that countrey For a Church cannot be a particular Church by vnion to a Vicar but by vnion to him whose Vicar he is My Lord of Chalcedon is not called Bishop of England or of any Church or Diocesse thereof and yet the Replyer thinkes he maketh vs a particular Church because he hath the power of a Bishop of England which no man can deny the Pope to haue in as immediate and more ample high manner and therefore he may make vs a particular Church although he take not the Name therof 9. Yea wheras the Replyer n. 22.23 teacheth that the Pope could not be particular Bishop of England vnlesse he did eyther the office of a Bishop himselfe or by his Delegate or as lest styled himselfe Bishop of England I answere that it is sufficient he do the Office of a Bishop according as the circumstances of the tyme and place permit or require which his Holinesse most carfully hath and doth performe by sending into England Priests or also a Bishop with authority from him delegated c. and the Replyer pleades agaynst himselfe telling vs in effect that the Pope by the very delegating my Lord of Chalcedon and not making him Bishop of England hath declared himself to be the sole particular Bishop of that Countrey where he doth the office of a Bishop by his Delegates As Ireland is not a Kingdome in respect of his Maiesties Deputy but because it is vnited to his Maiesty as to its King so England cannot be a particular Church in respect of my Lord of Chalcedon but in regard of the Pope whose Deputy my Lord is being not spirituall Prince and Bishop of England If to be Ordinary in an extraordinary manner be sufficient to make vs a Church how will the Replyer proue that before my lord of Chalcedons comming his Holinesses Nuntio in Paris did not make vs a particular Church 10. Against the Discussours doctrine n. 11. That persons exempt from all Bishops and subiect only to the Pope are a particular Church without a particular Bishop the Replyer n. 26. obiecteth That Monasteryes subiect only to the Pope are no particular Churches vnles we wil make euery Nunnery of women a particular Church I answere the Discussour speaketh in generall of places and persons exempt from Bishops And it is well knowne that there be diuers Territoryes of extent sufficient to make a Diocesse subiect to no Bishop These Nicolas Smith affirmes to be particular churches One Monastery or Nūnery immediatly subiect to the Pope are as much a particular Church as if they had a particular Bishop as we sayd aboue n. 2.3 11. In his numbers 28.29 he teacheth that it is a great Lustre to a Church to haue a particular Bishop That a Church gouerned by a Delegate wanteth some perfection of that which is gouerned by an Ordinary That if a Pope should send a Priest into England with power to confirme England should be in its kind a particular Church but not in the degree and perfection as if it had an Ordinary Bishop What Is the necessity of hauing a Bishop come only to a greater Lustre Must Catholickes be troden vnder foote for a greater lustre Doth all this dispute end in degrees of Comparison Hath our being or not being a particular Church so great latitude that it may reach to a Church with a Bishop Ordinary a Bishop Delegate a simple Priest I confesse the Replyer is forced to steppe backe and not to stand so punctually on his ground of Englands not being a particular Church without a Bishop I desire he would speake plainly Doth the diuine law in these sore tymes oblige vs to be a particular Church in the greatest perfection you mention by a Bishop Ordinary You wil not say so Is the diuine law of our being a particular Church well satisfied by persons endued with authority sufficient and proportionable to these dayes let them be Priests or Bishops Ordinaryes or Delegates So you must say Let vs then speake no more of being a particular Church or of hauing determinatly a Bishop by the diuiuine law but let our care be in the sight of God vnpartially to consider and with indifferency to desire what may be most expedient for Catholickes not in France Spayne Italy and other Countreyes happy with peaceable possession of Ecclesiasticall splendour but in Englād blessed only with ioyful suffering a longe continued persecution 12. Well to leaue speculations Schoolpoynts seing you constantly persist in this that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church before you burthen our consciences with a heauy obligation to purchase our being a particular Church with hazard of goods liberty and life you must not blame vs if we request you to produce some precept of God or the Church commaunding vs to be a particular Church in your sense why we may not content our selues with being good Catholickes and members of the Vniuersall Church as Nicholas Smith n. 14. proposed to M. Doctour In this consisteth the poynt of the difficulty The Replyer answereth that this demaund is by the Discussour brought out of its place so must expect answere in the next question which treateth Whether by the diuine law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop What is this but to auoyd the difficulty for M. Doctour proposeth as two reasons or titles The deuine precept of hauing a Bishop in euery particular Church and The necessity of hauing a Bishop because without him we cannot be a particular Church as may be seene Chap. 14. n. 4. 5. 6. 7. and in other places Now the Replyer will make M. Doctour walke in a circle and proue that we are bound to be a particular Church because we are obliged to haue a Bishop and we are obliged to haue a Bishop because we are bound to be a particular Church If the Replyer will defend M. Doctour he must tell vs what commaund we haue precisely to be a particular Church so that if a Bishop were not necessary in other respects yet for this cause alone he could not be refused This the Replyer doth not proue in the next question nor is it a thing in it selfe factible or credible 13. From the number 13. to the end of this Question he taxeth the Discussour as stretching M. Doctours wordes Chap. 14. n. 9. further then he intended But those wordes which he seeketh to defend must eyther teach as farre as the Discussour extendeth them or else they will come short of prouing M. Doctours purpose For if it be as necessary to haue a particular Bishop to make a particular church as to haue an Vniuersall Bishop for the making an Vniuersal church and that by the diuine law euery country of extent must be a particular Church it followeth clearly that according to M. Doctour there is as much necessity to haue a Bishop in England which in his opinion is a particular church of extent as to haue a Pope of Rome You will perhaps say that the
But those who without their owne fault haue no Bishop are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishopp Ergo those who haue no Bishop do fulfill the definition of S. Cyprian This argument the Replyer would returne vpon the Discussour by saying That seeing a Catholicke family without a Bishop is not in schisme with any Bishop it would follow that such a family considered by it selfe fulfilleth the definition of S. Cyprian and consequently is a Church But the answere is already giuen If one man or family may be tearmed a particular Church in case they were positiuely vnited to a particular Bishop much more may they be a Church in S. Cyprians sense which requireth not positiue vnion but only that they be not deuided from their Bishop If one man or family be not capable of the denomination of a particular Church then his obiection toucheth not the Discussour whose argumēt proceeded in respect of a multitude Plebs and Grex a people and multitude such as English Catholickes are capable of the sayd denomination if other requisite conditions were not wantinge Still then it is trew as the Discussour inferred That a people not deuided frō their lawful Bishop is according to S. Cyprian a true Church although they haue no actual vniō with a particular Bishop 4. His proofes n. 17. That M. Doctour was not iniurious to English Catholicks by saying They did not fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian while they wanted a Bishop do still relye vpon a groūd not solide to wit that S. Cyprian by a people vnited to their Bishop vnderstands a positiue Vnion with a Bishop wheras Nicolas Smith proued out S. Cyprians words and whole drift that by Vnion with a Bishop he vnderstands only that the people be not deuided from him this supposed it cleerly followeth That if English Catholikes did not fulfill the sayd definition they must be taxed of diuision from a Bishop consequently of Schisme 5. The Discussour q. 2. n. 8. 13. and the Qualificatour sect 7. answere all he bringeth to proue that the Pope was not our particular Bishop and the Qualificatour sheweth that Nicolas Smith doth not argue à possibili ad esse But sayth the Replyer n. 21. if when a Church is depriued of Bishops the Pope remayne their particular Bishop no Bishopricke should euer be vacant nor any Colledge want a Rectour or Prouince a Prouinciall because the Prouinciall would become Rectour the Generall Prouinciall And if per impossibile there were neuer a Bishop in all the Church but the Pope the Church should still be Hierarchical composed of diuers particular Churches 6. I answere This argument must be solued by the Replyer himselfe who in the next number granteth that the Pope may be the particular Bishop of a particular Church and yet he would not admit that he may make himself sole particular Bishop of all Churches The reason is because our Sauiour hath instituted that there should be some particular Churches gouerned by Bishops distinct from the supreme Pastour not because the Pope alone cannot make a particular Church but because he can not make all Churches particular Churches in the manner our Sauiour hath instituted by their proper Ecclesiasticall Princes distinct from the Pope as is required in a Hierarchy In this sense Bishoprickes are sayd to be Vacant because they want a Bishop distinct from the Pope 7. And heere I must obserue that it is so true that a Church without a Bishop may be a particular Church that the Replyer while he is speaking against it speakes for it by saying That a Bishopricke may be Vacant Ergo say I by the Vacancy it ceaseth not to be a Bishopricke a Diocesse a Church If a Church surely not an Vniuersall but a particular one When the Bishop of a particular Church dyeth do they not demaund a Bishop for such a Church Ergo they suppose that it stil remayneth a Church Otherwise when a Bishop was demaunded for England it might haue bynne answered First fynde a Church in Englande and then aske a Bishop for the Church of Englande M. Doctour pag. 378. n. 3. sayth that when a Byshop cannot be had the particular Church must be gouerned as it may And pag. 374. alluding to Englande he sayth If for a tyme some particular Church be gouerned by Priests or an Archpriest without a Bishop it is a thing accidentall c. Ergo a Church Englande in particular without a Bishop may be and was a particular Church And indeed we can not teach otherwise vnlesse by the death of euery Bishop we will haue all men become speachlesse For when the Bishop of a particular Church dyeth how can we expresse it but by sayinge such a Church hath lost its Bishop The same is demonstrated euen out of the other examples alledged by the Replyer For by the death of a Rectour or Prouinciall the Colledge ceaseth not to be a Colledge nor the Prouince a Prouince neyther doth it follow that a Prouinciall or Generall vpon the death of euery Rectour or Prouinciall must becom Rectours Prouinciass The reason of this dependeth on the knowledge of particular institutes of Religion In generall it is sufficient to say that no Generall hath ouer his whole Order so absolute and vnlimited extent of power as the Pope by our Sauiours institution hath ouer the whole euery member of Gods Church I grant in Catholike Countreys where after the death of the Bishop other officers remaine to gouerne till a new Bishop be elected the Pope need not actuate his immediate power Pastorship as he is obliged to do in countries wholy for a long time destitute of Bishops 8. Because the Pope hath immediate power ouer all particular Churches and is Proprius Pastor of England and all other countreys to make himselfe particular sole Bishop of any church he needs not take the name of that particular church but beginneth to be sole Bishop as soone as it beginneth to be destitute of a Bishop But other particular Bishops who haue no such vniuersall immediate power must acquire it by a new Title to their particular Churches And seeing the Pope in respect of England hath indeed performed the Office of a Bishop no doubt but he would also call himselfe Bishop of England if with the Replyer he conceaued that there were a diuine precept to make England a particular Church and that to make it such it were necessary and sufficient that he tooke the name or title of it as the Replyer n. 22. confesseth For who will say that for a matter of no more difficulty then is to take a Name the Pope will breake a diuine commaund It is then a signe that he may make vs a particular Church without calling himselfe Bishop of England because in very deed so he is His Holynesse styleth not himselfe Bishop of Holland where neuerthelesse he hath a Vicar which supposeth the Pope to be the particular Bishop of
are also obliged to hazard their Isues for their sheepe and with greater immobility then Seminary Priests are This I will say that his assertion destroyeth those groundes wherby n. 42. he end eauoureth to preferre the Calling of Secular Curates before those Religious who by their Institute performe the functions of Pastours by Preaching admanistring Sacraments c. For the same reasons which there he allead geth in fauour of Curates agaynst Religious men do in the very same manner vrge agaynst Seminary Priests all being reduced to this that Curates do those functions by Ordinary right office Religious by Commission Delegation and Priuiledges as likewise Seminary Priests do and therfore he must eyther preferre those Religious or not preferre Seminary Priests before Curates Besydes if Seminary Priests ought to be preferred before Curates because they dayly hazard their liberty and life Curates will say that this reason proueth too much namely that the Seminary Priests calling is not only the highest vnder the Bishop but also that it is higher then the calling of those Bishops who do not dayly hazard their liberty and lyfe that is to say of most part of Bishops Lastly if once the Replyer grant that the Ordinary Pastorship of Curates may be preponderated by the dāger to which Seminary Priests expose themselues he openeth an easy way to defend that Religious Priests by reason of their state fitnesse to help their neighbour c. may be preferred before Curats although these be ordinaryes and Religious be not especially if those Religious be also ordayned to help their neighbour And heere I cannot omit to note some strang speaches of the Replyer who n. 42. speaking of those Religious who by their Institute do many functions of Pastours as preaching ministring of Sacraments c. sayth That in Regulars this is accessory in Pastours principall in Regulars it is voluntary in Pastours necessary c. For who euer heard that it is accessory or voluntary to a Religious man to performe those things to which he is obliged by his very Institute 15. All that he hath agaynst the Discussour about the distinction of leauing all thinges in preparation of mynd and actuall leauing all things goeth vpon a supposition as if Nicholas Smith had denyed that distinction which he neuer did and therfore in vayne he alleadgeth Authors in proofe of that distinction agaynst the Discussour who only sayd and proued that euen in preparation of mynd to leaue all things Religious excell secular Persōs that the leauing of all things added a great perfection to the preparation of mynd it being an Heroicall and very meritorious act so much that S. Thomas 1. part q. 43. art 6. doubted not to teach that the Holy Ghost is sent in a particular manner when one forsaketh all that he possessed Likwise all that the Replyer bringeth to proue that Counsels are iustruments to Perfectiō it selfe for which he needlessy alledgeth Authors is answered out of the Discussion where we may gather that a thing may be sayd to belong to Perfection only instrumentally or essentially as Charity is or lastly instrumentarily and secondarily as S. Thomas saith the Cousels are which is more then only instrumentally as the habits of vertues distinct frō Charity are Perfection secondarily but not only instrumētally which the Discussour explicateth n. 23. What Nicholas Smith alledged out of S. Thomas that Charity consisteth secōdarily in the loue of our neighbour was only to shew that there is differece betwixt secondarily and only instrumentally because according to S. Thomas Charity consisteth secondarily in the loue of our neighbour but no man will say that Charity consisteth in the loue of our Neyghbour instrumentally and that therfore M. Doctour sayd not well that Perfection consisteth in the Coūsels only instrumentally whereas S. Thomas had sayd that Perfection consisteth in the Counsels instrumentally and secondarily But the Discussour neuer intended to make a parity in all respects betweene the loue of our Neighbour and the Euangelicall Counsels And so all is answered that he hath n. 65. Finally that which Nicholas Smith chiefly found fault with in M. Doctour was not the distinctions of preparation of mynd and actuall leauing all things or a perfection essentially and instrumentally but his indistinct ambiguous and obscure manner of proposing applying them as in expresse wordes may be seene in the Discussion n. 23.24.25 And indeed Nicolas Smith did of purpose vse that circumspection because he knew well that those distinctions were good being rightly vnderstood and fitly applyed I desire the Reader to peruse the place alleadged in the Discussion 16. To proue that the Apostles were not Religious he doth his best endeauour and in fyne Sarmiento alone is the man by him alleadged who doth indeed deny that the Apostles were Religious But seeing that as Nicholas Smith q. 7. n. 7. did wish a Learned Penne hath since the printing of this Discussion hand led this matter so fully as more cannot be desired I referre the Reader to that Treatise namely the Apology for c. which in my Preface I mentioned where he shall fynd this poynt handled Cap. 7. THE VI. QVESTION Whether Religious as Religions be of the Hierarchy 1. THE whole discourse of the Replyer in this question is answered by only setting downe the state of the Question aright as the Discussour hath done n. 8. the Qualificator Sect. 5. where all is answered that is brought by the Inquisitor the Replyer hath no more in effect then he For both of them will needs haue the Question to be whether Religious as Religious be of the Hierarchy as Hierarchs Princes or Gouernours therof which is to make the Hierarchicall body of Gods church consist only of Heades wheras the Question is Whether properly simply and abiolutly Regulars as Regulars be not of the Hierarchy as without doubt they are more then Secular as Secular who as such are inferiour to Religious as Religious Not only amongst the Hierarchs but amongst those also who are gouerned there is diuersity of degrees and all belong to the Hie rarchy more or lesse according to the perfection of their state calling which in Regulars is very remarkable among diuers degrees of Persons in Gods Church 2. He endeauoureth at large to proue out of S. Denis That none are of the Hierarchy except Bishops Priests and Deacons which is true in that particular sense which S. Denis intendeth But the Replyer must answere his owne argument confesse that in another sense others besides those three mentioned are of the Hierarchy For M. Doctour Chap. 8. teacheth that all in lesser Orders as Acolyts c. are of the Hierarchy and the Replyern 43. endeauoureth to proue that M. Doctour placeth Cardinals in the Hierarchy Besides as I haue sayd some Religious by their Institute must illuminate others be Priests Ergo such euen as Religious belong to the Hierarchy 3. If the Replyer will exclude all from the Hierarchy except
he vnderstandes as we commonly call one thing a great part of another as certainly one countrey is not a great part of the Catholicke church which extendeth it selfe as farre as the world especially if in such a countrey there be no more Catholickes then are in England 14. The Replyer n. 28. doth his vtmost to proue that by diuine Law euery particular Church must haue a Bishop and when all comes to all the point is reduced to the necessity of Confirmation But this is a weake ground to oblige Catholickes to receaue a Bishop with increase of persecution For first a Bishop for Confirmation only can be no more necessary then Confirmation it selfe which is not a Sacrament of necessity and according to all Deuines may be omitted without sinne when commodiously it cannot be had which certainly happeneth when a Bishop cannot come into the Country but accompanyed with addition to a grieuous persecution 2. That Sacrament may be administred by a Priest with commission frō the Pope 3. Although it were necessarily to be administred by a Bishop yet it requireth only Episcopal Order with voluntary iurisdiction as Priests in England haue ouer their Penitents 4. It requireth not a Bishop belonging to England or residing in that Kingdome 5. M. Doctour alleadgeth the diuine precept of hauing Bishops in euery notable part of the Church as a distinct argument from his other reason of the necessity of Confirmation as may be seene in his chap. 14. n. 4. and the Replyer doth not sufficiently defend M. Doctour by flying frō one to the other The point touching Confirmation belongs to the next Question 15. All that he hath n. 29. 30. 31. 32. is the very same with the obiections of the Jnquisition Sect. 6. and is answered by the Qualificatour in the same section so cleerly as I need adde no more 16. By the same forme of argument wherby M. Doctour proued the necessity of a Bishop in euery Countrey of exent the Discussour sayd it might be proued That in euery Countrey Religious Institute is to be maintayned because the Pope is obliged to conserue it in the whole Church of God But there is no more reason of one Countrey then of another Ergo it is to be mantayned in euery Countrey To this the Replyer answereth n. 33. 34. First that Nicholas Smith can not fynd out a diuine precept obliging the Pope to admit any Religious Order as he is bound to giue Bishops to the Church But I belieue if he consider the matter better he will not aduenture to say That the Pope can depriue the Church of a Religious Estate Instituted by our Sauiour Christ whose Councels faithfull people cannot without iniury be vniuersally hindred to follow Secondly he answereth That he hath proued it to be of the diuine law that euery notable part of the Church haue a Bishop wheras no Religious Order is necessary by the diuine law in euery notable part of the Church But he neyther hath proued what he assumeth as proued nor doth he answere the forme of Nicholas Smiths argument which was the same with that which M. Doctour vsed to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England And so when the Replyer biddeth the Discussour make what he can of this answere till he giue a better this vse any man may make of it to say with truth that it maketh nothing for M. Doctours reason but only to shew the insufficiency of it 17. No lesse deficient is he in satisfying another forme of Argument brought by Nicholas Smith in resemblance of that of M. Doctours It is not of the diuine law to haue a Bishop in euery particular Diocesse of England But if we respect the diuine law there is no more reason of one Diocesse then another Ergo all the Diocesses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop And the same argument may be made of all other Countreys To this forme of argument the Replyer answereth That there is more necessity of a Bishop in a whole Countrey then in euery particular Diocesse which was not the question but whether it was not as good a forme of argument as that which M. Doctour vsed I omit to note that the Replyer misciteth the Discussour who sayd not that M. Doctour confessed that a particular Diocesse may be without a Bishop but spake reseruedly that M. Doctour seemed to confesse it which is true because he stil expresly declared himselfe to speake of a notable great part of the Church Howsoeuer the thinge it selfe is true that the Pope is not by diuine law obliged to giue a Bishop to euery place capable of one as we see often practised Would M. Doctour perhaps haue in England as many Bishops as there be Diocesses What mistery may there be that the Replier doth so purposly conceale M. Doctours opinion in this point To confirme more what Nicholas Smith sayd I argue thus in M. Doctours forme It is not of the diuine law that England haue a Bishop properly called Bishop of England or of any Diocesse therin But there is no more reason of England then of other Countreyes Ergo all other Countreys may be without a Bishop properly called Bishop of such Countreys or of any Diocesse therin This is M. Doctours forme of argument and yet the consequence cannot by any Catholicke be maintayned 18. At length the Replyer n. 36. agreeth with vs that it must be left to the supreme Pastors discretion whether the diuine law obligeth a Countrey to haue a Bishop in this or that circumstance and so M. Doctour and the Replyer might haue spared their paynes in prouing that England must haue a Bishop because there is a diuine law that euery great part of the Church as they conceaue England to be haue its proper Bishop Yet I cannot approue his other saying that when we demaund any thing there is more reason to demaund that which is ordinary then that which is extraordinary and therfore England may demaund an Ordinary For the rule of wise men ought rather to be that they demaund what is most sutable to tyme place and other Circumstances and not what is ordinary or extraordinary God grant our case of England were not extraordinary and much different from that of other Catholicke Countreys 19. He doth likwise not a litle relent in the same n. 36. where fynding M. Doctour sore pressed by the Discussour n. 15.16 that his arguments if they passe for good must also proue that Scotland is obliged to haue its Bishop yea that both England and Scotland must haue an Ordinary properly so called because Scotland is a Countrey of extent and by the diuine law beside the supreme Pastour there must be other Ordinaryes or Ecclesiastical Princes in the whole Church and consequently according to the groundes of M. Doctour the Replyer euery notable part of the Church must haue a Bishop in that proper sense To this the Replyer answereth If England and Scotland be both notable partes of the Church