owne arguments or else both contradict himselfe taxe his Holinesse as hauing not yet sufficiently prouided for the Churches of England and Scotland because the Institution of Christ the practise of the Church the decrees of Canons the sayings of ancieÌ„t Fathers the doctrine of all Catholicks concerning the necessity of hauing some Bishops in Gods Church coÌ„cerne Ordinary Pastors Prelats in the proper sence about mentioned not Delegates in an extraordinary manner And therefore as I said M. Doctour must defend himselfe against his owne argumeÌ„ts But least I may seeme to wrong so learned a maÌ„ I desire the reader not to giue me credit till in the following seuerall Questions he finde by particulars the truth of what I haue deliuered in generall THE SECOND QVESTION Whether without a Bishop here can be a particular Church 1 M. Doctor in diuers parts of his treatise doth teach that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church in his 14. chapter where he endeauoureth to prooue that a particular courtry may not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution one of his maine argumeÌ„ts is nuÌ„ 9. because without a Bishop there can be no particular Church thence deduceth that Catholicks of England al the while they had no Bishop were no particular Church shall no longer be a particular Church then they shall haue a Bishop but shal be a flocke with out a Pastour â—â—army without a General a ship without a Pylot a speritualkingdoÌ„ without asperitualking a family without a Goodman of the house 2 This assertion he prooueth out of S. Cyprian who sayth Cypr. epâ—â— 69. ad 〈◊〉 that the Church is Sacerdoâ—i plebs adunata et Pastori suo grex 〈◊〉 arâ—us the Churches the people vritâ—d to the Preâ—â—â— Bishop and the flocke adhering â—â—to its Pâ—â—â—our In the sime place M Doâ—toâ—â— a lioy 〈◊〉 this reason that as the â—hâ—le Church hath me supreâ—me Bishop to gouerne it so â—â—â—ry particular Church must haue its Bishop 〈◊〉 Bishops else it should not he a particular Church and so the whole and vnâ—â—â— saâ—â— Church should not as Christ hath instituted he a Hierarchie composed of diuers particular Churches 3. Three thing I will endeauour to performe First that the alleadged wordes of S. Cyprian vpon which M. Doctour doth so maynely and extreamely often insist make nothing against vs but rather are for vs against himselfe and with all that his application of them may seeme iniurious to English Catholickes Secondly I will de nonstrate that England without a Bishop may hath bene a particular Church and that the contrary assertion must both wrong the Sea Apostolicke and can subsist vpon no better ground then by hereticks is wont to be obiected against the sayd holy Sea Thirdly I will shew that although we should freely grant what M. Doctour assumeth that without a Bishop we cannot be a â—â—rticular Church â—et it could not proue hiâ—â—â—ent 〈◊〉 particular country may not rosuse Bishâ—ps by reason of persecution 4 For the first it might be answered in a word that S. â—â—prâ—m doth not define the Church to be the people vnited and the flocke adbering to a particular Priest and Pastour but onely inâ—iffiâ—itely to the Priest and Pastour which is verified as long as we haue for our Bishop Pastour the Pope of Rome Besides S. CypriaÌ„ speaks of Ordinary Pastors with power ouer both places persons Catholicks hereâ—icksâ—permanently and not onely ad bâ—neplacitum therefore by a Delegate 〈◊〉 Cyprians definition is not fulfdd but still we must acknowledg the Pope for our immediate and particular Ordinary 5 But for the â—â—â—e vnderstanding of S. Cyprians meaning we are to know that the foresayd epistle was written to one Florinus or Florentius surnamed Pupianus who as Pamelius obserueth in his notes vpon that epistle was a NouatiaÌ„ heretick and with too much credulity and temerity had giuen credit to certayne faâ—sly reported crimes against S. CypriaÌ„ for which he esteemed that the Saint ought to haue beene forsâ—ken by the people of his Diocesse as if he had not beene true Bishop Against this false seditious imputation S. Cyprian prooueth not that a Church wanting a Bishop is no particular Church but that a Church haâ—iâ—g its true and lawfull Bishop as S. Câ—prian was yet deuiding it selfe and falling in schisme with him is indeed â—oe Church at all but a schismaticall congiegatioÌ„ That this is so S. Cyprians owne words demnostrate for hauing alleadged out of Scripture Nos credimus Ioan. 6. et cognouimus quia tu es filius Dei vini addeth Loquitur â—llic Petrus supra quem adificatafuit Ecclesia Ecclesia nomine doceÌ„s et ofterdes quia et si contumax ac superba obedire nolemiuÌ„ multâ—udo discedat EcclesiatameÌ„ à Christo non recedit et illi simt Ecclesia plâ—bs â—acerdoti adunata et Pastori sui grex adhaerens vnde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse EcclesiaÌ„ in Episcopo si qui cum Episcopo non sit in Ecclesia non esse frustra sibi blandiri eos qui pacem cum Sacordotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt latemer apud quosdam communicaâ—e se credunt quando Ecclesia quae Catholica vna est scissa non sit nequo diuisa sed sit vrique connexa et cohareâ—tium sibi inudeem Sacerdotum glutino copulaâ—a We beleâ—ue and know Ioan. 6. that thou art the sonnâ— of the liung God These words are spoken by Peter vpon whom the Church was builded teaching vs in behalfe of the Church that although the stubborne and proude multitude of disobedient persons do go away yet the Church doth not depart from Christ and they are the Church the people vaited to the Priest and the flocke adhering to its Pastour Wherefore thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop and that if any be not with the Bishop he is not in the Church marke and they do in vaine flatter themselues who hauing not peace with the Priests of God creepe in and beleeue that secretly they are in Communion with some where as the Church which is Catholicke and one cannot be rent nor deuided but must be conioyned and vnited with the tye of priests succeeding one to another 6 Behould S. Cyprian neuer thinking of the necessity that euery particular Church hath of a Bishop if it neane to be a particular Church but affirming that theirue Church doth not depart from Christ that he who is not with the bishop is not in the Church that in vaine they flater theÌ„selues who haue not peace with the true priests of God but are in secret communion with some schismaticall or hereticall factions whereas the Church which is Catholick and one can not be rent nor deuided And what is all this to prooue that no particular Church can be such without a Bishop no more then if one should say King Henry the 8. and his
Ordinary thereof Baron Tom. 11. ann Dai. 1049. Leon. 9. ann â— n. 6. Adeò fuit saith Baroâ—ius suae Tullensis Ecclesia amator vt licet Romanus Pontifex creatus esset tamen titulum priorem non reliquerit volueritque dum vixiâ— dici etiam Tullensis Episcopus I demand whether the Church of Tull was not a particular Church or rather whether it was not a Fauourite Church singularly graced by hauing him for particular Bishop who was Pastour of the whole world If Leo onely for deuotion to that particular Church thought he did it no wrong in leauing it without any Ordinary beside himselfe with what shaddow of probâ—bâ—â—ty can any man say that England when of necessity it was destitute of Bishops could not be a particular Church and haue for immeâ—â—te partilâ—r Bishop the Successonâ— of Leo the 9. Vrbaâ—e the 8 whome I beseech God â—ong to preserue for the common good of his vniuersall Church and particular comfort of our afflicted Catholicks 10 Loreto and Recanati in Italy and the like may be said of other plâ—ces but I willingly name that most saded house wherein the eternall Word was made flesh and dwelled in vs are two distincte Diocesses vnder one Bishop and my Lord Bishop once styled himselfe Ordinary both of England and Scotland beside the Church of Chalcedon ergo euery particular Church need not haue it owne particular distinct Bishop much more may the Pope be particular Bishop of more theÌ„ one Church In the Church of God there are many places persons exempt from the iurisdiction of al Bishops beside the Pope neither did any maÌ„ euer dreame that for that câ—use they ceased to be particular Churches Rather such exaÌ„ptions were accouÌ„ted fauours such immeâ—iat subiectioÌ„ to the Pope a great honourâ—til now M. Doctour tels the world that the Church of Saiui Iohn Lateâ—an of Tull of all exempted places persoÌ„s neither haue bene nor shal be particular Churches till they be taken from the Popes particular chardge and put in the hands of some other Bishop that in coâ—setence they are oblâ—ged to endure whatsoeuer presecution for the enioying such a Bishop 12 I thinke M. Doctour wil not say if a Bishop vpon iust causes should take the particular care of some one parish gouerne it by his delegates or Chaplines himselfe remayning the only Ordinary Pastour of it that it should therefore ceâ—se to be a particular parish or if a King to grace some city or Prouince of his Kingdom should make himselfe the particular gouernour of such a prouince or city that therefore they should not be particular cityes or prouinces and the like may be sayd of a Generall of an army in respect of some particular Regiment with what reason then can we say that the Pope who is Bishop of the whole Church may not also be particular Bishop of some one country and that country still remaine a particular Church Truly I cannot imagin vpon what ground any man can frame such a conceit except vpon this inference The Pope is vniuersall Bishop of the vniuersal Church ergo he cannot be particular Bishop of a particular Church because vniuersal and particular are termes incompatible and repugnant to be in one and the same person or subiect To which argument I will vouchsafe noe other answere then that it seemeth the very same forme of disputing which hereticks vulgarly vse against Catholicks as vttering contradictories and non-sence while we ioyne together Ecclesia Catholica Romana the vniuersall Roman Church because forsooth a Church Vniuersal and Particular are contradictory tearmes 13 But let vs suppose that which caÌ„ neuer be proued or rather the coÌ„trary wherof is most manifest let vs I say suppose that the Pope cannot be a particular Bishop of a particular church I aske whether for the existeÌ„ce of a particular church it be not sufficieÌ„t that it be gouernd by such as froÌ„ his Holines receiue Delegated power for al occasions that may require iurisdictioÌ„ If he affirme that such a particular Church may be then I inferre that a Bishop is not necessary for the making a particular Church because whatsoeuer iurisdictioÌ„ any Bishop hath the like may be grated to others not Bishops If he deny that Delegate authority is sufficient to make a particular Church then he must shew me how England by hauing a Bishop is yet become a particular Church if so it be that the sayd Bishop be onely Delegate and not Ordinary of place of all sortes of persons both Catholickes and hereticks not onely ad beneplacitum c. as Scriptures Fathers and Canons speake of Bishops which power my Lord of Chalcedon doth not challenge and M. Doctour professeth to abstayne from that whole controuersie and so he must eyther answere his owne argument or else confesse that as yet we are no particular Church 14 My last taske was to shew that although we shoulâ— freely yeild our selues to be no particular Church without a Bishop yet it were not sufficient to prooue that a Bishop could not be refused by reason of persecution This is easily done by requiring of M. Doctour that which of his owne accord he should first of all haue performed namely seeing he will needs haue a particular Church to be only that which hath a particular Bishop he ought to bring some precept of God or the Church obligeing vs to be a particular Church in his sense and why it is not sufficient for vs to be members of the Catholicke Church in obedieÌ„ce to our Supreame Pastour the Vicar of Christ as our constant Confessours and glorious Martyrs before we had a Bishop liued in sâ—nctity and dyed for iustice in profession of the Catholicke fayth 15 Neyther were this sufficientâ— though it be more then euer he wil be able to performe vnlesse he could further prooue that such a precept were vndispensable or did binde with whatsoeuer inconuenience because there are many deuine precepts for example Vowes materiall Integrity of Confession Residence of Bishops c. which do not binde alwayes nor in all cases or are not by the Vicar of Christ dispensable and vntill he haue prooued this his imaginary precept not to be of such a kinde he is as neere as he was For certainâ—ly if any cause may yeild a lawfull excuse or require dispensation a iust feaâ—e of loosing goods liberty and life which case M. Doctour directly supposeth in his assertioÌ„ may yeild a most reasonable excuse oâ— cause of dispensation and for the transgressour plead not guilty 16 The reason which M Doctour added that as the whole Church hath one Supreame Bishop to gouerne it so euery particular Church also must haue us Bishop or Bishops else it should not be a particular Church and so tâ—e whole and Vniuersall Church should no as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchie composeâ— of diuers particular Churches deâ—erâ—eâ—n no answere For who dare say that there is as much necessity or obligation to haue a Bishop
adherents in Schisme deuiding themselues from their lawfull Pastours were no true Church ergo English Catholicks liuing in perfect obedience to the Vicar of Christ cannot be truely a Church which in effect is as doughty an argument as this The soule and boâ—y seperated can make no true maâ—â—ergo if they be coÌ„icyâ—ed they cannot make a true man for as the coniunction of the soule with the body giues life to the body so the life of the Church consisteth in obedience to true lawfull Pastours to whom English Catholicks being still subordmate they did and do most perfectly fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian which therefore maketh nothing against but for vs that it is rather against M. Doctour himselfe may be euinced out of an argument of his chap. 12. num 4. where hauing cited the sayd authority of S. Cyprian that the Church is the people vnited to the Bishop he argueth thus seeing there cannot be a people vnited to the Bishop without a Bishop it follâ—weth that there cannot be a Church without Bishops Now according to the cleare sence of S. Cyprians words namely that a people which is in disobedience schisme against their lawfull Bishops cannot be a true Church I may vse the very same forme of argument thus Whosoeuer are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian but those who haue no Bishop are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop ergo those who haue no Bishop do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian This argument is directly against M. Doctour yet is more truely deduced out of S. Cyprians words then what he did â—â—ferie I know the Church must alwayes for other respects haue Bishops and therefore what I haue here sayd is onely ad hominem to M. Doctours manner of disputing and onely if we respect S. Cyprians words according to the true meaning purpose and occasion as by him they were vttered 7 That his application of S. Cyprians definition is iniurious to English Catholicks is manâ—fest by euery word of the Saint who affirmeth that they who are not vnited to the Bishop in that sense in which he speaketh are not in the Church that they haue not peace with the Priests of God that they are in secret communion with schismâ—ticks that they are opposite to that Catholicke Church which is one and not rent nor deuedâ—dâ— which gentle Epithetons or rather most â—oâ—le aspertions to cast vpon the most â—eâ—lo is Catholicks of England who for their vnion with the Sea Apostolicke constancy in profession of their Faith ioyfâ—ll suffering losse of goods liberty and life haue bene a spectâ—cle grations in the sight of God and his Angels and admirâ—ble to the eyes of men to apply I say such Epithetons to those glorious Confessours Martyrs our English Catholicks cannot be done without great iniury and yet by M. Doctour the sayd definition of S. Cyprian is to them more then once applyed And truely I should not be able to wonder enough how a learned man could lay the foundation of so strange a doctrine vpon a ground so weake so much mistaken for the true vnderstaÌ„ding wherof was required no greater I bour then looking on the booke nor deeper learning then vnderstanding latine vnlesse I did consider that such a doctrine could haue but such a foundation But I will vrge this point no further Onely M. Doctour may gather froÌ„ what hath bene said that the true explicatioÌ„ reasoÌ„ of those wordes in S. Cyprian alleadged by him in his 12 chap. num 4 vnde seire debes EpiscopuÌ„ in Ecclesia esse et Ecclesiam in Episcopo where vpon thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop which words wee also euen now cited is not that which M. Doctour giueth because the Church cannot be without a Bishop nor a Bishop without a Church but that supposing a Church haue a true Bishop they must not be deuided one from another and therfore S. Cyprian immediatly after the said wordes addeth Qui cum Episcopo non est in Ealesia non est He that is not with the Bishop is not in the Church And yet I hope English Catholicks while they waÌ„ted a Bishop were in the Church other wise they had not bene capable of falcation But by this we may see how groundedly M. Doctour doth speake and still confirmeth what I sayd of the iâ—â—ury done to English Catholicks by applying to them the definition of S. Cyprian 8 The second point wich I vndertooke to make good namely that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop is easily prooued For the Pope in defect of particular Bishops is the particular Bishop Ordinary Diocesan of such Churches as Philosophers doe teach that almighty God the supreme and vmucâ—sall cause of all effects concurreth not only as immediate but also as a Particular Agent or Cause to the producing of effects when second particular causes doe faile For seeing the Pope hath plenitudinem potestatis fulnesse eminency of power he may and is to performe whatsoeuer belongeth to inferiour Pastours when necessity so requireth which is a doctrine so receaued by all Canomsts and deuines that I suppose M. Doctour will not gaâ—nesay it Seing then EnglaÌ„d for many yeares was destitute of Bishops the Pope himselfe was our particular Bishop and to say that while we wanted 〈◊〉 Bishop we were a flocke without a Pastour an Army without a Generall a ship without a Pylot c. as M. Doctour avoucheth seemeth iniurious to the Vicar of Christ as if he wanted either power or good will to be our particular Bishop and Pastour And indeed to singular hath bene the care of Popes ouer our distressed EnglaÌ„d that in fact they euer shewed themselues to be our particular Bishops and may truly say to our Church as Almighty God said to his elected people Quid est quod debui vltrà facere vineae meae non feci Isa 5. v. 4 what ought I to haue done to my vinyard more then I haue done We erected Seminaries we sent learned Priests both Secular and Regular we indued them with aâ—ple faculties as iudges we composed difrerences as maisters we resolued doubts as Fathers wee wrote letters of Comfor of Exhortation of Admonition as Bishops we prounded all spirituall helpes requisite for the times in nothing belonging â—o particular Pastours we haue bene wâ—nting Quid debuimus vltra facâ—â—e et non fecimus what more could we haue done then we haue performed for the good of our beloued English Catholicks The Church of S. Ihon Lateran or the particular Diocesses of Rome is I trow a paâ—ticular Chuâ—ch a perfect oâ—e yet it hath noe other Bishop for Ordinary besids the Pope Leo the 9. Famous for sanctity and miâ—â—cles being before his Popedoâ— Bâ—shop of Tul for his affection to that Church did still remaine particular