diuine Law of hauing a particular Bishop in euery particular church doth not so generally bynd as the other doth but may cease to oblige by reason of some particular circumstances of tyme or place This answere ouerthoweth M. Doctours whole edifice Because if any reason may take away the obligation of a diuine law certainly a generall persecution threatned to a whole Countrey may free vs from such a bond How then will M. Doctour conclude that by the diuyne law we are bound to haue a Bishop in a case wherein the diuine law ceaseth to bynd You see the Discussour had reason to say That M. Doctours wordes imported too much or else you must yeald they proued too litle 14. In like manner what M. Doctour sayd in the same place That vnlesse euery particular church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchy composed of diuers particular churches is rightly taxed by the Discussour as eyther not sound or not sufficient for M. Doctours purpose If it be vnderstood only indeterminatly that is The whole church cannot be a Hierarchy vnlesse some particular churches haue Bishops it proueth not that England must haue a Bishop because although England want a Bishop other churches may haue them so the Vniuersall church remayne a Hierarchy If he vnderstand of euery determinate particular church then it followeth that the church of God cannot be a Hierarchy vnles the determinate particular church of England haue a Bishop as the Discussour vrged n. 16. and the Replyer doth not confute 15. By the way I espy in his n. 32. a word for my purpose which ouerthroweth the Repliers whole discourse in this Question The church sayth he cannot be at al without a supreme Bishop or not without order to him when the sea is Vacant This I take as granted and very true and hence I inferre That as the Vniuersall church may be an Vniuersall church without actuall vnion to a supreme Bishop while the sea is Vacant because it still hath Order reference and aptitude to be gouerned by an Vniuersall Bishop as soone as he shall be elected so a particular church may be such by Order and aptitude to be vnited with a particular Bishop whensoeuer he shall be appoynted so S. Cyprians definition The Church is the people vnited to the Bishop doth not require that the people be actually vnited to the Bishop but only in readines of mynd or aptitudinally And thus England while it wanted a Bishop was a particular church because it was alwayes in disposition to be vnited to a Bishop Where now is that argument so often inculcated by M. Doctour the Inquisitour and the Replyer S. Cyprian defines a church to be the people vnited to the Bishop But the people cannot be vnited to a Bishop vnlesse they haue one Ergo they cannot be a church vnlesse they haue a Bishop For the Replyer himselfe hath told vs that when the Sea is vacant the people may be a church with only Order to a Bishop which implyeth not the actuall hauing a Bishop but only a fit disposition to haue one THE III. QVESTION Whether by the diuine Law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop THE diuine precept of hauing Bishops in the Church is only to be vnderstod indeterminatly or in generall that in the whole church there must be some Bishops as many or few as may be necessary or requisite to the end of gouerning the same Church But in respect of particular and determinate churches the commaund is not absolute but beareth a great respect to circumstances of tyme place and the like as the Vicar of Christ shall iudge it best fitting for gouerning and prouiding such churches of al things necessary to saluation Wherfore from the diuine precept of hauing Bishops in generall we cannot infer a necessity of hauing Bishops in this or that particular countrey although otherwise of extent For there may occur good reason why some other gouernment in some particular circumstances may conduce more to the glory of God and particular good of such a country Contrarywise it may happen that some church of small extent may in particular circumstances more require the gouernment of a Bishop then a larger countrey The thing therfore which is as I may say formally to be considered is the quality or greater or lesse necessity not the greater or lesse quantity of place or number of persons but in as much as these may induce a greater necessity of hauing Bishops 2. For this cause in the primitiue church euen in tyme of hoatest persecution Bishops were multiplied and placed in diuers Cittyes because those tymes did so require In so much that some Authors write that in those first dayes of Christianity in a manner all Priests were Bishops contrary to the present practise of Gods church The reason was the paucity of Priests of which if many had not binne made Bishops to ordayne Priests particular churches would haue remayned vnfurnished of Priests to conuert infidells assist thē being conuerted Euery church hauing inough to do within it self could not affoard help to others For this same cause Bishops were allotted to smaller flockes then is now eyther vsuall or lawful to be commonly practised S. Gregory the Thaumaturge cited by the Replyer n. 14. was created Bishop ouer only 17. persons A number competent for those old not these latter tymes in places where by neighbour-churches the want of other may be relieued The more the Vniuersall church is dilated the lesse euery particular church needeth a a Bishop of its own Because other churches without much preiudice vnto themselues may frequently lend them a helping hand In countreys by vast distance remote from helpe and comfort of Christian Nations a Bishop may be needfull for a few In Europe the case is otherwise If one shippe be in want it can becken to those who abound in diuers others 3. Hence it followeth that to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England in vayne we haue recourse to the diuine precept in generall of hauing some Bishops in the church All the question must setle on this Whether England can be sufficiently furnished of Priests and prouided of all necessaries for our iourney to heauen without a Bishop Or whether the inconueniece of comming might not counterpoyse the commodityes he would bring This should be the only Question and the answere ought to be referred to the same Bishop to whose charge Christ hath committed England all other countreys In the meane tyme let not Catholickes be frighted with diuine precepts where none are 4. The Replyer doth not rightly state the Question while he telleth vs n. 8. that M. Doctour only teacheth that Catholickes cannot refuse a Bishop although by his comming persecution should be increased supposing he be sent by lawfull authority Because sayth he in that case the Pope rather declareth that the diuine law ceaseth not to oblige A goodly construction of M. Doctours
he vnderstandes as we commonly call one thing a great part of another as certainly one countrey is not a great part of the Catholicke church which extendeth it selfe as farre as the world especially if in such a countrey there be no more Catholickes then are in England 14. The Replyer n. 28. doth his vtmost to proue that by diuine Law euery particular Church must haue a Bishop and when all comes to all the point is reduced to the necessity of Confirmation But this is a weake ground to oblige Catholickes to receaue a Bishop with increase of persecution For first a Bishop for Confirmation only can be no more necessary then Confirmation it selfe which is not a Sacrament of necessity and according to all Deuines may be omitted without sinne when commodiously it cannot be had which certainly happeneth when a Bishop cannot come into the Country but accompanyed with addition to a grieuous persecution 2. That Sacrament may be administred by a Priest with commission frō the Pope 3. Although it were necessarily to be administred by a Bishop yet it requireth only Episcopal Order with voluntary iurisdiction as Priests in England haue ouer their Penitents 4. It requireth not a Bishop belonging to England or residing in that Kingdome 5. M. Doctour alleadgeth the diuine precept of hauing Bishops in euery notable part of the Church as a distinct argument from his other reason of the necessity of Confirmation as may be seene in his chap. 14. n. 4. and the Replyer doth not sufficiently defend M. Doctour by flying frō one to the other The point touching Confirmation belongs to the next Question 15. All that he hath n. 29. 30. 31. 32. is the very same with the obiections of the Jnquisition Sect. 6. and is answered by the Qualificatour in the same section so cleerly as I need adde no more 16. By the same forme of argument wherby M. Doctour proued the necessity of a Bishop in euery Countrey of exent the Discussour sayd it might be proued That in euery Countrey Religious Institute is to be maintayned because the Pope is obliged to conserue it in the whole Church of God But there is no more reason of one Countrey then of another Ergo it is to be mantayned in euery Countrey To this the Replyer answereth n. 33. 34. First that Nicholas Smith can not fynd out a diuine precept obliging the Pope to admit any Religious Order as he is bound to giue Bishops to the Church But I belieue if he consider the matter better he will not aduenture to say That the Pope can depriue the Church of a Religious Estate Instituted by our Sauiour Christ whose Councels faithfull people cannot without iniury be vniuersally hindred to follow Secondly he answereth That he hath proued it to be of the diuine law that euery notable part of the Church haue a Bishop wheras no Religious Order is necessary by the diuine law in euery notable part of the Church But he neyther hath proued what he assumeth as proued nor doth he answere the forme of Nicholas Smiths argument which was the same with that which M. Doctour vsed to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England And so when the Replyer biddeth the Discussour make what he can of this answere till he giue a better this vse any man may make of it to say with truth that it maketh nothing for M. Doctours reason but only to shew the insufficiency of it 17. No lesse deficient is he in satisfying another forme of Argument brought by Nicholas Smith in resemblance of that of M. Doctours It is not of the diuine law to haue a Bishop in euery particular Diocesse of England But if we respect the diuine law there is no more reason of one Diocesse then another Ergo all the Diocesses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop And the same argument may be made of all other Countreys To this forme of argument the Replyer answereth That there is more necessity of a Bishop in a whole Countrey then in euery particular Diocesse which was not the question but whether it was not as good a forme of argument as that which M. Doctour vsed I omit to note that the Replyer misciteth the Discussour who sayd not that M. Doctour confessed that a particular Diocesse may be without a Bishop but spake reseruedly that M. Doctour seemed to confesse it which is true because he stil expresly declared himselfe to speake of a notable great part of the Church Howsoeuer the thinge it selfe is true that the Pope is not by diuine law obliged to giue a Bishop to euery place capable of one as we see often practised Would M. Doctour perhaps haue in England as many Bishops as there be Diocesses What mistery may there be that the Replier doth so purposly conceale M. Doctours opinion in this point To confirme more what Nicholas Smith sayd I argue thus in M. Doctours forme It is not of the diuine law that England haue a Bishop properly called Bishop of England or of any Diocesse therin But there is no more reason of England then of other Countreyes Ergo all other Countreys may be without a Bishop properly called Bishop of such Countreys or of any Diocesse therin This is M. Doctours forme of argument and yet the consequence cannot by any Catholicke be maintayned 18. At length the Replyer n. 36. agreeth with vs that it must be left to the supreme Pastors discretion whether the diuine law obligeth a Countrey to haue a Bishop in this or that circumstance and so M. Doctour and the Replyer might haue spared their paynes in prouing that England must haue a Bishop because there is a diuine law that euery great part of the Church as they conceaue England to be haue its proper Bishop Yet I cannot approue his other saying that when we demaund any thing there is more reason to demaund that which is ordinary then that which is extraordinary and therfore England may demaund an Ordinary For the rule of wise men ought rather to be that they demaund what is most sutable to tyme place and other Circumstances and not what is ordinary or extraordinary God grant our case of England were not extraordinary and much different from that of other Catholicke Countreys 19. He doth likwise not a litle relent in the same n. 36. where fynding M. Doctour sore pressed by the Discussour n. 15.16 that his arguments if they passe for good must also proue that Scotland is obliged to haue its Bishop yea that both England and Scotland must haue an Ordinary properly so called because Scotland is a Countrey of extent and by the diuine law beside the supreme Pastour there must be other Ordinaryes or Ecclesiastical Princes in the whole Church and consequently according to the groundes of M. Doctour the Replyer euery notable part of the Church must haue a Bishop in that proper sense To this the Replyer answereth If England and Scotland be both notable partes of the Church
Bishops Priests and Deacons then M. Doctour Chap. 8. n. 8. doth by the sacred Councell of Trent pronounce hâ—m accursed Thus he writeth Certayne it is that the Orders of Bishops Priests Deacons and Subdeacons are of the diuine Institution Wherfore the Councel of Trent thus pronounceth Sess 23. can 6. Si quis dixerit c. If any one shalâ— say that there is not in the Church a Hierarchy instituted by the diuine Ordinance which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers let him be accursed In which wordes the Councell defyning that there is a Hierarchy instituted by the diuine ordinance which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers in the plural number must needs vnderstand at least Deacons and Subdeacons So that this Hierarchy of Order at least in respect of Bishops Priests Deacons and Subdeacons is instituted by Christ Thus far M. Doctour Wherfore to free your selfe from a Curse and S. Denis from errour in M. Doctours opinion you must grant that you haue not rightly alleadged S. Denis to proue that only Bishops Priests and Deacons are of the Hierarchy in such manner that all other must be excluded For M. Doctour hath tould you as a matter of Faith that Subdeacons also are of the Hierarchy that by diuine Institution You must then explicate S. Denis that he nameth Bishops Priests Deacons not to exclude all other but because these are the highest Orders in the Chutch and so Religious may be of the Hierarchy notwithstanding what you alleadge out of S. Denis who doth expresly place the order of Monkes in the Hierarchy Cap. 6. tit Contemplatio 4. Likewise when the Councell of Trent defineth as a matter of Faith that by diuine Ordinace there is in the Church a Hierarchy which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers which some moderne Heretiques denyed it only followeth that such are certaynly of the Hierarchy but not that they only are as many Deuines hold lesser Orders not to be of the diuine Institution and yet M. Doctour teacheth that all in lesser Orders are of the Hierarchy and no man will affirme that the sacred Councell intended to condemne as Hereticques those Deuines who teach that the Lesser Orders are not of diuine institution or that according to the Councell it is an Heresy to say that Carâ—inals Vicar-Generals ArchdeacoÌ„s c. who are not of the diuine InstitutioÌ„ yea are not necessarily Bishops Priests Deacons or Subdeacons can belong to the Hierarchy And therfore the Replyer had no reason to blame Nicholas Smith so seuerely as he doth n. 11. for saying that it were rashnesse to affirme that the Councell intended to define as a matter of Fayth that vnder the name of Hierarchy could be comprehended only Bishops c. At length the Replyer n. 13. is forced to extend S. Denis his doctrine and to bring in Subdeacons and other inferiour Orders as likwise he must fynd meanes to bring in Cardinals Archdeacons Vicar-generals c. finally giue some place to poore Religious men 5. Thus his reasons from n. 21. to 26. fall of themselues as only prouing that Religious as Religious precisely are not Gouernours or Illuminators in the Hierarchy but not that they are not of it properly and absolutly or not more then Secular formally as Secular And if they be Priests Pastours they are as much of the Hierarchy in euery respect as Secular Priests and Pastours 6. It is strang to see how n. 28. he trifleth as if Nicolas Smith had euer denyed that the Hierarchy comprehendeth both Order and Iurisdiction Wheras he expresly affirmeth it n. 3. and thence inferreth that the word Hierarchy hath a latitude 7. He doth not n. 31. sufficiently free M. Doctour from the Discussours iust complaint for his saying That S. Bernard affirmed the Hierarchy to be perturbed when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction For the Saint expresly approueth Exemptions only reprehendeth such as are granted without cause or procured vpon ambition as at length the Replyer himselfe confesseth and therfore M. Doctour ought not absolutly to haue alleadged S. Bernard as saying the Church is perturbed when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction 8. The Discussour neuer taught Grace or Charity alone can place one in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy For they alone are not sufficieÌ„t to make one a meÌ„ber of the Church militant But he taught that an external Profession and state of Lyfe ordayned to Perfection of Grace and Charity is sufficient to place the Professours thereof in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy in that degree wherin according to their ranke they excell others not in that degree wherin some particular Religious man may chance to excell some Bishop in grace and Charity because that is accidentall to their states as likwise some lay man or woman may exceed some Religious man in perfection of the loue of God And by this is answered what he hath n. 33. about Nauclerus who cannot be denyed to haue placed Religious men in the Hierarchy in a high degree not only accidentally by reason of some particular Religious mens Charity but per se loquendo by reason of their state Also out of what we haue sayd is easily answered the obiection he bringeth n. 42. against the argument which Nicolas Smith made n. 9. where he proueth That if some men by Grace may according to S. Thomas be assumed to the Order of Angels in the Celestiall Hierarchy an externall state of life affoarding most effectuall meanes for perfection of grace in this lyfe may well place men on earth in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy But Nicholas Smith neuer dreamed that men by grace become indeed Angels Archangels c. 9. All that he hath n. 34. 35. about the translation of S. Denis his definition of a Hierarchy is answered in the Admonition to the Reader adioyned to the Qualification 10. The Discussour to proue that one may be of the Hierarchy although by office he do not illuminate or perfect others instanceth in the lowest Angell who is not to illuminate any other and yet cannot be excluded from the Celestiall Hierarchy What doth the Replyer answere Nothing in effect but by denying that the lowest Angell or Order of Angels are absolutly of the Celestiall Hierarchy but only in a certayne sense which indeed he must needes affirme by the same reasons for which he denyeth Religious to be of the Hierarchy because their office is not to illuminate or perfect others But this doctrine is a thing vnheard of amongst Deuines who with the holy Fathers teach that there are nine Orders of Angels comprised in three Hierarchies but now the Replyer will haue one Order of Angels belonging to no Hierarchy If he put Angels out of the Celestiall Religious men haue I confesse lesse reason to wonder or take it ill if he exclude them from the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy 11. What he sayth n. 43. 44. to wit that M. Doctour denyed not Cardinalls to be of the Hierarchy he will not be able
to mantayne without granting that to be of the Hierarchy neyther Iurisdiction nor Order is required For although Cardinalls may be in Orders and actually haue Iurisdiction ouer their titles yet their Iurisdiction as M. Doctour Chap. 10. n. 19. sayth out of Bedarmine is but like to the Iurisdictiō of a Parish Priest in his Parish that Iurisdiction is accidentall to the office of Cardinall as Cardinall which respecteth the common good of the vniuersall Church and yet euen as Cardinalls they haue a most eminent place in the Hierarchy next to the Pope If once it be graunted that neyther Order nor Iurisdiction is required to place one in the Hierarchy then Religious men whose state is in the Church of God much respected yea besides whome none except Bishops are in state of Perfection according to S. Thomas may be are of the Hierarchy in a very perfect māner In a word if Cardinalls be not of the Hierarchy M. Doctour had not byn much wronged although Nicolas Smith had sayd that by his Principles they must be excluded from it and yet for this cause the Replyer n. 43. is much offended with the Discussour If they be of the Hierarchy then not only Bishops Priests and Deacons are of the Hierarchy as the Replyer hath much laboured to proue out of S. Denis and by that labour hath only put himselfe vpon an ineuitable necessity to answere the arguments he made for excluding Religious men 12. Neuerthelesse if to make one of the Hierarchy it be necessary that he illuminate perfect others Religious euē as Religious cannot be excluded because for Regular obseruances they illuminate one another and in that do not necessarily depend but are exempt from Bishops as the King or Mayster of a house dependeth not on the Bishop for the meere temporall administration of his Kingdome or family And so that part of the Hierarchy which by S. Gregory Nazianzen orat in laudem Basil is styled Ecclesiae pars selectior sapientior the more wise choice part of the Church hath its proper Illuminatours touching noble actions and a state of lyfe which for the perfection of it was by our B. Sauiour counselled not commanded as being aboue the reach of Ordinary persons according to that of Matt. 19. Qui potest capere capiat THE VII QVESTION Whether by the precedent Questions we haue sufficiently answered M. Doctours Treatise for such poynts as eyther deserued Cōfutation or required explication 1. THIS Question was proposed by Nicolas Smith not to boast of what he had donne in the precedent Questions as the Replyer pag. 20. n. 31. is pleased to insinuate but to the end the Reader might know where to fynd answere to any difficulty in M. Doctours booke which the Discussour did not answere Chapter for Chapter and number for number 2. The Replyer n. 3. writeth that to him it seemeth a strange speach litle edifying to say as Nicolas Smith sayth that he neuer heard that the Church must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy Nicolas Smith did indeed wonder to heare M. Doctour say in his Epistle n. 12. that Secular Priests are by the diuine Institutiō gouernours of the church The Church sayd he must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy May not Bishops and other Pastours in Gods Church be Religious men How then is it a diuine Institution that the Church must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy Thus the Discussour And what can be more true For if by diuine Institution the gouernment of the Church belong to the Secular Cleargy then is it a breach of the diuine law to assume Religious men to be Bishops or Pastours which is to condemne the dayly practise of Gods Church The Replyer bringeth not one reason to cōfute what Nicolas Smith sayd saue only that the Church for the most part is gouerned by the Secular Cleargy which is farre from prouing that it is a diuine Justitution that the Church be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy as it cannot be proued that Preaching for example or conuerting of Infidels by diuine Institution belonges to the Regular Clergy because they preach at home to faithfull people and are sent to remote Countreys for the Conuersion of Infidels more then Secular Priests Snarez cited by the Replyer n. 5. neuer sayd that Religious Pastours gouerne by Delegation or Priuiledge or that it is against the diuine Institutiō that Religious me be made Pastours 3. From his n. 10. to 15. he goeth about to proue that my Lord of Chalcedon is Ordinary after an extraordinary manner by arguments easy to be answered if it were pertinent to the defence of Nicolas Smith as it is not and therfore I referre the Reader to the answere of the Regulars to my Lord of Chalcedons letter For the Defence of Nicolas Smith it is inough to take what the Repiyer yieldeth to wit that my Lord is not Ordinary in an Ordinary manner as Nicolas Smith proueth by the definition of an Ordinary giuen by M. Doctour For this grant supposed I argue thus The diuine Institution that in the whole Church and as M. Doctour would thence inferre in euery notable part therof there should be Bishops is eyther fulfilled in England by placing there my Lord of Chalcedon or not If it be fulfilled then the Pope might in the whole Church place only Ordinaryes in an extraordinary manner by Deputation or Commission which no Catholicke can grant If it be not fulfilled in England then 〈◊〉 the Pope is yet obliged to giue vs a Bishop Ordinary in an ordinary manner which I belieue he will not admit and therfore he must finally yield to the Discussour That there is no diuine precept to haue a Bishop in England but all must be left to the supreme Pastours discretion whether it be best for vs to be gouerned by a Bishop or otherwise 4. The Discussour n. 5. concerning my Lord of Chalcedons maintenance vttered nothing vpon his owne opinion but truly related what others did and do say himselfe abstayning to intermeddle in that matter yet the Replyers argument n. 17. rather proueth that Catholicks are not obliged to mantayne my Lord of Chalcedon if without his Lordship they can be sufficiently prouided of all spirituall helpes by Priests Secular or Regular because by the law of Nature they are obliged only to prouide themselues of meanes to atrayne saluation Whether or no Catholickes can be sufficiently prouided for without my Lord of Chalcedon Nicolas Smith neuer disputed nor did he euer giue the least insinuation that it were better not to haue a Bishop in Englād wholly referring that point to the determination of his Holines and the Replyer is much to blame for his taxing the Discussour as opposing the comming of a Bishop into England Those Houses which the Replyer n. 18. tearmeth stately and turneth from the singular to the plurall number are knowne by those who haue best reason to know it not to haue put English Catholickes to charges and although