Florence the other opinion meriteth Censure This poynt is sufficiently handled in the Qualification Heere I add this instance Some few Deuines are also of opinion that the Priest is Minister of the Sacramēt of Matrimony without whome according to these Authors it is only a ciuill Contract not a Sacrament wil therfore the Replyer say that English Catholickes are obliged to receaue Priests with increase of persecution if it were only for to haue the vndoubted Sacrament of Matrimony And yet if the matter be duly considered perhaps one may truly affirme that as great inconueniences and sinnes of enmity iniustice incontinency c. are like to be dayly and hourely incurred for want of grace conferred by the Sacrament of Matrimony as in another kind for want of Confirmation euen in a persecuted Coūtry If those Deuines who teach that the Priest is the Minister of Matrimony had taught that a Bishop were the necessary Minister of the same Sacrament the Replyer would perhaps alledge them for the necessity of a Bishop although with increase of persecution 4. The chiefest point of doctrine in this Question or rather the point which entreth into all the ensuing Questions is touched by the Discussour n. 15. and by the Replyer left without answere It was That M. Doctours arguments for the necessity of a Bishop in England proue more then himselfe intendeth or can auouch For the institution and commaund of our Sauiour that his Church should be gouerned by Bishops concerneth such Bishops as are properly Ordinaryes Princes Bishops of Diocesses not by Delegation Deputation or Ordinaryes in an extraordinary manner which is not of Diuiue institution and is the most that my Lord of Calcedon doth challeng If the diuine instistution and commaund were fulfilled by Ordinaryes in an Extraordinary manner the Pope might gouerne the whole Church by such extraordinary Ordinaryes which no Catholique can grant and therfore as I sayd M. Doctour must answere his owne arguments drawne from the diuine institution for according to that ground we must in England haue properly an Ordinary come to confesse that there is no diuine Positiue Precept for his Holinesse to appoynt vs in England a Bishop but only a diuine naturall command to prouide vs of all things necessary to saluation whether by Bishops or other meanes THE II. QVESTION Whether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church THE substance of all that is conteyned in the first 16. numbers of the Reply is taken out of the Inquisition sect 3. and sect 6 about the wordes of S. Cyprian The Church is a people vnited to the Bishop and the necessity of a particular Bishop to make a particular Church which points are cleared by the Qualificatour in the same Sections And the Reader of himselfe may answere all his obiections if he remember how the Discussour expressy teacheth That in some particular Churches there must be particular Bishops distinct from the Pope That in England while we wanted Bishops properly called Ordinaryes in an ordinary manner the Pope could be was and is our sole particular Bishop That these words of S. Cyprian The Church is a people vnited to the Bishop as they were spoken by him precisely immediatly formally signify that a people deuided from their lawfull Bishop is no church but a Schismaticall multitude not only by inference as the Replyer u. 9.13 in other places doth suppose out of that his owne supposition deduceth absurdities agaynst the Discussour as not distinguishing betwixt meere inculpable want of a Bishop and sinfull separation from a Bishop Whereas indeede S. Cyprian only speaketh of sinnefull separation therfore affirmeth that such as are not vnited with a Bishop in the sense he spake are not in the Church That Catholike writers may fitly agaynst heretickes inferre out of S. Cyprian a necessity of hauing Bishops in Gods Church because it were no crime of Schisme to be deuided frō a Bishop if in the Church there ought not to be Bishops That the sayd wordes of S. Cyprian may be taken for a definition of the Church if the word Bishop be takē indefinitely of a particular Bishop distinct from the Pope or for the Pope himselfe For no multitude can be a Church without vniō eyther to a particular Bishop vnder the Pope or to the Pope himselfe Without Vnion I say eyther actuall or aptitudinall really or in readinesse of will to accept one when he shall be lawfully giuen them which promptitude they may and ought to haue when actually they want one The Replyer himself must yield that S. Cypriā if he meane of a potiue Vnion with a Bishop as he would haue him to meane can not be vnderstood determinatly of a particular Bishop distinct frō the Pope vnlesse he will teach it to be agaynst the very definition and essence of a particular Church to haue the Pope for its particular Bishop which I am sure he will not auerre For who dare say that the particular diocesse of Rome which hath the Pope for its sole Bishop is no particular Church 2. Thus is answered all that he alead geth out of Bellarmine Stapleton c. who only teach that in the Church there must be some particular Bishops and that the Church is a people vnted to the Bishop in the manner I haue now declared Yea all that I haue said is much confirmed by what the Replier citeth out of Stapleton That the word Church in scripture signifyeth properly not a vagrant headlesse multitude but a multitude to which Pastours and Prelates are constituted by God For I trow English Catholickes were no vagrant headlesse multitude as longe as they were and are gouerned by Christ his Vicar And the Replyers obiection n. 9. That euery Catholicke family euery Nunnery yea and Company of Catholicke women shoulde be a particular Church if vnion to the Pope were sufficient to constitute a particular Church is easily answered by demaunding of him whether in a Diocesse enioying its particular Bishop euery Nunnery euery family euery particular Catholicke be a particular Church what he shall answere in that supposition the same I answere in our case who acknowledge the Pope for our particular Bishop S. Paul faluteth the Church in the house of Nimpha Coloss cap. 4. v. 15. and the Church in the house of Philemon ad Philem. v. 2. and S. Gregory Thanmaturgus at first had for his particular Church only 17. Catholiks nor are we certayne that they were not in one house or family But to my purpose it importeth nothing and therfore I will not dispute whether one family can be fitly called a particular Church 3. Heere commeth of it selfe a ready answere to another obiectiō of the Replyer To shew that the oftē cited wordes of S. Cyprian cannot inferre that a Bishop is necessary to make a particular Church the Discussourn 6. retorteth them in this manner Whosoeuer are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop doe fulfill the definition of S. Cyprian
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
diuine Law of hauing a particular Bishop in euery particular church doth not so generally bynd as the other doth but may cease to oblige by reason of some particular circumstances of tyme or place This answere ouerthoweth M. Doctours whole edifice Because if any reason may take away the obligation of a diuine law certainly a generall persecution threatned to a whole Countrey may free vs from such a bond How then will M. Doctour conclude that by the diuyne law we are bound to haue a Bishop in a case wherein the diuine law ceaseth to bynd You see the Discussour had reason to say That M. Doctours wordes imported too much or else you must yeald they proued too litle 14. In like manner what M. Doctour sayd in the same place That vnlesse euery particular church haue a Bishop the Vniuersall church should not as Christ hath instituted be a Hierarchy composed of diuers particular churches is rightly taxed by the Discussour as eyther not sound or not sufficient for M. Doctours purpose If it be vnderstood only indeterminatly that is The whole church cannot be a Hierarchy vnlesse some particular churches haue Bishops it proueth not that England must haue a Bishop because although England want a Bishop other churches may haue them so the Vniuersall church remayne a Hierarchy If he vnderstand of euery determinate particular church then it followeth that the church of God cannot be a Hierarchy vnles the determinate particular church of England haue a Bishop as the Discussour vrged n. 16. and the Replyer doth not confute 15. By the way I espy in his n. 32. a word for my purpose which ouerthroweth the Repliers whole discourse in this Question The church sayth he cannot be at al without a supreme Bishop or not without order to him when the sea is Vacant This I take as granted and very true and hence I inferre That as the Vniuersall church may be an Vniuersall church without actuall vnion to a supreme Bishop while the sea is Vacant because it still hath Order reference and aptitude to be gouerned by an Vniuersall Bishop as soone as he shall be elected so a particular church may be such by Order and aptitude to be vnited with a particular Bishop whensoeuer he shall be appoynted so S. Cyprians definition The Church is the people vnited to the Bishop doth not require that the people be actually vnited to the Bishop but only in readines of mynd or aptitudinally And thus England while it wanted a Bishop was a particular church because it was alwayes in disposition to be vnited to a Bishop Where now is that argument so often inculcated by M. Doctour the Inquisitour and the Replyer S. Cyprian defines a church to be the people vnited to the Bishop But the people cannot be vnited to a Bishop vnlesse they haue one Ergo they cannot be a church vnlesse they haue a Bishop For the Replyer himselfe hath told vs that when the Sea is vacant the people may be a church with only Order to a Bishop which implyeth not the actuall hauing a Bishop but only a fit disposition to haue one THE III. QVESTION Whether by the diuine Law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop THE diuine precept of hauing Bishops in the Church is only to be vnderstod indeterminatly or in generall that in the whole church there must be some Bishops as many or few as may be necessary or requisite to the end of gouerning the same Church But in respect of particular and determinate churches the commaund is not absolute but beareth a great respect to circumstances of tyme place and the like as the Vicar of Christ shall iudge it best fitting for gouerning and prouiding such churches of al things necessary to saluation Wherfore from the diuine precept of hauing Bishops in generall we cannot infer a necessity of hauing Bishops in this or that particular countrey although otherwise of extent For there may occur good reason why some other gouernment in some particular circumstances may conduce more to the glory of God and particular good of such a country Contrarywise it may happen that some church of small extent may in particular circumstances more require the gouernment of a Bishop then a larger countrey The thing therfore which is as I may say formally to be considered is the quality or greater or lesse necessity not the greater or lesse quantity of place or number of persons but in as much as these may induce a greater necessity of hauing Bishops 2. For this cause in the primitiue church euen in tyme of hoatest persecution Bishops were multiplied and placed in diuers Cittyes because those tymes did so require In so much that some Authors write that in those first dayes of Christianity in a manner all Priests were Bishops contrary to the present practise of Gods church The reason was the paucity of Priests of which if many had not binne made Bishops to ordayne Priests particular churches would haue remayned vnfurnished of Priests to conuert infidells assist thē being conuerted Euery church hauing inough to do within it self could not affoard help to others For this same cause Bishops were allotted to smaller flockes then is now eyther vsuall or lawful to be commonly practised S. Gregory the Thaumaturge cited by the Replyer n. 14. was created Bishop ouer only 17. persons A number competent for those old not these latter tymes in places where by neighbour-churches the want of other may be relieued The more the Vniuersall church is dilated the lesse euery particular church needeth a a Bishop of its own Because other churches without much preiudice vnto themselues may frequently lend them a helping hand In countreys by vast distance remote from helpe and comfort of Christian Nations a Bishop may be needfull for a few In Europe the case is otherwise If one shippe be in want it can becken to those who abound in diuers others 3. Hence it followeth that to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England in vayne we haue recourse to the diuine precept in generall of hauing some Bishops in the church All the question must setle on this Whether England can be sufficiently furnished of Priests and prouided of all necessaries for our iourney to heauen without a Bishop Or whether the inconueniece of comming might not counterpoyse the commodityes he would bring This should be the only Question and the answere ought to be referred to the same Bishop to whose charge Christ hath committed England all other countreys In the meane tyme let not Catholickes be frighted with diuine precepts where none are 4. The Replyer doth not rightly state the Question while he telleth vs n. 8. that M. Doctour only teacheth that Catholickes cannot refuse a Bishop although by his comming persecution should be increased supposing he be sent by lawfull authority Because sayth he in that case the Pope rather declareth that the diuine law ceaseth not to oblige A goodly construction of M. Doctours
meaning and a fayre account of all his paynes which are reduced to this issue Catholickes are bound by the diuine law to receaue a Bishop if the Pope declare that the diuine law of hauing a Bishop byndeth them As if the Question were whether Catholickes be obliged to belieue the Popes declarations whether or no diuine Lawes do oblige Surely for this there need no writing of Hierarchyes Inquisitions Replyes The answere might speedly haue binne giuen That in all things the Catholickes of England haue binne are and eternally will be as zealous prompt and constant in submitting their vnderstandings and wills to the commaunders or declarations of his Holines as any Catholickes whomâ— the Sunne beholdeth But it is euident that M. Doctour speaketh absolutly and ex natura rei of the necessity we haue to receaue a Bishop abstracting from the Popes declaration or Mission This his reasons demonstate drawne from the diuine precept of hauinge Bishops in euery great parte of the church from the vtility or necessity of Confirmation without which men are in danger to forsake their faith as M. Doctour vrgeth c. as may be seene in the very title and throughout his whole 14. Chapter 5. Neyther is it a good Consequence The Pope sendeth a Bishop to England Ergo he declares that there is a diuine precept to haue a Bishop in England Many thinges are holily done which a man is not obliged to do When the Pope maketh a Diocesse and endueth it with a Bishop distinct from other particular Bishops doth he therfore declare that there was a diuine precept to make such a Diocesse or to place a Bishop in it We see some Territoryes capable of Bishops to be gouerned by Abbots which could not be if there were a diuine precept to place Bishops in such Territoryes although it had not likewise binne against the diuine law to haue placed Bishops in the same Territoryes This is a good Inference The Pope for many yeares sent vs no Bishop Ergo he iudged there was no diuine precept obliginge him to send vs one but the other consequence is of no force as I haue shewed Will the Replyer admit this argument The Pope for many yeares left vs without a Bishop Ergo he iudged there was a diuine precept that we should be left without a Bishop It is as good as his Nicolas Smith n. 4. sayd truly The deliberation about sending a Bishop to England was only Quid expediret what was expedient not what was necessary by the diuine law which as I sayd is only of Churches taken in generall and indeterminately And I cannot but esteeme it iniurious to those Fatherly bowelles of his Holines to thinke that he euer iudged vs obliged to accept a Bishop with a generall increase of persecution If he were persuaded that the comming of a Bishop would occasion to Catholickes a generall persecution I dare say he would neuer impose vpon them such an obligation And yet M. Doctour and the Replyer are rigid Censurers of Catholickes as infingers of the diuine Law if they should refuse a Bishop euen vpon that heauy supposition 6. Supposing the Institution of hauing Bishops do not oblige in all tymes places and other circumstances Nicolas Smith had had reason to say n. 4. That M. Doctour if he will speake home must proue not only that there is a diuine precept for vs to haue a Bishop but also that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof or yield sufficient cause of dispensation For although we should grant a diuine precept in generall yet if in some circumstances it do not bynd the transgressours should not sinne Now if any cause may affoard a lawfull excuse what can be greater then the auoyding of a generall persecution wherby not only goods and life but also christian soules are exposed to danger 7. The Replyer n. 3. speaketh in such manner as one would conceaue Nicolas Smith to haue affirmed that M. Doctour denyed the Pope may dispence in the diuine Law which Nicholas Smith neuer sayd yet because the Replyer first mentioneth this matter I must adde that seeing M. Doctour proueth our obligation to haue a Bishop by the necessity of Confirmation and danger of denying our faith through want of that Sacramet it wil not be easy for him to defend that the Pope can dispence in that obligation For what dispensation can be giuen for exposinge of mens soules to damnation Or if M. Doctour and the Replyer grant that the Pope may dispense in this commaund I must be bold to say their arguments drawne from the necessity of Confirmation are farre-fetched frights not solid reasons 8. Wheras the Replyer n. 12. writeth that Nicholas Smith sayd not truly that in England the multitude of Catholickes not the extent of the place is only to be considered I say truly that Nicholas Smith sayth no such matter but only That if England be considered not materially but formally as Deuines expresse themselues that is not the extent of land or multitude of people but the number of Catholickes which only can make a trae Church we shall find it to be more then sarre from a great or notabic part of the Catholicke Church spread ouer the whole word Whether or no the extent of place or number of persons although not Catholickes be also considerable Nicholas Smith would answere that it dependeth vpon other circumstances which may make such an extent more or lesse or not at all considerable as we haue shewed n. 2. As for England in particular if the extent of place were lesse a Bishop would be more vsefull for the Sacrament of Confirmation which might be administred to more if they were lesse distant in place And this vrgeth much agaynst the Replyer who in prouing the necessity of a Bishop in euery great countrey finally n. 20. reduceth all to the necessity of Confirmation 9. It is strange how zealous the Replyer n. 10. is against Nicholas Smith for makinge the Catholicks as it were a contemptible number only because he sayth they are not a notable great part of Gods Church notwithstanding that Nicholas Smith cited in that behalfe a Writing entituled A Paratell c. the Author whereof is thought to be a person of greater ranke then the Replyer wherin it is sayd that all our Catholickes togeather would scarcsely make one of diuers Bishoprickes in England And it is worth the noting that the Paralellist sayd so in proofe that some Regulars who wrote that the gouernment of certayne Churches anciently belonged to them did therby make a greater Challenge then my lord of Chalcedon which surely must haue respect only to the number of persons and not extent of place For those Regulars neuer chalenged power ouer all Catholickes through England as my lord of Chalcedon doth But by this we may see how the number of Catholickes must be raysed or cryed downe as it maketh most for their purpose It seemeth his Holines had consideration cheifly of Persons not of the
both ought to haue by the diuine law their proper Bishop be he Ordinary or Delegate If Doth he beginne to doubt whether they be both notable parts of the Church or Churches of extent Or can he assigne vs a diuine law for England not for Scotland I see he may in tyme accorde with Nicholas Smith whome ere while he so much taxed for saying that England as now thinges stand is no notable part of Gods whole Church Moreuer the diuine law of hauing some Bishops in the Church is of Ordinaryes in an ordinary manner not of Delegates and therfore if Delegates suffice in England or Scotland it is a signe the diuine law doth not oblige in those Coūtreys and if by Bishops Delegates the diuine law be fulfilled it may be fulfilled by Priests Delegates for as much as concerneth iurisdiction 20. I will answere his n. 37. only by adding what he leaueth out in citing the Discussours wordes q. 7. n. 15. I sayth Nicholas Smith would most willingly spend my bloud for purchasing of tymes sutable with the enioying a Catholicke Bishop in England Where the Replyer leaueth off and maketh a longe needlesse descant vpon a poynt euery playne if he had added the wordes immediatly following namely indued with as much authority as any particular Bishop in the whole Church of God Which tymes almighty God grant vs with speed if so it be his diuine will 21. The confutation of M. Doctours arguments drawne from the Affrican Church is by the Replyer answered with a gentle implicit concession of all that the Discussour had obiected For omitting all particulars he telleth vs that they were alleadged by M. Doctour only to shew their zeale and great desire of a Bishop But seeing Nicholas Smith did shew that there was no parity betwixt their case and ours and also that the Affrican Bishops did not approue the peoples zeale but rather gaue a president that zeale is to be tempered with discretion the sayd examples were neyther rightly alleadged by M. Doctour nor is M. Doctour well defended by the Replyer As farre as Knowledge will giue way English Catholickes will yielde to none in zeale to haue a Bishop THE IIII. QVESTION Whether a Countrey although the Persecution should be increased by occasion of hauing a Bishop could refuse one if it were only for the Sacrament of Confirmation THE Replyer chargeth Nicholas Smith for changing the question as if he had imposed vpō M. Doctour that he taught euery man in particular to be obliged to hazard goods liberty lyfe for enioying Confirmation wheras M. Doctour only spake of persecution in general But Nicholas Smith neuer imposed vpon M. Doctour that saying nor do the Discussours wordes alleadged by the Replyer import any such matter but he euer spake of persecution to be increased by the comming of a Bishop which might as well fall vpon this as that man and in that sense euery one in particular might feare it for himselfe Yet Nicholas Smith neuer disputed whither some in particular might not without danger receaue Confirmation supposing we had a Bishop which touched not the question in hand For certayne it is that Confirmation cannot be sayd to be had commodiously which was the poynt that made most for the purpose if it cannot be receaued without a Bishop whose very comminge was supposed to cause increase of persecution to Catholickes in generall which is more considerable then if it were certayne that by his comming some one man only were to suffer domage as Nicolas Smith n. 17. sayd truly but is not rightly taken by the Replyer n. 5. And by this is answered his long discourse n. 29. 30. 31. 32. 2. His arguments concerning Perfect Christianity are examined in the Qualification sect 4. where it is explicated in what sense we are by Confirmation made perfect Christians and is demonstrated that Nicholas Smith neuer denyed it in the sense in which the holy Fathers spake 3. Likewise the Qualificatour sect 3. sheweth that Nicolas Smith concerning the authority of S. Clements Epistles hath no more yea lesse then is to be read in Bellarmine Possouinus Sixtus Senensis and Baronius And further sheweth that Nicolas Smith doth not reiect them as Heretickes do and lastly that the sayd Epistles make nothing agaynst the Discussour 4. That which M. Doctour and the Replyer should haue done and by Nicolas Smith n. 16. were vrged to do should haue bin to prooue that to be perfect Christians in the Fathers sense was of so great necessity that for attayning thereof Catholickes ought to endure persecution But this neyther M. Doctour did performe nor doth the Replyer as much as take notice of And truly in what sense soeuer we take S. Clement and other Fathers or Councels teaching that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians nor properly Christians yea not Christians at all for so some speake it is allwayes to be vnderstood if that Sacrament be omitted voluntarily when it may be had otherwise we may be perfect Christians that is it shall not be imputed to vs that we are not perfect Christians but God will supply that want by other meanes As if a Cathecumen belieuing perfectly in Christ dye without Baptisme yet with intense Contrition not hauing possibility to be actually baptized he may be sayd to dye a Christian yea a good and holy Christian because the want of Baptismal Character is not imputed to him as it would to one who by his fault had omitted it in regard he wantes it only negatiue not priuatiue he hath it not yet wāts it not by reason in that case he was not boūd to haue it in act but only in effectuall desire As after Baptisme remission of deadly sins the proper effect of the Sacrament of Pennance may be obtayned by Contrition as it includes a desire of that Sacrament which desire in that case is reputed for the act This is a cleere explication of those words left out by M. Doctour in citing S. Clement si non necessitate c. Jf he shall remaine so not vpon necessity but by carelesnesse or voluntarily Which were wordes of chiefe importance when we disputed of omitting Confirmation not carelesly but for iust feare of persecution because we are not bound to be perfect Christians in that peculiar sense with so great domage nor will the want of such perfection in that case be imputed to vs but God of his goodnesse will be ready to supply the effect of Confirmation for as much as concerneth actuall grace and assistance without the Character because vpon that supposition of persecution to be increased there is a morall kind of impossibility to receaue it By which obseruation falleth downe all that the Replyer obiects n. 16. about Baptisme not actually receaued and Confirmation n. 22. and both Baptisme and Confirmation n. 23. as the Reader wil perceaue by applying to his obiections what euen now I haue noted For we do not say that without vnction one can be annoynted although
it be omitted vpon necessity but only that the want of it shall not be imputed yea shall be otherwise supplyed and the like I say of Baptisme whereas if vnction be omitted voluntarily the party shall be annoynted neither Sacramentally by the character nor Equiualently by other helpes from God and so he shall deserue to be truly called not a perfect Christian By the way I obserue that n. 22. he confoundeth two disstinct answeres giuen by the Discussour by which meanes it is easy to make a shew of difficulty or to confute any two opinions or answers giuen as different yet both as probable as Schollers dayly giue diuers probable answers to one difficulty which taken togeather cannot both subsist being quite different or contrary and if one be determinatly imbraced as true the other must be relinquished as not true all-though it may still retaine its probability to some other man perhaps seeme also more true The Qualificatour Sect. 7. n. 17. sheweth that other Catholike Authors might well leaue out those wordes of S. Clement if not by necessity c. because they treated not the case of persecution of which M. Doctour did speake and so they had no like obligation to cite those wordes 5. But sayth the Replyer rather Nicolas Smith falsifyeth S. Clement whose words are these All therfore must make hast without delay to be regenerated to God and then to be cōsigned by the Bishop c. And when he shall be regenerated by water and afterward confirmed by the Bishop with the seauenfolde grace of the spirit for otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian nor haue place amongst the perfect if he so remaine not by necessity but by carelesnesse or volūtarily Where the Discussour left out these wordes nor haue place amongst the perfect which he thinkes to be of great importance and to signify that he cannot be admitted to the sacred Eucharist nor to the ranke of thē that are admitted to it if not by necessity but voluntarily he shall so remayne For if by necessity the party baptized wanted Confirmation he might be admitted to the Eucharist But I am not of his opinion that those wordes were of importance and dare assure him in the Discussours behalfe that he neuer dreamed of any mystery which could moue him purposely to omit them It is very strang that the Discussour should be blamed for omitting only the mētioned words and M. Doctour excused although he left out the very same words also the words that followed Jf not by necessity c. Are you so vnfriendly to Nieolas Smith that vpon condition to espy one omission in him you are content to acknowledge a double one in M. Doctour Your selfe must satisfy for Nicolas Smith and answere your own arguments n. 22.23 wherewith you so much pressed the Discussour for in S. Clemēt these words If not by necessity but by c. are refered to both the precedet clauses he cānot be a perfect Christiā to the other nor haue place amōg the perfect as appeareth by the coniunctiō nor therfore S. Clement signifyeth that he cannot be a perfect Christian if not by necessity but voluntarily he omit Confirmation Wherfore those wordes nor haue place amongst the perfect eyther are but a repetition or explication of the former or if they signify somewhat els they haue no more reference to the wordes If not by necessity c. then the other clause he cannot be a perfect Christian which as I explicated aboue signify that the want of perfect christianity acquired by actuall vnction and by receauing a military Character shall not be imputed to him but that God wil supply the grace of Confirmation by other meanes if indeed he want it vpon necessity as they do who are depriued of it vpon iust feare of persecution The Replyers explication of these words nor haue place amongst the perfect must be reiected by himself for he teacheth that there was in these tymes an Ecclesiasticall custome of being cōfirmed before one receaued the B. Eucharist and consequently it was not lawfull to do it except in some case of necessity for example at the houre of death when the diuine precept of communicating did oblige and as it were drowne the Ecclesiasticall precept in which case the person vnconfirmed was bound to receaue the B. Sacrament whether he had omitted Confirmation by necessity or voluntarily only he was boūd to haue Contrition for his former omission And therfore the Replyer cannot assigne any case in these tymes of disparity betwixt him who had omitted Confirmation voluntarily and him who had omitted it vpon necessity because when such a necessity did vrge both of them might and ought to receaue the Blessed Sacrament and so according to the Replyers explication haue place amongst the perfect and when no such necessity did happen neyther of them could receaue the B. Eucharist and therfore as I sayd the Replyers explication cannot subsist with his owne grounds Moreouer Nicholas Smith had reason to thinke it a hard doctrine that without Confirmation we shall be sure to want such a perfection in our Christianity as we should be obliged vnder sinne to suffer a generall persecution for redeeming the want of such a perfection For to that seuere purpose M. Doctour alleadged S. Clement and in that sense Nicolas Smith had reason to deny that without Confirmation we could not be perfect Christians 6. What he sayth n. 27. that Confirmation is a perfecting vnction is not against the Discussour who neuer denyed it nor euer treated whether S. Denis in his 5. Chapter spake of Confirmation but only sayth and proueth that in the sayd Chapter he speaketh also of oyle vsed in Baptisme and that therfore out of such generall speaches alone M. Doctour could not inferre any thing peculiar to Confirmation See the Discuss n. 17. which in this point is cleare inough 7. The Reader must vnderstand with circumspection the Replyers doctrine n. 10. That God obligeth himselfe to giue the speciall grace of Confirmation to professe our faith to such as receaue it For this must be vnderstoode if Persons Confirmed do on their part concur with Gods grace mouing and inciting them to the obseruation of his commandments performance of other good workes according to his inspirations besides the only receauing of Cōfirmation Otherwise he may iustly deny them particular efficacious grace permitting them to fayle in the Cōfession of their faith whiles others by humble frequentation of other Sacraments diligence in good workes do by those meanes supply the want of Confirmation and remayne constant in the confession fo their faith Likwise wheras n. 40. in other places he teacheth that Confirmation is the ordinary meanes to get grace for confessing our faith If he vnderstand that all other meanes are extraordinary his doctrine is not true For otherwise Confirmation were a necessary meanes for the profession of our faith and for saluation so as no man vnconfirmed could without