REPLIE.

1. MAISTER NICHOLAS, for an In­troduction, saieth his meaning is not to set downe what censure others, euen secular Priests (but what secular Priests, if there were any, may [Page 2]easilie be guessed) giue of M. Doctours booke. And my meaning also is not to relate what I haue heard from many, euen principall men, of the im­pertinencie and immodestie of M. Nicholas his booke, and of the moderation and temper ob­serued by M. Doctour in his Treatise: and a lear­ned Deuine in his Inquisition into M. Nicolas his discussion hath brieflie, yet solidlie and clearelie de­clared what censure his booke deserueth: and I also shall make the same more knowne to the world by this my Reply, then otherwise I would, could I defend M. Doctour, and the trueth by him deliuered, without impeaching M. Nicholas his honour.

2. Hee styleth his booke A MODEST BRIEFE DISCVSSION. But how immodest it is, and how little beseeming the person who wrote it, and the person against whome he wrote it, the sayed learned Authour of the In [...]ion, in his second Section, and I also in a catalogue of his tauntes, gibes, and scoffes, haue acquainted the Reader.

3. He sayeth It may iustlie seeme strange why M. Doctour, should at this verie tyme, write against Caluin concerning the Hierarchie of the Church, which is an argument in these dayes not particularlie spoaken of. n. 2. And as strange it seemeth to mee, why M. Nicholas should take vpon him to examin M. Do­ctours intentions. But what M. Doctour intended, and what reasons moued him to set forth that Treatise at this time, may easilie be gathered out of [Page 3]my preface to the Reader. For which reasōs being resolued to write of the Hierarchie, hee thought he had reason to write against Ihon Caluin (as he doth in his second Chapter) which M. Nicholas, cannot take as written against him (as he see­meth to suspect n. 2.) Vnlesse he, which God forbidde, be also an enemie to the Hierarchie of God his Church.

4. But whereas, in the same place, hee meruai­leth why M. Doctour should write of this matter, Which had beene alreadie most learnedlie, copiouslie, and eloquentlie handled by diuers, both in Latine and vulgar languages: I must tell him, that if he will haue no mā to write of a subiect, of which others haue written before, he must taxe almost all the writters of this present, and precedent ages, yea many of his owne order; which were much for M. Nicholas to doe. For what hath any man all­most written of Philosophie, Schoole diuinitie, Controuersies, Cases, Histories, which hath not beene treated of before? For, Eccles. cap. 1. as Ecclesiastes saieth: Nihil sub sole nouum, nec valet quisquam dicere, Ecce, hoc recens est. Iam enim praecessit in saculis quae fue­runt ante nos: Nothing vnder the sunne is new: neither is any man able to say, behould this is new: for it hath alreadie gone in the ages that were before vs. Aug. lib 1. de T [...]in [...]t. cap. 3. Let S. Austin answere for M. Doctour: Vtile est plures li­bros à pluribus fieri, diuer so stylo non diuersa fide, etiam de quaestionibus eisdem, vt ad plurimos res ipsae per­ueniat, ad alios sic, ad alios autem sic: It is profitable that many bookes should be made by many, in a diuers [Page 4]style, not a diuers faith, euen of the same questions; that the thing it selfe, may come to manie, to some so, to others so.

5. Before I goe any further I obserue that M. Nicholas euen in the beginning cōtradicteth the trueth and himselfe also, and that within a few lines: VVhich is an euill presage of future lapses, in which M. Nicholas will be founde tripping. For in his 2. page n. 3. he saieth that M. Doctour is the first who hath put in printe a Treatise (to wit of the Hierarchie) in the English tongue. In which words he contradicteth the trueth wittinglie (which redoubleth his fault) and himselfe also. The trueth: because he knoweth that before M. Do­ctour set penne to paper about this subiect, there was a booke of the like subiect published first in French, then in Latin, printed, as is pretended, at Herbipolis in the yeare 1626. then in English at Roan where the Discussion was printed: and in La­tin, this booke is stiled Vindiciae priuilegiorum & gratiarum, quibus in Ecclesiastica Hierarchia &c. in which booke the Authour in his second reason, endeauoureth to prooue Regulars to be of the Hierarchie by the arguments, which M. Nicholas in his sixt question hath borrowed of him to prooue the same, as we shall see hereafter. And soe he contradicteth the trueth in saying that M. Doctour was the first who hath put in printe a Trea­tise of the Hierarchie in the English tongue, seing that the Treatise mentioned was printed and diuulged in England before. And in Queen Eli­zabethes [Page 5]tyme (as M. Nicholas or some of his brethren must needs know) a treatise was set forth in a lay mans name to shew that Religions were fitter to heare Confessions, then Secular Priests.

6. He seemeth also to contradict himselfe, for that n. 2. he saieth that diuers haue handled this argu­ment (before M. Doctour) most learnedlie, copiouslie, and eloquentlie both in Latin and vulgar languages (as the alledged English booke doth) and yet he sayeth M. Doctour was the first; and consequentlie he saieth M. Doctour was the first, and not the first, which is a contradiction in himselfe. VVhereby also it appeareth that it is farre frō trueth which he saieth n. 4. that this Treatise (of M. Doctour) hath renewed the no lesse improfitable, then odious com­parison betwixt the perfection of secular Pastours, and that of religous men: for that, by his owne confes­sion, this argument was alreader (that is before M. Doctour wrote) handed by diuers, both in Latin and vulgar languages. And he is not ignorāt that Suarez, Suarez tom. 3. de Rel. l. 1. c. 18. Et 21. Pla­tus. de bon. stat. Rel. l. 1 c a. c. 37. and Hieronymus Platus, mē of his owne coate haue handled this argument and comparison more lar­gelie then M. Doctour hath done, and not more moderatelie.

7. He calleth M. Doctours exhortation to peace and charitie Verball. n. 3. & 4. as though it came not from the harte: Which all they who knowe M. Doctours sinceritie and realitie, will not thinke to be true: but rather that M. Nicholas taketh to much vpon him, in iudging of mens hartes: which [Page 6]is a thing belonging ether to God, who is there­fore saied to search mens hartes, Ierem. 17 1. Cor. 2. or to the Spirit of man which is in him: or to the Prophete or Sainct, to whom God reuealeth such secrets.

8. I agree to that he saieth n. 5. that to conserue peace and charitie it is good to let religious alone with their priuiledges: So that he agree with mee that it is good also, that the Clergie and laytie be let alone with their rightes: amongst which, one is to haue a Bishop to gouerne the Clergie, and Confirmation to strengthen the laitie in a time of persecution. But what priuiledges haue beene taken from them? Or what offer hath beene madde to despoile them of the same? They will say, that before a Bishop was sent into En­gland, Regulars were free from asking Approba­tion of the Bishop. But to this they are easilie answered, that exemption from asking Approba­tion of the Bishop to heare confessions of secu­lars, is not any priuiledge annexed to their order: and therefore in all Catholicke Countries, Reli­gious men are obliged by commaundement of the Councel of Trent; and were before comman­ded by Bonifacius VIII. Conc. Trid. sess. 23 cap 15. Clemens V. in the Gene­rall Coūcel of Vienna, Ioannes XXII. and Pius quin­tus, to aske the Bishops Approbation (as they doe) to heare confessions of seculars: but it was a priuiledge graūted to secular Priests, as well as to Regulars, all the while they had no Bishop. And with good reason also: for how could they aske Approbation of a Bishop when they had no Bis­hop? [Page 7]But now since we haue had a Bishop, it is a question, whether they should not aske appro­bation in England, as they doe in other Countries: which question MY LORD OF CHALCEDON, and others haue learnedlie disputed: I will not meddle with it in this Reply, because M. Doctour did not in his Hierarchie.

10. I allow also of that which M. Nicholas addeth n. 6. that it would much auaile towards the conserua­tion of charitie, if all Superiours, and Presidents of Seminaries were effectuallie carefull that their sub­iects speake of religious men with respect and charitie. And as for M. Doctour Presidēt of Doway Colledge (at whome M. Nicholas aymeth) I may say boldlie, because truelie, if some that come from other Colledges did not sometymes vtter their grie­uances against some Regulars, there would not a word be spoaken against thē, scarcelie of them, in his Colledge: and I know some, that haue beene brought vp in other Colledges, who haue beene sharpelie reprehended by him for speaking against some of them. And therefore, vnlesse many lye that come from thence, there is more muttering against them in their owne Colledges them in Doway Colledge, where the greatest part scarselie thinke of thē, much lesse speake of their affaires. And if the Rectours & Superiours of other Colledges did seeke to instille into their subiectes a reuerence to the Bishop and respect to the Clergie, many clamours and harsh speaches, cast out against the Bishop and Clergie, might [Page 8]haue beene stopped & preuēted. But vnlesse also many who come from thēce, do tell vs, vntrueths if any in those Colledges speake but a worde in commendation of the Bishop and Clergie (vnder whom yet they must liue when they come into England) they are the worse thought of, and farre much the worse for it. Of this I could say more, but I was loath to haue sayed thus much, had not M. Nicholas vrged me vnto it: To whom therefore I say: Qui alterum incusat probi, ipsum se intueri oportet: he that accuseth another of any fault, must looke that himselfe be free from it, else in condemning another, he condem­neth himselfe.

11. And would to God the Superiours of other Colledges would teach their subiectes to thinke and speake well of the Bishop and Clergie and other Seminaries: I know M. Doctour would be as forward, as the most forward to teach and charge his to loue and respect Regulars: which mutuall correspondence if there were; a peace would not onely follow, but also would be con­serued; and this mutuall peace would be pleasing to God, honorable and comfortable to both par­ties: but as S. Gal. 5. Paule saieth: If you bite and eate one another (by detracting from one another) take heed you be not consumed of one another.

12. I wonder that M. Nicholas num. 7. should say that M. Doctours booke should not be pleasing to the Sea Apostolike, it prouing the Catholike Romaine doctrine against Heretiks; commen­ding [Page 9]the Hierarchie, which the Coūcel of Trent defi­neth to be of the diuine Institution, Cont. Trid. Sess 6. c 22 & Can. 3 and to consist of Bishops, Priests, and other Ministers: & defending the mission of our most Reuerend Bishop sent to England from the Sea Apostolik with that au­thoritie ouer England, which other Bishops haue ouer their Dioceses, and highlie cōmendeth also by the same Sea Apostolik: rather M. Nicholas might feare a checke, if the Sea Apostolike were rightlie informed, seing that he, in his Discussion, speaketh so coldly of the Sacrament of Confirma­tion, because be would not haue a Bishop, and so openly, that is, by a booke in printe glaunceth at the Bishops person, impugneth his mission, as not conuenient for these tymes, as though he would controlle the chiefe Pastour, and knew better then he and his Counsell, what times are most sutable for a Bishop.

Neither can M. Doctours booke (whatsoeuer M. Nicholas sayeth n. 8. be vngratefull to our En­glish Catholiks, much lesse to the greater and better parte. Whome euerie where he commendeth for their zeale and constancie in defending God his cause with hazard of their liberties, landes and liues; and doth not taxe them of want of obe­dience or charitie (as he saieth) in not being vnited to my Lord of Chalcedon: for that he knoweth, that the most of them are linked to him in loue, res­pect, and obedience; and if some of them be not so much vnited to him as were to be wished, it is rather to be imputed to some regulars who are [Page 10]their Guides and Directours, then to them. And how the Catholiks are not condemned of sinne for refusing a Bishop (as M. Nicholas also saieth) shall appeare hereafter in my reply to the third questiō. But whome M. Nicholas meaneth by the better and greater part of Catholiks, I know not. I had thought, when wee talke of matters of faith, the Church, and her Hierarchie, the greater and better parte had beene the Bishop and his Cler­gie together with those that adhere vnto him, as to their lawfull pastour, and they as M. Nicholas knoweth are well pleased with M. Do­ctours booke, as the rest also would haue beene had not M. Nicholas, and his, misinformed them of the contentes.

14. Let M. Nicholas reflect vpon himselfe; for if he and some others had not terrified them with vaine shaddowes and made them to feare where was no cause of feare, they would haue beene as zealous for a Bishop, as the most zealous, know­ing that by the presence of a Bishop, God would be glorified, our little Church of Englād graced, the weake Catholiks in tyme of persecution strengthned, and all comforted.

15. But I did not thinke that M. Nicholas could Exeodem orefrigidum efflare & calidum: Out of the same mouth breath could and hoate, had I not seene that in diuers places of his Discussion he chargeth M. Doctour as to partialie addicted to the Bishop and Clergie; & yet in this his first questiō n. 9. ac­cuseth him as an enemie to his Ordinarieship. To [Page 11]which he may easilie be answered that M. Doctour onely saieth in his 15. Chapter n. 10. that the Bis­hop of Chalcedon hath onelie a generall spirituall Iurisdictiō ouer the Clergie and lay Catholiks in spirituall matters, and hath no Title giuen him to any particular Bishopricke in Englād, & so cānot chalēge to himselfe any particular Bishoprick, no more then the Priests by their faculties, which they haue to preach and minister Sacraments all ouer England, can chalenge any particular pa­rish Church: Which he sayed to shew that our Protestant Bishops haue no iust occasion to ex­cept against our Catholik Bishop. Yet who can doubt but that as the Pope hath giuen him that power and authoritie ouer England, which other Bishops haue ouer their Dioceses, soe he can Ex plenitudine potestatis, by fulnesse of power, with this generall authoritie, make him Ordinarie of En­gland by an extraordinarie manner, as at first he was stiled. But whether he be De facto Ordinarie, or no, because M. Doctour in his Hierarchie neuer determined it, nether will I. Yet I haue seene certaine writings, in which some haue learnedlie disputed for his ordinariship: on which he stan­deth not so much, as on the power of an ordina­rie, which he thinketh sufficient to demaund ap­probation.

16. M. Nicholas (as he is verie forwards in that kinde) againe chargeth M. Doctour, saying: that it cannot be pleasing to God to treate of holy things vpon particular designes: And so still maketh him­selfe [Page 12]iudge of M. Doctours intentions. But let him looke into his owne conscience, and see whether he cannot there discouer a particular designe in op­posing the hauing of a Bishop in our Countrie. M. Doctour hath protested before God in his E­pistle dedicatorie, and other partes of his Hierar­chie, that he entended onelie that the Bishop should be honoured, and all orders, in their ranke, respected, and I haue alreadie in my preface to the Reader layed opē his intentiō. And therefore M. Doctour knowing his owne good intention hopeth that he pleased God in writing his Hie­rarchie for so good an end, as to commend all or­ders in their kind, and thereby to induce them all to peace with one another.

17. Let M. Nicholas take heed of his Discussion full false dealings, wrong imputations, wilfull mi­stakings, gibes, and tauntes to disgrace M. Do­ctour, as in theire places shalbe shewed; farsed with many oppositions against a Bishop sent and commended by the chiefe Vicar of Christ: de­rogating to the holy Sacrament of Confirmation (whose necessitie he slighteth, whose perfection he denyeth in denying that it maketh vs perfect Christians; S. Cle. Ep. 4. S. Vr. banus ep. de­cr [...]t. opposite to the ancient fathers, who, as I haue shewed in my Reply to the 4. questiō. n. 15. attribute that perfection vnto it. And for no other cause, but because he cannot brook a Bis­hop: Let him I say take heed least his discussion fraught with this ill marchandise, be neither pleasing to God, nor man.

[Page 13]18. As for the manner hold by M. Doctour in preouing his Tenets, which M. Nicholas n. 11. auer­reth not to be correspondent to the opinion of his learning, but to be easilie answered, and without any studie; the trueth thereof shall appeare in my Reply, by which I shall defend all M. Do­ctours positions, and shall shew M. Nicholas his answere to be altogether deficient or not to the purpose: Whereby I think in the end he will not haue the face; and, I ame sure, not the cause, to bragge, as he doth.

19. I cannot here omit, how n. 12. he accuseth M. Doctour of want of Logike and prudence, though, he hath taught Diuinitie alone longer, then M. Nicholas hath beene in studying Logik Philosophie and diuinitie. There are many man­ners of arguing, and all good in their degree, for the Logician sometimes argueth from the cause to the effect, which manner of arguing is called demōstratio propter quid: sometimes he proceedeth from the effect to the cause, which is demonstra­tio quia: and sometimes he argueth from intrin­secall, sometimes from extrinsecall causes: and all these formes of arguing are good, because there is a connexion betwixt the cause and the effect, and soe one inferreth another, and the cause is notior naturâ then the effect, and the effect is no­tior nobis then the cause, and soethey may inferre one another. And it were to be meruailed if M. Dectour should hit vpon none of these formes and manners.

[Page 14]20. But let vs heare what M. Nicholas saieth. for example (saieth he) to proue the necessitie of a Bis­hop in England, he serueth himselfe of these strange and vnto ward propositions: that it is a diuine law for euery such particular Church, as Englād is, to hauea Bis­hop: that without a Bishop England cannot be a par­ticular Church: that vnlesse euerie particular Church haue it Bishop or Bishops, the whole Church should not (as Christ hath instituted) be a Hier archie composed of diuers particular Churches. That without a Bishop we cannot haue Confirmation, which whosoeuer wanteth, is not, as M. Doctour saieth, a perfect Christian. And are these harsh, strange and vnto ward propositions, they being grounded in Scripture and the diuine law? To speake with in compas, this saying of M. Nicholas, is a verie rash assertion.

21. That these propositiōs are true & according to Scripture and the diuine law, and consequētlie not harsh, I shall proue more at large in their proper places. Here I briefelie argue thus: It is of the diuine law that there must be Bishops in the Church, as M. Doctour hath proued in his 12.13. & 14. chap. and as M. Nicholas confesseth q. 3. n. 4. & 17. and cannot denie, if he wilbe a Catholik. And why? But to supplie the wants the Church hath of Preaching, Sacraments, and in particular of Confirmation, of which onely the Bishop is or­dinarie Minister: but one Bishop cannot supplie the wantes of twoe notable partes, such as are England, Spaine, and France: Ergo euerie notable part, such as these Countries are, must at least [Page 15]haue one Bishop, and that also by the deuine lawe.

Soelikewise that without a Bishop a people cannot be a particular Church I shall proue in the next question. n. 2. For if it be true which S. Cypr. Ep. 69. ad Flor [...] Cyprian sayeth, that the Church is Sacerdo [...]i plebs adunata, Apeople vnited to the Priest, that is, Bis­hop; then that people which hath no Bishop cannot be a Church: and consequently also the whole Church cannot (as Christ hath insti­tuted) be a Hierarchie composed of diuers parti­cular Churches, vnles these Churches haue euerie one their Bishop. And hence it followeth also that without a Bishop, who is the Ordinarie mi­nister of Confirmation, we cannot, by ordinarie course, be perfect Christians, because we cannot haue Confirmation, which maketh vs perfect Chri­stians, as S. Clement and S. Vrban hereafter alledged doe auerre; as also other fathers, and S. Thomas of Aquin, and sundrie deuines, euen Iesuites, as we shall see in the 4. question. n. 15. These argu­mēts are à priore, and are inferred from the extrin­secall cause, to wit, God his commandement and institution, which is a cause why Bishops are necessarie in the Church. And therefore as we may argue from the ecclesiasticall law, as from an extrinsecall cause, and say; the Church hath cōmanded to fast in Lent: Therefore we must fast: So we may argue from the deuine law as from an extrinsecall cause, and say: God hath commanded that Bishops shalbe in the Church, and that [Page 16]euerie particular greate Church must haue it Bishop, ergo it must haue him. And so it was harh­lie and vntowardlie saied of M. Nicholas that the aboue rehearsed propositions are harsh and vntoward; they being grounded in Scripture and Fathers.

23. Th 3. p. q. 72 art. 11. ad 1. And although S. Thomas of Aquin and many diuines doe affirme that by commission from the Pope, a Priest not Bishop may confirme: yet diuers also hould the contrarie, as S. Bonauen­ture, Durand, Adrian VI. Estius in 4. d. 17. Alphon­sus à Castro, Verbo; Confirmatio: and they prooue their opinion out of Eusebius Ep. 3. Pope Damasus Epist. 4. Innocentius III. de consuetud. cap. quando. Who expressely affirme that Confirmation cannot be giuen but by the Bishop, as in the primitiue Church is was giuen by the Apostles onely, to whome Bishops succeede, and not by the disci­ples to whome Priests succeede.

24. Yea they want not apparent reason. For (say they) the acte of Confirming either it is appertaining to the Bishop by reason of his power of Iurisdiction, or by reason of his power of Order. If by reason of his power of Iurisdiction, then a Bishop elected and confirmed, but not consecrated, might confirme. For that he hath Episcopall Iurisdiction, which yet neuer was seene, yea then this might be cōmitted to a deacon, or an inferiour minister, for he also is capable of Episcopall Iurisdiction, as when one is elected and confirmed Bishop before he be [Page 17]Priest or deacon. If by reason of the power of Order, then as the Pope cannot giue power to a deacon to consecrate, because that is proper to the Character and Order of a Priest, so he cannot giue power to a Priest to confirme, that apper­taining to the Character and Order of a Bishop. If the authours of the other opinion say, that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to con­firme, they should contradict the Fathers alled­ged, who say that to confirme, is proper to the Bishop, and cánot agree to the Priest not Bishop. Besides thence it would follow that though the Priest in confirming might sinne, Confir­mation being reserued to Bishops, yet as a Priest suspended if he cōsecrate, though he sinneth, yet consecration is valid: so if a Priest should con­firme he should sinne, yet Confirmation would be valid, it being not aboue his character. And this opinion would answere to the fact of Saint Gregorie, vpō which the contrarie opiniō much relieth; that S. Gregorie onely permitted certaine Priests! who before had presumed it, Greg. l. 3. ep. 9 ad Ianua­rium dist 90 cap perue­nit. to anoint the baptized in the forhead, but not with the vnction proper to Confirmation, nor with the forme of words which the Bishop vseth. Others answere otherwise.

25. And to the Councells of Florence and Trent; which say that the ordinarie Minister of Confir­mation, is the Bishop, as though the extraordi­narie minister might be the Priest; They answere that these two Councells define, that at least the [Page 18]Bishop is the Ordinarie Minister, because it was disputed whether by commission, and as an ex­traordinarie Minister, the Priest might confirme. And whereas the Councell of Florence sayeth that It is read that sometimes by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolike a simple Priest hath con­firmed; they answere the Councell defineth not that this indeed hath euer beene done, but that it is read soe. Thus they.

26. But for all this, S. Thomas his opinion is most probable, being now especiallie most com­mon, though not most secure. And this opinion would alledge for it, the fact of S. Gregorie and the twoe councells alledged. And to the Fa­thers it would answere, that they meane onely that the Bishop is the onely Ordinarie Minister of Confirmation, yet that the Priest may by commission from the Pope, confirme, and they would say that the Priests Character of it selfe is sufficient to confirme, so that the Pope commit this to him; not that the Pope giueth him any power of Order, for that this Priests owne Character is sufficient, so that this condi­tion be also put, to wit, that the Pope commit him: and if he attempt to confirme without this commission he shall not validlie confirme; because he wanteth a condition necessarie. But although this be a probable, & peraduenture the more probable opinion, as being the more com­mon, yet the first opinion is houlden of all as vn­doubted, and so is most secure.

[Page 19]27. And so we haue more reason to demande a Bishop then a Priest committed by the Pope, for that it is most certaine that he can confirme, and by Confirmation giue vs strength against persecution, and make vs perfect Christians. And therefore M. Doctour vseth to say that without a Bishop, we cannot be a particular Church, nor haue Confirmation, because the Bishop is the Ordinarie and most assured Minister: and there­fore this hereafter I will suppose.

28. M. Nicholas n. 13. affimerth that M. Doctour doth not a right cōpare Religious with Secular Priests. But to this he is fullie answered in the sixt que­stion, n. 1. Where he is tould that if we take the Regular as Regular, according to that state and qualitie onely, he is not, as soe taken, of the Hierarchie, though as Regular he be aboue the laitie, and an eminent member of the Church: but the Secular Priest, as a Secular Priest, consi­dered in that state of a Priest, is of the Hierarchie. But more of this in that place shalbe saied.

29. M. Nicholas numer. 14. saieth the thing which I most wonder in a man of learning, is that those Fathers and Schooles diuines, which be produ­ceth, for witnesses of his doctrine, are in deed against himselfe, as the Reader will see in his allegation of S. Cyprian, S. Clement, Sotus, Bannes &c. And I admire M. Nicholas, for many things; as for his conning carriage of things, wilfull mistakings, false impo­sitions &c. But most of all I wonder at his auda­citie, and that he hath the face to vtter the afore­saied [Page 20]words so considentlie. Noe doubt the Reader cannot but thinke (he affirming it so bol­dely) that M. Doctour hath not alledged well these Fathers, and Doctours; but let him suspend his Iudgement vntill he come to the 2. question in M. Nicholas n. 2.9.10.11.17. Where he shall finde it so cleare and plaine that those Fathers and Do­ctours are for M. Doctour, and against M. Nicho­las, that when he hath read the places al­ledged, he will haue cause neuer to credit M. Nicholas in this kinde vpon his word, albeit he make neuer so great or solemne protestations.

30. Lastlie M. Nicholas n. 15. accuseth againe M. Doctour for derogating to my Lord of Chal­cedons Ordinariship: but to this he is alreadie ans­wered and may haue a fuller answere hereafter.

31. Thus in a cursorie manner I haue runne ouer M. Nicholas his first question, not staying any long time about it, partely because the matter by him proposed did not require any longer dis­course; partely because in his first question he see­meth principally to bragge onely what he will doe, as in his seuenth and last questiō he boasteth of what he hath done. But I hauing in the fiue middle questions answered him fullie to all; and hauing shewed that he hath not beene able to disproue any one of M. Doctours assertions, nor to answere to any one of his arguments; it will plainelie appeare that in his firstquestion he brea­keth promise, and in his last boasteth of more then he hath performed.

REPLIE.

M. Nicholas Smith mistaketh M. D. Kellisons arguments.

1. TRVE it is that M. Doctour Kellison in di­uers places, of his Treatise doth teach, that without a Bishop there can be no particular [Page 22]Church: But as concerning that which M. Nichu­las addeth, that one of his maine arguments chap. 14. numer. 9. is, be cause without a Bishop the [...] can­not be a particular Church. I denie that this is one of M. Doctours maine arguments to proue that a par­ticular Countrie may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution, For that in that 14. Chapter. numer. 4. M. Doctour, hauing affirmed that as England cannot except against the com­ming in of Priestes by reason of persecution, so England cannot except against the comming in of a Bishop for feare of persecution: He addeth: And my reasons are twoe. The first is that, which I haue often alledged, because the gouernement of Bishops is instituted by Christ, and hath beene in practise in the greatest persecution, as wee haue seene in the former Chapter. My secondreason is, because the commoditie which a prouince reapeth by a Bishop is so greate, and the want of him, is such a losse, that wee should rather hazard persecution (as the Asricā Catholiks did) thē to be depriued of a Bishop. And in this his secōd maine reason he includeth 1. the necessitie of a Bishop to make a perfect Christian: 2. the vtilitie or neces­sitie of Confirmation. 3. that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church. 4. that by Ordinarie course without a Bishop there can be no Hierarchicall functions. So that these twoe onely be M. Doctours maine arguments; and that which he alledgeth Chap. 14. n. 9. is not, as M. Ni­cholas saieth, but onely parte of his second maine argument. For if it had beene by it selfe one of [Page 23]his maine arguments, he would not haue sayed: n. 4. And my reasons are twoe, but he should haue saied: And my reasons are fiue; because the se­conde reason includeth fowre, which yet do all but make vp one his second maine reason.

2. Yet is that reason which M. Nicholas alled­geth, a good reason also, because it being the di­uine lawe, that euerie particular Church of ex­tent (for he speaketh not of euerie Diocese) should haue its Bishop by whome it may be made a particular Church; the people that would resist a Bishop sent in by Lawfull and Supreme authoritie (as our twoe last most Reuerend Bishops were) should resist the diuine Law and Institution, and so commit a sinne. But of this more hereafter.

M. NICHOLAS. Ep 69. ad Flor.

This assertion, he proueth out of S. Cyprian, who sayeth, that the Church is: Sacerdoti plebs adunata, & pastori suo grex adharens: the Church is the people v­nited to the Priest (Bishop) and the flocke adbering vnto its Pastour &c. And num. 3. Three things I will endeauour (saieth he) to performe. First that the alled­ged words of S. Cyprian &c. Make nothing against vs, but rather are for vs, against himselfe &c. n. 2. & 3.

THE REPLY.

M. Doctour proueth sufficientlie, and euidentlie out of S. Cyprian that without a particular Bishop, there can be no particular Church.

[Page 24]3 True also it is that M. Doctour alledged those words out of S. Cyprian to proue that a particular Church cannot be without a particular Bishop. And what bringeth M. Nicholas to disproue this? He answereth num. 4. that S. Cyprian doth not define the Church to be the people vnited and the flocke adhe­ring to a particular Priest and Pastour, but onelie. inde­finitlie, to the Priest and Pastour: and he addeth n. 5. and 6. that Saint Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schisme doe leaue their Bishop.

4. But first, in that M. Nicholas denyeth that out of this definition of a Church, it necessarilie followeth that a particular Church, cannot be without a particular Bishop; he contradicteth Cardinall Bellarmin who lib. 3. de Eccles militante cap. 5. alledgeth this definition of S. Cyprian word by word, and lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae. cap. 8. he pro­ueth that the Church by no meanes can be with­out Bishops, because S. Cypian sayeth, Ecclesians esse Episcope adunatam, & Episcopum esse in Eccle­sia, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo: that the Church is vnited to the Bishop, and that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop. Where first by the word Sacerdoti, Priest, he vnderstandeth a particular Bis­hop, not a Priest or Pastour indefinitelie, as M. Ni­cholas saied: because in that place he proueth that the Church cannot be without particular Bis­hops. Secōdelie, he proueth out of this place, that the Church cannot be without Bishops, in the plurall number. And why? But because particular Churches must haue particular Bishops. For, the [Page 25]whole Church cā haue but one Supreme Bishop, her gouernement being Monarchicall, which requireth one Supreme Gouernour, as M. Doctour hath shewed in his Hierarchie cap. 3. And there fore if it be necessarie that in the Church there should be other Bishops, besides one Supreme Bishop, the reason must be, because the notable partes of the Church, which are of notable extēt, must haue their particular Bishops, by whome they may be made particular Churches, and so may compose the whole Church, and obey their particular Bishops with a subordination to the chiefe Bishop. Hence it is that the same Cardinall in the foresaied place, alledgeth S. Hierom l. contra Luciferianos, who saieth: Ecclesia non est quae non ba­bet Sacerdotes: the Church is not, (or it is not a Church) which hath not Priests, that is, Bishops. And in his second Tome lib. vnice de Sacramento Confirm. cap. 12. § Sextum augmentum, he saieth out of S. Hierome contra Lutiferianos: Necesse est in sin­gulis Ecclesijs vnum esse Episcopum, ne si multi sine pares, & non ad vnum summa referatur, schismata fiant: it is necessarie that in euerie Church there be one Bishop, least if many were equall, and the chiefe place or authorttie not giuen to one, Schismes should be. And dareth M. Nicholas gaine say so learned a Cardinal, and him also a Iesuite?

5. To Cardinal Bellarmin I shall adde our lear­ned Countrieman Doctour Stapleton, whoin his fift booke De potestatis Ecclesiasticae subiecto cap. 7. saieth: non nisi propter Pastores & praeposi [...]os, Ecclesiae [Page 26]nomine vocari debet aliqua multitudo. Vnde Cypria­nus, Ecclesiam esse in Episcope; & Sanctus Hierony­mus; vbi non sunt Sacerdotes, Ecclesiam non esse sa­pienter scripserunt: a multitude ought not to be called by the name of a Church, but onely for the Pastours and Prelats. Whereupō, it is truelie and wiselie written by S. Cyprian, that the Church is in the Bishop; and by S. Hierome, that there is noe Church where there are noe Priests. And againe Stapleton saieth, that the word, Church, in Scripture signifieth properlie, and, as it were, antonomasticallie, multitudinem non vagam aut [...]: not a vagrant or head lesse multitude: sed cuiiam Pastores & praepositi à Deo constituti sunt: But a multitude, to which Pastours and Prelates are constituted by God.

6. Soe that Cardinall Bellarmin and Stapleton (and so do all deuines) require in the whole Church many particular Churches, and to parti­cular Churches, particular Bishops: and M. Ni­cholas, in endeauouring to extenuate S. Cyprians definition of a Church, depriueth Catholike Au­thors of a principall authoritie, by which they proue against heretikes that the Church cannot be without Bishops, and thereby he fauoureth heretikes.

7. Out of this definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian, to wit, that it is the people vnited to the Bishop, M. Doctour inferreth, that a people with­out a Bishop can be no particular Church. M. Ni­cholas q 2. n. 5. & 6. saieth S. Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schisme do leaue their Bishop, and [Page 27]so are no Church. But this litle auaileth M. Nicho­las: for that it is a Maxime in Logike grounded in one of the principall places or seates of argumentes, called definitio, definition: That, Cuicunque non con­uenit definitio, non conuenit definitum: to what thing soeuer the definition agreeth not, to that thing, the thing defined doth not agree: and so seing that the defini­tion of a Church according to S. Cyprian, is Sacer­doti plebs adunata, a people vnited to the Bishop; Stapl. l. 6. de potest. Eccles. Subie­cto. c 7. which definition Stapleton in his sixt booke Depo­testatis Eccles. subiecto, cap. 7. commendeth for a good definition saying; Quenadmodum Ecclesiam bene definit Cyprianus, as Cyprian well defineth the Church to be a people vnited to its Priest (Bishop:) to what company or multitude soeuer that defini­tion of a Church agreeth not, that multitude can not be a Church. Now a multitude may be with­out a Bishop, ether because by Schisme it cutteth it selfe disobedientlie from its Bishop, or because without its fault, it wanteth a Bishop: and which way soeuer it want a Bishop, it is no Church; because which way soeuer it want a Bishop, it is not a people vnited to its Bishop: Euen as a bodie is not a perfect bodie without a head; whether it be depriued of its head, by a iust, or by an vniust sentēce, or whether it neuer had a head. Wherefore as S. Cyprian out of the a foresaied definition of a Church (which Stapleton commendeth for a good definition) inferred that the Nouatians were no Church, because they had separated themselues by Schisme from their Bishop; so M. Doctour [Page 28]might well also inferre that what countrie or people soeuer hath not a Bishop, it is not a Church; because, as M. Nicholas is taught in Lo­gike, Cui non conuenit definitio, non conuenit defini­tum: to whome the definition agreeth not, the thing defined agreeth not. This onely is the diffe­rence; that they who separate themselues by Schisme frome the Bishop are not onely no par­ticular Church for want of a Bishop, but also are no members of the whole and vniuersall Church, by reason of their Schisme, which cutteth them of from the whole Church, as Bellarmin proueth in the place alledged: Bellar. lib. 3 de Eccles. milit. c 5. But they who without Schisme, or heresie want a Bishop, though they be no particular Church by S. Cyprians definition, yet they are members of the whole Church.

8. And so the Catholikes of England, who many yeares without their fault wanted a Bis­hop, wereindeed no particular Church; yet they were most worthie members, of the whole Church: and the heretikes, of England, who by Schisme and heresie, separated themselues from all particular lawfull Bishops, yea from the vni­uersall Bishop himselfe, were not onely no par­ticular Church, but also were no members of the whole and vniuersall Church, being cutte of from it by schisme and heresie.

9. But M. Nicholas cryeth out, that S. Cyprian out of that definition inferreth onely that the Nouatians, who had cutte themselues of by schis­me were no Church. It is true: and what [Page 29]then? May not out of the negation of the definition diuers conclusions be inferred, and cōsequentlie, that they also who without schisme want a Bishop be no Church? Else if M. Nicholas inferreth that a horse is not a man because to a horse agreeth not the definition of a man, which is; Animalrationale; M. Doctour must not inferre that a mule is not a man, though the definition of a man agree not to it. And therefore this Ma­xime; Cui non conuenit definitio, non conuenit defini­tum; to whome the definition agreeth not, to it the thing defined agreeth not, as it is anvniuersall propositiō, so it is vniuersallie true: and seing that the definition of a Church is a people vnited to a Bishop, that people which wāteth a Bishop whe­ther by Schisme, or otherwise, can be no Church because it cannot be a people vnited to a Bishop, vnlesse it haue a Bishop. And so all the while English Catholikes wanted a Bishop, they were no particular Church, because all that while they could not be a people vnited to the Bishop.

10. M. Doctours grounde being so fullie proued to wit, that a people, cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop, his conclusion fol­loweth in good consequence, to wit, that Englād, euen as Catholike, all the while it wanted a Bishop, was not a particular Church; and M. Ni­cholas his foundation, which was, that a people Catholike is a Church though it haue no Bis­hop, being shaken and refuted, all which M. Nicholas buildeth thereon falleth of it selfe, Ne­mine impellente,

[Page 30]11. As for example that which he saieth pag. 13. [...]. 4. that S. Cyprian speaketh of a Preist indefini­telie, whē he saieth the Church is a people vnited to the Priest, and that therefore England, so long as it is vnited by obedience to the Bishop or Rome, is a particular Church without a parti­cular Bishop; is reiected by that which is already saied and proued. For as a Church in generall is a Church, in that it is vnited to a Bishop, so a particular Church is that, which is vnited to a particular Bishop. To be vnited to the vniuersall and Supreme Bishop, is sufficient to be a member of the Church; but to be a particular Church, is required also, that the multitude haue a parti­cular Bishop: else euerie Catholike familie, euerie Nunnerie, yea and companie of Cathō ­like weomen should be a particular Church, be­cause they are subordinate to the Supreme Bis­hop.

12. And I wonder M. Nicholas cannot see this. For that as more is required to be a particular body of the Kingdome, then to be a member, so more is requisite to a particular Church, then to a member of the Church. For as if the King should take frō a dutchie the honour of a dutchie, by depriuing it for euer of a duke, that parte of his Kingdome should still be a member of the kingdome, and subiect to the King, but it should be no more a dutchie: So if the Pope should de­priue some one little prouince of its Bis­hop (as he may) though that Prouince be [Page 31]neither schismaticall, nor hereticall) that Prouince should cease to be a particular Church or Diocese, but yet should still remaine a mem­ber of the vniuersall Church.

13. Soe likewise that which M. Nicholas saieth pag. 16. num. 6. falleth: because S. Cyprian in the E­pistle alledged, by this definition of a Church. Which is; The people vnited to the Bishop, exclu­deth the Nouatians, not onely frō being a Church, but also from being of the Church, in that by Schisme they had separated themselues from their Bishop. But M. Nicholas demaundeth: And what is all this to proue that a particular Church can be no such without a Bishop? no more thē if one should say; King Henrie the 8. and his adherents in Schisme, deui­ding themselues from their lawfull Pastours, were no true Church: Ergo English Catholikes liuing in perfect obedience to the Vicar of Christ, cannot truelie be a Church: Which is in effect, as doughtie an argument as this: The soule, and body separated can make no true man: Ergo, if they be conioyned they cannot make a true man. Behould M. Nicholas his litle subtilitie, who could not distinguish betwixt Schismaticall separation, and faultelesse or mee­relie negatiue separation. The Catholiks of England, in King Henrie the 8. his tyme, who re­mained in harte and profession subiect to the Bis­hop of Rome, were onely negatiuely separated from their particular Bishops, because King Henrie, tooke them from them by vrging them to follow him in his Schisme. And so those Ca­tholiks [Page 32]not ioyned in that Schisme with their Schismaticall Bishops or King, were still mem­bers of the Catholik Church by their subordina­tion and obedience to it, and its vniuersall Bis­hop; but they were not a particular Church, be­cause they wanted a particular Bishop. But the Schismatiks who left their law full Bishops and the chiefe Bishop also, or ioyned with their schis­maticall Bishops, were not onelie no particular Church for want of a lawfull particular Bishop, but also were no more members of the Catholik Church, by reason of their Schisme.

14. And so his example of the soule and body is not to the purpose, or is nothing against that I haue sayed. For that as the soule vnited to the body maketh a man, and separated from it, ma­keth no man: so the people vnited to the parti­cular Bishop maketh a particular Church; and if it be not vnited to him, maketh no particular Church, because it is not a people vnited to the particular Bishop; yet it may be a member of the whole and vniuersall Church, if it be vnited to the rest of the Catholik Church and her chiefe pastour. Whereas they who are separated from their Bishop by schisme, are not onelie no parti­cular Church, as being not vnited to their Bis­hop, but also are no members of the Church be­cause they are separated by Schisme: So they who are separated onelie negatiuelie, are no particular Church, because they haue no Bishop, yet are members of the whole Church, because they are [Page 33]not separated by Schisme.

15. And M. Nicholas may learne by that which I saied be fore (if he knew it not before) that it is not all one to be a particular Church or body, and and to be a member of the Church: and that euerie particular Church, is a member of the whole Church, but not euerie member of the Church, is a particular Church; because M. Ni­cholas alone is a member of the Church, but no particular Church, and euery Catholike familie is a member of the Church, but not a particular Church; as euerie subiect & euerie towne or vil­lage is a mēber of the Empire, which contayneth many particular Kingdomes, yet is it not a parti­cular Kingdome; for that a particular Kingdome requireth not onely to be subiect to the Emperour, but also to haue a particular King vnder the Em­perour. And therefore if the Emperour would for euer depriue a countrie of the dignitie of a Kingdome, by decreeing that it should neuer haue a King againe, it should cease to be a King­dome, but should still remaine a member subiect to the Emperour, in qualitie of a parte and mem­ber of the Empire, but not in qualitie of a parti­cular Kingdome. And I wonder M. Nicholas doth not see this, as it seemeth he doth not, in that he so often inculcateth it, and seemeth to thinke it most certaine, that the Catholikes in England remaining still good Catholikes, not separated by Schisme, must needs haue beene a particular Church all the while they had no Bishop.

[Page 34]16. In like manner that argument which he frameth against M. Doctour num. 6. out of S. Cy­prians definition of a Church, is groūded in M. Ni­cholas his errour so often refuted, by which he thinketh it is all one not to be cutte of from the Bishop by Schisme, and to be a particular Church; whereas how soeuer a people wanteth a particular Bishop, whether by Schisme, or not schisme, it can be no particular Church, because it cannot be a people vnited to its Bishop, when it hath no Bishop. Yet let vs heare his argument. Thus then he argueth: Whosoeuer are not in Schisme with any lawfull Bishop, doe fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian: but those who haue no Bishop, are not in Schisme with any lawfull Bishop; Ergo those who haue no Bishop, do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian. But M. Doctour I am sure would deny the first and Maior proposition of this M. Nicholas his Syllogisme; for that the de­finition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian is, Plebs Sacerdoti (Episcopo) adunata & Pastori suo grex ad­haerens: a people vnited to the Priest (Bishop) and the flocke adhering to its Pastour: Which definition is not fulfilled by those, who though free from Schisme, haue no particular Bishop, because they also are not a people adhering to their particular Bishop, they hauing none at all, and so are no Church. And if I should retorte the like argu­ment on M Nicholas, he would peraduenture see his errour, and the weakenesse of his owne argu­ment. For I could argue in the like manner: who­soeuer [Page 35]are not in Schisme with any lawfull Bishop, do fulfill the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian: But a Catholike familie consisting of the good man of she howse, his wife, children, and seruantes, and con­sidered by it selfe without a Bishop, is not in Schisme with any lawfull Bishop: Ergo such a familie consi­dered by it selfe without a Bishop doth fulfill the defi­finition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian, and consequen­lie is a Church. Which yet M. Nicholas cannot graunt; for although that Catholike familie be a member of the whole, yet taken by it selfe, it is not a particular Church, as aboue is demon­strated, and by examples declared.

THE REPLY.

M. Doctour Kellison is vniustlie calumniated as iniurious to English Catholikes, for applying vnto them S. Cyprians definition.

17. It will proue that M. Nicholas is iniu­rious to M. Doctour, but not M. Doctour to En­glish Catholikes, when the matter shalbe exa­mined. For, as we haue seene aboue, S. Cyprian out of the definition of a Church; Sacerdoti plebs adunata, a people vnited to its Priest (Bishop) infer­reth that the Nouatians were not onely no Church, because they had no Bishop, hauing left him; but also were not of the Church, because they had separated themselues by schisme from [Page 36]Bishop and Church also. Cypr. ep. 69. And so (saieth hee) If any be not with the Bishop (to wit by reason of Schisme) hee is not in the Church, and they do in vaine flatter themselues, who hauing not peace with the Priests of God, creepe in, and beleine that secretlie they are in communion with some &c.

18. But M. Doctour goeth not so farre, nor did he euer affirme, or thinke that the English Ca­tholikes were not of the Catholike Church, but in his Hierarchie diuers times calleth them most worthie members of the Church, and a mirrour to all other Catholikes, for their zeale towards God his cause, and their constance in Religion. Onely he inferred out of the definition of a Church giuen by S. Cyprian, that they were not, all the time they had no Bishop, a particular Church, but yet were a worthie member of the whole Church. And so M. Nicholas wrongeth M. Doctour in saying, that in his application of S. Cyprians definition, he is Iniurious to English Catho­likes, as though M. Doctour had inferred out of that definitiō, that the English Catholikes, all the while they wāted a Bishop, were schismatikes, & out of the Church, as the Nouatians to whome S. Cyprian applieth his definition, were; Which is no lesse then a false calumniation. For although out of that definition of a Church, S. Cyprian inferred that the Nouatians werenot onely no Church, for wāt of a Bishop, but also Schismatikes, out of the Church, because they were separated from the Bishop by Schisme; which not onely hin­dereth [Page 37]from being a particular Church, but also separateth and cutteth of frō the whole Church. Yet M. Doctour inferred not that odious conclu­sion against the English Catholikes; as M. Ni­cholas seemeth to say, and therefore sayeth that M. Doctours application is iniurious to English Catho­likes: and giueth the reason, Because S. Cyprian saied the Nouatians are out of the Church: they haue no peace with the Priests of God &c. but he onely in­ferred out of the same definition (as I haue tould him aboue, that out of the same place or seate of argu­ments, as definition is, many conclusions may be deduced) that the English Catholikes, all the while they had no Bishop, were no particular Church, because then the definition, of a Church, which is, A people vnited to its Bishop, did not agree to English Catholikes: for how could they be a people vnited to their proper Bishop, who had none at all? And so M. Doctour is not iniurious to Catholikes, who pleadeth for a Bishop for thē, to make thē a particular Church and to haue other honours and commodities by a Bishop; but M. Nicholas is iniurious to them, who labours to hinder them frō a Bishop, by whome they should be a particular Church (as formerlie they haue beene) and that so glorious, that after the Church of Rome they might contend with the most glorious Churches of Europe.

THE REPLY.

England was not a particular Church without a Bishop.

19. It is easilie sayed M. Nicholas: but not so ea­silie proued, as partelie may appeare by that which is alreadie sayed: and S. Cyprians definition will still be a blocke in your way, at which you will infalliblie stumble and perchance breake your shinnes.

20. But how prooueth he that the Catholikes of England may be a Church without a Bishop? Because (saieth hee) the Pope in defect of particular Bishops, is the particular Bishop, Ordinarie, and Dio­cesan of such Churches; as Philosophers do teach, that almightie God the supreme and vniuersall cause of all effectes, concurreth not onelie as an immediate, but also as a particular cause to the producing of effectes, when second particular causes doe faile. Thus he.

21. And if he meane that the Pope hath beene a particular Bishop to England, he must shewe it, else M. Doctour may still say, that all the while England was without a particular Bishop, it was no particular Church; or if he thinke he may ar­gue à possibili ad esse, from possibilitie to actuall being, as if because the Pope can be Englands proper Bishop, therefore be hath beene so; then euerie one should be what he may be; and so M. Nicholas should be generall of his order, because he may be, and he should be a man of fourescore [Page 39]yeares of age, because he may be; and be should now be at Rome againe, because he may be. If he meane that the Pope so soone as a coun­trie or Diocese wanteth a Bishop, is actuallie that countries or Prouinces particular Bishop, no Bis­hoprike should be vacant; because so soone as the particular Bishop is dead, that Pope is the parti­cular Bishop. And so when a Rectour of a Col­ledge is dead, the Prouinciall should be Rectour, and when the Prouinciall is deceased, the Gene­rall should be Prouinciall, and no office should euer be vacant; because the Superiour officer should supply it; which is absurd: and yet be it neuer so absurde, it seemeth M. Nicholas his o­piniō. For he saieth; that the Pope in defect of a parti­cular Bishop, is the particular Bishop, ordinaie and Diocesan of such Churches, to wit, which want a particular Bishop. Which is a strange opinion of M. Nicholas his owne inuention. And by this his doctrine it would follow, that if per impossibile there were neuer a particular Bishop, in all the Church but the Pope, the Church should still be Hierarchicall, composed of diuers particular Churches, because the Pope should be in that case not onelie an vniuersall Bishop of all the Church, but also a particular Bishop of euerie particular Church, and so one sole Bishop (the Pope) should make a Hierarchie, which consisteth of diuers particular Churches.

22. Yet I will not denie, but that the Pope to honour a Bishoprick which before his Pope­dome [Page 40]he enioyed, may retaine still the Title of that Bishopricke, Ex Ba­ron. anno. 1849. Leon Papa 9 anno 1. as Leo IX. did the Title of the Bisho­pricke of Tulle. Yea he may though vniuersall Bishop of the vniuersall Church, be also the parti­cular Bishop of a particular Church, as he is de facto particular Bishop of S. Ihon Lateran: but then he must ether do the office there of a Bishop by himselfe, or by his delegate; or at least he must take vnto himselfe the Title of that Church, not onelie in name, but in verie deed; else he shall not be a particular Bishop. I say, or at least he must take vnto himselfe he Title; for that seemeth to be sufficient to make a particular Bishop, as we may gather by diuers examples: for that there is a Pa­triarch of Hierusalem in Rome, who neither doth the office there by himselfe, or anie dele­gate, because he cannot be permitted; and my Lord of Chalcedon, though he do the office of a Bishop onely in England, and not at Chalcedon, ether by himselfe, or his delegate because it will not be permitted him to do so; Yet he is truelie the particular Bishop of Chalcedon, because he hath the Title and right to gouerne that Church graunted vnto him.

23. Now therefore if M. Nicholas can shew me that the Pope hath done the office of a Bis­hop in England by himselfe or his delegate, or that he hath taken to himselfe the Title of the Bishop of England, I shall graunte that all this while wee had no particular Bishop in Englād, he hath beene our particular Bishop: If he cannot, [Page 41]as all the world knoweth he cannot: for nether hath the Pope beene in England in person, nor hath he sent before these twoe most Reue­rend Bishops anie Bishop into England to do there the offices of a Bishop, which is to confirme and ordaine; nor hath he euer takē vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England: then M. Doctours assertion is true, to wit, that all the while England had no particular Bishop, it was no particular Church, because, as S. Cyprian sayeth, the Church is a people vnited to the Bishop, which England could not be, when it had no Bishop. It is true the Pope is Bishop of the whole Church, and so of England, as it was a member of the whole: but he hauing neuer done there the office of a Bishop by himselfe or his delegate, nor euer taking vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England, he was not Englands particular Bishop, and so England by him could be no particular Church.

24. To M. Nicholas his similitude which he ma­maketh betwixt God the first and vniuersall cause of all effectes, and the Pope the vniuersall Bishop; I answere, that as God can supplie the ex­ternall actions of second causes, called Actiones transeuntes, & therefore can produce heate with­out fire, a man without a man, a tree without a tree, as he did in the first creation of things: Yet he cannot, as some hould, produce immanent a­ctiōs without their particular causes, and powers: & so cannot produce the act of seing without the eye of hearing, without the eare, of loue without [Page 42]the will, of vnderstading without the power of vnderstanding. But how soeuer; as God can pro­duce the former externall actions without their particular causes, and so supplie the second cause: So the Pope if he be not onelie elected Pope, but also consecrated, can do all the actions by him­selfe, which Patriarches, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and other inferiour Ministers can do. For he can ordaine Ministers, and confirme the bap­tized with the Bishop; he can consecrace, absolue, and minister other Sacraments, and preach with the Priest; Yea he can do other inferiour offices with the Deacon, Subdeacon and therest, though it be not so conuenient he should. And soe as God cā be not onely an vniuersall but also a particular cause, supplying the particular cause: so the Pope can be a particular Bishop, but then he must do the office of a particular Bishop by himselfe, or his delegate, or take the Title of that particular Church vnto him.

25. That the Pope hath founded Seminaries of Priests for our countrie; that he hath sent the­ther first Priests, and then Religious men (as M. Nicholas telleth vs n 8. and we all gratefullie ac­knowledge) to preach and minister Sacramentes in our Countrie; as this argueth his greate care of England, and his no lesse charitie; so it ar­guerh not (as M. Nicholas would make his reader beleiue) that he was our particular Bishop; he neither by himselfe, nor by his delegate doing the office of a Bishop in England, nor euer hauing [Page 43]taken vnto him the Title of the Bishop of En­gland. And so since the decease of our ould Bis­hops, to these late yeares, in which his Holines sent vs twoe most worthie Bishops, England was no particular Church, because it had no particular Bishop to make it a particular Church,

26. And by this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to all that he sayeth n. 8.9.10.12.13. In his 11. nūber he obiecteth against this; that many places and persons are exempt from the Iurisdiction of a Bishop, be fides the Pope: neither did any man euer dreame, that for that cause they ceased to be particular Churches. I here pitie M. Nicholas his arguing, and the necessitie he is driuen to, which Cogit ad turpia. For although monasteries be exempt from the Bishop and immediatlie subiect to the Pope; yet no particular cōgregation or multitude, that is a particular Church, can be exempt from a parti­cular Bishop, as we haue proued out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church, vnlesse the Pope make himselfe particular Bishop of it. And therefore monasteries subiect onely to the Pope, and exēpt from particular Bishops, are indeed members of the Church, but not a particular Church; vnlesse M. Nicholas will make euerie nunnerie of woe­men a particular Church.

27. But here I cannot but meruayle that M. Nicholas thinketh it so strange that M. Doctour sayeth, that there cannot be a particular Church without a Bishop; and it should seeme thereby [Page 44]that he hath not much considered S. Thomas his doctrine in this pointe. For that this learned Do­ctour sayeth, D. Th. libr. 4. gent. c. 76. n. 4.1. p. q. 108. art. 1.2.3. that the Church militant, is deriued by similitude from the Triumphant: and he sayeth also that euerie Order of the Angels consisteth of diuers Angels subordinate to one Prince, who in this Doctours opinion is higher and perfecter in nature thē the rest, and is the particular Prince of that Order; and all the orders with their parti­cular Princes are subiect to one supreme Angel, who is Prince of the three Hierarchies, and nine Orders of Angels: And therefore in the Church militant, in euerie notable parte of it, there must be, and most commonlie is, a Bishop, a spirituall Prince of that Church, and all the particular Churches with their particular Hierarches and Bishops, are subordinate to one supreme Bishop, the Pope, as M. Doctour hath proued in the 3. and 4. Chapter of his Hierarchie. And therefore in his 2. Chapter he sayeth that the Church is compared to a Kingdome, in which besides the King are Dukes, Earles, Marquises, Barons, &c. who are princes, in their kinde, of their particular domi­nions, and all are, with their Dominions & Lord­ships, subordinate to the King: and if any of these particular dominions be quite depriued of their Duke, or Earle, they are no more Dutchies or Earledomes; though still they be members of the Kingdome; and so that particular Prouince depriued of its Duke or Earle, giueth not that lustre to the Kingdome, which it hath by other [Page 45]particular Lordships, and bodyes of the King­dome.

28. In like manner the Church being a Hie­rarchie, is cōposed of diuers particular Churches of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop, who is not the Popes delegate, but an ordinarie, and a Prince in his kind: and the Church recei­ueth by this varietie of particular Bishops & par­ticular Churches, a greate lustre. And when any notable parte of it wanteth its particular Bishop and spirituall prince, although the Church re­maine still a Hierarchie, in respect of other parti­cular Churches, which haue their particular Hierarche and Bishop; yet in respect of that parte of the Church, which hath no Bishop, and which therefore is not a particular Church or body, it is not perfectlie Hierarchicall, nor hath it by that parte of the Church that varietie, and lustre, which it hath by other parts, of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop.

29. Wherefore when the Pope giueth to a countrie a delegated Bishop, though many times he giueth to the delegate more power then the ordinarie hath, although that countrie then be in its kinde a particular Church, yet it wanteth some perfection, it being not gouerned by an or­dinarie Bishop and Pastour, as other Churches are, it being more perfect, and more honorable to haue an ordinarie, then a delegate. And like­wise if the Pope should send a simple Priest into Englād with power to confirme, England should [Page 46]be in its kinde a particular Church, but not in that degree of perfection, as if it had an ordinarie Bishop and Pastour.

30. Whereas M. Nicholas n. 14. saieth that his last taske in this question was to shew, that al­though he should freelie graunt that a particular Church cannot be without a Bishop; Yet it were not sufficiente to proue that a Bishop could not be refused by reason of persecution. He brin­geth in this out of its place; and somust expect his answere in the next question. Whereas he de­maundeth a precept to receiue a Bishop, and that also indispensable: Hath not M. Doctour in his 12. Chapter of his Hierarchie proued at large, that by the diuine lawe and institution, besides one su­preme Bishop, there must be other Bishops in the Church, without which the Church cannot subsist, because without particular Bishops of particular Churches, the whole Churches should not be Hierarchicall? Hath he not in his 13. Chapter proued also, that Bishops by the diuine institution and law, are so necessarie, that euen in tyme of persecution they are to gouerne the Church, as they euer haue done in the greatest persecution? Hath he not proued in his 12. Chapter. that by the diuine ordinance, euerie great parte of the Church, such as England, France, Spaine, is to haue its Bishop? But more of this in due place; where also I shall shew whether this diuine lawe houldeth in all circunstances. What need then had Maister Nicholas to demande a pre­cept [Page 47]where the Diuine law is so often incul­cated.

REPLIE.

M. Nicholas wresteth M. Doctours argu­ment to a wrong and odious sense.

31. M. Doctours argument is good and solid: for as the whole and vniuersall Church requireth a a supreme and vniuersall Bishop ouer all, to make it a whole Church; so a particular Church requi­reth a particular Bishop to make it a particular Church, as aboue is often proued; and otherwise if particular Churches had not their particular Bishop, the whole and vniuersall Church, which consisteth of many particular Churches, should not be a Hierarchie, as Christ hath instituted. But M. Nicholas not so modestlie as were to be expected of one of his coate, sayeth that this ar­gument deserueth no answere, and why? Because, sayeth hee, who dare say, that there is as great neces­sitie or obligation to haue a Bishop in euerie particular Church, as to haue one supreme head of the Whole Ca­like Church?

[Page 48]32. And thus (as he vseth to doe) taking M. Doctour wilfullie or ignorantlie in a wrong sense he runneth on. For M. Doctour onely sayed, that as the whole and vniuersall Church cannot be a whole Church, without a supreme and vni­uersall Bishop; so a particular Church cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop: whence by no Logick it followeth that there is absolutelie as greate necessitie of a particular Bis­hop, as of the vniuersall and supreme Bishop. Be­cause the Church cannot be at all without a su­preme Bishop, or nor without order to him, when the Sea is vacāt: but it may subsist though a particular Bishop, and his Church also should fall from the Church by Schisme or heresie, and it should still remaine Hierarchicall in other particular Churches, which haue their particular Bishops, as is easie to see by that, which is all­readie saied. For although the Greeke Church for the greatest parte be cutte of from the Ro­maine Church by schisme and heresie, and so the Roman Church in it, is not Hierarchicall, yet the Roman Church still subsisteth, and is Hierar­chicall in other Churches.

And this I shall illustrate by an example. The Empire is an vniuersall Kingdome which con­taineth in it diuers particular Kingdomes. Where­fore as the whole Kingdome of the Empire can­not be a whole Kingdome without a supreme King and Emperour; so a particular Kingdome of the whole Empire cannot be a particular [Page 49]Kingdome without a particular King, but yet there is not absolutelie such necessitie of a parti­cular King or Kingdome, as of the Emperour, who is supreme King. For that although that a particular King and Kingdome should be cassi­red, and should be no more a Kingdome, nor haue its particular King, yet the Empire might still subsist by its supreme King and Emperour, and by other Kingdomes, which are gouerned by him. And therefore M. Nicholas forceth me to say that he sheweth a greate deale of splene to­wards M. Doctour, in taking M. Doctour in a wrong sense, as though he had sayed that there was as great necessitie of a particular, as of a supreme Bishop; and then inferring, that his doctrine is sub­iect to a deeper censure then he is willing to expresse.

33. And what Censure, I pray you, M. Nicholas deserueth it to say, that as the whole Catholike Church cannot be without a supreme and vni­uersall Bishop; so a particular Church cannot be a particular Church, without a particular Bis­hop? In what councell doth M. Nicholas find this censured? And doth not common sense and reason censure M. Nicholas, for calling this in question? Is it any more then to saye, that as an Empire and vniuersall Kingdome requireth a supreme King and Emperour, so a particular Kingdome of the sayed Empire requireth a par­ticular King? And to inferre hence that M. Do­ctour sayeth a particular Bishop is as necessarie, as the supreme Bishop is, to vphould the Church of [Page 50]God, is as absurd, as to inferre that a particular King, is as necessarie to vphould the Empire as the Emperour himselfe is.

34. And so when M. Nicholas addeth: what Ca­tholike dare auouch that because England for the space of 60. yeares wanted a Bishop, the vniuersall Church, that tyme was not, as Christ instituted, a Hierarchie composed of diuers particulars: is of the same stuffe: for where or when did M. Doctour euer say thus as M. Nicholas maketh him to say? I confesse M. Nicholas his cauilling in this manner and false construing, yea false alledging, would moue some litle passion in mee; but that I am resolued to imitate M. Doctours temper and milde manner of writing, of which he giueth mee example in his Hierarchie. M. Doctour sayed onely that the Church cannot subsiste a Hierarchie, as Christ in­stituted, vnlesse it be composed in generall of di­uers particular Churches which haue their parti­cular Bishops: but he neuer sayed that the Church cannot subsist without a particular Church, nor that all the time England was without a Bishop, the rest of the Church, composed of particular Churches, which were, and are, and euer shalbe subordinate to the supreme Bishop, was not, as Christ instituted, a Hierarchie: as aboue he is suf­ficiently tould: onely he sayed, that England, so long as it wanted a Bishop was not a particular Church: and that the whole Church should not be a Hierarchie, if it were not composed of par­ticular Churches and Bishops: Which it may be, [Page 51]and was in other particular Churches, when En­gland wanted a Bishop, and should still be so, al­though (as God forbidde) England were quite cutte of from the whole Church and had not one Catholike in it.

35. Hauing thus demonstrated M. Doctours do­ctrine which auerred that a people, Prouince, or Countrie, cānot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop, and consequentlie that all the time England wanted a Bishop it was not a parti­cular Church: and hauing also detected in M. Ni­cholas wilfull or ignorāt mistakings, which com­monly are the groūds of all his arguments, & ha­uing answered to all his arguments; I will go to the next question, if first I adde this; that seing that England when it had no particular Bishop was no particular Church; M. Nicholas and his brethren, out of the loue they ought to beare to their countrie, should labour with the Clergie that we may alwayes haue a Bishop or Bishops, by whome we may haue the honour to be a par­ticular Church, and enioy many other comforts and commodities which other countries enioye by their Bishops, which to English Catholikes seeme most necessarie by reason of their persecu­tion.

THE REPLY.

1. I Confesse M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter auer­reth that a particular Countrie cannot ex­cept against a Bishop sent by lawfull authoritie; & one grounde there of is because by the diuine law & institution, not onlie the whole and vni­uersall Church must haue an vniuersall and su­preme [Page 53]Bishop, but also there must be in the whole Church diuers particular Churches, gouerned by particular Bishops euen in time of persecutiō, as he hath prooued in his 13. Chapter. And this also he proueth in the beginning of his 14. Chapter n. 1. Yea M. Nicholas num. 4. saieth, that certaine it is, that Iure diuino, by the diuine lawe, the Church must be gouerned by Bishops, that is, in the whole Church there must be some Bishops: but to affirme that it is De iure diuino to haue a particular Bishop in the parti­cular Church of England, and not onelie that there is such a precept, but moreouer, that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof, or giue sufficient cause of dispensation (all which he must proue if be will speake home) is a paradox.

2. But softe, M. Nicholas, bona verba quaeso. Re­member your ould fault of which you haue beene so often tould. By your leaue you make M. Doctour to say more then he doth, that he may seeme to speake Paradoxes, and you may haue more aduantage. For M. Doctour in the same Chapter num. 3. (which M. Nicholas would not see) graunteth that if the persecution be so great that a Bishop would not be permitted to enter into En­gland, or would presentlie be taken and put to death; then it was to no purpose to send a Bishop with euident hazard of his life, and no hope of good to the people by sending him; and so in that case the obligation of hauing a Bishop should cease. But, (sayeth M. Doctour in the same place.) If a Bishop may be bad, and may so liue in a Countrie (as he may in En­gland) [Page 54]that as there is feare least he be apprehended, so there is hope he may escape sometime, and so do some notable good: I do not thinke that the Catholikes of that Countrie can except against his entrance.

3. Nor doth M. Doctour denie that the Pope may dispense in the diuine lawe, or declare that in some cases it ceaseth to oblige: yea he speaketh not at all of dispensation in the diuine lawe. Yet M. Doctour knoweth that the chiefe Pastour may dispense in vowes, and in Matrimonie contracted onelie, not consummated; which yet are of the diuine lawe.

4. And he knoweth also the diuine lawes in many circunstances do not oblige. As for exam­ple euerie one is bound by the diuine lawe to re­ceaue the B. Sacrament, at the hower of his death least he aduenture on that so dangerous iorney from this life to the next, without his Viaticum; and yet, though a Priest be present, if he haue not holie vestements (without which the Church commandeth not to celebrate Masse) he must not say Masse, because he cannot say it in that manner as he should, and the sicke person is, in that occurance of the ecclesiasticall law, freed from diuine obligation to communicate.

5. So that Priest by the diuine law is bound not to giue the B. Sacrament to any whome he koweth to be in mortall sinne, and so vnwor­thie; and yet if this partie be a secret sinner (though knowne to the Priest) and demaund of the Priest in publike to communicate he is bound [Page 55]to communicate him, least he defame him; and the diuine lawe which forbiddeth the Priest to giue the B. Sacrament to vnworthie Persons ac­cording to that: do you not giue the holie to dogges; Mat. 7. doth in that case cease to oblige the Priest.

6. Soe it is a common opinion of deuines whome Vasquez alledgeth, Vasq. tom 3. disp 207. c. 4. 1. Cor. 11. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13 cap. 7. that by the diuinelaw whosoeuer is in mortall sinne must confesse that sinne before he presume to receaue the B. Sacra­ment; which they proue out of those words of S. Paul: But let a man proue himselfe, and so let him cate of the breade and drinke of the Chalice; which probation of ones selfe, the Councell of Trent de­fineth to be by Confession; and yet if the Priest at Masse, or the lay partie, that is in companie kneeling before the altar, remember at that time his sinne, he may communicate, if by omitting to do so he should defame himselfe. And so in that case also the diuine lawe ceaseth to bind to con­fession, and it will excuse him from the sinne of vnworthie receauing, if he endeauour to get con­trition.

7. And Nauarre feareth not to say, Nanar in Sil­ma c. 27 n. 263. that it is Om­nium vna conclusio &c. it is a conclusion of all, that many lawes, agreeing to many by the diuine and natu­rall lawe, are restrained by the chiefe Prince [...] the Church, in regard of spirituall things; and of the secular Prince, in respect of temporall matters, as well by in­terpretation betwixt right and equitie interposed, as by imposition of punishment, as by inst dispensation, as by iust and naturallreason, and Felinus, Decius [Page 56]and others do copiouslie deliuer.

8. Wherefore M. Doctour doth not say that the Pope cannot in some cases dispense in the diuine lawe, of hauing a Bishop, or declare that in sonne case it bindeth not, and therefore did not persume to say that the Pope, all this whlie he gaue not England a Bishop, did commit a sinne against the diuine law; rather he defendeth him from all sinnein his 14. chapter n. 3. Onelie he saieth that the Coūtrie cannot except against the entrāce of a Bishop (soe he be sent by lawfull authoritie, as our two last most Reuerend Bishops were) for that then the Pope rather declareth that the di­uine lawe ceaseth not to oblige: and therefore let our Regulars looke how they can be excused, who except against a Bishop, whome the Pope hath sent, and who, no doubt, was informed of all circumstances: and therefore knew whether it were conuenient to send him at that time or not. And truelie seing the Pope hath sent him, all Regulars, and they especiallie who haue boūd themselues particularlie to the Pope by a fourth vowe, should by a perfect resignation conforme their willes to his will, receiue and embrace his Bishop with all obedience and humilitie.

THE REPLY.

Supposing it be of the diuine law that a greate or notable parte of the Church could not be without a Bis­hop, whether England as things now stand, must needs haue a Bishop?

9. M. Nicholas saieth first that although we should suppose that a notable part cannot be without a Bishop, yet England (see how fauo­rable he is to his countrie) might spare a Bishop, or at lest must not needs haue one. And why M. Nicholas? because (sayeth he) we must not consider the extent of the land, but the number of Catholikes in England, which, as he telleth vs, is so farre from a great, or notable parte of the Church, that the Catholikes in England would scarce make one Bishopricke or Diocese. And (saieth he) to affirme that one Diocese or Cittie is a notable parte of the Church, is a thing which noe diuine, yea no man of Iudgement, will say. But by this wee may see into what absurdities partialitie may lead men.

10. See, how to hinder English Catholikes, from a Bishop, what an handfull of people he maketh them. The Ancient Fathers and writers, as Iustinus Martyr. Tertullian, S. Leo cited by M. Doctour in his Epistles Dedicatories to his Suruey, and Hierarchie, gloried in the encrease of Chri­stians, [Page 58]maugre the furie of persecution; and M. Doctour in the same Epistles comforteth and en­courageth the Catholikes of England, that not­withstāding the like rage of persecutiō there are Catholikes in the Court, in the Vniuersities, Ci­ties, Townes, Cottages, prisons: & are foūd amidst the Magistrates; yea Ministers (if we regard their hartes) and amongst all sortes of people: And this is a comfort to Catholikes, a glorie to God, and an honour to Chuste his Church, and Religion, for which Catholikes suffer. But M. Nicholas to hinder England from a Bishop, who seemeth to be an eye sore vnto him, maketh English Ca­tholikes an handfull of men, a litle, and, as it were, a contemptible number not worthie a Bishop. But, thankes be God, who hath the more multi­plied English Catholikes, Exod. 1. the more with the Is­raelites they haue beene oppressed, they are not so few, Deut. 12. as M. Nicholas maketh them; and in this Inimicinostri sunt Iudices: Our enemies (our perse­cutors) may herein be Iudges.

11. But if they were not so many, as they be, yet Confirmation, and consequentlie a Bishop, especiallie in time of persecution, were necessarie to confirme them virtute exalto; with vertue of the holy Ghost from aboue; which vertue and force, Luca. 24. is the effect of Confirmation. Neither is the case of England, and of one particular Dio­cese annearing and ioyning to others, all one. For that one Diocese may be helped by another ad­ioyning to it, or by recourse to the Bishop of it, if [Page 59]there shalbe heed, whereas England, as the Poët sayeth, is Deuided, by Sea, from the whole world, and cannot haue conuenient succour, but by its owne Bishop, with in it selfe.

12. And againe M. Nicholas sayeth not truely that the multitude of Catholikes, not the extent of the place, is onelie to be considered, Dist. [...]o. cap. In illis vere ciuita­tibus. Suarez to. 3. l. 1 destatu perf. c. [...] 17. n. 5 for in the primatiue Church, as S. Clement in his Epistle to S. Tames, called the brother of our Lord, or as diuers thinke, to S. Simeon S. Iames his successour, which is alledged in the Canonlaw, and by Suarez and other diuines, sayeth, that in the primatiue Church, in those Cities, which before their con­uersion, were esteemed Capitall Cities, and were gouerned by Archflamines, primates and Patriar­ches were constituted; and in lesser cities, which had before their conuersion lesser Flamines, Arch­bishops were placed, and in other lesser Cities, one onelie Bishop in one Citie, not two in one, were appointed. And Pope Auaclete, Anacl. ep 3 & refert. d 90. c. Episco­pi. alledging out of S. Clement, whome he calleth his predeces­sour, the same words in effect, sayeth that this was done by S. Peter, and S. Clement, and himselfe, ORDINANTE DOMINO, Our Lord so ordai­ning. And the same S. Anaclete (as M. Doctour had alledged in the fift Chapter of his Hierarchie n. 11.) in the same third Epistle hath these words: Epis­copi autem, non in castellis, aut modicis Ciuitatibus de­bent constitui, sed presbyteriper castella, aut modicas ciuitates atque villas debent ab Episcopis constitui: Bishops not in castels or litle walled townes, must be [Page 60]constituted: but Priests must by the Bishop be placed in Castels or litle Cities: And he giueth the reason: Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi, lest the name of a Bishop should be lesse esteemed.

13. Soe that a regard was had (whatsoeuer M. Nicholas saieth) to the extent of the place where a Bishop was to be placed) and not onelie to the number of Christian Catholikes there liuing. When S. Peter chose Rome the Heade Citie of the Empire for himselfe and his successours; whē S. Marke was placed at Alexandria, S. Euodius, and after him S. Ignatius at Antioche, and S. Iames, and after him S. Simeon at Hierusalem, they had respect to the materiall greatenesse, and the dignitie of the place; & in such places appointed Patriarches or primates, who had vnder them other Bishops; because the extent of the place required it. And although at first, in some of these Citties there were not so many Christiās as were afterward in one Diocese; Yet they perceiuing that in these great Cities and extentes of place there might be many more Christiās, which might be encreased by the presence and industrie of their Prelate, they placed in them Patriarches or Archbishops, or Bishops according to the extent of the place. Who as spirituall Fathers may beget many thou­sands to Christ, and may rule them when they are begotten; as the carnall Father first beget­teth, then gouerneth his children.

14. M. Nicholas hath read in his Breuiarie 17. Nou. how S. Gregorie called Thaumaturgus of the won­derous [Page 61]miracles he wrought: at the hower of his death, demaūding how many infidels there were remanent in his Citie, and answere being made that there were seuenteen; God be thanked, saied hee, I found so many when I accepted of my Bis­hopricke. Where M. Nicholas may see that for the placing of a Bishop, there was had a regard not onely to the number of the Christians, but also to the extent, and greatenesse of the place; otherwise seuenteene Christians should not by M. Nicholas his counte haue had a Bishop. And the reason is, which M. Nicholas considered not; for that a Bishop is appointed, not onely as a Ruler to gouerne Christians already conuerted, but as a Father to beget Christians by his prea­ching, and example as Saint Paule and the Apo­stles did, who at their first preaching found few or none to gouerne, yet by their preaching were Fathers of the whole world. And so al­though in England there were not so many Ca­tholikes as there are in one Diocese in a Catho­like Countrie (though, thankes be to God, there are many thousand Catholikes, and many hun­dred Priests, who deserue a Bishop to gouerne them, and to confirme those that haue not Con­firmation) yet England by reason of the extent of the Island might require a Bishop, yea many Bishops, in that so greate an Island is capable of many more Catholikes, then a Diocese cā hould, especiallie if it may enioye the benefit of a Bis­hop or Bishops.

[Page 62]15. But I doe not meruaile that M. Nicholas la­boureth so hard to hinder Englād from a Bishop, for that peraduēture he is of the opinion of those, who in An answere to the Bishop of Chalcedons let­ter, to the Lay Catholikes of England, which was sent vnto him by the Heades of three Regular Orders, do call Episcopall authoritie in Englād, and in these times a Noueltie, though as ould as Christ and his Apostles; Odious, though proceeding from Christ his loue to his Church, vnto which it is much beneficiall; Derogating to the ancient lawes of England, though England by Bishops hath many hundred yeares beene conserued in religion, pie­tie, sanctitie & all ecclesiasticall splendour; Perni­cious to soules, though instituted for their gaining, gouernement and saluation. Which opinion, in a manner is worse then Caluins opinion, for that it is lesse iniurious to Christ, to denie all Episcopall authoritie, as Caluin doth, then to say that Christ hath iustituted and giuen to his Church an au­thoritie, which is a Noueltie; odious, derogating to temporall laws of Kings; pernicious to soules. I say, In a manner; for that these Regulars do not absolu­telie speake in these termes of Episcopall autho­ritie; but onely in England, in this time of perse­cutiō, they counte it a Noueltie, wee hauing not had till of late a Bishop of long time; odious, de­rogating to ancient lawes and pernicious, at this time: Which yet will hardly serue for a iust ex­cuse, Christ hauing instituted this authorities and giuen it to the Apostles in the beginning of the [Page 63]greatest persecution, and they hauing exercised it in the greatest furie of persecution, maugre all the lawes threates and menaces of the cruell per­secutours. And if Episcopall authoritie in time of persecution be odious and pernicious; when shall it be gratefull and profitable. Certes if when the wolfe inuadeth the flocke, the Pastours presence be odious and pernicious when can it be profi­table?

REPLIE.

Bannes his opinion concerning that point; whether it be a diuine law, that cuerie notable part of the Church, must haue its Bishop, and whether Bannes maketh for M. Nicholas, Bann. 2.2 q. 1. ar. 10 Concl. 6. ad vlt. and against M. Doctour.

25. To this I shall endeauour to answere with much more moderation then M. Nicholas vseth. I answere thē that M. Doctour did not alledge Bannes to proue that euerie particular Church of Dio­cese, is to haue a Bishop; neither doth M. Doctour euer say so, as M. Nicholas himselfe obserueth n. 14. but he alledged the sense of that Authour, as he did of Sotus, to shew that his assertion or opi­nion was moderate. And that which is cited as the sense of Bannes, is manifestlie there in these words: Non tamen admittendum est, quòd in tota Ec­clesia, aut in magna eius parte, tam temere (Pontifex) sua potestate abutatur: Yet it is not to be admitted, that the Pope in the whole Church, or in a great parte of it, should so rashly abuse his authoritie. And what is this, but what M. Doctour sayed, to wit, that Bishops, according to Bannes cannot be remoued from the whole Church, or a great or notable parte of it? And further that Bānes did beleiue that the Pope could not do this by reason of the diuine law, it is easilie gathered, by the example, he bringeth; and by those words: tam temerè sua potestate abutatur; that he should so rashlie abuse his authoritie: for were it an Ecclesiasticall impediment and law, he could [Page 72]take it away. That Bannes sayeth the Pope may remoue one Bishop, and not appoint another, may seeme to be against Sotus, but not against M. Doctour, who sayeth not that euerie Diocese must haue by the diuine law a Bishop, but onely that at lest euerie notable parte as England, France, &c. is to haue a Bishop by the diuine precept. Yet neither doth Bannes herein plainelie contradict Sotus; because Sotus would also graūt, that it pertaineth to the Pope to diuide Dioceses, and to make them greater or lesse, and so to make of two one; and consequentlie he would graunt to Bannes, that the Pope may take from a Dio­cese its proper Bishop, which it had, and subiect it to another Bishop, by making it parte of his Diocese: onelie Sotus saieth, that supposing the diuision of Dioceses made by the Church, it is of Christes institution and the diuine law, that euerie Diocese should haue its Bishop.

The trueth in the foresaied pointe setting a side opinions of authours.

26. Before I shew the force of M. Doctours argument, and the faulte of M. Nicholas his māner of arguing, I shall explicate, and confirme M. Do­ctour his assertion, by which he auerreth, that by [Page 73]the diuine law, in euerie notable parte of the Church there must be a Bishop: Which I shall easilie do, supposing M. Doctours ground, to wit, that the Church must not be gouerned by one onelie supreme Bishop, but also by other parti­cular Bishops, who are to gouerne particular Churches; because the supreme Bishop alone cannot by himselfe gouerne the Church; and because the Church is a Hierarchie. This groūd M. Doctour hath proued in his 9. Chapter of his Hierarchie where he hath shewed, how Bishops, & inferiour Pastours are to gouerne the Church, to preach, and administer Sacraments. Secondly in his 12. Chapter, where he hath proued that Bis­hops are so necessarie in the Church, that it can­not subsist without them. And thirdlie in his 13. Chapter, where he hath could vs how euen in the time of persecution, though it was the greater for the Bishops presence, the Church was, and ought to be gouerned by Bishops. Whence it is consequent, that by the diuine law, the Church must be gouerned by Bishops, and that in gene­rall there must be particular Bishops in the Church of God: Which M. Nicholas also graūteth with Suarez n. 17. And why are Bishops neces­sarie, but to gouerne, to preach, and minister Sa­craments.

27. Out of which assured ground, I argue in this manner. There must be by the diuine law Bishops in the Church to gouerne it, and conse­quentlie as manie as may suffice to supplie the [Page 74]necessities the Church hath of gouernment, prea­ching, and Sacraments: therefore by the same di­uine Institution and precept, there must be at lest a Bishop in euerie notable parte of the Church, such as is France, Spaine, England; for that fewer will not suffice; one Bishop being not sufficient to serue all France, England, & Spaine, and in particular to confirme by the Sacrament of Confirmation all French and English.

28. I instance in Confirmation, because other Sacraments may more easilie be in some sort sup­plyed without a Bishop, especiallie in the coun­trie; for that neither the English can go all into France, nor all the French into Englād to receaue Confirmation; neither can one Bishop go to one Countrie to serue it of Confirmation, with­out preiudice to the other countrie; nor can he, being but one, suffice for so many. Wherefore England must haue its owne Bishop, France its owne, Spaine its owne, and so of the rest, if they be notable partes of the Church; all hauing the like necessitie; and there being the same reason of one, which is of another. And so M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter n. 2. pag. 376. argueth well from the like necessitie in this manner: By the diuine law there must be particular Bishops in the Church, to sup­ply the necessities of particular Churches, but there is no more reason why the particular Church, of France (for he speaketh especiallie of greate particular Churches, which are notable partes of the whole Church) should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops, [Page 75]more or fewer, according to the extent of the Countrie, rather then the Church of Spaine; or the Church of England: Ergo France, Spaine, and England, and all other such particular Churches of extent, must be gouerned by Bishops; and euerie one by his owne, all hauing the like necessitie.

29. M. Nicholas numer. 12. wondreth that a learned man should vse such a forme of argument, and therefore to make a shew against this argument of M. Doctour, be bringeth other arguments verie ridiculous, which though they may seeme to the ignorante to be like, yet indeed are not so like as chalke and cheise. His first argument of diuers meates doth argue that hee was hungrie for wāt of arguments, else he would not haue made vse of one so weake and leane. Thus he argueth: Some meate is necessarie for the maintenance of man, but there is no more reason, why egges or fish should be necessarie, rather then other particular meates; Ergo egges, fish and all meates are necessarie.

30. But I meruaile that M. Nicholas (if he be learned) could not see the difference betwixt his owne and M. Doctours argument. For that hee ar­argueth from the necessitie of some indetermi­nate meanes, to the necessitie of some determi­nate meanes: Maister Doctour argueth from like ends to the like necessarie meanes. The first manner of arguing, which Maister Nicholas vseth, is ridiculous. For it followeth not: Meate which is an indeterminate meane, is neces­sarie for mans life. Ergo this meate; Bishops [Page 76]are necessarie in the Church: Ergo this Bishop in particular; Marriage of some men is necessarie to maintaine lawfullie mankind: Ergo this man must marrie. M. Doctours manner of arguing is good and solid; for that it is grounded in paritie and equalitie of reason, Lib. 1. Post or c. 4. & 5. or in this principle knowne by the light of reason: Quod conuenit alicui quâtale conuenit omni tali, that which agreeth to a thing, as it is such a thing, agreeth to euerie such thing: as for ex­ample, sayeth Aristotele, because it agreeth to a Triangle, as it is a Triangle, to haue three angles equall to two right angles; it agreeth to euerie Triangle to haue three angles equall to two right angles; but because it agreeth not to a triangle, as it is a triangle, to be of brasse, euerie triangle is not of brasse. And so because it is necessarie to a notable parte of the Church, as it is a notable parte, to haue a Bishop, and that also by the di­uine law, because one Bishop cannot serue suffi­cientlie two notable partes of the Church, euerie notable parte must haue its Bishop. And there being the same reason of England, Frāce, Spaine, euerie one of these countries, being of such ex­tent, that one Bishop cannot serue two of them, euerie one of them must haue its Bishop by pa­ritie of reason; and for that it being necessarie to a Church to haue a Bishop, because it is a notable parte, euerie such notable part must haue a Bis­hop: Because quod conuenit alicui, quâ tale, conuenit omnitali: that which agreeth to a thing, as it is such a thing, agreeth to euerie such thing. And if it be [Page 77]necessarie to one, it is necessarie to another.

31. If M. Nicholas his argument had beene thus framed, it had beene good: Meate or food in ge­nerall is necessarie to mās life: but there is nomore reason of one man then another (for that all mor­tall men do need meate or food) Ergo meate or food is necessarie ot euerie mās life, but this food in particular, as egges or fish is not necessarie.

32. M. Nicholas his second argument is as ridi­culous: for that by it he argueth from an inde­terminate meane, to wit, from men whoe are necessarie to maintaine by marriage mankinde, to euerie particular man. Which kinde of argu­ment is not the same with that of M. Doctour; but as fond as this: A shippe indeterminatelie is ne­cessarie to passe from Douer to Calais, Ergo euerie particular shippe.

33. His thirde argument is of the same or of a worse forme and stampe: Religious institute in ge­nerall is of the diuine iustitution, and the Supreme Bishop is by his office obliged on his parte to procure that in the Catholike Church so sacred an institute be maintained: but there is no reason why it should be be maintained rather in France or Spaine, then in En­gland: Ergo the Pope is obliged to maintaine the reli­gious institute in England. To his maior or first pro­position I answere that religious orders can be no more norso much necessarie in the Church, I. 2. q. 108. ar. 4. then the Counsailes, in which, according to S. Tho­mas, they are grounded; which counsailes are instituted by Christe, but as M. Doctour saieth in his Hierarthie pag. 300. they are not commanded [Page 78]to anie, but counsailed onely. And so M. Nicho­las cannot fynde out a diuine precept to oblige the Pope to admitte any religious order, as he is bound to giue Bishops to the Church: and hence it is that the Pope doth much deliberate before he admitte of any new Religious order; and whē he admitteth it, he admitteth it onely as profitable to the Church, not as necessarie by any diuine law.

34. But suppose it were of the diuine law, that religious orders indeterminatelie and in generall should be in the Church: yet no Religious order is necessarie by the diuine law in euerie notable part of the Church, as Bishops are. And so it would not be a good argument: Religious orders must by the diuine institution be in the Church, Ergo in Englād, or in this or in that particular Cou­trie. But, as I haue proued, it is of the diuine law that in euerie notable parte of the Church there must be a Bishop; and so there being no more reason of one such parte, then another, all such partes must haue their Bishops. This, I suppose, would be M. Doctours answer to that argument. Now let M. Nicholas make what he can of this answere. Who, verie politikelie perhappes, as he thought, saied. n. 13. pag. 50. When M. Doctour shall tell me what he thinketh of this manner of argument, I will then let him know what good vse I shalbe able to make of his answere, whatsoeuer it be.

35. And by this M. Nicholas his fourth argu­ment will proue to haue the same fault that the [Page 79]others had: It is not of the diuine law, as M. Do­ctour confesseth, to haue a Bishop in euerie particular Church or Diocese; but if we respect the diuine law, there is not more reason of one, then another, Ergo all the Dioceses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop. But M. Doctour would deny his maior, as it is Fathered on him: for he neither affirmeth nor denyeth that euerie Diocese must haue its Bis­hop: onely he sayeth pag. 375. that it is not so cer­taine that by the diuine law, there must be a Bis­hop in this or that particular Church, as that in generall there must be Bishops in the Church: & pag. 376. he saieth that it is of the diuine law, that euerie notable parte of the Church should haue its Bishop. It is true Sotus saieth that it is of the di­uine law that euerie Diocese should haue its Bis­hop: but M. Doctour neither affirmeth it, nor de­nyeth it. Secondly I answere that there is more reason and necessitie of a Bishop in a whole countrie or Kingdome, which is a notable parte of the Church, then in euerie particular Diocese, because one Bishop may in some sort gouerne two Dioceses, but not all France, Spaine, or En­gland, or any such notable parte, as I haue she­wed, and one Diocese may be assisted by the Bis­hop of the next Diocese, but not one great Coū ­trie by the Bishop of another countrie, as I haue also proued.

36. By this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to that his questiō n. 16. whether that England & Scotland Iure diuino must also haue an Ordinarie. [Page 80]For if England & Scotland be both notable par­tes of the Church, both ought to haue by the di­uine law their proper Bishop: be he Ordinarie or de­legate: & when men demaund any thing, there is more reason to demaūd that which is ordinarie, thē that which is extraordinarie. And if the Pope thinke best to giue a Delegate; as so he may supplie Englāds wantes, so that is not the ordinarie course obserued in other Churches. And so Englād may demaund an Ordinarie, and leaue the rest to the Chiefe Pastours discretion, who is to Iudge whether he should giue an Ordinarie, or delegate, & whether the diuine law obligeth to giue vnto a countrie a Bishop in this or that circumstance.

37. Out of all this I gather how vnwilling M. Nicholas is to haue a Bishop. I graunt that he sayeth pag. 204. that he would most willinglie spend his blood for the purchassing of times sutable with the enjoying of a Catholike Bishop in England. But what is that time which M. Nicholas dee­meth sutable for the enioying of a Bishop? Would he haue a time which the supreme Pa­stour (whose office it is to giue Pastours to eueriē Church) thinketh in his iudgement sutable? That tyme is alreadie come. Would he haue a time in which the countrie hath men of its owne, in it to be Bishops? that time is also come: for that two most worthie Prelates haue beene thought by the supreme Pastour sit and worthie to be sent, the one after the other. Would he haue a tyme in which there are not particular lawes [Page 81]enacted against the Bishop? no confiscation of goods, no losse of libertie or life executed on them, that receiue Confirmation of him? That tyme also is come. Would he haue England alto­gether Catholike, and no vse of any other reli­gion to be permitted in it, but Catholike, be­fore he would haue a Bishop come? If that tyme onely be in M. Nicholas his opinion sutable, the primatiue Church liued in no time sutable for a Bishop; and yet Christ constituted his Apostles Bishops, and they constituted others in the grea­test rage and furie of persecution, as M. Doctour hath shewed in his 13. Chapter n. 3. And to say that a time of persecution is not sutable for a Bishop, is to say, that when the enemie is in the field, it is not a time sutable to haue a Generall; when the woulfe is ready to set on the flocke, it is not a time sutable to haue a Pastour. And so the tyme of the primatiue Church, in which the Church was as­salted by persecutours, in all Countries, and on all sides, was not a time sutable for enioying a Bis­hop. And yet that is the tyme in which there is most need of him, to giue them by Confirmation spirituall force and strength, to direct them by his counsaile, to encourage them by his presence, and example. If none of these tymes be sutable for a Bishop in M. Nicholas his opinion: The primi­tiue Christians should haue beene without a Bis­hop, till the Emperour Constantine appeased perse­cution; and Christ should not haue sent his Apo­stles to gouerne, preach and confirme, till the [Page 82]saied tyme of Constantine: for all the tymes before being times of persecutiō, were not by M. Nicholas his counte, sutable to the enioying of a Bishop. If then neither the tyme that Christ thought fit to send Bishops, nor the tyme that the Apostles or­dained Bishops, nor the time that Christ his chiefe Vicaires haue thought sutable for the en­ioying of a Bishop in England, be sutable in M. Nicholas his Iudgement; Let him name vs ano­ther tyme, which is sutable: least if he except against so many times, men may thinke that M. Nicholas deemeth no time sutable for enioying a Bishop in England.

THE REPLY.

Suarez is not against M. Doctour, but for him.

37. Suarez in the place alledged by M. Doctour hath two reasons, Suarez tom. 4. in 3. p. disput 26. sect 1. n 8. and it sufficed M. Doctour to cite the one, because the other matter, which the second reason toucheth, was not controuerted, nor in question. Euerie Reader of Iudgement would obserue that in the citation nothing is wanting, but an &c. which was not necessarie, because the first reason serued, M. Doctours turne, which was, that the Pope cannot change the go­uernement of the Church because the Church by Christ his institution is a Monarchie, and a monarchie requireth not onelie one chiefe Monarche, but also other subordinate princes; [Page 83]Which was enough to confirme what M. Do­ctour there intended, to wit, that in the Church there must be diuers particular Bishops and Churches. And the second reason, which Suarez alledgeth, as it was not necessarie to be alledged for M. Doctours purpose; so it was not left out as M. Nicholas rashlie iudgeth, because it made against M. Doctour, as it is manifest. His second reason therefore was: tum etiam quia in republica Christiana &c. and also because in the Christian com­monwealth this was most necessarie: for it is most ample and most vniuersall, and its gouernement is spirituall and interne, which is not done exactlie, bu [...] by proper Pastours and Princes of the Church. And what is this against M. Doctour? rather it is for him. For as the Church is a must ample and most vniuer­sall Monarchie, and therefore according to Sua­rez his second reason, needeth more spirituall Princes and Bishops, then a Kingdome doth neede temporall Princes: so euerie notable parte of this vniuersall and ample Church, pleadeth for one Ordinarie or Delegate Bishop, one Bishop being not sufficient to serue diuers great partes thereof, as aboue is declared.

38. By this, sayeth M. Nicholas num. 17. is answered a demaund of M. Doctour. Chapter 14. V V by the Pope and Bishops in the primatiue Church were so diligent in consecrating Bishops, yea and making Popes in the midst of persecution, but that they thought it was the diuine law, that euerie (great) Church should haue its Bishop? M. Nicholas answereth, that the reason [Page 84]was, because in those times euerie Countrie needed its owne Bishop, to ordaine Priests &c. And why might not Priests then haue beene sent out of one coun­trie into another, as well as now? Was anie one countrie so farre distant from all Catholike coū ­tries or Churches, as none could send Priests vnto them, as now they do from Rome, Spaine, Flāders and other places into England? And is not En­gland separated from the whole worlde more thē many of those countries? Did not Apostolicall men then go further, and do they not now also?

THE REPLY.

Why these examples were alledged by M. Doctour: and what they proue.

39. M. Doctour brought these examples, as he doth professe in his 13. Chapter. num. 7. to shewe their zele, and great desire to haue a Bishop not­withstanding persecution; and so M. Nicholas may let them stand, as they will, to all posteritie. If all English Catholikes and especiallie some Regular Catholikes and their adherentes, had imitated this zele, those oppositions against a Bis­hop sent by lawfull and highest authoritie would neuer haue beene, but rather we should haue allioyned vnanimouslie for the procuring [Page 85]of a Bishop, not for priuate interests (of which M. Nicholas, though he inculcate it sometimes, had as much need to take heed of, as Secular Priests, who, cōsidering the times, haue litle reason to de­sire such an office for humane respects, to which many labours and daungers, no wordly splen­dour or riches are now annexed) but for the good of our countrie, the comfort of Catholikes, the saluation of soules, the honour of our Church of England, and the greater glorie of God. Yet these examples of those zelous African Catholikes proue also something. For why should they so crye for a Bishop, but that they knew it was the diuine Institution, that the Church in all times should be gouerned by Bishops, Victor Vticēs. l. 2. de persec.. Vādal. but that they reaped great comforte, and had much direction in persecution by his presence, and great strength by the grace of Confirmation, which for twentie fower yeares they had wanted; they hauing had all that time no Bishop.

40. And thus M. Nicholas his third question being fullie answered, though he peraduenture not satisfied, M. Doctours position of the necessitie of a Bishop in euerie notable parte of the Church proued, and all M. Nicholas hath beene able to say disproued, I will make an end of this question.

THE REPLIE.

M. Nicholas changeth the Question.

1. M. DOCTOVR onely affirmeth that as although no man in particular be bound to receiue a Priest, if thereby he should [Page 87]hazard lands, libertie or life: Yet no countrie can except against the comming in of Priests, for feare of persecution in generall; because the losse of preaching and Sacraments &c. is such a spiri­tuall domage to a whole countrie, that it should rather hazard persecution, then refuse Priests, though none in particular be bound with such temporall losse to receiue a priest, his priuate spi­rituall losse being not cōparable to the spirituall losse, which a whole countrie should receiue by want of Priests: So M. Doctour sayeth also, that although no man in particular be bound to re­ceiue a Bishop into his house, or Confirmation of him, with any notable temporallosse: Yet neither a whole countrie, nor any of the countrie can ex­cept against the comming in of a Bishop; by reason that the spirituall losse, which it should sustaine by want of him: for that the Countrie should not be a particular Church, nor the Ca­tholikes could be perfect Christians, nor could they haue so infalliblie the grace of Cōfirmation giuen to that purpose, that men may haue force thereby to stand constantly to the profession of their faith; nor should they haue the example and encouragement of the Bishop, who in that case vseth to put life into his subiectes.

2. M. Nicholas changeth the state of the que­stion, and imposeth on M. Doctour, as though he sayed, that euerie Catholike in particular is bound to hazard all for the Bishop, and Confir­mation.

[Page 88]3. That M. Doctour speaketh onely in generall, may appeare by those his words, which he hath Chapter 14. numer. 3. 4. & 8. and also by the words, which out of Maister Doctour, Maister Nicholas himselfe alledgeth q. 4. num. 12. Where M. Doctour sayeth: I am of opinion (which I humblie submitte to authoritie) that this particular Church, of England, France, Spaine and such like (of which notable partes he before spoake n. 2.) cannot except any long tyme against a Bishop. Againe M. Doctour sayeth in the same Chapter nu. 8. But howsoeuer al­though euerie man in particular cannot be condemned of sinne for omitting confirmation for feare of losse of his life, lands or libertie: yet I thinke &c. Which words M. Nicholas alledgeth out of M. Doctour p. 85.

4. And yet that M. Nicholas in the beginning of this 4. question, chargeth M. Doctour as though he had sayed, that euerie one in particular is to hazard temporall losses, rather then to omit con­firmatiō: appeareth, because he exaggerateth, this as if he had put vpon mens consciences so strict an obligation, notwithstanding whatsoeuer persecution &c. And againe pag 83. endeauouring to answere a place alledged out of S. Clement, he sayeth, our case is When Confirmatiō cannot be had without hazard of goods, libertie, & life; as though M. Doctour had sayed that one in particular is to hazard such losse rather then omit Confirmation.

5. But M. Doctour speaketh in generall: and if because in particular no man is bound to hazard any notable temporall losse for the Bishop, or [Page 89]Confirmation, he may inferre that the countrie may except against the Bishop and that Sacra­ment; by the like reason it may be inferred, that because no man is bound to receiue a priest secular or regular into his house, or to receiue any Sacrament of him, or to heare his sermon with hazard of losse of goods, libertie or life, he may except against the comming in of Secular and Regular Priests. For though there be not the like necessitie of a Bishop & Priests in all pointes, yet if one argument concludeth, the other must conclude: especiallie in M. Nicholas his opinion who sayeth in this question num. 17. that the generall persecution of a whole countrie is more to be auoided thē of any priuate person. VVho yet, as M. Doctour con­fesseth, is not obliged to hazard goods or life, for enioy­ing the Sacrament of Confirmation: by which it see­meth he would inferre, that if a priuat person be not bound to hazard losse of goods or life for Cō ­firmation, neither is a countrie whence it follow­eth in M. Nicholas his manner of arguing, that if a priuat person be not bound to receiue a Priest with that hazard, a countrie is not bound to re­ceiue Priests into it with hazard of persecution. But the generall spirituall losse is greater thē anie particular losse as M. Nicholas confesseth and so more is to be hazarded, rather then a whole coū ­trie should want a Bishop or Priestes, then that a priuat man should want them.

5. But M. Nicholas in the beginning of this question, fearing be like that he might seeme no [Page 90]good Catholike in writing against the necessitie of the Bishop, and Confirmation; protesteth that be reuerenceth Confirmation, and that when Confirma­tion can conuenientlie be had (and when is it more necessarie then in time of persecution, against which it is instituted? When is it more necessarie that the souldier should be armed and haue his Captaine then when the enemie is readie to giue battaile?) the neglict of so great a benefit cannot be pleasing to God. Which protestation was indeed necessarie, and I feare is not sufficient: for that hereafter Puritans may alledge him against Bis­hops and Confirmation, the necessitie of which he so much extenuateth.

THE REPLY.

Whether according to S. Thomas without Confir­firmation wee can be perfect Christians.

M. Doctour in his 14. Chapter n. 5. pag. 180. being to proue that a particular Countrie, cannot re­fuse a Bishop by reason of persecution, alledgeth two reasons. The first is, because the gouernemēt of Bishops in the Church, is instituted by Christ, as he had proued in the former Chapter. The se­cond reason is n. 2. because the commoditie which a prouince reapeth by a Bishop is so greate, and [Page 91]the want of him is such a losse, that we should rather hazard persecution, then to be depriued of a Bishop. For first without a Bishop we cannot be perfect Christians &c. then n. 4. Secondlie, the Sacrament of Confirmation pleadeth for a Bishop. Then n. 9. without a Bishop we can be no par­ticular Church &c. Then n. 10. Without a Bishop no Hierarchicall action can be exercised in the Church. So that M. Doctours second reason inclu­deth fowre reasons all which make one totall reason. M. Nicholas beginneth with that parte of the totall second reason, which was, because without a Bishop, we cannot be perfect Christiās. Wherein he playeth foule playe, in taking these reasons a parte; because virtus vnita est fortior seipsa dispersa; and a child will breake a sheffe of ar­rowes one by one, which ioyned in one boundell he cannot; and many vnited can draw a ship, which seuered they cannot; and so all M. Doctours partiall reasons put together may make one good and conuincing reason, though seue­rallie taken they could not.

7. But let vs see how he answereth this partiall reason singled out from the rest. S. Th. 3 p q. 65. ar. 1. M. Doctour had alledged S. Thomas of Aquin who compareth Bap­tisme to our natiuitie, by which we haue our first being, and Confirmation to our augmentation and encrease, by which we get strēgth & grougth. To our natiuitie (sayeth this learned Doctour) is answerable, in a spirituall life, Baptisme, by which we are regenerated, and receaue our first spiri­tuall [Page 92]being. Ioan. 3. Tit 3. To our augmentation and grougth (sayeth he) is answerable Confirmation, by which the holy ghost is giuen to giue vs manlie pitch and strength; Luc. vlt. according to that: And I send the promes of my father vpon you: But you, tarrie in the Citie, till you be endued with powre from high. And againe. But you shall receaue the vertue of the holie Ghost comming vpon you. Act. 1. So that according to S. Thomas by Baptisme we are borne Christians, but litle ones, 1. Pet. 2. and to vse S. Peters words, as infants euen now borne: and by Confirmation me receaue manly grougth: for as our natiuitie giueth vs our being, and all our partes, and limmes, but all litle and weake, and our augmentation giueth vs full strength and quantitie in all the bodie, and ma­keth vs men; so by Baptisme, wee haue our spi­rituall birth, and wee are Christians, but weake, and infirme, and by Confirmation we re­ceaue full grougth and strength, and we become perfect Christians.

8. Whereby it is euident that S. Thomas, though a greate Sainte, and a greate diuine, sayeth as much as M. Doctour doth. Yea what M. Doctour sayeth, he speaketh out of his mouth: and none write against S. Thomas for saying so, as M. Nicho­las hath written against M. Doctour. Yet let vs heare M. Nicholas his answere; True it is (sayeth he) that S. Thomas teacheth that by it (Confirma­tion) a man receiueth augmentation and groweth: which yet cannot be so vnderstood, as if this Sacra­ment were the onelie meanes to attaine such spirituall [Page 93]groweth. And why? because (sayeth he) by other Sa­craments, and ordinarie helpes of almightie, God we may receaue the effect of that same grace. which is giuē men in Confirmation. I cannot like this his answere, if it were but for this, that it in a manner giueth Christians occasion to neglect this, and other Sa­craments, seing that by other meanes, as the loue of God, Contrition, prayer, meditation &c. they may get as much grace, as is giuen by Sacramēts. But suppose that by other Sacraments and other meanes one may get as much grace, as Confir­mation giueth: yet he should not soe easilie norsoe infalliblie get it: nor should he Sacramentallie, and by a Character be a perfect Christian.

9. For as although a Cathecumene who belei­ueth all that other Christians do, may peraduen­ture by multiplication of actes of Charitie and contrition, by prayer, almes, faste, get as much grace as is gotten by Baptisme, yet he shall not be a Christian Sacramentallie, and by Baptisme, nor shall he be so incorporated to the Church, as the Church shall haue that authoritie ouer him, which she hath ouer the baptized; and therefore cannot bynde him to any Ecclesiasticall law, nor excommunicate him, he being, as S. Paule sayeth foris, without, 1. Cor. 5. and no actuall member of the Church: So though one might get more grace by other workes then by Confirmation, yet he should be no more Sacramentallie and by character a perfect Christian, then a Cathecu­men vnbaptized, should be a Christian, and [Page 94]so although (as M. Nicholas sayeth n. S. Tho. 2 2 q. 184. ar. 3. ad 3. 4. out of S. Thomas) by obseruing the counsailes, as religious men do, a man may haue greater perfection, then other Christians haue, yet that will not make him a perfect Christian in S. Thomas his mea­ning. For as a man may haue as much strength and skill in fencing and fighting, as the best sol­diour, yet till he be admitted and doth receaue his militarie liuerie, hee is not a soldiour by profes­sion: So a Christian may peraduenture haue as much grace as one that is confirmed, but till he be confirmed, he shall not be an enroulled spiri­tuall soldiour, nor a perfect Christian.

10. And although a man may haue grace without this Sacrament to professe his faith, and to suffer death for it, as many in England not cō ­firmed haue done, and as M. Doctour graunteth in his Epistle dedicatorie n. 18. and in his booke pagin. 384. n. 7. Yet that grace was merelie gratuitely and freelie bestowed, and is not so infalliblie giuē without Confirmation, as by it; because to the con­firmed that grace is due by reason of the Sacra­ment and Character, which they haue receiued, God by promise and couenant obliging himselfe to giue the speciall grace of the Sacrament to them that receaue it. And they that write against this Sacrament, or they that neglect it when they may haue it without any imminent or certaine daunger (for I do not heare that any haue beene particularlie persecuted for hauing beene con­firmed, though thousands haue beene cōfirmed) may feare lest they may be denyed this speciall [Page 95]grace, as neglecting the ordinarie meanes to get it, which is Confirmation. To that he sayeth n. 3.4.5. he may gather his answere by what is sayed: To that he alledgeth n. 7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14 he is partelie answered, partelie shalbe anone. For M. Doctour sayeth onely that a Countrie, for feare of persecution, cannot except against a Bishop or Confirmation; Whereas M. Nicholas would make M. Doctour say, that euery particular man is boūd to suffer persecution, rather then not admit a Bishop or Confirmation; and M. Doctour by a Bishop meaneth him, who hath Episcopall au­thoritie to giue Confirmation: M. Nicholas would haue him meane an Ordinarie, though I know, M. Nicholas for his parte desireth no Ordinarie.

THE REPLY.

S. Clements Testimonie that without Confirmation one is not a perfect Christian, is defended, and M. Nicholas his answeres plainely refuted.

11. M. Nicholas sayeth M. Doctour should not haue grounded so hard a doctrine vpon an Epistle not so authenticall, as thereon to settle a doctrinall pointe as he may see in Bellarmine. Sel. de Script. Eccl. I note heare first that M. Nicholas counteth it an hard doctrine, [Page 96]to say that one is not a perfect Christian without Confirmation. S. Tho. 3 p q. 65. ar. z. Vr­ban ep. decre­tali. And yet S. Thomas, as we haue seene: S. Clement already alledged: S. Vrban, S. Cyprian, and other Fathers yea and Diuines; whome I shall adde after S. Clement, do affirme, and here­tikes onely deny it, with whome M. Nicholas ioy­neth in this point.

11. Cal. l 9 Instit. c. 19 n. 9. Let vs heare Caluin speake. These are his words: Addunt praeterea fideles omnes Spiritum san­ctum per manuum impositionem accipere debere post Baptismum, vt pleni Christiani inueniantur. They (Catholikes) adde also that all the faithfull must re­ceiue the holie Ghost by imposition of hands after Bap­tisme, that they may be found full Christians: which Caluin in his next words condemneth with M. Nicholas, who sayeth it is an hard doctrine. And Bellarmin. To. 2. l. 2. de effectu Sacramentorum cap. 29. sayeth that S. Cyprian l. 2. ep. 1. & S. Cornelius Pope ep ad Fabianum apud Eusebium l. 6 hist. c. 53 feare not to say that they are not fullie sanctified, nor perfect Christians who want the Sacrament of Chrisme, al­though Caluin and Kemnitius call this word an ould calumnie. But see how disaffection can transporte euen a Catholike and a Religious man. Because for sooth he would haue no Bishop in England, he would not haue Confirmatiō necessarie to make a perfect Church or perfect Christiās; and there­fore sayeth against the ancient Fathers, and all diuines, euen Iesuites, that treate of this matter, that a man may be a perfect Christian, without Con­firmation; yea that it is an hard doctrine to say that [Page 97]without Confirmation wee cannot be perfect Christians. He vrgeth censures against M. Doctour, where no censure, but good, can be giuen, as I partlie haue and partlie shall she we. But if this M. Nicholas his proposition: It is an hard doctrine to saye that with­out confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians, were proposed to superiours I feare it would be hardly censured, it being against ancient Fathers, and the common opinion of Diuines, and onely being ap­plauded by Caluin and other heretikes, who, be­cause they deney Cōfirmation, cānot abide to heare what the Fathers say, to wit, that it perfecteth Bap­tisme, and maketh vs perfect Christians. And there­fore Caluin saieth, lib. 4. Inst. c. 19. n. 8. Adeò nihil eos pudet vt negent Baptismum ritè sine Confirmatio­ne perficiposse. They are so shamelesse, as that they deney Baptisme to be rightlie, perfected without Confir­mation. These Fathers, and diuines I shall alledge after S. Clement.

12. Secondlie here I obserue M. Nicholas his boldenesse in daring to reiect S. Clements epistles, and in particular the 4. Epistle alledged by M. Doctour, it being alledged to proue Confirmation a Sacrament, by Coccius tom. 2. lib. 3. ar. 20. Cocc. Suarez Conin. Bellar. Estius. Cate [...] Baius. Valon­tia. Suarez 3. p. tom. 3 disp 32. art. 1. Conincke, 3. p. qu. 72. art. 1. Bellarmin, l. 1. de Confirm. c. 3. Est in 4. d. 7. §. 13. the Catechisme ad Parochos, Confirm. Sacram. Baius l. 2. de Instit. c. 6. Valentia in Controu. lib. de numero Sacra­mentorum cap. 1. obiecteth against decretall Epi­stles as M. Nicholas doth against S. Clements epistles which are parte of them; illas epistolas decretales Pō ­tificum [Page 98]esse suppositias: that these decretall Epistles of the Popes are Coūterfaite: Gregorie of Valētia a Iesuite answereth. Sed defensionem earum Epistolarum sus­cepit Franciscus Turrianus in lib. quem pro illis aduer­sus Magdeburgenses Cēturiatores eruditissimè conscrip­sit: qui hactenus illi non responderunt, neque satis vnquam respondere poterunt. But a defense of those E­pistles Franciscus Turrianus (a Iesuite also) hath vn­dertaken in a booke, which for those Epistles he wrote most learnedlie against the Magdeburgian Centurians. who haue not hitherto made any answere to it, ne­ther shall they euer be able to answere sufficientlie And so M. Nicholas against all these (as well as against M. Doctour) who alledge this place to proue Confirmation a Sacramēt, might haue saied, that they should not haue grounded the veritie of a Sa­crament (so much impugned by heretikes) vpon an Epistle, which (as is to be supposed) they knew not to be so Authenticall as to settle thereon a doctrinall point, yea a matter of faith. Did not they know, as well as M. Nicholas how Authenticall Saint Cle­ments workes were?

13. But sayeth M. Nicholas, Bellarmine in his booke de Scriptoribus Eccles. Sayeth, that the E­pistles of S. Clement are not Authenticall: And I graunt that Bellarmine sayeth that the Epistles (of S. Clement) which now are extant, want not a so [...]uple, Lib. de Script. Eccles in Cle­ment. by reason that there are many thinges in­serted, as that two Epistles were written to Saint Lames who was dead before. But, sayeth Bellar­mine, perchaunce they were written to S. Simcon; [Page 99]and other thinges there are (sayeth he) which peraduenture were inserted, and are not in the Vatican booke. But yet he reiecteth not this E­pistle, and therefore (as we haue seene) hee and many others do cite this Epistle, and in the Ca­non law S. Clemēts Epistles, and other his workes, Dist. 40 c In illis & 16 q. 1. capit. Cun­ctis. are alledged; and Turrianus, Gualterus, and many others doe defend these workes, and Catholike writers alledge them against heretikes, whom M. Nicholas must take heed least he fauour in so slighting the authoritie of these Epistles.

14. If this answere in which he denyeth S. Clements Epistles to be of authoritie please not, M. Nicholas hath another n. 16. Which he taketh out of Estius whom he sayeth M. Doctour cited for the necessitie of Confirmation, but did not cite his explication of Fathers how they say that one is not a perfect Christian without Confirmation: which, sayeth M. Nicholas, is no faire dealing. But why was it no sayre dealing for M. Doctour to cite Estius for the necessitie of Confirmation? Suppose in the other point he had beene against M. Doctour? do not Diuines commonlie alledge a father or Di­uine for the pointe wherein he fauoureth them? And are they bound to alledge him in another matter, wherein hee seemes to be against them? And so if Estius had beene against M. Doctour and had sayed that without Confirmation a man might be a perfect Christian, he might yet haue cited him for the necessitie of Confirmation, without citing him for the point of a perfect Christian. Else how [Page 100]could Maister Nicholas cite Estius for this point, seing that in another point he holdeth against M. Nicholas, that a Priest not consecrated Bishop, cannot confirme by any commission of the Pope as we see aboue q. 1. n. But Estius his do­ctrine of a perfect Christian, is not against M. Do­ctour and so was not by him left out for that cause: but ether because he is not so cleare in that point as others, or because M Doctour had cited S clement whose words were plaine. But let vs heare Estius: these be his words in English: It must be obserued, that the Fathers in such sentences (where they say that men cannot be perfect Christians vnlesse they be confirmed) doe allude to the name of Christ, which signifieth anointed. VVhereupon they dency that they are fullie Christians, who as yet haue not receiued Episcopall vnction, making force in the word Christian. Estius in 4. dist 7. § 9. Which his manner of explication may verie well fauour the explication aboue giuen, by which it was sayed that although a man may perchaunce by other meanes get as much grace as confirmation giueth; yet he is not a perfect Christian, because he hath not the Sacra­ment of perfection, which is the Episcopall Vn­ction.

15. But our aduersarie fearing perhappes not to be fortunate enough in these two answeres, addeth a third p. 8 1. He telleth vs that the ancient practise was to giue together with Baptisme, the Sacrament of Confirmation, and that therefore S. Clement his meaning is onely this; that they who [Page 101]haue not both these Sacraments (for one was not giuen without the other) are not perfect Chri­stians, and sayeth he, I doubt not but that this will fullie satisfie the learned Reader.

16. But this answere argueth onelie the hard shiftes, to which M. Nicholas is put: for else, what diuine, yea Catechumen who knoweth his Cate­chisme, would haue giuen such an answere? For who knoweth not, that it is one thing to be a Christian, another thing to be a perfect Christiā, and how that goeth before, this commeth after; that Baptisme onelie maketh a Christian, Confir­mation a perfect Christian; and he that wanteth both is no Christian at all? And therefore S. Cle­ment could not haue saied of him that wanteth both, that he is no perfect Christian, but rather he should haue sayed, that he is noe Christian at all. For that a perfect Christian supposeth a Chri­stian, and he that wanteth baptisme, is no Chri­stian, and so cannot be called an imperfect Chri­stian, he being no Christianistiall at all.

17. Wherefore S. Clement to shew that he speaketh not of both Sacramēts when he sayeth that one cannot be a perfect Christian; distinguisheth the effectes of both these two Sacraments, and therefore sayeth: all must make haste to be regenerated without delay: behould the effect of Baptisme, regeneration. And then at length, that is, after Bap­tisme, to be consigned of the Bishop. that is, to receiue the seuenfould grace of the holie Ghost. See the effect of Confirmation, to wit, seuenfould grace; And [Page 102]then he addeth: And when he shalbe regenerated by water, See the effect of Baptisme, regeneration: and after wardes, as is mentioned, confirmed of a Bishop by the seuenfould grace of the spirit see the effect of Confirmation: quia aliàs perfectus esse Christianus nequa [...]uam potest: for otherwise (that is vnlesse he be Consigned and confirmed) he cannot be a perfect Christian. Where otherwise, hath a reference onelie to Confirmation of which he spoke last: for if it had reference to both Sacraments (as M. Ni­cholas sayed) S. Clement should haue sayed, he can be no Christian at all, because he that is not bap­tized is not at all a Christian, and so cannot be called an imperfect Christian.

18. And to confront M. Nicholas the more (for I see by experience, Bol. l. 1. de Cō ­firm c 3. he will not he Satisfied with alitle) let vs heare Cardinall Bellarmine: He, after he had cited those words of S. Clement: All must make haste without delay to be regenerated, and then to be consigned of the Bishop and receiue the seuen­fould grace of the holie Ghost: addeth: Et infra causam reddit (Clemens) quia non potest aliquis fine eo Sa­cramento esse perfectus Christianus: and after he (Clemēt) giueth the reasō, because without that Sa­crament (Confirmatiō) one cannot be a perfect Chri­stian. Where the Reader must note, that Cardinall Bellasmine sayeth not (as M. Nicholas doth) that without both Sacraments, but without that Sacra­ment to wit, of Confirmation, one cannot be a perfect Christian. And so without Confirmation, accor­ding to S. Clement one cānot be a perfect Christian.

[Page 103]19. But as they who haue neuer a good answere are forced to vse many, whereas one good ans­were alwayes satisfieth; so M. Nicholas knowing belike that none of his answers will abide the touchstone, nor stand the examination, bringeth many answeres, not so much to satisfie vs, as to presse vs with the multitude. He therefore hath in store for vs a fourth answere: and what is that? He sayeth pag. 83. that S. Clement is not faithfullie alledged by M. Doctour. And why? because he al­ledgeth not all his words, but ends at these words before alledged; otherwise he cannot be a perfect Chri­stian. And what needed M. Doctour alledge anie more words, seing he had alledged those that proued what he intended, to wit, that without con­firmation one cannot be a perfect Christian? And truely M. Doctour alledged more of S. Clements words then Cardinall Bellarmine in the place aboue cited did; and yet Bellarmine who saw those words that follow, as well as M. Nicholas; without alled­ging them, feared not to say: Et infra causam reddit (Clemens) quia non potest aliquis sine co Sacramento esse perfectus Christianus: and after he (S. Clement) yeeldeth the reason, because one cannot without that Sacrament be a perfect Christian.

20. But what are these words, which M. Doctour left out. Let vs heare them from M. Nicholas his owne mouth. My 4. answere is that S. Clemēt is not faithfullie alledged by M. Doctour, for S. Clement after he had sayed: VVhen he shalbe regenerated and by water afterward confirmed by the Bishop with [Page 104]the seuenfould grace of the spirit, because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian (where M. Doctour ends with an &c. immediatelie addeth words wherein the verie point in question consisteth saying: si non ne­cessitate sed incuriâ sic, aut voluntate remanserit: If be shall remaine so not by necessitie, but by carelessenesse or voluntarilie. But first here I might (if I were is foreward in carping at leauing out word, though not to the purpose, as M. Nicholas is) ob­serue the like fault in him euen in this place in which he taxeth Maister Doctour, for that he omitteth those words: nec sedem habere inter perfectos: nor haue place amongst the perfect, which are the immediate words that go before those, which M. Nicholas sayeth M. Doctour lift out, to wit; If he shall remaine so not of necessitie. And M. Doctour hath indeed cause to thinke M. Nicholas left them out of purpose: for that, as wee shall see, they made against him and for M. Doctour.

21. Yet let vs heare how M. Nicholas argueth out of these words, which not onely M Doctour, but also Bellarmin left out, as also others aboue ci­ted do. S. Clement (sayeth he pag. 83.) sayeth, that he who after Baptisme is not Confirmed, cannot be a perfect Christian if he want it out of carelesse­nesse, not out of necessitie, ergo sayeth he, the Catholikes of England, who want it out of ne­cessitie may be perfect Christians without it; but what necessitie is there now, or hath there bene since the Pope sent our two last most Reuerend Bishops, to want Confirmation? For we haue, [Page 105]thankes be to God, a Bishop willing to giue that Sacrament, and there is no speciall law against him, and neuer any as yet hath bene persecuted for hauing taken it, Confirmation, at least the persecution is not so great, but that thousandes haue taken it. And these words which M Doctour left out, as they are some what obscure, so they are as much against M. Nicholas, as M. Doctour.

22. For first he sayeth out of Estius, that when S. Clement or other Fathers saye, that a man can­not be a perfect Christian without Confirmation, they say so, because till he haue it, he hath not the perfect vnction, of which wee are called Chri­stians, that is, anointed. And then will I adde these words in which M. Nicholas sayeth the point of the controuersie consisteth, if not by ne­cessitie, but by carelessenesse, or voluntarilie, he shall remaine so: ergo if not by carelessesse, but out of necessitie he want Confirmation, he may he a per­fect Christian, that is, perfectlie anointed with­out it; which were to say, he may be perfectlie anointed without perfect vnction, and so haue it without hauing it.

23. Secondlie his third answere to S. Clements words pag. 81. (as aboue we haue seene) was, that the ancient practise was to giue baptisme and Con­firmation together: and that therefore when S. Clement sayeth, that otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian; he meaneth that vnlesse he haue both Sacraments, that is, Baptisme and Confirmation, he cannot be a perfect Christian: and then will I come [Page 106] M. Nicholas with those words following, if he shall remaine so, not by necessitie, but by carelessenesse or voluntarilie: Ergo if by necessitie, he want both Baptisme and Confirmation he may be a perfect Christian: and yet without Baptisme he is no Christian at all, and consequentlie no perfect Christian. Wherefore vnlesse we will make S. Clement absurdlie contradict himselfe, and make all Diuines allmost absurd, who alledge, (as Suarez also alledgeth) these last words, Suarez Supra. which M. Doctour omitted, as not necessarie to his pur­pose, we must say that S. Clement meaneth not to say, as M. Nicholas inferreth, that if of necessitie one want Confirmation, he may be a perfect Chri­stian without it: for that were to contradict him­selfe, he hauing sayed before, that vnlesse one be consigned, he cannot be a perfect Christian. And so whether he want Confirmation voluntarilie or of necessitie, he cannot be a perfect Christian Sa­cramentallie as aboue is sayed; as whether vo­luntarilie or by necessitie he want Baptisme, he is no Christian. Wherefore the sense of these words must not be, that which M. Nicholas gathereth, but some other, and as it is verie probable, it is this sense following, which is gathered out of the words which M Nicholas left out, which are those, nor haue place amongst the perfect, if he re­maine so, not by necessitie &c.

24. This then is the sense of S Clements words. All therefore must make haste without delay to be rege­nerated to God, and then to be consigned by the Bishop, [Page 107]that is, to receiue the seuenfould grace of the holy Ghost, because the end of euerie ones life is vncertaine (which he may say, because Baptisme and Confirmation then were giuen together, and so Baptisme at least was not to be delayed least one should dye without Baptisme) and when he shalbe regenerated by water, and afterward confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfould grace of the spirit (as is memorated) for otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian, nor (these words M. Nicholas left out) haue place amongst the perfect, if he so remaine not by necessitie but by care­lessenesse or volūtarilie. Which last words cānot be referred to the words, otherwise he cannot be a per­fect Christiā, but to the words immediatlie follow­ing (which M. Nicholas left out) to wit, nor haue place amongst the perfect: that is, he cannot be ad­mitted to the sacred Eucharist, nor to the ranke of them that are admitted to it, if not by necessitie, but by carlessenesse, or volūtarilie be shall remaine so For if by necessitie the partie baptized wanted Con­firmation (as when he was baptized, for some iust cause, in absence of the Bishop who could not be gotten) then, not else, he might (being baptised) haue place amongst the perfect, and be admitted with them to the Eucharist. And this exposition may be gathered out of S. Dionysius Areopagita according to the Translation set out at Colein an. 1536. l. de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. in fine. Ipse vero (Hie­rarcha) deificantissimo vnguento virum signans, par­ticipem manifest at de caetero sacrae perfectissimae Eu­charisitiae. He (the Bishop) anointing the man with [Page 108]the most deifying ointment, manifesteth him partaker of the Sacred most perfect Eucharist. Vasq. to. 3. in 3 part. disp. 212. c. 2. And Vasquez a learned Iesuite following the Translation of Pe­rionius, citeth these words: Is, cum virum vn­guento, quod maximè diuinos efficit, insigniuit, Eucha­ristia, qua vim maximam habet perficiendae sanctita­tis, participem esse pronunciat: He (the Bishop) when he hath marked the mā with the oyle, which ma­keth most diuine, pronounceth him partaker of the Eu­charist which hath greatest force to perfect sanctine, Whence Vasquez gathereth, that when one was baptized, he was declared capable of the Eucha­rist, and that the Eucharist vsed to be giuen after. Confirmation, yet he sayeth there was noe di­uine precept to take Confirmation before the Eucharist, but onelie vse and custome; So that they who were confirmed, were declared capa­ble of the Eucharist, and commonly did presently after receiue it, though there were no diuine pre­cept. And if any out of carelessenesse neglected Confirmation (which then by custome was to be taken presentlie after Baptisme) he was not ad­mitted to haue place amongst the perfect, that is, amongst them who were capable of the sacred Eucharist: but if after baptisme they could not be confirmed, and so of necessitie wanted Confir­mation, then they might communicate (there being no diuine precept to receiue Confirmation before the Eucharist) and so haue place amongst the perfect, that is, the confirmed who were ca­pable of the sacred Eucharist.

[Page 109]25. And thus it appeareth that M. Doctour hath not bene vnfortunate in alledging S. Clement, no more then Bellarmine, Suarez, Coninck, the Cate­chismus ad Parochos, and diuers others alledged, were; rather M. Nicholas hath bene vnfortunate: first in reiecting him, then in expounding him.

26. I adde to S. Clement, S. Vrban Pope, S. Vr­ban. cp. decre­tali. who liued about the yeare 220. Who hath words which should make M. Nicholas graunt, that one cannot be a perfect Christian without Confirma­tion, if he respect ether Antiquitie, Authoritie or sanctitie, he thus pronounceth: Omnes fideles, per manus Episcoporum Impositionem, Spiritum San­ctum post Baptismum, accipere debent, vt pleni Chri­stiani inueniantur. All the faithfull by the Imposition of hands of Bishops, must receiue the holy Ghost after Baptisme that they may be full (perfect) Christians. S. Cornelius Pope and Martyr: sayeth: He (Nouatia­nus) was not cōsummated by the seale of Chrisme and therefore could not deserue the holy Ghost. S. Cyprian sayeth, Cornel ep. ad Fabia­num apud Euseb. l. 6. c. 33. Et Boil. supra. Cyp. 72 seul. 30 ep. 1. Ep. 73. ad lu­baian. Concil. Eliber. can 35. Christians are then fullie sanctified, if they be borne of both Sacraments, to wit, baptisme & Confirmation. And againe he sayeth, that by Confirmation, which he calleth our Lords seale, they are consummated: And the Councel Eliberi­nū sayeth, that the baptized, if he liue after, must be caried to the Bishop that by imposition of hands he may be perfected. S. Ambrose sayeth that after the font of baptisme the spirituall seale, remaineth that perfectiō may be made, by which they insinuate that Confirmation maketh perfect Christians. [Page 110]The Councell of Orleans saieth one shall neuer be a Christian (that is a perfect Christian) vnlesse he be chrismed by the Episcopall Confirmation. Ambr. l 3 de Sacra. c 2. Conc. Aurel. c. 3. de con­sot. d 5. c. leiun. Bel. l. 2. do Sac effect. c. 28.

27. Wherefore Bellar. feared not to say: Cypr. l. 2. ep. 1. & Cornelius in cp. ad Fabianum apud Euseb. l. 6. hist. c. 53. Non timuerunt dicere, non esse plenè san­ctificatos nec perfectos Christianos qui carent Sacra­mento Chismatis, ctiamsi hanc vocent Caluinus & Kemnitius veterem contumeliam: Cyprian and Cor­nelius feared not to say, that they are not fullie sancti­fied nor perfect Christians, who want the Sacrament of Chrisme: although Caluin and Kemnirius call this an old calumnie; as M. Nicholas also condemneth the same speach and so in this ioyneth with here­tikes. in c 8 Act v 17 lit H. Lorinus a Iesuite writing vpon the 8. Char­ter of the actes sayeth, that Guilielmus Pari­fiensis deplores worthilie the contempt of so greate a Sacrament (Confirmation) whose grace is in some manner greater then the grace of Baptisme (and without which (Sacrament) as the Fathers and councells speake, wee are not full, perfect, and consummated Christians. Wherefore (he saieth) this Sacrament is called [...], that is, consummatio, consummation: Bayus also citeth S. Clement his constitutions & the epistle which M. Doctour alledged to proue that the Bishop is the minister of Confirmation, Bas us l. 2 inst cap. 60 5 Clc. l. 3 cōst. c 10 16 17 &l. 7. c 44 & cp 4 and he giueth this reason, because Cōfirmation is the perfection and complement of Baptisme, and so must be ministered by the chiefe mini­ster. And againe the same Authour citeth as M. Doctour did S. Clement Epist. 4. Clemens epist. 4. sic [Page 111]Demum à B. Petro accepisse refert, oportere renasci Deo ac consiguari ab Episcopo, vt perfecti efficiamur Christiani: Clement in his 4. epistle sayeth that he had from S. Peter that we must be regenerated to God, and then be consigned by the Bishop, that we may be made perfect Christians. L. 2. de Confir. c. 57. Wherefore M. Nicholas in condemning M. Doctour for saying that without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians, and for alledging S. Clement to prooue, it con­dēneth the ancient Fathers & almost all Diuines who say the same, and for it, In c. 17 Mar. n. 18. in fine. alledge also S. Cle­ment. Maldonate a Iesuite also, obseruing that the guift of miracles and tongues, and the visible descent of the holie Ghost did not ordinarily, follow immediatelie Baptisme, but Confirma­tion, sayeth: quâ re aperte significabatur &c. by which thing it was signified plainely, that by Confirmation, Baptisme was in some sorte perfected, which being sayed by some Bishops of Rome (he citeth in the mar­gent Vrbanus and Melchiades) heretiks do not onely impudently, but also vnlearnedly laugh at it. And Canisius also sayeth: he is no perfect Christian who is not confirmed. And so M. Nicholas whilest he condemneth M. Doctour for saying that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians, and for alledging S. Clement for proofe of that he sayed, condemneth also the ancient Fathers and all Diuines who write of this matter; yea Iesuites themselues; and so I cannot tell how hereafter he can looke them in the face. Yea he fauoureth Caluin as wee haue seene.

[Page 112]M. Doctour immediatelie after S. Clement citeth S. Dionisius Areop. lib. de Eccles. Hierar. c. 5. calling the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfe­cting Sacrament. pag. 8. n. 17.

THE REPLY.

S. Denis calleth the Sacrament of Confirmation à perfecting and consummating action.

27. M. Doctour in calling the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfecting and consummating a­ction: sayeth no more then Card. Bellarmin doth, who to proue Confirmation a Sacrament alledgeth some Greeke Fathers, Dion. l. di Eccl. Hier. c. 2 p. 3. C 4. p. 3. and first S. Denis in these words: perficiens illa vnctio facit perfectum: that per­fecting vnction maketh perfect and againe: Sed & ipsis &c. But to them also who are consecrated by the most holy misterie of Regeneration, the consummating vnction of the ointment doth giue the comming of the holy Ghost. Suarez also a learned Iesuite, and Estius and others doe attribute perfection and consum­mation to Confirmation, as M. Doctour did. Let vs heare Estius whō M. Nicholas tooke for his friēd in explicating how the Fathers say, that without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians. He saieth, that the proper effect of this Sacrament, is robur Spiritus sancti id est Gratia &c. the strength of the holy Ghost, that is, a grace by meanes of which the mynd of a Christian confirmed and corroborated by the holy Ghost, may persist and resist impugners Hee ad­deth: Hinc apud veteres &c. Hence, in the ancient fathers in many places wee read, that perfection, con­sūmmation, [Page 113]Confirmation, augmentatiō constācie, strēgth. fortit u [...]le, are giuen to this Sacrament, as effectes thereof. And for this he alleadgeth S. Dionysius, S. Clement euen in the place aboue alleadge by M. Doctour, and sayeth that S. Clement sayeth, Dion. l Eccl. Hier c. 4. p. 3. Clem. l. 3 cōs. Apost. c 17 & epist 4 Fabia. cp 2. ad cp. orien. Corn. aoud Euscb. l. 6. c. 35 Melch. ep. ad epist. Hisp. Dyon. Carth. in Elu­cidat c 4 in initi [...] ­ar 8. one cannot be a perfect Christian without it: and citeth to this end S. Fabian Pope, S. Cornelius, S. Melchiades and o­thers. And this M. Nicholas would not see nor ac­knowledge for feare least thence might be infer­red, that without Confirmation one cannot be a perfect Christian: onely hee could espy. cap. 5. for c. 4. which fault (if he had bene corrector of the print) might haue bene preuented.

28. Whereas M. Nicholas sayeth that S. Denys in that 4. chapter speaketh of Baptisme; and some tymes generallie of oyle and Vnction vsed not onely in diuers Sacraments, but also in Consecration of Altars, as though, in that Chapter he spake not of Confir­matiō. Dionysius Carthusianus standeth against him in the verie beginning of his Elucidation of that 4. Chapter, saying. Postquam praehabito immedtatè capitulo &c. after that (by S. Denys) it hath bene treated in the immediate a foresayed Chapter, of the Sa­crament of the Eucharist, of the celebration, rites or Hierarchicall Actes about it, here (in the 4. Chap­ter) the same now is done of the Sacrament of Confir­mation.

THE REPLY.

M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctour say more then he doth, to wit that euery one in particular is bound to take Confirmation with hazard of persecution, whereas M. Doctour sayeth onely, that a countrie should hazard persecution rather then want Con­firmation. Estius in 4. d. c.

29. Estius proposeth a question; whether the omission of Confirmation when it may be had commo­diouslie be a mortall or veniall sinne. And answereth that it cannot be omitted without mortall sinne in tyme and place of persecution of faith, when (forsooth) by reason of infirmitie, there is danger to a man least he deny his faith in word or deede, or at least be ash imed to confesse (his faith) when he should. And M Doctour sayeth the same, as appeareth by his words which immediatlie follow these words of Estius. For if the reader turne ouer to the page 386. and 8. number, he shall find these words of M. Doctours. But howsoeuer, although euerie man in particular cānot be condemned of sinne for omitting Confirmation, for feare of loosing his life, lands, or libertie, Yet I thinke that neither any countrie or any one of the countrie, for feare of persecution, can oppose against the coming in of a Bishop, though thereby, onely the Sacrament of Confir­mation hould be wanting.

30. So that M Nicholas playeth not faire playe with M. Doctour in making him say that Catho­likes in particular are bound to receiue Confir­mation with losse of life, libertie or goods, where­as [Page 115]as M. Doctour confesseth in the a foresayed place, and before it also num. 3. & 4. graunteth, that none in particular are bound with such danger; and onelie sayeth, that neither a countrie nor any one of the countrie (which yet he humblie submitteth to authoritie) can except against a Bishop, or Confirmation for feare of persecution in generall; notwithstanding which generall persecution, many commodiouslie and without danger may receiue Confirmation. And this Estius, when he sayeth, that if Confirmation can commodiouslie be had in time of persecution, it cannot be refused by particular persons vnder mortuall sinne, supposeth.

31. The reason of this is, because there may be a generall persecution, and yet many in particu­lar, may commodiouslie haue Confirmation. for as notwithstanding persecution, and the generall lawes of England enacted against receiuing a Priest, hearing Masse or going to Confessiō, many Catholikes in particular without morall danger may many tymes receiue a Priest, heare Masse, and goe to Confession, as thousands haue done: so many Catholikes may receiue the Bishop, and Confirmation of him without any imminent or morall danger; and therefore hetherto not any haue suffered losse in life, libertie or goods for re­ceiuing of cōfirmation though thousāds haue re­ceiued it. And as, although persecution in England is the greater for Priests, Iesuites, and other re­gulars, yet many can, and do without morall [Page 116]danger heare Masse (as they are bound on holy dayes, when they can commodiouslie) can goe to Confession and the like: so although the persecution in England were greater for the Bis­hop (as it is not, there being no speciall lawes in force against him) yet many might receiue him, and Confirmation of him, without any imminēt danger: and consequentlie according to Estius his opinion, are bound vnder mortall sinne to receiue Confirmation, when there is danger, by reason of infirmitie, of denying their faith, or of fearing to professe it when they should. And so I meruaile that M. Nicholas could not see the diffe­rence, betwixt persecution in generall, and in par­ticular, for that persecution in generall doth not excuse particular men from receiuing Confirma­tion, they, notwithstanding a generall persecu­tion hauing commoditie to receiue it without danger: but when the persecution is particular to men in particular, then they cannot without danger, and so are excused. yet nether a countrie nor any of the countrie can except against Priests coming into the countrie by reason of a gene­rall persecution, because notwithstanding such a persecution, many in particular may heare Masse, receiue the B. Sacrament, goe to confessiō, heare a sermon now and then, without imminent danger; and so for respect and regard of these (who haue right to the Sacrament) none can ex­cept against the coming in of Priests: into a countrie seing that if the countrie were depriued [Page 117]of Priests, none could heare Masse, goe to con­fession, receiue the Sacraments, or heare exhorta­tions: and so at this day, if Priests had not bene sent into England maugre persecution, there had now scarce any Catholike or Catholike Religion bene left in England: & nisi Dominus exercituum reliquisset nobis semen, quasi Sodoma suissemus, & quasi Gomorrha similes essemus: Vnlesse the Lord of Hostes had left vs (this) seed we had bene as Sodome, and we should be like to Gomorrha. Isai. 1.

32. So although no man in particular be bound to receiue the Bishop into his house, or Confir­mation of him with imminent danger of the a­foresayed temporall losses: Yet a countrie could not except against a Bishop or Confirmation, for feare of persecution in generall: for that, not­withstanding such a generall persecution, many might without the aforesayed danger receiue a Bishop and Confirmation at his hands, as wee see they haue done in England. And so in regard of these who haue right to a Bishop and to Con­firmation, none can except against the coming in of a Bishop lawfullie sent (vnlesse as M. Doctour sayeth p. 378. n 3. the persecution were so great that the Bishop could not enter, or would pre­sently be apprehended or put to death) because without a Bishop many should want the confort, encouragement and example of such a Pastour, & they should want Confirmation which as Estius sayeth cannot in tyme of persecution, and when there is danger of falling to many, who might [Page 118]commodiouslie receiue it, be omitted without mortall sinne, as we shall proue anone.

THE REPLY.

That Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation, and that in time of persecution, without that Sacra­ment, if one fall not, others will.

33. M. Doctour indeed sayed pag. 387. n. 8. that if in tyme of persecution there were not a Bis­hop to giue Confirmation: if one fall not, others probablie would, as Nouatus did for want of it. But M. Nicholas sayeth, that of Nouatus he findeth no such thing in Eusebius, to wit, that in tyme of persecution hefell, for want of Confirmation.

34. And indeed neither Eusebius nor Cornelius by him alleadged doe say so in expresse termes, but they do so insinuate, and so it followeth out of their words, that as other writers haue done, so M Doctour might say, that Noutatus (others, as Ba­ronius ad Pamelius call him Nouatianus) did fall in time of persecution for want of Confirmation.

35. Euseb. l 6 c. 33 a­lias 35. iuxta vers. Chri­stophor soni. For Eusebius saieth first, that Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus telleth all the particulars, quis, qualis suerit vita vel moribus, & quomodo ab Ecclesia Dei declinauerit: Who, what manner of man he was in life and manners, and how he declined from the Church. And after he sayeth of him. Et quod iacens in lecto, pronecessitate perfusus sit &c. and that lying [Page 119]in his bed he was baptized out of necessitie, and that the rest which are wont to follow Baptisme, were not so­lemnelie fulfilled, and that he was not consummated by the seale of Chrisme: where upon neither could he euer deserue the holy Ghost: that is, in that speciall manner as he is giuen by Confirmation, that is to giue courage to professe our faith in tyme of per­secution. Li. ad­uersus Luci­feria [...] nos. For as S. Hierome auerreth the Holie Ghost is also giuen by Baptisme, yea (as Diuines graunte) by other Sacraments, so oft as by them wee receiue instifying grace, but not in that spe­ciall manner, nor to that particular end, which is to giue force to professe our faith in time of persecu­tion, maugre all threates and tormentes of the Ty­rant. And therefore Eusebius a little after addeth that Cornelius writeth also of Nouatus, that in time of persecution when he lurked in a certaine little celle, (for feare) and was desired by the Deacons, as the manner is, helpe the Catechumenes at their departure out of this life, he fearing to come out, denyed him­selfe to be a Priest. And presentlie after hee telleth how he also fell into Schisme. And so seing that he fell in persecution, and wanted the holy Ghost for ant of Confirmation, if we put all this toge­ther we shall find it at least verie probable, that hee fell for want of Confirmation, though other causes might concurre, as ambition, which M. Nicholas alleadgeth in that manner, as though he meant couertelie to glaunce at the ambition of Priests who desire a Bishop: though (as aboue I haue tould him) in this tyme there is little cause [Page 120]why out of ambition any should desire a Bishop; and I pray God there be not ambition also in seek­ing to hinder the Catholikes from hauing a Bishop.

36. But that Nouatus fell for want of Confirma­tion, diuers before M. Doctour haue affirmed. As first The venerable and learned Authours of the Rhemes Testament (of whom M. Doctour had it) who writing on the eight Chapter of the Actes haue deliuered these words: To conclude, neuer none denied or contemned this Sacrament of Confirmation and holy Chrisme but knowne heretikes S. Cornelius that B. Martyr so much praised of S. Cyprian ep. ad Fa­bium apud Euseb l. 6. c. 35. affirmeth that Nouatus fell to heresie for that he had not receiued the holy Ghost by the consignation of a Bishop, whom all the No­uatians did fellow, neuer vsing that bolie Chris­me.

37. Fulke in his answere to the notes of the Rhemists on this place answereth, that Nouatus omitted the ceremonie of anointing, yet doth not Cornelius say that he fell into heresie because he had not receiued the holie Ghost by consignation of a Bishop, but onely sheweth what manner a man he was. Thus he answereth the Rhemists. And M. Nicholas ioyneth with him in his answere to Maister Doctour, saying: Onely Eusebius out of Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus recounteth that he fell, persecutionis tempore, metu debilitatus & nimia vitae cupiditate adductus; in tyme of perse­cution, weakened with feare, and moued with too [Page 121]much desire of life. And presentlie after sayeth Maister Nicholas: It may be well that he fell for want of Confirmation: Yet as Fulke sayed, so he saieth, I deny that Eusebius sayeth so. But I had rather giue credit to the Rhemists then to M. Nicholas, I hauing especiallie found him tripping so often and their one affirmation ought to be taken before tenne negations or denialls of M. Nicholas. Estins also hauing sayed that the Apo­stles vse to giue Confirmation so soone after ba­tisme as might conuenientlie be, Estius in 4. d. 7 § 18. sayeth: Quo­rum alacritatem & studium in conferendo hoc Sa­mentum imitari conuenit omnes Episcopos, maxi­mè quod huius subsidij neglectu fiat, vt persecutio­nis tempore multi deficiant aut labantur, sicut teste Cornelio Papa, Nouato accidit: Whose alacritie and studiè in giuing this Sacrament, it is conuenient that all Bishops should imitate, especiallie because by neglect of this helpe, it comes to passe in time of persecution that many doe fayle or falle as (witnesse Pope Cornelius) it happened to Nouatus. Behould another authour of greater credit then Maister Nicholas as being a Classicall Authour, & hauing bene many yeares professour of diuinitie in the famous Vniuersitie of Doway, affirmeth also with M. Doctour and against M. Nicholas, that Nouatus fell in tyme of persecution for want of Confirmation. Bzouius also in his first tome speaking of Nouatus or Nouatianus saieth thus of him: morbo tandem clapsus, neque caetera quibus post Baptismum secundum Ecclesiae Canonem, [Page 122]imbui oportucrat, acquisiuit; neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus, quamobrem neque Spiritum sanctum ex sacro Chrismate adeptus, persecutio­nis metu debilitatus, & nimia vitae cupiditate ad­ductus, se presbyterum esse negauit: At lenght hauing escaped, his sicknesse, he neither got the rest with which according to the Ecclesiasticall Canon he should haue beene imbued or furnished, nor was he signed with our Lords seale: Wherefore neither ha­uing by the sacred Chrisme gotten the holie Ghost, he in time of persecution being weakened with feare (to witt because by Confirmation he had not gottē the holie Ghost) and moued with too much desire of, life he denyed himselfe to be a priest. Bze­uius to 1. l. 3 Eccl hist. Anno. Christi 254. Corn. Papa an. 1. Colu [...]49. And after, Bzouius relateth how at the request of the Deacons he refused to helpe them that were in danger and necessitie; but in a Choler want from them, and afterward fell into Schisme in ambi­tiouslie aspiring to be Pope: And why all this, but because he had not by Confirmation receiued the holy Ghost. Baius lib. 2. Instit. c. 631. l. 2. de Conf. c. 63. nam ideo Nouatum ad haeresim pro­cliuiorem fuisse sensit Cornelius Papa quoniam signacu­lo Chrismatis confirmatus non esset, Eusebio teste l. 6. hi c. 33. For Cornelius Pope thought that Nouatus was more proue to heresie because he was not confirmed by the seale of Chrisme, Inc 8 Art. ve. 17. in fine. as Eusebius witnesseth libr. 6. Histor, cap. 33. Lorinus a Ie­suite sayeth that Nouatus was possessed by the derull because he receiued not the Sacrament, yea reiected it? With these Catholike Authours M. [Page 123]Doctour thought it more honour toioyne, then with Fulke the heretike as M. Nicholas in this doth.

38. Now whereas M. Nicholas sayeth, that he hath answered to M. Doctours coniecture (so he calleth it) that in time of persecution, Confirma­tion is necessarie for a countrie, because if one fall not, others will; I graunt that he hath en­deauoured in the beginning of this question numero 6. and 7. but, could neuer yet per­forme that he hath endeauoured. He sayeth numero 6. that the tymes of persecution in our Countrie haue beene most bitter; and yet would to God wee could behould the zeale, feruour, Cha­ritie and constancie, which in these dayes Ca­tholikes without Confirmation shewed. But why speaketh hee in this manner? Doth he thinke a countrie in persecution may doe better with­out Confirmation then with it, or that it hel­peth nothing? Why then did Christ insti­tute it to the end that in persecution we might with an vndaunted courage professe our faith before the persecutour? And sayeth hee. I hould it noe rashnesse to saye, that since Englands enioy­ing a Bishop, more harme hath hefalne Catholik's in generall. See how Passion transporteth Maister Nicholas? And by whose fault is it that since we had a Bishop more harme hath be­falne Catholikes in generall? Is it the pre­sence of a Bishop that bringeth such harme? Why then did Christ and the holie Ghost ap­point [Page 124]Bishops to gouerne the Churche? Act. 20. Other Countries in tyme of persecution haue euer receiued greate benefits, much comfort and encouragement by their Bishops: Why then should we onely receiue a generall harme by hauing a learned Bishop, a man of exemplar life, and a bishop sent by lawfull and highest au­thoritie? I will not say who are the cause, but I referre that to all indifferent mennes iudge­ments, and euen to Maister Nicholas his calmer disposition, and better consideration. If euerie one had receiued and obeyed him as they ought to haue done (Saint Peters successour sending him) and if they who found them­selues grieued, had proposed their grieuances and difficulties vnto Superiours in all quiet modestie, and without clamours, and had pa­tientie expected their decision, and determina­tion, there had not arisen such scandall as there did.

39. But to come to the matter. Ca 14 n. 7. Maister Doctour sayed, that although euen in tyme of persecution a man may haue sufficient grace without Confirmation to stand to his faith and Religion, as may appeare by them who nei­ther confirmed nor Baptized with water, haue endured martyrdome for their faith, and so haue bene baptized in their owne blood, and as may be seene in our English Catholikes who (though many of them were not confir­med) [Page 125]shed their blood to seale and signe their faith: Yet because Confirmation is the ordi­narie meanes instituted to giue force and cou­rage in tyme of persecution: to neglect it in such a tyme when euerie man may feare his owne infirmitie, is a mortall sinne: and if it be neglected for a generall persecution (in which, as aboue, many thousands in particu­lar may commodiouslie receiue it) if one fall not as Maister Doctour sayeth, Estius in 4. dist. 7. § 18. Ca. 14. n. 8. others probablie will as Nouatus did: And so, a countrie in such a persecution is obliged to receiue a Bishop, least it shew it selfe cruell to so many thousands, who haue right to the Sacrament, and might notwith­standing a generall persecution commodiouslie receiue, and may fall for want of it.

40. Of this I shall giue these ensuing rea­sons. The first is this. Euen in tyme of a ga­nerall persecution (of which we speake) many and sometymes manie thousands, as aboue is shewed, may receiue this holie Sacrament of Confirmation without any morall danger (as now in England, since we had our two most Reuerend Bishops, many thousands haue done) and seing that all these by Christ his institution haue right to Confirmation; the rest of the countrie cannot, for a generall per­secution, refuse this Sacrament, least they should doe greate iniurie to so many. Second­lie they who in tyme of a generall persecu­tion [Page 126]when they may in particular receiue this Sacrament, doe neglect it, though they know not how soone they may be called to make profession of their faith, doe seeme to pre­sume to much of God his extraordinarie grace: for seing that Confirmation is the ordinarie meanes to get this grace, thereby to confesse their faith, if they neglect it, presuming of God his grace without this meanes, it cannot be but a great presumption.

41. Thirdelie in tyme of persecution when one is apprehended and brought before the persecutour, he vseth to threaten losse of Landes and goods, libertie and life it selfe: hee there­fore who in tyme of persecution seeth him­selfe exposed to all these difficulties, had neede to arme himselfe by all the meanes he can: and (whatsoeuer Maister Nicholas sayeth) he may feare his owne infirmitie, for that it is not an easie thing, euen with ordinarie grace, to forsake Landes, goods, libertie, life, Father, mother, wife, and children, rather then to de­ny or not to professe his faith; and it is aboue the force of flesh and blood: and although he may haue grace sufficient (as manie in our Countrie without Confirmation haue had) yet this grace which giueth force to professe our faith before the Tyrant, is not due to anie but these who are confirmed, to whom it is due by the Sacrament and character which [Page 127]it imprinteth, as ahoue I haue declared. 3. par. q. 72. art. 8. n. 89, Where­fore AEgidius Coninck a Iesuite saieth, that it may be a mortall sinne not to receiue this Sacrament by reason of ones conscience; Vt si omnino crederet sibi imminere periculum nisi hoc Sacramentum susciperet, quod saepe posset contin­gere in ijs qui versantur continuò inter haereticos, & vel minis, vel promissis, aut alia ratione ad defectionem sollicitantur, nam est singulare Dei do­num in talibus casibus fidem constanter tueri, quod etsi Deus paratus est omnibus dare, tamen saepe minus liberaliter illud dat iis qui non vtuntur me­dijs ab ipso ad hoc institutis, qualis est Confirma­tio: As if one should altogether beleeue, that he should be in danger vnlesse he receiued this Sacrae­ment, which might oftentymes happen in thsse who liue continuallie amongst heretikes (as En­glish Catholikes doe) and who there by threates or promises or otherwise are sollicited to forsake their faith (as English Catholikes are.) For it is a singular guift of God to defend constantlie ones faith in such cases; which guift though God be readie to giue, yet oftentymes, he lesse liberallie bestoweth it on these who vse not the meanes by him insti­tuted to this, as is Confirmation. And so as a Vigilant and prudent soldiour when he is in the field and knoweth not how soone the enemie will assault him, is alwayes armed and euen slee­peth in his armour: So the prudent Christian in tyme of persecution, when he knoweth not [Page 128]how soone the persecutour may set vpon him, ought alwayes to be armed, and especially with the armour of proofe, Confirmation, it being the proper armour instituted by Christ to be vsed in time of persecution.

42. But M. Nicholas pagin. 88. & 89. sayeth that when Estius sayeth that Confirmation cannot be omitted without mortall sinne in time of perse­cution, he speaketh in time and place of such persecution of faith, as bringeth with it danger of a mans denying his faith, which thankes be to God, we may sayis not our case in England, where &c. And is there not danger in England of a mans denying his faith? I would to God there were not. Is there not dan­ger of a mans denying his faith in England where not longe since a Priest and a lay man were executed for their faith at Lancraster? and where many also not so long since were enfor­ced to abiure their faith, not onely for the tyme present, but also for the tyme to come: where so many not longe since had their Landes seazed on? Where the Pursiuantes do lye in waite and watch continuallie to apprehend Catholikes? where the Lawes are still in force and may be executed euerie day? M. Nicholas saieth in the hoatest persecution the zeale of many was admi­rable. I graunte it, and the greater was Gods grace to them, but many also then fell, of whom some no doubt would haue stood constantlie to their faith, if they had had Confirmation.

[Page 129]42. Fourthlie, although heretofore in Queene Elizabethes raigne or, whē we had not the honour nor hoppines to haue a Bishop and so conse­quentlie were depriued of Cōfirmation. God out of his greate mercie supplied the want of Confir­mation, and gaue to many the grace of confir­mation without Confirmation: Yet now when we may haue a Bishop (as thankes be God we haue) and may commodiouslie in tyme of perse­cution receiue Confirmation (as thousands haue done without any temporall losse or domage) to excepte against a Bishop and consequētlie against Confirmation, of which the Bishop onely, is at least, the ordinarie Minister, almightie God might iustlie and should haue iust reason to deny vs that grace, and many for want of it would fayle and fall as Nouatus and others haue done.

43. Lastlie, it cannot be denyed but that Chri­stians are more able and likely with this Sacra­mē to professe their faith, thē they are without it: and that more in a countrie persecuted are like to stand to the profession of their faith with this Sacramēt the without, else this Sacrament should be needlesse, and Christ tolitle purpose should haue instituted it: ergo in a countrie persecuted & destitute of this Sacrament, many doe full who otherwise would stand, and for euerie one that standeth, perhaps twentie will fall.

44. For these reasons in the primatiue Church the custome was to giue Cōfirmatiō presētlie after baptisme, that so the baptized might neuer want [Page 130]his speciall armour instituted against persecution. Act. 2. Saint Peter by his first sermon hauing conuerted about three thousand, bad them doe pennance, and be cuerie one haptized, and what else? and you shall, saieth he, receine the guift of the holy ghost, the proper effect of Confirmation, giuen presentlie after Baptisme. And when S. Philipp had conuerted and baptized the Samaritans, because hee (as being no Bishop) could not confirme them, the Apostles who were in Hierusalē hearing of their conuer­siō sent S. Peter and Ihon that of them they might be confirmed and receiue the holie Ghost. Act. 8. In like māner so soone as certaine disciples at Ephesus were baptized, Actor. 19. Saint Paul imposed handes vpon them and gaue then the holy Ghost. And the first Popes and Bishops following herein the A­Apostles example, neuer separated (but in case of necessitie, the one Sacrament from the other, and therefore S. Clement, S. Cle. 4. Ep ad Epist. Hispa. as aboue we haue seene, biddeth all to hasten after baptisme to be consig­ned of the Bishop: and S. Melchiades Pope, sayeth that these two Sacraments, Baptisme and Con­firmation, are so linked together, vt ab inuicem, nisi morte praeueniente, nullatenus possint segregari, & vnum sine altero ritè perfici non potest: that vnlesse by preuenting death, they can in no wise (accor­ding to that ancient custome in tyme of persecu­tion) be separated nor the one without the other cannot rightlie be accomplished. Estius in 4. d. 7 § 18 And so I con­clude with Estius (as before) that it is a thing verie fitting and conuenient, especiallie in tyme [Page 131]of persecution, that all Bishops following the ex­ample of these their worthie Predecessors, should haue can that Confirmation should not be differred too long after Baptisme (much lesse quite omitted as M. Nicholas would) maximè quod huius subsidij neglectu fiat, vt persecutionis tem­pore multi deficiant aut labantur, sicut teste Cornelio Papa, Nouato accidit: especiallie because by a neglect of this ayde or succour it commeth to passe, that in tyme of persecution many do fayle or fallie, as (witnesse S. Cornelius Pope) it happened to Nouatus.

THE REPLY.

M. Nicholas vntruelie accuseth M. Doctour of partialitie in comparing of Bishops and other Pastours with Religions.

[Page 133]1. VVHereas M. Nicholas accuseth M. Do­ctour of partialitie in comparing the state of Bishops and other Pastours with the state of Religions, I answere for him, as Suarez answereth for himselfe to a supposed obiection which might be made against him, for making the selfe same comparison. Suarez to 3 l. [...] de Sta­tu per­fectio­nis c. 18. Haec comparatio (sayeth he) odiosa videri potest, & ideo vitanda, vt tetigit Valensis lib. 3. tom. 3. de Sacramentalis. titul. 9. capit. 8. veruntamen facile tollitur inuidia &c. This compari­son may seeme odious, and therefore to be shun­ned as Waldensis sayeth libr. 3. tom. 3. de Sacra­mentalibus tit. 9. c. 8. but yet the enuye is easilie taken away, if both prudentelie and modestlie it be handled; and if with all it be considered, that the comparison is not made betwixt persons, but states: and their condi­tions and qualities; or, as S. Thomas sayeth 22. q. 184. art. 8. if comparison be made of the kinde and nature of the worke, not of the charitie of the worker as Christ preferred the contemplatiue life before the actiue Luc. 7. saying that Marie had chosen the best parte. And I referre me to the Reader, what moderation M. Doctour hath vsed both in his Epistle dedicatorie and throughout all his Treatise, and euen in his 11. Chapter, where he makes noe comparisons betwixt persons, but onely betwixt states and their conditions and qualities, and yeeldeth to the Re­gulars as much as Saint Thomas of Aquin and Suarez doe, and giueth no more to Bishops and other Pastours then they and all Diuines, euen Regulars doe.

THE REPLIE.

M. Nicholas cannot denie but that Bishops are in higher and perfecter state of perfection, as is proued.

2. M. Nicholas after he hath tould vs that he will first speake of Bishops and their state, maketh some vnnecessarie preambles from the page 92. and number 2. to the 5. number, endeauou­reth to answere this first comparison, but his endea­uours are all vayne; for that he neither hath, neither can he, or any for him euer proue or shew, that the Regular state is to be parangoned to the Epis­copall. And that the state of a Bishop is higher then the state of the regular, S. Th. 2.2. q 184. Suarez tom. 3 l. [...] de Statu. perfe­ctionis c 18. it is the common and confessed opinion of S. Thomas and all Diuines which Suarez prooueth largelie and learnedlie.

3. This is his conclusion concerning Bishops: Dico ergo primo Episcoporum Statum esse perfectiorem quo­cunque statureligioso: ac subinde statum perfectionis exercendae, perfectiorem ex suo genere esse, quam statum acquirēdae perfectionis: I say therefore, first that the state of Bishops is perfecter then any Religious state: and that the state of perfection to be exercised, is of its nature and kind perfecter, then the state of perfection to be acquired. [Page 135]This conclusion concerning the first parte of it, I could proue by many arguments, as M. Doctour hath done in his 11. Chapter numero 14. but, that lesse exception may be taken against my proofes they shal be no other in effect then those which Suarez hath.

4. First he proueth this out of Fathers, whome be alleadgeth in his fifteēth chapter, and amongst them S. Clement in his first Epist. Which Fathers doe not onelie affirme that Bishops are in the state of them that are perfect, but also in that height that noe state can equalise thē; and there­fore they stile Bishops most Holie, the Legates of Christ, spirituall Fathers, pillars of the Church.

5. Secondlie this I proue as Suarez doth by the functions of a Bishop, to which by his state he is obliged: for as powers are specified of their a­ctions, and therefore the vnderstanding is a per­fecter power then the will, the will then the sensi­tiue appetite, the power of seing them the power of hearing: so the state of perfection takes its eminencie ouer other states, by its more per­fect fūctions. And therefore seing that to the Bis­hops state there belonge the highest functions in God his Church, his state is the perfectest of all states in the sayed Church. That the Bishop hath the most excellent and eminent functions, it is manifest: for that he by his state hath all the per­fections and excellencies which are in the states and fruictions of inferiour prelates, and in a more eminent manner for he hath power to teache and [Page 136]preach, and to illuminate others by the word of God, which he preacheth, as inferiour Pastors haue; yea this function of preaching principallie belō ­geth to him, as the Councell of Trent hath defi­ned, saying that it is praecipuum Episcoporum munus, the chiefe office of a Bishop: as indeede it is, Cone. Trid. sess. 5. c. 2. & sess. 24 c. 4. Marci. vlt. according to the commandement of Christ giuen to the A­postles, and in them, to Bishops their successours: praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae: preach, the Ghospell to all creatures. And besides he hath his owne proper functions, which they haue not, to wit, to gouerne a more ample parte of the whole Church, to sit in Councells as Iudge, to direct and Iudge inferiour Pastours, to ordaine mini­sters, to confirme, to consecrate Churches, Al­tars, Chalices &c. which other Pastours cannot doe. Likewise it pertaineth most of all to Bishops by their examples to illuminate others, euen in­feriour Pastours, Mat 5 Ioan. 10. Conc. Tol. 11. c. 2. and therefore they especiallie are the light of the world and they especiallie like good Pastours are to goe before their sheepe by illu­minating them by doctrine and example. For as the eleuenth Councell of Tolet sayeth: by how much any one hath the higher place, by so much the more it is necessarie, that he goe before others in grace of merits &c.

6. Thirdlie saieth Suarez in a Bishop especially is required greate charitie, as well towards God, who is the principall Lord of his sheepe, Ioan. 21. & there­fore Christ calleth them his sheepe: as also towords his subiectes whom he must tolerate and assiste; [Page 137]with whose infirmities he must beare, whose necessities he must releeue, and to whom he must be an honorable seruant as S. Paul was, 1. Car. 9. when he sayed: factus sum omnium seruus vt plures lucriface­rem: I made my selfe the seruant of all, that I might gaine the more.

7. Fourthlie, the Bishop peculiarlie and in the first place, by his office and state is bound to giue his life for his sheepe, which is the greatest charitie, Ioan. 10. & 15. and which requireth greate patience and forti­titude.

8. Lastlie the perfection and height of the state of a Bishop, may be gathered by what M. Doctour hath sayed in his 6. Chapt. where he hath shewed that the Bishop is higher in dignitie, power and authoritie, then the simplie Priest, by the Diuine Institution; for that he can confirme and giue or­ders, and with two other Bishops can ordaine a Bishop: Which simple Priests cānot doe, at least, as ordinarie ministers; and therefore the Councell of Trent sayeth, that Bishops, doe principallie apper­taine to the Hierarchicall order. Conc. Trid. sess. 23. cap. 4. de Sa­cram. Ordin.

9. The same may be deduced by what he hath deliuered in his seuēth Chapter, were he hath pro­ued, that Bishops and Priests, are of the highest or­ders in the Church. This he hath proued out of diuers Fathers and examples, euen of Emperours who attribute much to the dignitie of Bishops, and amongst those Fathers he citeth S. Ignatius, Ignat. ep. ad Smyrn who sayeth, that in the Church of God, there is nothing greater then the Bishop.

[Page 138]10. The same may be also gathered out of his eleuenth Chapter n. 18. S. Th 2.2 q 185 ar 8. in Corp. Where he alleageth S. Thomas his words: Status religionis ad perfectionem pertinet, quasi quaedam via in perfectionem tendens: Status autem Episcoporum ad perfectionem pertinet, tanquam quoddam perfectionis Magisterium. Vnde status religionis comparatur ad statum Episcopalem, si­cut disciplina ad magisteriū, & dispositio ad perfectionē: The state of Religion pertaineth to perfection, as a cer­taine way tending vnto perfection: But the state of Bis­hops pertaineth to perfection as a certaine maistership of perfection. Whence it is that the state of Religion is compared to the Episcopall state as instructiō to maister­ship. M. Doctour also alleadgeth there Henricus de Gandauo who hath the like words, and thence he concludeth, Henr. quodl. 12. q. 29. Math. 10. that where the Religious endeth, there a Bishop or Pastour beginneth. For (as Christ sayeth) the disciple is not aboue the maister, nor the seruant aboue his Lord. It sufficeth the disciple, if he be as his maister. And seldome it is seene, that the Scholler attaineth to the perfection of his maister: and if he doth, yet the state of a Scholler is lower then the state of a maister, and it requireth lesse perfection. Henr Supra. Wherefore Henricus as M. Doctour al­leadged, sayeth that the maister ought to be perfecter thē the Scholler: and againe: that when any Religions is brought, ad summum aliquid & perfectum; to the hight of perfection; he is then fit to be assumed for a Prelate.

11. Why doth then M. Nicholas so storme against M. Doctour as though he had spoken partially and with disaduantage of a religious state through all his Treatise, and particularly in his 11. Chapter? Hath he [Page 139]sayed more for Bishops, or lesse for Regulars, or could he say more for Bishops then S. Thomas, Sua­rez and Henricus haue? Yea M. Doctour speaketh principallie out of S. Thomas, let him them wreake his anger on S. Thomas and Suarez.

12. So that M. Doctour in this, needeth neither to leaue S. Thomas nor Henricus de Gandauo, as M. Ni­cholas n. 13. saieth he must. For that concerning the state of a Bishop they both agree, as their words alleadged will witnesse; and although Henricus saieth more then S. Thomas doth, to wit, that not onelie the Bishop, but also inferiour Pastours are in an higher state of perfection then the regulars; much more in his opinion, the Bishop is in an hi­gher state thē the religious, for which onely thing M. Doctour alleadged him. And whereas M. Doctour saied, that where a religious man endeth, there a Bishop or Pastour beginneth, which words ( or Pastour) M. Nicholas carpeth at; M. Doctour addeth or Pastour, because he knewe that Henricus de Gandauo and Gerson doe hold, that euen Curats haue a state of perfection aboue regulars, which opiniō Suarez, as we shall see, deemeth not improbable; and at least, as M. Doctour a litle before had proued, they haue a calling and office of greater perfection thē hath the religious. Yet M. Doctour not standing on this, concludeth onelie, that the Bishop (he now addeth not or Pastour) layeth his foundation on the religious mans roofe and top. So that vnlesse M. Ni­cholas will leaue S. Thomas the Angelicall Do­ctour, Suarez and all Diuines, he must Graunt, that [Page 140]the Bishop is absolutelie in an higher state of per­fection, then the state of Regulars is.

13. And in deede M. Nicholas cannot bring so much as one argument to equalize the state of a Regular to the state of a Bishop, nor hath he, or can he answere any one of M. Doctours argumēts by which he preferred the state of a Bishop. What then hath he done? He telleth vs n. 2. that we must distinguish betwixt the state, which is to ex­ercise perfection, which is the state of Bishops, & the state which endeauoureth to attaine to perfe­ction, which is the state of Regulars, least we erre in generalities, as he saied, and be deceiued, with spe­cious words not well vnderstood; as though M. Do­ctour had not in his 11. Chap. made the same distin­ction, and therefore had deceiued others. And what more? he seeketh all he can to extoll a reli­gious state, as being more secure, yeelding more meanes to get grace: and to depresse the state of a Bishop, as requiring perfection, but yeelding no meanes to get it, as being dangerous &c. But let vs come to particulars.

THE REPLY.

M. NICHOLAS offereth iniurie to the state of a Bishop: for that it doth giue perfection euen ex opere operato.

14. I find by M. Nicholas his dealing in this [Page 141]point, that it is true which Philosophers say of the senses, to wit, that sensibile supra sensum positum non facit sensationem; and therefore the eye which can see the obiectes without it, cannot see the moate that is within it: for so M. Nicholas can espie odi­ous comparisons of the state of Bishops and re­gulars in M. Doctour (who indeede made none) but he cannot see such comparisons in himselfe, be­cause they are too neare him, as being his owne. For what comparison can be odious, if this be not, which derogateth to the verie consecration of the Bishops, as though thereby he receiued no grace? for although the state of a Bishop be holie, and is also the most eminent state and order in the Church of God, yea and, as the Councell of Trent sayeth, is onus Angelicis humeris for midādum, a bur­den to be feared euen of Angelles shoulders; Concil. Trid. sess 6. de Refor. c. 1. Suarez to 3 de Relig. l. 1.6.15. n. 12. and there­fore of it selfe presupposeth grace and perfection, which may be gotten, and oftentimes is, out of a Religious state, as M. Doctour proueth in his [...] Chapter n. 11. and Suarez also confesseth (wherein it hath a precedence of the religious state, which requireth no such former perfection, but admit­teth euen the greatest sinners, so they bring with them a purpose of amendment.) Yet the order of a Bishop which consisteth in an holy consecra­tion vnder a certaine forme of words, giueth great plentie of grace, and consequentlie of charitie (in which consisteth perfection) and that also ex opere operato as other Sacraments doe.

15. I graunt that Dominicus Sotus and others also [Page 142]are of opiniō, Sotus [...]n 9. d. 24. q. 2. ar. 3. Bel. to. 2. l. 1. de Sacr. Ord. c. 5. Vasq to 3. disput 260. c. 3 Petr. a Soto de Inst. Sacerd. lec. 4. de Sac. Ord. Mich. Med. l. 1. de Sa­crorum hom. conti­nentia cap. 15. that the order of a Bishop is an holy office and dignitie instituted by Christ, and higher then the dignitie of as Priest, but yet no Sacra­ment: Yet many other Diuines doe affirme it to be a holy Sacrament which is the opinion of C. Bellarmine, Vasquez, Petrus a Soto, Michael Medi­na, and commonly of Iesuites.

16. This they proue out of S. Paul in the first Epi­stle to. S. Timothie and 4. Chap. Noli negligere gratiaē quae in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam, cum impo­sitione manuum presbyterij: neglect not the grace that is in thee which is giuen thee by prophecie with the imposition of the hands of priesthood. Out of which Words the Fathers and Catholike writers do vse to proue that order is a Sacrament, which giueth grace: and therefore seeing that in these words S. Paul speaketh of the ordinatiō of Timothie a Bis­hop, which ordination is done by three Bishops, at least, who are vnderstood in the words Priesthood, Episcopall ordination must be an holy order and Sacrament, and yet not make 8. orders, because it is counted one order with priesthood, in that in essentiallie supposeth priesthood, without which presupposed, one cannot be a Bishop, & it maketh of a simple Priest an high Priest, who is called Summus Sacerdos. This consecration then of a Bis­hop which consisteth in imposition of hands of the priesthood, that is of three Bishops (as M. Do­ctour hath shewed in his Hierarchie Chap. 6. n. 6.) is an holy order and no lesse holy Sacramēt, which giueth grace to the Bishop (as S. Paul auerreth) & no doubt, copious and abundāt grace proportio­nable [Page 143]to the state of a Bishop, which as it is an high state subiect to dangers and many molestatiōs, so it requireth great grace. For if carnall marriage requireth grace to beare the burdēs and difficul­ties thereof, much more doth the Consecratiō of a Bishop, who by his office is to exercise the hi­ghest actes of perfection, and is to gouerne others & to expose himselfe by his office to many diffi­culties and dangers, requireth abundant grace. And this grace the Bishop receiueth by his con­secration.

17. And so M. Nicholas derogateth to the Epis­copall state & consecratiō when he saieth n. 5. that the Bishop, is in a state, which presupposeth, but doth not giue perfection, which a religious state doth not pre­suppose, but giue. For that the consecration of a Bi­shop doth giue great grace, and that ex opere operato and infalliblie, whereas the religious state giueth onelie ex opere operantis and not infalliblie, nor at all, vnlesse to the profession it maketh, and to the religious actes of pouertie, chastitie & obedience which it exerciseth, charitie be adioyned.

18. Secondlie the verie exercise of Episcopall functions being the most eminent Hierarchicall actions, and most charitable and beneficiall to o­thers, cannot but continuallie (vnlesse the Bishop by his owne fault doe hinder) augment this grace and perfection receiued in his consecration as M. Nicholas is forced to confesse n. 3. For as the maister by teaching others, perfecteth himselfe in learning, so the Bishop in perfecting others by [Page 144]ordaining, confirming, preaching, and gouerning perfecteth himselfe in grace, charitie & perfectiō.

19. And although there be greater danger in the state of a Bishop thē of a Regular (if he keepe his rule and cloister, yet the Bishop by his conse­cration receiueth grace to performe his office, which grace also is due to his consecration, and neuer wāting but by the Bishops owne fault. And this dāger proceeding from the height of the Bis­hops state, argueth it an higher state of perfectiō, because as S. Hierome saieth: non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri, iam cum Christo regnātium: it is not an easie thing to stand in Paules place, to bold the degree of Peter, who now raigne with Christ. Hieron ep. as Helio­dorum Quāto amore. For as the High Cedars are more shaken with winds thē the low shrubbes; so they who are highest in state and dignitie, are most subiect to the winds of tēp­tatiōs; and yet the Bishop in Peter & Paules place may stand firmely against all such tempestes and winds, if he vse the grace which he receiueth in his consecratiō, as many a worthie Bishop hath done.

THE REPLY.

A Bishop regular is not in an higher state of perfection then a Bishop secular.

20. If M. Nicholas his meaning in these words [Page 145]be, that a Bishop by his state is so to perfect others, as he hath no meanes to perfect himselfe, he goeth about to deceiue his Reader: for that (as euē now wee shewed) a Bishop by his consecration recei­ueth copious grace, and by exercising his functiō hath meanes to encrease it. If his meaning be that a Regular Bishop is in an higher state then a Bi­shop not regular, he is deceiued: for although the regular Bishop hath moe states, then the Bishop not regular, yet he hath no higher state. It is true that a regular Bishop if he obserue his counselles, vowes and rules, hath more meanes then a Bishop not regular, because he hath the meanes of a Bi­hop and of a regular also: but he cannot when he is Bishop exercise much more his counselles and Rules then a Secular Bishop doth: for that both are bound to chastitie, & the regular is now boūd to noe other obedience then the secular Bishop: and although the regular Bishop hath not Domi­nium of his reuenewes as the secular Bishop hath, yet he hath as much vse of them, sauing that he cannot make a testament, as the secular Bishop may. But howsoeuer he may haue more meanes to get perfection, yet he is not alwayes most fit to gouerne a Bishoprike.

22. Now as concerning these Regulars who by their institute (as M. Nicholas sayeth the same place nu. 4.) beside their owne perfection, attend also to the helpe of their neighbour; that is, doe preach and mi­nister Sacraments to Christians at home, and to infidells abroade: I graunt that they as Priests are [Page 146]of the Hierarchie (of which I shall speake in the next question) and doe exercise Hierarchicall a­ctions of perfecting, illuminating and purging o­thers: but that pertaineth not to a religious state in generall, and therefore the Regulars of the pri­mitiue Church were few of them Priests, as wee shall see in the next question, and so did none of the Hierarchicall actions, nor did they preach or minister Sacraments: and therefore Suarez sayeth that although the religious state doth sometimes ex­ercise actions pertaining to the state of perfection to be communicated, or to be exercised about others, they doe onelie participate it instrumentallie, and by a certaine delegation from the supreame Prelats: and therefore such a state doth not attaine to the excellencie of the Episco­pall state, to which these actions doe principallie, and as it were by proper right appertaine. Whereupon, the obligation of exercising such actes, and the procuring the saluation of soules, and loosing his life for them (if so it must be) is farre greater and higher in the Bishop, then in any whosoeuer simple religious, of whatsoeuer insti­tute he be. And therefore in this respect also his state is perfecter. Moreouer the Bishops by their owne right, and all priuiledges set a parte, are Pastours and perfe­ctors of the religious, of what order soeuer they be: and therefore by vertue of the office, more perfection is re­quired in the Bishop. Suarez to. 3. l. 1 c. 18. n. 14. Thus farre Suarez, whereas M. Nicholas addeth that the religious, who by their institute are not onely to perfect themselues but also others, is perfecter then the state of Cu­rats, we shall examine that hereafter.

THE REPLY.

Whether A vow not to be religious be wicked; and whe­ther one may vow not to accept a Bishopricke.

23. All that M. Nicholas here alleadgeth is litle to the purpose; for although there may be some commodities in a religious life, as lesse dāger more securitie, more meanes to mortifie sensua­litie and that therefore one may rather vow to be religious then to be a Bishop, or to accept of that office and dignitie, yet all would not proue that the state of a religious man is an higher state or as high, which yet is the thing we dispute of; for as the litle shrubbe is lesse shaken with the winds then the Cedar, yet is not taller then it: and as the low cottage is lesse beaten by tempests then the princelie pallace, yet is not higher, so the religious life may be a more secure, yet not a more perfect state.

24. But sayeth M. Nicholas n. 5. the more volun­tarie the election of a Religious life is, the more commendable it is, and the state of a Bishop is hen most securelie accepted of, when it is lesse [Page 148]willinglie accepted. I graunte this. But why? not because a Religious life is a perfecter state, but be­cause it being a lower state is lesse subiect to dan­ger, & so may more willinglie be desired & vowed. He proceedeth n. 6. a vow made of not accepting a Bishopricke is valid and holy. A vow not to become re­ligious is wicked, and of no force: ergo sayeth he, there must be something wherein a religious state surpasseth that of a Bishop. By the same argument M. Nicholas might preferre a religious state before the sate of the Pope, because a man may vowe to be reli­gious yet he may not vow to be Pope; or if he may vow not to accept a Bishoprike, much more may he vow not to accept the Popedome.

25. Wherefore I demaund of M. Nicholas when he saieth that for this cause, there must be some­thing wherein a religious life surpasseth that of a Bishop, What he meaneth by his something? if he meane some degree of state or perfectim, wherein the religious life surpasseth that of the Bishop, he cō ­tradicteth S. Thomas and Suarez & all that aboue is alleadged to proue the state of a Bishop to be the highest state of perfection. If he meane by that something more securitie, lesse danger, and perad­uenture some better meanes to tame our flesh, to bridle our concupiscence, to remoue the impe­diments of the loue of God, in which consisteth perfection: it is not to the purpose. For so there is something in a flye which is not in an Eagle, something in a mouse which is not in a Liō, some thing in a litle shrubbe, which is not in a Cedar [Page 149]something in a flint which is not in a Saphire, and yet absolutelie the Eagle surpasseth the flie, the Lion the mouse, the Cedar the shrubbe; the Sa­phire the fl [...]it, and so there may be something in a religious state which is not in the state of a Bis­hop, though this state absolutelie surpasse that.

26. But M. Nicholas obiecteth that to vow not to be religious, is wicked and inualid, to vow not to accept a Bishoprick is laudable and valid: ergo a religious state hath some good which a Bishops state hath not; else this might be vowed as well as that. I answere, first that to sweare at least in some case not to be religious is not wicked & yet an oath hath a greate affinitie with a vowe. For M. Nicholas knoweth that the Sea Apostolike hath commanded all these who will enioy the benefit of the Popes Seminaries, to sweare that they wilbe Priests, and will not enter into any religious order or congregation without licence of the Pope, vnlesse they first labour in the missiō the space of three yeares. And Nauarre sayeth, Naua. in M [...] ­nuali. ca. 12. n. 16. that for one to sweare that he will not enter into religion, or receiue holy orders is but a veniall sinne, ergo it is not to be called wicked: for saith he if to sweare to commit a veniall sinne be but a veniall sinne, to sweare not to be religious to which, vnder noe sinne he is bound, can be but a veniall sinne.

27. Nau. c. 12. n. Secondlie I answere with the same Nauarre more directlie, that to vow not to be religious byndeth not, and therefore, notwithstanding that [Page 150]vow, one may be religious; yet such a vow is but a veniall sinne, and so cannot be called wicked as M. Nicholas calls it, because in our English ton­gue, wicked soundeth as doth impium in the Latin tongue, and is taken for a grieuous or mortall sinne. And therefore M. Nicholas could not call him that committeth onelie a veniall sinne, a wicked or impious man.

28. Thirdely I answere that although to vow not to procure to be a Bishop may be holy and valid, yet to vow not to accept a Bishopricke when it is imposed on a mā by the Pope and in necessitie of the Church, is not holie and valid, but it is rather wicked and inualid. For that to vow not to ac­cept a Bishopricke in that case, is to vow a great disobedience against authoritie, and which also in that case, is against the Charitie we vow to God his Church, and so the vow is wicked being a vow of a mortall sinne, and it is inualid because it is not de meliori bono, not of an act which is bet­ter done then vndone, for that in that case it is not better not to accept a Bishopricke imposed by Authoritie, then to accept it. 2. 2. q. 185. ar. 2. Wherefore S. Tho­mas sayeth that to refuse finallie the office of a Bishop pertaineth to an inordination of the will for twoe causes. The one because it is against cha­ritie, S Tho 2. 2. q. 29. ar. 7. ad 2. the other because it is against humilitie, by which a man subiecteth himselfe to the comman­dement of the superiour. And in another place he sayeth: cum aliquis iurat quod non accipiet praela­tionem in casu quo expedit eum accipere &c. VVhen one sweareth that be will not accept of a prelacie when [Page 151]it is expedient be should, that he sinneth because his oath hundereth a greater good. Nauarre also say­eth, Nau. in man c 12. n. 16. that he who sweareth that he will not enter into Religion, or that he will not receiue holie orders, or that he will not accept of a Bishopricke sinneth, though not mortallie: and he citeth S. S. Thomas in the last place, Ange­lus & Sylu. v. I [...] ramē ­tum & Angelus, & Syluester. And he sayeth that such an oath doth not bynde. Azorius who citeth for himselfe. Antoninus, sayeth that the oath which one maketh not to accept of a Bishopricke may be broken by the priuate authoritie of him that sweareth. Azor. to. 1. l. 11. c. 5. And so to vow absolutelie not to accept a Bishopricke is vnlaw­full, because in a necessitie one may be bound to accept is and to desire it, and if it be imposed by authoritie it cannot be refused. Onely it is law­full and laudable to vow not to seeke for a Bisho­pricke, or to accept of it when it is offerred and when there is no necessitie, and when it is not imposed by a commanding authoritie.

29. Lastelie I answere that although to vow to procure to be a Bishop or to seeke after that dignitie, where there is no necessitie of the church, be sinfull and of no force to bynd; and to vow to be a Religious man be an holie and va­lid vow: and to vow absolutelie, not to procure a Bishopricke is holie and valid, & to vow absolu­tely not to be a religious mā is absolutelie vnholie and not valid: Yet that is not because to be a reli­gious man is absolutelie better then to be a Bishop (for as S. Paul saieth, if a man desire a Bishops office, [Page 152]he desireth a good worke, 1. Tim. 3. Yom. 3. de Relig. c. 18. and as we haue seene and as Suarez affirmeth, a worke more perfect then the proper actes and functions of a religion are, but because the office of a Bishop (though good and of greater charitie & perfection then re­ligious professiō & in that respect fit to be vowed as much as other good workes) is subiect to aua­rice by reason of the riches annexed vnto it, to ambition by reason of the splendour and honour, and to presumption by reason of mans impropor­tion to such a dignitie, and lastlie to other dangers by reason of many destractions caused by Episco­pall affaires, and so cannot be so much as desired, as S. Thomas affirmeth: yet as he also auerreth, S Tho 2 2. q. 185. ar [...]. to desire to doe good to others, in the exercise of the Episcopal function is of it selfe laudable and vertuous According to which S. Chrysostome cited by S. Tho­mas, Chrys. bom. 35. in Mat. sayth: opus quidem desiderate bonum, bonum est, primatum tameu bonoris concupiscere vanitas est; primatus enim fugientem se desiderat, desider antem so odit: To desire a good worke is good, but to couet the primacie of honour is vanitie, for that primacie desireth him that flyeth it, and hateth him that desireth it.

30. But in necessitie of the Church, when there want men able and willing, or when other wise an vnworthie person would be preferred, to de­fire or to vow to be a Bishop is noe sinne, nor is the vow inualid. Suarez hauing sayed, that though the state of a Bishop be better then the state of a religious man obliging to more perfect operations, and requiring more and greater vertues, yet cannot be [Page 153]vowed because that onely can be vowed, Szarez to. 3. l. 1. c. 18. n. 5. 11. 12. which is not onely good, but also hath no danger an­nexed: yet notwithstanding (sayeth he) it is not intrinsecallie euill, to vow to accept a Bishops office if it be abstracted from these temporall commodi­ties, as honour, riches, splendour (as now it is in En­gland) and especiallie if it be ioyned with the contrarie incommodities, to which it was ioyned in the primatiue Church, and as it is now in Iaponia and China, yea and in England. I speake sayeth he of a vow of ac­cepting a Bishops office, for thē the iudgement of the fitesse and worthinesse of the person, is left to the Supe­riour, and so the danger of presumption is taken awaye. and other dangers are supposed not to be. Wherefore to procure a Bishop office though the sayed conditiōs be sup­posed, can hardlie be approued much lesse counselled or vowed: yet he also addeth, that if there were greate necessitie of the Church to haue a Bishop, and yet such discommodities annexed to the Bishopricke or dāger of death &c. and none could be foūd fit and willing; then to offer ones selfe (to be a Bishop) would be a worke of perfection and matter of vow. By this it is euident that the state of a Bishop farre passeth in perfectiō of state the state of religious, and that which M. Nicholas bringeth to exalte the religious, proues onelie that in it is lesse danger and some good meanes to attaine to prefection, and that therefore religiō may more frequētlie & securelie be vowed.

31. But M. Nicholas sayeth n. 6. p. 99. that to desire a Bishopricke euē for that is best in it, namely for the good of soules according to S. Thomas 2.2. q. 185. ar. 1. seemes [Page 154]presumption, and there wants not who sayeth that cō ­monly it is a deadly sinne and he citeth in the margēt Valentia. to. 3. disp. 10.9.3. puncto 228.

32. I answere that this spoken, so rawlie as it is by M. Nicholas, may derogate to the most perfect and most necessarie state in God his Church, yea and to S. Thomas also: and therefore needeth exa­mination. S. Thomas in that place sayeth, that in the office of a Bishop three thinges are to be conside­red. The first & principall is the good worke of a Bishop, by which he attendeth to the profit if his flocke in gouerning them, fieeding thē by the word of God and Sacraments &c. The 2. is the height of his degree ouer others. The 3. is that which follow­eth these twoe, to wit, riches, honour, reuerence &c. Wherefore sayeth he, to desire a Bishopricke for the third is auarice or ambition; for the second it seemeth to be presumption: but for the first it is of it selfe laudable and vertuous. But because the first, which is the worke of a Bishop, hath an­nexed vnto it the height of degree, praesumptuosum videtur quod aliquis praeesse appetat ad boc quod subdi­tis prosit, nisi manifesta necessitate imminete: it seemeth presumptuous, that one should desire to beare rule to pro­fit others, vnlesse in an euident and imminent necessitie. So that M. Nicholas left out his answere in the last wordes vnlesse in an euident and imminent neces­sitie. For thē it is lawfull to desire a Bishopricke, so to exercise the function, and to profit others, else S. Paul would not haue sayed: he that desireth a Bishops office desireth a good worke. He alleadgeth Valētia also [Page 155]as though he sayed absolutely that it is a mortall sinne to desire a Bishopricke to profit others: but he also serueth him in the same māner, Tom 3 disp. 10. q. 3. puncto 2. Cō ­clus. 3. V. Epis. Tolet. l 5. c. 3. Nau. tom. 3. Miscel. 36. & 37. Hour. l. 10. c. 32. § 3. Valen­tia sup. Concl. 2. for he also sayeth: In casu necessitatis laudabile potest esse vt qui dignus est appetat Episcopatum: In case of necessitie it may be laudable for him that is worthie to desire a Bis­hopricke. And this he sayeth is the common opi­niō as in deed it is. Emanuel Sa sayeth that for the necessitie or vtilite of the Church a Bishopricke may be desired. The same do also Nauarre and Tolet auerre: So doth Henriquez. And Nauarre against Valentia, saieth that to desire a Bishopricke with the honour and reuenewes annexed, is no sinne, but merite if it be principallie desired for the honour of God, and the good of our neighbour. And although Valētia thinketh that oftētimes it is a mortall sinne to desire a Bishopricke though he that desireth it be worthie and doe also desire it for the end to doe his office, and to doe good to others: yet Nauarre holdeth against him, and in­deed if for the danger of sinne in the discharging of the office (as Valentia saieth) one that is worthie and intendeth God his honour, and the good of others, may not desire a Bishopricke, he may not accept of a pastorship or seeke for it though in many places pastorships be giuen by concurse, be­cause though the danger be not so great, yet if it be a great Parish it is sometymes not much lesse: and if for danger one might not desire a Bisho­pricke in this case, we could not accept of our mission to England where there is more danger. [Page 156]But as this danger in England is not imminēt nor morall, so we prepare our selues well and de­maund God his grace: so neither is the danger of a Bishop imminēt or morall if otherwise he be fit and haue a good intention. And Vasquez a learned Iesuite sayeth, In op. dub. 1. de E­pisco­patu. that as to desire vertue or to doe an act of vertue for honour or prayse is but a veniall sinne of vaine glorie: so to desire a Bishop­ricke for the honour and dignitie, so that one in­tend withall God his honour, and the good of o­thers and be also fit, is but a veniall sinne, and that therefore S. Thomas sayeth, 2. 2. q. 185. ar. 1. onely that it is vnlaw­full and seemeth presumption, but sayeth not that it is a mortall sinne as Ʋalentia doth.

THE REPLIE.

How M. Nicholas herein contradicteth S. Thomas and Suarez, and how religious perfection accor­ding to Suarez consisteth not in actes but in habit.

33. S. Tho. 2 2. q. 184. ar. 3. ad 1. & in [...]orp. M. Nicholas herein flatlie contradicteth S. Thomas, who in his answere to the first argument which obiected those words Math. 19. Si visperfe­ctus esse, vade vende omnia &c. If thou wilt be per­fect, goe fell the thinges that thou bast, and giue to the [Page 157]poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen, and come, fellow mee: sayeth: that in those words of our Lord, something is put as the way to perfection, to wit that which is saied: goe sell all the things that thou hast and giue to the poore: But another thing is added, in which perfection consisteth, to wit, follow me. VVhereupon S. Hierom saieth, that because it is not sufficient onely to leaue what he hath, Peter addeth what is perfect, and we haue fellowed thee. And S. Ambrose vpon these words Luc. 5. follow mee: saieth: he biddeth follow not by the bodyes going but by the mynds affection, which is done by charitie. And therefore by the manner of spea­king it appeareth that the Counsailes are certaine in­struments to come to perfection, when it is sayed: If thou wilt be perfect, goe sell &c. as if he sayed, by doing this thou shall, come to This end. thus S. Thomas. Hiero. in hūc locum Ambr super illud Luc: 5. sequere meto. 5. cap. 5. And so pouertie, chastitie, obedience and other actes of vertue exercised in religion are not as M. Nicho­las sayeth, the perfection of a religious life, but onely meanes to come to perfection, that is charitie. And in the corps of the article in the end: S. Thomas alleadgeth Moyses Abbot, S. Tho. supra. Cassia. collas. 1. c. 7. who as Cassian relateth sayed: iciunia, vigiliae, meditatio Scripturarum, nuditas &c. fastinges, watchings, medi­tation of the Scriptures, nakednesse, and priuation of all riches, are noe perfection, but instruments of perfectiō, because in them consisteth not the end of that discipline (to wit of a religious order) but by them is attained the end.

34. He contradicted also Suarez who sayeth that the counsailes, which are the actes of vertue pra­ctised [Page 158]principallie in religion, Suarez to. 3. l. 1. c 15. n. 12. and which M. Nicho­las must especiallie meane by his actes of vertue, are not perfection but instrumēts to attaine perfectiō. Illa consilia (sayeth he) corumque obseruantia non con­tinent formalem perfectionem sed sunt instrumenta ad illam acquirendam, sine illis tamen potest inueniri per­fectio: those counsailes and their obseruance, doe not containe formall perfection, but they are instruments to get it; yet without them perfection may be found.

35. Suarez to. 3. l. 1. c. 4. Yea Suarez denyeth that the perfection which a religious person intendeth, consisteth in multitude, facilitie and continuation of actes of vertue, as M. Nicholas would haue it, but sayeth it con­sisteth not onely in charitie which is the essentiall perfection of a Christian life and consequentlie of a religious order; nor in any acte of charitie or o­ther actes of vertue as M. Nicholas would make vs beleeue, but in an habituall promptitude and faci­litie of louing God, and exercising other actes of vertue for the loue of God. For (sayeth he) if this religious perfection consisted in actes, a religious man when he sleepeth looseth his perfection: for then he hath noe vse of reason nor of any reaso­nable actions. Onelie sayeth he actes of charitie and other vertues pertaine to perfection antece­dentlie, because by them is gotten the aforesayed habit and promptitude, and consequentlie also be­cause they conserue that promptitude, but in them consisteth not the perfectiō intended to be gotten by a state of perfectiō as M. Nicholas sayeth. Wherefore M. Nicholas not daring to stand constantlie to [Page 159]this, addeth towards the end of this discourse in his 7. number, or else in an habit, with particular re­ference to the sayed frequentation and continuation of such acts.

THE REPLY.

M. Nicholas endeauours to preferre a religious state before that of a Bishop by reason of the aduantages of a religious life, of which the first is, the obseruation of the Counselles.

36. If I would be as carping as M. Nicholas is against M. Doctour, I could tell him that S. Thomas 1.2. q. 104. ar. 4. as he is cited in the margent by M. Nicholas, hath nothing of the Euangelicall counselles. Onely in his 108. quest. and 4. artic. he hath, and sayeth, that the Euangelicall counsailes are proper to the new law, which is true in respect of their perfection and vowes annexed to them in the new law, but yet they were obserued by the children of the Prophetes and others: and there­fore S. Hierom sayeth: filij Prophetarum quos mona­chos in veteri testamento legimus adificabant sibi casulas proper fluenta Iordanis &c. The chil­dren of the Prophets whom we read to haue beene monkes in the old law, builded to themselues litle cota­ges nere to the riuers of Iordan &c. Ep. 4. ad R [...] ­sticum. And againe. Ep. 13. ad Paul [...]. Nos autem babeamus propositi nostri principes Paulos, An­tonios, Hilariones Macharios, & vt ad Scripturarum auctoritatem redeam, noster Princeps Elias, noster Eli­seus, [Page 160]nostrifilij Prophetarum; but let vs, haue as Princes of our Institute those Paules, Antonies, Hilarions, Ma­chariouses, and to returne to the authortiie of Scrip­tures, our Prince Was Elias, ours Eliseus, ours the chil­dren of the Prophetes.

37. M. Nicholas addeth. and in this particular (to wit of obseruance of the three coūsailes, pouertie, chastitie, and obedience) there appeares a mame difference betwixt a Religious man and a Bishop, whois not at all bound to pouertie, and to chastitie, he is obliged onely as other Priests by a row annexed to holie orders. If by this reason M. Nicholas will proue that a re­ligious state excelleth the state of a Bishop, be­cause that state hath the wow of chastitie anne­xed, this hath not; by the same reason he might proue that a simple Priest, yea a Deacon or Sub­deacon hath an higher state then a Bishop be­cause to the order of Subdeacon is annexed the vow of chastitie which is not annexed a new vnto the order of a Bishop. To 3. l. c 16. n 25. But let Maister Ni­cholas say as he pleaseth, the Bishop is bound to keepe chastitie as much as the Priest, and although as Suarez sayeth, he maketh not a new vow when he is consecrated Bishop, yet be­cause he can not be a consecrated Bishop vnlesse he first receiue priesthood, to which this vow is annexed, he cannot be a Bishop consecrated with­out this obligation to keepe chastitie. And al­though this vow of chastitie be annexed to pries­hoold by the law of the Church, which M. Nicho­las addeth as though that did something derogate [Page 160]to the Bishops state; I answere that as the vow of chastitie which the religious maketh, proceedeth from his humane free will, yet aster it is made, byndeth by the Diuine law; so although the vow of chastitie in a Priest, proceedeth originallie from the Churches law (and therefore the Greeke Priests may vse their wiues they had before Priest­hood because the Church byndeth not them to any such vow) yet a Priest voweth freelie, for that he may choose whether he wilbe Priest or noe, and supposing that he voweth chastitie, his vow byndeth him by the Diuine law according to that. Vouete & reddite: vow and render. Ps. 75.

37. Whereas M. Nicholas affirmeth that a Bi­shop elected yea and confirmed may marrie: I deny it. For, although (if he be not in holy orders) he hath made no vow of chastitie, Cap; inter corpo­raliada Trans. Episce­pi. Suarez Vasq. Cano­mist c. cum ap Mon. de sta­tu mo­nach. S Tho. Scotua yet (as Innocētius the third affirmeth) he that is elected and confir­med Bishop, cōtracteth a spirituall marriage with his Church which as Suarez lib. 1. cap. 16. cit. sayeth byndeth by the Ecclesiasticall, or as Caietan. and Vasquez to. 3. in 3 p. disp. 2. & cap. 1.3.5. Caiet. 2. 2. q. 184. ar. 6. thinke by the Diuine law; and so after he is confirmed, he cannot leaue his Church with­out the Popes leaue or dispensation. So after a simple vow of religion if one marrie he sinneth but his marriage is valid. Nay a regular professed by dispensation of the Pope, may of religious be­come no more religious and soe may marrie as cōmonlie the Canonists, & diuers Diuines do hold, And although S. Thomas in 2.2. q. 88. ar. 11. in Corp. [Page 162]teacheth that the Pope cannot dispense in a solēne vow, and Durād Riah. in 4. d. 98. Henr. de Gand. quod 5. q 28 Caict. Less. Caiet. Supra. yet Caiet. 2.2. q. 88. ar. 11. sayeth, that this his opiniō proceedeth frō a mistaking of the Ch. Cūad Monasterium. Wherefore we reade that diuers Po­pes haue dispensed with regulars professed, to mar­rie, as may appeare by diuers examples related by Caietan, Lessius, l. 2. de Veto c. 40. dubit. 14. num. 111. and others. Yea, as Nauarre witnesseth the Com­mendators of the militarie orders of S. Iames of Alacantara and Calatraua, are truely religious, and doe make the three vowes, but their vow of cha­stitie is onely of coniugall chastitie betwixt man and wife. And so their religion, though a true reli­gious state, admitteth Marriage. I graunt that some Diuines doe hold that these are not perfectlie but imperfectlie, and as they say secundum quid reli­religious, but yet Rodericus to. 1. q. 1. ar. 6. Fortunius. Burg. de Pa. Roder. Nan. with Nauar. trac. de Reddit. ibid. and diuers others whom he citeth doe affirme them to be truelie religious, though militarie religious. Whereas the state and order of a Bishop, consecra­ted priest, Deacon and Subdeacon admitteth noe valid marriage.

38. As for pouertie in which M. Nicholas sayeth the regular excelleth the Bishop, because he is not bound to pouertie. S. Tho­mas. I answere with S. Thomas 2.2. q. 184. ar. 7. ad. 1. that the actuall abrenuncia­tion and leauing of all riches is not perfection but an instrument and meanes to get perfection: and therefore a state of perfection may be without this actuall leauing of all. But to leaue all in prepara­tion of mind, so as that a man be prepared to leaue [Page 163]all when the case happeneth that he mast leaue all or offend God mortallie, is perfection: yea S. Thomas sayeth: & hoe pertinet directe ad perfectionē: and this pertaineth directlie to perfection, because this preparation includeth charitie, and the loue of God by which we are so disposed that we are prepared rather to leaue all euen life it selfe, then to offend god mortallie. Ad hoc autem (sayeth S. Thomas) S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. ar 7. ad 1, maximè tenentur Episcopi: quod omnia sua pro honore Die, & salute sui gregis contemnant, cum opus fuerit, vel pauperibus sui gregis largiendo, vel rapinam honorum suorum cum gaudio sustinendo: and to tbis Bishops most of all are obliged, to contemne all for the honour of God and the health of their flocke when it shalbe needfull, either by giuing all to the poore, or by taking with ioy the spoyle of their goods. Hebr.

THE REPLY.

Of securitie and immobilitie and whether the regular, in them excelleth the Bishop.

39. M. Nicholas would preferre a regular at least in this particular respect of securitie before the state of a Bishop. And I graunt that if the regular keepe his cloister and obserue his rules, he is more separated frō all occasiōs of sinne; but this as aboue I haue saied, argueth not, an higher or perfecter but a lower state; for as the low shrubbe (as I saied [Page 164]before) is lesse shaken with wind and tempests then the higher Cedars, so the lower the state is the lesse it is subiect to tentations, and dangers, & the higher it is the more dangerous it is, for that (as S. Hierome saith) non est facile stare loco Paulite­nere gradum Petri: it is not easie to stand in the place of Paul, to held the degree of peter: Hier. supra ap. ad Helio dorum But as the state of a Bishop by reason of the height of it, & the charge annexed to it, is more difficile and dangerous then the state of a Regular; so his victorie ouer these difficulties, is more meritorious and glorious then the vertue of a Religious man by how much the religious hath lesse and fewer difficulties to ouer come. A certaine holy and learned Abbot Philipp de Harueing aboue fowre hundered yeares agoe (whose workes were approued and printed in Doway) in his 99. Chapt. sayeth the same in better words: for speaking of the states of a regular and a Pastor, he deliuereth his conceite of this point in these words: est ergo quanto facilius tanto securius de medio fugere Babilonis & saluari: est antem quanto diffieilius, tanto gloriosus in medio Babilonis Vi­ctorem coronari: It is therefore, as much more easie, so much more secure, to fly out of the middest of Babilon (the world) as the regular doth and be saued: but it is so much the more glorious by how much the more difficile, to be crowned victour in the middest of Babilon, as the good Bishop and Pastour is. And S. Austine saieth, that there is no­thing in this life, and especiallie this time, more easie and ioyfull and more acceptable to menthe the office of a Bishop, Priest or Deacon if the office be done negligentlie [Page 165]and for a fashion; sed nihil apud Deum miserius & tri­stius, & damnabilins. But nothing before God more miserable, sadde, and damnable. Item nihil esse in hac vita & maximè hoc tempore, difficilius, laboriosius, pe­riculosius, si eo modo militetur quo noster imperator in­bet: And there is nothing in this life, especiallie in this time, that is more hard more laborious more dāgerous thē the office of a Bishop, Priest or Deacon, if so We Warre, as our Emperour commaundeth. Ep. 143 valer. Episc. And therefore S. Chryso­stome saieth that if you should bring vnto him a monke as good as Helias, yet he were not to be cōpared to him who being giuen (as Pastour) to the people and cāpelled to beare the sinnes of many, persisteth immoueable and strong. Chris. 16 de Sacer­detio. And the same Doctour Cōsidering the diffi­cultie & merit of the Bishops charge: if one (saith he) should propose vnto mee where I had rather please (God) either in the Priestlie office that is of a Bishop or in the solitude of Monkes; without comparison I would make choise of that I first spoake of. And if the regular be sent in mission to doe the functions of a Pastour then he is in as greate danger as the Pastour, & in so much the greater as mutations from one extreame to another are more dan­gerous. And therefore in the primatiue Church when regulars were sent abroad into the world to preach or to take care of soules, they vsed to send none into the world, but such as by long practise of humilitie, and mortification in a reli­gious state, were as dead to the world in affection as they were by profession. But if M. Nicholas may make comparisons with the Bishop because a re­gular [Page 166]is in greater securitie, he may compare the inferiour regular with his Abbot and Generall, because their state as it is higher so it is lesse free from danger, it being harder to gouerne others then ones selfe, and easier to rule one then many.

40. Now as concerning immobilitie, which is another aduantage that the regular, (as M. Ni­cholas affirmeth) hath of the Bishop, T. 3 li. I.C. 16. n. 23. I ans­were with Suarez that when the Bishop accep­teth the office of a Bishop in such a Church, and is accepted of it, he maketh a pact and couenant with his Church to remaine with it, and to exercise Episcopall functions in it (to which saieth Suarez he is bound by charitie and iustice) and this is sufficient to make the Bis­hop to haue a state immoueable. Yet this immo­bilitie is augmented by the ecclesiasticall law (as he thinketh) or euen by the diuine law, as Vas­guez affirmeth. And saieth Suarez a vow is not re­quired to make a state immoueable, because, saieth he, a vow is not the totall cause of a state. Suarez & Vasq supra. And whereas S. Thomas seemeth to require a vow annexed to the state of the Bishop, he answereth with Caretan, that S. Thomas meaneth onely the aforesayed pact, which the Bishop maketh with his Church when he accepteth it. S Th. 2. 2. q 284. ar. 58 & q. 185 ar. 4. And because the Bishop is many times elected and confirmed Bishop of a place before he is consecrated, he is also then in a state of perfection, because then he maketh a pacte and couenant with his Church & electours, neuer to leaue that Church without li­cence or dispensation of the Pope, with which [Page 167]difpensation the religious may leaue sus religious state and marrie, as aboue we haue shewed.

THE REPLY.

Regulars as regulars are by office to haue care of the soules of others.

41. Here M. Nicholas must be content to heare againe M. Doctours reduplication of Regulars as Regulars, for as Regulars they are not to haue care or charge of others but of their owne soules, to the perfecting where of they endeauour: and there­fore the regular state (as we haue seene) and as M. Doctour teacheth Chap. 12. is status perfection is ac­quirendae, non exercendae vel conimunicandae, a state of perfectiō to be gottē not to be exercised on others or to be cōmunicated vnto thē: & therefore saieth S. Thomas Bishops are in state of a perfectors of o­thers, S. TW. 2.2. q. 184. ar. 7. regulars are in state of them that are perfe­cted. And so the regular state is to get perfectiō for ones selfe, the Bishops state is to communicate perfection to others by preaching, administration of Sacraments &c. Secondlie wee must distinguish bet wixt the obligation which one hath of iustice and by office, and the obligation which is onely of charitie. By this second obligatiō not onely Pa­stours, but also others not Pastours are bound whē there is opportunitie, to haue care and to helpe their neighbour by fraternall correction, freindlie counsaile and exhortation. And by this obligation [Page 168]of charitie, the religions when occasion occurreth are bound to helpe others. Ecc. c. 11. & 17. Mat. 18. By the first obligation which is of office and iustice, onely Pastours and Superioursare bound to assist their neighbours & to tender their saluation. I graunt that the regular if he practise the counsailes well and obserue his rule exactlie, and exercise him selfe in actes of hu­militie; patience, mortification frequentlie, doth remoue the impedimentes which hinder the loue of God, and so hath good meanes to encrease in himselfe the loue of God, and consequentlie of his neighbour, this loue being grounded in that: and so if he be called to preach, teache and minister Sa­craments, his charitie will much helpe him yea mooue and incite him to doe good to others: but this belongeth not to him precisely as he is a re­gular, for then it should belonge to all regulars euen lay brethren & women (for, as aboue I saied, quod connenit alioui quà tali conuenit omni tali) but as he is Priest and is called to doe the office of a Pa­stour, which office belongeth not to him, as due to the state of a regular, but (as Suarez sayeth in the words aboue alleadged) by priuiledge, by delega­tion and by participation. And therefore (sayeth Suarez) the obligation of exercising such actions, Suarez l. 1. c 18 p. 18. and procuring the saluation of soules and loofing life for thē is farre greater & higher in a Bishop (as it is also in an inferiour Pastour who also by office is to giue his life for his sheepe Io. 10.) thē in any whatsoeuer simple religious of what institute soeuer he be, that is, although by his institute, he be to preach, teach, and mini­ster Sacraments, as the Dominicans, Franciscans, [Page 169]& Iesuites are. And so when regulars haue beene sent to preach to infidelles (as many haue beene who also haue performed these functions with greate successe, as M. Doctour, confesseth in his Hierarchie) they did these offices (as Suarez sayeth) by commission, delegation, and priuiledge, and not by any ordinarie right.

42. I graunt therefore that religious and some by their in stitute doe many of the functions of Pa­stours, for as Pastours do preach; Cap. [...]. n. 8. so doe they; as Pastours doe minister Sacraments, so doe they at least some Sacraments: but in regulars this is ac­cessorie, in Pastours principall; in regulars it is vo­lūtarie, in Pastours necessarie; in regulars it is will and pleasure, in pastours obligatiō; in regulars it is free offer, in Pastours boūden duty. Regulars assiste soules without charge or obligation to answere for thē; the pastours must answere soule for soule, yea for as many soules as he hath charge of the regulars doth minister Sacraments sometimes and to those that come to them, Pastours in sommer & winter, by day and by night, in rayne and snow in heate and cold, must oftentimes goe to their pe­nitentes howses, there to heare their confessions, there to minister vnto thē the B. Sacrament, there to giue them the last Sacrament: The regulars meddle not with Baptisme, marriage and extreme vnction, the Pastour ministreth all. In fine the Pastour with Iacob day and night is parched with heate and forst; Genes. 31. &. 35. Math. 20. and is by office vigilant and carefull for his sheepe that the sleepe flyeth from his eyes: and with the first workers in the vinyeard he beares the burden of the day and heate: Whereas the regular as [Page 170]they are the later workers, so they worke at plea fure. And as one saieth the Priests or Pastours of the Church, are the body of the armie, regulars are the ayding wings, Priests are pressed souldiers, regulars are voluntaries; Priests by office and ordi­nary right do minister Sacraments and preach, re­gulars only by priuiledge. And therefore S. Denys sayeth that because that the monkes when they were innitiated, did not kneele an both knees, nor had the Diuine bookes layed on their head, but were neere the Priests whilest he recited the prayer: Declarat monachorum ordinis non esse alios de­ducere, sed in se ac per se stare in singulari sancto (que) statu. Lib de Eccl. Hier. co S. Con­tépla­tio se. cundū vers. perio­tium.

THE REPLY.

M. Nicholas speaketh to baselie of the Bishops office and dutie.

43. when I redde these words of M. Nicholas I confesse I noe litle wondered to heare a religious man, who should honour Bishops and Pastours, speake in this manner. But, speake truth, M. Ni­cholas, & da gloriam Deo: giue glorie to God, in giuing the due to his Bishop. Is not the Bishop also boūd, and especiallie bound, out of charitie to vndertake [Page 171]and execute his office in illuminating and perfe­cting others, and in giuing his life for thē? If he be not; why did Christ three times demaund of S. Pe­ter whether be loued him, Ioan, 21 before he would cōmitte the gouernement of the Church vnto him? Doe not those words of our Sauiour a good shepheard giueth his life for his sheepe, Ioan. 10. pertaine especially & more principallie to Bishops (yea and to inferiour Pastours) then to regulars? Suarez a regular as well as M. Nicholas, Lib 1. c 18 n. 14. and farre more learned and modest in the place last alleadged, sayeth that the obligation of exercising actions (ordained to the perfecting of others) and the procuring the saluation of soules, and loosing life for them, is farre greater and higher in a Bis­hop, then in any whatsoeuer simple religious, of what Institute soeuer hee be. And is there any greater chari­tie then to expose ones life for his sheepe as the Bishop is bound? confesse then, M. Nicholas, to the honour of God (who is honored in his Bishops) that the obligation which the Bishop hath to illu­minate others, & to giue his life for thē, is greater thē any regular hath, vnlesse he be also a Bishop or Pastour. Yea (as aboue we haue sayed) it belon­geth not to regulars as regulars to illuminate o­thers, or to giue their liues for them (for then they should be in statu perfectionis acquisitae & exercendae) but onlie to seeke to saue and perfect themselues. And M. Nicholas (see how partiall affection domi­neereth sometimes euen in Religious men) when he sayeth that a Bishop is eyed to illuminate others and to giue his life for his flocke by iustice only in regard of his maintenance, and by fidelitie in regard of his coucuant made with his flocke, and that regulars meerelie out of [Page 172]charitie expose themselues to dangers for gaining of soules, as he commendeth partiallie regulars, so he derogateth no litle to all Bishops in making thē all in a māner mercenaries, which kind of Pastours Christ discōmēdeth & reiecteth. For that the mer­cenarie takes care of the flock not for the sheepes good & loue of them, but for his owne interest to wit, honour, maintenance, and lucre, as M. Nicholas seemeth to say all Bishops doe. And so regulars are only the good Pastours who meerely vpon charitie and religion doe illuminate others, and aduenture their life for sauing of soules. wherefor as all Bishops ought to accept their office principallie for the loue of God and zeale of soules, so we must haue that cha­ritable opinion of them, as to thinke that they doe so. Suarez speaketh more honorablie of the cha­ritie of the Bishop. Tertiò desideratur maximè in E­piscopo charitas, tum in Deum qui est principalis ouium Dominers, vt significanit christus Ioan. 21. cum ter inter­roganit Petrum an se diligeret prinsquam illiones suas commendaret &c. Thirdlie (saieth he) there is required most of all in a Bishop charitie as well towards God who is the principall Lord of the sheepe, as Christ signified Ioa. 21. when three times he demaunded of Peter whether he. loued him, before he commended vnto him his sheepe; as also towards his subiectes, Suarez c. 18. n. 4. whom he must tolerate, receiue beinglie, patiētlie suffer & releiue their necessities, and serue thē according to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 9. I made myselfe the seruāt of all that I might gaine the moe. And after: To the weake I became weake, that I might gaine the weake. And finallie he is bound in a particular māner by vertue of his office, so to loue his sheepe, [Page 173] as to yeeld his life for thē (if loit must he as Christ taughe Ioan. 10. Whence it is that patience is necessarie for him, which hath a perfect worke, because hee must not onely obserue mercie, but also iustice, & that sometymes stoutly and seuerelie. Whence also it must needs be, that he must suffer many thinges of the naughtie. For these causes therefore and the like, the Episcopall throne is a place of, greatest perfection. Thus, and thus farre Suarez.

44. Whereas M. Nicholas addeth n. 12. that merit doth not consist in office, but in actes thereof. I must tell him that though merit cōsist not in office only, yet there is greate merite in executing a lawfull & holy office, such as is the office of the Priest & Bis­hop, & the greater the state, office, and dignitie is, the greater is the merit in executing it. And M. Ni­cholas cannot deny, but that the state & dignitie of the person addeth merit to his actions. For as the regulars actions by reason of his state and vow, are more meritorious then are the same actiōs done by other Christiās not regulars: so not onely the Bis­hops actions proper to his state, are of greater per­fection and merit then the proper actions of regu­lars: but also the same actions done by a regular & a Bishop, are more meritoriousin a Bishop thē in a regular. For as M. Nicholas know weth the dignitie of the person dignifieth the operation, & therefore Christ his operations were of infinite merit and satisfaction, because his person and state of the na­turall sonne of God, was infinite.

45. And now one would thinke that M. Nicholas had made an end of his (I feare) too odious compa­risons of the state of a regular with the state of a Bishop: but it seemeth he hath reserued the most [Page 174]odious to the last place, for that in the same 12. nū ­ber immediatlie after the words alleadged, he cal­leth the world to witnesse whether the regulars haue not more enlightned, it thē secular Pastours. These are his words. Let the whole worlds experience decide whether the secular Pastours or Religions men doe in fact enlighten mankind, by preaching, teaching, filling libraries with learned volumes, reducing heretikes throughout Europe and conuerting iafidelles in both the Indies, Iaponia, China &c. To this his comparison I answere first, that I grant that manie countries haue beene conuerted by religious men, as Englād by S. Austine and his Fellow Monkes, Germanie by S. Boniface and other religious mē. And in this last age the Iesuites are famous for the conuersion of Infidelles in Iaponia, China and other Coūtries, and amongst them S. Xauier was the chiefe. But M. Nicholas must grant that by the Apostles who were Bishops and Priests, and cānot be proued out of Scripture to haue beene properly religious, & by many of their successors not religious, many coun­tries haue beene reduced to the Christiā faith. Se­cōdlie I answere that though it be most true that many coūtries haue beene conuertedby religious, so for M. Nicholas to braue all secular Pastours vnder whom are cōprehended Bishops & Popes, is to bold a comparison. Thirdly I answere that regulars did not as regulars nor as Abbots or Priors which are Titles of their religious state, conuert these countries, but as Priests and Bishops and Po­pes which are Titles of the Clergie. To that which M. Nicholas, addeth n. 13. concerning the state of religiō which tēdeth to perfectiō, & of the Bishop [Page 175]which supposeth perfection, & therefore per­fecteth others, I haue answered him fullie in the beginning of this question.

THE REPLY.

M. Nicholas hath had no successe in comparing Re­gulars with Bishops.

46. M. Nicholas in his comparison of Regulars with Bishops. (as the Reader will easilie see) hath had noe great good successe: for whereas M. Doctour, cōpared state with state, and in state preferred the Bishop: hee, seing the Regular in this comparison to come farre short of the Bishop, hath chan­ged, yea left the question, and hath had recourse to some commodities and good meanes which are to be found in a religious state, as securitie frō danger meanes to attaine to mortification and perfection, and now he commeth to compare the state of re­gulars with that of inferiour pastours: and before I shall first speake of the state of inferiour Pastours, and out of that I shall say of it, Ishall ans­were to all M. Nicholas alleageth against them.

Of the state of Priests and Pastours inferiour to Bishops.

47. M. Doctour, because he would not seeme in any wise to contradict S. Thomas, had granted to the re­ligious a perfecter state by reason of immobilitie which S. Thomas requireth to a state, then to infe­riour pastours who may leaue their pastourships [...]d enter into religion; and he contented himselfe [Page 176]to glue only to these Patours a perfecter office & calling, S. Th. 2. 2. q. 184. a. 8. M.D. in his Hier. c 11 n. n. 14. the office of gouerning soules (which was the office of Christ and his Apostles) faire surpas­sing: and so M. Nicholas might haue spared this la­bour; but seing that he moueth this comparison, as making himselfe Cocke sure that regnars are of a more perfect state thē they. I shall shew what pro­bability there is for the preferring of these pastours before Religious. And least I may be esteemed partiall, Suarez to. 3. l. 1. c. 17. & 21. S. Th. 2 2. q. 184. ar. 8. in corp. I shall say litle in this point which Suarez doth not auouch. And for a better & easier entrāce into this matter it will not be amisse, if a certaine distinctiō of S. Thomas be premised. For (saieth he) in a secular Pastour we may cōsider three things, to wit, that he is secular (in which consideration, he agreeth with lay men) that he is a Priest, and that he hath charge and care of soules. So in a re­gular Priest wee may cōsider that he is a regular, that he is priest, and that he hath care and charge of soules. In the first the regular excelleth the se­cular; and no meruaile, for in that consideration he agreeth with a lay Christian, who in state is euer inferiour to a regular. In the other two considera­tions, to wit in regard of Priesthood and charge of soules, the regular Priest and Pastour on the one side, & the secular Priest and Pastour on the other side, are equall. The question is whether a regular not Priest, be in an higher state of perfection then the secular Priest or Pastour.

47. And if we speake of the secular Priest who is only Priest & hath no charge of soules, he no douht by vertue of his Priestlie order and caracter is in an higher state and dignitie then any Regular not [Page 177]Priests, Because the Priests state is immo­ueable by reason if his indelible Caracter, which by no sinne, by noe degradation can be taken from him. By his order and cara­cter he hath power to consecrate the sacred body and bloud of Christe, and to offer them in Sacrifice; and by the same caracter he hath power to absolue from sinnes so that the Pope or Church giue him comple are Iurisdi­ction or apply subiectes vnto him, Chap. 6. nu. 11. & ch. 12. nu. 6. as M. Do­ctour hath in his Hierarchie declared: Which power also (as in the same Treatise is showē) is the greatest power that is in the Church of God and greater then any Angell hath. And if states be measured by their actions and o­perations to which they are ordained (as they must) then is the state of a simple Priest grea­ter then any regular or whatsoeuer other state excepting the state of a Bishop, which includeth this power and is greater for it then for any other power; because by this power he with the Priest hath power ouer the natural body of Christe by cōsecrating it, by his other power of absoluing from sinnes (which the Priest also hath) and by his power to ordaine ministers and to confirme, he hath only power ouer the mysticall body of Christe, which is his Church. And therefore by how much the naturall body of Christe deified with the Diuinitie surpasseth the my­sticall body, the Churche: by so much, por­tionably, [Page 178]the power of consecrating which the Priest hath, surpasseth the power of absoluing, ordayning and confirming. And this Suarez graunteth, so doth Valentia, who sayth, Sua­rezlib. 1. c. 17 nu. 2. Valen. 2. 2. disp. 10. q. 2. De statu epist. Pūcto 1. That if in inferiour Prelates. We consider the degree of holy order, then speaking absolutelie there is some thing more worthie and more perfect in them, then in religious as they are religions, and net also initiated with holy orders. Where by the way I note, that he vseth M. Doctours reduplica­tion (as religious) which so much offendeth M. Nicholas: and this no man can deny. This holy order of Priesthood in which is groun­ded this power, requireth (as S. Thomas saith) of a Priest greater sanctitie then the regulars state requireth of him, and for that cause also (saith S. Thomas) the same acte of sinne in a Priest by reason of his holy order, is greater then in a Religious man, not Priest. The state of 2 Priest is so high ād holy, that many, S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. a. 8. in Corp. Baro. anno Chris. 378. in fine. Hier. ep. ad Helio. though religious haue seared to vnder goe it as S. Antonie, S. Benedict and S. Francis; yea S. Hierome though a great saincte, Religious, and learned, did so at lengh permitte himselfe to be ordained Priest, that as Baronius obser­ueth he neuer receiued any Title or charge of any Church saying, That it is not an easie thing to stand in Paules place, and to holde the degree of Pe­ter: And therefore wisheth, That it may be farre from him to speake ill of Priests who succeeding to the Apostles, doe consecrate the body of Christe, and [Page 179]Iudge vs before the later daye, and by whom we are made Christians.

47. For these and the like reasons there wante not as Suarez, out of Antoninus and Augustinus de Ancona relateth, who affirme that a simple Priest is in an higher state then a Regular not Priest. Suar. l. 1. c. 17. n. 2 Anto. 3. P. in prolog. §. 4. & S. Aug. de An. con. l. de Po­test. ec [...]l. q. 26. a. 1. And although S. Thomas as we haue seen, Caietan and others are of opinion, that simple Priests are not in a state of perfection, because Priests, if we except the vow of chastitie, are by their ordination bound to noe workes of superegation or Counselles, but onlie to keepe the commandements, though by rea­son of their sacred order, more sanctitie be required of them, then of other Christians, and if they sinne, their sinne (if other cir­cumstances be alike) is greater then the like sinne in others: yet for the reasons alleaged, the state of a Priest by Reason of his eminent and sacred functiōs, exceedeth in that respect the state of all Religious not Priests what­souer.

48. L. 1. cir. c. 17. n. 4. in sine. Suarez concludeth this point in these words: Quapropter censeo Sacerdotes ex vi sui or­dinis habere statum altiorē & sanctiorem, qui ab eis nonnulla perfectionis opera requirit, ratione cuius obligationis, merito dici possunt, esse aliquo modo, saltem inchoatiuē, in statu perfectionis. Wherefore I thinke that Priests by vertue of their order. haue a state higher and holyer, which requireth of them cer­taine [Page 180]workes of perfection, by reason of which obli­gation, they worthily may be sayd to be in some manner, in a state of perfection, at least inchoatiue, that is imperfectlie, and in a certaine begin­ning. And a litle before he saith that the di­uersitie of opinions in this thing is rather in the manner of speaking then in the thing it selfe: as indeede it seemeth to bee. For if we vnderstand by a state of perfection, a state which is immoueable (as the Priests is by rea­son of the Carracter) and which is ordained to high and excellent functions and which therefore requireth sāctitie of the Priest, and maketh his sinnes the greater; then the state of a simple Priest is higher then any regulars state is: but if we vnderstand by a state of perfection, a state that is bound to workes of superogatiō, such as are the workes of the thre Counselles, pouertie, chastitie, and obe­diēce, then the Priests state is not in that sēse a perfect state of perfection, because chastitite excepted, he is not bound to the Counsailes and workes of supererogation, which are in­strumentes by which perfection is attained. But yet, as not with standing that the Bishop is not obliged to such workes of supererogatiō for neither is he bound to pouertie nor to obedience to any but the Pope: and yet by S Thomas and all mens opiniō is in an higher State of perfection then the Regular, by rea­son that his state is so immoueable, that he [Page 181]cannot leaue his Church without licence of the Pope, and he is by his state obliged to more eminent functions and greater charitie (which is to die for his sheepe) so the Priest because his state is immoueable by his cara­cter, and is ordained to higher functions, as the consecrating of Christes body, offering of the dreadfull and vnbloudie sacrifice, ab­soluing from sinne, if he haue cōpleate Iuris­dictiō: may seeme to be in an higher state then a Regular not Priest.

49. Now as concerning Pastours infe­riour to Bishops who are not onlie Priests but also haue charge of soules: it seemeth more probable that they are in a state of per­fection higher and perfecter then the state of a Regular not Pastour. Garsō. trae. de sta­tu per­fect. alpha. 67. l. v. [...] p. [...] 12. q. 28 & 29. [...] in 4 l. [...]. [...]. q. 7. Sua­raz c. 17. n. 5. And this is affirmed by Gerson, Henricus de Gandauo, and Ma­ior, whom Suarez in the same chapter allea­geth; and thus they proue their opinion: be­cause they by their office are bound to workes verie perfect, to wit to minister Sa­craments, to preach and to gouerne soules which is the arte of artes, and to take care and charge of them, to perfect, illuminate and purge them, and to yeeld (when the occasion is offered) their liues for them. To which a­ctions, Regulars not Pastours are not ordai­ned or obliged. This the aforesayd and: ours confirme, because the disciples whom Christe sent two and two to preache, were in a state [Page 180] [...] [Page 181] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 182]of perfection next to the Apostles: but Pa­stours succeed to them, as Bishops doe to the Apostles: Ergo they are in a state of perfe­ction and next to the state of Bishops. And for this (to wit that inferiour Pastours suc­ceed to the disciples) Suarez citeth S. Clements first Epistle, against which more is obiected then against the 4. Epistle alleaged by M. Doctour. These arguments may seeme much to vrge for a state of perfection in inferiour Pa­stours.

50. Yet S. Thomas whose authoritie is great not onlie in the Schoole, S. Th. 2 2. q. 184. a. 7. but also in the Church, affirmeth that Curates are not in a state of perfection, because to a state is requi­red immobilitie, which is not in a Curate or inferiour Pastour, because he hath no vow to tye him to that state, but may leaue it, if he will goe to Religion, without the Bishops licence, S. Th. sup. 19 q. 2. cap. due sunt. yea against his will as S. Thomas proo­ueth out of Pope Vrban: wheras the Reli­gious by reason of his vowe cannot forsake his state of life. To this Suarez answereth, that if S. Thomas require a proper vowe to make a state, then the Bishops state should not bee a perfect state, because when he is made Bishop he maketh no vowe: But if by a vow he meane a pact, Suar l. [...] 17. su­pra. conuenant, or mu­tual promise betwixt him and his Church, such a promise or pact is to be found in the Pastour, as well as in the Bishop.

[Page 183]51. Caietan (sayth Suarez) answereth, that the inferiour Pastour hath not a diuine com­mandement to stick to his Pastourslip, nor any humane precept, because none can be alleaged: To whom Suarez replyeth that nether the Bishop by any diuine law is tyed to his Bishopricke, (though Vasquez in this cōtradicteth him, as aboue we haue seene) on­ly by the Ecclesiasticall lawe he is wedded to his Bishopricke, and by this lawe, the infe­riour Pastour also is wedded to his Pastour­ship. It is true that the inferiour Pastour may enter into Religion without the Popes or Bishops leaue, as S. Vrban affirmeth in the place alleaged, yet, 19. q. 2. cap. dua snnt. Suar. l. 1. c. 17. n. 9. as Suarez assureth vs, that is no signe that he is not in a state with obligation sufficient to stick to it, but onlie that his obligation is not absolute, but inclu­deth this cōdition, to wit, so that he ascend not to an higher or securer state. For so also a religious man professed in a laxer religion, Cap. sand & ca. licet de re­gular. Cap. admo­net. de renun­ciat. & ca. hath a state, yet he may leaue it to enter into a stricter Religion as the canons doe teach vs. But vnlesse the Archdeacon or inferiour Pastour enter into Religion, he cannot leaue his office or Pastorship without licence of the Pope or Bishop, as may appeare by diuers textes of the canon lawe. And this (sayth Suarez) S. Thomas supposeth when he sayth that an Archdeacon or Curate may leaue his Church by the licence of the Bishop, insi­nuating [Page 184]that otherwise he cannot. It is true that the Bishop hath a greater obligatiō to stick to his Bishoppricke because he cānot forsake it without dispensation or leaue from the Pope; Si quis verō. & ca. Epis­copus de loco 17. q. 1. the inferiour Pastour may leaue his Pastorship with licence of the Bishop. but the reason of this may bee, because the Bishop hath noe Superiour but the Pope to licēce him, the inferiour Pastour hath the Bis­hop who may dispense with him. To which may be added, that the Pope hīselfe who hath the highest state in the Church, may renoūce it, and yet because he cannot do this without great and vrgent cause, he is in a state of perfection. Wherefore because the Curate or Archdeacon cannot leaue their charges with­out licence of the Bishop, their state is mo­rallie immoueable, because that which we can not doe without dispensation of the Su­periour is counted to vs morallie impossible. And so the state of an inferiour Pastour is morallie immoueable and vnchaungeable and so in that respect wanteth nothing required to a state. And that their state is an higher and perfecter state, it may be proued, be­cause Pastours euen inferiour to the Bishop are in a state of perfection to be exercised and cōmunscated to others, the regular is in a state of acquiring or tending to perfection; and so the Pastours state (though in an in­feriour manner) is as the Bishops state is, to [Page 185]wit a state of Illuminators, the regulars is of those that are illuminated; the Pastours state is of perfectors, the regulars state is of those that are perfected, that state is of masters, this of Schollers, that of Agentes this of patients. And so that the perfecter state, this the lesse perfect.

52. For as S. Anstine sayth, the Agent (in that respect) is more noble then the patient: and therefore the soule or spirit is more noble then the bodye, Aug. l. 12. de gen ad lie. c. 16. S. Th. 22. q. 84. a. 6. in [...]g. Sed centra Dio­nys. l. de Le­cies. Hier. c. 5. S. Th. 2.2. q. 185 art. 8. Isidor­l 2. de dim­nis of­ficijs. c. 7. that being the Agent this the patient. And we see that the Sunnes office in illuminating is more noble then the ayres condition in being illuminated, the fiers in heating then the waters in being hea­ted, the maisters in teaching, then the Schol­lers in being taught. And as S. Thomas out of S. Denis sayth, that Pontisi [...]um ordo consumma­tiuns est & perfectiuns, sacerdolum autem illumina­tiuns: the order of. Bishops is consummatiue and per­fectiue, the order of Priests illuminatiue; so the order of inferiour Pastours is illuminatiue and per­fectiue: and as hee sayth that the state of a Regular is compared to the Episcopal state as discipline to Magisterie, and as a disposi­tion to perfection; so the same may be sayd of inferiour Pastours in their degree, for that they are in state not of Schollers but of mai­sters and perfecters. hence it is that S. Isidore sayth: Sacerdotibus ficut Episcopis dispensatio my. steriorum Dei commissa est: praesunt enim Ecclesiae, [Page 186]& in confectione diuina corporis & sanguinis, con­sortes cū Episcopo sunt, similiter in doctrina Populorā & in officio praedicationis: To Priests, as to Bishops the dispensation of the mysteries of God is committed: for that they be are rule in the Church, and in the di­uine consecration of the body and bloud of Christe, they are consores with the Bishop, like wise in teaching of t [...]e people, and in the office of preaching. And the Councell of Trent sayth That to all to whom the care of soules is committed, it is commanded by the diuine commandement, to know their sheepe, to offer for them the sacrifice, and to feed them by preaching of the word of God, administration of sacraments, and by example of good workes.

53. But Suarez obiecteth against inferiour Pastours out of S. Thomas, S. Th. 2. 2. q 184. ar. 6. ad 2. that Archdea­cons and inferiour Pastour haue but vnder-administrations vnder the Bishop, and are to the Bishop as Bayliues are to the Prince. And Caietan cited by Suarez sayth, the Pastoral office, a. 2. & 20. and obligation to yeeld ones life for the sheepe pertaineth principally to Bishops, and onlie secūdarilie and ministeriallie to in­feriour Pastours, and that Curates and vnder Pastours doe vndertake the care of soules as Ministers and Officiales of the Bishops, who are the principal agentes, and so are not in a state, but Ministers and Officiales of the Bishops, who onelie are in state of perfection to be exercised on others. But Suarez an­swereth verie well, that Curates are not instruments', [Page 187]Officialles, or delegates of the Bishops, but are trulie Pastours compre­hended vnder the name of Proprius Sacerdos to whom euerie Christian of sufficient age is bound to confesse once a yeare. Cap. omnit vtrius que [...]exus de poe­nit. & remis. And al­though the Bishop hath greater and more ample authoritie then the inferiour Pastors haue, yet they are not Officialles nor mini­sters, nor in instrumental causes in respect of the Bishop but true and ordinarie Pastours though both, they and the Bishop also, be ministers and instrumentall causes in respect of Christe. Supra n. 28. And although (saith Suarez) the Bishop be in an higher state, yet that hinde­reth not, but that Curats also be in a state though inferiour: for so though all religious orders be in states of perfection, yet one is a perfecter state then another. Out of all this which for the most parte is grounded in Sua­rez, it seemeth verie probable, that inferiour Pastours haue not onlie an higher and perfe­cter office (which S. Thomas insinuateth saying that they rather haue an office pertaining to perfectiō then a state of perfectiō) but also an higher state of perfection: their state being of perfection to be exercised, S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. a. 6. ad 3. not to be acqui­red as the Regulars state is, and being ordai­ned to higher actions and functions, and they making a pacte and conuenant with their Church as Bishops doe, which in a Bishop (as Suarez confesseth) causeth an immobilitie.

[Page 188]54. Wherefore Suarez at length conclu­deth, l. 1. c. 2. n. 5. that the state of Inferiour Pastours and Regulas doe exceed and are exceeded of one another in diuerse respects; for sayth hee if wee demaund which state is more profitable to ones selfe, lesse daungerous, and more sure, then the Religious state in this respect ta­keth the precedence: but if you demaund which state contineth, n. 6. Mains Dei obsequium, greater seruice of God, & perfectiora opera ex genete she requirit; and requireth more perfect operations of their kind, then, sayth hee, the state of these inferiour Pastours is in it selfe and of it selfe perfecter then the state of a Religious man. And in this sorte speculatiuelie It may be graūted that the Pastoral state is perfecter then the Regular state, S. Th. in c. 5. Mat. and this S. Thomas vpon S. Matthew, seemeth to fauour as Sua­rez confesseth.

55. And so wheras M. Nicholas nu. 14. proueth that a Regular state is perfecter then the state of an inferiour Pastour, because 2 Pastour may enter into Religion without dispensation: his argument proueth onely that a Regulars state is more sure for ones owne saluation, S. Th. 2.2. q 184.7. arg. sed cütra. and so may be elected and vowed, but not that it is an higher or perfe­cter state. I graunt that S. Thomas Proueth that a Religious state is inferiour to the state of a Bishop, because a Religious man may become a Bishop, and his argument is good. Because [Page 189]a Religious man cannot accept of a Bishops office because it is more sure, as is manifest, and therefore if he may accept of it, it must be because it is a perfecter state. But an infe­riour Pastour may vndertake the state of a Regular not because it is more perfect (as Azorius Regular confesseth) but because in it he may more surelie saue his owne soule which he may preferre before the soule of others, Azar. to. 1. l. 11. ca. 24. charitie first tendring ones owne saluation and so although the inferiour Pa­stour doth thus descend in state yet he doth not properlie Retrocedere nor Retrospicere goe backe or looke backe because he thus auaun­ceth his owne saluatiō. And so it is a good ar­gument. A regular may be a Bishop ergo a Bishops state is perfecter: but is not a good argument: an Inferiour Pastour may be a Religious man, ergo a Religious man hath a perfecter state; but only ergo a Religious man hath a more secure state.

56. But in a controuersie so much dispu­ted, and wherin to giue sentēce, may prouoke the one partie or the other, I will leaue the Iudgement thereof to the Iudicious Reader who by what is said for infe­riour Pastours, will peraduenture Iudge it more probable that inferiour Pa­stours should worthilie be preferred in state of perfection. And as M. Nicholas Pag. 103. Num. 7. referreth his reader to Platus a Regular concerning the Regular [Page 190]state: so will I (and with lesse exception) re­ferre him to one Philippe de Harueing a Regu­lar and learned Abbot concerning the Cler­gie and all Pastours euen inferiour.

57. This man was Abbot of a Monasterie called Bona Spes; Good Hope and he wrote aboue fowre hundred and fiftie yeares agoe. His workes were printed in Doway in the yeare M. D C. X X. and approued by Doctour Colvenerius Chauncelour of the Vniuersitie, and Censor of Bookes in that Vniuersitie. He in his worke De Dignitate, Scientia, Iustieia, & Continentia Clericorum, com­mendeth highlie Regulars (amongst whom he was verie eminent,) yet in euery chapter almost, he preferreth the Clergie, I will (for breuities sake) cite only a fewe passages. In his 17. Chapter he sayth, as M. Nicholas will not saye; Nostrum est nouissimum locum eligere, nec ad altiora volatu praesumptuoso nos ipsos erigere: It is our parte (that is the part of Religious) to cboose the last place and not by a presumptuous flight to eleuate our selues to higher thing. In his 17. E­pistle he sayth that from all the bounds and ‘limits of the earth, all ātiquitie did euer extoll the Clericall order, and euer gaue it amongst the other orders, the principall ranke and de­gree, and though by the diuine disposition a soldier or Rustique doe excellin sanctitie, yet the Clergie man in excellencie of Eccle­siastical dignitie: and although the Clergie [Page 191]man, as we doe sometimes, decline to wordlie things and To the weake and poore ele­ments, yet their order declineth not in autho­ritie. In his 84. chapter he sayth, that the Bles­sed S. Benedict sounded many Monasteries, and instructed and informed many monks by the good and holsome documents he left to posteritie, and is not read to haue been Priest: yet wanted not perfectiō of a monke, nor did he think it any disparagement to his monasti­call institute, that his monkes should not cō ­tend to excell others in holy orders, but in holy manners, considering that the promo­tion to orders maketh not a monke,’ but ab­iection and vilifying of ones selfe, labour, si­lence, discipline, rest, Religion. And in his 99. chapter: Habeant sibi matorem monachi san­ctitatem, relinquentes Clericis maiorem humiliter dignitatem: Let monkes keepe to themselues greater sanctitie, leauing humblie to Clergie men greater dignitie. And in his 98. and 97. Chapters, Pag. 462. he sayth that S. Hierome did therefore inuite He­liod. Paulinus, and Rusticus to be mōkes, not be­cause he thought more baselie of the Clergie, but because he esteemed their state, as more worthie, so not so secur, and therefore (sayth hee) S. Hierome wished it might be farre frō hī to speake euillie of Priests who succeeding to the Apostolicall degree, doe consecrate with their owne wouth the body of Christ, by whom we are Christians, who hauing in their [Page 192]custodie the Keyes of heauen, doe Iudge vs in a māner before the daye of Iudgement, As if he should haue saied: eos quorū gradus tanta est in Ecclesia dignitatis, quorum of siciū tantae est sanctitatis non audeo inseriores monachis iudicare, quamuis eos vidcā in or whibus habitare &c. those, whose degree is of such dignitie in the Churche, whose office is of so great sanctitie, I dare not iudge inferiour to monkes although I see, they dwelle in Cities. But other is (sayth S. Hierom) the cause of a monke, other is the canse of Clarkes. Clarckes do seed the sheep, I am feede That is to saie, vs, who are fedde noe cause vrgeth to be are the molestations of the po­pular tumult, which to tolerate the Clarcke is compel­led by Pastoral necessitie: yet is not he therefore estee­med inferiour: Yea soe much more worthier the Clarcke is iudged then a monke by how much the Pastour is worthier then the sheepe. But how much more worthier mace the Clarck obteineth by so much it is more necess rie that he be of holier life: least if the greater dign [...]e want the greater sanctitie; the Clarcke way take the greater detriment by his grea­ger dignitie. But because it is rare to stand with an vndeclining san [...]ie, and to auoyd that (mortal sinne) I doe not Counsaile thee (thus he maketh S. Hieron to speake) to ascend to an higher place least thon stand not, and sind a greater ruine. It is not (sayth he) casie to stand in the place of Paule nor to hold the degree of pecter. pag. 453. Aug. op 76 ad Aurel. And in his hun­dreth, chapter alleaging that sentence out of S. Austine: Nimis dosendum si ad tam ruinosam su­perbiam [Page 193]monachos surrigamus &c. cum aliquande etiam bonus monachus vix bonum clericum faciat: it is much to be lamented if we eleuate monkes to such ruinous pride, and think Clarkes, in whose number we are, worthy so great a contumelie, wheras some­times also a good Monke scarselie maketh a good Clark, This Authour Philip de Haruing ad­deth; That s. Austine hereby doth openly shewe, that not onlie an euil Monke ought tolbe remoued from cle­ricall office but a good Mōke is scarselie worthie to be promoted to it And a little before these words he sayth S. Austine saw Mōkes who being wearie of their quietesse and silēce, ad not shewing in their life monasticall humilitie, impudētly de­sired ecclesiasticall honours, not considering (behold this Abbots humilitie, ād the reuerēd conceite he had of the Clergie) what is the dif­ferēce betwixt the footestole (soe he stilled his owne Regular state) ād the Chaire, to wit the Clarkes state, wheras in that state a mā sitteth more securelie, in this more dangerously. This humilitie this Abbot learned of s. Hierome how in his Epistle to Heliodorus sayth: Mihi ante preshyterum sedere non licet, illa, si peccauero, licet tradere me Sathanae in interitum carnis: It is not lawfull for the to sit before the Priest, for him it is lawfull, if I sinne, in deliuer me vp to Sathan, to the destruction of the flesh. This humilitie and reuerent conceite of Priests and Bishops if M. Nicholas also had learned, he would neuer haue endeauoured so to detract from the Bis­hops [Page 194]honour, as we see he hath done.

57. Out of this which I haue sayd of the state and dignitie of Bishops and Inferiour Pastours (which I hope will not offend, it being all or the most parte taken out of Re­gular Authours) may be gathered in how high and perfect a state or calling, not of per­fection to be acquired, but to be exercised and communicated to others, the Priests of our Seminaries, and Religious houses are, who are sent in an Apostolicall mission into England, to conuert Heretikes, to re­claime Schismatiques, to gouerne and com­fort Catholiques, to illuminate, per­fect, and purge the people by preaching, catechising, administring the Sacraments, and by offering the dreadfull sacrifice of the masse: who are to shewe the people the wayes to good life, vertue, and perfection, not only by wholsome connsailes and exhor­rations, but also by good examples; who are to labour day and night, on horse backe, on foote, and to expose their libertie, yea liues, for the gaining gouerning, and comfor­ting of soules.

58. This office, and calling is the greatest, as being the calling of the Apostles, who were sent by their master Christe to trauerse the world for the gaining of soules: this was the calling and office of our Lord and master Christe Iesus, who was incarnate and became [Page 195]man, liued and conuersed with vs, preached, wrought miracles, gaue examples of all ver­tue and perfection, and at last suffered a cruel death on the infamous Crosse for the redeeming and gaining of soules. This is the greatest calling ād office in this life. For there is no greater calling, after that of Christe, then an Apostolicall calling, snch as this is: And the reason is, because there is no greater per­fection then charitie, Ioa. 15. and there is no greater charitie thē to expose once life for the sauing of soules.

59. And let not any meruell that I call this an Apostolicall calling, because in this, all Pastours, and especially they who are sent in mission to conuert soules, doe succeed and imitate the Apostles: and as the mission of o­ther preachers to other countries, as first of Fugatius and Damianus, then of S Austme and his companions to our countrie, and of S. Denys to France, S. Palladias to Scotland, S. Ronisace to Germanie, is worthily called A­postolicall, they all being sent by the Se 2 Apostolique of Rome, which euer sent prea­chers to forraine Countries: so they who now are sent in mission to England with in­tention only to gaine soules, are sent by A­postolicall mission, because frō the same sea and authoritie. And in this, as our Seminarie Priests doe excelle all other Priests; soe our Religious doe excelle all other Religious [Page 196]what soeuer, who are not sent in such an Apostolicall mission, but liue quietlie in their Celles, endeuour their owne saluation and perfection, but are, not sent in mission as our English Regulars are to conuerte, and to saue the soules of others.

60. The question may bee whether as these haue the highest calling in the Church of God, soe they haue also a state, And this is not soe certaine as that To astate of perfectiō (as we haue seene) twothings are required. The first that it be ordained to acts of perfection: The second that it be im­moueable by vowe, oathe, promsse, pacte, or conuenant. The state of Seminarie Priests wanteth not the first, as euen now I shewed: only there may seeme to be wanting in them an immobilitie which is required to a state as S. Thomas hath deliuered, 2.2.9. 134. a. 4. but if that were wanting it would not derogate to the perfe­ctiō of the Seminarie Priests office ād calling, because still it should be ordained to the most perfect actiōs, ād this is the principall in astate of perfection, and by this, onestate is iudged to be more perfect or eminent then another.

61. And yet this immobilitie seemeth not altogether wanting: for that the Seminarie Priest byndeth himselfe by oathe to goe to Englād, there to endeauour with hazard of li­bertie and life, to conuert and gaine soules. And indeed Pope Gregorie the thirteenth [Page 197]who founded the English Seminarie in Rome hath decreed, Greg. 13. in bulla edita an. that the Schollers who will en­ioy the benefit of that howse, shall sweare (as appeareth by a Bull made for the erecting of that Seminarie) that they will vndertake an Ecclesiasticall life, and wilbe ready, omni tempore, at all times. to returne to their Countrie at the Com­maundement of the Superiour, there to ayde soules, as much as in our Lord they can. 1579. 9. Kal Maij And in the oath of that and other Colleges, the Scholler swea­reth vnto Almightie God, that he Is and wilbe in mynd prepared, as much as his grace shall helpe him to receiue orders, and to returne into Englād to gaine soules quotiescumque & quandocumque, so often as euer, and when or what tyme soeuer, is shall seeme good in our lord to the superiour of the colledge according to the Institute thereof to commaund him. And the more yet to bind the Seminarie Priest to this state, the holie cōgregation De Propag. fide, by commandement from the Pope, hath ordained, that the Schollers of the popes Semi­ies shal sweare, that they willnot enter into Religiō without licence frō the Pope, or not till they haue laboured three yeares in the missiō: and if thus they vndertake a Religious life yet by the decree of the sayed cōgregatiō they must goe to labour in the mission.

62. And if by these words, Soe often as euer, and When or at what tyme soeuer, it be vnder­stood that although the Priest vpon occa­sion may retire himselfe out of England, he [Page 198]will yet returne soe often as his superiour shall command; then the Seminarie Priests state is immoueable, because his oath byndeth him perpetuallie to goe to England when soeuer his Superiour shall send him: which argueth a perpetuall obligation by oath, which as Nauarre and others doe think byndeth more then a vowe; Nau. c. 27. Man. n. 75. Ma­ior. in 3. d. 39. q. 2. Va lentia to 3. diso. 6. q 7. punct. 4 S. Th. 2.2. q. 89. a. 8. or if not so much as S. Thomas thinketh; at least it byndeth suf­ficiently to make a state, and more then a pacte or couenaunt, of the Pastour with his Church; which Suarez (as we haue seene) holdeth sufficient to make an immoueable state. But because I will not take vpon me to interprete so rigourouslie those words Quo­tiescū (que) & quan documque, but leaue that to Su­periours, and to the practise of the same oath, I will not affirme that the Seminarie Priests calling hath a sufficient immobilitie to make it a state. At least this out of the pre­mises is certaine, that the Seminarie Priests calling, vnder the Bishop, is the highest calling in the Church of God, by reason that it is or­dained to actes of greatest perfection, which are to preach, teach, minister, Sacraments &c. amongest heretiques, euen with dayly ha­zard of his libertie and life.

63. By this which hath beene sayed of the state of Bishops, Secular Priests, inferiour Pa­stours and Seminarie Priests, may easilie be gathered an Answer to all, which M. Nicholas [Page 199]alleageth from the number 14. to the num­ber 16. for the precedence of Regulars in state of perfection. From which number 16. to the number 23. he goeth about to proue, that Religious men are fitter to be sent in mission then secular Priests are (which is an odious comparison) wheras notwithstanding our Sa­uiour Christe, who wanted neither wisdome nor will, hath made choise of Bishops and Priests as the Church to this day doth, though Regulars also be sometymes called to be Bishops and Priests, To. 3. lib. 1. de Rel. c. 19. n. 14. and to doe Episco­pall and Priestlie functions. But this, as Sua­rez sayth they doe only by delegation and priuiledge, not by ordinarie right and power. And in this sense, it is out of their element: though M. Nicholas pag. 232. thinketh this strange: But to this also he is answered a­boue n. 41.42.45. and to his contentment, if reason will content him.

THE REPLY.

M. Doctour speaketh as S. Thomas and Suarez doe.

64. If that saying of M. Doctours displea­seth M. Nicholas, S. Th. & Suar infra Caiet. infra Caiet. in 2.2 q. 184. ar. 7 he must blame S. Thomas and Suarez, yea and all deuines who speake as M. Doctour did. And although I haue alrea­die cited S. Thomas and Suarez, yet to ease the Reader of the labour of looking backe, I shal heere againe set downe their words. S. Thomas alleageth Moyses Abbot his words to shewe that perfection cōsisteth in charitie not in the Counsels. S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. a. 3. in corp. The words are these; le­iunia, vigiliae, meditatio Scripturarum &c. Fastings watchings, medication of the Scriptures, nakednes, and priuation of all riches, are not perfection, but instruments of perfection, because in them consisteth not the end of that discipline, but by them is attai­ned the end. And S. Thomas himselfe in his ans­were to the first argument, hath these words Et idcoex ipso modo loquendi apparet guod consilia sunt quaedam instrumenta perueniendi ad perfectio­nem &c. And therefore by the verie manner of spea­king it appeareth, that the Counsels are certaine in­struments to come to perfection. Suar. to. 3 l 1. c. 15. n. 12. And Suarez ioy­neth with him or rather followeth him in the same: Illa consilia corumque obseruant [...]a non conti­nent formalem perfectionem &c. Those counsels and the obseruation of them doe not cont [...]yne formal per­fection, but are instruments to acquire it: yet without them perfection may be found.

[Page 201]65. But M. Nicholas obiecteth against this, 2.2. q. 184. n. 3. that S. Thomas in the same article sayth: Secun­dario & instrumentaliter perfectio consistit in consi­lys: Secundarilie and instrumentall [...]e perfection con­steth in the Counsels. I answer that to saye per­ction consisteth iustrumentallie in the Coun­sels, is all one as to say with S. Thomas and Suarez, that they are instruments of perfe­ction, but conteyne not formall perfection: otherwise S. Thomas should contradict him­selfe. Soe the Sacraments doe conteine grace virtuallie and instrumentallie, but not for­mallie, because they are instruments by which grace is produced. And therefore Caietan sayth: Vhitunque haec repereris esse perfectiones, fatere verum idesse, sed cum grauo selis, scilicet in­strumentaliter, non essentialiter: whersoeuer thou findest that Counselles Are perfections, grant it, but with a graine of salte, to wit instrumentallie not essen [...]iallie. Caiet. in 2. 2. q. 184. art. 7. But M Nicholas obiecteth a­gaine, that S. Thomas sayth that Perfection se­cundarilie and instrumentallie, consisteth in the Counsels, which is more then instrumentallie, because (sayth he) S. Thomas sayth also, that the perfection of Christian life consisteth principallie in the loue of God, secondarilie in the Loue of our neighbour, and yet (sayth M. Nicholas) we see that secundarilie and instrumentallie, are termes much different; for [Page 202]who will saye that the loue of our neighbour is only an instrument of Christian perfe­ction.

65. I answer that S. Thomas in the same article cleareth this difficultie: For he sayth, that Perfectio dicitur in aliquo consistere dupliciter: vno modo perse & essentialiter: alio modo secunda. riò & accidentaliter: Perfection is sayd to be in one two manner of wayes: one way essentiallie, another way secondarilie and accidentallie. And so when S. Thomas sayth that perfection consisteth Secundarilie and instrumentallie in the Counsells, his meaining is; that as the essentiall perfectiō of a man consisteth in his Essentiall partes which taken metaphysicallie are animal and Rationale, physicallie, are the body and the soule, but yet his accidentall perfe­ction which also may be called secondarie, consisteth in the powers, faculties and other perfectiōs of the soule, as science and vertue; so the essentiall perfection of a Christian con­sisteth in charitie; but in the Counsels his perfection consisteth instrumentallie, because they are instruments to get perfection, and meanes also to conserue it; in that they re­moue the occasions of sinne and the impedi­ments of charitie, in which consisteth the es­sentiall perfection: and in these Connsels per­fection also consisteth, yet but secondarilie and accidentallie, as a mans perfection also [Page 203]secondarilie and accidentallie consisteth in Science and morall vertues. And this is S. Thom­as his meaning, when in the first article of that question in his answer to the second ar­gument he sayth, 2. 2. qi 184. art. 1. ad 2. that as a liuing creature is sayd simplie and absolutelie to be perfect, when it hath all the members and dispositiōs required to life, but then is sayd to be perfect Secundum quid, when it hath accidentall perfe­ction: so the perfection of a Christian life, simplie and absolutely consisteth in charitie, but Secundum quid in other vertues which are accidentall perfections. 2. 2. q. 184. art. 3. But when S. Thomas in the same q. and 3. article saith that the per­fection of Christiā life consisteth principallie in the loue of God, Secondarilie in the loud of our neighbour, he addeth not and instrumen­tallie or accidentallie, as he doth when he spea­keth of the Counselles, but only sayth, that perfection consisteth Secondariō Secundarilie in the loue of our neighbour, by which di­uersitie of speech he insinuateth a differēce betwixt the Counselles and the loue of our neighbour; for that in the Counsels perfection so consisteth Secundarilie, that it consisteth also in them instrumentallie and accidentallie, as I haue explicated: but in the loue of our neighbour, perfection so consi­steth Secondarilie, that it consisteth also in it [Page 204]essentiallie not accidentallie or instrumental­lie, because the loue of our neighbour for God, is a true acte of Charitie, though secon­darie: and in all actes of charitie essentiall perfection consisteth, though principallie in the loue of God for himselfe, which is the first and Principall act of Charitie, secondari­lie in the loue of our neighbour for God, which is the secōdarie act of the same vertue.

66. And so let M. Nicholas endeuour all he can, he shall neuer be able to proue that perfection consisteth formallie in the three Euangelicall Counselles, which are pouertie charstitie and obedience, nor that they of them selues are more then instrumentes and meanes whereby to attaine to Charitie, which is our perfection: and he shall haue S. Thomas, Caietan, Suarez and all Diuines that treate of this matter against him.

67. I Deny not but that the actes of the Counsels, as also of the precepts, yea and of all vertues if they be done in sanctifying grace, and especially if they proceede from charitie doe augment grace and perfectiō and in this sense are causes of charitie and encrease of grace, but then they are not taken by them­selues but with grace and Charitie. Suar. 20.3. l. 1. c. [...] 1. n. 16. And I graunte with Suarez, that although the gene­ral Counsels of pouertie, chastitie and obe­dience be onlie instruments of perfection; yet [Page 205]there are particular Counsels, to wit the fre­quent loue of God, or the intense loue of God (which are Counselled but not commā ­ded) which are formall perfection, because they are formall actes of charitie, in which consisteth perfection.

THE REPLY.

This distinction is defended as good.

68. This distinction of leauing all actua­lie or in facte, and in preparation of mynde is vsed by S. Thomas and all deuines, who also graunte that to leaue all actuallie is proper to religious men; to leaue all in preparation of mynde is common to all Christians, who ought to be soe disposed (as they are if they bee in grace and charitie) to leaue all, 2.2. q 184. art. 7. ad. to wit, goods, libertie, life rather then offend God mortallie. These be S. Thomas his words: [Page 206] Ad Primum ergo dicendum, quod abrenuntiatio propriarum facultatum dupliciter considerari potest. Vno modo secundum quod est in actu. Et sic in ea non consistit essentialiter perfectio, sed est quoddam perfectionis instrumentum &c. Alio modo potest considerari secundum praeparationem, vt scilicet ho­mo sit paratus (si suerit opus) omnia dimittere vel distribuere. Et haec pertinet directe ad perfectionem. To the first therefore it is to be sayed, that the abrenū ­ciation of our owne goods may be considered in two manners. First in acte, and so in that (abrenumcia­tion) Perfection consisteth not essentiallie, but it is a certaine instrument of perfection &c. Secondlie it may be considered in preparation of mynd, that for­soothe a man be prepared if it shalbe needfull to leaue all, or distribute all. And this directlie pertaineth to perfection. Where M. Nicholas may see the di­stinction which he misliked in M. Doctour, and howe in actual leauing all, perfection con­sisteth not; but in preparation of mynd, which as S. Thomas sayth Directlie pertaineth to perfection. And therefore in the same place S. Thomas sayth, that the bishop though he lea­ueth not all actuallie, is in a greater state of perfection then is the Religious who leaueth all actuallie, because the Bishop Is most of all bound to contemne all for the honour of God and the health of his flocke when it shalbe needfull And this preparation of mynd (as we haue heard S. Thomas say) pertaineth directlie to perfection. But [Page 207]let vs heare Caietan, and whether he also be not of S. Thomas his opinion. Caie­tan then vpon the alleaged article of S. Tho­mas, hauing, as before I alleaged, affirmed that the Counselles are but instrumentes of perfe­ction, and that actuallie to leaue all riches, or actuallie to leaue a wife, is not perfection, Caiet. 2.2. q. 184. a. 7. he addeth these words, lidē autē actus secundū ani­mi praeparationem sunt perfectiones longe in altiore gradu quam primo modo quoniam sunt inseparabiles Comites seu effectus essentialis perfectionis, quae in charitate cōsistie: but the same actes (of the Cōnsels) in preparatiō of mynd, are perfections in a farre higher degree, then in the first manner (that is of actuall leauing) because they are inseparable companions or effectes of the essentiall perfection which consisteth incharitie. Why then doth M. Nicholas so storme against M. Doctour who speaketh, no otherwise then S. Thomas and Caietan doe?

69. But (saith M. Nicolas) M. Doctour in his eleauēth Chapter n. 12 distinguisheth the perfection of Charitie necessarie to all Chri­stiās by which they are resolued not to offend God mortally, from another perfection of charitie, by which we so loue God as we are readie not only to obserue the commande­ments, but also the Counsels for his loue and this is the charitie of Religious. It is true M. Doctour sayd so in his Hierarchie, and why [Page 208]should you now seeke to draw him into an odious sense, as though he meant now to deny it, and would leaue to Regulars only a­ctuall leauing of things without the loue of God. Religious may and doe no doubt often tymes leaue all actuallie for the loue of god: and the Bishop, as S. Thomas sayth, and all good Christians out of God his loue are pre­pared only to leaue all: and so the difference betwixt Religious and other Christians is, that the Religious leaue all actuallie, other Christians not actuallie, but in preparation of mynd. And the actuall leauing of all is no perfection, but a meanes to get perfection, vnlesse it be ioyned with the loue of God. And therfore M. Doctour sayth, Chap. 1. n. 12. that the former that is the actuall, leauing of all Is noe perfection but an instrument of perfection vnlesse it be ioyned with the loue of God in which consisteth perfe­ction.

70. So that M. Doctour granteth more perfection to the Religious then he doth to other Christians. For he confesseth that they so loue God that they not only are willing for the loue of God, to obserue the com­mandements as other Christians ought to bee, but also the Counsels; and they are not only willing for his loue to leaue all in prepa­cation of mynd as good Christiās are, but also (which is more) for his loue doe actuallie [Page 209]leaue all. Only this is the difference, that actuall leauing of all may be without the loue of God (for although many noe doubt leaue all for God his loue yet some doe not) but the prepa­ration of mynd to leaue all rather then offend God mortallie, is soe neerly linked to the loue of God that as Caietan aboue sayth, Caiet. 22. q. 184. art. 7. it is an in­separable companion or necessarie effect of Charitie. And therfore both S. Thomas and he doe affirme (as wee haue seene) that perfection consisteth in that preparation of mynd, but not in actuall leauing of all vnles that actuall lea­uing proceedeth also from charitie: which is the selfe same that M. Doctour sayd, as appea­reth by these his words: the former actuall leaning of them is no perfection, but an instrument of perfe­ctiō, vnles it be ioined vvith the loue of God in vvhich consisteth perfection, as S. Thomas of Aquin vvell obserueth. In his Hier. c. 14. n. 12. Yea M. Nicholas n. 24. S. Th. 2. 2. qu. 184. ar. 7. ad 1. (such is the force of vertiei) confesseth that M. Doctour saith so. Why then doth M. Nicholas taxe M. Doctour for distinguishing as he did betwixt actuall leauing all, and leauing all in preparation of mynd, which distinction S. Thomas, Caietan and all di­uines doe admitte? Why doth he in that 24. number seeke to wrest M. Doctours words to an odious sense. as though he gaue to religious onlie actuall leauing without the loue of God: but only because he was desirous quaerere nodum in scirpo, to seeke a knotte in a bulrushe, a faulte [Page 210]where noe fault was, and an vntruth where there was nothing but truth.

71. By this which is sayed; all that which M. Nicholas alleageth from the n. 24. to the n. 29. is easilie answered: for that all that he sayth doth onlie prooue these points; first that actuall leauing all, conduceth to perfection, which is true, because it is a meane and instrument; and that it is more, out of the loue of God to leaue all actuallie, then in preparation of mynde, be­cause in actuall leauing is more difficultie; Se­condlie that actuall leauing of all when it pro­ceedeth from the loue of God includeth for­mall perfection, because it includeth charitie: which also M. Doctour had granted. Thirdly that it is hard to abound in riches and not to be entangled by them with an inordinat loue or desire of them, Ps. 61. which is also true: though one may flowe ia welth and yet not be taking by these lime twigges: according to that: if riches abound set not your harte on them. Gen. 22. And therfore Abraham in the midst of his riches, was in mynd prepared not only to haue left them, but also to haue killed his one and onlie sonne, and with his owne hands also, at the commandement of God.

THE REPLY.

M. Doctour only relateth vvhat others saye; and in­deed it is not so certaine, &c. as M. Nicholas vvould make it that they vvere religious. But sup­posing they vvere religious, yet Christe gaue to them povver to preach and minister Sacraments not as they vvere religious but as they vvere Bis­hops and Priests. n. 29.

72. M. Doctour in that place relateth onlie what some diuines say, but doth not determine that they were not religious: and therfore sayth, that supposing they were religious, yet Christe gaue not to them as they were religious power to preache & minister Sacraments, but only as they were Bishops & Priests, another māner of life pertaining to religious, another to Pastours: for that they are fedde, these feede, they are per­fected, these perfect, they as regulars are to re­ceiue the Sacraments, these are to minister thē, as we haue seen aboue, and shall see more in the next questiō. And therfore as M. Doctour did not determine this question, whether the Apostles were religious or no; so neither will I: but if it be [Page 212]probable that they were religious (as diuers au­thours hold it) so it shal remaine for mee, who doe not desire to detract from the religious any honour which probablie they may claime. Yet I will relate wat some Authours saye in this matter, that the Reader may see that though it may be probable, yet it is not so certaine as M. Nicholas thinketh that they were religious men.

‘73. 1. p. de Reddi­tibus eccl. c. 1. & 1. p. defens. pag. 887. Franciscus Sarmiento a learned Bishop, confesseth that the Apostles whilest they were disciples obserued pouertie, either by com­mandement of Christ for that tyme, or out of their free will and deuotion, for that then thy were in state of proficients and Schollers: and therfore Christe for that tyme sayed vnto them: nolite possidere aurum, neque argentum, ne­que pecuniam in zonis vestris: doe not possesse gold, nor syluer, nor mony in your purses. Mat 10. But sayth hee this was but Counsell, or a temporall precept for that tyme. And for that tyme S. Peter sayd: Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, & sequuti sumus te: behold vveehaue left all thinges and haue fol. lovved thee. Matt. 19. But (sayth hee) after they had re­ceiued power to absolue from sinnes, and to bynd and loose, Matt. 18. Ioā. 20. and had care & charge of the Church and were become to be Masters, and in the state of the perfecters of others, then pouertie (sayth hee) was not required at their hands, yea it was conuenient that they should haue goods, therby to helpe the poore, and to [Page 213]giue example of charitie: and therfore, sayth hee pag. 216. Christ who exacted pouertie of the young man Mat. 19 exacted only of S. Peter (when he made him Pastour) charitie Ioan. 21. And although they were not at first Bishops and Pastours, yet because they were shortlie to bee, it was not requisite (saith the same Bis­hop) that whilest they were disciples, they should vowe pouertie. And then concludeth thus: Sub correctione Matris Ecclesiae existimo nullū votum expressè Apostolos emisisse, quia non legitur in Scriptura sacrae, sequutos tamen consilia Euan­gelica, quia perfectissimi erant, &c. Saron. 1. p. de­fensio­nü pag. 887. Vnder corre­ction of our mother the Church, I think that the Apostles made no vowe expresselie, be­cause it is not reade in the holy scripture, yet that they followed the Euangelical Counsai­les,) because they were most perfect, &c.’ And so according to the opinion of this learned Bishop, th Apostles were not religious be­cause they made no vowes.

‘74. In o­pusc. § 1. dnb. 2. Vasquez sayth, that by the fact of the Apostles nothing certaine in this matter can be proued, but only that it was not needfull as wee haue proued, that they should follow pouertie by vowe, but by Counsell they fol­lowed it whilest they were vnder the teaching of Christe. But although the matter be not cer­tatne, yet (sayth he without yeelding any rea­son) the opinion of S. Thomas who sayth that [Page 214]they vowed the thinges that pertaine to per­fection is more probable. But yet that as cer­taine (saith he) may hence be gathered, that at least the state of Bishops requireth not ne­cessarilie pouerue; 2. Cor. 11.2.2. q. 185. art. 6. ad 2. yea some [...]ymes by reason of the condition of the tyme, it is more com­modious) that they should haue goods, as sayth he S. Aussme, S Ambrose, yea & S. Paule (as S. Tho­mas confesseth) had.’ Thus farre Vasquez. So that in his opinion also it is not so certaine as M. Ni­cholas maketh it, that they vowed pouertie and the thinges that pertaine to perfection. And conse­quentlie in his opinion, it is not certaine that they were religious, because vowes are necessa­rie to make one religious, Vasqis. to. 2. in 1.2. disput. 164. c. 5. yet the same Authour (I confesse) in another place thinkes that the Apostles vowed the counselles.

75. And although many in the beginning of the Church presentlie after the descension of the holie Ghost l [...]u [...]d in common, Acto. 2. & 4. In illa ioca. yet as Estius & Bartholomaeus Petrus Lintrensis affirme it is not necessa [...]ie to say that al of [...]h [...]left the proprie­tie of al they had, it being only a Counsell, and some of these Christias say these two Authours had w [...]u [...]s and children, and so could not leaue al, but did only contribute to the communitie; & so (say they) al was common amongst them all, as all thinges are common amongst friendes in regard of vse, but not amongst all in respect of proprietie or dominion. So that all at least of [Page 215]the first Christians who are sayd to haue liued in common, were not religious in the opinion of these two learned Doctours.

76. Baronius in his A [...]ales sayth, Baron. to. 1. an. Christi 34. that this communitie of goods amongst the first Chri­stians was not such as that euerie one that vvould be Christian, could not bee admitted, vnles be first sold all; or that being made Christian, be vvas compelled to this as if to al Christians that rule of life vvas prescri­bed: for of Paule it is knovvē that he vvarned the Co­rimthiās by his Epistle, that so they should giue almes to the needy, that their giuing should not be prodigall, least, (sayd be) that vvhich to others is an ease, should be to you a tribulation, but by an equalitie. Let in this present tyme, your aboundance supplie their vvant. 2. Cor. 8. But saith Baronius, at the first by a priuate motiō of the holie ghost these thinges were doone for many causes: as to set an example to posteritie of a stricter life; and therfore (saith Baronitus) S. Austine & S. Basile frō this example tooke the forme of their religious life. And this (saith he also) at that tyme when persecutiō was imminēt and was presen the to follow, was conuenient, least their goods might afterwards be an hind­rance vnto thē & cause of falling in persecutiō

77. Azer. to. 1. li. 11. mor. Instit. c. 23. Act. 2. & 4. Azorius relating the manner of life of the first Christians, of which the Actes of the Apostles doe make mention: sayth: quae viuendi ratio veluti quidam Coenobyticae vitae typus & figura fuit: vvhich manner of liuing vvas a certaine type, [Page 216]and figure of Coenobyticall (or Monasticall) life not that he sayth not that it was a Coenobytical life, but a figure of that life, which afterwards was to be ledde. And (sayth he) if the hereti­ques obiect, that in those places (of the Actes) there is noe mention of vowes: vvee novv doe not endeauour to shevve against them that à forme of a religious life in all partes perfect, hath been before, in Elias, Eliseus, S. Ihon Baptist, & the first Disciples of the Apostles; but only for a great part it vvas sha­dovved & delineated in these thinges, vvhich pertaine to meate, drinke, cloath, habitation, and manner of life, pouertie, obedience, chastitie. So that neither doth Azorius hold it as certaine that the Apostles or first Christians were religious; S. Th. 2.2 q. 88. ar. 8. ad 3. though before he had cited S. Thomas who sayth they vovved the thinges that pertaine to perfection; yea and S. Austine who sayth that the Apostles vowed pouertie. Aug. li. 17. de Ciuit. Dei c. 4. Sarm supra p. 1. defes. pag. 887. To which place Franciscus Sarmiento answereth, that S. Austine by vowe in that place vnderstan­deth a full purpose of keeping pouertie, which purpose sayth hee, the Apostles left, when they were noe more disciples but Maisters and Pa­stours.

78. Caietane a Regular, principal Tho­mist, and Cardinall, in his commentarie vpon the 19. Chapter of S. Matthevv, explicating these words: Vade & vende omnia, &c. & vent sequere me: goe & sell all, &c. and come and follow me: Hath these words. Attende lector, quod nullum in­dicitur à IESV votum, volenti perfectionem vitae asse­qui: [Page 217]quia non in vinculis votorum, sed in operibus con­sistit perfectionis assecutio. Laudabilia sunt vota Reli­gionis, sed non in illorum professione sed operibus qui­bus imitamur IESVM CHRISTVM, acquiritur perfe­ctio. Infinitus est hodie numerus eorum qui acquirunt perfectionis statum profit endo religionis vota: sed rari sunt qui volunt esse perfecti, imitando IESVM factis humilitatis, patientiae, mansuetudinis, charitatis, &c. Marke Reader that noe vovve is denounced (or commaunded) from IESVS-CHRISTE to him that vvill attaine to perfection of life: because the attaining of perfection consisteth not in the bonds of vovves, but in vvorkes by vvhich vvee imitate IESVS CHRISTE. Laudable the vovves of Religion, yet not in their profession but in vvorkes by vvhich vve imitate IESVS CHRIST perfection is gotten. There is at this day an infinite number of those vvho get a state of perfection, by professing the vovves of Re­ligion: but rare they are vvho vvilbe perfect, by imita­tim IESVS in vvorkes of humilitie, patience, mildenes, charitie, &c. So that Caietan is of opinion, that in the place of Scripture alleaged there is noe mention of vowes, and yet they who hold that the Apostles were religious, out of this place especiallie proue the three vowes of Religion. And seing that without vowes a man cannot be religious: if out of this place it can not (as Caie­tan thinketh) be proued that the Apostles vowed, it can not out of this place be proued, that the Apostles were religious, vowes being necessarie to make a man religious.

[Page 218]79. Suarez to. 3. de Relig. l. 2. c. 15. n 13.14 15.16. Vasqu. to. 2. in 1.2. disp. 164. c. 4. &. 5. But suppose the Apostles and first Chri­stians vowed, yet doth it not follow that they were religious: For that as Suarez and Vasquez doe confesse, the three vowes are not sufficient to make one a relig ous man. But the order and Institute must be approued ether by the Bishop in his Diocese, as ancienthe it was, or by the Po­pe as afterwards was decreed. And the reli­gious his vowe must be accepted of the Superi­our who hath Iurisdiction ouer him, and au­thoritie to receiue his vowes. And what certain­tie is there that the Apostles and first Christians liued in an order approued by Christe or S. Pe­ter, or that their vowes were accepted by Chri­ste or S. Peter as sufficient to make them religi­ous, seing that h [...]ly Scripture sayth nothing of any such acceptation?

80. Suarez to. 3. l. 3 de aut­tore & orig. & antiqu status relig c. 2. [...]. 9. I confesse that the learned Suarez defen­deth that the Apostles vowed pouertie, chastitie, & obedien [...]e, and were religious, & that Christ not only instituted a religious state in gene­rall in regard of the three Counselles, but also made a religion in particular to which he called the Apostles eis proprium & particularem modum vitae religiosae tribuendo, giuing to them a proper and particular manner of liuing. Nu. 10. And this particuler manner of liuing he saith consisted in a life mixte partly contemplatiue partlie actiue in endeauouring the conuersion of soules. But yet his proofes out of Scripture doe only proue that Chariste instituted the Counsels and commen­ded [Page 219]them: what he alleageth out of some Au­thours prooueth only that the Apostles vowed the Counsels, which yet is not sufficient to make them religious as we haue seene: what he brin­geth out of other Authours only proueth that the Apostles gaue examples of religious l [...]f [...] by liuing at first in common, and by observing po­uertie, chastitie and obedience, but not that they were religious, though I d [...]ny not but that some Authours doe affirme, that the Apo­stles were religious, which yet might be vnder­stood, not that they were properl [...]e and com­pleatelie religious, but only for that they obser­ued or vowed the three Euangelicall Counsels.

81. To. 2. in 1. 2. disp. 4. & 5. Wherefore Vasquez resolueth the matter thus: His praemissis, quod attinet ad station religionis distinguendum est, &c. These thinges premised, vvee must distinguish concerning the state of Religion. For ether to haue instituted the state of religiō is all one as to haue inuented & excogitated it, and to haue propo­sed it to others to be follovved: and in this sense vve must say that the state of religion vvas instituted by Christe our Lord, that is proposed and preached, as is gathered by the thinges vvee haue said: or to institu­te a state of religion, is all one as indeeed to erect it vnder the povver and Iurisdiction of one Heade: and so it is not to bee sayd that the institution of this state is of the deume or naturall lavve. For seing that to constitute a state of religion it is necessa­rilie require [...] that he vvho vovveth, should make the [Page 220]three vovves vnder the Iurisdiction of a Superiour (praepositi) as aboue is explicated, and seing that it is in the vvill of the legislatour to accept of the three vovves of him that vovveth them, that so he may haue him for his subiect; it follovvet that the erection of a religious state doth pertaine to the positiue lavve, or to the vvill of the humane legislatour; for that the three vovves made, haue not this by the lavve of nature or by the diuine lavve, to constitute him that vovveth vnder the Iurisdiction peculiarlie required to religion, of an head or superiour: but this agreeth to them by the con­stitution of the Church or Cheefe Bishop. Thus he. And seing it can not be shewed out of Scripture or coūcells, or anciēt Auctours that the Apostles made their vowes of the three counselles vnder the iurisdiction of an Heade, who accepted their vowes, it can not so clearely be showed that they were properly & cōpleatelie religious, though they had vowed the three Counselles which are the substance of all religious. It is true that Christe was head to the Apostles and Dis­ciples, and so vnder Christe was S. Peter, Ioā. 21. as now the Pope his successour is, to all Christians. But that the Apostles or Disciples liued vnder Christe first, and after vnder S. Peter as reli­gious vnder an Abbot, cannot soe easilie be pro­ued.

82. This I haue sayd only to shewe that it is not so certaine as M. Nicholas seemeth to make it, that the Apostles were religiou [...] [...]en: but not [Page 221]in any case to take from the Regulars any ho­nour to which they may make any probable claime; and therfore I leaue this opinion which some hold of the Apostles being religious, in all the probabilitie it might haue, not intending to derogate to it: and this which I haue sayd, I would not haue sayd, had not M. Nicholas egged and prouoked mee in his 4. qu. n. 29.

THE REPLY.

Reduplication is defended, and by it, Regulars are excluded from the Hierarchie.

1. REduplication (as M. Nicholas should knowe) is frequentlie vsed in the Schooles, not onlie of Philosophe [Page 223]but also of diuinitie, and it serueth much to know, and to distinguishe the natures of thinges. And to omit examples hereof, which might be brought out of Philosophie, as album currit but not as album; musicus aedificat, but not as musicus: In diuinitie wee saye, that God dyed, not as God, but as man; the man Christe created the world, not as man, but as God: the B. Virgin is mother of God, not as God, but as man: the sonne of God was borne of the Virgin MARIE, not as God, but as man, for as God he was borne only of his eternall father. And so regular Bishops or Priests, are of the Hierarchie as much as other Bishops and Priests, yet not as regulars, but as Bishops or Priests.

2. Wheras M. Nicholas excepteth against M. Doctour for saying that Regulars as Regulars are not of the Hierarchie, and yet saith not, that se­cular Priests as secular are not of the Hierar­chie: I answer, that M. Doctour wanted not his reason.

3. For wee may compare secular Priests with regulars diuerselie. First, as both are only Chri­stians, and so both are members of the Church, neither of the Hierarchie, as it is taken for that part of the Church which ruleth perfecteth and illuminateth, as wee shall shew by and by. Se­condly wee may compare state with state, to witt, the state of a secular Priest with the [Page 224]state of the Regular. And then I saye that a se­cular Priest as a secular Priest, that is considered as in that state, is of the Hierarchie as it consi­steth of diuers orders, by reason of his order and caracter. And because this caracter maketh him apt for Iurisdiction, he is apt also to be of the Hierarchie as it importeth degree in Iurisdi­ction. But the regular as regular, that is, taken Preciselie in the state of a regular, is not of the Hierarchie, because, as a regular, he hath neither order nor Iurisdiction. And so the secular Priest by vertue of his state of Priesthood, is of the Hierarchie, the regular by vertue of his state of regular is not of the Hierarchie, though if he be Bishop, Priest or Deacons, &c. He be also of the Hierarchie as much as the secular Bishop or Priest. But as regular he is not of the Hierar­chie. And if as regular he were of the Hierar­chie, then all regulars euen lay brothers and re­ligious women should be of the Hierarchie.

4. For as because it agreeth to man as man to be risibilis, it agreeth to euerie man to be risi­bilis, so if it agree to a regular as regular to bee of the Hierarchie, euerie regular though but a Conuerse or a lay brother or Sister, must be of the Hierarchie.

5. Wherfore Dionysius Carthusianus vseth M. Doctours reduplication. Dionys. Carthe. art. 13. in The­oriā c. 6. For he explicating S. Dionysius Areopagita sayth, that S. Denys; declarat, id est, significat monachorum ordinem non esse prala­tum [Page 225]alijs iurisdictionaliter atque Pralaticè, in quan­tum sunt monachi; doth declare, that is, signifie that the order of monkes as they are monkes (behold his re­duplication) is not placed ouer others Iurisdictionallie and in maner of Prelates: Though the same au­thour presentlie after granteth that monkes in their owne orders haue Prelacie ouer others as Abbots and Priours haue, and that in later tymes religious men were more frequentlie ad­mitted to be Priests, which M. Doctour also granteth.

6. Wherfore M. Nicholas must not except against that reduplication of Regulars as Regu­lars, least he except against the mission of Re­gulars in o England; for although their obser­uing of their vowes and rules doth much per­fect them if they obserue them as they should doe, yet as Regulars they can doe litle good in England in this tyme of persecution; for that they can not keepe the Quire and Cloister, they cannot rise at midnyght to sing Ma­tins, they cannot weare their habit, nor vse abstinence or other austeritie, externallie, ther­by to giue good example (for that by reason of persecution they fare as others, are lodged and cloathed & haue almost in all thinges the same libertie that others haue) and so as Priests they are sent to England, and as Priests by Preaching and Ministring Sacraments they are most bene­ficall to our Countrie.

[Page 226]7. 2.2. q. 184 a. 8 in corp. And that Priests not Curats or Pa­stours are in a perfecter state then Regulars as Regulars not Priests, Thomas planelie teacheth who comparing Religious with se­cular Priests who are Curats or Archdea­cons, sayth only that a Religious man as Re­ligious excelleth the secular Priest not as Priest but as in state of secular: and no mer­uayle, for so the Priest is considered as he ag­greeth with lay men: and therfore a litle after in the same place, he sayth: Si vero Re­ligiosus etiam ordine careat (sicut patet de conuer­sis religionum) sic manifestum est excellere prae­eminentiam ordinis quantum ad dignitatem, &c. But if the Religious vvanteth also order (as con­uerses doc) so it is manifest that the preeminence of order doth excell in dignitie: because by holy order one is deputed to most vvorthie ministeries by vvhich seruice is done to Christ him selfe in the Sacrament of the Altar, to vvhich is re­quired greater interiour sanctitie, then the state of Religion requireth because as Dionysius sayth in his sixt chapter of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie; the Monasticall order ought to follovv Priestlie orders, and by their imitation to ascend to diuine thinges. Thus S. Thomas. And who doubteth but that the holy order of Priesthood espe­ciallie, excelleth the regular state which is no h [...]ly order: and consequētly who can doubt but that a Priest as Priest is in an higher state [Page 227]then a Regular as Regular? Val. to. 3. disp. 10 q. 2. punct. 5. conc. 2. Valentia a Iesuite speaking of inferiour Prelates sayth: Si in eiusmodi Praelatis, &c. If in such Prelates vvee confider the degree of the holy or­der, speaking simply, ther is some thing in them vvorthier and more perfect, then in the religious as religious, not in holy orders. VVhere we see he vseth M. Doctours reduplication which offendeth M. Nicholas, and preferreth the holy order before the state and perfection of a religious man who is not in holy orders.

THE REPLY.

Hovv regulars are of the Hierarchie, and hovv they are not.

8. M. Nicholas from this place beginneth to proue, that Regulars are of the Hierarchie. And trulie if ether God or his Church had bestow­ed that honour on them, God forbid that I should goe about to take it from them. rather I would by word and writing defend it and hazard euen my life to assure it the more vnto them. But if neither God nor his Church hath giuen them this honour, neither must we giue it to them least wee breake God his ordinaunce, neither should they desire it. But as the laytie [Page 229]murmureth not against the Clergie (as Core, Dathan and Abiron, Num. 16. and their followers did a­gainst Moyses and Aaron) for that they may not preache nor minister Sacraments: and as those of the secular Clergie ought not to take it in euil part, that they are not esteemed religious: Soe neither should the religious be offended, if wee say that they are not of the Hierarchie, nei­ther God nor his Church hauing bestowed that honour vpon them, though they be ador­ned with many other graces. Rather they may reioice in God, that they haue many perfections of a religious life, which others haue not, and are furnished with moe meanes to attaine to perfection then secular Priests haue, and that their state is more secure and free from danger then any other state is.

9. And if M. Nicholas who endeauoureth to proue them to be of the Hierarchie meane only, that they are members of the Church which is a Hierarchie; neither M. Doctour nor any good Catholique will or can deny it: Nay M. Doctour in his Hierarchie, Chap. 8. n. 7. sayth: that religious men as religious, are a greate ornaments to the Church and are in this sense of the Hierarchie of the Church, in that they are eminent members of the Church and are ordained to help and assist Bishops and Pa­stours, &c.

[Page 230]10. But if he meane that they are of the Hierarchie as commonly it is taken by S. Denys and diuines, for that part of the Church which gouerneth, illuminateth, per­fecteth, and purgeth the rest by preaching, and administration of Sacraments, &c. so only Bishops, Pastours, Priests, and other Ministers are of the Hierarchie. And in this sense the holie Councell of Trent taketh the Hierarchie saying: Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia Catholica non esse Hierarchiam diuina ordina­tione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis & Pres byter is & Ministris: Anathema sit: If any shall saye that there is not in the Church a Hierarchie instituted by the diuine ordinance, vvhich consisteth of Bishops and Priests and Mi­nisters: let him be accursed. Sess. 23 can. 6. VVhere we see that the Hierarchie is taken only for that part of the Church which consisteth of Bishops, Priests, and Ministers, and seing that Regulars as Regulars are neither Bis­hops, Priests, nor Ministers in the Church, as Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are, they are not, as Regulars of the Hierarchie in this sense: for if as Regulars they were of the Hierarchie in this sense, then lay brothers and sisters who are trulie Regulars should be of the Hierarchie in the same sense, and so should be comprehended vnder Bishops, or Priests, or Ministers in the Church.

[Page 231]11. And therfore I wonder that M. Nicho­las pag. 165. should saye, that it is temeritie to affirme that the Councell intended to define as a matter of fayto, that vnder the name of Hierar­chie could be compreh [...]nded only Bishops, Priests, or other Ministers indued vvith order or iu­risdiction: rather it may seeme greate teme­ritie in M. Nicholas to comprehend Regu­lars as Regulars vnder that definition, they as such being neither Bishops, nor Priests, nor Ministers in the Church. But peraduen­ture M. Nicholas will comprehend Regu­lars vnder th [...] word Ministers. And why so? are they as Regulars Ministers in the Church, who as Regulars can not by office preach or Minister Sacraments, or assist at the Altar with the Deacon and Subdea­con? did he euer reade or heare that Regu­lars were called Ministers of the Church? Certes Vasquez a Iesuite and Regu­lar, Vasq. to. 3. disp. 238. c. 2. vnder that word Ministris, Ministers, comprehendeth only Deacons, not other in­feriour Ministers, much lesse vnder that word would he vnderstand Regulars who as Regulars were neuer called Ministers in the Church, they as Regulars hauing no Church-functions. Others vnder that word Ministers, vnderstand Deacons and Sub­deacons: but none vnderstand Regu­lars.

[Page 232]22. M. Doctour in his Hierarchie, chap. 15. touched this question, whether regulars be of the Hierarchie in the former sense; and indeed he seemed only to touche it, and that with greate moderation and respect to Religious, and therfore alleaged noe Authours for the proofe of it: And I also because I would not gi­ue the least occasiō of offēce, would haue beene sparing in this matter, but that M. Nicholas vr­geth me much in his 6. question where he handleth this point at large, and sayth n. 1. that no­thing is more frequent, then that some persons (hee seemeth to meane M. Doctour for one) vvho I dare say scarselie euer read S. Denys nor euer vvere much conuersant in S. Thomas of Aquin ( from vvhom vve haue the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchie, vvilbe discoursing of the secular Cler­gie, as though they only vvere of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie. And because M. Nicholas will seeme to be more conuersant in S. Denys and S. Thomas then others are, and sayth that from them vve haue the best and almost only Treatises of the Hie­rarchie: I shall especiallie examine what S. De­nys sayth of the Hierarchie, and I will shewe soe plainelie and clearlie out of him (from whence indeed S. Thomas and all deuines, haue learned that which they say of the Hierarchie) that regulars in his opinion and as he taketh [Page 233]the word Hierarchie are not of the Hierarchie, that the Reader will confesse, that ether M. Ni­cholas neuer read S. Denys (and so is of the number of them who as he sayth scarselie euer read S. Denys, or if he read him, that he vn­derstood him not, or wittinglie and willinglie dissembled his opinion.

13. L. de Eccl. Hie­rarch. cap. 5. S. Denys then in his booke of the Ec­clesiasticall Hierarchie speaking of those who are of the Hierarchie reckeneth only the Bis­hop, Priest, and Deacons: and sayth that the Bishops office is to perfect, the Priests to illumi­nate, the Deacons to purge. And in the sayd Chapter in his contemplation he telleth how they all three are ordained. And the Bishop he sayth is the first and Chiefe order, in whom the rest are consummated. For, sayth he, as the whole Hierarchie of the Church is con­summated in the Chiefe Hierarch and Bishop, Christe, soe euerie spirituall and particular Hierarchie, that is euerie particular Church is terminated and consummated in its proper Bishop. Which may be noted against M. Ni­cholas who would haue a particular Church without a particular Bishop. So that S. De­nys in the Hierarchie placeth only Bishops, Priests & Deacons, to whom are reduced Sub­deacons and other inferiour orders, if espe­ciallie these be of the deuine institution: [Page 234]of which point M. Doctour hath disputed in his Hierarchie.

14. Dion. l. Eccl. Hier, c. 6. In the next chapter which is the sixt he treateth of the three orders of those that are perfected. And Dionysius Carthusianus in his Elucidation or explication of this sixt chapter, sayth that S. Denys in the former chapter treated of the three orders of perfe­ctors, that is, the Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, but now in the sixt [...]hapter he speaketh of three orders of those that are perfected. And he obserueth that when S. Denys speaketh of the three orders of those that perfect others, the name order signifieth a name of dignitie; but when he speaketh of the three orders of them that are perfected: the name order signifieth no name of dignitie, but ra­ther is a name of subiection.

15. S. Denys in that sixt chapter sayth that the orders of those who are perfected are in generall three. The last, as Diony­sius Carthusianus explicateth, to wit, they that are purged are 5. that is, Catechumenes, Energumenes, Apostataes, vicious, infirme and timide or fearfull persons: the next a­boue them are the people baptized and ad­mitted to the sacred Euchariste: the highest order of those that are perfected, are the Monkes and religious who therfore are cal­led according to the Translation of Lanse­lius: [Page 235] Summus corum qui initiantur & perfi­ciuntur ordo: The cheefe order of those that are initiated and perfected: not the cheefe in the Church, because S. Denys placeth Bishops. Priests, and Deacons before them, but the first of those who are initiated and perfected. Dion. Cart. sayth that the order of Mōkes is perfectus inter perficiendos: perfect amongest those that are to be perfected, but not amongest those that perfect others. Art. 13. super That. 6.

16. All this may be confirmed by what S. Denys sayth in his Epistle to Demophilus Monke, where checking him for hauing Kicked a penitent who was confessing to the Priest, and for contemptuouslie vsing the Priest him selfe, he taketh him vp in these words: Nefas est sacerdorem a Ministris qui to superiores sunt, aut à tui ordinis Monachis corrigi & reprehendi, &c. It is not lavvfull that a Priest should be corrected or reprehended by the Ministers vvho are aboue thee, or of the Monkes of they order, &c. and he giueth the reason, saying: Sacerdotes autem nuncij atque interpretes (secundum pontifices) sunt di­ninorum iudiciorum: ab eis rectè & ordine, t [...] per medios interiectosque Ministros, cum tempus posiulabit, diuina disce, à quibus etiam vt mona­chus esses habuisti. An non hoc etiam clamant sacramysteria? neque enim planè omnibus aditus ad Sancta Sanctorum interdictus est, sed proximè [Page 236]ad ea accedit Pontificum ordo, deinde Sacerdotum, tum secundum hos, ministrorum. Ijs autem qui Mo­nachi instituti sunt, valuae adytorum occlusae sunt, ad quas & initiantur & assistunt, non vt eas Custodiant sed vt agnoscant & se & ordinem suum; propius (que) populum quam Ecclesiastici ordinis homines acce­dunt, &c. Priests next to the Bishops are the messen­gers, or relaters and interpretors of the diuine iudge­ments: of them by meanes of the middle Ministers, rightlie and by order vvhen the tyme shall require, doe thou learne the diuine thinges, of vvhom also thou hadst that thou vvast monke. Do not the sacred my­steries, erye this? For that all is not interdicted ac­cesse to the Holies of Holies; but next to them hath ac­cesse the order of Bishops, then of Priests, then, after them, of the ministers. But to them vvho are instituted monkes, the doores of the Chaunselles or secret pla­ces of the Temple are shut at vvhich they are initia­ted, and doe assist not to keepe them, but that they may acknovvledge themselues and their order, and they doe approche neerer to the people then the men of the Ecclesiasticall order doe. By which it appeareth, that according to S. Denis Regulars in his tyme wen excluded from the presbyterie and the Chaunsell, and only were admitted to the doores, but were not admitted into that holy and secret place.

[Page 237]17. But let vs heare a worthie Regular speake. Father Ihon de S. François Generall in his tyme of the order of S. Bernard called the order of the Fueillianes in Paris vvho is famous for his Translation of S. Denis his worke into french. Hee (in his Apollogie for these workes in answering an obiection made by Scaliger a­gainst them) hath these words. Chap. 13. pag. 74. Rour l'intelligence de ce que nous disons, faut supposer que sainct Denis, voulant monstrer le bel ordre qui est en la Hierarchie de l'Eglise, diuise tout le peuple Chrestien en deux parties, dont l'vne est celle du Clergé l'autre est du peuple laique. Il distingue tout le Clergé en trois or­dres: le premier esi celuy des Euesques, l'autre des Prestres, & le tiers de liturges, &c. For the vnder­standing of this vvhich vve say, it must be supposed that S. Denys intending to shevv the goodlie order vvhich is in the Hierarchie of the Church, deuideth all the Christian people into tvvo parts; of vvhich the one is that of the Clergie, the other of the lay peo­ple. He distinguisheth all the Clergie into three or­ders: The first is that of the Bishops, the other of Priests, and the third of the liturges, that is Deacons, to whom the other Ministers of the Church are reduced. He distribueth the people in like manner into three Quires: the first is that of Catechumenes, Energumenes and Penstents: the second parte is that vvhich is the holy people, and the third is of the Monkes. And because that all the ministerie of the Hie­rarchie consisteth in three thinges, either in purging or [Page 238]illuminating or perfecting; or in being purged, illu­minated, or perfected. Therfore he (S. Denys) cal­leth the order of liturges (Deacons) [...], purgatiue order; that of Priests [...], illuminatiue, and that of the Bishops [...] perfectiue or perfecting. Respectiuelie he (S. Denys) calleth the Catechumenes, Energu­mens, and Penitents, [...], the order that is purged; the solie people [...], or [...], illuminated, and the order of Monkes [...], perfected.

18. And a litle after this Auctour addeth: Voylà done premierement comme il constitue les Moynes entrele peuple laique qui esloient ceux qui faisoyent profession d'vne plus grande perfe­ction que les autres, & d'vne vie plus deuote & spirituelle, renonçans anx affections & soucis d [...]s choses de ce monde, se deuoüans & consacrans to­talement au seruice de Dieu, &c. Behold then first of all how he (S. Denys) placeth the Monkes amongest the lay people, which Monkes, were they who made profession of a greater perfection then others, and of a life more denoute and spirituall, renoun­cing the affections and cares of the thinges of this world, vowing and cōsecrating them selues wholie to the seruice of God, L. de Hier. Eccl.c. 6. &c And after that, to wit in the page 76. and 77. he relateth out of S. Denys how the Priests that vvere vnder the Bishop had the office to cō ­secrate [Page 239]the Monkes vvho made (sayth he) their profession entre les mains des Prestres [...] dessoubs des Euesques: betvvixt the handes of the Priests under the Bishop. And pag. 78. this Au­ctour shevveth out of S. Denys in his Epistle to Demophilus hovv the ranke and place of the Monkes in publicque assemblies vvas vvith the lay people, though as vve haue seene they vvere aboue the people and vn­der the Clergie: and sayth this Auctour: Leur estoit deffendu d'entrer dans le Presbytere: It vvas ferbidden them to enter into the Presby­terie. All vvhich and more S. Denys him selfe hath in his fift and sixt chapter, of his Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie as may partlie ap­peare by that vvhich I haue alleaged out of those tvvo chapters.

19. By this it is manifest that according to S. Denys, and as he vnderstandeth the vvord Hierarchie, the Regulars are not of the Hierarchie, that is of that parte of the Church, vvhich gouerneth the rest, and mi­nistreth Sacraments and preacheth, and therby purgeth, illuminateth and perfe­cteth, vvhich (as S. Denys sayth) are the proper actions of the Hierarchie, and are called Hierarchicall actiōs, vvhich also are exercised in the Hierarchie of the Angels in vvhich the Superiour orders illuminate, purge, and perfecte the inferiour. And ther­fore [Page 240]in S. Denis his tyme regulars tooke their place beneath the Clergie and aboue the lay people. And although in later tymes the Regu­lars enioyed the Clericall priuiledge, and were more frequentlie ordained Subdiacons, Dea­cons, Priests, yea and Bishops, and as such are of the Hierarchie: yet as Regulars they are not of the Hierarchie in S. Denys his opinion; for then in his tyme also they should haue bene of the Hierarchie. And M. Nicholas who told vs that many vvho neuer read S. Denys are forvvard to dis­course of the Clergie as though they only vvere of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, Sheweth that he ether neuer read, or vnderstood not S. Denys, who will haue regulars to be of the Hierarchie, and euen according to S. Denys his opinion.

20. And thus I hope I haue brought suffi­cient proofe out of S. Denys to exclude regulars as regulars from the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie, though I grante them to be emi­nent members of the Church which is a Hie­rarchie, to wit, in like manner as they are mem­bers and subiectes of the Kingdome, who though eminent, beare no rule in it. And seing that (as M. Nicholas confesseth) what other Doctours, euen S. Thomas of Aquin, say of the Hierarchie they rake out of S. Denys, his Autho­ritie is to be preferred before them all.

[Page 241]21. Secondlie I adde to S. Denis and his Translatours and Expositours a reason or two. And my first shalbe taken out of the Councell of Trent alleaged in my Reply to this question n. 7. The Councell defineth, that there is a Hierarchie in the Church vvhich consisteth of Bishops, Priests, and Mini­sters. Ses. 23 can. 6. But Regulars as Regulars are neither Bishops, Priests, nor Ministers; ergo they are not of the Hierarchie, as the Councell of Trout taketh the word Hierarchie. The mi­nor proposition I haue proued in that num­ber; and so the conclusion must follow.

22. My second reason vvhich excludeth them from the Hierarchie in the meaning of S. Denis, shalbe this: They who are of the Hierarchie must simpathise with that part which is cōfessedlie of it, to wit, with Bishops, Priests, and Ministers, in their manner of life and profession, in their actions and fun­ctions: but Regulars as Regulars doe leade a life altogether different frō the life of Bis­hops, Priests and Ministers of the Church, and their actions and functions are as diffe­rent: ergo Regulars as Regulars are not of the Hierarchie. The maior or first proposi­tion is euident, for that all who are of the same arte or trade, or the same science or profession doe agree in actions, functions and manner of life; and therfore lawiers agree in pleading and giuing Counsel, Phy­sitians [Page 242]are busied in prescribing and mini­string Physicke, Carpenters vvorke in tim­ber; masons in stone, &c.

23. The minor and second proposition, to wit that Regulars as Regulars doe differ in actions, functiōs, and manner of life I shall proue out of S. Amb. l. 9. Ep. 82. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, and other Authours of good authoritie: and so the conclusion must followe. S. Ambrose in an Epistle to them of Vercelles, cōparing the state of the Clergie with that of the Re­gulars sayth: Nam (que) hac duo in attentiore Christianorum deuotione praestantiora esse quis am­bigat, Clericorum officia & Monachorum in­stituta? Ista ad comitatem & moralitatem dis­ciplina, illa ad abstinentiam assuefacta at (que) patien­tiam. Haec velut in quodam Theatro, ista in se­creto: spectatur ista illa absconditur: Who can doubt but that these tvvo, the offices of Clarkes, and the institutes of Monkes are the more ex­celling in the more attent deuotion of Christians. This discipline (of Clarkes) accustomed to hu­manitie and moralitie, that (of Regulars) to ab­stinence and patience. This (the state of Clar­kes) is as in a Theater, that in secret; this is ob­uious to the eyes of men, that is hidden. And a litle after: This life therfore (of the Clergie) is in a race, that in a denne. This against the confusion of the vvorld, that against the desire of the flesh; this subduing that flying the pleasures of the body. This more grate full, that more se­cure. [Page 243]This gouerning it selfe, that restraining it selfe, yet both denying them selues that they may be of Christe, because to the perfect it is sayd, he that vvill come after mee, let him deny him selfe to him selfe, and take his crosse and follovv mee. And againe: Haec ergo dimicat, illa se remouet, haec illecebras vincit, illa refugit, huic mundus trium­phatur, illi ignoratur: huic plura tentamenta, & ideo maior victoria: illi infrequentior lapsus, & facilior custodia: This life therfore (of Priests) fighteth, that (of Regulars) vvith dravveth it selfe from fight: this ouercommeth allurements, that flyeth them: to this life the vvorld is trium­phed ouer, to that it is banished: To this life are incident more tentations, and therfore greater vi­ctorie; To that life (of Regulars) seeldomer falling, more easie custodie.

24. S. Ep. ad Helio­dorum Hierō declareth this differēce of liues thus: Alia est Monachi causa, alia Clerico­rum: Clerici pascunt ones, ego pascor: Other is the cause of a Monke, other of Clarkes; Clarkes feed the sheepe (to wit by preaching and ministring Sacraments) Jame fedde.

25. Possiuine a Iesuite out of diuers Fathers whom he citeth in the Margent, Posse­uin. to. 1. l. 5. c. 54. gathereth these differences betwixt the life and functions of Priests and Regulars: Alij Monastica vitae, alij vero Presbyterij fines, ac diuersa penè verins (que) status olim officia extiterunt. Monachorum illa propria erant, iugis oratio, psalmodia, vigiliae, &c. Others are the ends of [Page 244]Monasticall life, others of Priesthood, and allmost diuerse in tymes past vvere the offices of both sta­tes. These vvere the proper offices of Monkes, con­tinuall prayer, singing of psalmes, vvatchings, fa­sting, and other exercises, contemplation of diuine things, and euē the manner of liuing vvas distinct in diet, clothing place from communicatiō vvith other men, according to the Etymologie of the na­me. And Dionysius Areopagita vvhen he had con­stituted Monkes aboue the people, but under the Clergie, (yet vvho for puritie of life should ap­proche nearest to Ecclesiasticall functions) and had described their life and state, he testifieth that by the Apostles they vvere called Therapeutes of the lavvfull vvorship and contemplation of God, to vvhich one thing, they vvholie dedicated them selues, and vvere called Monkes of the undeuided and singular or sole life (vvhich they professed) and separated from other thinges. Moreouer the vvhole rite and ceremonie of the Monasticall consecratiō vvhich is to bee seen in S. Denys, doth designe this secretion and separation, and transfor­mation, into a sole life and contemplation of God. There are extant of this thing many decrees of the Fathers in Gratian and Juo. Jn the Councel of Nice vvee reade the 61. 1. q. 1. c. pla­cuit. canō of the Arabicks, that the conuersation of Monkes according to their na­me should be separated from the rest. In the Coun­cell of Chalcedon cap. 4. the life of Monkes is de­fined by prayer, fasting, quietnes and clausure or shutting up. And S. Hierome in his Epistles to [Page 245]Riparius, Paulinus, Heliodorus, Rusticus and de­siderius teacheth, that solitarines, prayer vvit­hout intermission, vvatchings, labour of hands, contemplation of diuine thinges, and a penitent life, by the Apostolicall institution altogether separa­ted from others, and according to the interpreta­tion of the name sole or singular, is proper to them, that is to Monkes. Jn the same manner Chryso­stomus also describeth the institute of Monkes: Domusluctus (inquit) sunt Monasteria, vbi cinis a [...] (que) cilicium, vbi solitudo, ieiunia, terreno­rum duritia lectulorum, nullae ibi perturbationes, nullae curae, tranquillo nempe in portu nanigant, alta ibi quies & silentium: Monasteries (sayth hee) are the hovvses of mourning, vvhere is As­hes and haire cloth, vvhere is solitude, fasting, the hardenes of earthlie biddes, noe perturbations the­re, noe cares, for they sayle in a quiet hauen: there is great rest and silence. But (sayth Posseuine) these are the propter offices of Presbiters and Re­ligious Priests of the institution of Christe, to im­ploy them selues for the saluation of men, as God his coadioutors, to edifie others by discipline of manners, doctrine of fayth, and ministerie of the vvord, administration of the Sacraments, exem­plar life and prayer, to profit the people. To bee breefe (as by Dionysius it is deliuered) to pur­ge illuminate and perfect others: vvhich are the proper actions of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie. Thus farre Posseuinus.

26. The maior then and minor proposi­tion [Page 246]being proued, the conclusion doth follow in good consequence, to wit, that Regulars vvho haue so different a manner of liuing, from Bishops, Priests, and other Ministers of the Church (who by all mens confession, and by the aforesayd definition of the Councell of Trent, are of the Hierar­chie) and vvho agree not with thē in any Hierarchiall actions and functions, which con­siste in purging, illuminating and perfe­cting, by preaching and administration of Sacraments, are not of the Hierarchie in the sense and meaning, in which S. Denys and his Translatours and Interpreters doe take the name of Hierarchie, though they be by them placed aboue the laitie, next to the Clergie, and are of them, and all good Ca­tholiques esteemed as worthie and eminent members of the Church ornaments and ay­des vnto it.

27. By this all that M. Nicholas alleageth out of S. Denys him selfe and other Authours is answered; for that S. Denys will not be found contrarie to him selfe: and other Au­tours as M. Nicholas trulie confesseth n. 1. Haue from him the bee [...] and almost only, Treati­ses of the Hierarchie. But yet least he, or so­me for him, may imagin that I mentioned not his obiections because I could not solue them, I shall set them down.

THE REPLY.

The Hierarchie comprehendeth both oder and iurisdiction.

28. To this he might haue found his ans­were in M. Doctours Hierarchie, in the 8. chapter n. 2. and 6. where he is told, that both order and iurisdiction doe make men of the Hierarchie. For if vve sprake of the Hierarchie (sayth M. Doctour n. 2. as it importeth distinction of degrees in povver of or­der: then only Bishops, Priests, and they who haue some order are of the Hierarchie, and they only in this sense are of the Hierar­chie. And in this same sense, Bishops, Arch-Bishops, and Primates elected onlie but not in any order, are not of the Hierarchie; and so if they be not consecrated Bishops, they are not of the order of Bishops, if they be not consecrated Priests, they are not of the order of Priests. But if vvee speake (sayth M. Doctour) of a Hierarchie as it importeth a di­stinction of degrees in povver of iurisdiction: so Bishops, Archbishops, and Primates elected only and not consecrated, are of the Hierar­chie, because by their election, when it is confirmed, they haue the iurisdiction of [Page 248]Bishops, Archbishops and Primates. And so that M. Nicholas his Dilemma: Ether the na­me Hierarchie signifieth order only: and then Bishops, Archbishops, Primates Popes elected only are not of the Hierarchie. If iu­risdiction only: Then Priests, Bishops, Dea­còns, &c. shall not be of the Hierarchie, till they be made Pastours. This Dilemma is vayne and friuolous; for that the Hierarchie, as I sayd, so comprehendeth both, that order only will make a man of the Hierarchie as it im­porteth distinction in order, and iurisdi­ction onely will make him of the Hierarchie as it implyeth distinction in power of iuris­diction; and if he haue both, then by both titles he is of the Hierarchie.

To his other demaund n. 4. he is also an­swered in the Hierarchie chap. 5. n. 18. and 21. for if the fowre lesser orders be of the insti­tutition of the Church, as some Authours ci­ted by M. Doctour affirme, then they who are vnder Subdeacons, are of the Hierarchie in regard of order, by the Churches lawe and institution, and not by the diuine lawe and institution: but if they be of the diuine institution, then these Ministers who are vn­der Subdeacons, are of the Hierarchie in regard of order by the diuine institutiō. And seing that Regulars who are neither Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, nor Accoly­tes, &c. haue neither order nor iurisdiction [Page 249]ouer the Church, as other Ministers of the Hierarchie haue, they cannot as Regulars, be of the Hierarchie. And therfore if an Ab­bot had only primam Tonsuram, the first Tonsure, which is no order although he haue iurisdiction ouer his Monkes; Yet he should not be of the Hierarchie of the Church, be­cause he hath neither order, nor Ecclesiasti­call iurisdiction but only Regular. And so an Abbot as Abbot though he haue ordina­rie power in his Religious order is not so much of the Hierarchie as a Bishop delega­ted: because an Abbot not Bishop, Priest, &c. is not of the Hierarchie at all, but the delegated Bishop hath both order and iuris­diction, and so by both wayes is of the Hie­rarchie. And therfore S. Denys as we haue seene, excludeth all Regulars from the Hie­rarchie, and yet some of them had iurisdi­ction ouer other Monkes. VVherefore Re­gulars must not take this in euill parte, for I giue them as much as S. Denys and learned Regulars giue them, and would giue them alfo this dignitie to be of the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie, if ether Christe or his Church had giuen it vnto them.

THE REPLY.

S. Bernard is explicated.

I answere that S. Bernard must be so ex­plicated, S. Ber­nard. l. 3. de consid. c. 4. as that he doe not contradict S. De­nys, from vvhom (as Mr Nicholas in this trulie sayth q. 6. n. 1.) vve have the best and allmost onlie Treatises of the Hierarchie, Certaine it is, that S. Denys, and his Translatours, and In­terpreters, doe giue not place to Regulars (amongest vvhom some vvere Abbots) in the Hierarchie, but doe place them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie, and only about the laitie: and therfore perchance S. Ber­nard putteth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie, not because they are properlie of the Hierarchie, but because they are eminent mēbers in the Churche and haue some resemblance by reason of their high ranke in their Religious orders, with those that are of the Hierarchie. And if I would take hold of euerie thing (as M. Nicholas vseth to doe) I could confirme this, because S. Ber­nard in that place, placeth. Abbots after Priests. S. Ber. l. 3. de consid. c. 4. Or else S. Bernard rekeneth Abbots amongest them that are of the Hierarchie, because in his tyme most of thē were Priests, many had Episcopall authoritie in some things, Bel. to. 1. l. 1. de con­cil. c. 15. and many were perchance then (as according to Bellarmine they are now) ad­mitted by priuiledge or custome to haue their voice in generall Councels, and so by [Page 251]the Ecclesiasticall lawe were of the Hierar­chie, as we shall hereafter in the end of this question, declare.

31. Now wheras M. Nicholas in the same place sayth, that he hath reason to complai­ne of M. Doctours dealing in alleaging S. Bernard, as if he had sayd that the Hierarchie of the Church is perturbed vvhen Abbots are sub­tracted from the Bishops iurisdiction: vvheras S. Bernard in the verie same place, vvhich M. Do­ctour cites, doth in expresse vvords approue the exemption of Abbots from Bishops, and only dis­liketh exemption procured out of a spirit of dis­obedience, pride and ambition: wheras (I say) he sayth he hath reason to complaine on M. Doctour, it will proue that M. Doctour hath reason to complaine on him, in making him say more then he doth, for doth not S. Ber­nard say as much as M. Doctour imputeth to him? Doth he not complaine in that chapter that the order of the Hierarchie, was then perturbed by exemptions? hath he not these complayning words? Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis, Episcopi Archiepiscopis, Archiepiscopi Patriarchis sen Primatibus. Bona ne species hac? mirum si excusari queatvel opus. Sic fac titando probatis vos habere plenitudinem potestatis; sed iustitiae forte non ita. Facit is hoc quia potestis, sed virum & debeatis quaestio est. Honorum ac digni­tatum gradus & ordines quibus (que) suos, seruare positi estis non inuidere. Abbots are subtracted [Page 252]from Bishops, Bishops from Archbishops, Arch­Bishops frō Patriarches or Primates. And these words only M. Doctour alleaged. But S. Bernard as we haue seen goeth on further. Bona ne species hac? Is this a good shovve? for­soothe if euē the vvorke it selfe can be excused by so doing. You (he speaketh to Pope Eugenius) proue that you haue the fulnes of povver, but per­chance not so of iustice, you doe this because you can; but vvhether you should, there is a question. Wherfore If S. Bernard in speaking thus much against exemptiōs (to wit which haue no lawfull cause) doth not deny but that the Pope hath power and iust cause to ex­empte Abbots and Monasteries from the iu­risdiction of the Bishop; much lesse can M. Nicholas inferre against M. Doctour, who sayd not so much as he, that he is against all exemptions; but as S. Bernard for all those words doth allow of exemptions when there is iust cause (as when a Monasterie from the beginning hath been exempte) so might M. Doctour, and so he doth.

THE REPLY.

Mauclerus meaneth only that Superiours in Re­ligion haue some similitude vvith Princi­palities.

32. M. Nicholas now would place Supe­riours of Religion not only in the Hierar­chie, but in one of the highst rankes also, for that he sayth Mauclerus, compareth them to Principalities. And I also honour them not only for their Religious state, but also for their dignitie in Religion: But if S. Denys as we haue seene excludeth all Regulars, (amongest whō were Abbots) from the Hie­rarchie, and placeth them vnder the Clergie and Hierarchie, and aboue the laytie, they cā not be of the Hierarchie, vnles they be Bis­hops, Priests, &c. or haue some Ecclesiasti­call iurisdiction, or by priuiledge be admit­ted to the Hierarchie, as we shall see in the end of this question: and so as Abbots pre­ciselie they are not of the Hierarchie. I an­swere therfore first, that as I honour Maucle­rus for that his learned worke, and for the greate good fame, and report that goeth of him: so if he did hold against S. Denys, I ought te preferre S. Denys, as he him selfe would.

33. Secondlie I answere that Mauclerus intended not in that place exactlie to decla­re who are properlie of the Hierarchie of the Church, but only to shew how some in the [Page 254]Church militant resemble one order of the Hierarchie, some another, though they be not properlie of the Hierarchie, Mau­cl. 1. p. l. 5. c. 5. de Mo­narch. as S. Denys and the Councell of Trent doe take the na­me Hierarchie. So he sayth, that holy Chri­stians who rapte with the loue of God, doe contemne the world, doe resemble the Sera­phins, as S. Gregorie also by him alleageth doth affirme, and yet M. Nicholas will not say that all holy women or lay men who are so rapt with the loue of God, are of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie. And if for this re­semblance which they haue with Seraphins, they are of the Hierarchie of the Church mi­litant, they should be in the highest ranke of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, because they resemble the highest order of the Angelicall Hierarchie; and so should haue an higher ranke then Bishops; and yet S. Denys exclu­deth all lay people frō the Hierarchie though neuer so holy and burning with the loue of God. And the reason of this is, because it is not charitie or merit which maketh a man of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, but only or­der or iurisdiction, or Ecclesiasticall office and dignitie: and therfore an euill Bishop hath an high ranke in the Hierarchie and an holy layman is not of the Hierarchie. So Mauclerus sayth, that good Princes, such as Theodosius and others were, doe resemble the Celestiall powers, and yet Princes are recke­ned [Page 255]amongest the laye people, which S. De­nys, as we haue seene, excludeth from the gouerning and perfecting Hierarchie; for although they be lawfull gouernorus of the common wealth, yet they are noe Gouer­nours nor Superiours of the Church, but subiectes to her Pastours, and especiallie to her cheefe Pastour. So he sayth that compas­sionate and charitable persons, are like to the Angelles, because they haue care of pu­pilles, widowes, and the poore, as Angels haue of them who are committed to their custodie: and yet laye Christians though neuer so charitable, are not of the Ecclesia­sticall Hierarchie.

THE REPLY.

The definition of a Hierarchie is declared against M. Nicholas.

34. Heere M. Nicholas vrgeth vs with the definition of a Hierarchie, and argueth, as he thinketh, à definitione ad definitum, which is one of the best manners of arguing. For if from the definition of a Hierarchie Regu­lars [Page 256]are not excluded, they can not be exclu­ded from the thing defined, that is from the Hierarchie. And then as making him selfe cocke sure to be of the Hierarchie by this definition: he demandeth: What vvords are heere to exclude Religious men? I ame sure (sayth he) M. Doctour knovveth vvell, that by sacred orders, S. Denys, is farre from vnderstan­ding, as some valearned persons might imagin, holy orders of Priesthood, Deacon, and Subdeacon. But by orders he vnderstandeth professions, institutes, offices, degrees. Thus he. And if you let him goe with this interpretation, all Regulars must be of the Hierarchie; though they be but lay brothers or sisters, and yet as we ha­ue seene S. Denys excludeth them from the Hierarchie and Presbiterie, and placeth them vnder the Clergie and aboue the lay­tie. So that it should be strange that S. Denys should define a Hierarchie in the sēse in which M. Nicholas taketh him, and yet should exclude them from the Hierarchie: which were to grosse a fault to be attributed to S. Denys; for that it were to comprehend them in the definition, and yet to exclude them frō the definitum, which were as grosse a thing, as if a logician should grant one to be animal rationale, and yet deny him to be homo, a man.

34. I answere therfore first, that S. Denys hath not that definitiō of a Hierarchie which [Page 257] M. Nicholas alleageth: for he sayth not, that he that names a Hierarchie, names the disposition of all sacred orders; nor hath he the word or­dinum, orders, but onlie sacrorum sacred thin­ges, to signifie that the Hierarchie is that, in which is a disposition of all sacred functions and Hierarchicall actions. Lib. de Eccl. Hier. c. 1. The Greeke Text hath these words: Cap. 1. [...]: which words Perionius translateth thus into latin: Vt enim qui Hierarchiam dixit, omnium simul sacrorum dixit descriptionem: sic, qui Hierarcham dicit, is virum diuino numine afflatum diuinum (que) decla­rat, qui omni sacra scientia sit praeditus, in quo omnis quae eum attingit Hierarchia purè absolui­tur ac cognoscitur: And Frere Iean de S. Fran­çois, whom I aboue alleaged, translateth the same words into French thus: Car ne plus ne moins, que celuy qui dict Hierarchie, comprend sommairement l'ordre & disposition de toutes les choses sainctes & sacrees ensemble, &c. And the English both of the greeke, latin and frenche is this: For as he that nameth a Hierarchie, na­meth a description (or an order or disposition as the french translation hath) of all the holy thinges together: so he that nameth a Hierarch he declareth a man inspired by the deuine povver or maiestie and a deuine man, vvho is moued [Page 258]vvith all sacred knovvledge, in vvhom all the Hierarchie vvhich forteineth to him is purelie compleate and finished. And so in none of these translations is sacrorum ordinum sacred orders, but only sacrorum holy thinges, that is sacred and Hierarchicall actions which are perfor­med by the Hierarchie: which (as S. Denys sayth) are in generall to purge, illuminate and perfect, by preaching, administration of Sa­craments and such like sacred functions. So that according to S. Denys as the Hierarchie is an order and disposition of all the sacred functions and actions, so a Hierarch which is a spirituall Prince, to wit the Bishop, hath in him all sacred orders and functions, and comprehendeth all power and functions, which are in inferiour ministers: and so all the functiōs of the Hierarchie of the Church are compendiouslie comprehended in him. And thus Dionysius Cartusianus doth ex­pounde the former words, Dion. Cart. art. 1. saying: Nefiraigi­tur Hierarchia, puta Ecclesiastica, dicitur & est continens omnium quae iuxta eam su [...]t sacrorum, id est, continua est omnium sacrorum ad ipsam spectantium, puta sanctorum actuum & sacramen­torum: Our Hierarchie therfore, to vvit Eccle­siasticall, is named and is conteining all sacred or holy thinges vvhich are apperteining to it, that is, it is couteining all sacred thinges belonging to it, to vvit holie actions and Sacramentes. I grante that Petrus Lansselius of the Societie of Ie­sus, in his translation of S. Denys, hath the [Page 259]words which M. Nicholas hath and as it is like tooke out of him for he translateth it thus: Vt enim qui Hierarchiā dixit, omniū simul sacrorum ordinum dixit dispositionem: For as he that nameth a Hierarchie, nameth a disposition of all sacred orders (in which worde Orders M. Nicholas would haue Religious orders and institutes comprehended) yet the same Au­thour in his notes vpon the first chapter of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, cōfesseth that Perionius translateth these words of S. De­nys as we haue shewed; and that other Au­thours read sacrorum, sacred things, without ordinum, orders, but sayth he, verto sacrorum ordinum, I translate it holy orders, and yet giueth no reason sufficient, why he leaueth the texte which hath sacrorum only, and why he dissenteth from other Auctours.

35. Secondlie I answere, that although S. Denys had sayd, that the Hierarchie is a dispo­sition of all holy orders, yet he could not haue vnderstood Religious orders, but only those orders and functions which pertaine to the perfecting illuminating and purging Hie­rarchie; because he who afterwards in his 5. and 6. chapter of his Ecclesiasticall Hie­rarchie in expresse termes excludeth Regu­lars, and consequentlie their Religious or­ders from the Hierarchie; would not haue defined a Hierarchie a disposition or description of all holy orders, euen Religious; for that so he [Page 260]should haue contradicted him him selfe, and should haue denyed thē the definitū, in his 5. and 6. chap. to whō he had granted the de­finition, in his first chapter: that is should haue denyed thē to be of the Hierarchie, to whom agreed the definition of the Hierar­chie. I know that some doe other wise trans­late the alleaged place, Ambr. Cam. and for Hierarchia doe put Sacerdotium: but yet so as their exposi­tion also excludeth Regulars from the Hie­rarchie.

THE REPLY.

M. Nicholas by the aforesayd vvords proueth him selfe not to be of the perfecting, illumina­ting and purging Hierarchie, but only, as lay [Page 261]people are, of the Hierarchie of the Church.

36. By this one may gather, that M. Ni­cholas either doth not vnderstand S. Denys, or else is driuen to his shiftes, and therfore is forced to make vse of euerie thing that hath but the least apparence; though in­deed it be against him. For in that S. Denys sayth, that the order of Mōkes is the cheefe of those that are initiated he plainelie exclu­deth them from the purging, illuminating, and perfecting Hierarchie, and placeth them vn­der the Clergie, and amongest the people that haue noe gouernment, nor Ecclesiasti­call, or Hierarchicall function, but are ini­tiated, purged, illuminated and perfected with the people, yet so as they, by reason of their regular state, haue the cheefe place a­mongest them. So that Regulars are of the Hierarchie of the Churche, as the people is of the Kingdome, but they are not of that part of the Church which gouerneth, pur­geth, illuminateth, and perfecteth by prea­ching and administration of Sacraments. And therfore Dionysius Carthusianus in his Elucidation of the 6. chapter of the Eccle­siasticall Hierarchie, as aboue wee haue see­ne, sayth, that S. Denys in the 5. chaprer treated of the three orders of perfectors, that is Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and in the 6. chapter of the three orders of those who are prefected, amongest whom are Regulars; [Page 262]and sayth he, when he speaketh of the per­fecting orders, the name order is a name of dignitie, when he speaketh of the orders that are perfected, the name order is a name of subiectiō. And againe (sayth Dion. Carthusia­nus) the higher order of these which yet are perfected (as S. Denys him selfe also sayth in the sixt chapter,) is the order of Mōkes who (sayth Carthusianus) are called consummatus ordo, a consummate order, that is perfectus inter perficiendos, perfect amongest those that are to be perfected, not in the order of these that per­fect others: for in that order the first (as we haue seene) is the order of Bishops, the se­cōd is the order of Priests, the third the or­der of Deacons, to whō other ministers may be reduced: and after them S. Denys and the Bernardine aboue alleaged doe place the Regulars aboue the laye people, but vnder the Clergie. And so although the orders of Regulars, be orders of the Church and a great ornament to it, yet they are noe orders of the purging, illuminating, and perfecting Hierarchie, vnles they be Bishops, Priests, &c. but are purged, illuminated, and perfe­cted by it.

THE REPLY.

Regulars are a multitude ordered vnder the head of the Church, as the people of a Kingdom are ordered vnder the King, but not as they vvho gouerne and rule.

37. M. Nickolas sayth it wilbe as easie to proue out of S. Thomas that Regulars are of the Hierarchie, as it was to prou [...] it out of S. Denys: and I beleeue him. But as it was impossible for him to proue it out of S. De­nys, so is it as impossible for him to proue it out of S. Thomas, who taketh, all he hath almost of the Hierarchie, out of S. Denys, and will not, nay doth not in any wise con­tradict him. But sayth M. Nicholas, Regulars are a multitude ordered vnder one Prince Christes vicar: ergo they are of the Hierarchie. I an­swere that if this argmēt were good, it would proue also that the degrees and orders of the laytie are of the Hierarchie, for that they also are a multitude ordered by the heade of the Church, and subordinate to him in mat­ters of faith and Religion.

38. Secondlie I answere, that two wayes [Page 264]one may be of the Hierarchie of the Chur­che, first as the people are of the Kingdome, that is as subiectes, and such as are ruled: and so all Catholique Christians are of the Hie­rarchie of the Church, and are a multitude ordered vnder one spirituall Prince, the Bis­hop of Rome. S. Peters Successour. Secon­lie, as the King and his Consellors and Offi­cers who beare rule in the Kingdome: and so only Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Pastours, and those tha [...] vnder the cheefe Bishop gouerne the Church, and who purge (as S. Denys sayth) illuminate, and perfect others by ru­ling, preaching, and administration of Sa­craments, are of the Hierarchie: and in this sense, Regulars as Regulars, or who are not Bishops, Priests, &c. are not of the Hierar­chie, as aboue is euidenlie shewed out of S. Denys and others. And this distinction M. Doctour hath [...] his Hierarchie, chap. 8. n. 1. where he hath these words, which if M. Ni­cholas had marked he would not haue made this obiection: for there M. Doctour hath these words: Jt fellovveth novv that I breifely declare vvhich in partieular are these orders, and vvhether all that are in dignitie in the Church be of the Hierarchie, not onlie as the laitie is, vvhich is of this Hierarchie, as the common people are of the Kingdome, but also as vvho beare office in the Churche.

THE REPLY.

Not all actes and functions, but Hierarchicall vvhich are purging, illuminating, and perfe­cting, make men of the Hierarchie: and there is a difference betvvixt the Hierarchie of An­gels, and of the Church militant.

39. M. Nicholas because he knoweth that Regulars not Bishops, Priests, &c. doe not exercice Hierarchicall actions, which are purging illuminating, and perfecting, by prea­ching and administration of Sacraments; would fayne haue it granted vnto him, that all diuersitie of actes are sufficient to make mē of diuers orders of the Hierarchie. And this he proueth out of S. Thomas, by [Page 266]two examples, the one is of the diuers orders of Angels, the other is of the diuers orders in a citie, as of iudges, soldiours, and those that till the ground. But as concerning the Angels, 1. p. q. 50. ar. 4. it is true in S. Thomas his opinion, (who holdeth euerie one of them to be of diuers natures) that euerie one of them (sa­uing the last and lowest) is of the Hierar­chie: because euerie one purgeth, illumina­teth, and perfecteth his inferours. I say sauing the last, because the last and lowest Angels is purged from ignorance, illuminated, and perfected, but purgeth, illuminateth or per­fecteh no Angell, he being the lowest, and so he in respect of the Superiour Angels is not of the Hierarchie, but only as the people is of the Kingdom, as afore is sayd. Yet this lowest Angell, doth exercise Hierarchicall actes in respect of men, to whom he is supe­riour in nature, and whō he can purge from ignorance, illuminate, and perfect. Yet all the lowest orders (as S. Denys teacheth lib. Eccl. Hier. c. 5.) may respectiuelie be called orders initiated and perfected in respect of the higher Angels. But in the opinion of other diuines, who hold that all the Angels of the same order are of one nature and doe not differre in nature and function, but on­lie indiuiduallie; Vasq. 1. p. disp. 181. c. 2. and not specie, but numere: (for which opinion Vasquez citeth diuers di­uines, and which diuers learned Iesui­tes [Page 267]doe imbrace) all the lower orders are of the purging, illuminating and per­fecting Hierarchie in respect of the lowest order, but all of the lowest order, are in res­pect of al the higher orders, as the people is of the Kingdome, because this last order, in this opinion, beareth no rule or office ouer any order of Angels, nor purgeth, illumina­teth or perfecteth any Angell; yet in respect of men, this order exerciseth Hierarchicall actions of purging, illuminating, and perfe­cting So that M. Nicholas may see, that there is a difference betwixt the Hierarchie of An­gels and of men; for that in S. Thomas his opinion all the Angels as they are euerie one of distinct natures, doe exercise Hierarchi­call actions ouer inferiour Angels, and only the last Angell is not of the purging, illumi­nating and perfecting Hierarchie, in respect of Angels, because he is purged, illumina­ted and perfected, of the superior Angell, but purgeth, illuminateth, and perfecteth no An­gell, he being the last. And so according to this opinion, all the Angels are of the perfe­cting Hierarchie sauing only the lowest. But the Hierarchie of the Church militāt though it consist of diuers dignities, orders and offi­ces, as vnder the Pope, Cardinalles, Patriar­ches, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacōs, &c. yet there are many of the same order and iurisdiction, as many Bishops are of the [Page 268]same order of Bishops, many Priests are of the same order of Prieshood. But Regulars as Regulars hauing no Hierarchicall action though they haue other Regular actions, are not of the ruling and perfecting Hierarchie.

40. Now as concerning M. Nicholas his other example of a Citie, in which are diuers orders, according to diuers actions, as the order of iudges, the order of soliders, the order of husbandmen and tillers of the ground: I answer that S. Thomas bringeth this example, to shew that there are diuers orders amongest the Angels, as there is in a well ordered Citie: but his intention was not to shewe that all the diuers orders in a Citie that haue diuers actions, are of that part of the Citie that ruleth, and directeth, as the su­periour Angelles illuminate and perfect the inferiour. For in the Citie some rule and go­uerne as the Maior and Aldermē and iudges, but the orders of Taylors and show makers, and other artificers, though they haue diuers actions and functions, yet they are not of that part of the Citie which ruleth but which is ruled. And so although Regulars haue diuers actiōs according to their diuers orders, yet these actions being not Hierar­chicall, they are not sufficient to make them of the ruling, purging illuminating, and per­fecting Hierarchie; but only they are of the Hierarchie, as the common people that bea­reth [Page 269]no rule in the common wealth, is of the Kingdome, amongest which people not with standing, there are may artes trades, and actions, which yet doe not make them rulers in the Kingdome.

41. And by this M. Nicholas is answe­red to all that he bringeth in the 8. number; for that all he there alleageth in commenda­tion of Religious orders, proueth only, that Regulars are worthie and eminent members of the Church for their sanctitie and perfe­ction of life, but not that they are of the Hierarchie in that sense as S. Denys taketh the Hierarchie, because as Regulars they are not to gouerne the Church, nor to preache and minister Sacramēts, but only as Bishops or Priests, if they be so. And M. Nicholas should know that oue may be a Saynt, yea and a designed and resolued martyr, and yet not be of the Hierarchie in this sense, as if he be a lay man, or a lay brother. And so it is not grace, nor merit, nor mortification, nor perfection which maketh a man of the Hie­rarchie, but order, and office, by which he exerciseth Hierarchicall actions.

THE REPLY.

That men may be assumed to all orders of Angels in heauen in respect of glorie, doth not argue that in this life they vvere of the Hierarchie in the sense aforesayd.

42. I grante that men by grace and me­rit, may be assumed to the orders of Angels and to the lower or higher orders according as their grace and merit is greater or lesser. But what then? If gratia consummata (sayth he) grace in his full perfection, can place men in the same orders vvith Angels in the celestiall Hie­rarchie, vve haue no reason to doubt, but that a profession and state of life, most povverfull for at­taining perfection or grace and charity of this life, may suffice to place the Professours therof amōgst the cheefest orders of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie vvhich is framed to the similitude of that other in heauen. Thus M. Nicholas. And if you admit of his argument, you must admitte all Regu­lars euen lay brothers (so they be perfect) to be in the Hierarchie of the Church, as high in ranke as Bishops: for Bishops are the chee­fest orders. But first I answer that if his ar­gumēt were good it would conclude against S. Denys, who as we haue alleaged aboue, ex­cludeth all Regulars, as such, from the Hie­rarchie, though their states of life be neuer so povverfull for attaining of perfection or grace and charitie. Secondly I answere that this argu­ment [Page 271]is so poore an one that I mernell M. Nicholas a diuine, should propose it. For that deuines know, that by grace men cannot merite to be indeed Angels or Archāgels, or Cherubins, or Seraphins, but only can merit as greate glorie as they haue: and because some saintes haue merited as great glorie as Angels, others as Archangels, others as Che­rubins or Seraphins haue, therfore they are sayd to be assumed to the order of Angels, Archangels or other orders. And because it is not grace but the order, state and office of purging, illuminating, and perfecting, which maketh one of the Hierarchie: a Christian in this life may merite as great glorie, and attaine at length vnto as greate glorie as Cherubins and Seraphins haue, though he was not of any order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie. And so it doth not follow, as M. Nicholas thoght, that because men▪by grace and merit doe attaine to the glorie of the orders of Angels, that therfore in this life they were of any order of the Ecclesiasti­call Hierarchie, for that S. Benedict and S. Frauncis may by the greate charitie and gra­ce they had heere, be assumpted to the glorie of the Seraphins, and yet heere they were not Priests. And a laye brother or sister, yea a poore shepheard who was in noe order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie, but only was of the Hierarchie as the common people is [Page 272]of the Kingdome, that it was a member of the Church, which is a Hierarchie, but did beare noe office in it; may be assumpted in glorie to higher orders then many are, who here were Bishops, Patriarches yea Popes. Otherwise according to M. Nicholas his do­ctrine because S. Fraūcis in this life was in a state powerfull for attaining of grace and perfection here by which be merited grea­ter glorie then a Pope doth and for which peraduenture he is assumpted to the glorie of Seraphins, he must in this life haue had an higher ranke in the Hierarchie then the Pope had. But as I haue [...]ould M. Nicholas it is not grace merit or perfection, that maketh a man of the perfecting Hierarchie, but Ecclesiasticall order, office or dignitie.

THE REPLY.

M. Nicholas hath in this laboured in vayne, and he vvrongeth M. Doctour, as though he ex­cluded Cardinalles from the Hierarchie n. 10.

43. M. Nicholas hath indeed laboured to proue that Regulars as such, are of the Hierarchie: but as it is euident by what I [Page 273]haue sayd out of S. Denys and other Au­thours, he hath not been able to proue it, and so he hath laboured in vaine. And wheras he sayth that he hath taken these paynes rather out of respect to those most eminēt Prelates the Cardinals, thē for respect to the state of Regulars: as he currieth fa­uour with the Cardinalles: so he wrongeth M. Doctour, in that he insinuateth that he ex­cludeth them from the Hierarchie: wheras he in his tenth chapter of his Hierarchie hath a great and long commendation of them, their office and dignitie. And in his eight chapter, mouing the question, who in particuler are of the Hierarchie: he sayth n. 2. that to the deciding of this controuersie: vve must distinguith tvvo vvayes by vvhich Chri­stians may be of the Hierarchie. First then (sayth he) if we speak of the Hierarchie as it im­porteth distinction of degrees in power of order, then onlie Bishops, Priests, Deacons, &c. are of the Hierarchie: And Cardinalls, Patriarches, Archbishops, &c. vnles they haue some order, are not, in this sense, of the Hierarchie, because their dignities are not orders, but dignities and iurisdictions. Bur if we speake (sayth he n. 6.) of a Hierar­chie, as it importeth a distinction of degrees in povver of iurisdiction and dignitie, &c. in this re­spect there are diuers orders and degrees amongest Bishops, vvhich make also a kind of Hierarchie, [Page 274]&c. to vvit Patriarches or Primates, Archbis­hops and Bishops. And heretofore Patriarches vvere of the highest ranke of Bishops; and amon­gest them the Patriarches of Rome, Alexandria and Antioche and after wards of Constanti­nople, had the precedence, after vvhom followed Archbishops and Bishops: but novv Cardinalles, and euer since they vvere Counsellers to the Pope and his Electours, take place of all Patriarches and are in dignitie next to the Pope. And so Car­dinalles though they haue noe order (as most of them haue holy orders, yea many of them are Bishops) yet in this respect, to wit, as the Hierarchie consisteth, of diuers degrees in povver of iurisdiction and dignitie, (which is the second way by which M. Doctour sayd that men are of the Hierarchie) are of the Hierarchie and aboue Bishops, Arch­bishops and Patriarches, next to the Pope. Now whether this their dignitie of Cardi­nall be of the diuine lawe, as Turrecremata thinketh, or of the Ecclesiasticall law, I will not dispute, but referre the reader to M. Do­ctours tēth chapter: certaine at least it is that the Pope could institute such a dignitie by which the Cardinall though not in orders, is Counseller to the Pope, Electour of him, hath his decisiue voice in a generall Coun­cell, and taketh his precedence aboue all other Prelates and next vnto the Pope. And therfore Cardinall Bellarmine sayth, that if [Page 275]we compare the iurisdiction which the Bis­hop hath ouer his owne proper Church with that which the Cardinall hath ouer his title then ordinarilie the Bishop hath the greater iurisdiction. To. 1. 3. 1. de Cler. c. 16. But if we consider the gouern­mēt of the whole Church in which the Car­dinall hath his parte, in that he is one of the Popes Counseller: then the Cardinall Priest or Deacō only, is greater then the Bis­hop. The same learned Cardinall in another place: sayth that Bishops haue an ordinarie right of discipline and suffrage in prouinciall and generall Councelles, To. 1. l 1. de Conc. c. 15. and by priuiledge and by custome Cardinalles and Abbots, and Gene­ralles of orders, haue the same right. And if by this custome or priuiledge graunted by the Church, Generalles of Religious orders, and Abbots be of the Hierarchie, I will not giane saye it: onlie I say with M. Doctour yea with S. Denys, S. Paules Scholler, that Regulars as Regulars, and Abbots as Abbots are not of the Hierarchie, and therfore were excluded by S. Denys; but if they bee now, it is by the Churches priuiledge or custome; which priuiledge and custome M. Nicholas shall neuer be able to show for other Regu­lars.

44. And therfore wheras M. Nicholas n. 10. sayth that he hath laboured rather for Cardinalles then Regulars in labouring to proue Regulars to be of the Hierarchie: he [Page 276]hath laboured in vayne, not hauing been able te proue Regulars as Regulars to be of the Hierarchie; and he doth wrong to those most eminent Prelates and Pillars of Gods Church, as though they could not be of the Hierarchie vnles Regulars also were: wheras Cardinalles by their dignitie and by the care which they haue in gouerning vnder the Pope the vniuersall Church, are assured­ly of the Hierarchie as it consisteth of di­uers degrees in power, of iurisdiction and dignitie, as M. Doctour sayd: they euen as Cardinalles (though not Priests) hauing the highest rāke and Ecclesiasticall dignitie and office in the externall courte of all the Pre­lates of the Church, wheras Regulars as Re­gulars beare noe rule nor office in the Church, and so are not of the gouerning Hie­rarchie.

45. Thus I haue proued sufficientlie, that to be true which M. Doctour auerred; to wit, that Regulars as Regulars, are not of the ruling and perfecting Hierarchie: and this, by the testimonie of S. Denys, S. Paules Scholler, (of whom S. Thomas and all diui­nes haue learned that which they teache of the Hierarchie) as also by his Transtatours and Expositours, yea and by theologicall ar­guments: and I haue answered clearlie all the arguments which M. Nicholas hath been able to alleage to the contrarie. And ther­fore [Page 277]I conclude, that Regulars as Regulars, though their institutes and orders be most holy, and which adde much ayde and greate splendour to the Church, and though they be eminent members of the Church, yet they are not of the Hierarchie in that sense as S. Denys and his Translatours and Expo­sitours, or as the Councell of Trent taketh the name Hierarchie.

46. S. De­nys l. Eccl. Hier. c. 5. & 6. Conc. Trid. sess. 23. can. 6. But let not therfore either Priests or Bishops glorie (vnles it be in our lord) that they are of the Hierarchie; for that their charge encreaseth with their dignitie, and their burden is the heauier, the greater their honour is: and if they liue not accordinglie, that dignitie will not suffice to their salua­tion: but rather it will serue to their greater damnation. For as their ranke and degree is higher in the Churche of God, so it is more exposed to danger; and the higher they stād the more subiect they are to falling: and the lower and greater is their fall, if they fall: because as S. Hierome sayth: Non est facile sta­re loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri: It is not easie to stand in the place of Paule, to hold the degree of Peter. And let not Regulars be deiected or grieued in mynd, because as Regulars they are not of the Hierarchie: let it suffice them that of later yeares they are also as­sumpted to the Clergie and Hierarchie, most of them being Priests and some Bishops: and [Page 278]let it content them (as indeed it may both content and confort them) that their life is more secure and free from all occasions of sinne, and that they haue better meanes to dompte their passiōs, to curbe sensualitie, to mortifie their bodyes, to satisfie for sinne, to attaine to perfection, and to gaine an higher degree in glorie, so that they vse their mea­nes, fulfill their vowes, and obserue their rules and orders.

THE REPLY.

YOV haue not left any one of M. Doctours propositions or assertions vnexamined; but you haue not re­futed any one, as is euident by my Reply to the former questions. For neither haue you proued against M. Doctour, that [Page 280]without a particular Bishop there may be a particular Church: nor that euerie notable part of the Church (such as England, Fran­ce or Spaine is) ought not by the diuine lawe to haue at least one Bishop: nor that such a countrie as England, Spaine or France is, can except against a Bishop for feare of perse­cution though it should be increased by oc­casion of the Bishops presence: nor that Re­gulars are in an higher state then Bishops; nay you haue not proued sufficiently that Regulars are in an higher state then infe­riour Pastours: nor that Religious as Reli­gious are of the Hierarchie: nor haue you answered any one of M. Doctours arguments grounded in reason or authoritie of fathers or diuines by which he proued the former positions, as is euident by my Reply. And therfore this your last question being prin­cipallie a recapitulation only of what you haue done, I might heere make an end, all you haue done, being iust nothing. But be­cause you could answere to nothing, dispro­ue nothing, refute nothing that was to the purpose, or to the points in cōtrouersie, you carpe at by speaches which it litle skilled were they true or not; and therfore a reply to this your last question might well by mee haue beene spared, yet least you should think that euen in those things. I refused to encounter with you: I shal also breiflie giue [Page 281]you your answer to them.

THE REPLY.

M. Doctour hath not preiudiced charitie.

2. I doe not know how M. Doctour hath preiudiced charitie by writing his booke; vnles to exhort to charitie be to preiudice charitie. For, of this I ame sure, that in his Epistle dedicatorie he exhorteth and allea­geth many motiues to charitie, as he doth also in diuers parts of his booke, and he hath not one tarte or bitter word in his booke against any state, order or person, but he comendeth all, and yeeldeth as much to the Regular state as S. Thomas of Aquin, Sua­rez and the leardnest Regular Auctours doe. But to this he is answered in my Epistle to the Reader, and in my Reply to the first question.

THE REPLY.

This is a strange speeche and is ansvvered aboue chap. 9.

3. It is to mee a strange speech and litle edifying, to say, that he neuer heard that the [Page 282]Church must be gouerned by the secular Clergie. By what other Clergie then by the secular Clergie hath the Church hetherto for the most parte been gouerned, and by what other Clergie at this day is it ordinarilie go­uerned, then by the secular Clergie? Hath not M. Doctour shewed and demonstrated in his ninth chapter out of Scripture and Fathers, that Bishops, Priests, and Pastours, are by the diuine lawe to gouerne the Church and to preache and minister Sacramēts? and hath he not shewed verie sufficiently that the gouernement of the Church and prea­ching, and ministring of Sacraments doth not appertaine to Regulars as Regulars? yet as M. Doctour granteth in that 9. chapter n. 15.16.17. that Regulars may be, and often tymes are assumpted to be Bishops, yea and Popes; and then, to them also appertaineth the gouernement of the Church, but not to them as Regulars, for to them in that consi­deration, Monasticall and Regular actions and functiōs appertaine, not Ecclesiasticall.

And therfore S. Thomas cited by M. Do­ctour n. S. Tho. 2.2. q. 187. a. 1. in corp. 17. pag. 255. sayth, that a thing may be sayd vnlawfull for one to doe, two wayes; first because there is some thing in him re­pugnant to such an action. So hee who is irregular, may not receiue holy orders; so a publique sinner may not preach; so one in mortall sinne may not receaue the Blessed Sa­crament; [Page 283]so a Priest in mortall sinne must not celebrate masse, nor absolue from sin­nes. Secondlie it may be sayd to be vnlaw­full for one to doe a thing, not because ther is any thing repugnant in him, but because there is something wanting in him to doe it: so it is not lawfull for a Deacon to say masse because he hath not the order of a Priest. And in this sense (sayth he) it is not lawfull for a Regular to preach and minister Sacra­mentes. Yet as a Deacon is capable of the order of Priesthood, and then may saye masse; so a Regular is capable of order and iurisdiction, and then he may preach and minister Sacraments. But as you can not say absolutelie that a Deacon may celebrate masse, because he as Deacon wanteth the order of Priesthood: so it can not be sayd absolutelie that Regulars are Gouernors of the Church, because as Regulars, they want both order and iurisdiction which iurisdiction ordinatilie is not giuen to Re­gulars but to secular Priests; and therfo­re, that speech of M. Nicholas, I neuer heard that the church must be gouerned by the secular Clergie is verie har she. Sua [...]. to. 1. l. 1. do rel. c. 18. n. 14. For that to the secular Clergie ordinarilie this gouernment of the Church is giuen, and if to Regulars it be some tymes giuen. it is giuen as Suarez sayth by delegation or priuiledge, not by ordinarie right; and in this, Regulars are accessorie not [Page 284]principall as I haue aboue declared. And therfore Clement the fift calleth Regulars Cooperatours. Supra q. 5. n. 41. & 42. Clem. Dudū de sep. 1. Cor. 12.

5. And so M. Nicholas in this his 2. num­ber was to forward in carping at M. Doctour for applying to Regulars that word of S. Paule Opitulations: for although diuers vn­derstand that word of those who lent their helping hand to the curing of the sicke, &c. yet as S. S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. a. 6. ad 2 In 1. Cor. c. 12. Thomas by accommodation calleth Archdeacons, Opulatiōs, because they helpe the Bishop, and in his commentaires vpon the Epistles of S. Paule, sayth that they bee called Opitulationes qui op [...]m ferunt maioribut Praelatis in regimine Ecclesiae: Who helpe the greater Prelates in the gouernment of the Church, as Lyra also doth: so M. Doctour might call Regulars Opitulations, because they helpe Pastours, and are as Clement the fifte sayth, their Cooperatours.

6. and therfore M. Nicholas who in this selfe same place, S. Th. 2 2. q. 184. [...]. 7. & q. 185. a. [...]. affirmeth so boldlie that in England Regulars are not more ordeined to helpe secular Priests, then they to helpe Regulars, sayth not trulie, for that Clement the V. calleth them Cooperatours; and the reason is because their principall end is not to haue care of other mens soules but of their owne: and therfore, as we haue shewed out of S. Tho­mas their state is statue perfactionis acquiren [...] non communicande alij [...] A state of perfection to [Page 285]he acquired, not to be communicated to others: the state of Bishops and other Pastours, is a state of communicating perfectiō to others: and therfore if the charge of soules be giuen to them, it is per accidens, and doth not agree to them perse, as it doth to secular Pastours; who haue the caracter and ground of iuris­diction. And so it is not so connaturall to Re­gulars (though M. Nicholas affirmeth it pag. 132) as to secular Priests, to haue care of soules for that secular Priests by their cara­cter (so that iurisdiction be added to it) are ordained to minister Sacraments, to preath, and to gouerne the Church wheras the Re­gular order is not so ordained. And therfore Germanius sayth, Germ. in pr­to. 5. tit. 37. Sot. l. 9 de Iust. & iure q. 4. a. 3. in fine. Rod. to 1. q. 35. ar. 5. that Monkes should not haue care of soules but in case of necessitie vvhen there are not secular Priests to be gotten: and Sotus vvould not have Regulars take care of soules, but to attend to their own institute. And Rode­ricus sayth that the Franciscans did ouer fly the hea [...]ie burden of Curats. And Gerson sayth: Debent parochi Religiosos tanquam coadiutores missos à superioribus, benigne ac beneuole recipere, modo non obstet rationabilis causa, vt si detractor, si collusor, sicorruptor, si seductor appareat, & parochianos in contemptum parochi addncat, &c. Pastours ought gentlie to receiue Religious as co­adiutours sent from their superiours, so that no reasonable cause be to the contrarie, as if he be a detractour, one that vseth collusion, a corruptour, [Page 286]if he appeare to be a deceiner, or do bring the paris­hioners to contemne their Pastour, &c.

Whence I gather that M. Nicholas is not so gratefull to the secular Clergie as might haue been expected, for that (as we haue seen aboue in my Preface to the secular and Re­gular Clergie) Cardinall Allen of famous and pious memorie, made sute to the Gene­rall of the Societie of Iesus to send the first English lesuites to England to helpe and ayde the Priests, who to the nūber of fowre­score were there labouring and end eauou­ring the conuersion of soules, before the first Iesuites were sent. And the Pope sent them, and the Clergie receiued them as Coopera­tours. D [...]it­se in Edm. Camp. And therfore D. Pitse in his booke of the famous writers of England sayth, that the Clergie desired the Fathers of the Socie­tie, vt s [...]se Cooperatores adiungerent: that they vvould adioine them s [...]lues as Cooperatours. And yet now M. Nicholas will nor acknowledge him selfe a Cooperatour and ayder, but sayth, that in England Regulars are noe more ordamed to helpe secular Priests, then they to helpe Regulars: VVhich I suppose his brethren will not saye.

THE REPLY.

What ordinary M. Doctour meaneth.

8. M. Doctour speaketh of an Ordinarie made by an ordinarie course and meanes; and it is most true, that such an one hath others to succeed him in the same authoritie without any new speciall grante, and ther­fore because a Bishop is Ordinarie, when he dyeth or leaueth the place, another Bishop is to succeèd, who in that he is elected and confirmed Bishop of such a place, hath the power and iurisdiction belonging to it, without any new especiall grant. But M. Doctour denyeth not but that by an especiall grāt, and by commissiō, the Pope may make my lord of Chalcedō Ordinarie of Englād. VVhether he hath or noe, I thought not to haue disputed, but because M. Nicholas not only in this, but also in other places still ac­cuseth M. Doctour, as though he derogated to my lord of Chalcedon his ordinariship and carpeth at it as though it were most cer­taine that he is not Ordinarie I will demand only of M. Nicholas, what it is that is wan­ting in my lord to make him ordinarie?

9. There wanted not power in the cause efficient or him that gaue him the power of [Page 288]an Ordinarie ouer all England; for that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis fulnes of povver gaue him his authoritie. And Sylue­ster sayth: Ordinariam iurisdictionem dant qua­tuor. Primo, lex inanimata, vel Canon. 2. Silu. verbo iurisd. Lex animata: vt Papa vel Imperator. 3. Consuetude. 4. Ʋniuersitas approbata, vt mercatorum, &c. & similiter vniuersitas facultatum artium vel le­gistarum: Fovvre doe giue ordinarie iurisdiction. First the dead lavve or Canon. 2. The liuing lavve: as the Pope or Emperour. 3. Custome 4. An approued companie or communitie, as of mer­chants, &c. and likevvise an vniuersitie or com­panie of the faculties of artes, or of lavviers. VVherfore seing the Pope gaue my lord of Chalcedon his iurisdiction, there was no wāt of power in him to make him Ordinarie. And seing that the Pope made him Pastour of England, as his letters doe witnesse, there wanted not lex inanimata, the dead lavv or canon, for that the law and canon giueth to him that is Pastour, all power belonging to his Pastourship.

10. M. Nicholas will saye, that he was made by delegatiō and commission, and so is only delegate, not Ordinarie. But although this may hinder him frō being made Ordinarie according to the ordinarie course, yet it hin­dreth him not from being made Ordinarie after an extraordinarie manner, that is, by delegation and commission.

[Page 289]11. For first according to the receiued Axiom of law [...]ers; Delegaius à Principe ad vni­uersitatem causarum, est ordinarius: He that is delegated by the Prince, (as my lord of Chal­cedō was by the cheefe visible and spirituall Prince of the Church, the Pope) to an vni­uersitie of causes, is an Ordinarie.

12. Secondlie a Commissarie Generall, who is made by commission, is (as Rodericus sayth) an ordinarie: and his reason is, Rod. to. 1. q. 51. art. 3. Glos. in c cum ab Eccl. Praelat. De Of. Ordin. Pan. in c susp. de offic. del. n. 9. Innoc. in c. l. 1 & in c. ad hoc de off. Archi. Sylis. V. del. n. 1. because eligitur à communitate, he is elected by a communitie. VVhich Rodericus sayth is de­termined by a generall Chapter called Pin­cianū confirmed by Apostolicall authoritie. And againe he sayth that the rule which sayth that a delegate cannot subdelegate, doth not hold in him vvho is delegated, ad vniuersitatem causarum, to an vniuersitie of causes.

13. Thirdly the Popes legate is made by commission and delegation, and yet he is or­dinarie, as Syluester teacheth. For, sayth he, Legatus est is cui a Papa certa patria vel prouin­cia committitur gubernanda: A legate is he to vvhom by the Pope a certaine countrie or prouince is committed to be gouerned. And this he pro­ueth out of the Decretalles in the sixt booke, where Innocentius the fourth sayth, that Le­gates, Cap. leg. de of. leg. in sex­to. to whom in certaine prouinces the office of a legate is committed, are reputed or­dinaries.

[Page 290]14. Fourthlie a Vicar Generall of the Bis­hop is Ordinarie, and yet he is made by commission, as Germonius affirmeth: and Sanchez, Lib. 1. Anim. c. 6. Sanch. tom. 1. l. 3. de consensu cland. disp 29. qu. 1. concl. 1. & ad 2. who affirmeth also that he is Ordinarie, proueth it because the Bishop and his Ʋicar Generall haue one Tri­bunal. And, sayth he, a vice gerent in a diuers Tribunal, is delegate, but in the same Tribu­nal he is Ordinarie, and may assist at marria­ge as an Ordinarie Pastour.

15. If M. Nicholas obiect that my lord of Chalcedō is constituted ad beneplacitum Papae: at the pleasure of the Pope; neither will that hinder his Ordinariship; for that a legate is constituted also ad beneplacitum Papae, and yet, as we haue proued out of Syluester and the Canon law, he is Ordinarie. And so it wilbe hard, fellowing the opinion of these Auctours (for I will say nothing of my selfe but referre the determination of this to Su­periours) for M. Nicholas to exclude my lord of Chalcedon from being an Ordina­rie by commission or delegation. If this an­ger M. Nicholas, let him blame him selfe for that I would not haue touched this point, if he had not prouoked me. In his fourth num­ber he taxeth M. Doctour for alleaging S. Ambrose 1. Tim. 3. the booke being doub­full. But M. Doctour hauing alleaged other proofes to proue that the Bishop hath an [Page 291]higher ranke in the Church then the Priest, and writers vsing to alleage diuers bookes of Fathers which yet are doubted of by some, this M. Nicholas might haue ouerpassed.

THE REPLY.

This M. Nicholas should not haue ob­iected.

16. M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctour a beggar for my lord of Chalcedons mainte­naunce, wherin he sheweth litle respect to my lord. M. Doctour only alleaged S. Paule, 1. Ti. 5. to proue that Priests or Bishops vvho rule vvell should be esteemed vvorthie of double ho­nour, that is, not only of the honour of cappe and knee, but also of honourable maintenaunce: and therfore we see that Bishops and Pastours are by the Church honourably prouided for.

But M. Nicholas obiecteth that S. S. Th. 2 2.188. ar. 4 ad 5. Thomas sayth that the people are not bound in iustice (S. Thomas his words are, ex debito iuris) to pro­uide for the expenses of others besides Ordinaries. To which he is easily answered; for that S. Thomas supposeth that the people hath their ordinarie Pastours, who receiue their or­dinarie Tithes, and other renenewes; and then if any will voluntarilie preache vnto [Page 292]them, they are not bound to maintayne them; but when there are no ordinarie Pa­stors, thē the people is bound to giue them competent maintenance, whether they be ordinaries or delegates, for as S. Paule sayth: Who euer playeth the soldior at his ovvne charges? vvho planteth a vine and eateth not of the fruite therof? vvho feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milke of the flocke. And as in the same place he sayth: If vve haue sovven vnto you spirituall thinges, is it a greate matter if vve reape your car­nall thinges? and a litle after: they that serue the Altar, participate vvith the Altar. So also our lord ordained for them that preach the Gho­spell, to liue of the Ghospell. S. Th. 2.2. q. 87. a. 1. And S. Thomas and other diuines affirme that by the lawe of na­ture the people is bound to giue in generall, necessaries to them that minister vnto them the thinges that pertaine to the wor­ship of God and their saluation; as the same people is bound to minister necessaries to soldiers and Princes, that fight for them or haue care of their common wealth, though the determinate parte which diuines call quota, and which in the old lawe was the tenth parte, be of the positine lawe. And so the Catholiques in England are bound to giue competent meanes not onely to their Bishop but also to their Priests, though the Priests be not ordinarie Pastors. To which I adde that in the opinion of the alleaged [Page 293]Auctours, my lord of Chalcedon is an Or­dinarie by commission. VVhere as M. Ni­cholas n. 5. addeth, that, except for the Sacra­ment of Confirmation, vvhich yet hath not been administred to many, and vvhich also may be cō ­mitted to a Priest, they finde not vvhat greater benefit lay Catholikes haue reaped by my lord Bishop, then they may receiue from secular and regular Priests: that rather since my lords com­ming, some inconueniences haue happened, vvhich they vvill not easilie be persvvaded, they are bound to buye vvith mony: that they cannot take much comfort to spare frō their ovvne necessities arising from daylie pressures) for the mainte­nance of Agents. I leaue this to the considera­tion of the iudicious and indifferent Reader; whether in this he speaketh like a religious man, yea or a zealous Catholique. But for the like speeche to this, he is a litle taken vp aboue pag. 123. n. 38.

18. But I meruayle that M. Nicholas should exaggerate, as he doth n. 5. the charges to which the Bishop and Clergie put the Ca­tholiques of England for the maintenance of their Agents in diuers places. And many will, think that M. Nicholas sheweth noe greate discretion or prudence, to complaine of the charges to which the Bishop and Clergie put the Catholiques vnto; conside­ring that M. Nicholas and his brethren haue and doe daylie put the Catholiques to farre [Page 294]greater charges; as appeareth by the state­lie howses, purchasses, and many other ex­penses, which commeth from the Catholi­ques states and purses. But such thinges should not haue been mentioned, but that M. Nicholas giueth the iust occasion.

19. To that which M. Nicholas addeth in this questiō concerning a particular Church without a particular Bishop, and a notable part of the Church without a Bishop, and of a perfect Christian without Confirmation, and of the Fathers and diuines alleaged by M. Doctour, and of regulars state of perfe­ction, and of their being of the Hierarchie, and all such pointes, he is answered fullie, as the reader will confesse if he reade my Re­ply to his former questions.

20. And so that which he sayth n. 8. is litle to the purpose: because M. Doctour in his cleuenth chapter of his Hierarchie, in­tended only to shew that charitie is the per­fection of a Christian life, in that it vniteth vs to our first efficiēt, and last end, God. That charitie vniteth vs to God M. Doctour pro­ueth out of Scriptures, and also by the effect of all loue, which is to make two freinds one soule by affection in two bodyes, as (sayth M. Doctour) S. Augustine confessed of him selfe and his freind; who, were he Nebridius of whom S. Augustine spake before in the third chapter, stiling him charissimus mous [Page 295]amicus: my most deare freind, or another, it was all one to M. Doctours purpose, and so might by M. Nicholas haue been omitted, but that he, not able to answere to any maine point, is enforced to take hold of euerie trifle. The rest which M. Nicholas alleageth in this que­stion is answered, or else is not worthie any answere. Only there resteth one thing which I shall examine in the next number.

THE REPLY.

This errour is vvrongfullie fathered on M. Do­ctour.

21. M. Doctour in his thirteenth chapter n. 5. to shew that in the greatest furie of per­secution, it was the custome of the primatiue Church not to except against Bishops, as some now doe in England, but to consecrate Popes and Bishops (maugre all the threates and crueltie of the tyrants) therby to practi­se the gouernment of the Church instituted by Christe, to strengthē the Christiās by the grace of confirmatiō and by their authoritie, presēce, example, and encouragement to put life into them: affirmeth that from the cruell Tyrant Nero, to the clement Emperour Constan­tine [Page 296]the greate there vvas scarse any Bishop of Ro­me, vvho vvas not a martyr, vvho at the least suf­fered not greate persecution. Tvventie seuen of them are commonlie auouched for martyrs, to vvit Peter, Linus, Cletus, &c.

22. M. Nicholas because he can not dis­proue any one of M. Doctours positions, as I haue shewed euidentlie; impugneth by-speeches, which be they true or not, it skil­leth not at all, for whether iust so many Popes were martyrs or moe, and whether before Constantine or after, it is not to the purpose, it being true that many Popes were martyrs, and that the creatiō of thē was not intermit­ted for feare of persecutiō, as M. Nich. would haue the succession of Bishops in England to cease for feare euen of an imaginarie or vn­certayne persecution. But let vs see how M. Nicholas cauilleth and imputeth to M. Do­ctour this errour in the number of the Popes martyrs, which indeed is none.

23. M. Doctour sayd first that from Nero to Constantine there was scarse any Bishop of Rome vvho vvas not a martyr, vvho at least suffered not great persequution. And there M. Doctour maketh a full point. And thē he ad­deth: Tvventie seuen of them (that is of the Popes in generall) are commonlie auouched for martyrs: but he sayth not that all the twentie seuen, which he reckeneth, liued before Cō ­stantine, as M. Nicholas imposeth. True it is [Page 297]that in the margent there is this note, (27. Popes martyrs before the tyme of Constātine.) But M. Doctour after he had finished his booke, trusted others with the setting it forth, and did neither make the contents of the chap­ters, nor all the marginall notes, and so, that was put in by the errour of one who marked not the full point which I euen now speci­fied, as neither M. Nicholas did or would not.

24. And that M. Doctour meāt not onlie those Popes who liued before Constantine, but the Popes in generall, of which he sayd 27. were martyrs; it may clearelie be gathe­red. For that M. Doctour was not ignorant (for who knoweth it not?) that there was diuersitie amongst Auctours concerning the number of Popes, who were martyrs; some reckening 27. some 33. some 35. some more, some lesse. But he, that he might be sure to speake within compas, contented him selfe with the lesser number according to Bozius his reckening, whom he cited in the margēt l. 8. c. 3. And to the end that the number twentie seuē might not seeme a Catalogue of his own making, he put their names in a distinct caracter, and cited Bozius in the mar­gent. VVhich M. Nicholas if he had dealt fayrelie, should haue mentioned or noted that therby the Reader might haue seene M. Doctours intention, and whether he had [Page 298]falsified Bozius whom he cited.

25. Moreouer it well appeared that M. Doctour confined not him selfe (in setting downe that Catalogue of Bozius) to the Po­pes before Constantine, because in that Ca­talogue he left out Hyginus who succeded Thelesphorus, and in the next paragraphe or number which is the sixt, he putteth him in his place after Thelesphorus, whom all they who recite their Breuiarie, know to haue been a glorious martyr.

26 If M. Doctour had himselfe made a Cata­logue of the Popes martyrs, yea and of those only before Constantines death, he would not haue sette downe 27. Popes only, as Bo­zius doth, but rather thirtie according to the Romā martyrologe, Baronius and others: which Popes (that the Reader may see at how small matters he cauilleth) I will sette downe. To wit: Petrus, Linus, Clemens. Cle­tus, Anacletus, Euaristus, Alexander, Xistus, Thelesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, So­ter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zepherinus, Calli­stus, Vrbanus, Pontianus, Anterus, Fabia­nus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xistus H. Foelix, Eutichianus, Caius, Marcellinus, and Marcellus. And Rishton in his Synopsis; with other Auctours numbreth three moe, to vvit. S. Dionysius vvho in the Register of Popes follovveth Xistus the second, and Eu­sebius and Melchiades, vvho succeed Mar­cellus. [Page 299]All vvhich thirtie, vvere before Con­stantines death; yet these three last I vvill not enrolle in this Catalogue, there being not so great certaintie vvhether they vvere martyrs or noe, and therfore I vvill content my selfe vvith the former thirtie: vvheras M. Doctour contented him selfe vvith 27. Popes martyrs in generall, according to Bo­zius, it being not to his purpose in that place to examin the number of Popes martyrs.

27. Thus I haue ansvvered to all M. Ni­cholas his questions; I haue made good all M. Doctours assertions and arguments grouned ether in reasō or authoritie; and I haue she­wed that he hath not beē vnfortunate in al­leaging Auctours as M. Nicholas to oftē af­firmeth. I haue also disproued M. Nicholas his assertions, refuted his reasons, and an­swered to all his arguments, as the Reader will plainelie see. And this I haue doone, not to disgrace M. Nicholas, nor his, or any ap­proued order of the Church, nor in any sorte to auerte any one from a Religious state, which (as I ought to doe) I honour frō my hearte: but only to defend M. Doctour, and the truth by him deliuered. Rather I wish and Counselle euerie one, to embrace that state of life to which God shall call him, and in which he is perswaded he may saue his owne foule, and promote the glorie of God. For that Christe to prouide for euerie [Page 300]man, and to condescend to euerie ones li­king, hath furnished his Church with diuers orders, Ps. 44. and hath cloathed her roūd aboute vvith varieties, that euerie one may make choise of what he best liketh, and which he thinketh most sutable and proportionable to his own forces. And therfore he that fyndeth him selfe able to ouercome the tēptations of the world, and with the grace of God hath con­fidēce not onely to worke his owne saluatiō but also the saluation of many others: let him if he like that state take vpon him an Apostolicall Priestlie course of life; Priests being to liue in the middest of the difficul­ties of the world by reasō of their preaching, teaching and administring of the Sacramēts: if he otherwise be weake, feeble and is hard­lie able to passe through those temptations and alluremētes with the safetie of his owne soule: let him hasten to some religious course of life proportionable ro his force and liking, with the aduice of his Ghostlie Father and those that are sufficient by their wisdome and discretion to giue him coun­sell herein: and if he hath not those talents which are required in Priests, and that he can not brooke the austeritie of Religion, 2. Cor. 9. let him endeauour to serue God in the world: Vnusquis (que) prout destinauit in corde suo; euerie one (as by God his grace and inspira­tion) [Page 301] he hath determined in his harte: and as he shall think most conducing to God his glo­rie, and his own saluation.