perfection as if it had an ordinarie Bishop and Pastour 30. Whereas M. Nicholas n. 14. saieth that his last taske in this question was to shew that although he should freelie graunt that a particular Church cannot be without a Bishop Yet it were not sufficiente to proue that a Bishop could not be refused by reason of persecution He bringeth in this out of its place and somust expect his answere in the next question Whereas he demaundeth a precept to receiue a Bishop and that also indispensable Hath not M. Doctour in his 12. Chapter of his Hierarchie proued at large that by the diuine lawe and institution besides one supreme Bishop there must be other Bishops in the Church without which the Church cannot subsist because without particular Bishops of particular Churches the whole Churches should not be Hierarchicall Hath he not in his 13. Chapter proued also that Bishops by the diuine institution and law are so necessarie that euen in tyme of persecution they are to gouerne the Church as they euer haue done in the greatest persecution Hath he not proued in his 12. Chapter that by the diuine ordinance euerie great parte of the Church such as England France Spaine is to haue its Bishop But more of this in due place where also I shall shew whether this diuine lawe houldeth in all circunstances What need then had Maister Nicholas to demande a precept where the Diuine law is so often inculcated M. NICHOLAS SMITH The reason which M. Doctour addeth that as the whole Church hath one supreme Bishop to gouerne it so euerie particular Church also must haue its Bishop or Bishops else it should not be a particular Church and so the whole and vniuersall Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches n. 16. REPLIE M. Nicholas wresteth M. Doctours argument to a wrong and odious sense 31. M. Doctours argument is good and solid for as the whole and vniuersall Church requireth a a supreme and vniuersall Bishop ouer all to make it a whole Church so a particular Church requireth a particular Bishop to make it a particular Church as aboue is often proued and otherwise if particular Churches had not their particular Bishop the whole and vniuersall Church which consisteth of many particular Churches should not be a Hierarchie as Christ hath instituted But M. Nicholas not so modestlie as were to be expected of one of his coate sayeth that this argument deserueth no answere and why Because sayeth hee who dare say that there is as great necessitie or obligation to haue a Bishop in euerie particular Church as to haue one supreme head of the Whole Calike Church 32. And thus as he vseth to doe taking M. Doctour wilfullie or ignorantlie in a wrong sense he runneth on For M. Doctour onely sayed that as the whole and vniuersall Church cannot be a whole Church without a supreme and vniuersall Bishop so a particular Church cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop whence by no Logick it followeth that there is absolutelie as greate necessitie of a particular Bishop as of the vniuersall and supreme Bishop Because the Church cannot be at all without a supreme Bishop or nor without order to him when the Sea is vacāt but it may subsist though a particular Bishop and his Church also should fall from the Church by Schisme or heresie and it should still remaine Hierarchicall in other particular Churches which haue their particular Bishops as is easie to see by that which is allreadie saied For although the Greeke Church for the greatest parte be cutte of from the Romaine Church by schisme and heresie and so the Roman Church in it is not Hierarchicall yet the Roman Church still subsisteth and is Hierarchicall in other Churches And this I shall illustrate by an example The Empire is an vniuersall Kingdome which containeth in it diuers particular Kingdomes Wherefore as the whole Kingdome of the Empire cannot be a whole Kingdome without a supreme King and Emperour so a particular Kingdome of the whole Empire cannot be a particular Kingdome without a particular King but yet there is not absolutelie such necessitie of a particular King or Kingdome as of the Emperour who is supreme King For that although that a particular King and Kingdome should be cassired and should be no more a Kingdome nor haue its particular King yet the Empire might still subsist by its supreme King and Emperour and by other Kingdomes which are gouerned by him And therefore M. Nicholas forceth me to say that he sheweth a greate deale of splene towards M. Doctour in taking M. Doctour in a wrong sense as though he had sayed that there was as great necessitie of a particular as of a supreme Bishop and then inferring that his doctrine is subiect to a deeper censure then he is willing to expresse 33. And what Censure I pray you M. Nicholas deserueth it to say that as the whole Catholike Church cannot be without a supreme and vniuersall Bishop so a particular Church cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop In what councell doth M. Nicholas find this censured And doth not common sense and reason censure M. Nicholas for calling this in question Is it any more then to saye that as an Empire and vniuersall Kingdome requireth a supreme King and Emperour so a particular Kingdome of the sayed Empire requireth a particular King And to inferre hence that M. Doctour sayeth a particular Bishop is as necessarie as the supreme Bishop is to vphould the Church of God is as absurd as to inferre that a particular King is as necessarie to vphould the Empire as the Emperour himselfe is 34. And so when M. Nicholas addeth what Catholike dare auouch that because England for the space of 60. yeares wanted a Bishop the vniuersall Church that tyme was not as Christ instituted a Hierarchie composed of diuers particulars is of the same stuffe for where or when did M. Doctour euer say thus as M. Nicholas maketh him to say I confesse M. Nicholas his cauilling in this manner and false construing yea false alledging would moue some litle passion in mee but that I am resolued to imitate M. Doctours temper and milde manner of writing of which he giueth mee example in his Hierarchie M. Doctour sayed onely that the Church cannot subsiste a Hierarchie as Christ instituted vnlesse it be composed in generall of diuers particular Churches which haue their particular Bishops but he neuer sayed that the Church cannot subsist without a particular Church nor that all the time England was without a Bishop the rest of the Church composed of particular Churches which were and are and euer shal be subordinate to the supreme Bishop was not as Christ instituted a Hierarchie as aboue he is sufficiently tould onely he sayed that England so long as it wanted a Bishop was not a particular Church and that the whole Church should not be a Hierarchie if it
people vnited to the Bishop which England could not be when it had no Bishop It is true the Pope is Bishop of the whole Church and so of England as it was a member of the whole but he hauing neuer done there the office of a Bishop by himselfe or his delegate nor euer taking vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England he was not Englands particular Bishop and so England by him could be no particular Church 24. To M. Nicholas his similitude which he mamaketh betwixt God the first and vniuersall cause of all effectes and the Pope the vniuersall Bishop I answere that as God can supplie the externall actions of second causes called Actiones transeuntes therefore can produce heate without fire a man without a man a tree without a tree as he did in the first creation of things Yet he cannot as some hould produce immanent actiōs without their particular causes and powers so cannot produce the act of seing without the eye of hearing without the eare of loue without the will of vnderstading without the power of vnderstanding But how soeuer as God can produce the former externall actions without their particular causes and so supplie the second cause So the Pope if he be not onelie elected Pope but also consecrated can do all the actions by himselfe which Patriarches Archbishops Bishops Priests and other inferiour Ministers can do For he can ordaine Ministers and confirme the baptized with the Bishop he can consecrace absolue and minister other Sacraments and preach with the Priest Yea he can do other inferiour offices with the Deacon Subdeacon and therest though it be not so conuenient he should And soe as God cā be not onely an vniuersall but also a particular cause supplying the particular cause so the Pope can be a particular Bishop but then he must do the office of a particular Bishop by himselfe or his delegate or take the Title of that particular Church vnto him 25. That the Pope hath founded Seminaries of Priests for our countrie that he hath sent thether first Priests and then Religious men as M. Nicholas telleth vs n 8. and we all gratefullie acknowledge to preach and minister Sacramentes in our Countrie as this argueth his greate care of England and his no lesse charitie so it arguerh not as M. Nicholas would make his reader beleiue that he was our particular Bishop he neither by himselfe nor by his delegate doing the office of a Bishop in England nor euer hauing taken vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England And so since the decease of our ould Bishops to these late yeares in which his Holines sent vs twoe most worthie Bishops England was no particular Church because it had no particular Bishop to make it a particular Church 26. And by this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to all that he sayeth n. 8.9.10.12.13 In his 11. nūber he obiecteth against this that many places and persons are exempt from the Iurisdiction of a Bishop be fides the Pope neither did any man euer dreame that for that cause they ceased to be particular Churches I here pitie M. Nicholas his arguing and the necessitie he is driuen to which Cogit ad turpia For although monasteries be exempt from the Bishop and immediatlie subiect to the Pope yet no particular cōgregation or multitude that is a particular Church can be exempt from a particular Bishop as we haue proued out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church vnlesse the Pope make himselfe particular Bishop of it And therefore monasteries subiect onely to the Pope and exēpt from particular Bishops are indeed members of the Church but not a particular Church vnlesse M. Nicholas will make euerie nunnerie of woemen a particular Church 27. But here I cannot but meruayle that M. Nicholas thinketh it so strange that M. Doctour sayeth that there cannot be a particular Church without a Bishop and it should seeme thereby that he hath not much considered S. Thomas his doctrine in this pointe For that this learned Doctour sayeth D. Th. libr. 4. gent. c. 76. n. 4.1 p. q. 108. art 1.2.3 that the Church militant is deriued by similitude from the Triumphant and he sayeth also that euerie Order of the Angels consisteth of diuers Angels subordinate to one Prince who in this Doctours opinion is higher and perfecter in nature thē the rest and is the particular Prince of that Order and all the orders with their particular Princes are subiect to one supreme Angel who is Prince of the three Hierarchies and nine Orders of Angels And therefore in the Church militant in euerie notable parte of it there must be and most commonlie is a Bishop a spirituall Prince of that Church and all the particular Churches with their particular Hierarches and Bishops are subordinate to one supreme Bishop the Pope as M. Doctour hath proued in the 3. and 4. Chapter of his Hierarchie And therefore in his 2. Chapter he sayeth that the Church is compared to a Kingdome in which besides the King are Dukes Earles Marquises Barons c. who are princes in their kinde of their particular dominions and all are with their Dominions Lordships subordinate to the King and if any of these particular dominions be quite depriued of their Duke or Earle they are no more Dutchies or Earledomes though still they be members of the Kingdome and so that particular Prouince depriued of its Duke or Earle giueth not that lustre to the Kingdome which it hath by other particular Lordships and bodyes of the Kingdome 28. In like manner the Church being a Hierarchie is cōposed of diuers particular Churches of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop who is not the Popes delegate but an ordinarie and a Prince in his kind and the Church receiueth by this varietie of particular Bishops particular Churches a greate lustre And when any notable parte of it wanteth its particular Bishop and spirituall prince although the Church remaine still a Hierarchie in respect of other particular Churches which haue their particular Hierarche and Bishop yet in respect of that parte of the Church which hath no Bishop and which therefore is not a particular Church or body it is not perfectlie Hierarchicall nor hath it by that parte of the Church that varietie and lustre which it hath by other parts of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop 29. Wherefore when the Pope giueth to a countrie a delegated Bishop though many times he giueth to the delegate more power then the ordinarie hath although that countrie then be in its kinde a particular Church yet it wanteth some perfection it being not gouerned by an ordinarie Bishop and Pastour as other Churches are it being more perfect and more honorable to haue an ordinarie then a delegate And likewise if the Pope should send a simple Priest into Englād with power to confirme England should be in its kinde a particular Church but not in that degree of
Denys then in his booke of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie speaking of those who are of the Hierarchie reckeneth only the Bishop Priest and Deacons and sayth that the Bishops office is to perfect the Priests to illuminate the Deacons to purge And in the sayd Chapter in his contemplation he telleth how they all three are ordained And the Bishop he sayth is the first and Chiefe order in whom the rest are consummated For sayth he as the whole Hierarchie of the Church is consummated in the Chiefe Hierarch and Bishop Christe soe euerie spirituall and particular Hierarchie that is euerie particular Church is terminated and consummated in its proper Bishop Which may be noted against M. Nicholas who would haue a particular Church without a particular Bishop So that S. Denys in the Hierarchie placeth only Bishops Priests Deacons to whom are reduced Subdeacons and other inferiour orders if especiallie these be of the deuine institution of which point M. Doctour hath disputed in his Hierarchie 14. Dion l. Eccl. Hier c. 6. In the next chapter which is the sixt he treateth of the three orders of those that are perfected And Dionysius Carthusianus in his Elucidation or explication of this sixt chapter sayth that S. Denys in the former chapter treated of the three orders of perfectors that is the Bishop Priest and Deacon but now in the sixt â—hapter he speaketh of three orders of those that are perfected And he obserueth that when S. Denys speaketh of the three orders of those that perfect others the name order signifieth a name of dignitie but when he speaketh of the three orders of them that are perfected the name order signifieth no name of dignitie but rather is a name of subiection 15. S. Denys in that sixt chapter sayth that the orders of those who are perfected are in generall three The last as Dionysius Carthusianus explicateth to wit they that are purged are 5. that is Catechumenes Energumenes Apostataes vicious infirme and timide or fearfull persons the next aboue them are the people baptized and admitted to the sacred Euchariste the highest order of those that are perfected are the Monkes and religious who therfore are called according to the Translation of Lanselius Summus corum qui initiantur perficiuntur ordo The cheefe order of those that are initiated and perfected not the cheefe in the Church because S. Denys placeth Bishops Priests and Deacons before them but the first of those who are initiated and perfected Dion Cart. sayth that the order of MoÌ„kes is perfectus inter perficiendos perfect amongest those that are to be perfected but not amongest those that perfect others Art 13. super That 6. 16. All this may be confirmed by what S. Denys sayth in his Epistle to Demophilus Monke where checking him for hauing Kicked a penitent who was confessing to the Priest and for contemptuouslie vsing the Priest him selfe he taketh him vp in these words Nefas est sacerdorem a Ministris qui to superiores sunt aut à tui ordinis Monachis corrigi reprehendi c. It is not lavvfull that a Priest should be corrected or reprehended by the Ministers vvho are aboue thee or of the Monkes of they order c. and he giueth the reason saying Sacerdotes autem nuncij atque interpretes secundum pontifices sunt dininorum iudiciorum ab eis rectè ordine tâ— per medios interiectosque Ministros cum tempus posiulabit diuina disce à quibus etiam vt monachus esses habuisti An non hoc etiam clamant sacramysteria neque enim planè omnibus aditus ad Sancta Sanctorum interdictus est sed proximè ad ea accedit Pontificum ordo deinde Sacerdotum tum secundum hos ministrorum Ijs autem qui Monachi instituti sunt valuae adytorum occlusae sunt ad quas initiantur assistunt non vt eas Custodiant sed vt agnoscant se ordinem suum propiusque populum quam Ecclesiastici ordinis homines accedunt c. Priests next to the Bishops are the messengers or relaters and interpretors of the diuine iudgements of them by meanes of the middle Ministers rightlie and by order vvhen the tyme shall require doe thou learne the diuine thinges of vvhom also thou hadst that thou vvast monke Do not the sacred mysteries erye this For that all is not interdicted accesse to the Holies of Holies but next to them hath accesse the order of Bishops then of Priests then after them of the ministers But to them vvho are instituted monkes the doores of the Chaunselles or secret places of the Temple are shut at vvhich they are initiated and doe assist not to keepe them but that they may acknovvledge themselues and their order and they doe approche neerer to the people then the men of the Ecclesiasticall order doe By which it appeareth that according to S. Denis Regulars in his tyme wen excluded from the presbyterie and the Chaunsell and only were admitted to the doores but were not admitted into that holy and secret place 17. But let vs heare a worthie Regular speake Father Ihon de S. François Generall in his tyme of the order of S. Bernard called the order of the Fueillianes in Paris vvho is famous for his Translation of S. Denis his worke into french Hee in his Apollogie for these workes in answering an obiection made by Scaliger against them hath these words Chap. 13. pag. 74. Rour l'intelligence de ce que nous disons faut supposer que sainct Denis voulant monstrer le bel ordre qui est en la Hierarchie de l'Eglise diuise tout le peuple Chrestien en deux parties dont l'vne est celle du Clergé l'autre est du peuple laique Il distingue tout le Clergé en trois ordres le premier esi celuy des Euesques l'autre des Prestres le tiers de liturges c. For the vnderstanding of this vvhich vve say it must be supposed that S. Denys intending to shevv the goodlie order vvhich is in the Hierarchie of the Church deuideth all the Christian people into tvvo parts of vvhich the one is that of the Clergie the other of the lay people He distinguisheth all the Clergie into three orders The first is that of the Bishops the other of Priests and the third of the liturges that is Deacons to whom the other Ministers of the Church are reduced He distribueth the people in like manner into three Quires the first is that of Catechumenes Energumenes and Penstents the second parte is that vvhich is the holy people and the third is of the Monkes And because that all the ministerie of the Hierarchie consisteth in three thinges either in purging or illuminating or perfecting or in being purged illuminated or perfected Therfore he S. Denys calleth the order of liturges Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 purgatiue order that of Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminatiue and that of the Bishops 〈◊〉
follovv the splene bitternes immodestie and smale respect of M. Nicholas Many vvho haue redde M. Doctours booke haue much commended him to my knovvledge by letters from England and other places for his mildnes temper and discretion and therfore as many doe vvonder vvhy M. Nicholas and he a Regular should ansvvere him vvith such bitternes and immodestie VVhat is there in M. Doctours booke vvhich so moueth his patience J ame sure there is not one tarte vvord in all M. Doctours booke and he vvriteth against noe person noe state noe order nor meddleth he vvith the late controuersie and for no other reason but because he vvould not offend It is true he vvriteth of the Hierarchie of the Church and of all orders but that is a point of the Catholique fayth vvhich as M. Nicholas confesseth in his first question n. 2. Hath beene handled most learnedlie copiously and eloquentlie by diuers both in latine and vulgartongues as indeed it hath by S. Thomas of Aquin Suarez and others in latine VVhy then vvriteth not M. Nicholas against them as vvell as against M. Doctour they hauing not handled the matter vvith more temper then he nor hauing yeelded more to regulars then hee vvhat then is it M. Nicholas that so moueth your Choler M. Doctour exalteth the Bishop and Clergie So doe S. Jgnatius S Ambrose S. Chrysostome cited by M. Doctour in his 7. chapter so doe all that vvrite of the Hierarchie so doth the Councell of TreÌ„t Conc. Trid. seff 23. c. 4. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 185. art 8. vvhich sayth that Bishops doe appertaine principallie to Hierarchicall order so doth S. ThomaÌ„s of Aquin alleaged by M. Doctour in his 11. chapter n. 18. And as M. Doctour exalteth the Bishop and Clergie so doth he the Regulars in their ranke But he giueth the precedence in dignitie and state of perfection to the Bishop as S. Thomas and all deuines and Fathers doe hee shevveth the necessitie of Bishops in the Church of God the need that all countries haue of Confirmation vvhich ordinarilie can not be had vvithout a Bishop vvhose splendour M. Nicholas peraduenture feareth vvould obscure his ovvne This then may bee the cause for J can fynd no other hincillae lachrymae This is the cause of his rough ansvver vvhich in euerie page allmost is so bitter that as the lavves of Draco the Legislatour of the Athenians vvere sayd to haue been vvritten vvith mans bloud by reason of their crueltie so M. Nicholas his DiscussioÌ„ may bee sayd to haue been vvritten not vvith inke but vvith galle it is so byting and bitter Certes although I vvill not iudge of his spirit yet he seemeth to shevve litle of the spirit of a Religious man vvhich is the spirit of humilitie patience modestie charitie and of respect to Bishops Prelats Priests and Pastours such as vvas the Spirit of S. Benedict S. Bernard S. Dominike S. Jgnatius S. Xauier For that he striueth to depresse the state of Bishops and Pastours and to extenuate the necessitie both of Bishops and of the Sacrament of Confirmation VVherfore I protest sincerelie and as God knovveth from my harte that I ame hartilie sorrie that 〈◊〉 hath giuen me a iust cause and â—â—â—â—osed a necessitie on me to ansvver his Discussion and defend M. Doctour and the true doctrine deliuered by him because I feare I can not doe this sufficientlie as I must seing J haue vndertaken to ansvver for M. Doctour vvithout dishonour to M. Nicholas a Catholique and Religious man and in credit and estimation in his Order Yet vvhat I can doe vvithout preiudice to D. Kellison vvhose honour is deare vnto mee and to the true doctrine vvhich he hath taught I shall doe And therfore J meane not to imitate his odious manner of vvriting vvhich J heare is displeasing to all iudicious and indifferent Readers rather I vvill passe ouer his harsh speeches vvith patience though not allvvayes vvith silence and vvheras it is his vsuall manner to insult before the victorie vvith these and the like speeches A doughtie argument pag. 16. J vvill not say noe diuine but euen no man in his right iudgement can affirme pag. 48. J can not but meruaile that a learned man should vse such a forme of argument pag. 48 still M. Doctour citeth Authours against him selfe pag. 89. c. J shall not insult ouer him though as the Reader shall see J get the maistrie ouer him and the victorie of him holding it a base thing and not vvorthie a generous mynd to strike his aduersarie or insult vpon him vvhen he lyeth on the ground But rather I vvill proceede vvith patience and charitie and vvill content my selfe to ouercome and to put my aduersarie to silence by argument not by cryes and clamours and though J be noe Regular yet I vvill endeauour to giue him example of religious humilitie modestie and charitie But to returne to the Reader to vvhom this preface is addressed J shall desire him not to be scandalized to see one Catholique vvrite against another Catholiques as Catholiques agree allvvayes in matters of fayth and good Catholiques neuer breake charitie but the best Catholiques Gal. 3. Act. 15. Hieron Ep. 86. seq Aug. Ep. 8. seq Eus l. 5. c. 24. 25. Beda l. 3. hist Angl c. 24. 25. l. 5. c. 16. Daniel 10. as men may varie in other opinions S. Peter S. Paule and S. Barnabas and S. Augustine and S. Hierome disagreed in some opinions vvithout breach of fayth or charitie About the obseruation of Easter there vvas greate debate betvvixt Saintes and Saintes till the Church decided the controuersie yea Angels haue dissented in opinion And so long as the dissensioÌ„ is not in matters of fayth it may be vvithout preiudice to faith and vvithout breach of charitie And hovvsoeuer this vvriting of one Catholique against another is to be imputed to M. Nicholas vvho vvas the first that vvrote against a Catholique for that M. Doctour vvrote against noe maÌ„ and J vvould neuer haue vvriten against M. Nicholas but in defence of a Catholique and Catholique Doctrine And as thou Gentle Reader art to be a spectatour of the encounter and combat betvvixt me and M. Nicholas so I desire thou shouldst be the iudge and vmpier also so that thou follovvest not affection vvhich oftentymes blindeth but vnblinded reason vvhich neuer deceiueth but vvill cause thee to pronounceÌ„ sentenceÌ„ vvhere thou seest most reason not vvhere thou settlest most thy affection TO THE VENERABLE CLERGIE OF ENGLAND BOTH SECVLAR AND REGVLAR ALthough in this my reply vvhich I haue made for the iust defence of M. Doctour and of the truth deliuered by him I may offend some for that veritas odiuÌ„ parit and be it neuer so discreetlie deliuered is dispeasing to some yet my desire is peace and as the end of vvarre ought to be peace so my intentioÌ„ in this my disputatioÌ„ vvas to shevveuerie order the truth vvhich all men vvhen they see doe imbrace and
so to induce them to peace And therfore novv I addresse my speache vnto you the Reuerend and venerable Priests of our afflicted Church desiring you that seing I haue sette before your eyes vvhich othervvise you knevve the perfection of the states both of Bishops Pastours and Regulars you vvould honour one another Rom. 12. yea in honour prenent one another and lay a side all contentions that as the Apostle vvisheth you may be of one meaning hauing the same charitie Philip. 2. of one mynde agreeuig in one nothing by contētiō neither by vaine glorie but in humilitie eahe counting other better then them selues euerie one not considering the thinges that are their ovvne but those that are other mens And trulie if one order had not too greate an ouervveening of its ovvne perfections but rather vvould cast an eye vpon the perfectiōs of another vvhich vvilbe fovvnd to excelle in one thing or other this consideration vvould cause humilitie and humilitie charitie and charitie peace and amitie So our blessed sauiour Christe Iesus God and man though euen as man he vvas greater in dignitie and sanctitie then all the men that euer vvere though neuer so holy of vvhich also he vvas not ignorant yet he as man considering not so much the perfection he had by vnion vvith the diuinitie as vvhat he vvas according to his humane nature takē barelie and nakedlie in it selfe and comparing him selfe vvith the grace and sanctitie he savve in others humiliated him selfe in conceite vnder others vvho in state and dignitie vvas aboue all others So the Blessed virgine Mother and Mother of God so all the Sainctes of God considering not vvhat they vvere by grace though they knevv it full vvell but vvhat of them selues they vvere and casting an eye of that vvhich others vvere by the diuine grace cast them selues in conceite at the feete of all men euen those that vvere farre inferiour vnto them If all orders vvould practise this none vvould contend vvith another fer perfection or state of perfection Let the Clergieman sayth Thomas Waldensis looke into the state of the religions Th. VVald de Clericis Regularibus Tit. 9. cap. 2. and hee shall find something vvherin he is inferiour to the Religions and let the Religious man behold the order of the Clergieman and he shall fynd vvherin the Clergieman excelleth him If this they doe Philip. 2. eahe vvill count other better then them selues because euerie one as S. Paules counselleth them considereth not the thinges and perfections that are his ovvne but those that are other mens If this they doe noe order vvill preferre it selfe before another but rather thinck more lovvlie of it selfe then of another and so contention vvilbe auoided If this they doe none vvill bragge of their ovvne state and perfection but all vvill studie and endeuour to get perfection knovving that it is not the state or office but the holy life and merit vvhich God especiallie respecteth and that if one liue not according to his state the higher his state is the greater is his damnation for that from the highest place is the lovvest fall The state of S. Paule and S. Peter is high but as S. Hierome sayth Hieron Ep. ad Heliod Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not an easie thing to stand in the high place of Paule or to hold and to stand stedfast in the high degree of Peter S. Augustine looking into both states so commendeth in both the good that he discommēdeth in both the badde that so if they think to vvell of them selues for the good Ep. 147. 2d Valer. they may humble them selues in consideration of the bad for speaking of the Bishop and the Clergie he vseth these vvords to Valerius Ante omnia peto vt cogitet religiosa prudentia tua c. before all I desire that thy religions prudence vvould think that there is no thing in this life more easie gratefull and acceptable to men especiallie in this tyme then the office of à Bishop Priest or Deacon if carelesselie it be performed but nothing before God more miserable and damnable likevvise that nothing in this life especiallie at this tyme is more difficile more laborious more dangerous then the office of a Bishop Priest or Deacon but before God nothing more happie and blessed if so they vvarre as our Emperour commaundeth Which S. Augustine considering vvept bitterlie vvhen he vvas consecrated Bishop as he him selfe in the same epistle confesseth And in another epistle speaking of Religions he maketh this protestation Simpliciter autem fateor charitati vestrae coram Domino Deo nostro c. I confesse simplie to your charitie befere our Lord God vvho is vvitnes vpon my soule from such tyme as I began to serue God as I haue hardelie experienced or found better then such as haue profited in religion so I haue not found vvorse then such as in monasteries haue fallen Epist 1 37. But as gold is not to be refused for its drosse nor vvine for the lees nor the good corne for the Chaffe so neither are stares and orders of the Church to be lesse conceited because some mens liues are not sutable to their order and profession All orders are holy yet none so holye but that the superiour order vvanteth some thing of the inferiour The state of the Regular is inferiour to the state of the Bishop and Pastour in dignitie and Hierarchiall functions but it is lesse subiect to danger and so exceedeth in securitie The state of the Bishop and Pastour hath annexed vnto it greate honour but this honos is onus this honour is a greater charge and burdē then is the Regulars state because it is harder to saue ones selfe and others vvhich is the Pastours office then to saue ones selfe only vvhich is the care of the Religions Let then the Pastours behold in the Regular merit and mortificatiō let the Regular admire in the Bishop and Pastour great dignitie and no lesse charitie in engaging his ovvne life yea soule for others and the one vvill not despise the other but they vvill both loue and honour one another S. Greg hom 10. super Ezech. c. 3. Gregorie expounding that place of Ezechiel Vocem alarum animalium percutientium alteram ad alteram the voice of the vvings of liuing creatures stricking one against another hath these vvordes Omnes Sancti se inuicem suis virtutibus tangunt sese ad profectum excitant ex consideratione virtutis alienae Non vnidantur omnia c. The Sanctes touche one another by their vertues and stirre vp them selues to profit by the consideration of anothers vertues To one all are not giuen least eleuated by pride he take a fall but to this man is giuen vvhat to thee is not giuē and to thee is giuē vvhich to him is denyed That vvhilest this man considerenth the good that thou hast and he hath not he may in
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
they be notable partes of the Church all hauing the like necessitie and there being the same reason of one which is of another And so M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter n. 2. pag. 376. argueth well from the like necessitie in this manner By the diuine law there must be particular Bishops in the Church to supply the necessities of particular Churches but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France for he speaketh especiallie of greate particular Churches which are notable partes of the whole Church should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops more or fewer according to the extent of the Countrie rather then the Church of Spaine or the Church of England Ergo France Spaine and England and all other such particular Churches of extent must be gouerned by Bishops and euerie one by his owne all hauing the like necessitie 29. M. Nicholas numer 12. wondreth that a learned man should vse such a forme of argument and therefore to make a shew against this argument of M. Doctour be bringeth other arguments verie ridiculous which though they may seeme to the ignorante to be like yet indeed are not so like as chalke and cheise His first argument of diuers meates doth argue that hee was hungrie for wāt of arguments else he would not haue made vse of one so weake and leane Thus he argueth Some meate is necessarie for the maintenance of man but there is no more reason why egges or fish should be necessarie rather then other particular meates Ergo egges fish and all meates are necessarie 30. But I meruaile that M. Nicholas if he be learned could not see the difference betwixt his owne and M. Doctours argument For that hee arargueth from the necessitie of some indeterminate meanes to the necessitie of some determinate meanes Maister Doctour argueth from like ends to the like necessarie meanes The first manner of arguing which Maister Nicholas vseth is ridiculous For it followeth not Meate which is an indeterminate meane is necessarie for mans life Ergo this meate Bishops are necessarie in the Church Ergo this Bishop in particular Marriage of some men is necessarie to maintaine lawfullie mankind Ergo this man must marrie M. Doctours manner of arguing is good and solid for that it is grounded in paritie and equalitie of reason Lib. 1. Post or c. 4. 5. or in this principle knowne by the light of reason Quod conuenit alicui quâtale conuenit omni tali that which agreeth to a thing as it is such a thing agreeth to euerie such thing as for example sayeth Aristotele because it agreeth to a Triangle as it is a Triangle to haue three angles equall to two right angles it agreeth to euerie Triangle to haue three angles equall to two right angles but because it agreeth not to a triangle as it is a triangle to be of brasse euerie triangle is not of brasse And so because it is necessarie to a notable parte of the Church as it is a notable parte to haue a Bishop and that also by the diuine law because one Bishop cannot serue sufficientlie two notable partes of the Church euerie notable parte must haue its Bishop And there being the same reason of England Frāce Spaine euerie one of these countries being of such extent that one Bishop cannot serue two of them euerie one of them must haue its Bishop by paritie of reason and for that it being necessarie to a Church to haue a Bishop because it is a notable parte euerie such notable part must haue a Bishop Because quod conuenit alicui quâ tale conuenit omnitali that which agreeth to a thing as it is such a thing agreeth to euerie such thing And if it be necessarie to one it is necessarie to another 31. If M. Nicholas his argument had beene thus framed it had beene good Meate or food in generall is necessarie to mās life but there is nomore reason of one man then another for that all mortall men do need meate or food Ergo meate or food is necessarie ot euerie mās life but this food in particular as egges or fish is not necessarie 32. M. Nicholas his second argument is as ridiculous for that by it he argueth from an indeterminate meane to wit from men whoe are necessarie to maintaine by marriage mankinde to euerie particular man Which kinde of argument is not the same with that of M. Doctour but as fond as this A shippe indeterminatelie is necessarie to passe from Douer to Calais Ergo euerie particular shippe 33. His thirde argument is of the same or of a worse forme and stampe Religious institute in generall is of the diuine iustitution and the Supreme Bishop is by his office obliged on his parte to procure that in the Catholike Church so sacred an institute be maintained but there is no reason why it should be be maintained rather in France or Spaine then in England Ergo the Pope is obliged to maintaine the religious institute in England To his maior or first proposition I answere that religious orders can be no more norso much necessarie in the Church I. 2. q. 108. ar 4. then the Counsailes in which according to S. Thomas they are grounded which counsailes are instituted by Christe but as M. Doctour saieth in his Hierarthie pag. 300. they are not commanded to anie but counsailed onely And so M. Nicholas cannot fynde out a diuine precept to oblige the Pope to admitte any religious order as he is bound to giue Bishops to the Church and hence it is that the Pope doth much deliberate before he admitte of any new Religious order and whē he admitteth it he admitteth it onely as profitable to the Church not as necessarie by any diuine law 34. But suppose it were of the diuine law that religious orders indeterminatelie and in generall should be in the Church yet no Religious order is necessarie by the diuine law in euerie notable part of the Church as Bishops are And so it would not be a good argument Religious orders must by the diuine institution be in the Church Ergo in Englād or in this or in that particular Coutrie But as I haue proued it is of the diuine law that in euerie notable parte of the Church there must be a Bishop and so there being no more reason of one such parte then another all such partes must haue their Bishops This I suppose would be M. Doctours answer to that argument Now let M. Nicholas make what he can of this answere Who verie politikelie perhappes as he thought saied n. 13. pag. 50. When M. Doctour shall tell me what he thinketh of this manner of argument I will then let him know what good vse I shal be able to make of his answere whatsoeuer it be 35. And by this M. Nicholas his fourth argument will proue to haue the same fault that the others had It is not of the diuine law as M. Doctour confesseth to haue a Bishop in
eiusmodi Praelatis c. If in such Prelates vvee confider the degree of the holy order speaking simply ther is some thing in them vvorthier and more perfect then in the religious as religious not in holy orders VVhere we see he vseth M. Doctours reduplication which offendeth M. Nicholas and preferreth the holy order before the state and perfection of a religious man who is not in holy orders M. NICHOLAS J grante that if vve limit the name of Hierarchie to Bishops Priests Deacons c. then to say that Religious not Priests or Bishops are not of the Hierarchie is no more then to say religious not Priests or Bishops are no Priests or Bishops vvhich surelie is no greate mysterie but then it should be prooued vvith vvhat ground the mame of Hierarchie should be soe limited n. 2. THE REPLY Hovv regulars are of the Hierarchie and hovv they are not 8. M. Nicholas from this place beginneth to proue that Regulars are of the Hierarchie And trulie if ether God or his Church had bestowed that honour on them God forbid that I should goe about to take it from them rather I would by word and writing defend it and hazard euen my life to assure it the more vnto them But if neither God nor his Church hath giuen them this honour neither must we giue it to them least wee breake God his ordinaunce neither should they desire it But as the laytie murmureth not against the Clergie as Core Dathan and Abiron Num. 16. and their followers did against Moyses and Aaron for that they may not preache nor minister Sacraments and as those of the secular Clergie ought not to take it in euil part that they are not esteemed religious Soe neither should the religious be offended if wee say that they are not of the Hierarchie neither God nor his Church hauing bestowed that honour vpon them though they be adorned with many other graces Rather they may reioice in God that they haue many perfections of a religious life which others haue not and are furnished with moe meanes to attaine to perfection then secular Priests haue and that their state is more secure and free from danger then any other state is 9. And if M. Nicholas who endeauoureth to proue them to be of the Hierarchie meane only that they are members of the Church which is a Hierarchie neither M. Doctour nor any good Catholique will or can deny it Nay M. Doctour in his Hierarchie Chap. 8. n. 7. sayth that religious men as religious are a greate ornaments to the Church and are in this sense of the Hierarchie of the Church in that they are eminent members of the Church and are ordained to help and assist Bishops and Pastours c. 10. But if he meane that they are of the Hierarchie as commonly it is taken by S. Denys and diuines for that part of the Church which gouerneth illuminateth perfecteth and purgeth the rest by preaching and administration of Sacraments c. so only Bishops Pastours Priests and other Ministers are of the Hierarchie And in this sense the holie Councell of Trent taketh the Hierarchie saying Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia Catholica non esse Hierarchiam diuina ordinatione institutam quae constat ex Episcopis Pres byter is Ministris Anathema sit If any shall saye that there is not in the Church a Hierarchie instituted by the diuine ordinance vvhich consisteth of Bishops and Priests and Ministers let him be accursed Sess 23 can 6. VVhere we see that the Hierarchie is taken only for that part of the Church which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers and seing that Regulars as Regulars are neither Bishops Priests nor Ministers in the Church as Bishops Priests and Deacons are they are not as Regulars of the Hierarchie in this sense for if as Regulars they were of the Hierarchie in this sense then lay brothers and sisters who are trulie Regulars should be of the Hierarchie in the same sense and so should be comprehended vnder Bishops or Priests or Ministers in the Church 11. And therfore I wonder that M. Nicholas pag. 165. should saye that it is temeritie to affirme that the Councell intended to define as a matter of fayto that vnder the name of Hierarchie could be comprehâ—nded only Bishops Priests or other Ministers indued vvith order or iurisdiction rather it may seeme greate temeritie in M. Nicholas to comprehend Regulars as Regulars vnder that definition they as such being neither Bishops nor Priests nor Ministers in the Church But peraduenture M. Nicholas will comprehend Regulars vnder thâ— word Ministers And why so are they as Regulars Ministers in the Church who as Regulars can not by office preach or Minister Sacraments or assist at the Altar with the Deacon and Subdeacon did he euer reade or heare that Regulars were called Ministers of the Church Certes Vasquez a Iesuite and Regular Vasq to 3. disp 238. c. 2. vnder that word Ministris Ministers comprehendeth only Deacons not other inferiour Ministers much lesse vnder that word would he vnderstand Regulars who as Regulars were neuer called Ministers in the Church they as Regulars hauing no Church-functions Others vnder that word Ministers vnderstand Deacons and Subdeacons but none vnderstand Regulars 22. M. Doctour in his Hierarchie chap. 15. touched this question whether regulars be of the Hierarchie in the former sense and indeed he seemed only to touche it and that with greate moderation and respect to Religious and therfore alleaged noe Authours for the proofe of it And I also because I would not giue the least occasioÌ„ of offeÌ„ce would haue beene sparing in this matter but that M. Nicholas vrgeth me much in his 6. question where he handleth this point at large and sayth n. 1. that nothing is more frequent then that some persons hee seemeth to meane M. Doctour for one vvho I dare say scarselie euer read S. Denys nor euer vvere much conuersant in S. Thomas of Aquin from vvhom vve haue the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchie vvilbe discoursing of the secular Clergie as though they only vvere of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie And because M. Nicholas will seeme to be more conuersant in S. Denys and S. Thomas then others are and sayth that from them vve haue the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchie I shall especiallie examine what S. Denys sayth of the Hierarchie and I will shewe soe plainelie and clearlie out of him from whence indeed S. Thomas and all deuines haue learned that which they say of the Hierarchie that regulars in his opinion and as he taketh the word Hierarchie are not of the Hierarchie that the Reader will confesse that ether M. Nicholas neuer read S. Denys and so is of the number of them who as he sayth scarselie euer read S. Denys or if he read him that he vnderstood him not or wittinglie and willinglie dissembled his opinion 13. L. de Eccl. Hierarch cap. 5. S.
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfectiue or perfecting Respectiuelie he S. Denys calleth the Catechumenes Energumens and Penitents 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the order that is purged the solie people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 illuminated and the order of Monkes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfected 18. And a litle after this Auctour addeth Voylà done premierement comme il constitue les Moynes entrele peuple laique qui esloient ceux qui faisoyent profession d'vne plus grande perfection que les autres d'vne vie plus deuote spirituelle renonçans anx affections soucis dâ—s choses de ce monde se deuoüans consacrans totalement au seruice de Dieu c. Behold then first of all how he S. Denys placeth the Monkes amongest the lay people which Monkes were they who made profession of a greater perfection then others and of a life more denoute and spirituall renouncing the affections and cares of the thinges of this world vowing and coÌ„secrating them selues wholie to the seruice of God L. de Hier. Eccl. c 6. c And after that to wit in the page 76. and 77. he relateth out of S. Denys how the Priests that vvere vnder the Bishop had the office to coÌ„secrate the Monkes vvho made sayth he their profession entre les mains des Prestres â—â— dessoubs des Euesques betvvixt the handes of the Priests under the Bishop And pag. 78. this Auctour shevveth out of S. Denys in his Epistle to Demophilus hovv the ranke and place of the Monkes in publicque assemblies vvas vvith the lay people though as vve haue seene they vvere aboue the people and vnder the Clergie and sayth this Auctour Leur estoit deffendu d'entrer dans le Presbytere It vvas ferbidden them to enter into the Presbyterie All vvhich and more S. Denys him selfe hath in his fift and sixt chapter of his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie as may partlie appeare by that vvhich I haue alleaged out of those tvvo chapters 19. By this it is manifest that according to S. Denys and as he vnderstandeth the vvord Hierarchie the Regulars are not of the Hierarchie that is of that parte of the Church vvhich gouerneth the rest and ministreth Sacraments and preacheth and therby purgeth illuminateth and perfecteth vvhich as S. Denys sayth are the proper actions of the Hierarchie and are called Hierarchicall actioÌ„s vvhich also are exercised in the Hierarchie of the Angels in vvhich the Superiour orders illuminate purge and perfecte the inferiour And therfore in S. Denis his tyme regulars tooke their place beneath the Clergie and aboue the lay people And although in later tymes the Regulars enioyed the Clericall priuiledge and were more frequentlie ordained Subdiacons Deacons Priests yea and Bishops and as such are of the Hierarchie yet as Regulars they are not of the Hierarchie in S. Denys his opinion for then in his tyme also they should haue bene of the Hierarchie And M. Nicholas who told vs that many vvho neuer read S. Denys are forvvard to discourse of the Clergie as though they only vvere of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie Sheweth that he ether neuer read or vnderstood not S. Denys who will haue regulars to be of the Hierarchie and euen according to S. Denys his opinion 20. And thus I hope I haue brought sufficient proofe out of S. Denys to exclude regulars as regulars from the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie though I grante them to be eminent members of the Church which is a Hierarchie to wit in like manner as they are members and subiectes of the Kingdome who though eminent beare no rule in it And seing that as M. Nicholas confesseth what other Doctours euen S. Thomas of Aquin say of the Hierarchie they rake out of S. Denys his Authoritie is to be preferred before them all 21. Secondlie I adde to S. Denis and his Translatours and Expositours a reason or two And my first shal be taken out of the Councell of Trent alleaged in my Reply to this question n. 7. The Councell defineth that there is a Hierarchie in the Church vvhich consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers Ses 23 can 6. But Regulars as Regulars are neither Bishops Priests nor Ministers ergo they are not of the Hierarchie as the Councell of Trout taketh the word Hierarchie The minor proposition I haue proued in that number and so the conclusion must follow 22. My second reason vvhich excludeth them from the Hierarchie in the meaning of S. Denis shal be this They who are of the Hierarchie must simpathise with that part which is coÌ„fessedlie of it to wit with Bishops Priests and Ministers in their manner of life and profession in their actions and functions but Regulars as Regulars doe leade a life altogether different froÌ„ the life of Bishops Priests and Ministers of the Church and their actions and functions are as different ergo Regulars as Regulars are not of the Hierarchie The maior or first proposition is euident for that all who are of the same arte or trade or the same science or profession doe agree in actions functions and manner of life and therfore lawiers agree in pleading and giuing Counsel Physitians are busied in prescribing and ministring Physicke Carpenters vvorke in timber masons in stone c. 23. The minor and second proposition to wit that Regulars as Regulars doe differ in actions functioÌ„s and manner of life I shall proue out of S. Amb. l. 9. Ep. 82. Ambrose S. Chrysostome and other Authours of good authoritie and so the conclusion must followe S. Ambrose in an Epistle to them of Vercelles coÌ„paring the state of the Clergie with that of the Regulars sayth Namque hac duo in attentiore Christianorum deuotione praestantiora esse quis ambigat Clericorum officia Monachorum instituta Ista ad comitatem moralitatem disciplina illa ad abstinentiam assuefacta atque patientiam Haec velut in quodam Theatro ista in secreto spectatur ista illa absconditur Who can doubt but that these tvvo the offices of Clarkes and the institutes of Monkes are the more excelling in the more attent deuotion of Christians This discipline of Clarkes accustomed to humanitie and moralitie that of Regulars to abstinence and patience This the state of Clarkes is as in a Theater that in secret this is obuious to the eyes of men that is hidden And a litle after This life therfore of the Clergie is in a race that in a denne This against the confusion of the vvorld that against the desire of the flesh this subduing that flying the pleasures of the body This more grate full that more secure This gouerning it selfe that restraining it selfe yet both denying them selues that they may be of Christe because to the perfect it is sayd he that vvill come after mee let him deny him selfe to him selfe and take his crosse and follovv mee And againe Haec ergo dimicat illa se remouet haec illecebras vincit illa refugit huic
so comprehendeth both that order only will make a man of the Hierarchie as it importeth distinction in order and iurisdiction onely will make him of the Hierarchie as it implyeth distinction in power of iurisdiction and if he haue both then by both titles he is of the Hierarchie To his other demaund n. 4. he is also answered in the Hierarchie chap. 5. n. 18. and 21. for if the fowre lesser orders be of the institutition of the Church as some Authours cited by M. Doctour affirme then they who are vnder Subdeacons are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the Churches lawe and institution and not by the diuine lawe and institution but if they be of the diuine institution then these Ministers who are vnder Subdeacons are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the diuine institutiō And seing that Regulars who are neither Bishops Priests Deacons Subdeacons nor Accolytes c. haue neither order nor iurisdiction ouer the Church as other Ministers of the Hierarchie haue they cannot as Regulars be of the Hierarchie And therfore if an Abbot had only primam Tonsuram the first Tonsure which is no order although he haue iurisdiction ouer his Monkes Yet he should not be of the Hierarchie of the Church because he hath neither order nor Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but only Regular And so an Abbot as Abbot though he haue ordinarie power in his Religious order is not so much of the Hierarchie as a Bishop delegated because an Abbot not Bishop Priest c. is not of the Hierarchie at all but the delegated Bishop hath both order and iurisdiction and so by both wayes is of the Hierarchie And therfore S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars from the Hierarchie and yet some of them had iurisdiction ouer other Monkes VVherefore Regulars must not take this in euill parte for I giue them as much as S. Denys and learned Regulars giue them and would giue them alfo this dignitie to be of the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie if ether Christe or his Church had giuen it vnto them M. NICHOLAS That Religious Superiours as such bee of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie S. Bernard cited by M. Doctour chap. 1. n. 17. doth expressely teache c. n. 5. THE REPLY S. Bernard is explicated I answere that S. Bernard must be so explicated S. Bernard l. 3. de consid c. 4. as that he doe not contradict S. Denys from vvhom as Mr Nicholas in this trulie sayth q. 6. n. 1. vve have the best and allmost onlie Treatises of the Hierarchie Certaine it is that S. Denys and his Translatours and Interpreters doe giue not place to Regulars amongest vvhom some vvere Abbots in the Hierarchie but doe place them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie and only about the laitie and therfore perchance S. Bernard putteth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie not because they are properlie of the Hierarchie but because they are eminent mēbers in the Churche and haue some resemblance by reason of their high ranke in their Religious orders with those that are of the Hierarchie And if I would take hold of euerie thing as M. Nicholas vseth to doe I could confirme this because S. Bernard in that place placeth Abbots after Priests S. Ber. l. 3. de consid c. 4. Or else S. Bernard rekeneth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie because in his tyme most of thē were Priests many had Episcopall authoritie in some things Bel. to 1. l. 1. de concil c. 15. and many were perchance then as according to Bellarmine they are now admitted by priuiledge or custome to haue their voice in generall Councels and so by the Ecclesiasticall lawe were of the Hierarchie as we shall hereafter in the end of this question declare 31. Now wheras M. Nicholas in the same place sayth that he hath reason to complaine of M. Doctours dealing in alleaging S. Bernard as if he had sayd that the Hierarchie of the Church is perturbed vvhen Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops iurisdiction vvheras S. Bernard in the verie same place vvhich M. Doctour cites doth in expresse vvords approue the exemption of Abbots from Bishops and only disliketh exemption procured out of a spirit of disobedience pride and ambition wheras I say he sayth he hath reason to complaine on M. Doctour it will proue that M. Doctour hath reason to complaine on him in making him say more then he doth for doth not S. Bernard say as much as M. Doctour imputeth to him Doth he not complaine in that chapter that the order of the Hierarchie was then perturbed by exemptions hath he not these complayning words Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis Episcopi Archiepiscopis Archiepiscopi Patriarchis sen Primatibus Bona ne species hac mirum si excusari queatvel opus Sic fac titando probatis vos habere plenitudinem potestatis sed iustitiae forte non ita Facit is hoc quia potestis sed virum debeatis quaestio est Honorum ac dignitatum gradus ordines quibusque suos seruare positi estis non inuidere Abbots are subtracted from Bishops Bishops from Archbishops Arch-Bishops frō Patriarches or Primates And these words only M. Doctour alleaged But S. Bernard as we haue seen goeth on further Bona ne species hac Is this a good shovve forsoothe if euē the vvorke it selfe can be excused by so doing You he speaketh to Pope Eugenius proue that you haue the fulnes of povver but perchance not so of iustice you doe this because you can but vvhether you should there is a question Wherfore If S. Bernard in speaking thus much against exemptiōs to wit which haue no lawfull cause doth not deny but that the Pope hath power and iust cause to exempte Abbots and Monasteries from the iurisdiction of the Bishop much lesse can M. Nicholas inferre against M. Doctour who sayd not so much as he that he is against all exemptions but as S. Bernard for all those words doth allow of exemptions when there is iust cause as when a Monasterie from the beginning hath been exempte so might M. Doctour and so he doth M. NICHOLAS Mauclerus also vvhom M. Doctour in his 10. chapter n. 23. stileth a learned Doctour of Sorbon compareth Superiours in Religion to the Principalities secular Pastours inferiours to Bishops to Archangels and Priests not Curates to Angelles n. 5. THE REPLY Mauclerus meaneth only that Superiours in Religion haue some similitude vvith Principalities 32. M. Nicholas now would place Superiours of Religion not only in the Hierarchie but in one of the highst rankes also for that he sayth Mauclerus compareth them to Principalities And I also honour them not only for their Religious state but also for their dignitie in Religion But if S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars amongest whō were Abbots from the Hierarchie and placeth them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie and aboue the laytie they cā not be of the Hierarchie vnles they be
Bishops Priests c. or haue some Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction or by priuiledge be admitted to the Hierarchie as we shall see in the end of this question and so as Abbots preciselie they are not of the Hierarchie I answere therfore first that as I honour Mauclerus for that his learned worke and for the greate good fame and report that goeth of him so if he did hold against S. Denys I ought te preferre S. Denys as he him selfe would 33. Secondlie I answere that Mauclerus intended not in that place exactlie to declare who are properlie of the Hierarchie of the Church but only to shew how some in the Church militant resemble one order of the Hierarchie some another though they be not properlie of the Hierarchie Maucl 1. p. l. 5. c. 5. de Monarch as S. Denys and the Councell of Trent doe take the name Hierarchie So he sayth that holy Christians who rapte with the loue of God doe contemne the world doe resemble the Seraphins as S. Gregorie also by him alleageth doth affirme and yet M. Nicholas will not say that all holy women or lay men who are so rapt with the loue of God are of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie And if for this resemblance which they haue with Seraphins they are of the Hierarchie of the Church militant they should be in the highest ranke of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie because they resemble the highest order of the Angelicall Hierarchie and so should haue an higher ranke then Bishops and yet S. Denys excludeth all lay people froÌ„ the Hierarchie though neuer so holy and burning with the loue of God And the reason of this is because it is not charitie or merit which maketh a man of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie but only order or iurisdiction or Ecclesiasticall office and dignitie and therfore an euill Bishop hath an high ranke in the Hierarchie and an holy layman is not of the Hierarchie So Mauclerus sayth that good Princes such as Theodosius and others were doe resemble the Celestiall powers and yet Princes are reckened amongest the laye people which S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth from the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie for although they be lawfull gouernorus of the common wealth yet they are noe Gouernours nor Superiours of the Church but subiectes to her Pastours and especiallie to her cheefe Pastour So he sayth that compassionate and charitable persons are like to the Angelles because they haue care of pupilles widowes and the poore as Angels haue of them who are committed to their custodie and yet laye Christians though neuer so charitable are not of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie M. NICHOLAS S. Denys de Eccles Hierarch cap. 1. defineth a Hierarchie in this manner Qui Hierarchiaâ— dixit omnium simul sacrorum ordinum dixit dispositionem He that names a Hierarchie names the disposition or due ranking of all sacred orders VVhat vvords are heere to exclude Religious men c. n. 6. THE REPLY The definition of a Hierarchie is declared against M. Nicholas 34. Heere M. Nicholas vrgeth vs with the definition of a Hierarchie and argueth as he thinketh à definitione ad definitum which is one of the best manners of arguing For if from the definition of a Hierarchie Regulars are not excluded they can not be excluded from the thing defined that is from the Hierarchie And then as making him selfe cocke sure to be of the Hierarchie by this definition he demandeth What vvords are heere to exclude Religious men I ame sure sayth he M. Doctour knovveth vvell that by sacred orders S. Denys is farre from vnderstanding as some valearned persons might imagin holy orders of Priesthood Deacon and Subdeacon But by orders he vnderstandeth professions institutes offices degrees Thus he And if you let him goe with this interpretation all Regulars must be of the Hierarchie though they be but lay brothers or sisters and yet as we haue seene S. Denys excludeth them from the Hierarchie and Presbiterie and placeth them vnder the Clergie and aboue the laytie So that it should be strange that S. Denys should define a Hierarchie in the seÌ„se in which M. Nicholas taketh him and yet should exclude them from the Hierarchie which were to grosse a fault to be attributed to S. Denys for that it were to comprehend them in the definition and yet to exclude them froÌ„ the definitum which were as grosse a thing as if a logician should grant one to be animal rationale and yet deny him to be homo a man 34. I answere therfore first that S. Denys hath not that definitioÌ„ of a Hierarchie which M. Nicholas alleageth for he sayth not that he that names a Hierarchie names the disposition of all sacred orders nor hath he the word ordinum orders but onlie sacrorum sacred thinges to signifie that the Hierarchie is that in which is a disposition of all sacred functions and Hierarchicall actions Lib. de Eccl. Hier. c. 1. The Greeke Text hath these words Cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words Perionius translateth thus into latin Vt enim qui Hierarchiam dixit omnium simul sacrorum dixit descriptionem sic qui Hierarcham dicit is virum diuino numine afflatum diuinumque declarat qui omni sacra scientia sit praeditus in quo omnis quae eum attingit Hierarchia purè absoluitur ac cognoscitur And Frere Iean de S. François whom I aboue alleaged translateth the same words into French thus Car ne plus ne moins que celuy qui dict Hierarchie comprend sommairement l'ordre disposition de toutes les choses sainctes sacrees ensemble c. And the English both of the greeke latin and frenche is this For as he that nameth a Hierarchie nameth a description or an order or disposition as the french translation hath of all the holy thinges together so he that nameth a Hierarch he declareth a man inspired by the deuine povver or maiestie and a deuine man vvho is moued vvith all sacred knovvledge in vvhom all the Hierarchie vvhich forteineth to him is purelie compleate and finished And so in none of these translations is sacrorum ordinum sacred orders but only sacrorum holy thinges that is sacred and Hierarchicall actions which are performed by the Hierarchie which as S. Denys sayth are in generall to purge illuminate and perfect by preaching administration of Sacraments and such like sacred functions So that according to S. Denys as the Hierarchie is an order and disposition of all the sacred functions and actions so a Hierarch which is a spirituall Prince to wit the Bishop hath in him all sacred orders and functions and comprehendeth all power and functions which are in inferiour ministers and so all the functioÌ„s of the Hierarchie of the Church are compendiouslie comprehended in him And thus Dionysius Cartusianus doth expounde the former words Dion Cart. art 1. saying Nefiraigitur Hierarchia puta Ecclesiastica dicitur est continens omnium quae iuxta eam suâ—t
sacrorum id est continua est omnium sacrorum ad ipsam spectantium puta sanctorum actuum sacramentorum Our Hierarchie therfore to vvit Ecclesiasticall is named and is conteining all sacred or holy thinges vvhich are apperteining to it that is it is couteining all sacred thinges belonging to it to vvit holie actions and Sacramentes I grante that Petrus Lansselius of the Societie of Iesus in his translation of S. Denys hath the words which M. Nicholas hath and as it is like tooke out of him for he translateth it thus Vt enim qui Hierarchiā dixit omniū simul sacrorum ordinum dixit dispositionem For as he that nameth a Hierarchie nameth a disposition of all sacred orders in which worde Orders M. Nicholas would haue Religious orders and institutes comprehended yet the same Authour in his notes vpon the first chapter of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie cōfesseth that Perionius translateth these words of S. Denys as we haue shewed and that other Authours read sacrorum sacred things without ordinum orders but sayth he verto sacrorum ordinum I translate it holy orders and yet giueth no reason sufficient why he leaueth the texte which hath sacrorum only and why he dissenteth from other Auctours 35. Secondlie I answere that although S. Denys had sayd that the Hierarchie is a disposition of all holy orders yet he could not haue vnderstood Religious orders but only those orders and functions which pertaine to the perfecting illuminating and purging Hierarchie because he who afterwards in his 5. and 6. chapter of his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie in expresse termes excludeth Regulars and consequentlie their Religious orders from the Hierarchie would not haue defined a Hierarchie a disposition or description of all holy orders euen Religious for that so he should haue contradicted him him selfe and should haue denyed thē the definitū in his 5. and 6. chap. to whō he had granted the definition in his first chapter that is should haue denyed thē to be of the Hierarchie to whom agreed the definition of the Hierarchie I know that some doe other wise translate the alleaged place Ambr. Cam. and for Hierarchia doe put Sacerdotium but yet so as their exposition also excludeth Regulars from the Hierarchie M. NICHOLAS But vvhy should I seeke a better interpretour then S. Denys himselfe vvho in his 6. chapter titulo Contemplatio doth expressely put Monkes to be one of the orders in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie and a litle after the beginning of the same chapter he plainelie sayth Summus corum omnium qui initiantur perficiuntur ordo est sanctorum Monachorum The highest of these that are initiated and perfected is the order of holy Monkes Before you heard him say that a Hierarchie vvas a dispofition of holy orders and novv all most vvord for vvord he sayth that Religiō is ordo sanctorum Monachorum the order of holy Monkes n. 6. THE REPLY M. Nicholas by the aforesayd vvords proueth him selfe not to be of the perfecting illuminating and purging Hierarchie but only as lay people are of the Hierarchie of the Church 36. By this one may gather that M. Nicholas either doth not vnderstand S. Denys or else is driuen to his shiftes and therfore is forced to make vse of euerie thing that hath but the least apparence though indeed it be against him For in that S. Denys sayth that the order of Mōkes is the cheefe of those that are initiated he plainelie excludeth them from the purging illuminating and perfecting Hierarchie and placeth them vnder the Clergie and amongest the people that haue noe gouernment nor Ecclesiasticall or Hierarchicall function but are initiated purged illuminated and perfected with the people yet so as they by reason of their regular state haue the cheefe place amongest them So that Regulars are of the Hierarchie of the Churche as the people is of the Kingdome but they are not of that part of the Church which gouerneth purgeth illuminateth and perfecteth by preaching and administration of Sacraments And therfore Dionysius Carthusianus in his Elucidation of the 6. chapter of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie as aboue wee haue seene sayth that S. Denys in the 5. chaprer treated of the three orders of perfectors that is Bishops Priests Deacons and in the 6. chapter of the three orders of those who are prefected amongest whom are Regulars and sayth he when he speaketh of the perfecting orders the name order is a name of dignitie when he speaketh of the orders that are perfected the name order is a name of subiectiō And againe sayth Dion Carthusianus the higher order of these which yet are perfected as S. Denys him selfe also sayth in the sixt chapter is the order of Mōkes who sayth Carthusianus are called consummatus ordo a consummate order that is perfectus inter perficiendos perfect amongest those that are to be perfected not in the order of these that perfect others for in that order the first as we haue seene is the order of Bishops the secōd is the order of Priests the third the order of Deacons to whō other ministers may be reduced and after them S. Denys and the Bernardine aboue alleaged doe place the Regulars aboue the laye people but vnder the Clergie And so although the orders of Regulars be orders of the Church and a great ornament to it yet they are noe orders of the purging illuminating and perfecting Hierarchie vnles they be Bishops Priests c. but are purged illuminated and perfected by it M. NICHOLAS Out of S. Thomas it vvilbe no lesse easie to proue that Religious men are of the Hierarchie He therfore 1. p. quaest 108. art 1. in corp sayth thus Hierarchia est sacer principatus In nomine autem principatus c. A Hierarchie is an holy principalitie by vvhich name of principalitie tvvo thinges are vnderstood namelie the Prince him selfe and a multitude ordered vnder the Prince Are not I pray you Religious men a multitude ordered vnder one Prince the Vicar of Christ and S. Peters Successor n. 7. THE REPLY Regulars are a multitude ordered vnder the head of the Church as the people of a Kingdom are ordered vnder the King but not as they vvho gouerne and rule 37. M. Nickolas sayth it wil be as easie to proue out of S. Thomas that Regulars are of the Hierarchie as it was to prou◠it out of S. Denys and I beleeue him But as it was impossible for him to proue it out of S. Denys so is it as impossible for him to proue it out of S. Thomas who taketh all he hath almost of the Hierarchie out of S. Denys and will not nay doth not in any wise contradict him But sayth M. Nicholas Regulars are a multitude ordered vnder one Prince Christes vicar ergo they are of the Hierarchie I answere that if this argmēt were good it would proue also that the degrees and orders of the laytie are of the Hierarchie for that they also are a multitude ordered by the heade
of the Church and subordinate to him in matters of faith and Religion 38. Secondlie I answere that two wayes one may be of the Hierarchie of the Churche first as the people are of the Kingdome that is as subiectes and such as are ruled and so all Catholique Christians are of the Hierarchie of the Church and are a multitude ordered vnder one spirituall Prince the Bishop of Rome S. Peters Successour Seconlie as the King and his Consellors and Officers who beare rule in the Kingdome and so only Bishops Priests Deacons Pastours and those tha◠vnder the cheefe Bishop gouerne the Church and who purge as S. Denys sayth illuminate and perfect others by ruling preaching and administration of Sacraments are of the Hierarchie and in this sense Regulars as Regulars or who are not Bishops Priests c. are not of the Hierarchie as aboue is euidenlie shewed out of S. Denys and others And this distinction M. Doctour hath◠his Hierarchie chap. 8. n. 1. where he hath these words which if M. Nicholas had marked he would not haue made this obiection for there M. Doctour hath these words Jt fellovveth novv that I breifely declare vvhich in partieular are these orders and vvhether all that are in dignitie in the Church be of the Hierarchie not onlie as the laitie is vvhich is of this Hierarchie as the common people are of the Kingdome but also as vvho beare office in the Churche M. NICHOLAS In his second article he S. Thomas demaunds vvhether in one Hierarchie there be more orders of Angels and he ansvvers that there are Because it should not be an ordered but a confused multitude if in it there vvere not diuers orders vvhich diuersity of orders is considered according to diuers offices and actes as in one city there are diuers orders according to diuers actions for there is one order of iudges another of the fighting men another of such as till the ground Marke hovv S. Thomas doth hold that diuers functions and actes are sufficient for the distinctiō of Hierarchies although they doe not alvvayes presuppose iurisdiction c. n. 7. THE REPLY Not all actes and functions but Hierarchicall vvhich are purging illuminating and perfecting make men of the Hierarchie and there is a difference betvvixt the Hierarchie of Angels and of the Church militant 39. M. Nicholas because he knoweth that Regulars not Bishops Priests c. doe not exercice Hierarchicall actions which are purging illuminating and perfecting by preaching and administration of Sacraments would fayne haue it granted vnto him that all diuersitie of actes are sufficient to make mē of diuers orders of the Hierarchie And this he proueth out of S. Thomas by two examples the one is of the diuers orders of Angels the other is of the diuers orders in a citie as of iudges soldiours and those that till the ground But as concerning the Angels 1. p. q. 50. ar 4. it is true in S. Thomas his opinion who holdeth euerie one of them to be of diuers natures that euerie one of them sauing the last and lowest is of the Hierarchie because euerie one purgeth illuminateth and perfecteth his inferours I say sauing the last because the last and lowest Angels is purged from ignorance illuminated and perfected but purgeth illuminateth or perfecteh no Angell he being the lowest and so he in respect of the Superiour Angels is not of the Hierarchie but only as the people is of the Kingdom as afore is sayd Yet this lowest Angell doth exercise Hierarchicall actes in respect of men to whom he is superiour in nature and whō he can purge from ignorance illuminate and perfect Yet all the lowest orders as S. Denys teacheth lib. Eccl. Hier. c. 5. may respectiuelie be called orders initiated and perfected in respect of the higher Angels But in the opinion of other diuines who hold that all the Angels of the same order are of one nature and doe not differre in nature and function but onlie indiuiduallie Vasq 1. p. disp 181. c. 2. and not specie but numere for which opinion Vasquez citeth diuers diuines and which diuers learned Iesuites doe imbrace all the lower orders are of the purging illuminating and perfecting Hierarchie in respect of the lowest order but all of the lowest order are in respect of al the higher orders as the people is of the Kingdome because this last order in this opinion beareth no rule or office ouer any order of Angels nor purgeth illuminateth or perfecteth any Angell yet in respect of men this order exerciseth Hierarchicall actions of purging illuminating and perfecting So that M. Nicholas may see that there is a difference betwixt the Hierarchie of Angels and of men for that in S. Thomas his opinion all the Angels as they are euerie one of distinct natures doe exercise Hierarchicall actions ouer inferiour Angels and only the last Angell is not of the purging illuminating and perfecting Hierarchie in respect of Angels because he is purged illuminated and perfected of the superior Angell but purgeth illuminateth and perfecteth no Angell he being the last And so according to this opinion all the Angels are of the perfecting Hierarchie sauing only the lowest But the Hierarchie of the Church militāt though it consist of diuers dignities orders and offices as vnder the Pope Cardinalles Patriarches Archbishops Bishops Priests Deacōs c. yet there are many of the same order and iurisdiction as many Bishops are of the same order of Bishops many Priests are of the same order of Prieshood But Regulars as Regulars hauing no Hierarchicall action though they haue other Regular actions are not of the ruling and perfecting Hierarchie 40. Now as concerning M. Nicholas his other example of a Citie in which are diuers orders according to diuers actions as the order of iudges the order of soliders the order of husbandmen and tillers of the ground I answer that S. Thomas bringeth this example to shew that there are diuers orders amongest the Angels as there is in a well ordered Citie but his intention was not to shewe that all the diuers orders in a Citie that haue diuers actions are of that part of the Citie that ruleth and directeth as the superiour Angelles illuminate and perfect the inferiour For in the Citie some rule and gouerne as the Maior and Aldermē and iudges but the orders of Taylors and show makers and other artificers though they haue diuers actions and functions yet they are not of that part of the Citie which ruleth but which is ruled And so although Regulars haue diuers actiōs according to their diuers orders yet these actions being not Hierarchicall they are not sufficient to make them of the ruling purging illuminating and perfecting Hierarchie but only they are of the Hierarchie as the common people that beareth no rule in the common wealth is of the Kingdome amongest which people not with standing there are may artes trades and actions which yet doe not make them rulers in the
Kingdome 41. And by this M. Nicholas is answered to all that he bringeth in the 8. number for that all he there alleageth in commendation of Religious orders proueth only that Regulars are worthie and eminent members of the Church for their sanctitie and perfection of life but not that they are of the Hierarchie in that sense as S. Denys taketh the Hierarchie because as Regulars they are not to gouerne the Church nor to preache and minister SacrameÌ„ts but only as Bishops or Priests if they be so And M. Nicholas should know that oue may be a Saynt yea and a designed and resolued martyr and yet not be of the Hierarchie in this sense as if he be a lay man or a lay brother And so it is not grace nor merit nor mortification nor perfection which maketh a man of the Hierarchie but order and office by which he exerciseth Hierarchicall actions M. NICHOLAS In the sayd question art 8. he S. Thomas demands vvhether men be assumed to the orders of Angels And his resolution is that by grace men may merit so great glorie that they may be made equall to Angels according to euerie degree of Angels c. n 9. THE REPLY That men may be assumed to all orders of Angels in heauen in respect of glorie doth not argue that in this life they vvere of the Hierarchie in the sense aforesayd 42. I grante that men by grace and merit may be assumed to the orders of Angels and to the lower or higher orders according as their grace and merit is greater or lesser But what then If gratia consummata sayth he grace in his full perfection can place men in the same orders vvith Angels in the celestiall Hierarchie vve haue no reason to doubt but that a profession and state of life most povverfull for attaining perfection or grace and charity of this life may suffice to place the Professours therof amoÌ„gst the cheefest orders of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie vvhich is framed to the similitude of that other in heauen Thus M. Nicholas And if you admit of his argument you must admitte all Regulars euen lay brothers so they be perfect to be in the Hierarchie of the Church as high in ranke as Bishops for Bishops are the cheefest orders But first I answer that if his argumeÌ„t were good it would conclude against S. Denys who as we haue alleaged aboue excludeth all Regulars as such from the Hierarchie though their states of life be neuer so povverfull for attaining of perfection or grace and charitie Secondly I answere that this argument is so poore an one that I mernell M. Nicholas a diuine should propose it For that deuines know that by grace men cannot merite to be indeed Angels or ArchaÌ„gels or Cherubins or Seraphins but only can merit as greate glorie as they haue and because some saintes haue merited as great glorie as Angels others as Archangels others as Cherubins or Seraphins haue therfore they are sayd to be assumed to the order of Angels Archangels or other orders And because it is not grace but the order state and office of purging illuminating and perfecting which maketh one of the Hierarchie a Christian in this life may merite as great glorie and attaine at length vnto as greate glorie as Cherubins and Seraphins haue though he was not of any order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie And so it doth not follow as M. Nicholas thoght that because men by grace and merit doe attaine to the glorie of the orders of Angels that therfore in this life they were of any order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie for that S. Benedict and S. Frauncis may by the greate charitie and grace they had heere be assumpted to the glorie of the Seraphins and yet heere they were not Priests And a laye brother or sister yea a poore shepheard who was in noe order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie but only was of the Hierarchie as the common people is of the Kingdome that it was a member of the Church which is a Hierarchie but did beare noe office in it may be assumpted in glorie to higher orders then many are who here were Bishops Patriarches yea Popes Otherwise according to M. Nicholas his doctrine because S. FrauÌ„cis in this life was in a state powerfull for attaining of grace and perfection here by which be merited greater glorie then a Pope doth and for which peraduenture he is assumpted to the glorie of Seraphins he must in this life haue had an higher ranke in the Hierarchie then the Pope had But as I haue â—ould M. Nicholas it is not grace merit or perfection that maketh a man of the perfecting Hierarchie but Ecclesiasticall order office or dignitie M. NICHOLAS What we haue laboured in prouing that Religious as such truly and properly are of the Hierarchie hath not been so much in regard of our selues as out of dutie and gratitude to those pillars of Gods Church those Counsellers and sole electours of Christs Vicar c. THE REPLY M. Nicholas hath in this laboured in vayne and he vvrongeth M. Doctour as though he excluded Cardinalles from the Hierarchie n. 10. 43. M. Nicholas hath indeed laboured to proue that Regulars as such are of the Hierarchie but as it is euident by what I haue sayd out of S. Denys and other Authours he hath not been able to proue it and so he hath laboured in vaine And wheras he sayth that he hath taken these paynes rather out of respect to those most emineÌ„t Prelates the Cardinals theÌ„ for respect to the state of Regulars as he currieth fauour with the Cardinalles so he wrongeth M. Doctour in that he insinuateth that he excludeth them from the Hierarchie wheras he in his tenth chapter of his Hierarchie hath a great and long commendation of them their office and dignitie And in his eight chapter mouing the question who in particuler are of the Hierarchie he sayth n. 2. that to the deciding of this controuersie vve must distinguith tvvo vvayes by vvhich Christians may be of the Hierarchie First then sayth he if we speak of the Hierarchie as it importeth distinction of degrees in power of order then onlie Bishops Priests Deacons c. are of the Hierarchie And Cardinalls Patriarches Archbishops c. vnles they haue some order are not in this sense of the Hierarchie because their dignities are not orders but dignities and iurisdictions Bur if we speake sayth he n. 6. of a Hierarchie as it importeth a distinction of degrees in povver of iurisdiction and dignitie c. in this respect there are diuers orders and degrees amongest Bishops vvhich make also a kind of Hierarchie c. to vvit Patriarches or Primates Archbishops and Bishops And heretofore Patriarches vvere of the highest ranke of Bishops and amongest them the Patriarches of Rome Alexandria and Antioche and after wards of Constantinople had the precedence after vvhom followed Archbishops and Bishops but novv Cardinalles and euer since they vvere Counsellers to the Pope and his
Electours take place of all Patriarches and are in dignitie next to the Pope And so Cardinalles though they haue noe order as most of them haue holy orders yea many of them are Bishops yet in this respect to wit as the Hierarchie consisteth of diuers degrees in povver of iurisdiction and dignitie which is the second way by which M. Doctour sayd that men are of the Hierarchie are of the Hierarchie and aboue Bishops Archbishops and Patriarches next to the Pope Now whether this their dignitie of Cardinall be of the diuine lawe as Turrecremata thinketh or of the Ecclesiasticall law I will not dispute but referre the reader to M. Doctours tēth chapter certaine at least it is that the Pope could institute such a dignitie by which the Cardinall though not in orders is Counseller to the Pope Electour of him hath his decisiue voice in a generall Councell and taketh his precedence aboue all other Prelates and next vnto the Pope And therfore Cardinall Bellarmine sayth that if we compare the iurisdiction which the Bishop hath ouer his owne proper Church with that which the Cardinall hath ouer his title then ordinarilie the Bishop hath the greater iurisdiction To. 1. 3. 1. de Cler. c. 16. But if we consider the gouernmēt of the whole Church in which the Cardinall hath his parte in that he is one of the Popes Counseller then the Cardinall Priest or Deacō only is greater then the Bishop The same learned Cardinall in another place sayth that Bishops haue an ordinarie right of discipline and suffrage in prouinciall and generall Councelles To. 1. l 1. de Conc. c. 15. and by priuiledge and by custome Cardinalles and Abbots and Generalles of orders haue the same right And if by this custome or priuiledge graunted by the Church Generalles of Religious orders and Abbots be of the Hierarchie I will not giane saye it onlie I say with M. Doctour yea with S. Denys S. Paules Scholler that Regulars as Regulars and Abbots as Abbots are not of the Hierarchie and therfore were excluded by S. Denys but if they bee now it is by the Churches priuiledge or custome which priuiledge and custome M. Nicholas shall neuer be able to show for other Regulars 44. And therfore wheras M. Nicholas n. 10. sayth that he hath laboured rather for Cardinalles then Regulars in labouring to proue Regulars to be of the Hierarchie he hath laboured in vayne not hauing been able te proue Regulars as Regulars to be of the Hierarchie and he doth wrong to those most eminent Prelates and Pillars of Gods Church as though they could not be of the Hierarchie vnles Regulars also were wheras Cardinalles by their dignitie and by the care which they haue in gouerning vnder the Pope the vniuersall Church are assuredly of the Hierarchie as it consisteth of diuers degrees in power of iurisdiction and dignitie as M. Doctour sayd they euen as Cardinalles though not Priests hauing the highest rāke and Ecclesiasticall dignitie and office in the externall courte of all the Prelates of the Church wheras Regulars as Regulars beare noe rule nor office in the Church and so are not of the gouerning Hierarchie 45. Thus I haue proued sufficientlie that to be true which M. Doctour auerred to wit that Regulars as Regulars are not of the ruling and perfecting Hierarchie and this by the testimonie of S. Denys S. Paules Scholler of whom S. Thomas and all diuines haue learned that which they teache of the Hierarchie as also by his Transtatours and Expositours yea and by theologicall arguments and I haue answered clearlie all the arguments which M. Nicholas hath been able to alleage to the contrarie And therfore I conclude that Regulars as Regulars though their institutes and orders be most holy and which adde much ayde and greate splendour to the Church and though they be eminent members of the Church yet they are not of the Hierarchie in that sense as S. Denys and his Translatours and Expositours or as the Councell of Trent taketh the name Hierarchie 46. S. Denys l. Eccl. Hier. c. 5. 6. Conc. Trid. sess 23. can 6. But let not therfore either Priests or Bishops glorie vnles it be in our lord that they are of the Hierarchie for that their charge encreaseth with their dignitie and their burden is the heauier the greater their honour is and if they liue not accordinglie that dignitie will not suffice to their saluation but rather it will serue to their greater damnation For as their ranke and degree is higher in the Churche of God so it is more exposed to danger and the higher they stād the more subiect they are to falling and the lower and greater is their fall if they fall because as S. Hierome sayth Non est facile stare loco Pauli tenere gradum Petri It is not easie to stand in the place of Paule to hold the degree of Peter And let not Regulars be deiected or grieued in mynd because as Regulars they are not of the Hierarchie let it suffice them that of later yeares they are also assumpted to the Clergie and Hierarchie most of them being Priests and some Bishops and let it content them as indeed it may both content and confort them that their life is more secure and free from all occasions of sinne and that they haue better meanes to dompte their passiōs to curbe sensualitie to mortifie their bodyes to satisfie for sinne to attaine to perfection and to gaine an higher degree in glorie so that they vse their meanes fulfill their vowes and obserue their rules and orders THE SEAVENTH QVESTION VVhether by the precedent questions vvee haue sufficientlie ansvvered M. Doctours Treatise for such points as ether deserued confutation or required explication M. NICHOLAS J must ingeniouslie confesse that J haue not laboured to examine all c. n. 1. THE REPLY YOV haue not left any one of M. Doctours propositions or assertions vnexamined but you haue not refuted any one as is euident by my Reply to the former questions For neither haue you proued against M. Doctour that without a particular Bishop there may be a particular Church nor that euerie notable part of the Church such as England France or Spaine is ought not by the diuine lawe to haue at least one Bishop nor that such a countrie as England Spaine or France is can except against a Bishop for feare of persecution though it should be increased by occasion of the Bishops presence nor that Regulars are in an higher state then Bishops nay you haue not proued sufficiently that Regulars are in an higher state then inferiour Pastours nor that Religious as Religious are of the Hierarchie nor haue you answered any one of M. Doctours arguments grounded in reason or authoritie of fathers or diuines by which he proued the former positions as is euident by my Reply And therfore this your last question being principallie a recapitulation only of what you haue done I might heere make an end
all you haue done being iust nothing But because you could answere to nothing disproue nothing refute nothing that was to the purpose or to the points in coÌ„trouersie you carpe at by speaches which it litle skilled were they true or not and therfore a reply to this your last question might well by mee haue beene spared yet least you should think that euen in those things I refused to encounter with you I shal also breiflie giue you your answer to them M. NICHOLAS His Epistle in vvords exhorts to charitie but hovv much in deeds he hath by vvriting this booke preiudiced charitie c. n. 2. THE REPLY M. Doctour hath not preiudiced charitie 2. I doe not know how M. Doctour hath preiudiced charitie by writing his booke vnles to exhort to charitie be to preiudice charitie For of this I ame sure that in his Epistle dedicatorie he exhorteth and alleageth many motiues to charitie as he doth also in diuers parts of his booke and he hath not one tarte or bitter word in his booke against any state order or person but he comendeth all and yeeldeth as much to the Regular state as S. Thomas of Aquin Suarez and the leardnest Regular Auctours doe But to this he is answered in my Epistle to the Reader and in my Reply to the first question M. NICHOLAS The Church must be gouerned by the Clergie I grant but J neuer heard that it must be gouerned by the secular Clergie c. n. 2. THE REPLY This is a strange speeche and is ansvvered aboue chap. 9. 3. It is to mee a strange speech and litle edifying to say that he neuer heard that the Church must be gouerned by the secular Clergie By what other Clergie then by the secular Clergie hath the Church hetherto for the most parte been gouerned and by what other Clergie at this day is it ordinarilie gouerned then by the secular Clergie Hath not M. Doctour shewed and demonstrated in his ninth chapter out of Scripture and Fathers that Bishops Priests and Pastours are by the diuine lawe to gouerne the Church and to preache and minister SacrameÌ„ts and hath he not shewed verie sufficiently that the gouernement of the Church and preaching and ministring of Sacraments doth not appertaine to Regulars as Regulars yet as M. Doctour granteth in that 9. chapter n. 15.16.17 that Regulars may be and often tymes are assumpted to be Bishops yea and Popes and then to them also appertaineth the gouernement of the Church but not to them as Regulars for to them in that consideration Monasticall and Regular actions and functioÌ„s appertaine not Ecclesiasticall And therfore S. Thomas cited by M. Doctour n. S. Tho. 2.2 q. 187. a. 1. in corp 17. pag. 255. sayth that a thing may be sayd vnlawfull for one to doe two wayes first because there is some thing in him repugnant to such an action So hee who is irregular may not receiue holy orders so a publique sinner may not preach so one in mortall sinne may not receaue the Blessed Sacrament so a Priest in mortall sinne must not celebrate masse nor absolue from sinnes Secondlie it may be sayd to be vnlawfull for one to doe a thing not because ther is any thing repugnant in him but because there is something wanting in him to doe it so it is not lawfull for a Deacon to say masse because he hath not the order of a Priest And in this sense sayth he it is not lawfull for a Regular to preach and minister Sacramentes Yet as a Deacon is capable of the order of Priesthood and then may saye masse so a Regular is capable of order and iurisdiction and then he may preach and minister Sacraments But as you can not say absolutelie that a Deacon may celebrate masse because he as Deacon wanteth the order of Priesthood so it can not be sayd absolutelie that Regulars are Gouernors of the Church because as Regulars they want both order and iurisdiction which iurisdiction ordinatilie is not giuen to Regulars but to secular Priests and therfore that speech of M. Nicholas I neuer heard that the church must be gouerned by the secular Clergie is verie har she Suaâ— to 1. l. 1. do rel c. 18. n. 14. For that to the secular Clergie ordinarilie this gouernment of the Church is giuen and if to Regulars it be some tymes giuen it is giuen as Suarez sayth by delegation or priuiledge not by ordinarie right and in this Regulars are accessorie not principall as I haue aboue declared And therfore Clement the fift calleth Regulars Cooperatours Supra q. 5. n. 41. 42. Clem. DuduÌ„ de sep 1. Cor. 12. 5. And so M. Nicholas in this his 2. number was to forward in carping at M. Doctour for applying to Regulars that word of S. Paule Opitulations for although diuers vnderstand that word of those who lent their helping hand to the curing of the sicke c. yet as S. S. Th. 2.2 q. 184. a. 6. ad 2 In 1. Cor. c. 12. Thomas by accommodation calleth Archdeacons OpulatioÌ„s because they helpe the Bishop and in his commentaires vpon the Epistles of S. Paule sayth that they bee called Opitulationes qui opâ—m ferunt maioribut Praelatis in regimine Ecclesiae Who helpe the greater Prelates in the gouernment of the Church as Lyra also doth so M. Doctour might call Regulars Opitulations because they helpe Pastours and are as Clement the fifte sayth their Cooperatours 6. and therfore M. Nicholas who in this selfe same place S. Th. 2 2. q. 184. â— 7. q. 185. a. â— affirmeth so boldlie that in England Regulars are not more ordeined to helpe secular Priests then they to helpe Regulars sayth not trulie for that Clement the V. calleth them Cooperatours and the reason is because their principall end is not to haue care of other mens soules but of their owne and therfore as we haue shewed out of S. Thomas their state is statue perfactionis acquirenâ—â— non communicande alijâ—â— A state of perfection to he acquired not to be communicated to others the state of Bishops and other Pastours is a state of communicating perfectioÌ„ to others and therfore if the charge of soules be giuen to them it is per accidens and doth not agree to them perse as it doth to secular Pastours who haue the caracter and ground of iurisdiction And so it is not so connaturall to Regulars though M. Nicholas affirmeth it pag. 132 as to secular Priests to haue care of soules for that secular Priests by their caracter so that iurisdiction be added to it are ordained to minister Sacraments to preath and to gouerne the Church wheras the Regular order is not so ordained And therfore Germanius sayth Germ. in prto 5. tit 37. Sot l. 9 de Iust iure q. 4. a. 3. in fine Rod. to 1. q. 35. ar 5. that Monkes should not haue care of soules but in case of necessitie vvhen there are not secular Priests to be gotten
Bishops maugre all the threates and crueltie of the tyrants therby to practise the gouernment of the Church instituted by Christe to strengtheÌ„ the ChristiaÌ„s by the grace of confirmatioÌ„ and by their authoritie preseÌ„ce example and encouragement to put life into them affirmeth that from the cruell Tyrant Nero to the clement Emperour Constantine the greate there vvas scarse any Bishop of Rome vvho vvas not a martyr vvho at the least suffered not greate persecution Tvventie seuen of them are commonlie auouched for martyrs to vvit Peter Linus Cletus c. 22. M. Nicholas because he can not disproue any one of M. Doctours positions as I haue shewed euidentlie impugneth by-speeches which be they true or not it skilleth not at all for whether iust so many Popes were martyrs or moe and whether before Constantine or after it is not to the purpose it being true that many Popes were martyrs and that the creatioÌ„ of theÌ„ was not intermitted for feare of persecutioÌ„ as M. Nich. would haue the succession of Bishops in England to cease for feare euen of an imaginarie or vncertayne persecution But let vs see how M. Nicholas cauilleth and imputeth to M. Doctour this errour in the number of the Popes martyrs which indeed is none 23. M. Doctour sayd first that from Nero to Constantine there was scarse any Bishop of Rome vvho vvas not a martyr vvho at least suffered not great persequution And there M. Doctour maketh a full point And theÌ„ he addeth Tvventie seuen of them that is of the Popes in generall are commonlie auouched for martyrs but he sayth not that all the twentie seuen which he reckeneth liued before CoÌ„stantine as M. Nicholas imposeth True it is that in the margent there is this note 27. Popes martyrs before the tyme of ConstaÌ„tine But M. Doctour after he had finished his booke trusted others with the setting it forth and did neither make the contents of the chapters nor all the marginall notes and so that was put in by the errour of one who marked not the full point which I euen now specified as neither M. Nicholas did or would not 24. And that M. Doctour meaÌ„t not onlie those Popes who liued before Constantine but the Popes in generall of which he sayd 27. were martyrs it may clearelie be gathered For that M. Doctour was not ignorant for who knoweth it not that there was diuersitie amongst Auctours concerning the number of Popes who were martyrs some reckening 27. some 33. some 35. some more some lesse But he that he might be sure to speake within compas contented him selfe with the lesser number according to Bozius his reckening whom he cited in the margeÌ„t l. 8. c. 3. And to the end that the number twentie seueÌ„ might not seeme a Catalogue of his own making he put their names in a distinct caracter and cited Bozius in the margent VVhich M. Nicholas if he had dealt fayrelie should haue mentioned or noted that therby the Reader might haue seene M. Doctours intention and whether he had falsified Bozius whom he cited 25. Moreouer it well appeared that M. Doctour confined not him selfe in setting downe that Catalogue of Bozius to the Popes before Constantine because in that Catalogue he left out Hyginus who succeded Thelesphorus and in the next paragraphe or number which is the sixt he putteth him in his place after Thelesphorus whom all they who recite their Breuiarie know to haue been a glorious martyr 26 If M. Doctour had himselfe made a Catalogue of the Popes martyrs yea and of those only before Constantines death he would not haue sette downe 27. Popes only as Bozius doth but rather thirtie according to the RomaÌ„ martyrologe Baronius and others which Popes that the Reader may see at how small matters he cauilleth I will sette downe To wit Petrus Linus Clemens Cletus Anacletus Euaristus Alexander Xistus Thelesphorus Hyginus Pius Anicetus Soter Eleutherius Victor Zepherinus Callistus Vrbanus Pontianus Anterus Fabianus Cornelius Lucius Stephanus Xistus H. Foelix Eutichianus Caius Marcellinus and Marcellus And Rishton in his Synopsis with other Auctours numbreth three moe to vvit S. Dionysius vvho in the Register of Popes follovveth Xistus the second and Eusebius and Melchiades vvho succeed Marcellus All vvhich thirtie vvere before Constantines death yet these three last I vvill not enrolle in this Catalogue there being not so great certaintie vvhether they vvere martyrs or noe and therfore I vvill content my selfe vvith the former thirtie vvheras M. Doctour contented him selfe vvith 27. Popes martyrs in generall according to Bozius it being not to his purpose in that place to examin the number of Popes martyrs 27. Thus I haue ansvvered to all M. Nicholas his questions I haue made good all M. Doctours assertions and arguments grouned ether in reasoÌ„ or authoritie and I haue shewed that he hath not beeÌ„ vnfortunate in alleaging Auctours as M. Nicholas to ofteÌ„ affirmeth I haue also disproued M. Nicholas his assertions refuted his reasons and answered to all his arguments as the Reader will plainelie see And this I haue doone not to disgrace M. Nicholas nor his or any approued order of the Church nor in any sorte to auerte any one from a Religious state which as I ought to doe I honour froÌ„ my hearte but only to defend M. Doctour and the truth by him deliuered Rather I wish and Counselle euerie one to embrace that state of life to which God shall call him and in which he is perswaded he may saue his owne foule and promote the glorie of God For that Christe to prouide for euerie man and to condescend to euerie ones liking hath furnished his Church with diuers orders Ps 44. and hath cloathed her rouÌ„d aboute vvith varieties that euerie one may make choise of what he best liketh and which he thinketh most sutable and proportionable to his own forces And therfore he that fyndeth him selfe able to ouercome the teÌ„ptations of the world and with the grace of God hath confideÌ„ce not onely to worke his owne saluatioÌ„ but also the saluation of many others let him if he like that state take vpon him an Apostolicall Priestlie course of life Priests being to liue in the middest of the difficulties of the world by reasoÌ„ of their preaching teaching and administring of the SacrameÌ„ts if he otherwise be weake feeble and is hardlie able to passe through those temptations and alluremeÌ„tes with the safetie of his owne soule let him hasten to some religious course of life proportionable ro his force and liking with the aduice of his Ghostlie Father and those that are sufficient by their wisdome and discretion to giue him counsell herein and if he hath not those talents which are required in Priests and that he can not brooke the austeritie of Religion 2. Cor. 9. let him endeauour to serue God in the world Vnusquisque prout destinauit in corde suo euerie one as by God his grace and inspiration he hath determined in his harte and as he shall think most conducing to God his glorie and his own saluation FINIS A MYRROVR OF M. NICHOLAS SMITH'S pretended Modestie IT could not be put into Heretickes haÌ„ds for their conuersioÌ„ vnlesse vve vvould haue them scaÌ„dalized pag. 2. By it be giueth a grat blovve against charitie pag. 2. His Dedicatorie Epistle is full of verball exhortations to charitie pag. 3. Jniurions to the Vicar of Christ pag. 21. They deserue no ansvvere pag. 28. They are against him selfe pag. 181. They are licke vnto Beza pag. 130. His argument is a doughtie one pag. 16. Jnsufficient pag. 199. VVeake pag. 49. Directly against him selfe pag. 17. 51. His forme of disputing seemeth the same vvhich Heretikes vse against Catholikes as vttering contradictories and non-sense pag. 25. He treateth of holy things vpon particular designes and humane respects pag. 6. He proueth his conclusions against all Logicke by principles more barsh incredible and vvorse then the conclusion pag. 7.8 He serueth him selfe of strang and vntovvard propositions pag. 7. He must ansvvere his ovvne arguments or contradict him selfe and taxe his Holinesse pag. 10. 26. 37. His assertion must vvrong the Sea Apostolicke and can subsist on no better grovvnd then by Heretickes is vvont to be obiected against the sayed holy Sea pag. 12. He is mistaken in things for the true vnderstanding of vvhich is required no greater labour then looking on the booke nor deaper learning then vnderstanding latin pag. 19. Js a thing that no diuine but euen no man in his right iudgement can affirme pag. 39. He citeth Suarez against all Grammer pag. 53. He teacheth in effect vvith one breath to desire a Bishop and to disobeye Bishops pag. 59 He contradicteth him selfe and impugneth his ovvne reason pag. 198. M. Nicholas taxeth him of vvant of good manners pag. 4. of vvant of prudence pag. 7. of not vsing fairedealing pag. 80. of speaking partially pag 92. 126. 187. By this scantling of the vvhole peece vvhich is entervvouen in enery leafe almost vvith the like stuffe the iudicious and impartiall Reader vvill after he hath read this defence of M. Doctours Hierarchie easilie gather hovv litle he deserued these aspersions of M. Nicholas ERRATA Pag. Lin. Faults Corrected 8 7 farre fare 9 in mat Sess c. 21. can 3. Sess 23 c. 2. can 6. 2â— 17 full false full of false  26 my Reply this my Reply 2â— 6 my Reply this my Reply â—â— 22 this the  30 first other â—â— 11 constance constancie â—â— in mat l. 9. l. 4.  17 cap. 29. cap. 28.  19 c. 53. c. 35. 101 21 Christianistiall Christian 10â— 30. 31. and by vvater by vvater and 20â— 18 carelessesse carelesnesse 2â—â— 12 baptized confirmed 2â—â— 6 c. 53. c. 35. 2â—â— 10 vse vsed 2â—â— 17 vvant vvent 2â—â— 15 these those 2â—â— 3 can care 250 17 vovv ovve 252 15 is it 253 12 fitesse fitnesse  15 Bishop Bishops 267 30 contradicted contradicteth 26â— 20 regious religious 26â— 22 glorious gloriosius 269 20 doth doe  33 regular regulars 270 9 an on 275 22 before vvherefore 278 5 Prelates VVe Prelates vve 29â— 13 quitesse quietnesse  18 stilled stiled  22 hovv vvho 295 21 Palladias Palladius â—â—â— in mat 1. 11. â—38 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  9 solie holie  9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉