there can be no particular Church 4. that by Ordinarie course without a Bishop there can be no Hierarchicall functions So that these twoe onely be M. Doctours maine arguments and that which he alledgeth Chap. 14. n. 9. is not as M. Nicholas saieth but onely parte of his second maine argument For if it had beene by it selfe one of his maine arguments he would not haue sayed n. 4. And my reasons are twoe but he should haue saied And my reasons are fiue because the seconde reason includeth fowre which yet do all but make vp one his second maine reason 2. Yet is that reason which M. Nicholas alledgeth a good reason also because it being the diuine lawe that euerie particular Church of extent for he speaketh not of euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop by whome it may be made a particular Church the people that would resist a Bishop sent in by Lawfull and Supreme authoritie as our twoe last most Reuerend Bishops were should resist the diuine Law and Institution and so commit a sinne But of this more hereafter M. NICHOLAS Ep 69. ad Flor. This assertion he proueth out of S. Cyprian who sayeth that the Church is Sacerdoti plebs adunata pastori suo grex adharens the Church is the people vnited to the Priest Bishop and the flocke adbering vnto its Pastour c. And num 3. Three things I will endeauour saieth he to performe First that the alledged words of S. Cyprian c. Make nothing against vs but rather are for vs against himselfe c. n. 2. 3. THE REPLY M. Doctour proueth sufficientlie and euidentlie out of S. Cyprian that without a particular Bishop there can be no particular Church 3 True also it is that M. Doctour alledged those words out of S. Cyprian to proue that a particular Church cannot be without a particular Bishop And what bringeth M. Nicholas to disproue this He answereth num 4. that S. Cyprian doth not define the Church to be the people vnited and the flocke adhering to a particular Priest and Pastour but onelie indefinitlie to the Priest and Pastour and he addeth n. 5. and 6. that Saint Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schisme doe leaue their Bishop 4. But first in that M. Nicholas denyeth that out of this definition of a Church it necessarilie followeth that a particular Church cannot be without a particular Bishop he contradicteth Cardinall Bellarmin who lib. 3. de Eccles militante cap. 5. alledgeth this definition of S. Cyprian word by word and lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae cap. 8. he proueth that the Church by no meanes can be without Bishops because S. Cypian sayeth Ecclesians esse Episcope adunatam Episcopum esse in Ecclesia Ecclesiam in Episcopo that the Church is vnited to the Bishop and that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop Where first by the word Sacerdoti Priest he vnderstandeth a particular Bishop not a Priest or Pastour indefinitelie as M. Nicholas saied because in that place he proueth that the Church cannot be without particular Bishops SecoÌ„delie he proueth out of this place that the Church cannot be without Bishops in the plurall number And why But because particular Churches must haue particular Bishops For the whole Church caÌ„ haue but one Supreme Bishop her gouernement being Monarchicall which requireth one Supreme Gouernour as M. Doctour hath shewed in his Hierarchie cap. 3. And there fore if it be necessarie that in the Church there should be other Bishops besides one Supreme Bishop the reason must be because the notable partes of the Church which are of notable exteÌ„t must haue their particular Bishops by whome they may be made particular Churches and so may compose the whole Church and obey their particular Bishops with a subordination to the chiefe Bishop Hence it is that the same Cardinall in the foresaied place alledgeth S. Hierom l. contra Luciferianos who saieth Ecclesia non est quae non babet Sacerdotes the Church is not or it is not a Church which hath not Priests that is Bishops And in his second Tome lib. vnice de Sacramento Confirm cap. 12. § Sextum augmentum he saieth out of S. Hierome contra Lutiferianos Necesse est in singulis Ecclesijs vnum esse Episcopum ne si multi sine pares non ad vnum summa referatur schismata fiant it is necessarie that in euerie Church there be one Bishop least if many were equall and the chiefe place or authorttie not giuen to one Schismes should be And dareth M. Nicholas gaine say so learned a Cardinal and him also a Iesuite 5. To Cardinal Bellarmin I shall adde our learned Countrieman Doctour Stapleton whoin his fift booke De potestatis Ecclesiasticae subiecto cap. 7. saieth non nisi propter Pastores praeposiâ—os Ecclesiae nomine vocari debet aliqua multitudo Vnde Cyprianus Ecclesiam esse in Episcope Sanctus Hieronymus vbi non sunt Sacerdotes Ecclesiam non esse sapienter scripserunt a multitude ought not to be called by the name of a Church but onely for the Pastours and Prelats WhereupoÌ„ it is truelie and wiselie written by S. Cyprian that the Church is in the Bishop and by S. Hierome that there is noe Church where there are noe Priests And againe Stapleton saieth that the word Church in Scripture signifieth properlie and as it were antonomasticallie multitudinem non vagam aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not a vagrant or head lesse multitude sed cuiiam Pastores praepositi à Deo constituti sunt But a multitude to which Pastours and Prelates are constituted by God 6. Soe that Cardinall Bellarmin and Stapleton and so do all deuines require in the whole Church many particular Churches and to particular Churches particular Bishops and M. Nicholas in endeauouring to extenuate S. Cyprians definition of a Church depriueth Catholike Authors of a principall authoritie by which they proue against heretikes that the Church cannot be without Bishops and thereby he fauoureth heretikes 7. Out of this definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian to wit that it is the people vnited to the Bishop M. Doctour inferreth that a people without a Bishop can be no particular Church M. Nicholas q 2. n. 5. 6. saieth S. Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schisme do leaue their Bishop and so are no Church But this litle auaileth M. Nicholas for that it is a Maxime in Logike grounded in one of the principall places or seates of argumentes called definitio definition That Cuicunque non conuenit definitio non conuenit definitum to what thing soeuer the definition agreeth not to that thing the thing defined doth not agree and so seing that the definition of a Church according to S. Cyprian is Sacerdoti plebs adunata a people vnited to the Bishop Stapl. l. 6. de potest Eccles Subiecto c 7. which definition Stapleton in his sixt booke Depotestatis Eccles subiecto cap. 7. commendeth
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
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
had not receiued the holie Ghost by consignation of a Bishop but onely sheweth what manner a man he was Thus he answereth the Rhemists And M. Nicholas ioyneth with him in his answere to Maister Doctour saying Onely Eusebius out of Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus recounteth that he fell persecutionis tempore metu debilitatus nimia vitae cupiditate adductus in tyme of persecution weakened with feare and moued with too much desire of life And presentlie after sayeth Maister Nicholas It may be well that he fell for want of Confirmation Yet as Fulke sayed so he saieth I deny that Eusebius sayeth so But I had rather giue credit to the Rhemists then to M. Nicholas I hauing especiallie found him tripping so often and their one affirmation ought to be taken before tenne negations or denialls of M. Nicholas Estins also hauing sayed that the Apostles vse to giue Confirmation so soone after batisme as might conuenientlie be Estius in 4. d. 7 § 18. sayeth Quorum alacritatem studium in conferendo hoc Samentum imitari conuenit omnes Episcopos maximè quod huius subsidij neglectu fiat vt persecutionis tempore multi deficiant aut labantur sicut teste Cornelio Papa Nouato accidit Whose alacritie and studiè in giuing this Sacrament it is conuenient that all Bishops should imitate especiallie because by neglect of this helpe it comes to passe in time of persecution that many doe fayle or falle as witnesse Pope Cornelius it happened to Nouatus Behould another authour of greater credit then Maister Nicholas as being a Classicall Authour hauing bene many yeares professour of diuinitie in the famous Vniuersitie of Doway affirmeth also with M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas that Nouatus fell in tyme of persecution for want of Confirmation Bzouius also in his first tome speaking of Nouatus or Nouatianus saieth thus of him morbo tandem clapsus neque caetera quibus post Baptismum secundum Ecclesiae Canonem imbui oportucrat acquisiuit neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus quamobrem neque Spiritum sanctum ex sacro Chrismate adeptus persecutionis metu debilitatus nimia vitae cupiditate adductus se presbyterum esse negauit At lenght hauing escaped his sicknesse he neither got the rest with which according to the Ecclesiasticall Canon he should haue beene imbued or furnished nor was he signed with our Lords seale Wherefore neither hauing by the sacred Chrisme gotten the holie Ghost he in time of persecution being weakened with feare to witt because by Confirmation he had not gotteÌ„ the holie Ghost and moued with too much desire of life he denyed himselfe to be a priest Bzeuius to 1. l. 3 Eccl hist Anno. Christi 254. Corn. Papa an 1. Colu â—49 And after Bzouius relateth how at the request of the Deacons he refused to helpe them that were in danger and necessitie but in a Choler want from them and afterward fell into Schisme in ambitiouslie aspiring to be Pope And why all this but because he had not by Confirmation receiued the holy Ghost Baius lib. 2. Instit c. 631. l. 2. de Conf. c. 63. nam ideo Nouatum ad haeresim procliuiorem fuisse sensit Cornelius Papa quoniam signaculo Chrismatis confirmatus non esset Eusebio teste l. 6. hi c. 33. For Cornelius Pope thought that Nouatus was more proue to heresie because he was not confirmed by the seale of Chrisme Inc 8 Art ve 17. in fine as Eusebius witnesseth libr. 6. Histor cap. 33. Lorinus a Iesuite sayeth that Nouatus was possessed by the derull because he receiued not the Sacrament yea reiected it With these Catholike Authours M. Doctour thought it more honour toioyne then with Fulke the heretike as M. Nicholas in this doth 38. Now whereas M. Nicholas sayeth that he hath answered to M. Doctours coniecture so he calleth it that in time of persecution Confirmation is necessarie for a countrie because if one fall not others will I graunt that he hath endeauoured in the beginning of this question numero 6. and 7. but could neuer yet performe that he hath endeauoured He sayeth numero 6. that the tymes of persecution in our Countrie haue beene most bitter and yet would to God wee could behould the zeale feruour Charitie and constancie which in these dayes Catholikes without Confirmation shewed But why speaketh hee in this manner Doth he thinke a countrie in persecution may doe better without Confirmation then with it or that it helpeth nothing Why then did Christ institute it to the end that in persecution we might with an vndaunted courage professe our faith before the persecutour And sayeth hee I hould it noe rashnesse to saye that since Englands enioying a Bishop more harme hath hefalne Catholik's in generall See how Passion transporteth Maister Nicholas And by whose fault is it that since we had a Bishop more harme hath befalne Catholikes in generall Is it the presence of a Bishop that bringeth such harme Why then did Christ and the holie Ghost appoint Bishops to gouerne the Churche Act. 20. Other Countries in tyme of persecution haue euer receiued greate benefits much comfort and encouragement by their Bishops Why then should we onely receiue a generall harme by hauing a learned Bishop a man of exemplar life and a bishop sent by lawfull and highest authoritie I will not say who are the cause but I referre that to all indifferent mennes iudgements and euen to Maister Nicholas his calmer disposition and better consideration If euerie one had receiued and obeyed him as they ought to haue done Saint Peters successour sending him and if they who found themselues grieued had proposed their grieuances and difficulties vnto Superiours in all quiet modestie and without clamours and had patientie expected their decision and determination there had not arisen such scandall as there did 39. But to come to the matter Ca 14 n. 7. Maister Doctour sayed that although euen in tyme of persecution a man may haue sufficient grace without Confirmation to stand to his faith and Religion as may appeare by them who neither confirmed nor Baptized with water haue endured martyrdome for their faith and so haue bene baptized in their owne blood and as may be seene in our English Catholikes who though many of them were not confirmed shed their blood to seale and signe their faith Yet because Confirmation is the ordinarie meanes instituted to giue force and courage in tyme of persecution to neglect it in such a tyme when euerie man may feare his owne infirmitie is a mortall sinne and if it be neglected for a generall persecution in which as aboue many thousands in particular may commodiouslie receiue it if one fall not as Maister Doctour sayeth Estius in 4. dist 7. § 18. Ca. 14. n. 8. others probablie will as Nouatus did And so a countrie in such a persecution is obliged to receiue a Bishop least it shew it selfe cruell to so many
for no other cause but because he cannot brook a Bishop Let him I say take heed least his discussion fraught with this ill marchandise be neither pleasing to God nor man 18. As for the manner hold by M. Doctour in preouing his Tenets which M. Nicholas n. 11. auerreth not to be correspondent to the opinion of his learning but to be easilie answered and without any studie the trueth thereof shall appeare in my Reply by which I shall defend all M. Doctours positions and shall shew M. Nicholas his answere to be altogether deficient or not to the purpose Whereby I think in the end he will not haue the face and I ame sure not the cause to bragge as he doth 19. I cannot here omit how n. 12. he accuseth M. Doctour of want of Logike and prudence though he hath taught Diuinitie alone longer then M. Nicholas hath beene in studying Logik Philosophie and diuinitie There are many manners of arguing and all good in their degree for the Logician sometimes argueth from the cause to the effect which manner of arguing is called demoÌ„stratio propter quid sometimes he proceedeth from the effect to the cause which is demonstratio quia and sometimes he argueth from intrinsecall sometimes from extrinsecall causes and all these formes of arguing are good because there is a connexion betwixt the cause and the effect and soe one inferreth another and the cause is notior naturâ then the effect and the effect is notior nobis then the cause and soethey may inferre one another And it were to be meruailed if M. Dectour should hit vpon none of these formes and manners 20. But let vs heare what M. Nicholas saieth for example saieth he to proue the necessitie of a Bishop in England he serueth himselfe of these strange and vnto ward propositions that it is a diuine law for euery such particular Church as EnglaÌ„d is to hauea Bishop that without a Bishop England cannot be a particular Church that vnlesse euerie particular Church haue it Bishop or Bishops the whole Church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hier archie composed of diuers particular Churches That without a Bishop we cannot haue Confirmation which whosoeuer wanteth is not as M. Doctour saieth a perfect Christian And are these harsh strange and vnto ward propositions they being grounded in Scripture and the diuine law To speake with in compas this saying of M. Nicholas is a verie rash assertion 21. That these propositioÌ„s are true according to Scripture and the diuine law and consequeÌ„tlie not harsh I shall proue more at large in their proper places Here I briefelie argue thus It is of the diuine law that there must be Bishops in the Church as M. Doctour hath proued in his 12.13 14. chap. and as M. Nicholas confesseth q. 3. n. 4. 17. and cannot denie if he wil be a Catholik And why But to supplie the wants the Church hath of Preaching Sacraments and in particular of Confirmation of which onely the Bishop is ordinarie Minister but one Bishop cannot supplie the wantes of twoe notable partes such as are England Spaine and France Ergo euerie notable part such as these Countries are must at least haue one Bishop and that also by the deuine lawe Soelikewise that without a Bishop a people cannot be a particular Church I shall proue in the next question n. 2. For if it be true which S. Cypr. Ep. 69. ad Florâ— Cyprian sayeth that the Church is Sacerdoâ—i plebs adunata Apeople vnited to the Priest that is Bishop then that people which hath no Bishop cannot be a Church and consequently also the whole Church cannot as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches vnles these Churches haue euerie one their Bishop And hence it followeth also that without a Bishop who is the Ordinarie minister of Confirmation we cannot by ordinarie course be perfect Christians because we cannot haue Confirmation which maketh vs perfect Christians as S. Clement and S. Vrban hereafter alledged doe auerre as also other fathers and S. Thomas of Aquin and sundrie deuines euen Iesuites as we shall see in the 4. question n. 15. These argumeÌ„ts are à priore and are inferred from the extrinsecall cause to wit God his commandement and institution which is a cause why Bishops are necessarie in the Church And therefore as we may argue from the ecclesiasticall law as from an extrinsecall cause and say the Church hath coÌ„manded to fast in Lent Therefore we must fast So we may argue from the deuine law as from an extrinsecall cause and say God hath commanded that Bishops shal be in the Church and that euerie particular greate Church must haue it Bishop ergo it must haue him And so it was harhlie and vntowardlie saied of M. Nicholas that the aboue rehearsed propositions are harsh and vntoward they being grounded in Scripture and Fathers 23. Th 3. p. q. 72 art 11. ad 1. And although S. Thomas of Aquin and many diuines doe affirme that by commission from the Pope a Priest not Bishop may confirme yet diuers also hould the contrarie as S. Bonauenture Durand Adrian VI. Estius in 4. d. 17. Alphonsus à Castro Verbo Confirmatio and they prooue their opinion out of Eusebius Ep. 3. Pope Damasus Epist. 4. Innocentius III. de consuetud cap. quando Who expressely affirme that Confirmation cannot be giuen but by the Bishop as in the primitiue Church is was giuen by the Apostles onely to whome Bishops succeede and not by the disciples to whome Priests succeede 24. Yea they want not apparent reason For say they the acte of Confirming either it is appertaining to the Bishop by reason of his power of Iurisdiction or by reason of his power of Order If by reason of his power of Iurisdiction then a Bishop elected and confirmed but not consecrated might confirme For that he hath Episcopall Iurisdiction which yet neuer was seene yea then this might be coÌ„mitted to a deacon or an inferiour minister for he also is capable of Episcopall Iurisdiction as when one is elected and confirmed Bishop before he be Priest or deacon If by reason of the power of Order then as the Pope cannot giue power to a deacon to consecrate because that is proper to the Character and Order of a Priest so he cannot giue power to a Priest to confirme that appertaining to the Character and Order of a Bishop If the authours of the other opinion say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme they should contradict the Fathers alledged who say that to confirme is proper to the Bishop and cánot agree to the Priest not Bishop Besides thence it would follow that though the Priest in confirming might sinne Confirmation being reserued to Bishops yet as a Priest suspended if he coÌ„secrate though he sinneth yet consecration is valid so if a Priest should confirme he should sinne yet Confirmation would be valid it being not
aboue his character And this opinion would answere to the fact of Saint Gregorie vpoÌ„ which the contrarie opinioÌ„ much relieth that S. Gregorie onely permitted certaine Priests who before had presumed it Greg. l. 3. ep 9 ad Ianuarium dist 90 cap peruenit to anoint the baptized in the forhead but not with the vnction proper to Confirmation nor with the forme of words which the Bishop vseth Others answere otherwise 25. And to the Councells of Florence and Trent which say that the ordinarie Minister of Confirmation is the Bishop as though the extraordinarie minister might be the Priest They answere that these two Councells define that at least the Bishop is the Ordinarie Minister because it was disputed whether by commission and as an extraordinarie Minister the Priest might confirme And whereas the Councell of Florence sayeth that It is read that sometimes by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike a simple Priest hath confirmed they answere the Councell defineth not that this indeed hath euer beene done but that it is read soe Thus they 26. But for all this S. Thomas his opinion is most probable being now especiallie most common though not most secure And this opinion would alledge for it the fact of S. Gregorie and the twoe councells alledged And to the Fathers it would answere that they meane onely that the Bishop is the onely Ordinarie Minister of Confirmation yet that the Priest may by commission from the Pope confirme and they would say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme so that the Pope commit this to him not that the Pope giueth him any power of Order for that this Priests owne Character is sufficient so that this condition be also put to wit that the Pope commit him and if he attempt to confirme without this commission he shall not validlie confirme because he wanteth a condition necessarie But although this be a probable peraduenture the more probable opinion as being the more common yet the first opinion is houlden of all as vndoubted and so is most secure 27. And so we haue more reason to demande a Bishop then a Priest committed by the Pope for that it is most certaine that he can confirme and by Confirmation giue vs strength against persecution and make vs perfect Christians And therefore M. Doctour vseth to say that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church nor haue Confirmation because the Bishop is the Ordinarie and most assured Minister and therefore this hereafter I will suppose 28. M. Nicholas n. 13. affimerth that M. Doctour doth not a right coÌ„pare Religious with Secular Priests But to this he is fullie answered in the sixt question n. 1. Where he is tould that if we take the Regular as Regular according to that state and qualitie onely he is not as soe taken of the Hierarchie though as Regular he be aboue the laitie and an eminent member of the Church but the Secular Priest as a Secular Priest considered in that state of a Priest is of the Hierarchie But more of this in that place shal be saied 29. M. Nicholas numer 14. saieth the thing which I most wonder in a man of learning is that those Fathers and Schooles diuines which be produceth for witnesses of his doctrine are in deed against himselfe as the Reader will see in his allegation of S. Cyprian S. Clement Sotus Bannes c. And I admire M. Nicholas for many things as for his conning carriage of things wilfull mistakings false impositions c. But most of all I wonder at his audacitie and that he hath the face to vtter the aforesaied words so considentlie Noe doubt the Reader cannot but thinke he affirming it so boldely that M. Doctour hath not alledged well these Fathers and Doctours but let him suspend his Iudgement vntill he come to the 2. question in M. Nicholas n. 2.9.10.11.17 Where he shall finde it so cleare and plaine that those Fathers and Doctours are for M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas that when he hath read the places alledged he will haue cause neuer to credit M. Nicholas in this kinde vpon his word albeit he make neuer so great or solemne protestations 30. Lastlie M. Nicholas n. 15. accuseth againe M. Doctour for derogating to my Lord of Chalcedons Ordinariship but to this he is alreadie answered and may haue a fuller answere hereafter 31. Thus in a cursorie manner I haue runne ouer M. Nicholas his first question not staying any long time about it partely because the matter by him proposed did not require any longer discourse partely because in his first question he seemeth principally to bragge onely what he will doe as in his seuenth and last questioÌ„ he boasteth of what he hath done But I hauing in the fiue middle questions answered him fullie to all and hauing shewed that he hath not beene able to disproue any one of M. Doctours assertions nor to answere to any one of his arguments it will plainelie appeare that in his firstquestion he breaketh promise and in his last boasteth of more then he hath performed THE SECOND QVESTION VVhether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church MAISTER NICHOLAS MAISTER Doctour in diuers partes of his Treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church And in his 14. Chapter where he endeanoureth to proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution one of his maine arguments is n. 9. because without a Bishop there can be no particular Church n. 1. REPLIE M. Nicholas Smith mistaketh M. D. Kellisons arguments 1. TRVE it is that M. Doctour Kellison in diuers places of his Treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church But as concerning that which M. Nichulas addeth that one of his maine arguments chap. 14. numer 9. is be cause without a Bishop theâ—â— cannot be a particular Church I denie that this is one of M. Doctours maine arguments to proue that a particular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution For that in that 14. Chapter numer 4. M. Doctour hauing affirmed that as England cannot except against the comming in of Priestes by reason of persecution so England cannot except against the comming in of a Bishop for feare of persecution He addeth And my reasons are twoe The first is that which I haue often alledged because the gouernement of Bishops is instituted by Christ and hath beene in practise in the greatest persecution as wee haue seene in the former Chapter My secondreason is because the commoditie which a prouince reapeth by a Bishop is so greate and the want of him is such a losse that wee should rather hazard persecution as the AsricaÌ„ Catholiks did theÌ„ to be depriued of a Bishop And in this his secoÌ„d maine reason he includeth 1. the necessitie of a Bishop to make a perfect Christian 2. the vtilitie or necessitie of Confirmation 3. that without a Bishop