the Hierarchy of the Church it being a poynt of Fayth 4 His third example is out of Orosius relating how the Aâ—ian Tyrant Trâ—samundus commanced that the African Bishops should not ordayne any more Bishops in the place of those that dyed Orosius 〈…〉 â— 10 The Bishops considering that without Bishops their churches could not long subsist but would fall without any other persecuâ—â—on or violence vsed against them resolued to call a Councell And in that Councell all the Bishops with one consâ—â—t decreed notwithstanding the Tyrants Edict to the contrary to ordaine Bishops Cogitantes aut regis iâ— acundâ—am siqua forsan existeret mitigandam quo facilius ordinatâ—â—â—suis plebibus vâ—uerent aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur coranaâ—dos etiaâ— sides confessione quos dignos inuentebant promotione c. Thinking that the Kings wrath if any perchance should be would be mitigated or that they who were found worthy of promotion would be crowned with confessioâ— of their ministerie And good reason had they so to doe For as sayth Baronius Quaenam shes de Ecclesiâ—s â—astoribus destitutis vlterius reliqua esse poterat Baron An. Daâ— 504. conuulsis earum fundameÌ„tis ipâ—is quibus initibantur Episcopis What hope could there remayne for the Churches when their foundations to wit the Bishops to which they leaned and on which they depended were ruined and pulled vp Thus farre out of M. Doctour whose words I hane related at large that the reader might see all the force of these examples and out of the narrations themselues gather the answeres to them 5 In this question certaine it is that de â—ure diuino the Church must be goueâ—ned by Bishops that is in the whole Church of God there must be some Bishops but to affirme as M. Doctour doth that it is de iure diuino to haue a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England nâ—â—â—nely that there is such a precept but moreouer that hoe persecuioÌ„ can excuse the obligation therof or giue sufficieÌ„t cause of dispensation all which he must prooue if he will speake home is a paradox to speake sparingly without any shew of probability and which may seeme to taxe those Popes as ignorant of the deuine Law who for so many yeares esteemed it neither necessary nor expedient to send a Bishop into England neither when he was sent did they euer disputeâ— whether it was necessary â—ure diuino but all the deliberation was quid expediret what was expedient yea M. Doctour must finally answere his owne arguments which either prooue nothing at all or else prooue that his Holinesse is obliged to give vs an Ordinary for his reasons and examples are for such which is more then M. Doctour himselfe will â—uouch 6 And truly I cannot inâ—agine what way one should go about to prooue that vpon noe cause whatsoeuer the Pope can make himselfe particular Bishop of some particular Church especially for a tyme and gouerne it by his Delegates endued with sufficient power and still prouided that the sayd particular Church within or without it selfe haue meanes to be furnished with sufficient Priests and necessary Sacraments and helps 7 But although we should grant that as M. Doctour affirmeth a great or notable part of the church could not iuâ—re diuino be gourned without a Bishop yet that would be far from proouing that England as things now stand must needes haue a Bishop For if our country be considered not materially but formally as Deuines expresse themselues that is not the extent of land or multitude of people but the number of Catholickes which only can make a true church we shall find it to be more then far from a great or notable part of the Catholick church spred ouer the whole world And God grant that I might not with truth affirme the whole number of Catholicks in EnglaÌ„d ScotlaÌ„d also to be much lesse theÌ„ the nuÌ„ber of people in some one citty in this Kingdom Sure I am that my Lord of Chaloâ—don or some other in his behalfe in a certine writing called a Paralâ—â— sect 4. saith that all the Catholicks would scarce make one of diuers Bishopricks in England Now to affirme that one Dicocesse or citty or indeede not so much as one Diocesse or citty is a great or notable part of that Church which reacheth as far as the rising and setting of the sunne and that it must therefore iure diuino haue a Bishop so as no cause can excuse the want of one is a thing that I will not say noe deuine but euen noe man in his right Iudgment can affirme But by this we may see into what absurdities partiality may lead men though other wayes learned 8 Enough hath bene said to disprooue M. Doctours Tenet in this present question yet nothing will more disaduâ—â—age his assertion then when the reader shall by my answers clearely peÌ„rceiue his owne arguments either to go beside the matter or to prooue against himselfe 9 His first was taken out of Sotus affirming it to be deiure diuiâ—e of the dideuine lawe quôd in genere singulis c. that in generâ—l to euery paâ—ticular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision proper Bishops are to be applyed This authority is eyther against M. Doctour or nothing against vs. For ether we suppose that the antient diuision of diocesses remaine â—ot in England and Scotland and then according to M. Doctours vnderstanding of Sotus euery Diocesse in England and Scotland must â—ure diuino haue a particular Bishop which is absurd could neuer be the true meaning of so learned a man as Sotus was Or els we suppose that al Ecclesiastical deuision of Diocesseâ— in England hath ceased and then there is not by the deuine law due to England any Bishop according to this authority of Soto who only saith it is deiure diuino of deuine law that to euery particular Church proper Bishops are to be applyed according to the Ecclesiasticall deuision and therefore where there is no such diuision the wordes of Sotus haue noâ— place so that Deuine as he is alledged by M. Doctour is aginst himselfe 10 If the Reader
aske me what indeed is the true meaning of Sotus I answere his meaning is not that the Pope is obliged iure diuÌ„ino by deuine precept to institute this or that particular Diocesse or to giue particular Bishops to euery such particular Diocesse instituted but only that when the Pope doth confirme and consecrate a Bishop and giues him charg of some particular Diocesse in such eases he doth a particular action which in generall was instituted and commanded by our Sauiour Christ who ordained in generall that in the whole Church there should alwaies be some Bishops which in effect is noe more theÌ„ we grant but cometh far short of what M. Doctor inteÌ„deth That this is the true meaning of Sotus is plaine by his onwe words For hauing taught what M. Doctour cyted out of him he proues it in this maÌ„nter Dum Dei minister id quod ipsâ— instituit ipsius iussu dâ—spensat actio est de iure diuino censenda cum autem Pupa Episcopum confirmat et consecrat alicuique attribuit Ecclesiae id exequitur quod Christus in genere instituit quodque facere iussit ergo id iuris diuini censenduÌ„ est WheÌ„ the minister of God by his command performeth that which he instituted such an action is to be esteemed of deâ—ine law But when the Pope doth confirme and coâ—secrate a Bishop â—â—d applies him to some Church he eâ—â—ecâ—â—etâ— that which Christ in generall Mâ—rke did institute which he coÌ„maÌ„dâ—d him to â—o theâ—fore suâ—â— an actioÌ„ ought to be said to be of the deuine lawe Can aâ—y thing be more deâ—re or more direct to shew that according to Sot ' the InstitutioÌ„ precept of Christ was only in gineral which is plainly for vs against M. Doctour Yet to take away all doubt Sotus bringeth this example Sacrament 〈◊〉 absilutio c. sacrameÌ„tal absolutio the like although they be immâ—dâ—aâ—ly peâ—formed by the minesters of the Chuâ—ch neuerthelesse they are to be esteemed aâ— of deuine law beâ—â—â—se Christ did â—astitute them and comâ—aâ—dâ—ed them to be so done and dispeâ—sed in his â—â—me â—â—â—vere a â—â—â—nesse by these words to â—aser our of Soâ—us that euery one hauing authority to administer sacraments were therefore by deuiâ—e law and precept bound to do it but all that could be rightly deduced according to Sotus would be that in case he did administer such sacraments such an action should be said to be de â—ure diuinâ— of the deuine law â—s a thing in generall not of humane but deuine enstitution Mariage in generall was instituted and commanded by God in the newe law by Christs institution it is a Sacraâ—â—â—t and therefore when ChristiaÌ„s marry they performe an actioÌ„ in geâ—erall commanded and instituted to be a â—â—crameÌ„â— shall we therefore out of Sotus inter that euery Christian or communite is bound to marry M. Doctonr I suppose knowes well enough why Sotus did so much vrge this manner of speach that the confirmation consecration and appling of Bishops to particular Churches is of deuine instiâ—ution The cause was more stroÌ„gly against his antagonist Catharinus to inforce the residence of Bishops to be a Deuyne and not only an Ecclesiasticall precept which precept neuertheles as Sotus himself affirmeth indeede none caÌ„deny doth not oblige in altâ—ms place therfore although Sotê° should affirm that ther were a deuine precept to apply Bishops to euery particular determinate Church yet that precept being affiâ—matiâ—â— as Deuines speak it would not bind in al occasioÌ„s as Sotê° teacheth coÌ„cerning the resideÌ„ce of Bishops Finally by this ocasion M. Dâ—â—â—er I doubt not wil be more circoÌ„spect in â—â—adging authours least he doth wrong his oâ—ne reputation the authors then deiues the reader and most of all the truth For Sotus doth not speak only of such particular Churches as are great or notable parts of the whole Church as M Doctour doth but of particular Diocesses to say that it is de â—ure â—iuâ—â— a deuine commaund that euery Diocesse haue a particular Bishop and in such maÌ„ner as for noe cause whatsoeuer it can be otherwaâ—es is a proposition farre from Sotus his thoughts which neither M. Doctour nor any other â—â—ill or can defend 11 The second authour alleadged by M. Doctour is Bannes saying that Bishops â—â—nâ—aâ— by the Pope be remooued from the whole Church or a great or not able part thereof I wonder M. Doctour would alleadge this learned deame to prooue that â—â—â—s de iure deuino to haue a Bishop in England the coutrary whereof is clearely deduced from this very authority of the same authour who hauing taught that Bishops haue all their authority immediately from the Pope frameth this obiection against himselfe That if the Bishops haue their authority immediately from the Pope it were in his power to remooue all Bishops from their Churches and so the Catholick Church should be without Bishops To this obiection BaÌ„nes answers Quòd licet Summus Pontifex posset prosâ—â— arbetrâ—tu vnum aut alterum Episcopum amouere nec in locum corum ali quem designâ—re non tamè admittenduÌ„ est quod in tota Ecclesia aut in magna eius parte taÌ„temere sua potestate abutaâ—ur Although the Pope might as he should thinke good remooue one 〈◊〉 two Bishops and designe none in their place yet it is not to be admitted that he can so rashly abuse his power in the whole Church or in a great part thereof By the only reading of Bannes his words which M. Doâ—â—our ought to baue alleadged at large not by halfes as much as might seeme for his purpose the reader will quickly perceiue that it is not de iure diuino a commandement of God that euery particular Church haue a Bishop seeing according to this Authour the Pope may leaue some Churches without Bishops Now I would aske M. Doctour whether such Churches should cease to be particular Churches and whatsoeuer he answereth will either be against his other Principle that without a Bishop there can be noâ— particular church of else if he say that they should not remaine particular Churches he must consider that then aâ—cording to Bannes it is not de iure diuiâ—o a deuire laâ— that euery Church should be a particulâ—r Church because as we haue seene Bannes teacheth that without breach of â—eâ—â—e law the Pope may leaue some churches without Bishops Besides the 〈◊〉 will see that Bannes onely speaketh of remoouing Bishops from the whole Church or from a great part of it and thence he would deduce a contrâ—rio sensu that seeing the flocke of Christ in England is farre from being a great part of the Catholick church and lesse then some one Dioâ—â—sse from which Bannes granted the Pope may remooue a Bishop yea he teacheth that all Bishops may be remooued from more Diocesses then one he would I say out of his owne assertion deduce that the Pope may not onely deny a Bishop to England but also if the thinke good remooue one
already granted Moreouer the Reader caÌ„not forget how M. Doctour alleadged first Sotus as teaching that iure diuino by deuiâ—â— Precept euery particular Church must haue it Bishop and afterwardes to the sâ—me purpose he â—iâ—ed Bannes who yâ—â— expressâ—â—â— affirmeth the contrary and teacheth that the Pope may leâ—ue some particular Chuâ—ches without Bishops How do these two things cohere It passeth my vnderstaÌ„ding that two authours should be rightly alleâ—â—ged as teaching that very poâ—â—â— wherein they are coÌ„trary CoÌ„trary I say as Sotus is vnderstood by M. Doctours for â—ccording to his true meaning he is nothing â—gâ—inst Bannes for as much as concernes out present purpose as I haue she wed ouâ— of their owne words And thus I hope to haue made good that BaÌ„nes alleaâ—ged by M. Doctour is indeed mainely agâ—yâ—st him And this is soe much the more strange because Sotus and Bannes were alleaâ—ged as teaching some singular matter in his fauour who both vpon examiâ—e are found to be his aduersaryes 12. The reasoÌ„ that M. Doctour did inserâ—â— froÌ„ the sayd authorities maketh for him iust as they did It was this By the deuine law there must be particular Bishopâ— in the Church but there is noe more reason why the Church of France for exaÌ„ple should be gouerned by a Bishop then the church of England ergo England and all other particular churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops Truely I cannot but wonder that a learned man should vse such a forme of argument which he cannot but know doth fayle in a thousand instances For example some meate is absolutely necessary for the mainetenaÌ„ce of man but there is no more reason why egs or fish should be necessary to the maintenance of man rather then other particular meates ergo eggs fish and all other particular meates are necessary for the mainetenance of man Or to bring an example neerer the purpose It is of the law of God and nature that some men do marry for the preseruing of mankinde but if we precisely respect the law of nature there is noe more reason why one person village or citty should be obliged rather then another ergo euery particular person village and citty is obliged to marry To these instances M. Doct. must answere by distinguishing the minor proposition If we compare one particular meate to another paricular determinate meate then the minor is true that there is no more reason of one then another and so neither one nor other determinately is necessary But if we compare one particular meate with other particular meates taken in generall or indeterminately then there is more reason why one particular meate is not so necessary as others taken indeterminatly because in that indeterminate sence they signify all particular meats in generall which no doubt are more necessary for the maintenance of man then any one determinate meate Or to say all in one word some meate is necessary but not this or that in particular And so we may easily answere M. Doctours argument by the like destruction that iure diuino Bishops are necessary in some parts of the church indeterminately but not determinately in this or that part of the church And this were sufficient to answere that sophisme Yet that the reader may see how weake an argument it is his Minor proposition might be easily denyed although we should coÌ„pare one particular church with another particular church determinately taken for there may reasons occurre of persecution or the like to make the case of one church different from that of another And as for England in particular beside the knowne reason of persecution different from other countries which we also suppose should be encreased by the comming of a Bishop for of that case M. Doctour speakes ioyned neuerthelesse with the paternal care of Christs Vicar whereby in so long tyme of persecution we were abundantly prouided of all meanes for our soules good euen according to M. Doctour his owne assumpt there is a different reason of EnglaÌ„d which as it signifieth a particular true church is neyther a great nor not able part of the whole church nor to vse M. Doctours owne words a church of extent 13 I desire to knowe of M. Doctour whether this forme of argument be good Religious institute in generall is of the deuine institution and the Supreame Pastour of Gods church by his office is obliged on his part to procure that in the Catholicke church so sacred an institution be maintayned but there is noe more reason why it should be maintayned in France or Spayne then in England ergo the Pope is obliged to mainteyne the being of religious institute in England When M. Doct. shall tell me what be thinketh of this manner of argument I will then let him know what good vse I shal be able to make of his answere whatsoeuer it be 14 Lastly here also I must craue leaue to shew that M. Doctor his maÌ„ner of argument is rather against himselfe and may be thus retorted especiall if we take what he himselfe seemeth to confesse in it selfe is most euident to wit â—hâ—t it is not de iure diâ—ino to haue a Bishop in euery particular litle Church or Diocesse but at most in such Churches as are great of extent It is nor de iure diuino that there be a particulaâ— Bishop in euery Diocesse of England but if we respect the deuine law there is no more reason of oâ—e Diocesse then of another ergo all the Diocesses of England may be without a Bishop which is directly against that which M. Doctour by his said argumeÌ„t intended to proue Moreouer in the same manner one might go foreward and say There is noe more reason why all the Diocesses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop then those of France nor of France more then of Spaine and so of all other particular Churches ergo all particular churches of the whole world may be gouernd with out Bishops A thing both false in it selfe and directly contrary to what M Doctour intendeth Neuertheles it is the very same manner of disputing which he himselfe vseth and so his owne arguments ouerthrow their owe grounds and distroie themselues 15 And here I would be glad to knowe wherther his arguments doe not prooue that ScotlaÌ„d must also haue it particular Bishop Sure I am that if they prooue any thing they must prooue that and so M. Doctour both tels my Lord of Chalcedon that he cannot be Bishop of Scotland which being a Country of extent must haue its particular Bishop and lets his holynesse know that he hath not satisfied the deuine lawe till he place a Bishop in Scotland But I think M. Doctour will not proceed so far yet by this he may see how his arguments outreach his owne intention and so while they prooue too much they effect nothing 16 Neither need I againe put M. Doctour in mynd that if he prooue any thing his argument prooues that England and Scotland also
Trent that the same doctrine is declayed in the Councell of Florence decreto vnionts I haue bene credibly informed that the Abbot of Monte Cassino of the holy order of S. Bennet hath authority to confirme and Petrus Arcudius in a learned volume written of the agreement betwixt the Latine Pelr. Arcudius de concordia Ecclesâ—e Ocâ—idemalis Oâ—â—etalis in sâ—ptâ—m Sacramen or iâ— administration 〈◊〉 â— 2 cap. and Greeke Church in the administration of the seauen Sacraments witnesseth that in the hearing of diuers other of the Greeke Colledge in Rome he was told by a graue Father of the Society of Iesus by name Petrus Fonseca who came to Rome the yeare 1593. that some principal meÌ„ of the sayd Order had authority to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation and further the same Father certainely auouched that himselfe was wont to administer the said SacrameÌ„t in Brasile where there was kept the Popes Graunt of such authority Also the same Arcudius writes that others relate how Adrian the 6 a very learned and pious Pope the yeare 1521. vpon the 25. of Aprill graunted for the Indies and countrie destitute of Bishops that Priests Minorites might confirme and that an Authenticall of the Graunt is kept at Seuill in the conuent of glorious S. Francis his Order Moreouer Arcudius alleadgeth ancieÌ„nt Greeke Fathers to prooue that euen before the schisme it was the practise of the Greeke Church to haue confirmation administred by Priests with particular commission to that effect And to take away all scruple Ita Suarez coninck Henriquez quos citat sâ—quitur Pauâ—us â—atâ—â—â— lib. 5. trâ—ctâ—t 3. cap. â— a. 1 some great Deuines doe teach that although such commission ought not to be graÌ„ted without iust cause yet it is of force and valid howsoeuer it be graunted because it is not properly a dispensaâ—ion in the lawe of Christ but rather a commission of power according to Christs insticution which is that the Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation should be a Priest by coÌ„mission from the supreame Pastour of Gods Church If M. Doct. hold against the common doctrine of Deuines and practise of most learned and holy Popes who haue committed the Sacrament of confirmation to Priests then he must vndertake a new and hard taske and prooue that euen for that slender probability which his opinion hath if it hath any Catholicks must rather suffer increase of persecution then not make all sure by hauing a Bishop for coÌ„firmation which is a thing he will neuer be able to prooue espcially seeing Popes content themselues with the said doctrine euen in countries where Bishops might be emoyed with lesse danger then in England 9 Yet although we should grant that Catholicks were bound to receiue the Sacrament of Confirmation and to receiue it from a Bishop it followes not that it must be had from a Bishop subiect at least to all those penall lawes which are enacted against English Catholicks and Priests For matters might be so disposed as some Bishop from abroad and onely taking England â—s it were by the way might coÌ„firme more in three moneths then my Lord of Chalcedon in seauen yeares according to the proportion kept since the tymes waxed more hard especially if such a Bishop did administer Confirmation to children according to the common practise of the Church in auntient times and of the Easterne Church at this day and as some relate of some countrey neerer vs where children two or three yeares old are wont to be confirmed See Layman lib. 5. tract 3. cap. 6. n. 1. which practise may seeme very fit for our countrey both because Confirmation cannot often and easily be had and also that by this meanes children during the time of innocency when they are sure to receiue the grace of the Sacrament might be armed against the dangers of future persecution But in this if any difficulty appeare his Holinesse would vouchsafe to ordaine what might be most expedient for the particular case of England and by this meanes within some compasse of yeares most Catholicks liuing would finde themselues to haue the Sacrament of Confirmation 10 Further if we did yeild to M. Doctour that for some sort of persecution though very great we ought not to want the Sacrament of confirmation yet when the persecution is of such nature that it hindereth the Bishop from administring that very Sacrament for which he comes except but to a fewe no man can with reason say that such a persecution doth not excuse from obligation of receuing that Sacrament from a Bishop That our persecution is of this quality experience tels vs. 11 Moueroner we must still remember the nuÌ„ber of Catholickes in England which I haue touched in the precedent question and that of those Catholicks all the clergy haue had Confirmation abroad as likewise diuers of the layety either in Seminaries or otherwise in theâ—r trauels those who are in England being so secret and dispersed as they are diuers of them could scarcely haue that Sacrament although a Bishop should be still in England all which considered we shall finde that the nuÌ„ber of those who want and can receiue the foresaid Sacrament is not so great as at first sight may seeme therefore still the difficulty on M. Doctors side is greater to prooue that for such a nuÌ„ber it is necessary to haue a Bishop for ConfirmatioÌ„ although by that meanes the persecutioÌ„ should be increased against all 12 Finally though we should grant all and more then with reason can be desired yet M. Doctour will not haue prooued his intent till first he effect an impossibility namely that this his opinion which he is the first to put in print is so euident and certaine that the contray is voide of probability For till then Catholicks are sure they may with a safe consience keepe their goods liberties and liues for some more necessary and better warranted oâ—casion by conforming their practise to the coÌ„trary of that which M. Doctour teacheth especially seeing he himselfe in his 14. chap. n. 3. doth but fearefully deliuer this doctrine saying I am of opinion which I humbly sâ—bmit to authority that a particulâ—r Church cannot except any long time against hauing a Bishop for feare of persecution And n 8. he only sayth I thinke neyther any Country nor any one of the Country for feare of persecutioÌ„ can oppose against the comming in of a Bishop though thereby only the sacrament of Confirmation should be wanting We see according to his owne confession it is but his opinion and thinking which I hope he will not not binde all other to followe although it were in deede probable as I haue demonstrated it not to be 13 And I should wish M. Doctour to be of my mind if it were but least otherwise he might seeme to dissent in iudgment from my Lord of Chalcedon himselfe who vpon occasion of speach about some authority nothing touching Confirmation which his Lordship pretended said plainely that
vnlesse he did compasse those pretences he would leaue all which my Lord a man of so great learning and zeale would neuer haue vttered if he had conceiued the very receiuing of Confirmation to be of so great necessity that for it alone all Catholicks are obliged to endure increase of persecution for if the matter be so that sacrament alone were likewise a verie sufficient cause of my Lords stay in England although other pretences should not sucseede especially it being a certaine doctrine of Deuâ—nes that Bishops haue greater obligation to administer Confirmation then people to receue it Moreouer seeing my Lord hath stiled himselfe Ordinary of Scotland doubtlesse he would extend his charity to that kingdome if he were of M. Doct. opinion coÌ„cerning the necessity of Confirmation in a countrey groaning vnder a heauy persecution as at this present the Catholicks of Scotland do and therfore stand in greater neede of that Sacrament Neither do I thinke M. Doctour will condemne of deadly sinne the Catholicks of Scotland for not seeking to haue a Bishop to administer that Sacrament or my Lord of Chalcedon for not going to administer it But now let vs see what M. Doctour in his 14. chapter where he handleth this point doth bring in proofe of his doctrine 14 His first argument is because without confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians seeing according to S. Thomas by confirmation we receiue our perfect growth To this I haue already answered now onely wish the reader to be mindfull that according to S. Thomas confirmation and consequently the effect thereof for example perfect growth and whatsoeuer else may be had without a Bishop and so if M. Doctour will sticke to S. Thomas his opinion must go downe 15 Then he alleadgeth S. Clement Epist 4. saying thus Omnibus ergo festinandum est sine morarenasci Deo demum consignari ab Episcopo id est septiformem gratiam Spiritus Sancti percipere quia incertus est vniuscuiusque exitus vitae Quum autem regeneratus fuerit per aquam postmodum septiformis spiritus gratia ab Episcopo confirmatus quia aliter perfectus esse Christianus nequaquam poterit c. 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 seuenfold grace of the Holy Ghost because the end of euery ones life is vncertaine But when he shal be regenerated by water and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfold grace of the Spirit because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian c. To this authority I answere 16 First M. Doctour should not haue grounded so hard a doctrine vpon an Epistle which I suppose he knoweth not to be so authenticall as to settle thereon a doctrinall point as he may see by Bellarmine in his booke de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Secondly I may answere out of Estius in that very place which M. Doctour cyted out of him for the necessity of confirmation in time of persecution and it seemeth not faire dealing to bring Estius as farre as he seemeth for his purpose and not so much as take notice or confute what in the same authour in the same place and to the same purpose he finds against him Estius therefore obserueth that the Fathers when they say that without Confirmation faithfull people are not perfectly or fully Christians doe generally allude to the name of Christ which signifieth Annoynted therefore they deny that they are fully Christians who haue not receiued Episcopall Vnction namely hauing reference to the word Christians as S. Augustinel 17. ciuit cap. 4. sayth that all who are annoynted with Chrisme may rightly be called Christi Christs By this is clearâ— on what sense the words of Clement cyted by M. Doctour are to be vnderstood Thus farre Estius whom M. Doctour highly commends for a learned and holy man the reader may see how directly he doth not onely answere M. Doctours argument but also saith that it is cleare in what sense the words of S. Clement are to be vnderstood It seemes a hard case when M. Doctour is forced to alleadge Estius as his chiefe Authour for the necessity of Confirmation as afterwards we shall see who in the very same place destroyeth a maine groâ—d brought by M. Doctour for the necessity of the same Sacrament Thirdly there occurreth an answere clearely deduced out of S. Clements owne words and I doubt not but will fully satisfye the learned reader The common practise of the antient Church was and is yet in the Easterne Church and at Rome when conuerted lewes or Turkes arâ— solemnely baptized together with Baptisme to giue the Sacrament of Confirmation and so whosoeuer in those times was not confirmed wanted also Baptisme hence S. Clement might well say that he that was not baptized and confirmed was not a perfect Christian But this is farre from proouing that without confirmation as separated from Baptisme we cannot be perfectly Christians This sense is manifest if we ponder S. Clements words for hauing sayd All must make haste to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop he sayth not afterwards But when he shal be confirmed by the Bishop because otherwise he cannot be a perfect christian but still ioyneth it with baptisme and sayth But when he shal be regenerated by water and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian stil as I said repeating together both those sacraments because they were wont to be administred at one time and whosoeuer had or wanted one infallibly had or wanted both of them in that manner it was all one to say one was not confirmed as to say he was not baptized Besides S. Clements discourse All must make hast to be regenerated to God and then to be consigned by the Bishop because the end of euery ones life as vncertaine makes it cleare that his speach is of Baptisme For howesoeuer necessary Confirmation be yet certainely it is not of so great hast as S. Clement vrgeth yea it is cheâ—fly for those who are to liue haue occasion to professe there faith as S. Thomas alledgeth out of Pope Melchiades S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. a. 8. 〈◊〉 4. therefore it had bene an vnfit reason of S. Clement to hasten men to confirmation because the end of euery ones life is vncertaine for as I said the lesse certainety we haue of life and more vicinity to death the lesse necessity we haue of Confirmation but for Baptisme his reason of the vncertainty of mans last end is very fit and vrgent therefore it is cleare S. Clements speach is refered to the sacrament of Baptisme My fourth answere is that S. Clement is not faithfully alledged by M. Doctour For S. Clement after he had said When he shal be regenerated by water and afterward Confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfold grace of the Spirits because otherwise he
vnmentioned In that place he writes as if he were not vnwilling the Reader should beleiue that the Apostles made no vow of pouerty and consequently were not Religious men My meaning is not purposely to handle this question contenting my selfe with saying That it is the doctrine of the greatest Deuine S. Thomas S. Th. 2.2 q. 88. a. 4. ad 3. S Aug. 17. ciu c. 4. of the greatest Doctour of Gods Church S. Augustine Of one of the greatest authority vnder heaueÌ„ a Pope namely Pius the fourth affirming that certaine Religious meÌ„ are of that Order Nau. comment 4 de Regular n. 7. apud Suar. Tom. 3. de Râ—l lib. 3. â— 3 nâ—m 6. which was instituted by the Apostles as Nauar relateth And no maÌ„ I thinke can with reason deny that the Apostles themselnes were Religious men if once he grant that they did institute a Religious Order of Cleargy men Lastly M. Doctour according to what himselfe writeth must yeild to this verity For in his 11 Chap. num 9. He saith that those words Matth. 19. There are Eunuches which haue gelded themselues for the Kingdome of heauen are most properly to be vnderstood of those that vow Chastity because such haue neither the act nor morall or lawfull power of generation By the same reason I may say when the Apostles answered our Sauiour Behold we haue left all and followed thee those words are most properly verified in those who haue riches neither in act nor power For it is but an imperfect leauing of a thing if it may be retaken at ones pleasure And if M. Doctour out of those words Behold we haue left all deduce not a vow of Pouerty how will he out of the same words prooue a vow of Chastity because after our Sauiour had explicated the Counsell of Chastity by the name of voluntary Eunuches the Apostles said Behold we haue left all namely both wiues and goods and to say the same words We haue left all as they signify Chastity imply a vow and not as they signify Pouerty or leauing of goods were a meere voluntary explication And therefore S. Augustine in the place aboue cited explicated the words of the Apostles Behold we haue left all of a vow of Pouerty as S. Epiphaniuâ— out of those words of our Sauiour There are Eunuches who haue gelded themselues c. teacheth that the Apostles had a vow of Chastity saying Quinam hi fuerunt S. Epiph. Hâ—ref 58. qui se castrauerunt propter regnum caelorum nisi generosi Apostoli aâ— Monasticam vitam dâ—gentes Who were those who gelded themselues for the Kingdome of Heauen but the generous Apostles and such as lead a Monasticall life 30 And it is most conformable to all reason that the Apostles who were not only Maisters but also paternes of of all perfection should haue all the perfection of other Christians not repugnant to their state as certainely Religious vowes are not which is cleare in Regular Bishops who still remaine true Religious men yea a Bishop not Regular may with merit make a simple vowe of Pouerty because there is no Deuine or Humane law to the contrary by an happy necessity it compelleth him more to auoide superfluous expences besides that the vowe it selfe as an act of ReligioÌ„ is very meritorious As for Hospitality Religious Bishops may keepe it noe lesse then other not Religious who are likewise bound to imploy in good vses what is superfluous to their state and to more Regular Bishops are not obliged It is well knowne that in England none kept greater Hospitality then Religious men Certainely in all reason none are more like to be liberall to others then who by vowe are bound not to make any thing their owne If the Apostles obserued the Euangelicall Counsails there is no reason to thinke but that they did it by vowe which of it selfe addeth a great perfection and as S. Thomas saith it is a point of perfection Opusc 18. de perf viâ— spirit c. 15. not only to performe a perfect worke but also to vowe it because both the worke and the vowe are Counsails And who will deny but the Apostles were carefull to doe their works in the most perfect manner All this will be much confirmed if we call to minde what in this Question I alleadged out of S. Thomas That the Counsails of which we speake are proper to the New Law S. Th. 1.2 q. 108. a. â— and it is no way credible that the Apostles would want a great perfection proper to the Law which they themselues first promulgated to the world 31 What he citeth out of Vasquez Vasq 1.2 disp 165. that the three vowes of Pouerty c. are not sufficient to make a Religious man vnles the Church by her Decree or Consent admit them and ordaine that the same vowes made before a Superiour shall make a man Religious is nothing against vs who for the present only intend that the Apostles obserued the three Euangelicall Counselles by obligation of vowe and abstaine from other particular disputes debated amoÌ„g moderne Deuines as may be seene in Vasquez cited by M. Doctour Vasq loc cit Suar. de Rel. tom 3. l. 2. c. 4.15.16 in Suarez at large particularly in the places noted in the margent Neither is it vnknowen to M. Doctour that for diuers times there haue bene different conditions required to make one a Relious man as also that Religious Profession hath not alwaies had the same effects which nowe do necessarily accompanie it Only in generall we must say that if to be Religious men did well agree to the Persons and Office of the Apostles as I haue already proued none knew better then they what was requisit to place them in that State neither would they be carelesse in performing whatsoeuer they knew necessary to that end M. Doctour citeth also Vasquez as affirming that out of the facts of the Apostles nothing could be gathered of certaintie wheras Vasquez although he saith the thing is not certaine yet he expresly unbraceth the doctrine of S. Thomas that the Apostles made a vow of Pouerty which M. Doctour concealed and only brought as much as seemed for his purpose He also citeth Vasquez in such a fashion as one would easily thinke that he prooued the state of Bâ—shops not to require Pouerty because they must be Hospitall whereas Vasquez giueth no such reason As for that which M. Doctour seemeth willing to hold that Ananias and Saphira vowed not Pouerty Coffeteau a Reuerend Coffeteau Discuss cap. 12. lib. 2. 01 learned Father of the Order of glorious S. Dominicke in his booke against Marcus Antonius de Dominis sheweth that it is against the whole streame of Fathers citing to that purpose S. Augustine S. Fulgentius S. Gregory S. Athanasius Saint Basil Ruffinus Cassianus and saith he almost all besides But truly I must needs say M. Doctour seemeth propense enough to take hold of any occasion Authour or Opinion