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
that the state of Religion or Vocation of Seminary Priests is more or lesse perfect by the expiring or not expiring of three yeares after which tyme seeing all may freely enter into Religion euen in England it is a signe that Religious state all things considered is to be preferred 4. Without any necessity he endeauoreth to proue that in case of necessity of the church when it cannot be otherwise prouided a vow to accept a Bishoprike is lawfull of which Nicholas Smith did not dispute but only sayd in generall that a Vow not to accept a Bishopricke is lawfull which no man can deny vnlesse he will oppose himselfe to all those Popes who haue approued the Institute of the society of Iesus And those very words which the Replyer n. 32. without cause noteth Nicholas Smiths to haue left out of S. Thomas 2.2 q. 185. a. 1. Vnlesse in a manifest imminent necessity confirm what Nicolas Smith sayd that according to S. Thomas it seemeth presumption to desire a Bishopricke euen for the good of soules namely speaking in generall and not in some particular case of necessity which is not very frequent and who I pray you will persuade himselfe that he alone is fit for so high a state It is also most true that Valentia as he is cited by Nicholas Smith teacheth that in generall and abstracting from particular case of necessity to desire a Bishopricke euen for what is best in it is commonly a deadly sinne although the Replyer telleth vs that Valentia thinketh oftentymes it is a mortall sin Besides Nicolas Smith because he would not medle with that dispute knowing there was multiplicity of opinions after he had alleadged the doctrine of Valentia warily added This belongeth not to me to define But the Replyer willingly taketh all occasions to dilate himselfe 5. His 33. and 33. numbers are employed by occasion of a meere partly misinterpreting and partly misciting Nicolas Smith n. 7. as the iudicious Reader will fynde by perusing the place in the Discussour 6. I cannot excuse the Replyer from fault in saying n. 37. that Nicholas Smith affirmeth that a Bishop elected yea and confirmed may marry Nicolas Smith his wordes num 8. are these A Bishop not in holy Orders Elected may lawfully marry and some also hold that a Bishop confirmed may do the same but of this I do not dispute yet if he marry it is valid Nicholas Smith then only sayth that some hold that a Bishop confirmed may marry which is true but himselfe a bstayneth from that Question 7. He sheweth that willingly he would fynde fault with any thing while n. 36. he telleth vs that S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 104 ar 4. as he is cited by Nicolas Smith sayth nothing of the Euangelicall Counsels yet confesfeth that in his q. 108. ar 4. he teacheth that for which Nicolas Smith cireth him namely that Euangelicall counsels are proper to the new law The misciting of the place was an errour of the print as the Replyer might haue seene in Nicolas Smith himselfe pag. 161. where the same place of S. Thomas is cited aright 8. What he writeth n. 37 of the knights of Calatraud c. is answered by the Qualificatour sect 5 n. 4. c. by occasion of a lyke obiection made by the Inquisitor 9. His saying n. 41. that Regulars as Regulars are not to haue care or charge of others but of their owne so dies is eyther a meere Equiuocation or a doctrine very vntrue and often confuted by the Discussour For some Regular Priests as Regulars haue at least as much to do with other mens soules as secular Priests as secular haue and if Regular Priests be also Bishops and Pastours they are equall to secular Bishops Pastours Euery body knowes that Religion in generall is deuided into the Actiue Contemplatiue and Mixte lyfe by which such Religious are obliged to attēd both to their owne perfection and to the help of others neyther doth that Mixt kind of lyfe make a Regular to be Secular Ergo such Regulars euen as they are Regulars and not seculars are to help others If secular as secular did artend to the helpe of others then all seculars should attend to the help of others euen lay men and women according to the Replyers frequent-manner of disputing who is wont to inferre that if Regulars as Regulars were of the Hierarchy and the same may be sayd of attending to the help of others then all Regulars euen lay-Brothers and Religious women should be of the Hierarchy and attend to the help of others If he say that secular Priests not precisely as Secular but as Pastours attend to the help of others the same say I of Regulars if they be made Pastours In a word he ought to compare Regular as Regular with secular as secular Regular Priests with secular Priests Regular Bishops or Pastours with Secular Bishops or Pastors which yet could neuer be obtayned of M. Doctour or the Replyer This manner of vnequall reduplication Nicolas Smith reprehended and not reduplications in generall which euery body so well knowes to be vsuall in Schooles that the Replyer need not to haue taken so much paynes to proue it q. 6. n. 1. I adde that these Religious who by their Institute must help others by preaching administring Sacraments c. must also by their Religious Institute be Priests but no Secular precisely as Secular is bound to be Priest I say precisely as Secular for a Secular man by some other title may be obliged to be Priest 10. The Discussour n. 11. sayth that a Bishop is obliged to enlighten others giue his life for his flocke by iustice in regard of mantenance and honour affoarded him by his flocke or by the vertue of Fidelity in respect of a certayne implicite pact whereby he obligeth himselfe when he is made Bishop But Religious men meerly vpon Charity or Religion more noble Vertues then Iustice or Fidelity do illuminate others and aduenture their lyfe for the sauing of soules obliged not only by Institute but also by particular vow made to that effect In which doctrine I can espy nothing blame worthy But the Replyer n. 43. somety mes citeth these wordes of Nicholas Smith by halfes and somtymes drawes them to an odious sense as if Bishops performed theyr functions mercinarily for honour and mantenance or as if their giuing their lyfe for their sheepe were not a worke of Heroicall Charity or did not require in the Bishop very great Charity according as our Sauiour sayd Joan. 21. Amas me Pasce ones meas wheras the Discussour only sayth that the obligation which Bishops haue ariseth from the vertues of Iustice Fidelity although when they giue their life for their flocke administer Sacraments c. they may exercise acts of diuers vertues as Charity Religion Fortitude Patience c. yet as I sayd the obligation of those very acts originally proceedeth from the vertues of Iustice and Fidelity and if another
mā should chance voluntarily to exercise the same acts he should not performe them by the same title and obligation of Iustice by which Bishops and Pastours are bound to performe them The souldier by reason of his pay is bound to adueture his lyfe wherin he may exercise acts of Fortitude Charity to his Country Religion in a pious cause and of other vertues and yet his obligation to these acts of vertues radically proceedeth from Iustice Neyther can we rightly affirme that he dyeth for his Pay if he chance to loose his life but only that by reason of his Pay in Iustice he was bound to dye 11. The Discussour n. 12. sayth Merit doth not confist in office but in actes thereof Would any man thinke that in this speach there could be difficulty Or doth any say that we merit otherwise then by actes Yet the Replyer is not pleased with it and entreth into a question which would require a long dispute to wit Whe ther and how farre the dignity of the person dignifyeth the operation Which Axiome requireth many limitations and explications as for example If a Bishop pay his debts fast or the like I see not why by these actes he should merit more then a priuate Person endued with equall degree of iustifying grace and working with equall feruour neyther can I hold for true what the Replyer sayth that the same action done by a Regular and a Bishop are more meritorious in a Bishop then in a Regular not only in respect of actions proper to the State of a Bishop but also of other actions vnlesse the Bishop be more in Gods fauour and do those actions with greater perfection If it were to our present purpose one might adde that in Scholasticall rigour for the poynt in hand there is great difference betwixt height of Office and Dignity of person as our B. Sauiours operations were of insinite valew and merit by reason of the dignity of his person not precisely and formally by any office 12. In his 49. diuers other numbers he treateth of Secular Curates compared with Religious Priests and no doubt but that some things there are wherein Secular Curates excell a Religious Priest not Curate which his arguments do proue no more But the Question is whether all things considered a Religious Preist be not more perfect then a secular Curate as S. Thomas 2.2 q 184. art 8. cited by the Discussour n. 14. proposeth the Question and resolueth it in fauour of Religious Priests as may be seene at large in the Discussion And the Replyer n. 54. citeth Suarez very imperfectly that so he may seeme the more to fauour Secular Curats For he tomo 3. de Relig. lib. 1. cap. 21. absolutly prefers Religious Priests teaching that the state of inferiour Pastors is more perfect only in speculation not in practice or secundumquid in some sort seu ex quadam hypothesi quae moraliter vix adimpletur or vpon a certayne supposition which morally speaking is scarsely fulfilled The Replyers arguments That secular Curats are Illuminators and Agents and therefore more perfect then those who are illuminated do not concerne Religious men in respect of whom Secular Curats are no Illuminators Besides according to S. Thomas Secular Curates do illuminate not principaliter but with limitation and some participation from the Bishop who by office is principall Illuminatour c. 13. Because S. Thomas and out of him M. Doctour proued that the state of a Bishop is more perfect then that of a Religious mā because otherwise a Religious ma could not be made a Bishop for that were retrospicere to looke back The Discussour by the same reason proueth that Religious state is more perfect then the vocation of a Secular Curate because he may lawfully enter into Religion The Replyer answereth that the reason of this is because Religious vocation is more secure then that of a Curate not because it is more noble But he doth not satisfy For according to this answer a Secular Curate might forsake his charge and leading a priuate lyfe attend to himself without obligation to giue account for the soules of others which no doubt were more secure and yet the Replier would not excuse such a one from a Retrospection Moreouer a Religious state is more secure then that of a Bishop and yet a Bishop cannot without leaue enter into Religion as a Secular Curate may Ergo it is a signe that Religious vocation is not only more secure but also more perfect then that of a Secular Curate especially if we adde what the Replyer seemeth to admit that as the Bishop is wedded hath a pact with his Church so also in proportion a Curate hath with his charge 14. He sayth n. 62. that he will not interpret so rigorously the words of the Oath which students in the Seminaryes do take as if they were bound to returne into England so often as the Superiours of the sayd Seminaryes shall commaund Neyther will I dispute of that poynt but only say that what soeuer perfection they haue by reason of that oath they owe it to Regulars by whose motion the taking of that oath was enioyned If we respect the practise I conceaue that the Replyer will find men more eminent in the English Cleargy then himselfe not to admit of so strict an interpretation and consequently that the Replyer cannot by vertue of the sayd oath place Seminary Priests in an immouable state Without doubt Religious men haue an obligation to transferre themselues into England as often as their Superiours shall so commaund Moreouer seeing Regulars in England expose themselues to the same dangers and exercise the same functions with Secular Priests and in the same manner namely by Delegation and Commission not as Ordinary Pastours it followeth that in this Regulars are equall to them and in respect of Religious state surpasse them as Nicholas Smith n. 16. obserued and therefore the comparison betwixt Regular Priests and Secular Curates can only be in respect of such as are Ordinaryes Wherfore the Replyers saying n. 62. that the Seminary Priests vnder the Bishop is the highest calling in the Church of God is not to be approued if he intend to preferre their calling before all Regulars who certainly as Regulars excell them as Seculars and in Calling some are at least equall I say at least because there want not Regulars who are bound by an especiall Vow to expose their liues for the good of soules not only in England or for a limited tyme but perpetually and in whatsoeuer most remote place of the world and euen in that respect although they had no other Vow of obedience are in an immoueable state bynding them to acts of great perfection with hazard of liberty and lyfe forsaking of Countrey kinsfolkes friends c. I will not stand with him whether Pastours in Catholicke Countreys who are properly Ordinaryes will be cōtent that he preferre the Seminary Priests Calling before theyrs whereby they
Bishops Priests and Deacons then M. Doctour Chap. 8. n. 8. doth by the sacred Councell of Trent pronounce hâ—m accursed Thus he writeth Certayne it is that the Orders of Bishops Priests Deacons and Subdeacons are of the diuine Institution Wherfore the Councel of Trent thus pronounceth Sess 23. can 6. Si quis dixerit c. If any one shalâ— say that there is not in the Church a Hierarchy instituted by the diuine Ordinance which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers let him be accursed In which wordes the Councell defyning that there is a Hierarchy instituted by the diuine ordinance which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers in the plural number must needs vnderstand at least Deacons and Subdeacons So that this Hierarchy of Order at least in respect of Bishops Priests Deacons and Subdeacons is instituted by Christ Thus far M. Doctour Wherfore to free your selfe from a Curse and S. Denis from errour in M. Doctours opinion you must grant that you haue not rightly alleadged S. Denis to proue that only Bishops Priests and Deacons are of the Hierarchy in such manner that all other must be excluded For M. Doctour hath tould you as a matter of Faith that Subdeacons also are of the Hierarchy that by diuine Institution You must then explicate S. Denis that he nameth Bishops Priests Deacons not to exclude all other but because these are the highest Orders in the Chutch and so Religious may be of the Hierarchy notwithstanding what you alleadge out of S. Denis who doth expresly place the order of Monkes in the Hierarchy Cap. 6. tit Contemplatio 4. Likewise when the Councell of Trent defineth as a matter of Faith that by diuine Ordinace there is in the Church a Hierarchy which consisteth of Bishops Priests and Ministers which some moderne Heretiques denyed it only followeth that such are certaynly of the Hierarchy but not that they only are as many Deuines hold lesser Orders not to be of the diuine Institution and yet M. Doctour teacheth that all in lesser Orders are of the Hierarchy and no man will affirme that the sacred Councell intended to condemne as Hereticques those Deuines who teach that the Lesser Orders are not of diuine institution or that according to the Councell it is an Heresy to say that Carâ—inals Vicar-Generals ArchdeacoÌ„s c. who are not of the diuine InstitutioÌ„ yea are not necessarily Bishops Priests Deacons or Subdeacons can belong to the Hierarchy And therfore the Replyer had no reason to blame Nicholas Smith so seuerely as he doth n. 11. for saying that it were rashnesse to affirme that the Councell intended to define as a matter of Fayth that vnder the name of Hierarchy could be comprehended only Bishops c. At length the Replyer n. 13. is forced to extend S. Denis his doctrine and to bring in Subdeacons and other inferiour Orders as likwise he must fynd meanes to bring in Cardinals Archdeacons Vicar-generals c. finally giue some place to poore Religious men 5. Thus his reasons from n. 21. to 26. fall of themselues as only prouing that Religious as Religious precisely are not Gouernours or Illuminators in the Hierarchy but not that they are not of it properly and absolutly or not more then Secular formally as Secular And if they be Priests Pastours they are as much of the Hierarchy in euery respect as Secular Priests and Pastours 6. It is strang to see how n. 28. he trifleth as if Nicolas Smith had euer denyed that the Hierarchy comprehendeth both Order and Iurisdiction Wheras he expresly affirmeth it n. 3. and thence inferreth that the word Hierarchy hath a latitude 7. He doth not n. 31. sufficiently free M. Doctour from the Discussours iust complaint for his saying That S. Bernard affirmed the Hierarchy to be perturbed when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction For the Saint expresly approueth Exemptions only reprehendeth such as are granted without cause or procured vpon ambition as at length the Replyer himselfe confesseth and therfore M. Doctour ought not absolutly to haue alleadged S. Bernard as saying the Church is perturbed when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction 8. The Discussour neuer taught Grace or Charity alone can place one in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy For they alone are not sufficieÌ„t to make one a meÌ„ber of the Church militant But he taught that an external Profession and state of Lyfe ordayned to Perfection of Grace and Charity is sufficient to place the Professours thereof in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy in that degree wherin according to their ranke they excell others not in that degree wherin some particular Religious man may chance to excell some Bishop in grace and Charity because that is accidentall to their states as likwise some lay man or woman may exceed some Religious man in perfection of the loue of God And by this is answered what he hath n. 33. about Nauclerus who cannot be denyed to haue placed Religious men in the Hierarchy in a high degree not only accidentally by reason of some particular Religious mens Charity but per se loquendo by reason of their state Also out of what we haue sayd is easily answered the obiection he bringeth n. 42. against the argument which Nicolas Smith made n. 9. where he proueth That if some men by Grace may according to S. Thomas be assumed to the Order of Angels in the Celestiall Hierarchy an externall state of life affoarding most effectuall meanes for perfection of grace in this lyfe may well place men on earth in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy But Nicholas Smith neuer dreamed that men by grace become indeed Angels Archangels c. 9. All that he hath n. 34. 35. about the translation of S. Denis his definition of a Hierarchy is answered in the Admonition to the Reader adioyned to the Qualification 10. The Discussour to proue that one may be of the Hierarchy although by office he do not illuminate or perfect others instanceth in the lowest Angell who is not to illuminate any other and yet cannot be excluded from the Celestiall Hierarchy What doth the Replyer answere Nothing in effect but by denying that the lowest Angell or Order of Angels are absolutly of the Celestiall Hierarchy but only in a certayne sense which indeed he must needes affirme by the same reasons for which he denyeth Religious to be of the Hierarchy because their office is not to illuminate or perfect others But this doctrine is a thing vnheard of amongst Deuines who with the holy Fathers teach that there are nine Orders of Angels comprised in three Hierarchies but now the Replyer will haue one Order of Angels belonging to no Hierarchy If he put Angels out of the Celestiall Religious men haue I confesse lesse reason to wonder or take it ill if he exclude them from the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy 11. What he sayth n. 43. 44. to wit that M. Doctour denyed not Cardinalls to be of the Hierarchy he will not be able