The attestation of the most excellent, and most illustrious lord, Don Carlos Coloma, embassadour extraordinary for Spayne. Of the declaration made vnto him, by the lay Catholikes of England concerning the authority challenged ouer them, by the Right Reuerend Lord Bishop of Chalcedon. With The answere of a Catholike lay gentleman, to the iudgment of a deuine, vpon the letter of the lay Catholikes, to the sayd Lord Bishop of Chalcedon.

The Anwsere to the Iudgement of a Deuine , vpon the three Gentlemens Letter , to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon .

THOVGH in answering of these papers I must be faine to let passe many greater matters then the Title , yet it presenting it selfe in the first place , I cannot omit to note two things in it . The one is the word Iudgment , which doth sound somewhat authoritatiuely , insinuating , as if the writer were a Iudge or Superiour ; for to such only it properly belongeth to giue iudgment : whereby though perhaps he would gayne himselfe and his writing credit , so to further my Lord Bishops cause , which he handleth ; yet he is best to looke he do him not more harme . For by making himselfe a man of such Authority , he may make it to be thought , that he is my Lord Bishop himselfe , or some one of his officers , but only that men presume more of the discretion of such Officers , and much more of my Lord Bishop himself , than that they would write , or euer suffer such a thing to be written with their priuity . Wherefore though he take vpon him to giue iudgment yet I will take him not to be a man of iudgement : I meane , that hath any further Authority , then his knowledge of Diuinity will affoard him , and so I shall in this answere speake to him as to a Deuine , not as a Iudge . The other thing of the Title , is , that he calleth the Letter of the Lay Catholiques , the Letter of the 3. Gentlemen , who vndertooke the deliuery of it . Wheras it is well knowne that most Catholiques of worth in , and about London at the tyme of the deliuery of it , were priuy to it , and that these 3. were but chosen out of a great number , as men most fit in al respects to vndertake the deliuery of it ; wherof I shall haue occasion to say more hereafter in this answer . Only this I say here , because hereupon as he calleth it the 3. Gentlemens Letter , I meane to cal it more truly , the lay Catholiques Letter .

SECT. 1. That this Letter , did not proceed from passion .

THE Deuines first Section , is wholy to proue this Letter to proceed from passion . Wherin a man might aske him , what passion ? But because I will not stumble him to much at first , nor intend so much to vrge him as answere , I let that passe . His first reason is , because these Gentlemen take no notice ( as he saith ) of any thing but that which disliketh them : to wit , my Lord Bishops Ordinaryship , and exacting approbation of Regulars ▪ there being diuers other things that in the Deuines iudgment imported them more : as the validity of their Confessions , which concerned their soules good ; the Bishops care of not increasing their temporall troubles , which concerned their fortunes ▪ and the preseruing the Bishops honour & Authority , which concerned the common good of our English Church . This is the substance of the first paragraph , wherin he taxeth these Gentlemen as if they had only a mynd to quarrell with my Lord Bishop ; for so he saith in the marginall note . But how false this is , may easily appeare , if a man consider how many things there were in that Letter very subiect to exception ; which , a man that had bene disposed to picke quarrels , might haue made matter of ; and among others that bitter imputation of practising and libelling , wherwith his Lordship chargeth Catholiques in generall in his common Letter 16. October 1627. Which though no man could but resent , yet euery man forbare to speak of , because it was impertinent to that end , which they set before them in writing this Letter : which end of theirs , if it had beene , as this Deuine imagineth , this had beene the first thing in the whole Letter to take hold of : and this is the very reason why they medled not with those other matters , wherwith this Deuine would faine haue had them trouble themselues . Besides that , there be other reasons , which a man might easily bring : as for that of the validity of Confessions , that they saw not any colourable reason of doubt ; yet they prayed his Lordshippe ( in whose power it was with a word speaking , or rather not speaking a word ) not to bring them into further trouble , then they had bene in his Predecessours tyme and before . And for their temporall state , they saw wel inough , all my Lords aduise would nothing auaile them , so long as he had the authority he challenged . Besides that , in their temporall matters they can better aduise themselues , then any man els can ; that being their owne element . And lastly , for the not belieuing euill speaches against the Bishop , they saw it was a needles thing to mention it , being a knowne point of Christian duty , not to heare any man ill spoken of , much lesse a Bishop , if they should chance to meete with any such discourse , which they neuer do , they and their friends abhorring such way of proceeding .

The second proofe of passion is , because the Bishop offering further satisfaction concerning his Authority to any man that would aske it , these Gentlemen did not aske it . It is true indeed ; hauing seene my Lord Bishops publique clayme of that Authority , it was no tyme for them to go , and aske a priuate glosse or Declaration , which would little auaile them , when such a Letter should be brought against them . But let this Deuine aske my L. Bishop , Whether he were neuer desired to make it knowne , what Authority he had ? I am sure his Lordship wil not deny but he was many tymes : but he neuer would , til he declared it in this publique manner . If my Lord then meant to giue them sufficient satisfaction in priuate , why did he not do it in priuate , while men did desire it , and while there was tyme ? Besides , suppose my Lord would haue written a Letter , he might haue forborne to speake so plainly of his Ordinaryship , only inuiting those that desired to know his Authority to come priuatly vnto him . And for that which this Deuine saith , that my Lord could not informe them sufficiently of his Authority in so short a Letter , I se not what reason there is for it . I dare say his Letter is 5. tymes at least as long as his Patents , or Breue , and Instructions , the sight whereof would haue serued the turne without all this writing & doing . Which being so easy a matter , & th●t yet his Lordship would not do it , they might well despaire of further satisfaction .

The third proofe of passion is , that as this Deuine saith , this Letter stretcheth my Lord Bishops words vpon the Tenter-hookes , or rather addeth vnto them , in saying , that the particuler passages cyted and the whole scope of the second part of the Letter , argue his Lordship to assume his Authority ouer the lay Catholiques , to be as great in England and Scotland , as any Ordinary exercised here in England in Catholique tymes : Whereas my Lord Bishop neuer spake of Authority ouer lay Catholiques in Scotland ; but only to proue himselfe Ordinary , brought the Inscription of Letters from some Cardinals thus Ordinario Angliae & Scotiae . In which the Deuine complaineth of two Additions , the one that the Letter sayth , my Lord challengeth Authority ouer the laity of Scotland ; the other that it sayth my Lord challengeth as much Authority here in England , as Ordinaries haue had in Catholyke tymes . But first , the Letter neither stretcheth , nor addeth to my Lords words ; but only maketh a manifest and immediate inference vpon , or out of them . For it saith , his Lordship words argue him to assume &c. Which plainely shewes that they do not charge his Lordship with saying so in expresse termes , but saying , that out of which , as antecedent , the conclusion is manifestly gathered . Now there is great difference betweene an inference and an Addition , as euery body knoweth . Secondly , if the Deuine would haue answered , and not cauelled , he should haue shewed the Conclusion not to be wel & truly deduced out of his Lordships antecedent , & then he had sayd somewhat to the purpose . But that he cannot do . For if my L. Bishop out of the Inscription Ordinario Angliae do proue himself Ordinary , & out of this inferre , himselfe to haue authority ouer Lay Catholiks of England , why may he not do the lyke of the words Ordinario Scotiae , which Title his Lordship vseth continually , and ioyntly with the word Angliae thus , Ordinarius Angliae & Scotiae ? Thirdly his Lordships patents make no difference betweene the faithfull of England and Scotland . Wherfore if he challenge authority ouer the one , he may do it ouer the other .

For the other Addition , as this Deuine sayth , or Inference , as in truth it is , of assuming the same Authority , which Ordinaries haue exercised heere in Catholique tymes , what can the Deuine say to it ? Is it not truly and euidently inferred ? My Lord Bishop sayth the Pope maketh him as absolute Ordinary in England , as other Ordinaries in their Diocesses ; and this Deuine , acknowledgeth him , to haue as much as any Ordinary hath , or can haue in his Diocesse . But our Ordinaryes heere in Catholicke tymes were no more , but as other Ordinaries in their Diocesses , nor had more then any Ordinary hath , or may haue in his Diocesse : Ergo , my Lord Bishop ( supposing these his Lordships premises ) hath the same Authority , that Catholique Ordinaries haue had heere in England in Catholique tymes : Or by the challenging that Authority of other Ordinaries , or what they haue , or may haue , he challengeth the same that Ordinaries haue had in Catholike tymes . What fault is there in this Argument ? Why then doth this Deuine●ryfle ●ryfle thus ? As if these two were not all one ; The Authority which an Ordinary hath , or may haue in his Diocesse ; and which an Ordinary had in tymes past heere in England ? Had our Bishops more heere , then an Ordinary may haue elswhere ? Did he perhaps thinke , that no man would euer vouchsafe to answere , or perhaps read this paper ▪ Where is now the passion in stretching , and adding of words ? But because it may moreouer appeare , that this inference of the Authority , which Ordinaries had heretofore , did not proceed from passion , I will ad a reason why mention was made of our Ordinaries of former tymes in England ; which is this : That they , who wrote the Letter , came better to be acquaynted with what belongs to the Authority of Ordinary , and how farre it extendeth it selfe , by that which Ordinaryes were wont to do heere in England , and which for the most part they do still in the same Courts heere established , then what Ordinaries do abroad , which we heere , are not so well acquainted withall .

And from hence commeth the answere to another obiected Addition , in that this Letter saith , that such controuersies , as were spoken of immediatly before in the Letter , haue mixture with temporall Authority , and concerne temporall fortunes , and receiue also temper from our temporall lawes &c. This the Deuine according to his former manner of speach , calleth an Addition to his Lordships words ; who , he sayth , sayd nothing of temporall fortunes , nor Authority of temporal Princes . As for the word ( Addition ) it suteth yet farre lesse in this place , then before . True it is , the Bishop did not speake of temporall fortunes and lawes ; but he spake of that , which hath necessary connexion with them : which is his Ordinaryship . Which connexion , though the Bishop perhaps did not so seriously reflect vpon , as a thing , that might hinder the extent of his power ; yet Lay-men , whome it concerned , could not but looke about them , to see themselues hooked in , vpon a suddayne , by Tytle of an Ordinary , which bringeth after it all this , that is mentioned in the Lay mens Letter , and which with all respect , they represent to the consideration of my Lo. Bishop , of whose loue towards them ▪ they were so well perswaded , that they did not doubt , but vpon the very first representation of the inconueniencyes , perplexityes , and daungers , which that Authority did bring with it , his Lordship would presently desist from further claime of it . Howsoeuer these daungers to them , were a very sufficient enforcement to disclaime from it as they did . Now where is this Inference forced ? Doth not my Lord Bishop say absolutly , he is Ordinary , or hath as much power , as any Authority may haue in his Diocesse ? May not others then say , what the power of such an Ordinary is ? and what inconuenience may come to themselues by it in some particular circumstances ? What force or strayning is heere ? Oh , my Lord Bishop ( will the Deuine say ) spake only of his Authority , to vrge approbation of Regulars . True ; that is the occasion indeed . But doth not his Lordship by that occasion , chalenge the absolute and full power which an Ordinary hath , or may haue ? Doth not all that he bringeth , proue his Ordinaryship absolute without limitation of cause , or persons , if his proofes were good ? Might not Lay-men plainly say ; my Lord meant more of them , whome he tooke to be his proper subiects , ●hen of them , who were exempt ? And if his Lordship had meant only to clayme Authority ouer Regulars , in the matter of approbation , he might haue answered plainely and precisely , restrainyng all to them . But I shall haue occasion to speake more of this by and by .

The 4. argument of passion is , that they deny my Lord Bishop all Authority , not onely temporall ▪ but spirituall ; and vnder pretence of their temporall Fortunes , they would be Oues sine Pastore . If I would be captious with this Deuine , I could aske him , where this Letter denyeth my Lord Bishop to be Ordinary ; or where it speaketh of his Lordships temporall Authority ? But I will not presse him further in that . But for his spirituall Authority , or rather the power in fore interno ( for indeed all the power of a Bishop , as he is a Bishop , is spirituall , speaking properly ) where do they deny it ?

Or if they do not speake of it , hauing no occasion , and it being from the purpose , doth it follow that they deny it ? He may haue that , though he be no Ordinary , nor haue power in foro externo . How then doth the deniall of the former infer the deniall of the latter ? Is not heere stretching of wordes , or forcing inferences ? And much more in that , as this Deuine saith , we would be Oues sine Pastore . Haue we beene Oues sine Pastore now aboue . 60. yeares , wherin we haue had no Bishop ? Nay , haue we not so much more had a Pastor , as we haue more immediatly been gouerned by the Pastor of Pastours , receyuing immediate influence from the sea Apostolique ? But more of this anone .

The 5. Argument of passion is , because they omit the principall point , which the Bishop handleth : which was his full Authority to exact approbation of Regulars , and take hold of the secondary , which was his Ordinaryship . And neere the Deuine complaineth , they tooke no notice whether he had satisfied them or no. Well , what passion was it for Catholiques to leaue that , that concerned them not so immediatly , though it were the principall point , and touch that , which concerned them more , though it were but secondarily intended ? To what end should they take notice of satisfaction in a thing , in which they needed none , as making no doubt of it ? For , suppose there had been any litle shaddow of probability of my Lord Bishops pretence , yet so many good and learned men , as there were heere , of Regulars , nay and of all moderate and learned of the secular Clergy , affirming the contrary , & euen my Lord Bishop not ventring , to say to the contrary , at least to some persons , but that Confessions made to Regulars were good ; what doubt could any prudent man make , of the validity of his Confessions ? The Authority of any one or two learned men , being sufficient for a wise man to lay aside all scruple of that kind : what needed therfore all that ado ? And the rather because it was a matter of learning , they would not trouble themselues further , then to desire his Lordship not to put them to further trouble then his predecessor , or himselfe had hitherto put them vnto : in which they shew , though not in expresse termes , how they were satisfied with his Lordships Letter in that point , especially laying his Authority of Ordinary for ground of that claime : what passion then is heere ? But now , if a man would stand vpon it , it might perhaps be proued that my Lord did intend no lesse principally to declare his Ordinaryship , and by this occasion to make open challenge of his Authority in that kind . For what else doth the greatest part of his Letter pretend ? Why doth he write so largely to the layty of a matter , which doth not so properly belong vnto them , but only to put needlesse scruples into their heads ? And with all to make some answere to the Laity , who not long before had been very instant to know his Authority more precisely , though his Lordship could not be met withall , to haue their demaunds deliuered to himselfe ? But because these are coniectures , I will not stand vpon them : only this I may say , if his Lordships intent had not been to clayme that Authority , he might presently haue disclaymed it , and there had beene an end .

The sixt Argument of notorious passion ( our Deuine sayth ) is this , that they incense the State against the Bishop , by saying that the execution of the Authority of this new Tribunall , will prouoke the present Gouernmeut vnto an exact search after it , and suppression thereof ; and so bringeth a clause of Bulla Coenae to proue them excommunicated therfore , & asketh , why else this Letter was shewed to the King ? This is a strange point of Diuinity , that a man shall incurre excommunication , for representing vnto the Bishop , the daunger which by clayming such Authority he bringeth vpon himselfe , and other men . This is a thing allowable by the lawes of God and man : and how then doth it deserue excommunication ? Is this to prouoke the state to persecute ? No surely : but to moue the Bishop not to prouoke the State against himselfe and others : & as for publishing the Letter , and causing it to be shewed to the King , if it were so , this Deuines intelligence is better then mine . Howsoeuer ▪ it was no more then needed , for men to declare themselues somewhat in a more publique manner , that Authority being so publiquely claymed , which would bring so many daungers vpon them . And some great Officers haue been knowne to say since , that it was tyme for Catholiques to do as they did ; for that otherwise they might haue smarted for it . Wherein then doth passion notoriously appeare in this matter , vnlesse it be that this Deuine will haue all to proceed from passion which lyketh him not . And so hauing cleered this Letter of passion , I might aske this Deuine , what temper he was in , when be called this graue , substantiall & humble Letter , no answere , but a publique defy of the Bishops Authority ? What is there in the whole Letter that hath euen a shadow of defiance ? Doth not the whole manner & phrase import as much respect and humility , as such matter can possibly affoard ? Can defyance stand with humility and respect ? Why then should this Deuine call it a defye ? What Law giueth him this liberty ? Let him looke home a litle and see whether he be not liable in what he accuseth others . I leaue it to himself to consider , for I wil not so take vpon me to play the Iudge . And heer is an end of the 1. Section of passion , I pray God there be an end of that passion on the Deuines part .

SECT. 2. That the lay Catholiques Letter is free from Temerity .

THE first point of Temerity alleadged by this Deuine is , because they being Lay and priuate men do take vpon them to iudge publiquely , and to condemne their Pastor : which is as much as by fact to iustify , & euen far to surpasse the Oath of Supremacy , which giueth power to the Prince to iudge of Ecclesiasticall persons : and heere priuate and Lay men take the same vpon them , in saying the Bishop assumeth Authority ouer Lay Catholiques , which he interpreteth vsurping ; and so bringeth a place out of S. Ambrose to shew that Lay-men , euen Emperors must not Iudge . Heere you see the Deuine waxeth warme in his Iudgment seat : but let him be carefull he do not condemne men without cause . For his Diuinity may teach him , that , that is a dangerous thing . Well ; let vs see where is this grieuous crime , worse then the Oath of supremacy ? For priuate men to iudge a Bishop , it is true , it is a heynous matter , but yet by this Deuines leaue , far short of taking such an Oath , which is the denyall of a mans fayth . And therfore this I suppose was but to shew a little of his Rhetorike . But for all that , he must not let his Rhetorike go before his Diuinity . Let vs then see wherin do they iudg ? because they say he assumeth this Authority : which , saith this Deuine , is as much as to vsurpe Authority . But if his Charity had stretched so far , he might haue found out a more benigne interpretation , considering with himselfe , the difficulty of finding a fit word for this place . For the question being , of his Lordships Authority , they could not vse any such word , as might importe , that in their iudgments his Lordship had it . For that were in a sort to acknowledge it , contrary to the purpose of their Letter ; besides , they had no ground , but his Lordships owne word to thinke that he had it . In which case they might say that he assumeth it , as well as to say his Lordship sayth he hath it : for that would imply , that they did not build vpon his Lordships word , which would haue been as ill taken : and to say , he did take it vpon him , would haue beene worse taken , as being neerer to vsurpation . Thirdly they could not presume him to haue the Authority . For though he were Ordinary , he must shew his Letters of his Consecration , or Confirmation , as the Canons require . Or if perchance his Lordship should pretend difficulties , that he durst not bring in such things , & that he may as wel be belieued as Priests that come in heere without written testimonies , yet there might some meanes , or other be found out and vsed , to giue men some probability of assurance . But much more being a Delegate , as it is certaine he is ▪ For both Canon and ciuill lawes require that a man in that case shew his Authority in writing . For it is an axiome that Iurisdictio delegata non praes 〈…〉 ur , sed probatur . Now if they cannot presume such Authority , his Lordship may well be sayd to assume it . This supposed , it is not certayne , that he hath any Authority ouer them , and consequently whether he be a Pastour or no , & an vncertain Pastour in this case , is as if he were no Pastor . How then do they iudge their Pastor ? Besides , what iudging is this , to say he taketh such Authority vpon him ? They do not say that he hath it , or hath it not , but suppose they thinke he hath it not ; the worst that any man can make of it , is to say , they do not belieue he hath it . Is this then such a cryme as to be compared with the Oath of Supremacy , especially since they had many reasons to induce them not to belieue it ? Is it not great temerity then in our Deuine , thus rashly to condemne honest well meaning men , of such a crime without cause ?

2. The second poynt of temerity is to teach their Pastor , what Authority he must not haue ; in saying that all things are so setled , as innouation might breed daunger , being contrary to diuers ancient and moderne lawes ; since the erecting of a Tribunall distinct , or contrary to our lawes is Treason , or Premunire at least , if they haue any priuity or participation &c. Heere the Deuine asketh whether it be the part of lay men to tell a Bishop , he must haue no Authority contrary to a setled course of state , for matters of Episcopall iurisdiction ; and he asketh whether this be not to tell him , that he must not haue authority to preach , confirm reconcile &c. And whether innouation in religion is not as dangerous ? with a great deale more of that kind . But then he sayth withall , that those ancient lawes of a new Tribunall are not vnderstood of a Catholique Episcopall tribunall , but of a Legatiue , and that therefore the chalenging of this tribunall is no innouation but a restitution of ancient Episcopall iurisdiction &c.

To all which I answere ; that first this Deuine taketh it for granted that my Lord Bishop is our Pastor , certayne and absolute ; but of that I say nothing til anon , & so I let him vse his owne language in that . But I must tell him heere , he taketh to much liberty to call the humble aduise of lay Catholiques , or declaration of their owne ease , Teaching : which is nothing but to make them odious , as if they tooke vpon them with Authority to teach his Lordship ; whereas in the very beginning they humbly craue leaue to declare their minds , and so continue throughout the whole letter . This is not good dealing for any honest man , much lesse a Deuine : for it cannot come from a good meaning . But we must beare with a hundred such things as these , at this Deuins hand . Secondly wheras he inferreth à paritate Rationis , that the Bishop must not preach , confirme , reconcile &c. because these are against the setled course of state , he is mistaken . The reason is not a like , for these are neyther against our ancient lawes , neither do , or can hinder the ordinary Courts of Iustice heer , & withall these things are more necessary for sauing of soules , for establishment and preseruation of Catholique Religion them a Bishops court , which as things stand , will rather hinder then help . Now for our auncient lawes which our Deuine sayth are not against a Catholique Episcopal tribunal ( not according to the meaning of the Law-maker , howsoeuer it may be against the sound of the words ) I say first , that as times stand , it is enough to be against the letter of the Law : & our Protestant Iudges and men in Authority who thinke themselues fittest to be interpreters of the Law , will haue great aduantage against vs , if they shal be able by the very words of the auncient lawes to bring vs with in compasse of Treason , or Premunire . And if now by word , & writing they publish to the world that we dy not for Religion , but for Treason , although we suffer but by the lawes made in this time of Protestancy , how much more colourably would they thinke to do it , when we shall suffer by the auncient Lawes , made and practised in Catholique tymes , and not disallowed , or contradicted by the Sea Apostolique ? And it may be this very thing , if it had been so knowne to his Holines , as the Catholiks Letter saith well ( for it is no disparagement for any man to say , that he doth not know all particular Lawes , and Ordinances of all Countryes ) it is most probable his Holines would neuer haue put the Catholiques into any the least occasion of such offence : especially being a thing wholy needlesse at this time . Secondly , a man may perhaps also say it is against the meaning of the law in some sort . For though it were neuer the meaning of our Catholique Auncestors , to hinder the lawfull exercise of Ordinary Ecclesiasticall power , yet their end was , as this Deuine confesseth , to restrayne the exercise of extraordinary power , or Legatiue , by reason of the disturbance , which it did many times cause in the vsuall courts of Iustice of this kingdome . Why then may not a man say , they meane of such power as my Lord Bishop would haue heere , considering the present state of things ? For , heere be now vsual Ecclesiastical courts of Ordinaries or Bishops : but they are Protestant Bishops , say you ▪ I graunt it , but yet in their Courts they retaine the same forme of iustice in great part , the same kinds of causes they had aunciently ; and though it be true that they haue not true Ecclesiastical iurisdiction , as being Branches cut of from the roote which is the Sea Apostolique , yet they exercise it de facto , by the Kings authority , so as all , both Protestants and Catholiques must be subiect vnto them , so much as concerneth the outward gouerment , or forum externum . Now my Lord Bishops Authority in this case ( suppose it Ordinary for the present for disputations sake ) is of no lesse hinderance , or disturbance to the Ordinary Courts , and course of Iustice , then was Legatiue in ancient times ; nay more : for the Legatiue court was a Superiour court and therfore did not medle in Ordinary and dayly matters , but in some particuler cases and euents .

Whereas my Lord Bishops Court , if he were Ordinary , would answere ex aequo , as I may say and directly to the Ordinary spirituall Courts heer , and might challenge the hearing and determining of all causes , as due to it selfe , excluding the other , as vsurper . In which respect I thinke , that as this Deuine sayth the law-makers neuer intended to hinder the restitution of Catholique Episcopall iurisdiction , so I am of opinion with him thus farre , though they would not hinder it when tyme should be for it , so yet that in such tyme , and circumstances as now we are in , and so long as it were not in their power to hinder , but that Protestants should b●are the sway as they do , they would neuer haue lyked the restitution of it , in such manner as his Lordship desireth . To which though I am the rather induced by considering how the Catholique Bishops , who in Queene Maryes time exercised their Authority , and kept their courts , vpon the suppression of Religion and their Authority , and the substitution of others in their place , forbare the exercise thereof , as hurtful rather then any way vsefull ; nay euen impossible . Thirdly , not to stand guessing what would haue been the mind of the Law-makers in this particular case , suppose my Lord of Chalcedon were Ordinary heer ; to come to the true playne meaning of the Law , which this our Deuine acknowledgeth , to wit , that by it is forbidden the exercise of a legatiue tribunal ; I say , this law precisely and directly toucheth his Lordships Court , which he would erect . For though be not a legate à latere , yet he is a Delegate of the Sea Apostolique , and his power is of the same kinde with Legatiue , though inferiour vnto it . And this is manifest by the words of his owne Letter , saying , he is Ordinarius , not Ordinario modo , but extraordinario modo , as Legats , Nuncio's , and the like , though he be not yet so truly Ordinary as any of them , whose power is expressed in the Canon Law , his Lordships power being wholy out of the Common Course . Therfore the law is much more against it then against the power of a Legate . Secondly , the very manner of conferring the Authority , by speciall Commission , doth manifestly shew him to be a Delegate : for that is proper to Delegation . Thirdly he hath his Iurisdiction ad beneplacitum ; which is essentiall to Delegation . But what need I stand further prouing so manifest a thing , when as both his commission hath the expresse word Delegamus , and his Holines his Nuncio of Paris in a Letter vnder his owne hand , speaking of my Lord Bishop of Chalcedons Breue , sayth , Delegationis suae Breue sufficienter ostendit &c. & by word of mouth , he did not only tell diuers that will iustify it , that my Lord was not Ordinary , but proued also by the Cannons , that he could not be Ordinary . His Lordships Power then being rather Legatiue then Ordinary , and euen not that legatiue , which is expressed in iure , and whose power in that respect is called Ordinary , because it is belonging to the office of a legate by law , it is plaine that the ancient Law doth properly touch his Lordships power and Tribunall . For suppose when England was Catholique , a man had come in hither , ( all the Bishopricks being ful ) with such a speciall title and commission , and chalenging such Authority heere as his Lordship now doth , what would other Bishops say ? In what Ordinary Tribunall should he sit ? Must he not erect himselfe a new one ? Nay suppose his Lordship should haue byn Bishop of Canterbury , and one come in as he doth Bishop of Chalcedon , by speciall Commission , would not his Lordship think that man to offend against this ancient law in such a case ? And whosoeuer should acknowledg or submit himselfe to such Authority , liable to the penalty there appointed ? Certainly he would . And why not then in this case ? You will say now there be no Catholique Ordinaries , as then there would be . What then , say I againe ? Doth that alter my Lord of Chalcedons Authority ? Doth not that remaine the same in it selfe still without change , whatsoeuer the others be ? Is not their change meerely accidentall to his Authority ? For he is still Bishop of Chalcedon , & hath the same commission . If then that would be against that law , now it is . What temerity is it then in Catholiks , to aduertise my Lord of Chalcedon , what danger he bringeth vpon himselfe , & others , by erecting this new Tribunal , which they may truly call Innouation , as being a thing without President in our nation , and contrary to our ancient Laws , & therfore no restitution of Ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction , as the Deuine would haue it : though suppose it were truly and properly restitution of Ordinary Episcopall iurisdiction , and consequently , not against the ancient Lawes , yet would it be against the moderne , which threaten so many & so great dangers , that a man may very wel without note of temerity declare them , & vse what means they can to auoyd them . I could heer note how some friends of this Deuine , I meane some of the Appellants in Clement the VIII . his time , vrged these ancient lawes against the Authority of the Archpriest , then appointed by that Pope , though that were no externall iurisdiction nor ouer the Laity ; how much more then may they be vrged against my Lord Bishop of Chalcedons which he pretends ? But I say no more of it .

3. The 3. poynt of Temerity wherwith this Deuine chargeth Catholikes is , in that they censure the sea Apostolique , as he sayth , and 2. most wise Popes , by saying , that if these their dangers , togeather with their long sufferinges , & present state of miseries had ben considered abroade , they presume no such Authority woulde haue beene imposed vpon them : as if , sayth he , the sea Apostolique had not considered the daungers which might come to Lay Catholiques by Episcopall Authority . And then he asketh why they did not giue , the Sea Apostolique to vnderstand these daungers , all that tyme that the Clergy stood suing for a Bishop , the Iesuits opposing it ? Or all the tyme that the Bishop hath been heer , wherein , as the Deuine sayth , he hath euer professed himselfe Ordinary ? Whervpon he concludeth that it is not the reare of daunger to themselues , but their passionatenesse to Regulars , who stood in daunger of Approbation , that moueth them to this . This is the Deuines discourse , and a very good and likely one it is , forsooth , because the Catholiques say ▪ that if their daungers had beene considered ( to vse the Deuines words ) abroad , they presume they should not haue had such Authority imposed vpon them ▪ Therfore they censure the sea Apostolike . This man is so much in giuing iudgment , and censuring , that all that any man else sayth , seemeth to him to be censuring . What is there heere any way condemning the Sea Apostolique ? Nay rather , do not Catholiques , in this , shew the great confidence they haue of the loue and tendernes , that the Sea Apostolicke beareth towards them ? Which induceth them to thinke , that if their case had been fully made knowne , it would no way do a thing , so preiudiciall vnto them : where it is to be noted , that besides the Deuines ordinary liberty of terming thinges as he listeth to conceiue them , & wresting words to a worse sense , heer he corrupteth the text , the better to ground his accusation of Temerity . For in those copies that I haue seen of this Letter , there was not the word [ Considered ] but the word [ Vnderstood ] which is no way subiect to exception . But notwithstanding , suppose the Deuines copy had the word [ Considered ] which yet a man may doubt of , none else hauing so , it may very well carry the same sense . Which supposed , what Temerity , or what Censure is it , to say , if the Pope did vnderstand our case &c. May not the Pope be ignorant of many particular laws or Statutes of a Kingdome so remote in place , and so different in manners and language , and especially in this tyme of Protestancy , as this Kingdome is ? He being a man , and hauing none but humane meanes to know thinges , he cannot know our affaire ; by himselfe but by information of others : and it seemeth they haue beene such men as were more carefull to prosecute their owne ends , then seeke our good , and therefore would make no more knowne of our case then might stand with their pretences : & now that we come to speake for our selues , & to make knowne our owne case , for saying , that if it had beene so vnderstood abroad , we are calumniated , as if we did temerariously censure the Sea Apostolique : What dealing is this ? But because this Deuine doth thus grieuously accuse Catholiques for Temerity in censuring the Sea Apostolique , I would willingly aske him a question in his eare , whether he do know a man in the world , that hath been often heard to say , before there was a Bishop , that the Pope was bound vnder paine of mortall sinne to let the English Clergy haue a Bishop , and consequently it euidently followeth , that in the same Deuines iudgment , in not granting one , he did sinne mortally . If he do not know such a man , I can tel him who he is ; and vouch for my selfe , one of the Clergy it selfe , and a man of chiefe Authority vnder my Lord Bishop , and of great credit with him for his forwardnes and zeale in the cause . Now whether this be not censuring , let any man iudge ? For , what greater censure can there be then to condemne the chiefe Pastour of Gods Church of a mortal sinne ▪ And of a mortall sinne , nor so much in matter of fact , which might depend of information , and so be somewhat excusable , but in matter of Iudgment , or error in a Doctrinal poynt , which cannot be excused ▪ as whether the law of God require the hauing a Bishop , or not , heere in England ▪ at this tyme ? Which the Pope denieth ▪ this De 〈…〉 affirmeth : and not only affirmeth , but condemneth the Pope of a mortall 〈…〉 e , for not being of his mind . These 〈…〉 tlemen vsed a modest worde ( 〈…〉 ; they vsed also a conditionall 〈…〉 anner of speaking , which were sufficient to mollify the word , suppose it had beene a little harsh . They impute no crime , they shew assurance of loue and tendernesse , and of great wisdome and maturity in counsel ; and yet this is censuring . And wheras he accuseth Catholiques also for Censuring two most wise Popes , of doing what they vnderstood not , I might answere him likewise that he condemneth all the Popes that went before these two ; for the space of three-score yeares , to wit Ten most graue and wise Popes , who for many and very waighty reasons would neuer be drawen to haue a Bishop heere , as tymes stood . And the two last yelded to the hauing of a Bishop , not out of any Scruple of conscience , or feare of transgressing the Deuine precept , but out of other motiues . Nay it is most like , that they would haue held the same course , that so many of their Predecessours did holde , but that they were persuaded by some , that the tymes were altered : so that it might better be now then heertofore : which can be no fault of the Popes , but of such as care not what they say to compasse their owne ends : and so vsed such vnder-hand dealing , as that thinges were wrought , without any knowledge , or consent of those whom it might heere concerne . For what did Catholicks heere in England , know what others were working at Rome ? And though they should heare something of a Bishop , they might well thinke the Sea Apostolicke , knowing somwhat in general the different state of this Kingdome , from others at this tyme , would not send hither a Bishop , with like Authority as in other places , as indeed we finde since this controuersy began , it was neuer the meaning of his Holynesse , though this Deuine would make vs belieue otherwise . They might likwise think that no man of those that did sue for a Bishop , would so far passe the boundes of reason , as to desyre a thing so impossible as is a Bishop heere in England , with the same power that Bishops are of elswhere , and haue beene formerly in England : but that they would be content at the furthest with a Bishop , who might Confirme , blesse Holy Oyles , & gouerne his Cleargy , without challenging a further iurisdiction in foro externo , which would not any way proue vsefull , but many wayes harmefull .

As for the Iesuites Opposition , I will not say much , but leaue them to speake for themselues , as I doubt not but they can very sufficiently , in this businesse , as they haue done heertofore in other occasions , though in this they need not say much for themselues ; for any man may see , by the Deuines manner of speaking , how well he wisheth them , & consequently how litle , or no credit is to be giuen to what he sayth of them . Yet for this matter in particular although I neuer had fee to speake for them , euen out of the loue I beare to Innocency , I will tell a thing of myne owne knowledg , which as it hath made me belieue , all that such men say of the Iesuits , to be false , so it may well do others : and it is this . I knew a Priest , now a Blessed Martyr in heauen , who long had a mind to enter amongst them , and by false suggestions of some , he was with held for many years . And at the last , when being still more vehemently moued by Gods holy spirit to prosecute his good desyres , a greate man of the Cleargy , who shall be namelesse in this place , to dehort him , tould him the Iesuits made a vow , or an oath ( I know not now well whether ) to oppose the hauing of a Bishop , which thogh it cooled the good mans desyre for the present , yet when he informed himselfe better , and found that false , he belieued all the other fables that were tould him to be false , as indeed afterwards he also found them . So , I hauing seene better proofe for clearing of the Iesuits in this point , then this Deuines authority for accusing them , will forbeare to belieue any thing he sayth of them . Only , If they should haue hindred it , foreseeing all this stirre & inconuenience which hath hapned since the Bishops comming , who can wonder if they would haue hindred it , if they could , though I am most credibly informed they neuer medled not spake word all the tyme it was now last in treaty . Heertofore indeed when they were called to Councell they spake what they thought , as it is the part of any honest man . But this last tyme being not called , they did not speake a word , nor mooue a foot in it . For , what is it to them ? Do not they liue aswel where ther be Bishops as where there be none ? I trow they do : why then should they hinder it ? And thus much for the Deuines third poynt of Temerity .

4. The fourth poynt of Temerity , as he sayth , is that these 3. priuate men erect a new Tribunall , neuer heard of before , from which there is no Appeale , in saying that the matter they speake of , viz. of their dangers , admitteth no further question , which the Deuine interpreteth , as if they would iudge vpon a Bishop , and vpon Ecclesiasticall Authority , so as no further question is to be made . What a friuolous obiection is this for a man to make ? Or with what conscience can he transferr● their words which they speake of the certaynty and manifestnesse of their owne daungers to so different sense , as if they did take vpon them to iudg of Bishops & Ecclesiasticall Authority , so , as if from them there were no appeale ? Nay what affinity is there betweene the bare affirmation of a thing , by saying it is out of doubt , and , erecting a new Tribunall ? This mans head is so filled with Miters , that he dreameth of nothing but Tribunals . This is too to grosse : and as for saying , that these three priuate men erect a a new Tribunall , as if it were but the act of three , I haue touched that before , and shall do agayne afterwards .

The 5. point of Temerity he saith lyeth in these words , from which ( he putteh this parenthesis of his owne ) refusing the Bishops authority ) we cannot recede for the reason aforesayd ; which , he sayth , is a temerarious profession of disobedience not only to the Bishop their immediate Pastour , but also to the Pope . That , from which the Catholickes say they cannot recede , is the substance of the Letter concerning the difficulty of a Catholike Tribunal , and danger which ensueth thereof to themselues , which what disobedience can it be ? Agaynst what Authority is it ? for there is no obedience , nor disobedience but where there is Authority . What power is it that commaundeth men not to speake the truth in matters of Fact , that so much concerne them ? What Law , what Superiour , can abridge them of this liberty , though he were a knowne Superiour ? Much lesse heere where the question is , whether my Lord Bishop haue Authority ouer Catholiks or not , or what he may haue , as things stand ? For to be bound to obey , there be these three things requisite at least ; that the thing commaunded be possible ; that the party that commaundeth be a Superiour ; and that others be subiect in that kind , wherein they are commaunded , or in the matter of command ▪ for men are not subiect to al Superiors in all kinds , but to one in one kind , and to another in another . So as this Deuine , shoud first by proofe haue put it out of question , that my Lord Bishop hath the authority he pretendeth . Secondly , that , that authority can stand with the present gouernment and state of Catholikes . Thirdly , that Catholiks are so farre subiect to him in matter of life and temporall fortunes , as to hazard all for acknowledging and obeying his Authority . And hauing made good all this , he might then haue accused them of Temerarious Disobedience . But till then , it were more honesty and wisdome to forbeare his Censures . And this order was more suteable with the order of the Letter ; wherin hauing first sayd they were persuaded they could not be bound to hazard the ruine of their state and posterity , where the necessity of professing their fayth doth not oblige them , they conclude consequently that they cannot recede &c. But the Deuine had an eye in this to his conueniency , reseruing this poynt for the last , therin to shew his Diuinity , which he hath hitherto made litle shew of : and so now he commeth to that which followeth .

6. Their 6. point of Temerity , sayth the Deuine , is in their words ; neyther can we be persuaded that there is a necessity of conforming our selues therunto ( Episcopall power ) ( obserue these two words of the Deuines owne putting in by the parenthesis , and by way of glosse ) as to a matter of fayth ▪ or yet , that we can be obliged to loose our state , and ruine our posterityes , where the necessity of profession of Fayth doth not oblige vs . Vpon which words the Deuine descanteth : asking , what is this , but to get vp into the Bishops chayre , and teach him how far they are obliged ; where he sayth that as long as they taught , what was common law , they were to be heard ; but that where they come to teach the duty of a Christian , they passe the duty of a Christian . And then he teacheth , that it is a matter of Fayth , that there ought to be Episcopall power in Gods Church ; and that the Pastors are to be obeyed , and that although particulars be not matter of fayth , yet men are bound out of the vertue of Religion to hould them so , where there is no cause of doubt . For , sayth he , it sufficeth that they are obliged to obey theyr lawfull Pastour , and that they haue no reasonable cause to doubt but that the Bishop of Clalcedon is such to them : and so concludeth , that they erre exceedingly if they thinke that they are not bound to conforme themselues to any thing but matters of fayth ; for that they are bound to conforme their willes to matters of religion , obedience , or other vertues commaunded by God , & his Church , as they do their vnderstanding to matter of faith . Thus the Deuine discourseth , more it seemeth to shew his Diuinity , then to speake to the purpose : for what needed al this whereof there is no question ; as that it is the institution of Christ , that there should be Episcopall Authority in the Church ; that lawfull Pastors are to be obayed ; that men are no lesse bound to the practise of other vertues , then the profession of fayth ? Who denieth all this ? Or what was there in the Letter , that being rightly taken might enforce any such discourse ? The Catholickes meaning therfore is playne that the acknowleging or obaying such Authority , as my Lord Bishop now pretendeth heere in England , as things stand , is not a matter of necessity to the profession of the Catholike fayth , or exercise of any other vertue necessary for a good Christian . But that they may be good Catholickes without it , as they haue approued themselues before God & the world these 60. yeares : which if it had been necessary , the Sea Apostolike would neuer haue suffered them to want a Bishop so long . This was the thing the Deuine should haue touched , without going about the bush : now what Temerity is it for any lay man in the world to say this ? Or wherin doth he take vpon him more than he should ? How doth he teach the Bishop ? or , by saying this how doth he passe the duty of a good Christian ? What crime is it for a man now in time of heresy & persecution , where the profession and exercise of the Catholique fayth , is dangerous to his life and fortune , when he shall be vrged by my Lord Bishop to further exercise or profession therof then is necessary , to make answere , that he thinketh he cannot be bound vnto it ? Will this Deuine in good company and before learned men say , he can ? No , no , hee will be better aduised whatsoeuer he writeth . Nay this thing is so playne , and so necessarily included in the Common practise of the Catholique fayth , all this tyme of persecution , as I wonder this Deuine should thinke it such a matter for a lay man to speake so much Diuinity . He need not ; for his will be neuer the lesse , though all the world know it . And on the other side Catholiques haue beene so beaten to it , that there is no man can but know it . For what hath made them stand out against the oath of Supremacy , going to Church , the oath of allegiance &c. but the necessary connexion that these things of their owne nature haue with the profession of their faith ? which were it not , all Catholiques in England know , they could not by any humane constitution be bound not to conforme themselues to our lawes in this behalfe , the dangers being such as they are . Now they see , that the hauing of a Bishop at this time with such Authority as is pretended , is not of such necessity on the one side , as these things ; and on the other side of no lesse danger , and therfore they thinke , they cannot be bound to it . Is this such a deep point of Diuinity , as a Lay man may not presume to know it ? Or if he know , not speake ? Or if he speake of it , he must be sayd to get vp into the Bishops Chayre ? Who would thinke a Deuine would trifle thus ? But let vs see more : he enlargeth himselfe in this , as being in his iudgement a substantiall poynt of temerity , making another Paragraph of it . But before I haue done with this , I cannot omit to note the Deuines Parenthesis in the beginning of this 6. Paragraph , where to the words of the Letter , which say ▪ Neither can we be perswaded , that there is a necessity of conforming our selues heerunto , which they meane playnely of an Episcopall Tribunall as things stand . This Deuine with his parenthesis of ( Episcopall power ) maketh as though Catholiques deny conformity to Episcopall power in generall : which is a strange slight ; & I may say plaine corruption . But to goe on with him , he goeth forward thus . Like to this , is that other great errour of theirs , where they say they cannot be obliged to loose their estates , & ruine their posterityes , where the necessity of profession of fayth doth not oblige them . For saith he , they are aswel obliged to loose their estates , nay liues also , where the exercising of any necessary Vertue doth oblige them , as where the profession of fayth doth . For example , he bringeth Ioseph the Patriarch , who was obliged to loose his estate and liberty , as well when the necessity of Chastity did bind him , as necessity of professing his fayth . So he sayth , Christians were no lesse bound to obay the decrees of the Apostles , them belieue their doctrine . And he brings the Authority of S. Thomas to proue , that he suffereth as a Christian , whosoeuer suffereth for doing any good ▪ or auoyding any euill ▪ saying withall of himself , that to loose their liues for acknowledging their lawfull Pastor , is to loose it for profession of their fayth . So the Church holdeth them for Martyrs , who would rather dy then subscribe to the condemnation of S. Athanasius &c. To this I answere , that the Deuine is very free to call this an errour , which by answering what he sayth against it , shall manifestly appeare to be a solide truth . For , that which he sayth first then , that a man is bound to loose not only his estate , but lyfe also , where the necessity of exercising any necessary vertue doth oblige him , no lesse then for the profession fayth , it is true ; but nothing pertinent to our purpose , which is , not to dispute whether a man be bound to hazard his lyfe and fortune for his fayth only , and not for other vertues : but whether he be bound to hazard all for a thing which is not necessary for profession of fayth , & is supposed not to fal vnder the necessary obligation of any other commandement , or vertue : and so the question may be the same of any other vertu , whether a man be bound to exercise it , when it is not necessary , with hazard of his life & fortune ; & this the Deuine rather seemeth to grant by requiring a necessity of exercising a necessary vertue to oblige a man : for I would aske him wherin is the necessity of exercising a necessary Vertue , as he calleth it , by acknowledging and admitting his Authority ? May we not haue all things necessary to saluation without it ? If not , how haue we done all this while ? If we may , what maketh this for his purpose ? You see then the Deuine would decline the question , by slipping asyde to another matter . For his example of the Patriarch Ioseph , I say there was a necessity of exercising a necessary vertue ( to vse the Deuines owne Phrase ( though it be not very good ) & therfore nothing to our purpose . But by the way I would know what he meaneth by necessary Vertue in this place , for my part I do not see what he can meane , other then an act which a man is bound to exercise ; so as eyther the word necessity , or necessary in his Phrase , is superfluous ; & then the meaning of his whole sentence is this . A man is bound to loose his life for exercising any vertue wherto he is bound , and so we are where we were at the first , to wit , whether al kinds of obligation bind at all tymes and in all circumstances , and with all manner of difficulties and daungers . For the Patriarch Ioseph , there is no doubt , but he was bound to hazard all , rather then his chastity , wherto the law of God and nature did bind him in that case : not so the hauing of a Bishop with Ordinary power in ours . For the Apostles Decrees , it is true , they are to be obeyed : but yet I would know of this Deuine , whether he thinketh a man bound rather to hazard his life or liberty , then to eat flesh in lent , or vpon a friday or saturday ? And so of other Apostolicall Precepts , which are not diuine Traditions , but enacted by them meerely out of their owne Authority . Onely heere I say , by this it is manifest , that there is difference betweene the obligation of profession of our fayth , which is wholy diuine , and obaying the Decrees of the Apostles , which are but human . For S. Thomas his Authority I reuerence it , and am therfore sorry to see it applyed by a Deuine to so litle purpose : for who denieth , but he sufferreth as a Christian , or for his fayth , and consequently is a Martyr , that suffereth for exercise of any vertue , or auoyding euen the least veniall sin ? For example a man perswadeth a yong woman , that hath many suiters to leaue the world , and become Religious ; some one of the suiters who is most earnest , and in most possibility to haue her , conceaueth a great hate against the party that perswadeth her to Religion , and so wayting his opportunity , killeth him for it . This man no doubt suffereth as a Christian in this case by S. Tho. his rule . But doth S. Thomas say , he is bound with foresight of this danger to perswade the woman ? No , nay will this Deuine say it ? What then is this to that which Catholiques say they cannot be bound to loose all , where there is not a necessity of profession of their faith ? But the Deuine inferreth heere ; that for a man to loose his estate for acknowledging his lawful Pastor ( I suppose he meanes the Bishop of Chalcedon with his power of Ordinary ) is to loose it for profession of his fayth . Be it so : what then ? Is this a matter of necessity or obligation as the case standeth ? If not , you say nothing : & this I say , supposing it an act of vertue , as the Deuine sayth it is . But now not to dehort any from this acknowledgment , but only to iustify a man that shal not acknowledg it for good reasons , I aske whether it be an act of vertue to acknowledge that Authority , which there is no sufficient ground for , but the Parties owne saying ; whereas there is much against it ? Is this discretion ? If not discretion , how can it be a vertue ? Besides , graunt he haue that Authority , but that this Authority is on the one side not necessary , and on the other syde daungerous , so as the Daunger and Inconuenience doth preponderate the conueniency or commodity . Is it discretion to be silent in this case , or is this profession of fayth , as our Deuine calleth it , ioyned with discretion ? Haue not many beene condemned therefore , both aunciently & modernely for want of discretion , euen in profession of their fayth . Is it vertue for men to put themselues into needlesse dangers , or not prudently to decline them when they may without offence ? What such special vertue then is it , to acnowledge my Lo. of Chalcedons Ordinaryship , and submit to his Tribunall , being no way necessary to the profession of faith & being on the other side so daungerous as it is ? Neyther doth this Deuines example of S. Athanasius his followers help . For first , it was an vniust , and wicked thing in it self to subscribe to the condemnation of an Innocent man , the which for al the world a man may not do . Secondly , the persecution of Athanasius being known to be for defence of the Catholique Faith & beliefe , to subscribe to his condemnation was held in that tyme to be a deniall of a mans Fayth , concerning the Diuinity of Christ . So heere was a necessity ( to vse the Deuines phrase ) of exercising two necessary vertues , Iustice and Fayth . In our case no such matter . So that all this wind hitherto shaketh no corne . Now then I come to Caietans Authority , which indeed commeth neere the poynt . For he putteth the question aright , whereas the Deuine leades vs out of the way all this while . And it is this ; An lex humana ita obliget in conscientia quòd homo teneatur mori pro eius obseruatione ? To which he sayth that some teach this position , Non habet ●anc potestatem nisi in causa fidei , vel tuend 〈…〉 republica . Which he sayth is erroneous & false Doctrine : and proueth it by diuers reasons as our Deuine sayth , whereof he bringeth this one . Lex humana est obligatiua ad peccatum mortale , vt manifeste patet , cùm praecipitur aliquid sub poena capìtis : Ergo est constitutiua alicuius actus , in hoc quòd sit peccatum mortale : Est ergo obligatiua ad ●uitandum magis actum illum , quàm mortem corporalem , quia mors animae fugienda est magis quàm mors corporis And after saith , Nos autem secundum veritatem dicimus , quòd vniuersaliter lex praeceptiua obligat ad mortem pro sui obseruatione , in casu autem , non ex benignitate legum . From whence our Deuine concludeth , that it is false and erroneous doctrine to teach that men are not bound to loose their estates , & ruine their posterities where necessity of profession of Fayth doth not oblige them ; but that they are bound to loose both estate & life euer where the necessity of a lawfull command doth oblige them vnder mortall sin . And such no doubt it is to acknowledge and obey their lawfull Pastour ( as he sayth . ) Heere you see Caietans Doctrine , and our Deuines Inference . To which I answere first , that our Deuine cannot be ignorant how little Authority in many matters Caietan carrieth in schooles now a dayes , though he were a great Doctor in his tyme , and this in regard of his singularity in many points of great moment and freedome in censuring other mens opinions . Both which faults he seemeth somewhat to commit in this place . For as for singularity , he can hardly escape it , hauing but one only man of the whole schoole of Deuines to hold with him , who is Adrianus , of his owne tyme , or rather a little after him ; so as when he taught it , it was singular among Deuines for any testimony that is extant , & since , he hath not any one man but Adrian to follow him : which being so , then is it manifest that he falleth fowly into that other fault of censuring Doctrine as erroneous and false , which was approued and taught in his owne tyme by learned men , and that it seemeth with such likelyhood , that all Deuines of ensuing tymes haue left his , & followed this . Though in this he be not so much to be blamed , not being able to forsee what men would say that came after , as our Deuine , who liueth now , and cannot but know it to be allowed and taught by all learned men . All whom this Deuine in alleadging and approuing Caietanes censure , doth condemne , which is a great fault in a man of his profession . But to let that goe ; In my opinion it had beene more for our Deuines purpose to haue alleadged Caietanes bare Authority without his reason . This reason which he bringeth , being Caietanes best reason , as is to be presumed in our Diuines Iudgment ( for sure he would bring the best ) and it prouing nothing worth , it will appeare that he hath no reason at all : for his reason is this . An humane Law may oblige a man vnder mortall sinne , as when a thing is commanded vpon paine of death ; but a man is bound rather to loose his life then commit a mortal sinne : Ergo a man may be bound to loose his life for the obseruation of it . To this I might answere first that his first Proposition is not altogether so certaine . Nauar. apud For that some great schollers not inferior to Caietan for Authority in schooles in morall matters , Tol. lib. ● . c. ●0 . 〈…〉 . are of opinion , that no humane ciuill law doth bind vnder mortall sinne . But I do not build vpon that . And therefore I answere secondly , that Caietanes reason , is petitio Principij , and consequently no reason , taking the very thing in question , though deliuered in other words , for a reason of his saying . For it is the same question , whether an humane law can bind a man vnder mortall sinne , to losse of goods or life , but in case where there is some higher obligation proceeding from the law of God , or nature : and whether an humane law can oblige him to loose his fortunes and life , where there is no necessity of profession of his Faith , or other higher bond . And this is it which Caietan with one other Deuine sayth , and all other Deuines gainesay him in . And the reason is manifest . For , a law being to be for the common good , and the power by which it is made , proceeding originally from the people ( if we speake of ciuill or Politicall power ) and giuen for that end , it were a great abuse of that power , to force men to so great domage as to hazard fortune and life , but where it is meerly necessary for that end : for men are not supposed to be so voyde of reason , as to cast away themselues so freely . Now in that case of common good the law of nature doth come in , and fortify that bond . The like we may say of Ecclesiasticall humane power , which though it come originally from God , not from the people , yet reason doth prescribe the vse of it : and a Law made thereby to the domage and hurt of mens fortunes & liues , without a necessity , for their eternall good , would rather proue preiudiciall then profitable , and therfore no Law . Nay , to matters of extraordinary difficulty , though otherwise good and holy , euen Religious men are not many tymes bound . That Ordinary Example , which authors bring of a Religious man entring heere in Europe , who , they say , by his generall Vow of Obedience is not bound vpon his Superiours commaund to go to the Indies through so many dangers by sea & land : How much lesse then can secular men be bound with daunger of life and ruine of their fortunes , to thinges not absolutly necessary to fayth and saluation ? Such as is , the not acknowledging and obeying of my Lo Bishop of Chalcedons Ordinariship . And therfore no matter fit for so great an obligation , as the losse of life , and ruine of a mans posterity . Wherefore that must needs faile , which our Deuine buildeth vpon Caietanes Authority , as the foundation : to wit that men are bound to loose all , not only for profession of Faith , but also where the necessity of a lawful commaund obligeth them , if he meane the necessity which a commaund doth bring with it subsequent , as an effect ; which he must meane for his purpose . For as I haue said all this while , all commaunds do not bind in all occasions , and then there is no such necessity , or rather it is no law or commaund in this case being not able to bind . Therfore to auoyd all ambiguity & equiuocation of the necessity of a lawfull commaund , I distinguish and say : If this necessity be antecedent and such as may be sufficient to ground such a commaund on because the thing is of necessity of it selfe for the saluation of a mans soule or the publique good this commaund is lawful & the necessity sufficient to bind a man to the losse of life & goods : if not , but only the necessity subsequent , that is , because it is commanded , I say , this is no sufficient ground for a man to hazard all ; neyther is it a commaund in this case , hauing no power to oblige , as I haue proued . And so much for our Deuines Diuinity , which hath foyled him in this point of Doctrine contradicting the whole current of Deuines . Let him looke Bonacin . to . 2. disp. 2. q. 8. punct. 2. n. 3. & seq. Now to his temerity againe .

7. The seauenth point of temerity saith he ( if I may giue it so sharpe a terme ) is in these words : We also most humbly beseech your Lordship , to belieue , that this which we heere present vnto you , is the sense of the Laity ; whereas scarce 30. Laymen knew of the writing of this Letter : & since they knew of it , many hundreds haue disclaymed from it , & openly protested against it , some of them not accounting those Catholiques that wrote this Letter . Hitherto are the Deuines owne words . And then he Rhetorically amplifieth it : asking whether it be the sense of the English Catholike laity , that a Bishop lawfully sent by the sea Apostolike doth vsurp authority ? must do nothing against the setled Order of the state , in matter of spirituall Iurisdictition ? That a Catholique Episcopall tribunall is a new Tribunall in England ? & so in like sort he reckoneth vp Epilogically al his former temerities , and prayeth , God forbid that such presumption should be the sense of the Laity . And that rather the quite contrary is their sense , to wit ; to accept the Bishop for their lawfull Pastor ; to thanke his holynes for sending him ; to be as ready if not more , to venture the losse of their estate for entertayning a Bishop their Pastor , as for entayning regular Priests : and this he saith many hundreds haue testified by word , writing , and deeds .

This point it seemeth is a shrewd one in the Deuines iudgment : wherfore he would fayne haue a worse tearme then Temerity for it . But let him stay , and see whether it deserue euen that , any more than the rest that went before . To say that this is the sense of the layty , wheras scarce 30. knew of the writing of the Letter , he sayth is Temerity . Yea is it euen so ? Did 30. know of it ? how commeth it then that all this while you spake but of 3. calling it the three Lay-mens Letter , in the very title , & afterwards continually speaking but of three ? It is wel increased suddainly from three , to thirty . But meane while hath not our Deuine strangely forgotten himselfe confessing & confuting himselfe out of his owne mouth ? For if 30. or neer 30. were priuy to the writing of the Letter , and did not disclayme ( as if they had done , the Deuine would not haue passed it ouer in silence ) it is to be presumed that they did consent therto . If they did consent , then was it their act , not the act of those 3. alone : and what these 3 did , they did in the name of the rest . Therefore those 30. are subiect to al the Deuines censures of passion and temerity no lesse than those 3. But he thought better to lay al vpon 3. because he thought he might be the boulder in his censures , the smaller the number was , therfore he made it lesse to himselfe , though contrary to his owne knowledge , as is manifest by this his Confession . Well to go on , we haue 30. may there not be a great many more , that he doth not know of ? Will he arrogate so much to himselfe as to know all that passeth in priuate amongst men ? might not many vtter their mynds so priuately in this matter to their friends , as not only not the Deuine , but no man else but the party , that they spake to , shall know it ? How then doth this Deuine , so peremptorily affirme , that there were scarce 30. priuy to it ? As if no man did any thing but they came presently and told him : but he must excuse me for not belieuing that , but rather it is to be presumed that if he could come to the knowledge of 30. there were fiue tymes as many at least , that knew of it , & are not knowne to euery one , considering the secret manner of carrying things of this kind among Catholiques .

And so much this Deuine might truly haue imagined , at least belieued , when this Letter was deliuered by 3. such persons in the name of the Laity , being euery one of them of such worth , as might deserue credit in a greater matter then this . For it is no way to be presumed , that any one of them would do such a thing in the name of others without very good warrant from them , especially seing they might be so easily disauowed . Nay it cannot be vnknowne vnto this Deuine , that they were warranted by most of the Catholiques of honour and quality , in , and about London , at the tyme of the writing the Letter : for my Lord Bishop himselfe , did then in a manner confesse as much . For to one Noble man very well knowne , he writ , that his Lordships Letter which he had written to disclayme from the Lay mens Letter , appeared vnto him like a starre in a cloud ; as if he were the only man that stood for him . And it can be no lesse knowne to this Deuine , what a do ther was to haue a contrary Letter written by some of my Lord Bishop friendes in the name of the laity to the contrary effect . But it would not succeed ; & why ? But because that none that considered the state of Catholique affaires heere in England and what consequences the Authority of Ordinary brought with it , and withall had any care of their owne fortunes or common good , could thinke it safe for them to admit of such Authority . It is true , that if a man , aske ordinary people that diue not into the matter , whether they acknowledge my Lord of Chalcedon for their Pastour , or some perhaps who vnderstand the matter better , but haue not much to loose ; it may be they will easily answeare , they acknowledge him for their Pastor . And this is the way which hath beene vsed , with those hundreds , which this Deuine sayth haue disclaymed from this Letter . But though they were more , it made not much matter . And though there should be but 30. that were priuy to this Letter , might not those 30. be of such account , as might be more worth then many of this Deuines hundreds ? I belieue they might . For they are the cheif men for honour and estate that are most to be regarded in this matter , as being the men vpon whome the credit of the Catholique cause most dependeth ; and who , for a thing that shal be subiect to exception , are most like to suffer : & therfore they might well say the Laity , being the cheifest and better part ; and what they wanted in number they might counteruayle in worth . This letter then is the sense of the Laity , not wrested and wrung , not glossed and commentaryed by the Deuine at his pleasure , but in the plaine and obuious meaning of the very wordes , farre from passion , and temerity , as I haue here shewed . And so I come to the 3. Section , the title wherof is this .

Sect. 3. That the motiues of the three men , were not all humayne , and worldly .

IN this 3. section the Deuine examineth what the Lay mens motiues were to resist the restoring of Episcopall power , or rather to impugne and banish it , as he saith , according to his vsuall manner , after it is restored by the Sea Apostolique , which seing , saith he , that it is diuine supernaturall , instituted by Christ , appointed by the Holy Ghost to gouerne the Church , obserued alwayes in the Church in all tymes of persecution whatsoeuer , profitable for administring Confirmation , hallowing of Oyles , keeping vnity and good life , the motiues had need be good ; and then he reduceth al to two : viz. feare of losse of worldly fortunes , and troubles by contrariety of sentences betwixt the Bishops Court and the Protestantes . But then picketh out a third , which he saith , was the true motiue , deliuered somewhat in a couert manner : to wit , that the Regulars may be freed from the Bishops approbation . Out of which he deduceth certaine points for the lay men to consider . 1. whether it be fit for them to impugne spiritual & diuine Authority vpon mere worldly motiues , and such as may better be obiected against Priestly Authority , it being forbiddden by moderne lawes ; Bishoply authority being not forbidden by them expressely . Secondly whether it beseeme them to reiect Episcopall Authority , and the certaine spirituall commodityes therof , for vncertaine or rather pretended temporal dangers . Thirdly how farre they are from the Catholique Africans , who would haue a Bishop , notwithstanding the persecution threatned by the African King if they had one . 4. Whether it beseeme them to impugne a Bishop their Pastor in behalfe of Regulars not their Pastours Fifthly , whether Regulars deserue this at their handes , since for the quiet of their Penitents consciences , they would not aske the Bishops approbation , though he offered it vnder his hand and seale , that it should be no preiudice to them , wheras the Bishop for quiet of mens consciences with his owne preiudice approued Regulars though they would not aske it . This is the whole discourse of this Section .

To which I say first , that he committeth a very foule fault for a man of learning , in misreporting and mistaking the question , by saying that the Lay-men resist , impugne , and banish Episcopall Authority : whereas it is nothing so . For it neuer came into the hart of any Cathoque man , much lesse of any of these Lay men to question or make doubt of Episcopall Authority in general . But the question being of my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon who came into England with a forraine title of a Bishopricke in Greece , but with Authority to be exercised heere in England , what Authority is giuen , what Authority can fitly be exercised , & how far Lay Catholiques stand bound , if new Tribunals with power in foro externo , or Ordinary power be erected . And he clayming such Authority , they whome it most concerned , declared theyr sense and iudgment concerning these points : which it seemeth our Deuine would needs mistake and draw the question another way to make himselfe a little more roome to discourse at liberty , of Episcopall Authority , crying out a Pastor , a lawfull Pastor &c. because what they sayd , was so iust and consonant to reason , as he could not impugne it . Wherfore it is no wonder that of all this deal , he saith there is so litle sayd to the purpose . Secondly for the motiues , he saith not much against them : but only taketh vpon him to iudge of the secrets of harts , by saying , the principall motiue was to free Regulars from approbation . Wherein I might aske him , by what Autbority he taketh vpon him to iudge of such matters as are not subiect to the iudgment of the Church it selfe ? for , Ecclesia non iudicat de occultis . But I need not presse him heere : for it is ordinary with him to censure men meerly out of his owne imagination . Now for his Corollary demands , I answer to the first , that it supposeth falsly , that they impugne spirituall Authority , which they do not . Secondly , it may stand with very good reason for a man to desire sometymes not to be vrged to the acknowledgment and admittance of such a speciall Authority out of feare of temporall daunger of life or fortunes , which though they be in themselues temporall things , yet being desired or preserued discreetly with reference to a spirituall end , as they may be , and as it may be presumed good men desire them , they are in a kind spirituall . Thirdly , these motiues do not make against Priestly Authority so much as against the Authority of a Bishop , for they speake only of a Tribunall , or power in foro externo , which doth not belonge to Priests , as Priests , and which is against our auncient Lawes , as is sayd before , which is worse then to be against our moderne lawes . Besides the Authority of a Bishop is more against our modern laws , for he cometh with Authority and iurisdiction deriued from the sea of Rome , not only in foro interno , but also in foro externo , which is much more against the intendement of our lawes , howsoeuer it be against the words : and this may appeare by the Proclamations , and Persecutions which haue been for him in particular . Lastly put case the daunger were the same yet God doth bind men to the one , as being a thing of necessity for the saluation of their soules , but not to the other , being no way helpfull to their soules in these circumstances , but daungerous to their Liues and Fortunes .

But because this Deuine maketh such frequent mention & so sure account that Episcopall Authority is not more , if not lesse against our moderne lawes then Priestly power , this later being by them expresly forbidden , the other not , as he saith ; I thinke it not amisse heere in a word to shew it to be forbidden both expresly , & vpon greater penalty . For first the Law of 27. Eliz. which maketh it felony to receiue , relieue , and maintaine , or comfort a Priest , maketh it felony to do the same to any religious or ecclesiastical person . Now I presume the Deuine will not a Bishop to be an Ecclesiastical person : how then can he say , he is not expresly forbidden . It may be he meaneth , because he is not forbidden by the name of a Bishop : true , I graunt the word Bishop is not there ; no more is the word monke , or friar ; much lesse Benedictine , Dominican , Franciscan &c. and yet who can say that these are not expresly forbidden by the law in the word Religious person ? If this Deuine say againe that they are forbidden in the word Seminary , or other Priest , so say I also of a Bishop . It is cleare then , that a Bishop is also expresly inough , & as much forbidden by that law as a Priest : & this our proclamations sufficiently shew , as that 1. Caroli Regis for banishment of Priests and Iesuits , wherein the word Bishop was also expressed . Now for the penalty of reconcilement , it is true it is treason to be absolued or reconciled by a Priest . And is it not so by a Bishop also ? yea verily as much one as other , for in the nature of reconcilement neither one nor other is named : where in I cannot but wonder why this Deuine should so specially note , that it is treason to be reconciled by Priests . The matter then for that , is all one .

But to go a little further with him , I say , it is not Treason for a man to heare masse , to receiue the Blessed Sacrament , to be baptized , married , annoyled , or the like , or to do any act in acknowledgement of his Priesthood , except only absolution & reconciliation ; wheras it is farre otherwise of a Bishop . For not only to be absolued or reconciled by him , but euen to promise any obedience vnto him is high treason in the Doer , Counsellour , or A bettor , much more to do any act in conformity of his Episcopal power in foro externo , as to appeare before him vpon his citation , to obey his censures , or the like : & this by a law of 23. Eliz. ( to wit 4. yeares before that other of receiuing , relieuing &c. of Iesuits & Priests ) where it is enacted that if any person shall promise any obedience to any pretended Authority of the sea of Rome , or of any other Prince , State , or Potentate , that then such person shal be taken , tried , and iudged , suffer and forfaite as in case of high Treason : in which words is plainely comprehended Episcopal power as such ; for it is deriued from the sea of Rome , whether it be delegate or ordinary . Or if it be Ordinary as that of Bishops in their diocesse , and as the Deuine takes my Lord of Chalcedons to be , then it is like it may be vnderstood in that word Prince , for such a Bishop is a spirituall Prince .

And that it may yet further appeare that his Episcopall power as such , is so forbidden by this law , I will put this Deuine a case thus . Suppose there should com one in hither sent by the Pope , without the order of Bishop , Priest , or any other order , but only with Episcopall power or iurisdiction , as he might be , to determine such causes heere among Catholiques , as Bishops do els where in their spirituall Courts ; would this case be comprehended in our Lawes thinks he , or not ? or would it not be Treason for men to promise him obedience , come to his Court , obey his censures , & c ? certainly it would ; & euen by this law of 23. Eliz. How then can this Deuine so confidently auerre , that Episcopall power is no more against our modern Lawes then Priestly ? But heere now I must intreate this Deuine to conceyue me right , for my intention is not to inforce Lawes against my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon , but only to answere his arguments , which force me to this , to shew that there may be some more daunger in Episcopall then Priestly power , for auoyding wherof Catholiques are not to be blamed , if they be lesse willing to admit of the one , then of the other , now in these tymes , wherein it is but good discretion for men to serue God , and exercise their religion with as little hazard of their Liues and Fortunes as they may .

To the second demaund , whether it beseeme them to reiect Episcopall Authority , and the certayne spirituall commodityes therof , vpon vncertaine or rather pretended daungers . I answere as to the first , that it supposeth falsly , that they reiect spirituall Authority . For they reuerence it , though nothing seemes reuerence to this man , but yielding to his will . Secondly , they do not refuse any spirituall commodity that commeth therby , as Confirmation , hallowing of Oyles , or whatsoeuer else doth not concerne such manner of Ordinary Authority , as they cannot safely admit , for the reasons alleadged in their Letter ; which this man sayth , are vncertaine or pretended : which conceit of pretented , so much pleaseth the Deuine , that he maketh a distinct section of it , & therfore if it deserue any answere , I will make it there .

To the 3. demaund , how far short they are of the zeale of the Affrican Catholiques , who would rather venture a persecution , then want a Bishop ; I answere , it is well knowne , Catholiques heere want no zeale to Bishoply Authority , who haue suffered so long & sharpe persecution for the Authority of the sea Apostolique , which they haue defended with losse of goods , and life , for admitting of Priests sent by the Authority therof : which that holy sea considering , with great wisdome and charity hath so tempered things all the tyme of persecution , that as on the one side it hath sent Priests with sufficient Authority for our instruction , administration of Sacraments , & other necessary matters : so on the other side it hath for borne to presse vs further for the admittance of such Authority , at is more dangerous then needfull . And who can blame vs if we desire the continuance of the same course still , till God send better times ? And if our zeale be the same to the sea Apostolique ( for whose Authority we suffer , and vpon whome we desire therfore to depend immediatly , as vpon our proper Pastour ) as those Catholiques had to their particular Bishop , of what can any man iustly taxe vs ? Are we worse Catholiques ? Nay are we not rather so much better Catholiques as we depend more neerly of the Head of the Catholique Church ? Besides our case is different from the Africans in many respects : they had no other meanes of maintaining the succession of Priests , for administration of the Sacraments , and preseruation of the Catholique fayth , but by a Bishop of their owne ; we haue . They desired a Bishop of their owne ; we should also be glad of such a one ; as for example a Catholique Bishop of Canterbury , London &c. if it might be ; but not a Bishop of another Diocesse , to come in hither as Ordinary ; for that is against our auncient Catholique Lawes . Their Bishops seas were not possessed by others , ours are : and the like . This Deuine therefore doth vniustly taxe vs of want of zeale to our immediate Pastor . Besides , the example of the Africans is often answered , & proued to make quite against the Deuines end .

To the 4. demaund , which is , whether it beseeme them to impugne a Bishop who is their Pastor , in behalfe of Regulars , who are not their Pastors : I answere , that still this Deuine supposeth a false ground of impugning a Bishop . Now for a Pastor , we know not what he meaneth by it . If he meane one with power to preach , teach and administer Sacraments without other ordinary forrayne power , we graunt he is a Pastour . But then why should not other Priests be also Pastours , hauing the same power ? and Regulars as well as seculars ? for it is not the name of a Bishop only . For any Priest that cometh heere into England is more our Pastor , then the Bishop of Paris , Lyons , Burdeaux , or any such Bishop who hath nothing to do heer , but by speciall commission ; which if it be no more then is giuen to other Priests , than is he no more Pastour then they . Will this Deuine say my Lord of Chalcedon is a Pastour otherwise ? Say it perhaps he may ; but proue it I thinke he cannot . Sure I am his Breue or Commission importeth no such thing , but all the contrary ; as that he is Delegate , his power reuokable , that it is only for the spirituall good of soules It is signified by the word Facultyes , which signifieth power in him , but no obligation on the other part to obey , & we vnderstand the ordinary forme of creating a Bishop for ordinary Pastour to be this : Prouidemus Ecclesiae tali , de tali persona : & praeficimns cum in Patrem , ac Pastorem ac Episcopum eiusdem Ecclesiae , cōmittentes ei administrationem in temporalibus & spiritualibus , in nomine patris , & filij , & spiritus sancti . Amen . The omission of this ordinary forme , and auoyding of all words which might signify any power or Authority , maketh vs verily belieue his Holines neuer meant to make him Ordinary , or Pastour , other then in that general sense , that al that are sent with power of instructing men & administring of Sacraments may be called Pastours . And this power euery body willingly affoardeth him . As for that which our Deuine sayth , that the Laity impugne the Bishop in behalfe of Regulars , I say , that the one is euen as true as the other . For they nether impugne him ( but he them ) nor do what they do in behalfe of the Regulars , but of themselues , & their owne right : for it is their owne liues & fortunes which they defend : and as for the Regulars they defend their owne priuiledges of another kynd , & no doubt , will be able of themselues to do it , without help of the Laity , being so learned as to know how farre they ought to yield , or not to yield to his Lordship , and so vertuous as not to deny him any thing that is due .

To the 5. demaund , whether Regulars deserue this at the hands of the lay men , since for quiet of their consciences they would not aske approbation , though the Bishop offered to giue it vnder his hand & seale , that it should be no preiudice to them ; wheras the Bishop as the Deuine sayth , for quiet of lay men consciences approued the Regulars to his owne preiudice , though they would not aske it . I answere that lay mens consciences were quiet enough , till my Lord Bishop beganne to disquiet them with needles scruples : & that therfore they were not so much beholding to him for quieting them afterwards , as they were little beholding to him for disquieting them at first . Secondly Lay men saw well enough , it was some thing else then the quiet of their consciences which moued his Lordship to that course of mouing approbations : to wit , to haue his Authority which he pretendeth , therby published and acknowledged . For otherwise he might either haue approued all Regulars without more a do at first , or haue dealt the matter priuatly with them : and they denying to aske approbation , he might haue expected the award of the Sea Apostolique , without further acquainting Lay Catholiques , who , he might be sure , for all yet he could say , would securely rely their consciences vpon the word of so many , so vertuous , and so learned men , as are in the seuerall Orders of Regulars . Besides , that they , the Regulars , giue so good reason in their owne Letter to the Bishop , and there were so many & so good reasons alleadged in a shorter letter of a Priest for that matter , that no man that would be ruled by reason , would either doubt of the power of Regulars to heere confessions , or thinke that my Lord Bishop himselfe , being so learned a man , could doubt of it , & therfore they might wel thinke he meant that but by the By , and aimed at another matter principally : and so they answered that which seemed to them the principal matter more largly , and touched the other but briefly .

Now , for Regulars to aske his Lordships approbation where the matter was so manifest , was wholy vnnecessary ; besids , that though his Lordship should giue it vnder his hand and seale that it should be no preiudice to them , it is like they knew it might be preiudiciall in some respect or other : for the very asking it as necessary , argueth a dependency . But for his Lordships approbation , which this Deuine saith , he gaue to Regulars with his owne preiudice , I do not see wherein it can be preiudiciall , for he approued them but only for a time til the matter be decided , & without preiudice of his owne , or his successours right : wherein then hath he yielded one iot of his right , suppose he had any ? Nay this manner of granting it was a putting of himselfe in possession . In which respect the Regulars were wise inough not to make any acceptance of it . Or wherein hath he more obliged the Laymen , then the Regulars haue , vnlesse it be by disquieting them with new pretences ? And for some part of satisfaction , approueth all Regulars , whereby he obligeth Catholiques , like as that man doth that first breaketh anothers head , and then giueth him a plaister . So much then for that answere of this Deuines demaunds , and clearing what he sayth of the Laymens motiues .

But what if before I passe to another Section ▪ I should touch a little vpon the the motiue which maketh the Deuine and others of his mind to be so vehement in the pursuite of this pretended Authority , that they will heare no reason to the contrary ? They say , it is spirituall good of soules by administring the Sacrament of Confirmation , by hallowing oyles , by keeping vnity and good life ; because it is the institution of Christ , because it hath beene obserued in Gods Church , in all tymes of persecution . But these cannot be the motiues ; for as for Confirmation and hallowing of oyles , it is cleare they may be without the authority of Ordinary , & therefore cannot be the ground of such claime . For keeping vnity and good life , it is as cleare , that Authority can do litle in it , as things stand now , and that it is only perswasion and fayr meanes that must do it . For the institution of Christ , sure it is not , that in all places , and in all tymes there must of necessity be particular Bishops in euery particular Diocesse , or ▪ Country , for if it were so , then should those 10. Popes from Pius 4. to Paulus 5. haue offended grieuously in not creating a Bishop heere . Nay these two last viz. Greg. the 15. and his Holines that now is Vrbanus 8. should offend in not making so many Bishops as we haue Bishopricks . How then can this Deuine inforce out of the institution of Christ , that my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon should haue the Authority of Ordinary in England ?

For the obseruance of Episcopal power in the Church in all tymes of persecution , it is true , there haue euer beene Bishops , and would still be , though there should be no Ordinary in England for a tyme . But where , when , and how , for particular places , it hath euer depended vpon the wisdom of the Sea Apostolique , giuing Bishops in such manner , and with extent of power , as time & place hath required . So when some Citties or Countries haue beene first conuerted to the fayth , they haue giuen them Bishops ; when they haue quite fallen away , they haue forborne to giue them any ; & now heere in our Kingdome which hath fallen away by Heresy , yet so as there be some Catholiques left , with hope of totall restitution of the Catholique fayth , when Almighty God shall please , the Sea Apostolique dealeth most prudently , sending men hither with so much power as is necessary , and expedient for Catholiques at this tyme , reseruing the fullnesse of Ordinary Episcopall power , till the full restitution of Catholike Religion in this Kingdome . For , so Catholiques are well assured , that his Lordship is not Ordinary , howsoeuer the Deuine cry nothing but Pastour , and lawfull Pastour , at euery word . But men giue him the hearing : only they cannot but woūnder , that he should so brauely carry out the matter , as if there were no Declaration , or order to the contrary , when he cannot but know that my Lord Bishop hath had more orders than one to that purpose . Nay that my Lord Bishop hath acknowledged the receipt of them else where , though heere he do not , and hath promised to cease from further stirring , though we do not yet see the performance of it , vnlesse it be that his Lordship indeed forbeare , but that his Officers wil not be obedient to him in that wherin they may soone do his Lordship much wrong . For their faults wil be imputed to him .

Now , because this Deuine sayth Episcopall power hath beene euer obserued in the Church in all times of persecution whatsoeuer , inferring thereupon that here now in England there ought to be a Bishop ; I would wish him to consider whether euen in the primitiue Church , the persecution were like ours , in some respects : for though it were more bloudy● and the torments more various and cruel yet it was but by fits , and generally the Christians had their Cripts placed vnder ground , and howses dedicated to that vse , wherein they had a publike kind of exercise of their faith , & euen by publike allowance ; and Priests and Clergy men were distinguished by their habit & tonsure , or shauing of their crowne , as it is vsed now generally in the Catholique Church . But our case is farre different , for heere we haue much ado to heare Masse in a corner , as priuate as may be , without discouery : how much lesse might we haue those other things , which belong to the Authority of an Ordinary . But of this againe in another place .

These things considered , since none of these spiritual commodities which this Deuine speaketh off are necessarily connected with the Authority of Ordinary , neither are so necessary , but that a man may be a good Christian and Catholique without them , they cannot be the true motiue of pursuing the matter with such violence and heate , to the greater scandall and harme of the Catholique cause , then all the Authority my Lord Bishop would haue , or this Deuine haue for him , wil do good : and therefore men are induced to thinke that the true motiue is Ambition , desire of Rule , interest in the fortunes of Lay men , disposing of Legacies in maius bonum , as would be pretended , iudgement of controuersies betweene party & party without their consents ; and by little and little to draw into practise a vexation , by the seuerall tribunals , vpon Catholiques . This I will not say , but surely there be great presumptions for it ; for if their reasons were good , they would carry things with more temper , they would with a litle more patience endure to heare men propound their reasons to the contrary ; they would quietly expect the determination of the Sea Apostolique , and obey it when it commeth : besids that , in their very discourses they cannot but bewray somwhat of their minds , concerning Legacies & monyes for pious vses . But I will say no more of it , but passe to another Section .

SECT IIII. That the Temporall daungers are not meerly pretended .

THE Deuine in his 4. Section laboureth by many reasons to proue , that the temporall Daungers are but pretended ; which is but euen the same that he said in the former Section in other words . For though he sayth in the title that their motiues were worldly , yet in his discourse he sayth , that those were not their true motiues , but their passionatenesse to Regulars ; and so he sayth heere : yet I must yield to follow him , though he saith but the same things ouer againe . His first reason to proue the daungers to be only pretended , is , because they neuer mentioned those daungers till approbation was moued to Regulars , which was about Easter 1627. whereas Episcopal Authority had beene restored since the yeare 1623. I answere first , that wheras he sayth that Episcopall Authority was restored , I see not how that can be said to be restored which neuer was : for when was there euer a Bishop of Chalcedon in England with power of Ordinary in England , before this mans predecessour ? Secondly Catholiques did little dreame at first of any such Authority , as my Lord Bishop challengeth . For the forraine title of Chalcedon gaue them some assurance , that he was not to be a Bishop , like as in former Catholique tymes . And though they heard somtymes of the word Ordinary among some of my Lords Clergy , yet they made no great matter of it , not knowing any great ground . Notwithstanding they were desirous to know , what Authority the Bishop had , and for that cause vsed all the meanes they could to see his Letters , or Faculties , but they could not get a sight of them ; which made them begin to suspect somwhat , and so they began to be a litle more carefull then before , especially hearing of diuers things done by my Lord of Chalcedons officers , as Excommunicating of some , and threatning others ; as also comming to see the Letters Patents wherby his Lordship did create his . Archdeacons , true and lawfull Rulers , and Ecclesiasticall Superiours of the Laity ; which when they saw , they began to consult among themselues what was fit to be done . And all this was before , that euer my Lord of Chalcedon moued any thing about Approbation of Regulars . And without question they would haue done what they did for their owne security , though the matter of Approbation had neuer beene moued to Regulars . It may be when they saw the flame breake out so strong against Regulars , who were otherwise exempt , by challenging of a thing which could not belon● but to a proper Ordinary in his Diocesse , it might quicken them , & make them go about what they were doing , with a little more speed , and therupon they drew certaine points concerning my Lord of Chalcedons Authority , in which they were desirous to be resolued , and all of them concerning themselues , and such as they had heard , many of my Lord of Chalcedons Officers and friends speake of , as things that were like to be put in practise . But because it was not fit for them to go vpon vncertaine reports , they were desirous to know of my Lord of Chalcedon himselfe what his Lordship did conceiue to belong vnto him ; so that this Deuine is cleane out of his way , in making the matter of approbation of Regulars , the cause of the Laymens stirring .

His second reason to proue the daungers to be pretended only , is , because no man hath beene in daunger since the restitution of Episcopall Authority . For answer to this reason , I remit this Deuine to a great friend of my Lord Bishops , who is wont to alledge his fauour to my Lord Bishop , for a reason of the Kings displeasure towards him . I might for answer also alledge the Proclamations , & much and continual searching for him , which hath brought so great vexation vpon Catholiques , and vpon many Priests taken by his occasion , but that I list not much to medle in such a matter as this . Only this I may tell the Deuine , that my Lord Bishop himselfe , as I haue beene credibly informed , tooke notice and exception to the speachs of some Catholiques of worth , who spake feelingly of what they suffered by his occasion , and wished he would for auoyding their trouble , withdraw himselfe : which sheweth that Catholiques find the contrary of what this Deuine would make them beleeue .

His 3. reason is , because there can be no greater daunger iustly pretended against one Bishop , then against so many Priests , they being forbidden by the moderne lawes , and he being not forbidden by either moderne or ancient lawes . Wherto I answer , that as I haue shewed before , the daunger is far greater . For Episcopall Authority is so much more forbidden , as it is greater Authority , deriued from the sea of Rome , and a double Authority . For besides the iurisdiction of forum internum , which Priests haue , the Bishop would haue another of forum externum , which is much more against the moderne lawes , then the former . Besides that I haue shewed before , that the Authority which my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon challengeth , is truly against our ancient Lawes .

The 4. reason is , because there is no Law ancient or moderne against Catholique Episcopall Authority : for the ancient lawes forbid an extraordinary Tribunall , as that of Legates , and ordayne only for Catholique tymes , when there were true Episcopall tribunals , which they would not haue disturbed by extraordinary Tribunals , and so are rather in fauour of vsuall Episcopal Authority , as the Bishop of Chalcedons is , then any way against it ; that they are only against a new Tribunall , such as a Catholique Episcopall tribunall is not .

For this reason I answere , it is the same with the former , and hath beene oft repeated ; the often repetition of the same discouering the want of matter the Deuine hath . The substance of the argument I answered fully before in the answere to the 2. poynt of Temerity , where I shewed this Tribunall , which he pretendeth , to be new , and to be by many degrees more neere a Legatiue , then an Episcopall Tribunall , though indeed neither ; and so not onely extraordinary , but most extraordinary . Heere therfore I wil onely speake of that , which the Deuine decideth so plainly of my Lord of Chalcedons Tribunall , in saying the auncient lawes are rather in fauour of vsuall Episcopall Authority , such as my Lord Bishop of Chalcedons is ▪ wherin I cannot but note how this Deuine is a little more free in auouching my Lord Bishops Tribunall , or power in foro externo , then I belieue my Lord Bishop himselfe or some of his more wary Officers are , when they write , or speake to men of vnderstanding .

For though my Lord Bishops words in his owne Letter did seeme very plaine in this point , as that he was delegated by his Holynes to an vniuersality of causes belonging to Ordinaries , and that he was made a Iudge in prima instantia ; yet afterwards in a certayne Letter , to a Lady , which hath beene seene vnder his owne hand , his Lordship sayth , that concerning the new Tribunall , which some say he hath erected , it is a meere fiction , inuented without ground , for he neuer thought of erecting such a Tribunall , and that his Authority ouer them , is meerly spirituall ; as the wordes of his Breue are , in Spirituale bonum Catholicorum , to wit , to administer to them that Sacrament , which they cannot haue , but by a Bishop &c. And in conformity hereof , there being a meeting appointed by some of the Clergy , and some of the Layty , and Conference held concerning this Letter of my Lords to the Lady , those of the sayd Clergy , that were there ( and were lyke to know most of my Lord Bishops mynd ) acknowledged ; and conformably themselues sayd , that my Lord Bishop neuer intended any such Tribunall . And it went so far , as that the Lay Gentlemen drew a certayne Letter to the same effect , in explication of his Lordships first Letter , in which he sayd his meaning was mistaken , which his Lordship might please to write to the Laity , expressing as much to them , as he had done to the Lady ; which though it were no more then he had already written , and was confessed by his owne officers , yet he would not write it : for what reason I know not .

Nay , this Deuine himselfe in mayntayning this Tribunall , seemeth a little contrary to himselfe . For in his first section , and 3. point of Passion , he complayneth of the Gentlemen for stretching , as he sayth , my Lord Bishops words vpon the Tenter hooks , in that they vnderstood his Lordships words of an Episcopall Tribunall , or power , in foro externo . Whereas , sayth he , the Bishop speaketh onely of such Authority , as Ordinaries haue , or can hane in their Diocesse , and which was sufficient to exact of Regulars , that they should aske his approbation . And a little after : Where , sayth he , in all the Bishops Letter , is there one word of temporall Authority , or of Authority ouer temporall fortunes , or such as haue beene altered or directed by our Temporall Princes ? What word then of the Bishops enforced them to make this sense ? None surely but their owne passion , which made them make this forced sense , this forced inference . These are the Deuines owne words : which I do not see well , how he can reconcile with his words in this place . Wherfore , though I will not take vpon me to teach such a Deuine , yet I may say he should haue beene better aduised , and agreed better vpon his tale , both with himselfe and with others of his owne sayde , before he had fallen to write ; and so perhaps he might haue saued himselfe all this needlesse labour of writing , and me the labour of answearing ; for neyther he , nor any else can well tel what Authority they would haue for my Lord Bishop ; onely Authority they would haue for him , and for themselues : But what , or how , they cannot tell . For , fayne they would haue his Lordship to haue Authority of Ordinary : for without that , they cannot so well compasse their ends ; nor with it neyther , I may truly say . And yet they find such mayne obstacles on the other syde , making it not only difficult , but euen impossible , that they are fayne for shame sake to deny all such pretences . And thence it is , that sometymes they say one thing , sometymes another . Sometymes that he is Ordinary , sometymes that he hath faculties only for the spirituall good of Catholickes , &c. And they are so nice and wary , when they speake with people that vnderstand things , or may make any vse of their words , that one cannot tell well , what they say ; and yet they are more free of their tongue , then their penne . For they will not giue halfe that vnder their hands , which they talke freely . But if they went vpon a sure ground , and meant nothing but wel and fairely , what should all this need ?

Well then ; so it is , that the Deuine doth heere challenge more Authority for my Lord Bishop , to wit , a true Episcopall tribunal , then his Lordship doth for himselfe . For in his sayd Letter to the Lady vnder his own hand , he saith it is a fiction : to which Letter I remit this man for answere to his 4. reason . After these 4. substantiall reasons to proue that the daungers are only pretended , this Deuine cometh to answere that which the Lay men say in their Letter ; that the execution of this Episcopall Authority , alloweth no possibility of secrecy , by asking , why not aswell as the execution of Priestly function , who say masse , preach , and communicate before many scores of men , women , and Children ; whereas to the Bishops Tribunall there come no children , few women , and not many men . He asketh moreouer how the Bishop hath gone ouer almost all England , and confirmed many thousands with sufficient secrecy ? How was secrecy kept in the primitiue Church ? How is it now kept in Ireland and Holland ?

To this I answere , first , that it is no wonder , that such men as this Deuine , relate the case of English Catholiques elswhere as they please to strangers , when this Deuine will tell men heere at home such a tale as this is in writing . Secondly I tell him , though he cannot but know it , the Execution of Episcopall Authority in a Court , is of its own nature publique . There must of necessity be a Iudge , and other Officers ; there must be partyes ; there must be witnesses , there must be writing ; there must be records : some must be sometymes grieued ; some will complaine , some will appeale . Is any of all this needfull in hearing of Masse , Sermons , or receyuing of Sacraments ? May not a man heare a Masse , confesse , and communicate without a Iudge , a Summoner , a Notary , without an accuser , a witnesse , without a writing & c ? What then doth this Deuine meane to bring such an argument ? Suppose there be 10. persons at Masse , may there not be one alone ? Can a busines be so dispatched iu●idically in a Bishops Court , without writing , witnesse , or Officer ? Nay againe , suppose there must of necessity be 20. at Masse , and a busines in the Bishops Court might be dispatched but with the priuity of 2. men , would not euen this be more publique in regard the things must remayne in writing , with note of place , tyme , and other circumstances ; or that one of the partyes may be grieued , as it falleth out commonly , in matters of suite ?

For the Secrecy of the Bishops going ouer a great part of England & confirming , I am full glad that he , & they haue done so well with it , and wish they may do so still . But for all that , it is not good bragging : and as secret as it is , I know many a right good man , that would be loath to haue it so well knowne , when he hath a Priest in his house , as it is knowne whersoeuer almost his Lordship went : and the secrecy it seemeth , was so great in some places , that there was a great complaint made in Parliament , to what bouldnes the Papists were growne , to haue a Bishop , to whome there was such resort in a certayne place in Staffordshire , where he confirmed many , and shewed himselfe in his Pontificall Ornaments .

Thirdly I answere , that suppose the Bishops going vp and downe and confirming were as secret , and voyd of daunger as this Deuine would haue it , what doth it make for his purpose ? Which is to proue that a Bishops Tribunall alloweth as much secrecy , as the exercise of Priestly function ? For who doubteth but the Bishop may if he will , confirme a man as priuatly , as a Priest may communicate him ? Doth it then follow , that he may with the same priuacy iudge , and determine a controuersy betweene party and party ? What manner of arguing then is this ?

Now for the Primitiue Church , which our Deuine speaketh of , I sayd a word before , and it is cleare there is a great deale of difference . For that persecution was more by fits , more violent for the tyme , but shorter ; & in the interim , there were such calmes as Christians had free resort to publique places of prayer and sacrifice , and houses deputed and dedicated for that vse : and that not onely by a conniuency but euen by publique allowance of the Emperours , restoring vnto them their Churches , & permitting of free accesse to them , & the Cemiteries or places of buriall , where the bodyes of the Christians and Martyrs reliques were buryed and kept . There was an outward apparent distinction in habit and haire , betweene Clergy men & others . Where hath there beene any thing like this , all this time of Schisme in England ? Haue not men inough to do to heare a Masse priuatly in a corner ? Where is there a Church to say Masse , or to preach , or an Oratory for men to meet & pray togeather , or Church-yard for Catholiques to bury their dead ? Or where is there a Priest , or Religious man that goeth publiquely in his habit , or with his crowne shauen ? Would not any man count one halfe mad that should go so , because they did so sometimes in the Primitiue Church ? What wonder then is it , if in the Primitiue Church Bishops kept their Tribunals , & Prouinciall Councels , met with many scores of Bishops , as the Deuine sayth ? Though by his leaue , they met not so freely , nor exercised their Authority so much at all times ; to wit , in those hoate fittes of persecution . And what a wonder is it for our Deuine who must be supposed to haue a little knowledge of the Ecclesiastical History , to bob men heere in the mouth , with the state of the Primitiue Church ?

The same is of Ireland and Holland . For Ireland , Catholique Bishops haue still continued in their seuerall Seas , with their proper titles , heresy hauing neuer taken so deep root there . But heere it is well knowne , that when our Catholique Bishops were suppressed , they , during their liues , forbare the exercise of that power which they were in possession of ; & the state of things being such as it was and impossible to exercise Episcopal Authority : wherefore the Sea Apostolique did not put any Bishop in their place , during the space of 60 yeares till of late , the state of things nothing changed but only that for matters of life & death the lawes were not so rigorously put in execution , vpon information of some men , who longed for Myters , as if the times were now for it , Gregory the 15. of happy memory condescended to their importunity , sending one with Title of a Bishop , but not with that full power , which belongeth to a Catholique Country : which experience sheweth to be more then the times can well beare . What comparison then betwene Ireland , and England ?

Now for Holland , though considering the littlenesse of persecution , they might ten tims better haue a Bishop there then we heere ; yet they haue only a Bishop with a forraine Title , and I belieue with power farre short of that which this Deuine would faine haue for my Lord of Chalcedon . Where if they had Bishops , & Bishops Courts as we haue , such lawes of auncient and late times as we haue , I doubt whether they would haue euen that . But to be brief , I say in a word , that our Kingdome is more different from both Ireland , and Holland , then they two are from perfect Catholique countryes . And whereas this Deuine bringeth a place of Scripture for proofe of the prouidence of God , thereby to make men not so to stand vpon secrecy , I may bring two to the contrary . One is that of our Sauiour Math. 4. Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum , thou shalt not tempt thy Lord God , as they do that put themselues into needlesse perils . Another is that of our Sauiour also which he gaue to his Apostles , when he sent them to preach , Matth. 10. Ecce ego mitto vos sicut oues in medio luporum : estete ergo prudentes sicut serpentes , & simplices sicut columbae : Cauete autem ab hominibus , tradent enim vos &c. Behould I send you as shep amiddest wolues , be therefore prudent as serpents , and simple as doues : but beware of men , for they will betray you &c. Which admonition is as proper for our Country , & our tymes , as euer it was for any . And therefore notwithstanding our Deuines confidence , I shall wish still , that with sincerity and zeale , men ioyne prudence , or else their zeale may do more harme then good . And we find by experience , that the prudent secrecy of some hath beene a greater meanes of preseruing Catholique Religion in these hard times , them the ouer-hardy zeale of others . And so much for the fourth Section .

SECT. V. That their cause of publique disauowing the Bishops Authority is not pretended , and feigned .

WHEREAS the Catholiques in their Letter say , that it was vnsafe for them to haue beene silent so long towards his Lordship , so clayming & publishing his Authority ; this Deuine saith , that they pretend the cause of disauowing the Bishops power of Ordinary , was the feare of daunger of the State , if they had not so done . Which to be meerely feigned he proueth by many reasons , all of them almost alledged , and answered before . But as he alledgeth them heere againe , so must I be faine to repeat the answers . The first is , because no vsuall Authority of an Ordinary , which alone the Bishop claymeth , but at most Extraordinary of Legates and such like , was forbidden by the ancient lawes , without the Princes approbation . I answere as before , that my Lord Bishops Authority which he claymeth is not that vsuall Authority of an Ordinary , but that extraordinary of Legates ▪ and such like ; as appeareth plainly by the wordes of his owne Letter ; wherin he sayth , he is not Ordinary , Ordinario modo , but Extraordinario , as Legats , Nuntio's , & such like . Now that is vsuall Authority for an Ordinary , which is had in the vsual manner : therfore that Authority which he claymeth , is that , which is forbydden by the aunicent lawes .

The 2. reason , because those lawes were made for Catholique tymes , and in fauour of Catholique Ordinaryes : not for herelicall tymes , and in fauour of hereticall Ordinaries against Catholiques . I answere ; well , be it so . Doth this Deuine thinke in his Conscience such an Answere would quit a man that should stand at the barre for acknowledging of my Lord Bishops Ordinaryshippe , or Iudicatiue Power ? Sure he cannot thinke it ; For though the law were made in a Catholique tyme , when they litle dreamed of such a change , as hath beene since ; yet now the tymes are changed , and Protestant Ordinaryes are come in place of Catholiques ; all the power & priuiledges of the one conferred vpon the other ; and the Law not repealed , are not men still liable ? What with right , and what with might , questionlesse , a man would be found guilty .

For his 3. reason , he saith , he much suspecteth , that only priuity doth not make a man guilty , but granteth it of acknowledgement or participation ? But he asketh , what need they had , to take knowledge of such Authority ? For , the Bishop , he sayth , wrote but one Letter of this matter , which came to few hands , and far fewer can be conuinced to haue seene it . I answere , that for the priuity , though this Deuine say he suspecteth that wil not make a man guilty , yet I presume he cannot be so bad a Lawyer as not to know that priuity in matter of felony or treason maketh a man accessary , if he but onely know it , and not discouer it . If accessary , then certaynely guilty : and this is generall in all criminall maters without exception . Why then , should he make question in this matter ? Or taking knowledg of it , I would faine heare how could any man auoyde it ? Suppose any man should haue been questioned for acknow ; ledgement of his Lordships Authority , could he pleade ignorance of his Lordships clayme , it being made , by a Letter written to all the Catholiques of England , for their satisfaction , and to let them know , what Authority he had ? Would it seeme probable that any Catholique should not see , or heare of such a Letter ? Now that the Letter was but one , that it came to few hands ; It is true , it was but one : But that one was inough , and more then inough . For what he sayth , of the Letters comming to few hands ; I answere first , it seemeth by the matter and manner of writing , to haue beene my Lord Bishops intention that it should come to more . Secondly , it is well knowne , that there were more copies made , and some of my Lords Clergy had the care speedily to diuulge it ; so as it was diuulged in some remote parts of England ; at the very same tyme it was published heere . How then can this Deuine say , the Letter came but to few mens hands ? And for being conuinced to haue seene it , in so publique a thing as that was , no man will stand to proue it , but presume it , as any man wel may . For what Catholique could be ignorant of it ?

The 4. reason is , That many monethes before my Lord Bishop published his Authority of Ordinary , these Gentlemen sent Interrogatories ( as this Deuine termeth them ) vnto him to haue him declare whether he was Ordinary or no. So as he sayth , they were rather desyrous , he should declare himselfe to be Ordinary then conceale it . It is true , Catholiques saw many things they could not tell what to make of ; and so might be willing to know certainly , and from his Lordship himselfe what Authority he had : but might not the answere haue beene priuate , as the demaunds were ? They were desirous to know , but not so , that all the world must know , they knew ; had they knowne in priuate , they might haue represented the inconueniency and daungers priuately to my Lords consideration . But his Lordship feared some such thing , and therfore made answere in such publique manner , as to carry the matter cleere , without reply . But that put men vpon a greater necessity of reply . As for that which he sayth , that they seemed desirous he should declare himselfe Ordinary , it is playne they desyred it not , but the cleane contrary . But whatsoeuer it was that he pretended , they desyred to know it .

The fifth reason is , That the Bishop euer since his comming auouched himselfe Ordinary , and till the matter of approbation of Regulars , his Ordinaryship was not questioned , nor daunger pretended ; whereof , he sayth , they cannot deny , but they had some priuity . I answere that heere againe the Deuine forgetteth himselfe , for he was angry before with Catholiques , for vnderstanding the Bishops owne words in his Letter so plainly of his Ordinaryship , and yet he would haue them take notice of ordinary vncertayne reports . It is true therefore that they heard sometymes speaches , as if he were Ordinary , but they made not much account of them ( for his predecessour was sometymes sayd to be Ordinary also , and yet he neuer pretended any Authority ouer them , that they could heare . ) But when they heard of many things , which his Lordships Officers did , and of peremptory , and Authoritatiue Letters which they writ , with the Iudicatiue manner of proceeding of some Rurall Deanes , and saw the very Patents or Letters of institution of Archdeacons playnely signifying the same , then they beganne to looke about them , and to enquire a litle more of that Ordinaryshippe , what it meant , and whether my Lord of Chalcedon tooke himself to haue the same power , which Bishops had heretofore in Catholique tymes , and so sent to his Lordship to know it from himselfe ; so that all this while they had no priuity of it , nor after , till his Lordship published it by his Letter ,

The 6. reason : They gaue this Letter to be sent to Rome , and as some say ( saith he ) long before they sent it to the Bishop , and desired the Bishop , that it might be knowne abroad : Now , to what end was it sent to Rome , and desired to be sent abroad , if it were made only for the state ? I answere , that the Deuine with his ( as some say ) is egregiously mistaken in saying the Letter was sent to Rome , before it was sent to the Bishop , for there be others that know better then all his ( some sayes ) if there be any besides himself , which auerre the contrary . Now for the demaund why it was sent to Rome , and desired to be sent abroad , if it were onely made for the State ? I demaund againe , where he findeth that it was made onely for the state ? If he meane that the chiefe reason of writing it , was to declare the dangers & inconueniences which might fall vpon them from the state by acknowledgment and admittance of his Lordships pretended Authority , it is true : but that is not all one , as to say , that it was made onely for the state . For it was made principally for his Lordship , & for those , of whome his power , and the enlarging and diminishing therof doth depend , to see ; that considering the daungers and inconueniences , both his Lordship might please to desist from such pretensions , & others forbeare to graunt such power as was so daungerous , and so peiudiciall to Catholiques . Now what inconsequence was there in this to desire his Lordship to make it knowne abroad ? or fearing with themselues ( for they expressed no such feare to him ) that he would not , they sent it by some other meanes ? What a doughty reason then is this , to proue the Catholiques cause to be pretended , and feigned ?

The 7. reason : When Father Campian came in , and made publique chalenge of disputation in print , and proclamations were made agaynst him , what Catholique did publiquely disauowe him , or his Authority , or faculties ? My answere to this is , that I see not what there is to answere ; for what likenes can there be imagined in this argument , saue onely the publiquenesse of Father Campians challenge of disputation , and the publiquenesse of my Lord Bishops clayme of Authority ? Which if it be sufficient , then I will make the Deuines argument a little better for him , by asking , why Catholikes do not disauow al Letters , or Breues of the Sea Apostolike nay al bookes written of Controuersies , in defence of the Catholique Fayth for these are publique ? Now , I assure my selfe there is no Deuine in the world so dull , but can easily find a great deale of difference betweene these two last , and my Lord Bishops Letter , though one be much more like the instance of Father Campians challenge . But because the Deuine perhaps will not be willing to find a difference , I will do it for him . It was not Father Campians doing nor meaning to publish any such challenge , but made two Copies of his writing , one to haue about himselfe in case he should be taken suddenly , before he should haue time to do any thing , of what he came for : and another in a freinds hand , with order to publish it when he should be taken , if by chaunce , as it was most like , his aduersaries should suppresse that which he should haue about him . But his friend not obseruing this order , goeth and publisheth it of himself . So the publishing was not his doing . Besides it was a particular acte , which concerned himselfe only , without relation to Catholiques , no matter of Authority , or iurisdiction eyther in foro externo or interno , but a necessary defence of the Catholique fayth at that tyme , no exercise so much as of Priestly function , but a thing which any Layman , for the thing it self , might do . What need then of disauowing his Authority , or Faculties for that matter ?

Now , my Lord Bishops Letter was intended to be publique , as being written to Catholiques , so that they could not but know of it , hauing also for the matter particuler relation to them ; the subiect of the Letter an authority of an outward Court or Tribunall , not necessary at this time , nor conuenient for the defence or propagation of the Catholique faith , but offensiue to the State , dangerous to Catholiques , as being contrary to the auncient , and moderne lawes ; grieuous in regard of many inconueniences , which it bringeth with it ; and the very knowledge , much more admittance wherof , bringeth daunger . What then doth this Deuine talke of disauowing Authority & facultyes such as Fa. Campian had , as if any man denied them to my Lord Bishop ? No , no man denieth , or disauoweth them , or any thing else of my Lord Bishops , but only they desire not to be pressed to the admittance of that Authority of Ordinary , which without any furtherance , or any the least necessity of their spirituall good may bring many temporall daungers vpon them , & put them into more straites , then they haue beene this time of persecution . Which truly , is but a very ordinary , and reasonable request . There is no affinity therefore betweene my Lord Bishops claime of Authority , and F. Campians challenge of Disputation .

The eight reason . It is more notorious , that there are many hundred of Priests then one Bishop , and more seuere lawes against any priuity or participation with them , then for the Bishop ; and yet these men , sayth he , make no publique disauow of Priests Authority , nor account themselues vnsafe for hauing beene so long silent . I answere , that the reason is idle . Suppose there were as many thousands of Priests , as there are hundreds , nay if there were as many Bishop as there are Priests , if they had not the power of Ordinary what were that to our purpose , the question being of an Ordinary with power in foro externo ? Now for the daunger of a Priest or Bishop whether greater , is impertinent as long as the one is necessary , the other not . Besides that , such Bishoply Authority with the daungers , and inconueniences proper to it selfe , bringeth with it the daungers of Priestly Authority . The Deuine could not , but know thus much of himselfe , and yet he must put downe this reason to make number .

The ninth reason ; None but these 3. and some few of their adherents apprehend this daunger of being silent , touching the Bishops Authority , & yet many haue more to loose then they ; & a Noble man tould them by publique Letter , that Timebant , vbi non erat timor . I answere , for the number , and worth of the Persons that apprehend this daunger , there is enough sayd before : & the thing is so well knowne , that surely this Deuine would not haue ventured his credit by speaking so apparent an vntruth , but that he concealed his name . For the Noble mans saying , I answere it with the wisemans saying , sapiens timet , & declinat à malo : stultus transilit , & confidit . The wiseman feareth and auoydeth euill ; the foole leapeth ouer and consideth .

The 10. reason ; The Monkes made clayme of a farre greater Authority , and farre more daungerous to the Laity , and in a more publique manner by many printed copyes , and yet these men do not go about to disauowe the same publiquely . I answere , that till my Lord Bishops Letter no man heard of any such matter from the Benedictines , or any else . Therefore if there were any daunger in their clayme we may plainly thanke my Lord Bishops Letter , as the cause thereof . Secondly , the same Letter wherby the Catholiques desired to be excused from my Lord of Chalcedons Ordinaryship , is sufficient against that , or any other booke , that shal clayme such Authority , as things stand heere in England , and therefore there needeth no other disclayming . Now for their claime , I do not see that for the present they exact any such matter of subiection from Catholiques , but only say , they keepe a kind of possession of their ancient right , against the tyme shal serue for it ; and that if they would stand vpon it , they might better do it then my Lord of Chalcedon . Now what offence or daunger is this to Catholiques ? And for the publiquenesse , the book is printed indeed , but no way directed to Catholiques , but to their owne Religious . But this Deuine , that in this place thinketh much , that men do not disauow this Booke , I presume , was priuy to another Paper deliuered vp at Rome , wherein it was sayd , that the Layty were much offended at such a vast claime : how do these hang together ? But that was for the purpose in that place , & this , it seemeth , in this ; and he perhaps thought the same man should neuer come to see both the papers . But as close as that and such like papers are carried by this Deuine , & his friends , they come to light one way or other , little to their credit , that care so little for truth in what they say .

The last reason , is deliuered by the Deuine in these words : Lastly what needed they to haue incensed the state against the Bishop ? therefore these pretences are ad excusandas excusationes in peccati● : whereas the true cause was to help some Regulars to banish Episcopall power out of England . This is the Deuines Conclusion . Whereto I answere ; that for a conclusion I did expect a concluding reason , but it is so farre from concluding , that I see no shew of reason . For how doth the asking of this question , what they needed to incense the State against the Bishop , proue that the cause of writing their letter , was pretended ? The Deuine might haue made this a motiue , which might haue moued them not to write their Letter to the Bishop in that manner : but to make it an argument to proue , that their pretence was faygned , I see not with what Logick it can stand ▪ But now for the matter , it is a strange thing , that a Deuine should haue no more scruple then to charge men of knowne vertue , and wisedome ; with incensing the State against the Bishop . Were it not more time for him to study his cases , & examine well his Conscience , then to stand censuring men so deeply , and so iniuriously ? What do they say tending this way ? That the erecting of a new tribunall , will moue the State to a more exact search & c ? For this , I haue answered before , and shewed , that this is sayd to the cleane contrary end ; to wit , to decline the Search and Persecution , which his Lordships clayme would bring vpon himself and others ; and by their saying to appease that which his Lordships doing would incense . Which if it seeme preiudiciall vnto him , is wholy besydes their meaning and he may th●nke himselfe for it . For they in this , do but defend themselues , cum moderamine inculpatae tutclae .

Therefore to answere this Deuines applied place of Scripture , of excuses in sinnes , I may now aske him in behalfe of these Gentlemen , and all others whose letter it was : Quis ex vobis arguet 〈◊〉 de peccato ? St malè locutus sum , testimonium perhibe de malo : Si autem benè , quid ●ecaedis ? Who of you will accuse me of sinne ? If I haue spoken ill , beare witnesse of the ill : but if well , why dost thou strike me ? And for the last word of all , that the true cause was , to help some Regulars to banish Episcopall power out of England , being but a bitter gal belike of a distempred stomack to end withall , and deseruing rather pitty , then answere , I let it alone : wishing this Deuine the same measure of Charity , which he desireth of Authority , both for his owne good , and the quiet of others , boing more his friend therein , then himselfe .

AN ADVERTISEMENT .

GOod Reader . This Treatise was written two yeares ago , when the forsayd Iudgment of this Deuine , began to go vp & downe ; but that other Bookes comming then out , and ministring other occasion of Discourse , the Author thought better to let it alone ; as he would haue done wholy , but that now of late the same Letter of the Catholiques , being a new published , with A Declaration to the same effect , some of the other side , began to repeate their former vngrounded Discourses . For rectifying whereof , and stating the Question aright , the Author hath thought fit , now to publish the same .

FINIS .