A defence of Nicholas Smith against a reply to his discussion of some pointes taught by Mr. Doctour Kellison in his Treatise of the ecclesiasticall hierarchy. By A.B.

A DEFENCE OF NICHOLAS SMITH AGAINST A REPLY TO HIS DISCVSSION OF SOME pointes taught by Mr. Doctour Kellison in his Treatise of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy .

By A. B.

We dare not match or compare our selues with certayne , tha● commend them selues . But we measure our selues in our selues , and compare our selues to our selues . But we will no● glory aboue our measure , but according to the measure 〈◊〉 the Rule , which God hath measured to vs ; a measure 〈◊〉 to reach vnto you , do we extend our selues beyonde . For w● are come as farre , as to you in the Ghospell of Christ . 2 Corinth : 10.

At Roüen by NICOLAS COVRANT . 1630.

TO THE READER .

GENTLE READER .

MAISTER Doctour Kellison wrote a Booke intituled , A Treatise of the Eccesiasticall Hierarchy , wherein among other points , he chiefly intended to proue , that English Catholikes could not in conscience refuse a Bishop , although , by his comming , their Persecution were to be increased .

This Treatise of M. Doctour was answered by A modest Discussion ; against which was set forth in Print , a litle Booke with title of An Inquisition &c. of which some Copies , euen in print , haue that false slaunder about the Pouder-Treason ( which Copies were spread abroad both in the North , & South of England . ) Others haue it not .

The Inqui●si●on was presently confuted by a Charitable Qualification ; to which was adioyned an Admonition to the Reader ; The Author whereof had not , at that tyme , seene in Print , any of those Copies , which mentioned the forsayd slaunderous poynt ; which I thought good heere to note , for thy knowledge .

After the Inquisition , there is newly come forth a second answere to the Discussion , called , A Reply to Nicolas Smith his Discussion &c. To this Reply , I now answere , in defence of Nicolas Smith .

Thou mayst perhaps wonder , that the Reply ( which if we haue an eye to the difference of print , in bulke is greater than M. Doctours Hierarchy ) should be answered in so few leaues of paper . And I must confesse , I did not at first hope , to haue ended the Defence , in so few , eyther leaues , or daies , which were but seauen , corresponding to the seauen Questions handled by the Replyer : within which compasse of tyme , I was confined both to reade , and answere the Reply : and yet in all sincerity I do auouch , not to haue omitted the answere of any one thing , wherein I conceaued there myght be the least apparence of difficulty . The reason of this breuity was double .

The one , because many chiefe obietions made by the Replyer , were aforehand fully answered by the Qualification before the Reply came out ; to which therfore it will be sufficient to referre thee in such points . Besides , there is published a learned & elegant booke , with Title of An Apology of the holy Sea Apostoliques proceeding , for the gouernment of the Catholikes of England , during the tyme of Persecution , which may not only seeme to answere the Reply , but it alone in lieu of al others , were sufficient to shew the manifold deficiency of M. Doctours Treatise , with , I can hardely say whether , thy more pleasure , or profit .

The other reason was , because the Replyer taketh all occasions , to dilate himselfe in diuers points , which eyther are vulgarly knowne in Schooles , or were neuer denyed by Nicolas Smith , or may be equally spoken by both parts , or els are answered , by the only perusall of the Discussion it selfe ; which I earnestly intreat thee to reuiew , if thou fynd any thing obiected by the Replyer , which may seeme to haue difficulty ; and I am confident , the only reading will serue for answere . Which to be true , I found by my owne experience ; in so much , as for answering the Reply , I did in truth vse no booke , besides the Hierarchy , Discussion , & Qualification , although I could not doubt , but that the examination of diuers Authors cited by the Replyer , would haue administred no small aduantage against him .

I verily belieue , if thou read the Replyer with indifferency , and attention , thou wilt perceaue , that he rather defendeth Nicolas Smith , then M. Doctour , whose wordes he is forced to excuse , by the common Rule of Charity , that in them he had a good meaninge ; but in the cheifest poynts of substance , at length he commeth to ioyne with the Discussour .

Diuers things of moment , he wholy omitteth without answering , or mentioning them . Vpon the whole matter , I conceaue , this iudgement may be giuen , of the quantity , & quality of this worke in general ; That he hath taken great paynes , to procure , that few will haue patience , to reade ouer his whole Booke .

M. Drs. modesty is by him much extolled , & Nicolas Smith sore blamed , for the contrary . Indeed he that without cause giueth the first stroake , as M. Doctour did , hath no great reason to be angry with the party , that beareth the blow . And whatsoeuer the Replyer sayth in his Mirrour , adioyned by his Reply , Nicolas Smiths Discussion will be proued to be truly modest , if the passages be read as they lye in the Discussion , & not as they are lamely cited by the Replyer , as I could shew in euery particular , if I had not resolued to be very briefe .

It is ordinary with the Replyer , to blame Nicolas Smith , as if he had accused M. Doctour of some doctrins which Nic-Smith layd not to his charge , but only shewed , that out of his Tenets , certayne Conclusions would follow , which neyther he , nor any other could defend ; but he did not say , that M. Doctour foresaw , or intended such Conclusions .

In this manner Nicolas Smith tearmed a certayne Argument , a Doughty one , which yet he did not affirme , to be M. Doctours argument , but only that out of S. Cyprians wordes , rightly vnderstood , no better Argument could be drawne in fauour of M. Doctour , who out of the same words , framed an argument , quite different from that , which Nicolas Smith tearmed doughty , as may be seene in the Discussion q. 2. n. 5.6 .

The like I could shew , in all the rest , but content my selfe with requesting thee , vnpartiall Reader , still to suspend thy iudgment , till , in particulars , thou hast seene the words , and connexion of Nicolas Smith his discourse .

The Replyer himselfe , is farre from Nicolas Smith his modesty . Scarcely he giueth any one answere , not accompanyed with some taunt ; So that , to set downe all his sharpe speaches , were but to re-coppy the Booke .

Within the compasse of two Questions , he hath these charitable sayings : He fauoureth Heretikes . pag. 26. Behould Nicolas Smith his little subtility . pag. 31. Which is no lesse then a false calumniation . pag. 32. I pitty M. Nicolas Smith his arguing , and the necessity he is driuen to , which cogit ad turpia . pag. 43. Nicolas Smith ioyneth with heretikes in this poynt pag. 96. And the same agayne pag. 110. What Deuine , yea Cathecumen , who knoweth his Cathechisme , would haue giuen such an answere ? pag. 10● . He fauoureth Caluin . pag. 111. And in the same page , I cannot tell how heerafter he can looke them in the face : although in this he haue reason , for he spake of some Iesuites , who dyed longe since , and it would be hard for the Discussour to looke them in the face , if he be yet liuinge , as the Replyer will haue him , in his Preface to the Reader : where also pag. 16. he sayth , That the Discussour seemeth to shew litle of the spirit of a Religious man : for which , if it be true , the Discussour , I graunt , ought to be sorry , and endeauour to correspond better to his vocation . Howsoeuer , I dare say for Nicolas Smith , that , if he were aliue , he would hartily thank the Replyer , for the occasion he affoardeth him of merit , and so do I , in his behalfe ; wishing , that as we are all domestici fidei , so we may be charitatis , of one beliefe , and heart .

The Questions handled . 1. WHat iudgment may be framed of M Doctours Treatise in generall . pag 1. 2. Whether without a Bishop , there can be a particular Church ? pag. 5. 3. Whether by the diuine Law , euery particular Church , must haue its Bishop ? pag. 19. 4. Whether a Countrey , although the Persecution should be increased , by occasion of hauing a Bishop , could refuse one , if it were only for the Sacrament of Confirmation ? pag. 38. 5. Concerning M. Doctours Comparison , betweene Bishops , inferiour Pastours , & Religious men . pa. 53. 6. Whether Religious , as Religious , be of the Hierarchy ? pag. 68. 7. Whether by the precedent Questions , we haue sufficiently answered M. Doctours Treatise , for such points , as eyther deserued Confutation , or required Explication . pag. 75.

APPROBATIO .

LIbellum hunc Anglico idiomate conscriptum & inscriptum , A Defence of Nicolas Smith , against A Reply to his Discussion : attentè & accuratè perlegi , & diligenter & maturè examinaui , & inuenio non solum ab omni nota , quantum ad doctrinam Fidei Catholicae morumue proborum immunem : verum etiam afflictae Patriae nostrae valde vtilem , & ad conscientias Catholicorum in eâdem serenandas ferè necessarium . Tractantur enim in co breuiter , solidè tamen & modesté , quaestiones nonnullae graues & difficiles , ex quarum veridicâ solutione constabit Catholicis , non imminere illis tantam in multis causis obligationem , tantumue onus conscientiae , quantum nonnulli auctores editis suis libris , imponere nituntur ex leuibus fundamentis . Quod eo magis in hoc Scriptore laud and um est , quo omnia , quae dicit & docet , sunt conformia communiori magisue receptae Theologorum Classicorum auctoritati ; quinimo & recentibus decretis ac responsis à Sede Apostolica insinuatis . Quapropter censeo omnino dignum & iustum , vt hic liber , permissu tamen Superiorum , praelo mandetur . Datum Duaci in Conuentu nostro Sancti Gregorij Magni , 10. die Ianuarij . 1631.

F. Rudesindus Barlo S. Theol. Doctor , & Professor in Vniuersitate Duacenâ .

ATtentè legimus Anglicum hoc Scriptum , cuint titulus est , A Defence of Nicolas Smith agaynst A Reply to his Discussion , of some poynts taught by M. Doctour Kellison in his Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy . In quo nec Catholicam Fidem , nec bonos mores vllatenus offendi , sed susceptam Defensionem , cum plenâ antedicta Replicae satisfactione , praestitam inuenimus . Datum Louany 16. Ianuarij 1631.

Fr. Robertus Chamberlinus S. Theol. Lector in Collegio Fratrum Minorum Louaniensium . Fr. Malachias Fallon S. Theol. Lector .

QVandoquidem à supranominatis doctis viris , & linguam Anglicanam callentibus liber hic citatus probatus est , per me quoque licet vt imprimatur . Actum Tornaci Neruiorum 22. Ianuarij 1631.

Ioannes Boucher S. Theol. Doctor Sorbonicus , nec non Cathedralis Ecclesia Tornacensis Canonicus , Archidiaconus , & Librorum Censor .

THE I. QVESTION What Judgment may be framed of M. Doctours Treatise in generall .

THE Replyer thinkes he hath taken the Discussour in a contradiction , for affirming M. Doctour to haue been the first that put in print A Treatise of the Hierarchy , in the English tongue , and yet confesseth that diuers before him handled this argument , both in Latin and vulgar languages . But it is cleere the Discussour speaketh of such a Treatise concerning the Hierarchy , as M. Doctour put in print , intended , prosecuted , appropriated to England , for proofe of the obligation Catholiques haue to receaue a Bishop , and such like purposes peculiar to our Country . This M. Doctour hath done , and hath done it the first of any in these dayes . Would to God he had not . The law of Nature pleadeth for the right men haue to defend themselues from aggression , but doth not warrant him that vnprouoked offendeth his neighbour .

2. If writing of Bookes in this kind be of small Comfort to Catholiques , the inconuenience must be ascribed to him alone who gaue the first blow , and imposed vpon the partyes aggrieued , a necessity of iust offence . To cure a wound giuen at once to a number of worthy persons , is but a bounden duty , and an obliged acte of common charity . This did other Regulars ; this I doe at this present , and noe more . M. Doctour and his Second , obliged vs to some answer ; I will tye my selfe to doe it with moderation . Likwise Suarcz , Platus , and others haue written of the calling of secular , and state of Religious men , but not by way of application to particular circumstances of any persons , places , or controuersies . M. Doctours exhortation to charity is not by the Discussour stiled Verball , as though it came not from the heart , which the Replyer obiecteth n. 7. ( for he only is to erect a Tribunall of search into mans heart who made it , ) but because while in wordes he persuadeth to charity , euen then in deedes by the writing of this booke he did mightily preiudice Charity , as by too much experience we find , and was easy to be forseene .

3. Nicolas Smith neuer accuseth M. Doctour absolutely of want of Logike , or Prudence , as the Replyer auerreth n. 12. He sayth that in this Treatise , to proue the necessity of Bishops in England , M. Doctour serueth himselfe of Principles more hard then the Conclusion , which is agaynst the rules of Logike . This may argue him to defend a bad cause , not vniuersally to want Logike . What the Replyer hath n. 19. is also obiected by the Inquisition , and answered by the Qualificatour Sect. 6. n. 19. shewing that M. Doctour is not taxed for prouing his Conclusions by Causes , or Effectes &c. but because he assumeth Principles more vncertayne , and lesse warrantable then the Conclusion , as in the sayd place is demonstrated . I belieue it would be an hard taske for any man to proue , That for the onely vndoubtednesse , or greater assurednesse of Confirmation , Catholiques are obliged to haue a Bishop , although we suppose , that by his comming their pressures were to be aggrauated with new increase of persecution . For why should this affliction be , of necessity , added to the already afflicted ? Because ( forfooth ) some very few Authours haue taught that Confirmation cannot be administred by a Priest , with speciall commission from the Pope , although the whole streame of Deuines runne to the contrary side , with S. Thomas ; and some hold , that since the Councell of Florence the other opinion meriteth Censure . This poynt is sufficiently handled in the Qualification . Heere I add this instance . Some few Deuines are also of opinion , that the Priest is Minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony , without whome , according to these Authors , it is only a ciuill Contract , not a Sacrament ; wil therfore the Replyer say , that English Catholickes are obliged to receaue Priests , with increase of persecution , if it were only for to haue the vndoubted Sacrament of Matrimony ? And yet if the matter be duly considered , perhaps one may truly affirme , that as great inconueniences , and sinnes of enmity , iniustice , incontinency &c. are like to be dayly , and hourely incurred , for want of grace , conferred by the Sacrament of Matrimony , as in another kind for want of Confirmation , euen in a persecuted Country . If those Deuines who teach , that the Priest is the Minister of Matrimony , had taught that a Bishop were the necessary Minister of the same Sacrament , the Replyer would perhaps alledge them for the necessity of a Bishop although with increase of persecution .

4. The chiefest point of doctrine in this Question , or rather the point which entreth into all the ensuing Questions , is touched by the Discussour n. 15. and by the Replyer left without answere . It was : That M. Doctours arguments for the necessity of a Bishop in England , proue more then himselfe intendeth or can auouch . For the institution , and commaund of our Sauiour , that his Church should be gouerned by Bishops , concerneth such Bishops , as are properly Ordinaryes , Princes , & Bishops of Diocesses , not by Delegation , Deputation , or Ordinaryes in an extraordinary manner , which is not of Diuiue institution , and is the most that my Lord of Calcedon doth challeng . If the diuine instistution , and commaund , were fulfilled by Ordinaryes , in an Extraordinary manner , the Pope might gouerne the whole Church by such extraordinary Ordinaryes , which no Catholique can grant ; and therfore , as I sayd , M. Doctour must answere his owne arguments , drawne from the diuine institution ( for according to that ground , we must in England haue properly an Ordinary ) & come to confesse , that there is no diuine Positiue Precept , for his Holinesse to appoynt vs in England a Bishop , but only a diuine naturall command to prouide vs of all things , necessary to saluation , whether by Bishops , or other meanes .

THE II. QVESTION . Whether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church .

THE substance of all that is conteyned in the first 16. numbers of the Reply , is taken out of the Inquisition sect. 3. and sect. 6 about the wordes of S. Cyprian : The Church is a people vnited to the Bishop , and , the necessity of a particular Bishop to make a particular Church ; which points are cleared by the Qualificatour in the same Sections . And the Reader of himselfe may answere all his obiections , if he remember how the Discussour expressy teacheth ; That in some particular Churches , there must be particular Bishops , distinct from the Pope : That in England while we wanted Bishops , properly called Ordinaryes in an ordinary manner , the Pope could be , was , and is our sole particular Bishop : That these words of S. Cyprian ( The Church is a people vnited to the Bishop ) as they were spoken by him , precisely , immediatly , & formally , signify , that a people deuided from their lawfull Bishop is no church , but a Schismaticall multitude , & not only by inference , as the Replyer u. 9.13 . & in other places doth suppose ; & out of that his owne supposition , deduceth absurdities agaynst the Discussour , as not distinguishing betwixt meere inculpable want of a Bishop , and sinfull separation from a Bishop : Whereas indeede S. Cyprian , only speaketh of sinnefull separation , & therfore affirmeth , that such as are not vnited with a Bishop , in the sense he spake , are not in the Church : That Catholike writers , may fitly agaynst heretickes , inferre out of S. Cyprian , a necessity of hauing Bishops in Gods Church ; because it were no crime of Schisme to be deuided from a Bishop , if in the Church there ought not to be Bishops : That the sayd wordes of S. Cyprian , may be taken for a definition of the Church , if the word Bishop be taken indefinitely of a particular Bishop distinct from the Pope , or for the Pope himselfe . For no multitude , can be a Church , without vnion eyther to a particular Bishop vnder the Pope or to the Pope himselfe . Without Vnion ( I say ) eyther actuall , or aptitudinall , really , or in readinesse of will , to accept one , when he shall be lawfully giuen them ; which promptitude they may , and ought to haue , when actually they want one . The Replyer himself must yield that S. Cyprian , if he meane of a potiue Vnion with a Bishop ( as he would haue him to meane ) can not be vnderstood determinatly of a particular Bishop distinct from the Pope , vnlesse he will teach it to be agaynst the very definition , and essence of a particular Church to haue the Pope for its particular Bishop , which I am sure he will not auerre . For who dare say , that the particular diocesse of Rome , which hath the Pope for its sole Bishop , is no particular Church ?

2. Thus is answered all that he aleadgeth out of Bellarmine , Stapleton , &c. who only teach , that in the Church there must be some particular Bishops , and that the Church , is a people , vnted to the Bishop , in the manner I haue now declared . Yea all that I haue said is much confirmed , by what the Replier citeth out of Stapleton ; That the word ( Church ) in scripture , signifyeth properly , not a vagrant , headlesse multitude , but a multitude to which Pastours and Prelates are constituted by God . For I trow , English Catholickes , were no vagrant , headlesse multitude , as longe as they were , and are gouerned by Christ his Vicar . And the Replyers obiection n. 9. That euery Catholicke family , euery Nunnery , yea and Company of Catholicke women , shoulde be a particular Church , if vnion to the Pope were sufficient , to constitute a particular Church ; is easily answered , by demaunding of him , whether in a Diocesse , enioying its particular Bishop , euery Nunnery , euery family , euery particular Catholicke , be a particular Church ? what he shall answere in that supposition , the same I answere in our case , who acknowledge the Pope for our particular Bishop . S. Paul faluteth the Church in the house of Nimpha , Coloss. cap. 4. v. 15. and the Church in the house of Philemon , ad Philem. v. 2. and S. Gregory Thanmaturgus , at first , had for his particular Church only 17. Catholiks , nor are we certayne that they were not in one house or family . But to my purpose it importeth nothing , and therfore I will not dispute , whether one family can be fitly called a particular Church .

3. Heere commeth , of it selfe , a ready answere , to another obiection of the Replyer . To shew that the often cited wordes of S. Cyprian , cannot inferre , that a Bishop is necessary , to make a particular Church , the Discussourn . 6. retorteth them in this manner : Whosoeuer are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishop , doe fulfill the definition of S. Cyprian : But those who without their owne fault haue no Bishop , are not in schisme with any lawfull Bishopp ; Ergo , those who haue no Bishop , do fulfill the definition of S. Cyprian . This argument , the Replyer would returne vpon the Discussour , by saying ; That seeing a Catholicke family , without a Bishop , is not in schisme with any Bishop , it would follow , that such a family , considered by it selfe , fulfilleth the definition of S. Cyprian , and consequently is a Church . But the answere is already giuen . If one man , or family , may be tearmed a particular Church , in case they were positiuely vnited to a particular Bishop , much more may they be a Church in S. Cyprians sense , which requireth not positiue vnion , but only , that they be not deuided from their Bishop . If one man , or family , be not capable of the denomination of a particular Church , then his obiection toucheth not the Discussour , whose argument proceeded in respect of a multitude , Plebs , and Grex , a people , and multitude ( such as English Catholickes are ) capable of the sayd denomination , if other requisite conditions were not wantinge . Still then it is trew , as the Discussour inferred , That a people , not deuided from their lawful Bishop , is according to S. Cyprian a true Church , although they haue no actual vnion , with a particular Bishop .

4. His proofes n. 17. That M. Doctour was not iniurious to English Catholicks by saying ; They did not fulfill the definition of a Church , giuen by S. Cyprian , while they wanted a Bishop , do still relye vpon a ground not solide : to wit , that S. Cyprian , by a people vnited to their Bishop , vnderstands a positiue Vnion with a Bishop ; wheras Nicolas Smith proued out S. Cyprians words , and whole drift , that by Vnion with a Bishop , he vnderstands only , that the people be not deuided from him , & this supposed , it cleerly followeth : That if English Catholikes , did not fulfill the sayd definition , they must be taxed of diuision from a Bishop , & consequently of Schisme .

5. The Discussour q. 2. n. 8. 13. and the Qualificatour sect. 7. answere all he bringeth to proue , that the Pope was not our particular Bishop : and the Qualificatour sheweth , that Nicolas Smith doth not argue , à possibili ad esse . But ( sayth the Replyer n. 21. ) if when a Church is depriued of Bishops , the Pope remayne their particular Bishop , no Bishopricke should euer be vacant , nor any Colledge want a Rectour , or Prouince a Prouinciall , because the Prouinciall would become Rectour , & the Generall Prouinciall . And if per impossibile , there were neuer a Bishop in all the Church , but the Pope ; the Church should still be Hierarchical , composed of diuers particular Churches .

6. I answere : This argument must be solued , by the Replyer himselfe ; who in the next number granteth , that the Pope may be the particular Bishop , of a particular Church ; and yet he would not admit , that he may make himself sole particular Bishop of all Churches . The reason is ; because our Sauiour hath instituted , that there should be some particular Churches , gouerned by Bishops distinct from the supreme Pastour ; not because the Pope alone cannot make a particular Church , but because , he can not make all Churches particular Churches , in the manner our Sauiour hath instituted , by their proper Ecclesiasticall Princes , distinct from the Pope , as is required in a Hierarchy . In this sense , Bishoprickes are sayd to be Vacant , because they want a Bishop , distinct from the Pope .

7. And heere I must obserue , that it is so true , that a Church without a Bishop , may be a particular Church , that the Replyer while he is speaking against it , speakes for it , by saying , That a Bishopricke may be Vacant . Ergo , say I , by the Vacancy , it ceaseth not to be a Bishopricke , a Diocesse , a Church . If a Church , surely not an Vniuersall , but a particular one . When the Bishop of a particular Church dyeth , do they not demaund a Bishop for such a Church ? Ergo , they suppose , that it stil remayneth a Church . Otherwise when a Bishop was demaunded for England , it might haue bynne answered : First fynde a Church in Englande , and then aske a Bishop for the Church of Englande . M. Doctour pag. 378. n. 3. sayth : that when a Byshop cannot be had , the particular Church , must be gouerned , as it may . And pag. 374. alluding to Englande , he sayth . If for a tyme some particular Church be gouerned by Priests , or an Archpriest without a Bishop , it is a thing accidentall &c. Ergo , a Church , & Englande in particular , without a Bishop , may be , and was a particular Church . And indeed we can not teach otherwise , vnlesse by the death of euery Bishop , we will haue all men become speachlesse . For , when the Bishop of a particular Church dyeth , how can we expresse it , but by sayinge , such a Church hath lost its Bishop ? The same is demonstrated , euen out of the other examples , alledged by the Replyer . For by the death of a Rectour , or Prouinciall , the Colledge ceaseth not to be a Colledge , nor the Prouince , a Prouince : neyther doth it follow , that a Prouinciall , or Generall vpon the death of euery Rectour , or Prouinciall , must becom Rectours & Prouinciass . The reason of this dependeth on the knowledge of particular institutes of Religion . In generall it is sufficient to say , that no Generall , hath ouer his whole Order , so absolute , and vnlimited extent of power , as the Pope , by our Sauiours institution , hath ouer the whole , & euery member of Gods Church . I grant , in Catholike Countreys , where after the death of the Bishop , other officers remaine , to gouerne till a new Bishop be elected , the Pope need not actuate his immediate power & Pastorship , as he is obliged to do in countries wholy & for a long time destitute of Bishops .

8. Because the Pope hath immediate power ouer all particular Churches , and is Proprius Pastor of England , and all other countreys ; to make himselfe particular sole Bishop of any church , he needs not take the name , of that particular church , but beginneth to be sole Bishop , as soone as it beginneth to be destitute of a Bishop . But other particular Bishops who haue no such vniuersall , immediate power , must acquire it , by a new Title to their particular Churches . And seeing the Pope in respect of England , hath indeed performed the Office of a Bishop , no doubt but he would also call himselfe Bishop of England , if , with the Replyer , he conceaued , that there were a diuine precept to make England a particular Church , and that to make it such , it were necessary , and sufficient , that he tooke the name or title of it , as the Replyer n. 22. confesseth . For who will say , that for a matter of no more difficulty , then is to take a Name , the Pope will breake a diuine commaund ? It is then a signe , that he may make vs a particular Church , without calling himselfe Bishop of England , because in very deed so he is . His Holynesse styleth not himselfe Bishop of Holland , where neuerthelesse he hath a Vicar , which supposeth the Pope to be the particular Bishop of that countrey . For a Church cannot be a particular Church , by vnion to a Vicar , but by vnion to him , whose Vicar he is . My Lord of Chalcedon is not called Bishop of England , or of any Church , or Diocesse thereof ; and yet the Replyer thinkes , he maketh vs a particular Church , because he hath the power of a Bishop of England , which no man can deny the Pope to haue , in as immediate and more ample high manner : and therefore he may make vs a particular Church , although he take not the Name therof .

9. Yea , wheras the Replyer n. 22.23 . teacheth , that the Pope could not be particular Bishop of England , vnlesse he did eyther the office of a Bishop himselfe , or by his Delegate , or as lest styled himselfe Bishop of England : I answere ; that it is sufficient he do the Office of a Bishop , according as the circumstances of the tyme , and place permit , or require ; which his Holinesse most carfully hath and doth performe , by sending into England Priests , or also a Bishop with authority from him delegated &c. and the Replyer pleades agaynst himselfe , telling vs in effect , that the Pope , by the very delegating my Lord of Chalcedon , and not making him Bishop of England hath declared himself to be , the sole particular Bishop of that Countrey , where he doth the office of a Bishop by his Delegates . As Ireland is not a Kingdome , in respect of his Maiesties Deputy but because it is vnited to his Maiesty , as to its King : so England cannot be a particular Church , in respect of my Lord of Chalcedon , but in regard of the Pope , whose Deputy my Lord is , being not spirituall Prince , and Bishop of England . If to be Ordinary in an extraordinary manner , be sufficient to make vs a Church , how will the Replyer proue , that before my lord of Chalcedons comming , his Holinesses Nuntio in Paris , did not make vs a particular Church ?

10. Against the Discussours doctrine n. 11. That persons exempt from all Bishops , and subiect only to the Pope , are a particular Church , without a particular Bishop ; the Replyer n. 26. obiecteth , That Monasteryes , subiect only to the Pope , are no particular Churches , vnles we wil make euery Nunnery of women , a particular Church . I answere , the Discussour speaketh in generall , of places , and persons , exempt from Bishops . And it is well knowne , that there be diuers Territoryes , of extent , sufficient to make a Diocesse , subiect to no Bishop . These Nicolas Smith affirmes to be particular churches . One Monastery , or Nunnery , immediatly subiect to the Pope , are as much a particular Church , as if they had a particular Bishop , as we sayd aboue n. 2.3 .

11. In his numbers 28.29 . he teacheth , that it is a great Lustre to a Church to haue a particular Bishop : That a Church gouerned by a Delegate , wanteth some perfection of that , which is gouerned by an Ordinary : That if a Pope should send a Priest into England , with power to confirme , England should be in its kind a particular Church , but not in the degree and perfection , as if it had an Ordinary Bishop . What ? Is the necessity of hauing a Bishop come only to a greater Lustre ? Must Catholickes be troden vnder foote for a greater lustre ? Doth all this dispute end in degrees of Comparison ? Hath our being , or not being a particular Church , so great latitude , that it may reach to a Church with a Bishop Ordinary , a Bishop Delegate , a simple Priest ? I confesse the Replyer is forced to steppe backe , and not to stand so punctually on his ground , of Englands not being a particular Church , without a Bishop . I desire he would speake plainly . Doth the diuine law , in these sore tymes , oblige vs to be a particular Church , in the greatest perfection you mention , by a Bishop Ordinary ? You wil not say so . Is the diuine law , of our being a particular Church well satisfied , by persons endued with authority , sufficient , and proportionable to these dayes , let them be Priests , or Bishops , Ordinaryes , or Delegates ? So you must say . Let vs then speake no more of being a particular Church , or of hauing determinatly a Bishop , by the diuiuine law ; but let our care be , in the sight of God , vnpartially to consider , and with indifferency to desire , what may be most expedient for Catholickes , not in France , Spayne , Italy , and other Countreyes , happy with peaceable possession of Ecclesiasticall splendour ; but in England blessed only with ioyful suffering a longe continued persecution .

12. Well , to leaue speculations , & Schoolpoynts , seing you constantly persist in this , that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church ; before you burthen our consciences , with a heauy obligation , to purchase our being a particular Church , with hazard of goods , liberty , and life ; you must not blame vs , if we request you , to produce some precept of God , or the Church , commaunding vs to be a particular Church , in your sense : & why we may not content our selues , with being good Catholickes , and members of the Vniuersall Church , as Nicholas Smith n. 14. proposed to M. Doctour ? In this consisteth the poynt of the difficulty . The Replyer answereth , that this demaund is by the Discussour brought out of its place , & so must expect answere in the next question , which treateth , Whether by the diuine law , euery particular Church , must haue its Bishop ? What is this , but to auoyd the difficulty ? for M. Doctour proposeth as two reasons , or titles , The deuine precept of hauing a Bishop in euery particular Church , and , The necessity of hauing a Bishop , because without him we cannot be a particular Church , as may be seene Chap. 14. n. 4. 5. 6. 7. and in other places . Now the Replyer will make M. Doctour walke in a circle , and proue , that we are bound to be a particular Church , because we are obliged to haue a Bishop ; and we are obliged to haue a Bishop , because we are bound to be a particular Church . If the Replyer will defend M. Doctour , he must tell vs , what commaund we haue , precisely to be a particular Church , so that , if a Bishop were not necessary in other respects , yet for this cause alone , he could not be refused . This the Replyer doth not proue in the next question , nor is it a thing , in it selfe , factible or credible .

13. From the number 13. to the end of this Question , he taxeth the Discussour , as stretching M. Doctours wordes Chap. 14. n. 9. further , then he intended . But those wordes which he seeketh to defend , must eyther teach as farre , as the Discussour extendeth them , or else they will come short of prouing M. Doctours purpose . For if it be as necessary , to haue a particular Bishop , to make a particular church , as to haue an Vniuersall Bishop , for the making an Vniuersal church ; and that , by the diuine law euery country of extent must be a particular Church ; it followeth clearly , that according to M. Doctour there is as much necessity to haue a Bishop in England . which in his opinion is a particular church of extent , as to haue a Pope of Rome . You will perhaps say , that the diuine Law , of hauing a particular Bishop , in euery particular church , doth not so generally bynd , as the other doth , but may cease to oblige , by reason of some particular circumstances of tyme , or place . This answere ouerthoweth M. Doctours whole edifice . Because if any reason may take away the obligation of a diuine law , certainly a generall persecution , threatned to a whole Countrey , may free vs from such a bond . How then will M. Doctour conclude , that by the diuyne law we are bound to haue a Bishop , in a case , wherein the diuine law ceaseth to bynd ? You see the Discussour had reason to say , That M. Doctours wordes imported too much , or else you must yeald , they proued too litle .

14. In like manner what M. Doctour sayd , in the same place ; That vnlesse euery particular church haue a Bishop , the Vniuersall church should not , as Christ hath instituted , be a Hierarchy , composed of diuers particular churches , is rightly taxed by the Discussour , as eyther not sound , or not sufficient for M. Doctours purpose . If it be vnderstood only indeterminatly , that is , The whole church cannot be a Hierarchy , vnlesse some particular churches haue Bishops it proueth not , that England must haue a Bishop : because , although England want a Bishop , other churches may haue them , & so the Vniuersall church remayne a Hierarchy . If he vnderstand of euery determinate particular church ; then it followeth , that the church of God cannot be a Hierarchy vnles the determinate particular church of England haue a Bishop , as the Discussour vrged n. 16. and the Replyer doth not confute .

15. By the way I espy in his n. 32. a word for my purpose , which ouerthroweth the Repliers whole discourse in this Question . The church ( sayth he ) cannot be at al without a supreme Bishop , or not without order to him , when the sea is Vacant . This I take as granted , and very true : and hence I inferre ; That as the Vniuersall church may be an Vniuersall church , without actuall vnion to a supreme Bishop , while the sea is Vacant , because it still hath Order , reference , and aptitude to be gouerned by an Vniuersall Bishop , as soone as he shall be elected ; so a particular church , may be such , by Order , and aptitude to be vnited with a particular Bishop , whensoeuer he shall be appoynted ; & so S. Cyprians definition ( The Church is the people vnited to the Bishop ) doth not require , that the people be actually vnited to the Bishop , but only in readines of mynd , or aptitudinally . And thus England while it wanted a Bishop , was a particular church , because it was alwayes in disposition to be vnited to a Bishop . Where now is that argument , so often inculcated by M. Doctour , the Inquisitour , and the Replyer ? S. Cyprian defines a church to be the people vnited to the Bishop . But the people cannot be vnited to a Bishop , vnlesse they haue one : Ergo , they cannot be a church vnlesse they haue a Bishop . For the Replyer himselfe hath told vs , that when the Sea is vacant , the people may be a church , with only Order to a Bishop , which implyeth not the actuall hauing a Bishop , but only a fit disposition to haue one .

THE III. QVESTION . Whether by the diuine Law euery particular Church must haue its Bishop ?

THE diuine precept , of hauing Bishops in the Church , is only to be vnderstod indeterminatly , or in generall ; that in the whole church , there must be some Bishops , as many , or few , as may be necessary , or requisite , to the end of gouerning the same Church . But in respect of particular , and determinate churches , the commaund is not absolute , but beareth a great respect to circumstances of tyme , place , and the like , as the Vicar of Christ shall iudge it best fitting , for gouerning , and prouiding such churches of al things necessary to saluation . Wherfore from the diuine precept , of hauing Bishops , in generall , we cannot infer a necessity of hauing Bishops , in this , or that particular countrey although otherwise of extent . For there may occur good reason , why some other gouernment , in some particular circumstances may conduce more to the glory of God , and particular good of such a country . Contrarywise it may happen , that some church of small extent , may in particular circumstances more require the gouernment of a Bishop , then a larger countrey . The thing therfore which is ( as I may say ) formally to be considered , is the quality , or greater , or lesse necessity ; not the greater , or lesse quantity of place , or number of persons , but in as much as these may induce , a greater necessity of hauing Bishops .

2. For this cause , in the primitiue church , euen in tyme of hoatest persecution , Bishops were multiplied , and placed in diuers Cittyes , because those tymes did so require . In so much , that some Authors write , that in those first dayes of Christianity , in a manner all Priests were Bishops , contrary to the present practise of Gods church . The reason was , the paucity of Priests , of which if many had not binne made Bishops , to ordayne Priests , particular churches would haue remayned vnfurnished of Priests , to conuert infidells , & assist them being conuerted . Euery church hauing inough to do within it self , could not affoard help to others . For this same cause , Bishops were allotted to smaller flockes , then is now eyther vsuall , or lawful , to be commonly practised . S. Gregory the Thaumaturge , cited by the Replyer n. 14. was created Bishop ouer only 17. persons . A number competent for those old , not these latter tymes , in places where by neighbour-churches , the want of other may be relieued . The more the Vniuersall church is dilated , the lesse euery particular church needeth a a Bishop of its own . Because other churches , without much preiudice vnto themselues , may frequently , lend them a helping hand . In countreys , by vast distance , remote from helpe , and comfort of Christian Nations , a Bishop may be needfull for a few . In Europe , the case is otherwise . If one shippe be in want , it can becken to those who abound in diuers others .

3. Hence it followeth , that , to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England in vayne we haue recourse , to the diuine precept in generall , of hauing some Bishops in the church . All the question must setle on this ; Whether England , can be sufficiently furnished of Priests , and prouided of all necessaries for our iourney to heauen , without a Bishop ; Or whether the inconueniece of comming , might not counterpoyse the commodityes he would bring . This should be the only Question ; and the answere ought to be referred , to the same Bishop , to whose charge Christ hath committed England , & all other countreys . In the meane tyme , let not Catholickes be frighted , with diuine precepts where none are .

4. The Replyer doth not rightly state the Question , while he telleth vs n. 8. that M. Doctour only teacheth , that Catholickes cannot refuse a Bishop , although by his comming persecution should be increased , supposing he be sent by lawfull authority . Because ( sayth he ) in that case , the Pope rather declareth , that the diuine law ceaseth not to oblige . A goodly construction of M. Doctours meaning , and a fayre account of all his paynes ; which are reduced to this issue : Catholickes are bound , by the diuine law , to receaue a Bishop , if the Pope declare , that the diuine law , of hauing a Bishop , byndeth them . As if the Question were , whether Catholickes be obliged , to belieue the Popes declarations , whether or no diuine Lawes do oblige . Surely for this , there need no writing of Hierarchyes , Inquisitions , Replyes . The answere might speedly haue binne giuen . That in all things , the Catholickes of England haue binne , are , and eternally will be , as zealous , prompt , and constant in submitting their vnderstandings , and wills , to the commaunders , or declarations of his Holines , as any Catholickes whom● the Sunne beholdeth . But it is euident , that M. Doctour speaketh absolutly , and ex natura rei , of the necessity we haue , to receaue a Bishop , abstracting from the Popes declaration or Mission . This , his reasons demonstate , drawne from the diuine precept of hauinge Bishops in euery great parte of the church ; from the vtility , or necessity of Confirmation , without which men are in danger to forsake their faith , as M. Doctour vrgeth &c. as may be seene in the very title , and throughout his whole 14. Chapter .

5. Neyther is it a good Consequence : The Pope sendeth a Bishop to England , Ergo , he declares , that there is a diuine precept , to haue a Bishop in England . Many thinges are holily done , which a man is not obliged to do . When the Pope maketh a Diocesse , and endueth it with a Bishop , distinct from other particular Bishops , doth he therfore declare , that there was a diuine precept , to make such a Diocesse , or to place a Bishop in it ? We see some Territoryes , capable of Bishops , to be gouerned by Abbots which could not be , if there were a diuine precept , to place Bishops in such Territoryes , although it had not likewise binne against the diuine law , to haue placed Bishops in the same Territoryes . This is a good Inference . The Pope , for many yeares , sent vs no Bishop : Ergo , he iudged there was no diuine precept , obliginge him to send vs one ; but the other consequence is of no force , as I haue shewed . Will the Replyer admit this argument ; The Pope for many yeares left vs without a Bishop : Ergo , he iudged there was a diuine precept , that we should be left without a Bishop ? . It is as good as his . Nicolas Smith n. 4. sayd truly ; The deliberation about sending a Bishop to England , was only , Quid expediret , what was expedient , not what was necessary , by the diuine law , which , as I sayd , is only of Churches taken in generall and indeterminately . And I cannot but esteeme it iniurious , to those Fatherly bowelles of his Holines , to thinke , that he euer iudged vs obliged , to accept a Bishop , with a generall increase of persecution . If he were persuaded , that the comming of a Bishop , would occasion to Catholickes , a generall persecution , I dare say , he would neuer impose vpon them such an obligation . And yet M. Doctour , and the Replyer are rigid Censurers of Catholickes , as infingers of the diuine Law , if they should refuse a Bishop , euen vpon that heauy supposition .

6. Supposing the Institution of hauing Bishops , do not oblige in all tymes , places , and other circumstances , Nicolas Smith had had reason to say , n. 4. That M. Doctour , if he will speake home , must proue , not only that there is a diuine precept for vs to haue a Bishop , but also that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof , or yield sufficient cause of dispensation . For although we should grant , a diuine precept in generall , yet if in some circumstances it do not bynd , the transgressours should not sinne . Now , if any cause may affoard a lawfull excuse , what can be greater , then the auoyding of a generall persecution , wherby not only goods , and life , but also christian soules are exposed to danger .

7. The Replyer n. 3. speaketh in such manner , as one would conceaue Nicolas Smith to haue affirmed , that M. Doctour denyed the Pope may dispence in the diuine Law ; which Nicholas Smith neuer sayd : yet because the Replyer first mentioneth this matter , I must adde , that seeing M. Doctour proueth our obligation to haue a Bishop , by the necessity of Confirmation , and danger of denying our faith , through want of that Sacramet ; it wil not be easy for him , to defend , that the Pope can dispence in that obligation . For what dispensation can be giuen , for exposinge of mens soules to damnation ? Or if M. Doctour , and the Replyer grant , that the Pope may dispense in this commaund ; I must be bold to say , their arguments , drawne from the necessity of Confirmation , are farre-fetched frights , not solid reasons .

8. Wheras the Replyer n. 12. writeth , that Nicholas Smith sayd not truly , that in England the multitude of Catholickes , not the extent of the place , is only to be considered : I say truly , that Nicholas Smith sayth no such matter , but only , That if England be considered , not materially , but formally ( as Deuines expresse themselues ) that is , not the extent of land , or multitude of people , but the number of Catholickes , which only can make a trae Church , we shall find it to be more then sarre from a great , or notabic part of the Catholicke Church spread ouer the whole word . Whether or no the extent of place , or number of persons , although not Catholickes , be also considerable , Nicholas Smith would answere , that it dependeth vpon other circumstances , which may make such an extent , more , or lesse , or not at all , considerable , as we haue shewed n. 2. As for England in particular , if the extent of place were lesse , a Bishop would be more vsefull , for the Sacrament of Confirmation , which might be administred to more , if they were lesse distant in place ▪ And this vrgeth much agaynst the Replyer , who , in prouing the necessity of a Bishop in euery great countrey , finally n. 20. reduceth all , to the necessity of Confirmation .

9. It is strange , how zealous the Replyer n. 10. is against Nicholas Smith , for makinge the Catholicks , as it were a contemptible number , only because he sayth , they are not a notable great part of Gods Church , notwithstanding that Nicholas Smith cited in that behalfe , a Writing entituled ; A Paratell &c. ( the Author whereof , is thought to be a person of greater ranke , then the Replyer ) wherin it is sayd , that all our Catholickes togeather , would scarcsely make one , of diuers Bishoprickes in England . And it is worth the noting , that the Paralellist sayd so , in proofe , that some Regulars , who wrote that the gouernment of certayne Churches , anciently belonged to them , did therby make a greater Challenge , then my lord of Chalcedon , which surely must haue respect only to the number of persons , and not extent of place . For those Regulars neuer chalenged power ouer all Catholickes , through England , as my lord of Chalcedon doth . But by this we may see , how the number of Catholickes must be raysed , or cryed downe , as it maketh most for their purpose . It seemeth his Holines had consideration , cheifly of Persons , not of the Place , by makinge my Lord , not Bishop of the countrey , but only giuing him authority referred to the persons . Ordinaries haue iurisdiction , in respect both of place , and person , Catholickes , and Heretiques : and therfore in them , extent of place is much more considerable . Lastly , although it were granted ( as a thing not making much for our present purpose ) that the extent of place in England , were much considerable , thence at the most could be inferred , that England is capable of a Bishop , not that it must of necessity haue one , which is our only Question . As there be some Diocesses , for extent of place , wel capable of too , or more Bishops , and yet it doth not follow , that of necessity they must haue too or more , if by one they can be sufficiently gouerned ; yea there are diuers places , capable of one , or more Bishops , who haue no Bishop at all , but are gouerned by other superiours .

10. Likewise the Replyer n. 9. about this poynt , citeth the wordes of the Discussour n. 7. very imperfectly in this manner . To affirme , that one Diocesse , or Citty , is a notable part of the Church , is a thinge , which no deuine , yea no man of iudgment will say . The words entirely cited are these : To affirme , that one Diocesse , or City , or indeed not so much as one Diocesse or Citty , is a great , or notable part of that Chuch , which reacheth , as farre as the rising and setting of the Sunne , and that it must therfore , iure diuino , by the diuine law , haue a Bishop ; so as no cause can excuse the want of one , is a thing , which no Deuine &c. This saying of Nicolas Smith is so euident , as no man can deny it to be true ; and yet for this speach , he is deeply charged by the Inquisitour , and Replyer of great immodesty . Besides Nicolas Smith neuer say d M. Doctour affirmed all this , but only by good consequence , he shewed that this and diuers other hard conclusions , must follow out of his Principles .

11. What he citeth n. 14. out of the Regulars Answere , to my Lord of Calcedons letter , is by him odiously forced , to a sense by the neyther meant , nor written . It is cleare , they speake not of Episcopall authority in generall , but of a Bishop , in these tymes , with power of Ordinary , in foro externo , coactiue , to erect a Tribunall &c. which they say , would in these tymes , proue pernicions to soules &c. as M. Doctour Chap. 15. confesseth , my Lord of Chalcedon to say , that such a Tribunal is not sutable to these tymes . Preaching is a holy thinge , and as auncient , as our Sauiour Christ ; yet to do it publickly , in these tymes , may be called , a Nouelty , and pernicious to Catholikes .

12. In more then three whole leaues , from n. 16. he laboureth to make good , that Sotus fauoureth M. Doctour . All his discourse is reduced to this . When Sotus teacheth it , to be of diuine law , that in generall to euery Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision , proper Bishops are to be applyed ; those wordes ( in generall ) are to be interpreted , as if one should say , Christ in generall hath ordayned , that euery man shall be baptized , and therfore by our Sauiours commaund , euery particular man is to be baptized . The Discussour interpreteth Sotus by the word ( ingenerall ) to meane indeterminatly of some Diocesses according as particular circumstances of persons , tyme , and place shall require , & not that Sotus did teach an absolute precept , of placing Bishops in euery determinate particular Diocesse . This interpretation , is gathered out of Sotus his whole drift , which was to proue afterward agaynst Catharines , that the Residence of Bishops , is de iure diuino , of the diuine law ; and also out of his wordes , cited by the Replyer n. 22. that the Bishop must , adsalutem gregis oculate attendere ; looke as it were with his eye , to the good of his flocke : & , propter peculiarem curam & vigilantiam ; for the peculiar care and vigilancy necessary to his Church . All which demonstrate Sotus his meaning only to be , that Bishops , by the diuine law must be so applyed to particular Churches , as may suffice for the good gouernment of the same , but not so absolutely , that when they may be otherwise prouided for , euery Diocese must of necessity haue its Bishop ; which Sotus knew well to be agaynst the practise of the Church , wherin diuers Territoryes , as great as Diocesses , are exempt from all particular Bishops . As Sotus teacheth , that Bishops must be applyed to particular Diocesses ; so he teacheth , that Parish Priests must be applyed to particular Parishes , as may be seene in the wordes cited by the Replyer ; & it were strange , that Sotus should therfore be alleadged , to hold , it a diuine law , that euery Parish , haue its Parish Priest , if otherwise it be sufficiently prouided . Sotus then must be vnderstoode , only indeterminately , that some Diocesses must haue their Bishops , because otherwise they cannot be sufficiently gouerned ; but not absolutely , that by the diuine law ech one must haue its Bishop , although otherwise it can be furnished with all necessaryes . And this in effect is no more then we sayd in this Question n. 1. and euinceth , the no necessity of a Bishop in England , by the diuine law , if without a Bishop we can be sufficiently prouided for . According to this true meaning of Sotus , it followeth not , as the Replyer thinkes ; Sotus teacheth , that there must be a Bishop in euery particular Diocesse : Ergo much more in euery notable part of the Church ; because if a notable part of the Church , can be otherwise well gouerned , it will no more , according to Sotus , require a Bishop , then a particular Diocesse . Yea there may happe to be a greater obligation , of placing a Bishop , in some particular Diocesse , then in a great Country , where the Bishop cannot performe his office or cannot come without great domage to Catholikes , which are considerations depending wholly vpon particular circumstances , and not to be determined by generall notions of greater , or lesse extent of place . Besides , M. Doctour alleadged Sotus absolutely ; now the Replyer hath recourse to inferences . If Sotus meane as the Replyer will haue him ; That by the diuine lawe , the Pope must apply a particular Bishop to euery Diocesse , or rather to euery place capable to be a Diocesse , the doctrine is not true in it selfe ; and is agaynst the Replier pag. 30. n. 12. who granteth that the Pope may gouerne some litle Prouinces , otherwise then by a Bishop , as we see frequently practised in Territoryes of good extent . It was then a hard shift out of a doctrine not true , by inference to proue a poynt so preiudiciall to Catholikes , as M. Doctours conclusion was . At least it cannot be denyed , but Sotus his wordes , by this diuersity of Interpretation , appeare to be obscure , and therfore could yield but vncertayne reliefe to M. Doctours hard assertion .

13. Concerning Bannez , see the Discussour n. 11. who truly affirmed , that he made nothinge for M. Doctour . When he teacheth , that the Pope cannot remoue Bishops from a great part of the Church , he vnderstandes as we commonly call one thing , a great part of another , as certainly one countrey is not a great part of the Catholicke church , which extendeth it selfe as farre as the world , especially , if in such a countrey , there be no more Catholickes , then are in England .

14. The Replyer n. 28. doth his vtmost to proue , that by diuine Law , euery particular Church must haue a Bishop , and when all comes to all , the point is reduced to the necessity of Confirmation . But this is a weake ground , to oblige Catholickes to receaue a Bishop , with increase of persecution . For first a Bishop , for Confirmation only , can be no more necessary , then Confirmation it selfe , which is not a Sacrament of necessity , and according to all Deuines , may be omitted without sinne , when commodiously it cannot be had ; which certainly happeneth , when a Bishop cannot come into the Country , but accompanyed with addition to a grieuous persecution . 2. That Sacrament may be administred by a Priest , with commission from the Pope . 3. Although it were necessarily to be administred by a Bishop yet it requireth , only Episcopal Order , with voluntary iurisdiction , as Priests in England haue ouer their Penitents . 4. It requireth not a Bishop belonging to England , or residing in that Kingdome . 5. M. Doctour alleadgeth the diuine precept , of hauing Bishops in euery notable part of the Church , as a distinct argument from his other reason of the necessity of Confirmation , as may be seene in his chap. 14. n. 4. and the Replyer doth not sufficiently defend M. Doctour , by flying from one to the other . The point touching Confirmation belongs to the next Question .

15. All that he hath n. 29. 30. 31. 32. is the very same with the obiections , of the Jnquisition Sect. 6. and is answered by the Qualificatour , in the same section so cleerly , as I need adde no more .

16. By the same forme of argument , wherby M. Doctour proued the necessity of a Bishop , in euery Countrey of exent , the Discussour sayd , it might be proued ; That in euery Countrey , Religious Institute is to be maintayned , because the Pope is obliged to conserue it , in the whole Church of God . But there is no more reason of one Countrey , then of another : Ergo it is to be mantayned in euery Countrey . To this the Replyer answereth n. 33. 34. First , that Nicholas Smith can not fynd out a diuine precept , obliging the Pope to admit any Religious Order , as he is bound to giue Bishops to the Church . But I belieue if he consider the matter better , he will not aduenture to say ; That the Pope can depriue the Church of a Religious Estate , Instituted by our Sauiour Christ , whose Councels faithfull people cannot , without iniury , be vniuersally hindred to follow . Secondly , he answereth ; That he hath proued it to be of the diuine law , that euery notable part of the Church haue a Bishop ; wheras no Religious Order is necessary by the diuine law in euery notable part of the Church . But he neyther hath proued , what he assumeth as proued , nor doth he answere the forme of Nicholas Smiths argument , which was the same with that , which M. Doctour vsed to proue the necessity of a Bishop in England . And so when the Replyer biddeth the Discussour make what he can of this answere ; till he giue a better , this vse any man may make of it , to say with truth , that it maketh nothing for M. Doctours reason , but only to shew the insufficiency of it .

17. No lesse deficient is he , in satisfying another forme of Argument , brought by Nicholas Smith , in resemblance of that of M. Doctours : It is not of the diuine law , to haue a Bishop in euery particular Diocesse of England : But , if we respect the diuine law , there is no more reason of one Diocesse then another ; Ergo , all the Diocesses of England may be gouerned without a Bishop . And the same argument may be made of all other Countreys . To this forme of argument the Replyer answereth ; That there is more necessity of a Bishop in a whole Countrey , then in euery particular Diocesse , which was not the question , but whether it was not as good a forme of argument , as that which M. Doctour vsed . I omit to note , that the Replyer misciteth the Discussour , who sayd not , that M. Doctour confessed , that a particular Diocesse may be without a Bishop , but spake reseruedly , that M. Doctour seemed to confesse it ; which is true , because he stil expresly declared himselfe to speake , of a notable great part of the Church . Howsoeuer , the thinge it selfe is true , that the Pope is not , by diuine law , obliged to giue a Bishop , to euery place capable of one , as we see often practised . Would M. Doctour perhaps , haue in England , as many Bishops , as there be Diocesses ? What mistery may there be , that the Replier doth so purposly conceale M. Doctours opinion in this point ? To confirme more , what Nicholas Smith sayd , I argue thus in M. Doctours forme . It is not of the diuine law , that England haue a Bishop : properly called Bishop of England , or of any Diocesse therin : But there is no more reason of England , then of other Countreyes . Ergo all other Countreys may be without a Bishop , properly called Bishop of such Countreys , or of any Diocesse therin . This is M. Doctours forme of argument , and yet the consequence cannot by any Catholicke be maintayned .

18. At length the Replyer n. 36. agreeth with vs , that it must be left to the supreme Pastors discretion , whether the diuine law obligeth a Countrey to haue a Bishop , in this , or that circumstance , and so M. Doctour and the Replyer might haue spared their paynes , in prouing that England must haue a Bishop , because there is a diuine law , that euery great part of the Church , as they conceaue England to be , haue its proper Bishop . Yet I cannot approue his other saying , that when we demaund any thing , there is more reason to demaund , that which is ordinary , then that which is extraordinary , and therfore England may demaund an Ordinary . For the rule of wise men ought rather to be , that they demaund , what is most sutable to tyme place , and other Circumstances , and not what is ordinary , or extraordinary . God grant our case of England , were not extraordinary , and much different from that of other Catholicke Countreys .

19. He doth likwise not a litle relent , in the same n. 36. where fynding M. Doctour sore pressed by the Discussour n. 15.16 . that his arguments , if they passe for good , must also proue , that Scotland is obliged to haue its Bishop , yea that both England , and Scotland must haue an Ordinary , properly so called , because Scotland is a Countrey of extent , and by the diuine law , beside the supreme Pastour , there must be other Ordinaryes , or Ecclesiastical Princes in the whole Church , and consequently ( according to the groundes of M. Doctour & the Replyer ) euery notable part of the Church , must haue a Bishop , in that proper sense . To this the Replyer answereth : If England , and Scotland be both notable partes of the Church , both ought to haue , by the diuine law , their proper Bishop , be he Ordinary , or Delegate . If ? Doth he beginne to doubt , whether they be both notable parts of the Church , or Churches of extent ? Or can he assigne vs a diuine law for England , not for Scotland ? I see , he may in tyme accorde with Nicholas Smith , whome ere while he so much taxed , for saying , that England , as now thinges stand , is no notable part of Gods whole Church . Moreuer , the diuine law , of hauing some Bishops in the Church , is of Ordinaryes in an ordinary manner , not of Delegates ; and therfore if Delegates suffice in England , or Scotland , it is a signe the diuine law doth not oblige in those Countreys ; and if by Bishops Delegates the diuine law be fulfilled , it may be fulfilled by Priests Delegates , for as much as concerneth iurisdiction .

20. I will answere his n. 37. only by adding , what he leaueth out in citing the Discussours wordes q. 7. n. 15. I ( sayth Nicholas Smith ) would most willingly spend my bloud , for purchasing of tymes , sutable with the enioying a Catholicke Bishop in England . Where the Replyer leaueth off , and maketh a longe needlesse descant vpon a poynt euery playne , if he had added the wordes , immediatly following , namely ( indued with as much authority , as any particular Bishop in the whole Church of God . ) Which tymes almighty God grant vs with speed , if so it be his diuine will .

21. The confutation of M. Doctours arguments , drawne from the Affrican Church , is by the Replyer answered , with a gentle , & implicit concession , of all that the Discussour had obiected . For omitting all particulars , he telleth vs , that they were alleadged by M. Doctour , only to shew their zeale , and great desire of a Bishop . But seeing Nicholas Smith did shew , that there was no parity betwixt their case and ours , and also that the Affrican Bishops , did not approue the peoples zeale , but rather gaue a president , that zeale is to be tempered with discretion , the sayd examples , were neyther rightly alleadged by M. Doctour , nor is M. Doctour well defended by the Replyer . As farre as Knowledge will giue way , English Catholickes will yielde to none , in zeale to haue a Bishop .

THE IIII. QVESTION . Whether a Countrey , although the Persecution should be increased , by occasion of hauing a Bishop , could refuse one , if it were only for the Sacrament of Confirmation .

THE Replyer chargeth Nicholas Smith , for changing the question , as if he had imposed vpon M. Doctour that he taught , euery man in particular to be obliged , to hazard goods , liberty , & lyfe , for enioying Confirmation , wheras M. Doctour only spake of persecution in general . But Nicholas Smith neuer imposed vpon M. Doctour that saying , nor do the Discussours wordes , alleadged by the Replyer , import any such matter , but he euer spake of persecution , to be increased by the comming of a Bishop , which might as well fall vpon this , as that man , and in that sense , euery one in particular , might feare it for himselfe . Yet Nicholas Smith neuer disputed , whither some in particular , might not , without danger , receaue Confirmation , supposing we had a Bishop , which touched not the question in hand . For certayne it is , that Confirmation cannot be sayd , to be had commodiously , ( which was the poynt that made most for the purpose ) if it cannot be receaued , without a Bishop , whose very comminge , was supposed to cause increase of persecution , to Catholickes in generall ; which is more considerable , then if it were certayne , that by his comming , some one man only were to suffer domage , as Nicolas Smith n. 17. sayd truly , but is not rightly taken by the Replyer n. 5. And by this is answered his long discourse n. 29. 30. 31. 32.

2. His arguments , concerning Perfect Christianity are examined in the Qualification sect. 4. where it is explicated , in what sense we are by Confirmation , made perfect Christians , and is demonstrated , that Nicholas Smith neuer denyed it , in the sense in which the holy Fathers spake .

3. Likewise the Qualificatour sect. 3. sheweth that Nicolas Smith , concerning the authority of S. Clements Epistles , hath no more , yea lesse , then is to be read in Bellarmine , Possouinus Sixtus Senensis , and Baronius . And further sheweth , that Nicolas Smith doth not reiect them , as Heretickes do ; and lastly , that the sayd Epistles make nothing agaynst the Discussour .

4. That which M. Doctour and the Replyer should haue done , and by Nicolas Smith n. 16. were vrged to do , should haue bin , to prooue that to be perfect Christians in the Fathers sense , was of so great necessity , that for attayning thereof , Catholickes ought to endure persecution : But this neyther M. Doctour did performe , nor doth the Replyer , as much as take notice of . And truly in what sense soeuer we take S. Clement , and other Fathers , or Councels , teaching , that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians , nor properly Christians , yea not Christians at all ( for so some speake ) it is allwayes to be vnderstood , if that Sacrament be omitted voluntarily , when it may be had , otherwise we may be perfect Christians ; that is , it shall not be imputed to vs , that we are not perfect Christians , but God will supply that want by other meanes . As if a Cathecumen , belieuing perfectly in Christ , dye without Baptisme yet with intense Contrition , not hauing possibility to be actually baptized , he may be sayd to dye a Christian , yea a good , and holy Christian ; because the want of Baptismal Character is not imputed to him ( as it would to one , who by his fault had omitted it ) in regard he wantes it , only negatiue not priuatiue ; he hath it not , yet wants it not , by reason in that case he was not bound to haue it in act , but only in effectuall desire . As after Baptisme , remission of deadly sins , the proper effect of the Sacrament of Pennance , may be obtayned by Contrition , as it includes a desire of that Sacrament ; which desire in that case , is reputed for the act . This is a cleere explication , of those words left out by M. Doctour , in citing S. Clement ( si non necessitate &c. Jf he shall remaine so , not vpon necessity , but by carelesnesse , or voluntarily . ) Which were wordes of chiefe importance , when we disputed of omitting Confirmation , not carelesly , but for iust feare of persecution , because we are not bound to be perfect Christians , in that peculiar sense , with so great domage ; nor will the want of such perfection , in that case , be imputed to vs , but God of his goodnesse , will be ready to supply , the effect of Confirmation , for as much as concerneth actuall grace , and assistance , without the Character ; because , vpon that supposition , of persecution to be increased , there is a morall kind of impossibility to receaue it . By which obseruation , falleth downe all that the Replyer obiects , n. 16. about Baptisme not actually receaued , and Confirmation n. 22. and both Baptisme and Confirmation n. 23. as the Reader wil perceaue , by applying to his obiections , what euen now I haue noted . For we do not say , that without vnction one can be annoynted , although it be omitted vpon necessity , but only , that the want of it shall not be imputed , yea shall be otherwise supplyed ; and the like I say of Baptisme : whereas if vnction be omitted voluntarily , the party shall be annoynted neither Sacramentally , by the character , nor Equiualently by other helpes from God , and so he shall deserue to be truly called not a perfect Christian . By the way I obserue , that n. 22. he confoundeth two disstinct answeres giuen by the Discussour , by which meanes it is easy to make a shew of difficulty , or to confute any two opinions , or answers giuen as different , yet both as probable , as Schollers dayly giue diuers probable answers to one difficulty , which taken togeather cannot both subsist , being quite different , or contrary ; and if one be determinatly imbraced as true , the other must be relinquished as not true , all-though it may still retaine its probability , & to some other man perhaps seeme also more true . The Qualificatour Sect. 7. n. 17. sheweth that other Catholike Authors , might well leaue out those wordes of S. Clement ( if not by necessity &c. ) because they treated not the case of persecution , of which M. Doctour did speake , and so they had no like obligation to cite those wordes .

5. But ( sayth the Replyer ) rather Nicolas Smith falsifyeth S. Clement , whose words are these : All therfore must make hast , without delay to be regenerated to God , and then to be consigned by the Bishop &c. And when he shall be regenerated by water , and afterward confirmed by the Bishop , with the seauenfolde grace of the spirit , for otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian , nor haue place amongst the perfect , if he so remaine , not by necessity but by carelesnesse , or voluntarily . Where the Discussour left out these wordes ( nor haue place amongst the perfect , ) which he thinkes to be of great importance , and to signify that he cannot be admitted to the sacred Eucharist , nor to the ranke of them that are admitted to it , if not by necessity , but voluntarily he shall so remayne . For if by necessity , the party baptized wanted Confirmation , he might be admitted to the Eucharist . But I am not of his opinion that those wordes were of importance , and dare assure him in the Discussours behalfe , that he neuer dreamed of any mystery , which could moue him , purposely to omit them . It is very strang that the Discussour should be blamed , for omitting only the mentioned words , and M. Doctour excused , although he left out the very same words , & also the words that followed ( Jf not by necessity &c. ) Are you so vnfriendly to Nieolas Smith , that vpon condition to espy one omission in him , you are content to acknowledge a double one in M. Doctour ? Your selfe must satisfy for Nicolas Smith , and answere your own arguments n. 22.23 . wherewith you so much pressed the Discussour ; for in S. Clement , these words ( If not by necessity , but by &c. ) are refered to both the precedet clauses ( he cannot be a perfect Christian ) & to the other ( nor haue place among the perfect ) as appeareth by the coniunction ( nor ) & therfore S. Clement signifyeth , that he cannot be a perfect Christian , if not by necessity , but voluntarily he omit Confirmation . Wherfore those wordes , nor haue place amongst the perfect , eyther are but a repetition or explication of the former , or if they signify somewhat els , they haue no more reference to the wordes ( If not by necessity &c. ) then the other clause ( he cannot be a perfect Christian ) which as I explicated aboue , signify , that the want of perfect christianity , acquired by actuall vnction , and by receauing a military Character , shall not be imputed to him , but that God wil supply the grace of Confirmation , by other meanes , if indeed he want it vpon necessity , as they do , who are depriued of it , vpon iust feare of persecution . The Replyers explication of these words ( nor haue place amongst the perfect ) must be reiected by himself for he teacheth , that there was in these tymes , an Ecclesiasticall custome of being confirmed , before one receaued the B. Eucharist , and consequently it was not lawfull to do it , except in some case of necessity ; for example , at the houre of death , when the diuine precept of communicating did oblige and as it were drowne the Ecclesiasticall precept ; in which case the person vnconfirmed was bound to receaue the B. Sacrament , whether he had omitted Confirmation by necessity , or voluntarily ; only he was bound to haue Contrition for his former omission . And therfore the Replyer cannot assigne any case , in these tymes , of disparity betwixt him , who had omitted Confirmation voluntarily , and him who had omitted it vpon necessity ; because when such a necessity did vrge , both of them might , and ought to receaue the Blessed Sacrament , ( and so according to the Replyers explication haue place amongst the perfect ; ) and when no such necessity did happen , neyther of them could receaue the B. Eucharist : and therfore as I sayd , the Replyers explication cannot subsist with his owne grounds . Moreouer , Nicholas Smith had reason to thinke it a hard doctrine that without Confirmation , we shall be sure to want such a perfection in our Christianity , as we should be obliged vnder sinne , to suffer a generall persecution , for redeeming the want of such a perfection . For to that seuere purpose M. Doctour alleadged S. Clement and in that sense Nicolas Smith had reason to deny , that without Confirmation we could not be perfect Christians .

6. What he sayth n. 27. that Confirmation is a perfecting vnction , is not against the Discussour , who neuer denyed it , nor euer treated , whether S. Denis in his 5. Chapter spake of Confirmation ; but only sayth , and proueth , that in the sayd Chapter , he speaketh also of oyle vsed in Baptisme , and that therfore out of such generall speaches alone , M. Doctour could not inferre any thing peculiar to Confirmation . See the Discuss . n. 17. which in this point is cleare inough .

7. The Reader must vnderstand with circumspection , the Replyers doctrine n. 10. That God obligeth himselfe , to giue the speciall grace of Confirmation ( to professe our faith ) to such as receaue it . For this must be vnderstoode , if Persons Confirmed , do on their part concur with Gods grace , mouing , and inciting them , to the obseruation of his commandments , & performance of other good workes , according to his inspirations , besides the only receauing of Confirmation . Otherwise he may iustly deny them particular efficacious grace , permitting them to fayle in the Confession of their faith , whiles others , by humble frequentation of other Sacraments , & diligence in good workes , do by those meanes supply the want of Confirmation , and remayne constant , in the confession of their faith . Likwise , wheras n. 40. & in other places , he teacheth , that Confirmation is the ordinary meanes to get grace , for confessing our faith ; If he vnderstand that all other meanes are extraordinary , his doctrine is not true . For otherwise Confirmation were a necessary meanes , for the profession of our faith , and for saluation ; so as no man vnconfirmed , could without miracle confesse his faith , although he inculpably omit Confirmation , & otherwise keepe the commandments , frequent Sacraments , be assiduous in prayer , & feruent in all other good works : which no man can defend . If , by ordinary meanes , he vnderstand a meanes ordayned to giue grace , for the Confession of our faith , the doctrine is good . But thence doth not follow , that other meanes also may not suffice , for the Confession of our faith , because the same end may be attayned by different meanes . See the Qualification Sect. 4. n. 7. Neuerthelesse , if in some particular case , one did in Conscience perswade himselfe that without Confirmation , he should not haue strength to professe his faith , such an one were bound to receaue that Sacrament , as Conick related by the Replyer n. 41. affirmeth . But this is per accidens , as one may some tyme be obliged to fast , or vndertake other corporall austerityes , to confesse , receaue the B. Sacrament , or some such pious worke , if he were in Conscience perswaded , that without such a particular determinate meanes , he could not ouercome some temptation .

8. From the 33. to the 38. number he endeauoureth to defend M. Doctours saying , That Eusebius recounteth , Nouatus to haue fallen , for want of Confirmation . First , he answereth , that indeed Eusebius doth not say so in expresse tearmes : Ergo do I inferre , M. Doctour sayd not well , that Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation , as Eusebius hath remarked , for so , he speaketh in his Epistle n. 18. Secondly , he telleth vs , that Eusebius doth insinuate so much . But M. Doctour sayth more : and I deny , that Eusebius doth otherwise insinuate it , then by saying , that he wanted the grace of Confirmation ; as likwise he relateth , that he was ambitious , with many other crimes . And indeed his schisme , and heresy may be ascribed to his ambition , and opposition to Cornelius for the Popedome , rather then to any thing else . For Heresy , and schisme , are the immediate broode of pryde , and ambition . Thirdly he sayth , that at least it may be probably inferred out of Eusebius , that Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation . But heere we talke not of inferences , but whether , or no , Eusebius do affirme it ? Neyther doth it follow ; He fell , and wanted Confirmation : Ergo , he fell for want of Confirmation . For as he wanted Confirmation , so was he ambitious , and loaden with other sinnes . Yet Nicholas Smith out of respect to that Sacrament , sayd , it might well be , he fell for want of Confirmation , as also it may be , that he fell , both for his sinne of neglecting , and contemning that Sacrament , and ioyntly for other his grosse enormityes . Only I still deny , that Eusebius sayth , he fell for want of Confirmation . His last answere is , that others before M. Doctour haue written out of Eusebius , that Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation , which is to confesse that M. Doctour taketh his arguments vpon trust , in a matter concerning the obligation of afflicted Catholickes , to endure a heauyer persecution , and vpon trust from Authors , who treated not that particular , important Conclusion , which M. Doctour was to proue : and this is so much the more to be wondred at , because , the example of Nouatus , is by him diuers tymes repeated , as if it were some Maister-peece , and yet finally the Replyer confesseth , that M. Doctour tooke it from the notes of the Rhemes Testament , granting therby , that for alleadging some other Authors , to the same effect , he is obliged to the Replyer , and so not those Authors , but only the Rhemes Testament can excuse M. Doctour . But indeed , neyther those Venerable Authors of the sayd notes , nor other Catholicke Authors , can giue excuse for his misalleadging Eusebius . For out of Eusebius they cleerly proue against hereticques , that Confirmation is a Sacrament , and a thing not to be contemned , because for want of it Nouatus receaued not the holy Ghost , and was by Cornelius condemned for neglect to receaue it . All which Eusebius doth in expresse teames relate , and so makes good , what Catholicke Authors intend to proue agaynst Hereticques , although indeed he say not , that Nouatus fell for want of Confirmation , which made not much to the purpose of the sayd Catholicke Authors . But the strengh of M. Doctours argument , doth wholy rely , vpon Eusebius his affirming , that Nouatus actually fell for want of Confirmation . For it was to proue , that without Confirmation , if one fall not , others probably will , as ( sayth he ) Nouatus did for want of it . Thus he speaketh Chap. 14. n. 8. and in other places . And it had binne a strange argument , to say : Nouatus fell not : Ergo , English Catholickes by his example , may feare to fall .

9. But what if M. Doctour do also mistake the Rhemes Testament , and so the Replyer in lieu of apologizing for M. Doctour his misalleadging Eusebius , be put to defend both M. Doctour and himself , for mistaking those very notes of the Rhemes Testament ? I belieue it will proue so . We must therefore distinguish a double fall of Nouatus . The one , when for feare of persecution he denyed himselfe to be Priest , refusing to helpe some Christians in necessity , and hazard , for which and the like occasions , agaynst feare in time of Persecution , Confirmation is peculiarly ordayned . His other fall , was into schisme , opposition to Cornelius for the Popedome , and heresy . This second lapse was not caused by feare of persecution , but proceeded from pryde , ambition , and neglect , or contempt of Confirmation , which in him was eyther a formall act of heresy , or a disposition preparing his soule for a fall into further schisme , and heresy : neyther did he in this second kind of fall deny himselfe to be Priest , but rather sought to vsurpe the highest Priesthood ; and the persecution tended not to driue men into schisme or heresy , but wholy to bereaue them of Christianity . Now M. Doctour must vnderstand , that Nouatus his fall , or denying himselfe to be Priest , in the foresayd circumstances , for feare of persecution , happened , because he wanted Confirmation ; whereas the Rhemes Testament sayth no such matter , but speakes only of his fall to heresy , and of his contempt of that Sacrament , and so makes nothing for M. Doctours purpose . Let vs heare the words of the Rhemes Testament , cited by the Replyer n. 36. Neuer none denied , or contemned the Sacrament of Confirmation , and holy Chrisme , but knowne Heretickes . S. Cornelius that Blessed Martyr so much praysed of S. Cyprian , affirmeth that Nouatus fell to heresy , for that he had not receaued the holy Ghost , by the consignation of a Bishop , whome all the Nouatians did follow , neuer vsing that holy Chrisme . What is heere for M. Doctours purpose concerning the fall of Nouatus for feare of persecution ? Perhaps , if he had bin more persecuted , he had not binne so subiect to ambition , and prone to schisme , & heresy . Bayus likwise , cited by the Replyer , speakes of Nouatus his propension to heresy , and so makes no more in excuse of M. Doctour then the Rhemes Testament did . Besides , the Replier giueth no answere at all , to Nicholas Smith , shewing , that the case of Nouatus , was infinitly different , from that of our Catholickes in England , although it were granted that Nouatus indeed fell for want of Confirmation , which he omitted not vpon iust cause , but neglected , and contemned , whome all the Nouatians did follow , neuer vsing that holy Chrisme , as euen now we haue heard out of the Rhemes Testament . The Replyer then is many wayes deficient in this poynt . I could adde , that M. Doctour cites Eusebius more then once , very particularly , lib. 6. Chap. 33. alias 34. wheras the Rhemes Testament citeth Chap. 35. so as it is not very obuious , how M. Doctour tooke his relation from those notes , seeing with such particularity , he cites Eusebius differently from them . But I will not be so minute with the Replyer .

10. In his number 40. he sayth , that many who may commodiously receaue Confirmation , haue right to receaue it , and that the rest of Catholickes cannot , for a generall persecution , depriue them of that right . But this at the most proueth , that if once we haue a Bishop , those who may commodiously receaue Confirmation , cannot be hindred , but not that they should be wronged , if others for auoyding a generall persecution , and prouiding for their owne indemnity should , by lawfull , and orderly meanes , oppose the comming of a Bishop . Rather , the particular good of some , must giue place to the generall harme of others . Besydes , the danger being generall , euery one might feare that it would fall vpon himselfe .

11. To proue , that a Bishop cannot be refused , he bringeth this reason n. 43. It cannot be denyed , but that Christians are more able , and likely to professe their fayth , with the Sacrament of Confirmation , then without it , and that more in a Countrey persecuted , are like to stand to the Profession of their faith , with this Sacrament , then without it ; Ergo , in a Countrey persecuted , and destitute of this Sacrament , many do fall , who otherwise would stand ; and for euery one that standeth , perhaps twenty will fall . God forbid . Hitherto we haue not , nor I hope euer shall behold so twentifold infirmily in our glorious Catholickes . To your argument , I answere . No doubt , out considering the Sacrament of Confirmation in it selfe , Christians are more able to professe their faith with it , then without it yet if we suppose , that by the very hauing of it , persecution must be increased , some will be of opinion , that more might be in danger to fall by reason of that increase of Persecution , then in calmer tymes , although they wanted Confirmation . And if the Antocedent be granted without distinction , yet it would not inferre the necessity of a Bishop , with increase of Perfecution . No doubt , but by often receauing the Sacrament of Pennance , and the most B. Sacrament of the Altar , for example , euery eyght dayes , Christians are more enabled , to professe their faith then without them . Wil therfore the Replyer , impose vpon Catholickes , an obligation of frequenting those Sacraments , euery eyght dayes , euen with increase of persecution ? Which instance will be of more force , if one affirme ( as I doubt not but diuers will ) that by humble , and diligent frequenting those two Sacraments , persons who without their fault want Confirmation , may be thought to haue greater strength , for professing their faith , then such as haue receaued Confirmation but are remisse in frequenting those other two Sacraments .

12. Yet M. Doctour , and the Replyer , come short of their intent , vnlesse they can further proue , that persecution is to be vndergone , not only for enioying Confirmation , but also , for the assurednes or vudoubtednes the ●ro by hauing it from a Bishop , as I touched in the first Question n. 2. and the Discussour handleth n. 8. and the Qualificator Sect. 6 n. 21.22 . Which poynt , & diuers others in this Question treated by Nicholas Smith are omirted by the Replyer , as may be seene in the Discussion .

THE V. QVESTION . Concerning M. Doctours Comparison betweene Bishops , inferior Pastours , and Religtous men .

1. IN this Question , the Replyer extendeth himselfe eyther in prouing thinges expresly granted and taught by Nicholas Smith as that the state of a Bishop , is higher then that of a Religious man ; or els in impugning Nicholas Smith , as if he had sayd , what he neuer sayd nor thought , & therfore we may be more breife in returning him an answere . Only , I must renew my first request to the Reader that if he fynd any seeming difficulty , obiected by the Reptyer , he will be pleased to peruse Nicholas Smiths wordes , before he spend his iudgment .

2. The Qualificator Sect. 4. n. 16.17.18 . answereth the obiections of the Inquisition , and Reply agaynst Nicholas Smiths saying , that the state of a Bishop doth suppose , but not giue perfection which is the expresse doctrine of Suarez & common among Deuines . The state of a Bishop is not only different , but also separable from Episcopal Order , or Character , as is manifest in a Bishop confirmed not consecrated , who hath the state , not the Character of a Bishop . Nicholas Smith neuer denyed , that Episcopall consecration conferreth grace , but only that Episcopall state of it selfe yieldeth meanes to acquire personall perfection . By this is answered what the Replier obiecteth n. 14.15.16.17 .

3. To proue that in some case , an Oath not to be Religious , is not wicked , he alleadgeth n. 26. the command of the sea Apostolicke , that all those , who will enioy the benefit of the Popes Seminaries , do sweare that they will be Priests , and will not enter into any Religious Order , or Congregation , without licence of the Pope , vnlesse they first labour in the Mission , the space of three yeares . I answere Nicolas Smith spake of an absolute Vow ( or oath ) not to enter into Religion , which certaynly is inualid , & vnlawfull , and may be well tearmed wicked . For what greater disordination can there be in mans will , then deliberatly to sweare , or vow , that he will resist almighty God , inspiring him to follow those Counsels , which were recommended by the Sauiour of mankind ? The oath alleadged by the Replyer , is as it were conditionall ( not without the Popes leaue , or the leaue of his Nuntio , for so is the oath now conceaued ) and temporary ( for the space of three yeares . ) The reason of difference is , because a vow is inualid , if it be impeditiuum maioris boni , incompatible with a greater good , as a temporary and conditionall vow is not . For , not to enter into Religion without leaue , or not for a certayne tyme , doth not absolutly hinder entring into Religion . If one vow to make a pilgrimage , or to performe some such pious worke , the vow is valid , although the performance thereof , do for a tyme , hinder the Pilgrims entring into Religion . Neyther doth it follow , that therfore a Pilgrimage , is an act more perfect , then the imbracing of a Religious lyfe , taking holy Orders &c. Or that the Vocation of students in the Seminaryes , is more perfect then the state of a Bishop out of England , which yet Seminarists , by reason of their oath to go into England , cannot imbrace without leaue , at least , vnlesse first they satisfy their dath , by comming into England . Or that the state of Religion , or Vocation of Seminary Priests is more or lesse perfect , by the expiring , or not expiring of three yeares , after which tyme , seeing all may freely enter into Religion , euen in England , it is a signe , that Religious state , all things considered , is to be preferred .

4. Without any necessity , he endeauoreth to proue , that in case of necessity of the church , when it cannot be otherwise prouided , a vow to accept a Bishoprike is lawfull , of which Nicholas Smith did not dispute , but only sayd in generall that a Vow not to accept a Bishopricke is lawfull , which no man can deny , vnlesse he will oppose himselfe to all those Popes , who haue approued the Institute of the society of Iesus . And those very words , which the Replyer n. 32. without cause , noteth Nicholas Smiths to haue left out of S. Thomas 2.2 . q. 185. a. 1. ( Vnlesse in a manifest , & imminent necessity ) confirm what Nicolas Smith sayd , that according to S. Thomas , it seemeth presumption to desire a Bishopricke , euen for the good of soules , namely speaking in generall , and not in some particular case of necessity , which is not very frequent ; and who I pray you , will persuade himselfe , that he alone is fit for so high a state ? It is also most true that , Valentia as he is cited by Nicholas Smith , teacheth , that ( in generall and abstracting from particular case of necessity ) to desire a Bishopricke , euen for what is best in it , is commonly a deadly sinne , although the Replyer telleth vs , that Valentia thinketh oftentymes it is a mortall sin . Besides , Nicolas Smith , because he would not medle with that dispute , knowing there was multiplicity of opinions , after he had alleadged the doctrine of Valentia warily , added : This belongeth not to me to define . But the Replyer willingly taketh all occasions to dilate himselfe .

5. His 33. and 33. numbers , are employed , by occasion of a meere partly misinterpreting , and partly misciting Nicolas Smith n. 7. as the iudicious Reader will fynde , by perusing the place in the Discussour .

6. I cannot excuse the Replyer from fault in saying n. 37. that Nicholas Smith affirmeth , that a Bishop elected , yea and confirmed may marry . Nicolas Smith his wordes num. 8. are these : A Bishop , not in holy Orders , Elected , may lawfully marry , and some also hold , that a Bishop confirmed may do the same ; but of this I do not dispute , yet if he marry , it is valid . Nicholas Smith then only sayth , that some hold that a Bishop confirmed may marry , which is true , but himselfe a bstayneth from that Question .

7. He sheweth that willingly he would fynde fault with any thing while n. 36. he telleth vs , that S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 104 ar. 4. as he is cited by Nicolas Smith , sayth nothing of the Euangelicall Counsels , yet confesfeth that in his q. 108. ar. 4. he teacheth that , for which Nicolas Smith cireth him , namely , that Euangelicall counsels are proper to the new law . The misciting of the place was an errour of the print , as the Replyer might haue seene in Nicolas Smith himselfe pag. 161. where the same place of S. Thomas is cited aright .

8. What he writeth n. 37 of the knights of Calatraud &c. is answered by the Qualificatour sect. 5 n. 4. &c. by occasion of a lyke obiection made by the Inquisitor .

9. His saying n. 41. that Regulars , as Regulars , are not to haue care , or charge of others , but of their owne so dies , is eyther a meere Equiuocation , or a doctrine very vntrue , and often confuted by the Discussour . For some Regular Priests , as Regulars , haue at least as much to do with other mens soules , as secular Priests , as secular , haue ; and if Regular Priests , be also Bishops , and Pastours , they are equall to secular Bishops , & Pastours . Euery body knowes , that Religion in generall , is deuided into the Actiue , Contemplatiue , and Mixte lyfe , by which such Religious are obliged to attend , both to their owne perfection , and to the help of others , neyther doth that Mixt kind of lyfe , make a Regular to be Secular ; Ergo such Regulars , euen as they are Regulars , and not seculars , are to help others . If secular , as secular , did artend to the helpe of others then all seculars should attend to the help of others , euen lay men , and women , according to the Replyers frequent-manner of disputing , who is wont to inferre , that if Regulars , as Regulars , were of the Hierarchy ( and the same may be sayd of attending to the help of others ) then all Regulars , euen lay-Brothers , and Religious women , should be of the Hierarchy , and attend to the help of others . If he say , that secular Priests , not precisely as Secular , but as Pastours , attend to the help of others , the same say I of Regulars if they be made Pastours . In a word , he ought to compare Regular as Regular , with secular as secular , Regular Priests , with secular Priests , Regular Bishops or Pastours , with Secular Bishops or Pastors , which yet could neuer be obtayned of M. Doctour , or the Replyer . This manner of vnequall reduplication , Nicolas Smith reprehended , and not reduplications in generall , which euery body so well knowes to be vsuall in Schooles , that the Replyer need not to haue taken so much paynes to proue it q. 6. n. 1. I adde , that these Religious , who by their Institute , must help others , by preaching , administring Sacraments &c. must also by their Religious Institute be Priests ; but no Secular , precisely as Secular , is bound to be Priest . I say precisely as Secular , for a Secular man , by some other title , may be obliged to be Priest .

10. The Discussour n. 11. sayth that a Bishop is obliged to enlighten others , & giue his life for his flocke , by iustice , in regard of mantenance , and honour affoarded him by his flocke , or by the vertue of Fidelity , in respect of a certayne implicite pact , whereby he obligeth himselfe , when he is made Bishop . But Religious men , meerly vpon Charity , or Religion ( more noble Vertues , then Iustice or Fidelity ) do illuminate others , and aduenture their lyfe for the sauing of soules , obliged , not only by Institute , but also by particular vow made to that effect . In which doctrine I can espy nothing blame worthy . But the Replyer n. 43. somety mes citeth these wordes of Nicholas Smith by halfes , and somtymes drawes them to an odious sense , as if Bishops performed theyr functions mercinarily , for honour , and mantenance , or , as if their giuing their lyfe for their sheepe , were not a worke of Heroicall Charity , or did not require in the Bishop very great Charity according as our Sauiour sayd Joan. 21. Amas me ? Pasce ones meas : wheras the Discussour only sayth , that the obligation which Bishops haue , ariseth from the vertues of Iustice , & Fidelity , although when they giue their life for their flocke , administer Sacraments &c. they may exercise acts of diuers vertues , as Charity , Religion , Fortitude , Patience &c. yet , as I sayd , the obligation of those very acts originally proceedeth from the vertues of Iustice , and Fidelity ; and if another man , should chance voluntarily to exercise the same acts , he should not performe them , by the same title , and obligation of Iustice , by which Bishops , and Pastours , are bound to performe them . The souldier , by reason of his pay , is bound to adueture his lyfe , wherin he may exercise acts of Fortitude , Charity to his Country , Religion in a pious cause , and of other vertues ; and yet his obligation to these acts of vertues , radically proceedeth from Iustice . Neyther can we rightly affirme that he dyeth for his Pay , if he chance to loose his life , but only that by reason of his Pay , in Iustice he was bound to dye .

11. The Discussour n. 12. sayth : Merit doth not confist in office , but in actes thereof . Would any man thinke that in this speach there could be difficulty ? Or doth any say , that we merit otherwise then by actes ? Yet the Replyer is not pleased with it and entreth into a question , which would require a long dispute , to wit : Whe ther , and how farre the dignity of the person , dignifyeth the operation ? Which Axiome requireth many limitations , and explications , as for example ; If a Bishop pay his debts , fast , or the like , I see not why by these actes he should merit more , then a priuate Person , endued with equall degree of iustifying grace , and working with equall feruour : neyther can I hold for true , what the Replyer sayth , that the same action done by a Regular , and a Bishop , are more meritorious in a Bishop , then in a Regular , not only in respect of actions , proper to the State of a Bishop , but also of other actions ; vnlesse the Bishop be more in Gods fauour , and do those actions , with greater perfection . If it were to our present purpose , one might adde , that in Scholasticall rigour , for the poynt in hand , there is great difference betwixt height of Office , and Dignity of person , as our B. Sauiours operations were of insinite valew and merit , by reason of the dignity of his person , not precisely , and formally by any office .

12. In his 49. & diuers other numbers he treateth of Secular Curates compared with Religious Priests : and no doubt but that some things there are , wherein Secular Curates excell a Religious Priest , not Curate ; which his arguments do proue , & no more . But the Question is , whether all things considered , a Religious Preist be not more perfect then a secular Curate , as S. Thomas 2.2 . q 184. art. 8. cited by the Discussour n. 14. proposeth the Question , and resolueth it in fauour of Religious Priests , as may be seene at large in the Discussion . And the Replyer n. 54. citeth Suarez very imperfectly , that so he may seeme the more to fauour Secular Curats . For he , tomo 3. de Relig. lib. 1. cap. 21. absolutly prefers Religious Priests , teaching that the state of inferiour Pastors is more perfect only in speculation , not in practice , or secundumquid , in some sort , seu ex quadam hypothesi , quae moraliter vix adimpletur ; or vpon a certayne supposition which morally speaking is scarsely fulfilled . The Replyers arguments , That secular Curats are Illuminators and Agents , and therefore more perfect then those who are illuminated , do not concerne Religious men in respect of whom Secular Curats are no Illuminators . Besides according to S. Thomas , Secular Curates do illuminate not principaliter , but with limitation , and some participation from the Bishop , who by office is principall Illuminatour &c.

13. Because S. Thomas , and out of him M. Doctour proued , that the state of a Bishop is more perfect , then that of a Religious man , because otherwise a Religious ma could not be made a Bishop , for that were retrospicere , to looke back ; The Discussour by the same reason proueth , that Religious state is more perfect , then the vocation of a Secular Curate , because he may lawfully enter into Religion . The Replyer answereth that the reason of this is because Religious vocation , is more secure then that of a Curate , not because it is more noble . But he doth not satisfy . For according to this answer , a Secular Curate might forsake his charge , and leading a priuate lyfe , attend to himself , without obligation to giue account for the soules of others , which no doubt were more secure ; and yet the Replier would not excuse such a one from a Retrospection . Moreouer a Religious state is more secure then that of a Bishop , and yet a Bishop cannot without leaue enter into Religion , as a Secular Curate may ; Ergo , it is a signe that Religious vocation is not only more secure , but also more perfect then that of a Secular Curate , especially if we adde , what the Replyer seemeth to admit , that as the Bishop is wedded , & hath a pact with his Church , so also , in proportion , a Curate hath with his charge .

14. He sayth n. 62. that he will not interpret so rigorously , the words of the Oath , which students in the Seminaryes do take , as if they were bound to returne into England , so often , as the Superiours of the sayd Seminaryes shall commaund . Neyther will I dispute of that poynt , but only say , that what soeuer perfection they haue by reason of that oath , they owe it to Regulars , by whose motion the taking of that oath was enioyned . If we respect the practise , I conceaue that the Replyer will find men , more eminent in the English Cleargy then himselfe , not to admit of so strict an interpretation , and consequently , that the Replyer cannot by vertue of the sayd oath , place Seminary Priests in an immouable state . Without doubt , Religious men haue an obligation to transferre themselues into England , as often as their Superiours shall so commaund . Moreouer seeing Regulars in England , expose themselues to the same dangers , and exercise the same functions , with Secular Priests , and in the same manner , namely , by Delegation , and Commission , not as Ordinary Pastours ; it followeth , that in this , Regulars are equall to them , and in respect of Religious state surpasse them , as Nicholas Smith n. 16. obserued , and therefore the comparison betwixt Regular Priests , and Secular Curates , can only be in respect of such , as are Ordinaryes . Wherfore the Replyers saying n. 62. that the Seminary Priests , vnder the Bishop , is the highest calling in the Church of God , is not to be approued , if he intend to preferre their calling before all Regulars , who certainly , as Regulars , excell them , as Seculars , and in Calling , some are at least equall . I say , at least , because there want not Regulars , who are bound by an especiall Vow , to expose their liues for the good of soules , not only in England , or for a limited tyme , but perpetually , and in whatsoeuer most remote place of the world ; and euen in that respect , although they had no other Vow of obedience , are in an immoueable state , bynding them to acts of great perfection , with hazard of liberty , and lyfe , forsaking of Countrey , kinsfolkes , friends &c. I will not stand with him , whether Pastours in Catholicke Countreys , who are properly Ordinaryes , will be content , that he preferre the Seminary Priests Calling , before theyrs , whereby they are also obliged to hazard their Isues for their sheepe , and with greater immobility , then Seminary Priests are . This I will say , that his assertion destroyeth those groundes wherby n. 42. he end eauoureth to preferre the Calling of Secular Curates , before those Religious , who by their Institute performe the functions of Pastours , by Preaching , admanistring Sacraments &c. For the same reasons , which there he alleadgeth , in fauour of Curates , agaynst Religious men , do in the very same manner vrge agaynst Seminary Priests , all being reduced to this , that Curates do those functions by Ordinary right & office , Religious by Commission , Delegation , and Priuiledges , as likewise Seminary Priests do : and therfore he must eyther preferre those Religious , or not preferre Seminary Priests before Curates . Besydes , if Seminary Priests ought to be preferred before Curates , because they dayly hazard their liberty , and life ; Curates will say , that this reason proueth too much , namely , that the Seminary Priests calling is not only the highest vnder the Bishop , but also , that it is higher then the calling of those Bishops , who do not dayly hazard their liberty and lyfe , that is to say , of most part of Bishops . Lastly , if once the Replyer grant , that the Ordinary Pastorship of Curates , may be preponderated by the danger to which Seminary Priests expose themselues , he openeth an easy way , to defend , that Religious Priests by reason of their state , fitnesse to help their neighbour &c. may be preferred before Curats , although these be ordinaryes , and Religious be not , especially if those Religious , be also ordayned to help their neighbour . And heere I cannot omit to note some strang speaches of the Replyer , who n. 42. speaking of those Religious who by their Institute do many functions of Pastours , as preaching , ministring of Sacraments &c. sayth , That in Regulars this is accessory , in Pastours principall ; in Regulars it is voluntary , in Pastours necessary &c. For who euer heard that it is accessory , or voluntary to a Religious man , to performe those things , to which he is obliged by his very Institute ?

15. All that he hath agaynst the Discussour about the distinction of leauing all thinges in preparation of mynd , and actuall leauing all things , goeth vpon a supposition , as if Nicholas Smith had denyed that distinction , which he neuer did ; and therfore in vayne he alleadgeth Authors in proofe of that distinction agaynst the Discussour , who only sayd , and proued , that euen in preparation of mynd to leaue all things , Religious excell secular Persons ; & that the leauing of all things added a great perfection to the preparation of mynd , it being an Heroicall , and very meritorious act ; so much , that S. Thomas 1. part . q. 43. art. 6. doubted not to teach , that the Holy Ghost is sent in a particular manner , when one forsaketh all that he possessed . Likwise all that the Replyer bringeth to proue , that Counsels are iustruments to Perfection it selfe , for which he needlessy alledgeth Authors ; is answered out of the Discussion , where we may gather , that a thing may be sayd to belong to Perfection only instrumentally , or essentially , as Charity is ; or lastly instrumentarily and secondarily , as S. Thomas saith the Cousels are , which is more then only instrumentally , as the habits of vertues distinct from Charity , are Perfection secondarily , but not only instrumentally ; which the Discussour explicateth n. 23. What Nicholas Smith alledged out of S. Thomas that Charity consisteth secondarily in the loue of our neighbour , was only to shew , that there is differece betwixt secondarily , and only instrumentally ; because according to S. Thomas , Charity consisteth secondarily in the loue of our neighbour ; but no man will say , that Charity consisteth in the loue of our Neyghbour instrumentally ; and that therfore M. Doctour sayd not well , that Perfection consisteth in the Counsels only instrumentally ; whereas S. Thomas had sayd , that Perfection consisteth in the Counsels instrumentally , and secondarily . But the Discussour neuer intended , to make a parity in all respects , betweene the loue of our Neighbour , and the Euangelicall Counsels . And so all is answered , that he hath n. 65. Finally that which Nicholas Smith chiefly found fault with in M. Doctour , was not the distinctions of preparation of mynd , and actuall leauing all things , or a perfection essentially , and instrumentally ; but his indistinct , ambiguous , and obscure manner of proposing , & applying them , as in expresse wordes may be seene in the Discussion n. 23.24.25 . And indeed Nicolas Smith did of purpose vse , that circumspection , because he knew well , that those distinctions were good , being rightly vnderstood , and fitly applyed . I desire the Reader to peruse the place alleadged in the Discussion .

16. To proue that the Apostles were not Religious , he doth his best endeauour , and in fyne Sarmiento alone is the man , by him alleadged , who doth indeed deny , that the Apostles were Religious . But seeing that , as Nicholas Smith q. 7. n. 7. did wish , a Learned Penne hath since the printing of this Discussion hand led this matter , so fully , as more cannot be desired , I referre the Reader to that Treatise , namely the Apology for &c. which in my Preface I mentioned , where he shall fynd this poynt handled , Cap. 7.

THE VI. QVESTION . Whether Religious , as Religions , be of the Hierarchy .

1. THE whole discourse of the Replyer , in this question , is answered by only setting downe the state of the Question aright , as the Discussour hath done n. 8. & the Qualificator Sect. 5. where all is answered , that is brought by the Inquisitor ; & the Replyer hath no more in effect then he . For both of them will needs haue the Question to be ; whether Religious , as Religious be of the Hierarchy , as Hierarchs , Princes , or Gouernours therof , which is to make the Hierarchicall body of Gods church consist only of Heades : wheras the Question is ; Whether properly , simply , and abiolutly , Regulars , as Regulars , be not of the Hierarchy ; as without doubt they are more then Secular , as Secular , who , as such , are inferiour to Religious , as Religious . Not only amongst the Hierarchs , but amongst those also , who are gouerned , there is diuersity of degrees , and all belong to the Hie rarchy , more , or lesse , according to the perfection of their state , & calling , which in Regulars , is very remarkable among diuers degrees of Persons in Gods Church .

2. He endeauoureth at large to proue , out of S. Denis , That none are of the Hierarchy , except Bishops , Priests , and Deacons , which is true in that particular sense , which S. Denis intendeth . But the Replyer must answere his owne argument , & confesse , that in another sense , others besides those three mentioned , are of the Hierarchy . For M. Doctour Chap. 8. teacheth , that all in lesser Orders , as Acolyts &c. are of the Hierarchy , and the Replyern . 43. endeauoureth to proue , that M. Doctour placeth Cardinals in the Hierarchy . Besides , as I haue sayd , some Religious , by their Institute , must illuminate others , & be Priests ; Ergo , such , euen as Religious , belong to the Hierarchy .

3. If the Replyer will exclude all from the Hierarchy , except Bishops , Priests and Deacons , then M. Doctour Chap. 8. n. 8. doth by the sacred Councell of Trent , pronounce h●m accursed . Thus he writeth : Certayne it is , that the Orders of Bishops , Priests , Deacons , and Subdeacons are of the diuine Institution . Wherfore the Councel of Trent thus pronounceth ( Sess. 23. can. 6. ) Si quis dixerit &c. If any one shal● say , that there is not in the Church a Hierarchy , instituted by the diuine Ordinance , which consisteth of Bishops , Priests , and Ministers , let him be accursed . In which wordes the Councell defyning , that there is a Hierarchy instituted by the diuine ordinance , & which consisteth of Bishops , Priests , and Ministers in the plural number , must needs vnderstand at least Deacons , and Subdeacons . So that this Hierarchy of Order , at least in respect of Bishops , Priests , Deacons , and Subdeacons is instituted by Christ . Thus far M. Doctour . Wherfore to free your selfe from a Curse , and S. Denis from errour in M. Doctours opinion , you must grant , that you haue not rightly alleadged S. Denis , to proue , that only Bishops , Priests and Deacons , are of the Hierarchy , in such manner that all other must be excluded . For M. Doctour hath tould you , as a matter of Faith , that Subdeacons also are of the Hierarchy , & that by diuine Institution . You must then explicate S. Denis , that he nameth Bishops , Priests , & Deacons , not to exclude all other , but because these are the highest Orders in the Chutch , and so Religious may be of the Hierarchy , notwithstanding what you alleadge out of S. Denis , who doth expresly place the order of Monkes in the Hierarchy Cap. 6. tit . Contemplatio .

4. Likewise , when the Councell of Trent defineth , as a matter of Faith , that by diuine Ordinace , there is in the Church a Hierarchy , which consisteth of Bishops , Priests . and Ministers , which some moderne Heretiques denyed , it only followeth , that such are certaynly of the Hierarchy , but not that they only are , as many Deuines hold lesser Orders not to be of the diuine Institution : and yet M. Doctour teacheth that all in lesser Orders , are of the Hierarchy , and no man will affirme , that the sacred Councell intended to condemne as Hereticques , those Deuines , who teach that the Lesser Orders are not of diuine institution : or that , according to the Councell , it is an Heresy to say , that Car●inals , Vicar-Generals , Archdeacons &c. who are not of the diuine Institution , yea are not necessarily Bishops , Priests , Deacons , or Subdeacons , can belong to the Hierarchy . And therfore the Replyer had no reason to blame Nicholas Smith so seuerely , as he doth n. 11. for saying , that it were rashnesse to affirme , that the Councell intended , to define as a matter of Fayth , that vnder the name of Hierarchy could be comprehended only Bishops &c. At length the Replyer n. 13. is forced to extend S. Denis his doctrine , and to bring in Subdeacons , and other inferiour Orders , as likwise he must fynd meanes to bring in Cardinals , Archdeacons , Vicar-generals &c. & finally giue some place to poore Religious men .

5. Thus his reasons from n. 21. to 26. fall of themselues , as only prouing that Religious , as Religious , precisely , are not Gouernours , or Illuminators in the Hierarchy , but not , that they are not of it properly , and absolutly , or not more then Secular , formally as Secular . And if they be Priests , & Pastours , they are as much of the Hierarchy , in euery respect , as Secular Priests , and Pastours .

6. It is strang to see how n. 28. he trifleth , as if Nicolas Smith had euer denyed , that the Hierarchy comprehendeth both Order , and Iurisdiction . Wheras he expresly affirmeth it n. 3. and thence inferreth , that the word Hierarchy hath a latitude .

7. He doth not n. 31. sufficiently free M. Doctour from the Discussours iust complaint , for his saying , That S. Bernard affirmed the Hierarchy to be perturbed , when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction . For the Saint expresly approueth Exemptions , & only reprehendeth such as are granted without cause , or procured vpon ambition , as at length the Replyer himselfe confesseth ; and therfore M. Doctour ought not absolutly to haue alleadged S. Bernard , as saying , the Church is perturbed , when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishops Iurisdiction .

8. The Discussour neuer taught , Grace , or Charity alone can place one in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy : For they alone , are not sufficient , to make one a member of the Church militant . But he taught , that an external Profession , and state of Lyfe , ordayned to Perfection of Grace , and Charity , is sufficient to place the Professours thereof in the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy , in that degree , wherin according to their ranke , they excell others not in that degree , wherin some particular Religious man , may chance to excell some Bishop , in grace , and Charity , because that is accidentall to their states : as likwise some lay man , or woman , may exceed some Religious man , in perfection of the loue of God . And by this is answered , what he hath n. 33. about Nauclerus , who cannot be denyed , to haue placed Religious men in the Hierarchy , in a high degree , not only accidentally , by reason of some particular Religious mens Charity , but per se loquendo , & by reason of their state . Also , out of what we haue sayd , is easily answered the obiection he bringeth n. 42. against the argument , which Nicolas Smith made n. 9. where he proueth ; That if some men by Grace , may , according to S. Thomas , be assumed to the Order of Angels , in the Celestiall Hierarchy ; an externall state of life affoarding most effectuall meanes , for perfection of grace in this lyfe , may well place men on earth , in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy . But Nicholas Smith neuer dreamed , that men by grace become indeed Angels , Archangels &c.

9. All that he hath n. 34. 35. about the translation of S. Denis his definition of a Hierarchy , is answered in the Admonition to the Reader , adioyned to the Qualification .

10. The Discussour , to proue that one may be of the Hierarchy , although by office he do not illuminate , or perfect others , instanceth in the lowest Angell , who is not to illuminate any other , and yet cannot be excluded from the Celestiall Hierarchy . What doth the Replyer answere ? Nothing in effect , but by denying , that the lowest Angell , or Order of Angels , are absolutly of the Celestiall Hierarchy , but only in a certayne sense , which indeed he must needes affirme , by the same reasons for which he denyeth Religious to be of the Hierarchy , because their office is not to illuminate , or perfect others . But this doctrine is a thing vnheard of amongst Deuines , who with the holy Fathers teach , that there are nine Orders of Angels , comprised in three Hierarchies : but now the Replyer will haue one Order of Angels , belonging to no Hierarchy . If he put Angels out of the Celestiall , Religious men haue , I confesse , lesse reason to wonder , or take it ill , if he exclude them from the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchy .

11. What he sayth n. 43. 44. to wit , that M. Doctour denyed not Cardinalls to be of the Hierarchy , he will not be able to mantayne , without granting , that to be of the Hierarchy , neyther Iurisdiction , nor Order is required . For although Cardinalls may be in Orders , and actually haue Iurisdiction ouer their titles , yet their Iurisdiction , as M. Doctour Chap. 10. n. 19. sayth out of Bedarmine , is but like to the Iurisdiction of a Parish Priest in his Parish ; & that Iurisdiction is accidentall to the office of Cardinall , as Cardinall , which respecteth the common good of the vniuersall Church , and yet euen as Cardinalls , they haue a most eminent place in the Hierarchy , next to the Pope . If once it be graunted , that neyther Order nor Iurisdiction is required , to place one in the Hierarchy , then Religious men , whose state is in the Church of God much respected , yea besides whome , none except Bishops , are in state of Perfection , according to S. Thomas , may be , & are of the Hierarchy in a very perfect manner , In a word . if Cardinalls be not of the Hierarchy , M. Doctour had not byn much wronged , although Nicolas Smith had sayd , that by his Principles they must be excluded from it : and yet for this cause the Replyer n. 43. is much offended with the Discussour . If they be of the Hierarchy , then not only Bishops , Priests , and Deacons , are of the Hierarchy , as the Replyer hath much laboured to proue out of S. Denis : and by that labour , hath only put himselfe vpon an ineuitable necessity , to answere the arguments he made for excluding Religious men .

12. Neuerthelesse , if to make one of the Hierarchy , it be necessary that he illuminate , & perfect others ; Religious , euen as Religious , cannot be excluded : because for Regular obseruances , they illuminate one another , and in that , do not necessarily depend , but are exempt from Bishops , as the King or Mayster of a house dependeth not on the Bishop , for the meere temporall administration of his Kingdome , or family . And so that part of the Hierarchy , which by S. Gregory Nazianzen orat . in laudem Basil . is styled Ecclesiae pars selectior & sapientior , the more wise & choice part of the Church , hath its proper Illuminatours , touching noble actions , and a state of lyfe ▪ which for the perfection of it , was by our B. Sauiour counselled not commanded , as being aboue the reach of Ordinary persons , according to that of Matt. 19. Qui potest capere , capiat .

THE VII . QVESTION . Whether by the precedent Questions , we haue sufficiently answered M. Doctours Treatise , for such poynts , as eyther deserued Confutation , or required explication .

1. THIS Question was proposed by Nicolas Smith , not to boast of what he had donne , in the precedent Questions , as the Replyer pag. 20. n. 31. is pleased to insinuate , but to the end the Reader might know , where to fynd answere to any difficulty in M. Doctours booke , which the Discussour did not answere Chapter for Chapter , and number for number .

2. The Replyer n. 3. writeth , that to him it seemeth a strange speach , & litle edifying , to say , as Nicolas Smith sayth , that he neuer heard , that the Church must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy . Nicolas Smith did indeed wonder , to heare M. Doctour say in his Epistle n. 12. that Secular Priests , are by the diuine Institution , gouernours of the church . The Church ( sayd he ) must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy . May not Bishops , and other Pastours in Gods Church be Religious men ? How then is it a diuine Institution , that the Church must be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy ? Thus the Discussour . And what can be more true ? For if by diuine Institution , the gouernment of the Church belong to the Secular Cleargy , then is it a breach of the diuine law , to assume Religious men to be Bishops , or Pastours , which is to condemne the dayly practise of Gods Church . The Replyer bringeth not one reason to confute what Nicolas Smith sayd , saue only , that the Church , for the most part , is gouerned by the Secular Cleargy , which is farre from prouing , that it is a diuine Justitution , that the Church be gouerned by the Secular Cleargy ; as it cannot be proued , that Preaching , for example , or conuerting of Infidels , by diuine Institution belonges to the Regular Clergy , because they preach at home to faithfull people , and are sent to remote Countreys for the Conuersion of Infidels , more then Secular Priests . Snarez cited by the Replyer n. 5. neuer sayd , that Religious Pastours , gouerne by Delegation , or Priuiledge or that it is against the diuine Institution , that Religious me be made Pastours .

3. From his n. 10. to 15. he goeth about to proue , that my Lord of Chalcedon is Ordinary , after an extraordinary manner , by arguments , easy to be answered , if it were pertinent to the defence of Nicolas Smith , as it is not ; and therfore I referre the Reader , to the answere of the Regulars , to my Lord of Chalcedons letter . For the Defence of Nicolas Smith , it is inough , to take what the Repiyer yieldeth , to wit , that my Lord is not Ordinary , in an Ordinary manner , as Nicolas Smith proueth by the definition of an Ordinary , giuen by M. Doctour . For this grant supposed , I argue thus : The diuine Institution , that in the whole Church , and ( as M. Doctour would thence inferre ) in euery notable part therof , there should be Bishops , is eyther fulfilled in England , by placing there my Lord of Chalcedon , or not . If it be fulfilled , then the Pope might in the whole Church place only Ordinaryes in an extraordinary manner , by Deputation , or Commission , which no Catholicke can grant . If it be not fulfilled in England , then 〈◊〉 the Pope is yet obliged to giue vs a Bishop , Ordinary in an ordinary manner , which I belieue he will not admit , and therfore he must finally yield to the Discussour ; That there is no diuine precept , to haue a Bishop in England , but all must be left to the supreme Pastours discretion , whether it be best for vs to be gouerned by a Bishop , or otherwise .

4. The Discussour n. 5. concerning my Lord of Chalcedons maintenance , vttered nothing vpon his owne opinion , but truly related , what others did , and do say , himselfe abstayning to intermeddle in that matter : yet the Replyers argument n. 17. rather proueth ▪ that Catholicks are not obliged to mantayne my Lord of Chalcedon , if without his Lordship they can be sufficiently prouided , of all spirituall helpes , by Priests , Secular or Regular ; because by the law of Nature , they are obliged only to prouide themselues , of meanes to atrayne saluation . Whether or no , Catholickes can be sufficiently prouided for , without my Lord of Chalcedon ; Nicolas Smith neuer disputed , nor did he euer giue the least insinuation , that it were better not to haue a Bishop in England , wholly referring that point , to the determination of his Holines : and the Replyer is much to blame , for his taxing the Discussour , as opposing the comming of a Bishop into England . Those Houses which the Replyer n. 18. tearmeth stately , and turneth from the singular , to the plurall number , are knowne by those , who haue best reason to know it , not to haue put English Catholickes to charges ; and although they had , yet it is knowne , that all was for their seruice , to prepare such as might , in due tyme , employ their labours , and lyfe , in help of England .

5. The Replyer hath no reason , to be offended with the Discussour , for saying , that M. Doctour was mistaken , while he put Ioannes Siluerius , and Martinus to haue suffered martyrdome before Constantines tyme . For his marginall note hath ( 27. Popes martyrs before the tyme of Constantine ) amongst which 27. those three were placed . Yea M. Doctour produceth them to proue , that Popes were created , euen in tyme of Persecution , when the Creation of Popes , or Bishops was opposed ; for which purpose , the example of those three Popes , could not serue , vnlesse he had conceaued , that they were before Constantine , for otherwise he could not imagine , but that they suffered in tyme of Christian Emperours , as de facto those three Popes did , when the creation of Popes , was not particularly opposed . The reasons alleadged by the Replyer , only proue , that if M. Doctour mistooke , he had no reason for it : yet to do the Replyer a fauour , I will be content with him , to cast the errour vpon one , whome he sayth M. Doctour trusted , in making the marginall notes , vpon condition that he giue me leaue to say , that those three Popes , who dyed not before Constantine , made not to the purpose , for which they were by M. Doctour alleadged . And because I would not wrong him , who made the marginall notes , I must in his behalfe say , that he had but reason , to make the note as he did , considering M. Doctours drift , & manner of expressing himselfe . It is a wonder that in this very place , the Replyer would helpe himselfe with a marginall note , and excuse M. Doctour , because he citeth Bozius in the margent , which ( sayth he ) Nicolas Smith should haue mentioned . But Bozius neuer said , that those three Popes were before Constantine , and therfore yieldeth no excuse for M. Doctour , nor had Nicolas Smith any obligation to mention him .

6. The Replyer n. 27. endeth his booke with these wordes . He that findes himselfe able to ouercome the temptations of the world , and with the grace of God , hath Confidence not only to worke his owne saluation , but also the saluation of many others ; let him , if he like that state , take vpon him an Apostolicall , Priestly course of life ; Priests being to liue in the midst of the difficultyes of the world , by reason of their Preaching , Teaching , and Administring Sacraments . Jf he otherwise be weake , feeble , & is hardly able to passe through those temptations & allurements with safety of his own soule , let him hasten to some Religious course of lyfe , proportionable to his force , and liking : and if he hath not those talents , which are required in Priests , and that he cannot brooke the austerity of Religion , let him endeauour to serue God in the world . Thus he declaring , what meane conceit he hath of Religious perfection . And I pray God , the like apprehension , haue not taken deepe roote , in too many now a dayes . Your diuision of diuers sortes of persons , is not adequate . For , besides those whome you mention , there is a fourth kind of persons , who haue confidence , by Gods grace , to saue their soules in the world , and yet for attayning of Perfection , & greater vnion with their Creatour , are not content , only to keep Gods Commandements in the world , but also are inflamed with a desire , to obserue the Euangelical Counsels in a Religious state : & some of those , besydes the perfection of their owne soule , are further called , euen in a Religious state , to procure the saluation , and perfection of their neyghbour , eyther by their proper Institute , or by command of their Superiours . If your conceite were solid , whosoeuer beboldeth a Religious man , might poynt at him , and say : This was a weake , and feeble person , & hardly able to passe in the world , with the safety of his owne soule . A rash , vnworthy , & , I may say , vnchristian censure . S. Thomas 2.2 . q. 189. ar. 1. of purpose teacheth , that not only persons , already habituated in obseruation of the commandements , but all sinners may enter into Religion ; those to increase in perfection , these to auoyde sinne . This Saint then held it for certayne , that Religion is not only for those , who are weake , & feeb●e , & hardly able to passe through the temptations of the world , with the safety of their soule , but much more , for such as are already grounded in vertue , and by that meanes , better disposed to attayne Religious perfection . Certainly , the Angelicall Doctour would haue made vs an Exhortation , farre different from yours , and would haue sayd : If any feare his owne frailty in the world , and otherwise haue talents for Religion , let him vndertake that state . Religion is a state of security . If any with the keeping of the commandements , desire to ioyne the obseruation of the Euangelicall Counsels , let him hasten to Religion . Religion is a course of lyfe , for its height , counselled , not commanded . If any already good , desire to be perfect , let him fly to Religion . Religion is a schoole of Perfection , as our B. Sauiour Matth. 19. to one that had all ready kept the commandements , sayd : Jf thou wilt be perfect go sell the things that thou hast . &c. If any togeather with his owne Perfection , thirst after the saluation , and perfection of others ; with great merit , and security to himselfe , let him imbrace a Religious course . Religion not only perfecteth a mans selfe , but also enableth him to help others , with lesse danger to his owne soule . God grant we were as carefull to correspond to our Vocation , as we are certayne the Vocation in it selfe is perfect ; of which S. Bernard ( l. de praecept & dispo . ) was not afrayd to say , Praeeminet vniuersis vitae humanae gencribus : It hath a preheminency before all kindes of humane lyfe .

THE CONCLVSION .

One saith , it is the worst property of warre that prosperous successes are imputed to all , misfortunes to some one . ( Tacit. in vita Agric . ) Contrarywise in this Pen-Combat , I wish , that whatsoeuer is amisse , may fall only vpon my selfe . If any thing yield satisfaction , I hartily desire , it may wholy redound to the honour of Episcopall Dignity , to the commendation of a Religious state , to peace amongst our selues , and , aboue all , to the Eternall Glory of the most B. Trinity .

FINIS .

Faults escaped . PAg. 37. lin. 7. euery corrige very . Pag. 52. lin. 1. thero corrige therof . Pag. 53. lin. 1. - mily corrige - mity . Pag. 66. lin. vlt. Chrity corrige Charity .