A DEFENCE OF NICHOLAS SMITH AGAINST A REPLY TO HIS DISCUSSION OF SOME points taught by Mr. Doctor Kellison in his Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.  
By A. B.  We dare not match or compare ourselves with certain, tha● commend themselves. But we measure ourselves in our selves, and compare ourselves to ourselves. But we will no● glory above our measure, but according to the measure 〈◊〉 the Rule, which God hath measured to us; a measure 〈◊〉 to reach unto you, do we extend ourselves beyond. For w● are come as fare, as to you in the Gospel of Christ. 2 Corinth: 10. 
At Roüen by NICOLAS COURANT. 1630.   

TO THE READER.  
GENTLE READER.  
MASTER Doctor Kellison wrote a Book entitled, A Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, wherein among other points, he chief intended to prove, that English Catholics could not in conscience refuse a Bishop, although, by his coming, their Persecution were to be increased.  
This Treatise of M. Doctor was answered by A modest Discussion; against which was set forth in Print, a little Book with title of An Inquisition etc. of which some Copies, even in print, have that false slander about the Pouder-Treason (which Copies were spread abroad both in the North, & South of England.) Others have it not.  
The Inqui●si●on was presently confuted by a Charitable Qualification; to which was adjoined an Admonition to the Reader; The Author whereof had not, at that time, seen in Print, any of those Copies, which mentioned the foresaid slanderous point; which I thought good here to note, for thy knowledge.  
After the Inquisition, there is newly come forth a second answer to the Discussion, called, A Reply to Nicolas Smith his Discussion etc. To this Reply, I now answer, in defence of Nicolas Smith.  
Thou mayst perhaps wonder, that the Reply (which if we have an eye to the difference of print, in bulk is greater than M. Doctors Hierarchy) should be answered in so few leaves of paper. And I must confess, I did not at first hope, to have ended the Defence, in so few, either leaves, or days, which were but seven, corresponding to the seven Questions handled by the Replyer: within which compass of time, I was confined both to read, and answer the Reply: and yet in all sincerity I do avouch, not to have omitted the answer of any one thing, wherein I conceived there might be the least appearance of difficulty. The reason of this brevity was double.  
The one, because many chief obietions made by the Replyer, were aforehand fully answered by the Qualification before the Reply came out; to which therefore it will be sufficient to refer thee in such points. Besides, there is published a learned & elegant book, with Title of An Apology of the holy Sea apostolics proceeding, for the government of the Catholics of England, during the time of Persecution, which may not only seem to answer the Reply, but it alone in lieu of all others, were sufficient to show the manifold deficiency of M. Doctors Treatise, with, I can hardly say whether, thy more pleasure, or profit.  
The other reason was, because the Replyer taketh all occasions, to dilate himself in diverse points, which either are vulgarly known in Schools, or were never denied by Nicolas Smith, or may be equally spoken by both parts, or else are answered, by the only perusal of the Discussion itself; which I earnestly entreat thee to review, if thou find any thing objected by the Replyer, which may seem to have difficulty; and I am confident, the only reading will serve for answer. Which to be true, I found by my own experience; in so much, as for answering the Reply, I did in truth use no book, besides the Hierarchy, Discussion, & Qualification, although I could not doubt, but that the examination of diverse Authors cited by the Replyer, would have administered no small advantage against him.  
I verily believe, if thou read the Replyer with indifferency, and attention, thou wilt perceive, that he rather defendeth Nicolas Smith, then M. Doctor, whose words he is forced to excuse, by the common Rule of Charity, that in them he had a good meaning; but in the chiefest points of substance, at length he cometh to join with the Discussour.  
divers things of moment, he wholly omitteth without answering, or mentioning them. Upon the whole matter, I conceive, this judgement may be given, of the quantity, & quality of this work in general; That he hath taken great pains, to procure, that few will have patience, to read over his whole Book.  
M. Drs. modesty is by him much extolled, & Nicolas Smith sore blamed, for the contrary. Indeed he that without cause giveth the first stroke, as M. Doctor did, hath no great reason to be angry with the party, that beareth the blow. And whatsoever the Replyer saith in his Mirror, adjoined by his Reply, Nicolas smith's Discussion will be proved to be truly modest, if the passages be read as they lie in the Discussion, & not as they are lamely cited by the Replyer, as I could show in every particular, if I had not resolved to be very brief.  
It is ordinary with the Replyer, to blame Nicolas Smith, as if he had accused M. Doctor of some doctrines which Nic-Smith laid not to his charge, but only showed, that out of his Tenets, certain Conclusions would follow, which neither he, nor any other could defend; but he did not say, that M. Doctor foresaw, or intended such Conclusions.  
In this manner Nicolas Smith termed a certain Argument, a Doughty one, which yet he did not affirm, to be M. Doctors argument, but only that out of S. Cyprians words, rightly understood, no better Argument could be drawn in favour of M. Doctor, who out of the same words, framed an argument, quite different from that, which Nicolas Smith termed doughty, as may be seen in the Discussion q. 2. n. 5.6.  
The like I could show, in all the rest, but content myself with requesting thee, unpartial Reader, still to suspend thy judgement, till, in particulars, thou hast seen the words, and connexion of Nicolas Smith his discourse.  
The Replyer himself, is fare from Nicolas Smith his modesty. Scarcely he giveth any one answer, not accompanied with some taunt; So that, to set down all his sharp speeches, were but to re-coppy the Book.  
Within the compass of two Questions, he hath these charitable sayings: He favoureth Heretics. pag. 26. Behold Nicolas Smith his little subtlety. pag. 31. Which is no less than a false calumniation. pag. 32. I pity M. Nicolas Smith his arguing, and the necessity he is driven to, which cogit ad turpia. pag. 43. Nicolas Smith joineth with heretics in this point pag. 96. And the same again pag. 110. What Divine, yea Cathecumen, who knoweth his catechism, would have given such an answer? pag. 10●. He favoureth Caluin. pag. 111. And in the same page, I cannot tell how hereafter he can look them in the face: although in this he have reason, for he spoke of some jesuites, who died long since, and it would be hard for the Discussour to look them in the face, if he be yet living, as the Replyer will have him, in his Preface to the Reader: where also pag. 16. he saith, That the Discussour seemeth to show little of the spirit of a Religious man: for which, if it be true, the Discussour, I grant, aught to be sorry, and endeavour to correspond better to his vocation. Howsoever, I dare say for Nicolas Smith, that, if he were alive, he would heartily thank the Replyer, for the occasion he affoardeth him of merit, and so do I, in his behalf; wishing, that as we are all domestici fidei, so we may be charitatis, of one belief, and heart.   

The Questions handled.  

1. What judgement may be framed of M Doctors Treatise in general. pag 1.  
2. Whether without a Bishop, there can be a particular Church? pag. 5.  
3. Whether by the divine Law, every particular Church, must have its Bishop? pag. 19  
4. Whether a Country, although the Persecution should be increased, by occasion of having a Bishop, could refuse one, if it were only for the Sacrament of Confirmation? pag. 38.  
5. Concerning M. Doctors Comparison, between Bishops, inferior Pastors, & Religious men. pa. 53.  
6. Whether Religious, as Religious, be of the Hierarchy? pag. 68  
7. Whether by the precedent Questions, we have sufficiently answered M. Doctors Treatise, for such points, as either deserved Confutation, or required Explication. pag. 75.    

APPROBATIO.  

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

ATtentè legimus Anglicum hoc Scriptum, cuint titulus est, A Defence of Nicolas Smith against A Reply to his Discussion, of some points taught by M. Doctor Kellison in his Treatise of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. In quo nec Catholicam Fidem, nec bonos mores ullatenus offendi, sed susceptam Defensionem, cum plenâ antedicta Replicae satisfactione, praestitam invenimus. Datum Lovany 16. januarij 1631.  


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

QVandoquidem à supranominatis doctis viris, & linguam Anglicanam callentibus liber hic citatus probatus est, per me quoque licet ut imprimatur. Actum Tornaci Neruiorum 22. januarij 1631.  
joannes Boucher S. Theol. Doctor Sorbonicus, nec non Cathedralis Ecclesia Tornacensis Canonicus, Archidiaconus, & Librorum Censor.    

THE I. QUESTION What Judgement may be framed of M. Doctors Treatise in general.  
THE Replyer thinks he hath taken the Discussour in a contradiction, for affirming M. Doctor to have been the first that put in print A Treatise of the Hierarchy, in the English tongue, and yet confesseth that diverse before him handled this argument, both in Latin and vulgar languages. But it is clear the Discussour speaketh of such a Treatise concerning the Hierarchy, as M. Doctor put in print, intended, prosecuted, appropriated to England, for proof of the obligation Catholics have to receive a Bishop, and such like purposes peculiar to our Country. This M. Doctor hath done, and hath done it the first of any in these days. Would to God he had not. The law of Nature pleadeth for the right men have to defend themselves from aggression, but doth not warrant him that unprovoked offendeth his neighbour.  
2. If writing of Books in this kind be of small Comfort to Catholics, the inconvenience must be ascribed to him alone who gave the first blow, and imposed upon the parties aggrieved, a necessity of just offence. To cure a wound given at once to a number of worthy persons, is but a bounden duty, and an obliged act of common charity. This did other Regulars; this I do at this present, and no more. M. Doctor and his Second, obliged us to some answer; I will tie myself to do it with moderation. Likewise Suarcz, Platus, and others have written of the calling of secular, and state of Religious men, but not by way of application to particular circumstances of any persons, places, or controversies. M. Doctors exhortation to charity is not by the Discussour styled Verbal, as though it came not from the heart, which the Replyer objecteth n. 7. (for he only is to erect a Tribunal of search into man's heart who made it,) but because while in words he persuadeth to charity, even then in deeds by the writing of this book he did mightily prejudice Charity, as by too much experience we find, and was easy to be foreseen.  
3. Nicolas Smith never accuseth M. Doctor absolutely of want of Logic, or Prudence, as the Replyer averreth n. 12. He saith that in this Treatise, to prove the necessity of Bishops in England, M. Doctor serveth himself of Principles more hard than the Conclusion, which is against the rules of Logic. This may argue him to defend a bad cause, not universally to want Logic. What the Replyer hath n. 19 is also objected by the Inquisition, and answered by the Qualificatour Sect. 6. n. 19 showing that M. Doctor is not taxed for proving his Conclusions by Causes, or Effects etc. but because he assumeth Principles more uncertain, and less warrantable than the Conclusion, as in the said place is demonstrated. I believe it would be an hard task for any man to prove, That for the only undoubtednesse, or greater assuredness of Confirmation, Catholics are obliged to have a Bishop, although we suppose, that by his coming their pressures were to be aggravated with new increase of persecution. For why should this affliction be, of necessity, added to the already afflicted? Because (forsooth) some very few Authors have taught that Confirmation cannot be administered by a Priest, with special commission from the Pope, although the whole stream of Divines run to the contrary side, with S. Thomas; and some hold, that since the Council of Florence the other opinion meriteth Censure. This point is sufficiently handled in the Qualification. Hear I add this instance. Some few Divines are also of opinion, that the Priest is Minister of the Sacrament of Matrimony, without whom, according to these Authors, it is only a civil Contract, not a Sacrament; will therefore the Replyer say, that English Catholics are obliged to receive Priests, with increase of persecution, if it were only for to have the undoubted Sacrament of Matrimony? And yet if the matter be duly considered, perhaps one may truly affirm, that as great inconveniences, and sins of enmity, injustice, incontinency etc. are like to be daily, and hourly incurred, for want of grace, conferred by the Sacrament of Matrimony, as in another kind for want of Confirmation, even in a persecuted Country. If those Divines who teach, that the Priest is the Minister of Matrimony, had taught that a Bishop were the necessary Minister of the same Sacrament, the Replyer would perhaps allege them for the necessity of a Bishop although with increase of persecution.  
4. The chiefest point of doctrine in this Question, or rather the point which entereth into all the ensuing Questions, is touched by the Discussour n. 15. and by the Replyer left without answer. It was: That M. Doctors arguments for the necessity of a Bishop in England, prove more than himself intendeth or can avouch. For the institution, and command of our Saviour, that his Church should be governed by Bishops, concerneth such Bishops, as are properly Ordinaries, Princes, & Bishops of Dioceses, not by Delegation, Deputation, or Ordinaries in an extraordinary manner, which is not of Diviue institution, and is the most that my Lord of Chalcedon doth challenge. If the divine instistution, and command, were fulfilled by Ordinaries, in an Extraordinary manner, the Pope might govern the whole Church by such extraordinary Ordinaries, which no Catholic can grant; and therefore, as I said, M. Doctor must answer his own arguments, drawn from the divine institution (for according to that ground, we must in England have properly an Ordinary) & come to confess, that there is no divine Positive Precept, for his Holiness to appoint us in England a Bishop, but only a divine natural command to provide us of all things, necessary to salvation, whether by Bishops, or other means.   

THE II. QUESTION. Whether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church.  
THE substance of all that is contained in the first 16. numbers of the Reply, is taken out of the Inquisition sect. 3. and sect. 6 about the words of S. Cyprian: The Church is a people united to the Bishop, and, the necessity of a particular Bishop to make a particular Church; which points are cleared by the Qualificatour in the same Sections. And the Reader of himself may answer all his objections, if he remember how the Discussour expressy teacheth; That in some particular Churches, there must be particular Bishops, distinct from the Pope: That in England while we wanted Bishops, properly called Ordinaries in an ordinary manner, the Pope could be, was, and is our sole particular Bishop: That these words of S. Cyprian (The Church is a people united to the Bishop) as they were spoken by him, precisely, immediately, & formally, signify, that a people divided from their lawful Bishop is no church, but a Schismatical multitude, & not only by inference, as the Replyer u. 9.13. & in other places doth suppose; & out of that his own supposition, deduceth absurdities against the Discussour, as not distinguishing betwixt mere inculpable want of a Bishop, and sinful separation from a Bishop: Whereas indeed S. Cyprian, only speaketh of sinful separation, & therefore affirmeth, that such as are not united with a Bishop, in the sense he spoke, are not in the Church: That Catholic writers, may fitly against heretics, infer out of S. Cyprian, a necessity of having Bishops in God's Church; because it were no crime of Schism to be divided from a Bishop, if in the Church there ought not to be Bishops: That the said words of S. Cyprian, may be taken for a definition of the Church, if the word Bishop be taken indefinitely of a particular Bishop distinct from the Pope, or for the Pope himself. For no multitude, can be a Church, without union either to a particular Bishop under the Pope or to the Pope himself. Without Union (I say) either actual, or aptitudinall, really, or in readiness of will, to accept one, when he shall be lawfully given them; which promptitude they may, and aught to have, when actually they want one. The Replyer himself must yield that S. Cyprian, if he mean of a potive Union with a Bishop (as he would have him to mean) can not be understood determinately of a particular Bishop distinct from the Pope, unless he will teach it to be against the very definition, and essence of a particular Church to have the Pope for its particular Bishop, which I am sure he will not aver. For who dare say, that the particular diocese of Rome, which hath the Pope for its sole Bishop, is no particular Church?  
2. Thus is answered all that he aleadgeth out of Bellarmine, Stapleton, etc. who only teach, that in the Church there must be some particular Bishops, and that the Church, is a people, unted to the Bishop, in the manner I have now declared. Yea all that I have said is much confirmed, by what the Replier citeth out of Stapleton; That the word (Church) in scripture, signifieth properly, not a vagrant, headless multitude, but a multitude to which Pastors and Prelates are constituted by God. For I trow, English Catholics, were no vagrant, headless multitude, as long as they were, and are governed by Christ his Vicar. And the Replyers objection n. 9 That every Catholic family, every Nunnery, yea and Company of Catholic women, should be a particular Church, if union to the Pope were sufficient, to constitute a particular Church; is easily answered, by demanding of him, whether in a Diocese, enjoying its particular Bishop, every Nunnery, every family, every particular Catholic, be a particular Church? what he shall answer in that supposition, the same I answer in our case, who acknowledge the Pope for our particular Bishop. S. Paul faluteth the Church in the house of Nimpha, Coloss. cap. 4. v. 15. and the Church in the house of Philemon, ad Philem. v. 2. and S. Gregory Thanmaturgus, at first, had for his particular Church only 17. Catholics, nor are we certain that they were not in one house or family. But to my purpose it importeth nothing, and therefore I will not dispute, whether one family can be fitly called a particular Church.  
3. Hear cometh, of itself, a ready answer, to another objection of the Replyer. To show that the often cited words of S. Cyprian, cannot infer, that a Bishop is necessary, to make a particular Church, the Discussourn. 6. retorteth them in this manner: Whosoever are not in schism with any lawful Bishop, do fulfil the definition of S. Cyprian: But those who without their own fault have no Bishop, are not in schism with any lawful Bishop; Ergo, those who have no Bishop, do fulfil the definition of S. Cyprian. This argument, the Replyer would return upon the Discussour, by saying; That seeing a Catholic family, without a Bishop, is not in schism with any Bishop, it would follow, that such a family, considered by itself, fulfilleth the definition of S. Cyprian, and consequently is a Church. But the answer is already given. If one man, or family, may be termed a particular Church, in case they were positively united to a particular Bishop, much more may they be a Church in S. Cyprians sense, which requireth not positive union, but only, that they be not divided from their Bishop. If one man, or family, be not capable of the denomination of a particular Church, than his objection toucheth not the Discussour, whose argument proceeded in respect of a multitude, Plebs, and Grex, a people, and multitude (such as English Catholics are) capable of the said denomination, if other requisite conditions were not wanting. Still than it is true, as the Discussour inferred, That a people, not divided from their lawful Bishop, is according to S. Cyprian a true Church, although they have no actual union, with a particular Bishop.  
4. His proofs n. 17. That M. Doctor was not injurious to English Catholics by saying; They did not fulfil the definition of a Church, given by S. Cyprian, while they wanted a Bishop, do still rely upon a ground not : to wit, that S. Cyprian, by a people united to their Bishop, understands a positive Union with a Bishop; whereas Nicolas Smith proved out S. Cyprians words, and whole drift, that by Union with a Bishop, he understands only, that the people be not divided from him, & this supposed, it clearly followeth: That if English Catholics, did not fulfil the said definition, they must be taxed of division from a Bishop, & consequently of Schism.  
5. The Discussour q. 2. n. 8. 13. and the Qualificatour sect. 7. answer all he bringeth to prove, that the Pope was not our particular Bishop: and the Qualificatour showeth, that Nicolas Smith doth not argue, à possibili ad esse. But (saith the Replyer n. 21.) if when a Church is deprived of Bishops, the Pope remain their particular Bishop, no Bishopric should ever be vacant, nor any College want a rector, or Province a Provincial, because the Provincial would become rector, & the General Provincial. And if per impossibile, there were never a Bishop in all the Church, but the Pope; the Church should still be Hierarchical, composed of diverse particular Churches.  
6. I answer: This argument must be solued, by the Replyer himself; who in the next number granteth, that the Pope may be the particular Bishop, of a particular Church; and yet he would not admit, that he may make himself sole particular Bishop of all Churches. The reason is; because our Saviour hath instituted, that there should be some particular Churches, governed by Bishops distinct from the supreme Pastor; not because the Pope alone cannot make a particular Church, but because, he can not make all Churches particular Churches, in the manner our Saviour hath instituted, by their proper Ecclesiastical Princes, distinct from the Pope, as is required in a Hierarchy. In this sense, Bishoprickes are said to be Vacant, because they want a Bishop, distinct from the Pope.  
7. And here I must observe, that it is so true, that a Church without a Bishop, may be a particular Church, that the Replyer while he is speaking against it, speaks for it, by saying, That a Bishopric may be Vacant. Ergo, say I, by the Vacancy, it ceaseth not to be a Bishopric, a Diocese, a Church. If a Church, surely not an Universal, but a particular one. When the Bishop of a particular Church dyeth, do they not demand a Bishop for such a Church? Ergo, they suppose, that it still remaineth a Church. Otherwise when a Bishop was demanded for England, it might have bin answered: First found a Church in England, and then ask a Bishop for the Church of England. M. Doctor pag. 378. n. 3. saith: that when a Bishop cannot be had, the particular Church, must be governed, as it may. And pag. 374. alluding to England, he saith. If for a time some particular Church be governed by Priests, or an Archpriest without a Bishop, it is a thing accidental etc. Ergo, a Church, & England in particular, without a Bishop, may be, and was a particular Church. And indeed we can not teach otherwise, unless by the death of every Bishop, we will have all men become speechless. For, when the Bishop of a particular Church dyeth, how can we express it, but by saying, such a Church hath lost its Bishop? The same is demonstrated, even out of the other examples, alleged by the Replyer. For by the death of a rector, or Provincial, the College ceaseth not to be a College, nor the Province, a Province: neither doth it follow, that a Provincial, or General upon the death of every rector, or Provincial, must become Rectours & Provinciass. The reason of this dependeth on the knowledge of particular institutes of Religion. In general it is sufficient to say, that no General, hath over his whole Order, so absolute, and unlimited extent of power, as the Pope, by our Saviour's institution, hath over the whole, & every member of God's Church. I grant, in Catholic Countries, where after the death of the Bishop, other officers remain, to govern till a new Bishop be elected, the Pope need not actuate his immediate power & Pastorship, as he is obliged to do in countries wholly & for a long time destitute of Bishops.  
8. Because the Pope hath immediate power over all particular Churches, and is Proprius Pastor of England, and all other countries'; to make himself particular sole Bishop of any church, he needs not take the name, of that particular church, but beginneth to be sole Bishop, as soon as it beginneth to be destitute of a Bishop. But other particular Bishops who have no such universal, immediate power, must acquire it, by a new Title to their particular Churches. And seeing the Pope in respect of England, hath indeed performed the Office of a Bishop, no doubt but he would also call himself Bishop of England, if, with the Replyer, he conceived, that there were a divine precept to make England a particular Church, and that to make it such, it were necessary, and sufficient, that he took the name or title of it, as the Replyer n. 22. confesseth. For who will say, that for a matter of no more difficulty, then is to take a Name, the Pope will break a divine command? It is then a sign, that he may make us a particular Church, without calling himself Bishop of England, because in very deed so he is. His Holiness styleth not himself Bishop of Holland, where nevertheless he hath a Vicar, which supposeth the Pope to be the particular Bishop of that country. For a Church cannot be a particular Church, by union to a Vicar, but by union to him, whose Vicar he is. My Lord of Chalcedon is not called Bishop of England, or of any Church, or Diocese thereof; and yet the Replyer thinks, he maketh us a particular Church, because he hath the power of a Bishop of England, which no man can deny the Pope to have, in as immediate and more ample high manner: and therefore he may make us a particular Church, although he take not the Name thereof.  
9 Yea, whereas the Replyer n. 22.23. teacheth, that the Pope could not be particular Bishop of England, unless he did either the office of a Bishop himself, or by his Delegate, or as lest styled himself Bishop of England: I answer; that it is sufficient he do the Office of a Bishop, according as the circumstances of the time, and place permit, or require; which his Holiness most carfully hath and doth perform, by sending into England Priests, or also a Bishop with authority from him delegated &c. and the Replyer pleads against himself, telling us in effect, that the Pope, by the very delegating my Lord of Chalcedon, and not making him Bishop of England hath declared himself to be, the sole particular Bishop of that Country, where he doth the office of a Bishop by his Delegates. As Ireland is not a Kingdom, in respect of his Majesty's Deputy but because it is united to his Majesty, as to its King: so England cannot be a particular Church, in respect of my Lord of Chalcedon, but in regard of the Pope, whose Deputy my Lord is, being not spiritual Prince, and Bishop of England. If to be Ordinary in an extraordinary manner, be sufficient to make us a Church, how will the Replyer prove, that before my lord of Chalcedons coming, his Holinesses Nuntio in Paris, did not make us a particular Church?  
10. Against the Discussours' doctrine n. 11. That persons exempt from all Bishops, and subject only to the Pope, are a particular Church, without a particular Bishop; the Replyer n. 26. objecteth, That Monasteryes, subject only to the Pope, are no particular Churches, unless we will make every Nunnery of women, a particular Church. I answer, the Discussour speaketh in general, of places, and persons, exempt from Bishops. And it is well known, that there be diverse Territoryes, of extent, sufficient to make a Diocese, subject to no Bishop. These Nicolas Smith affirms to be particular churches. One Monastery, or Nunnery, immediately subject to the Pope, are as much a particular Church, as if they had a particular Bishop, as we said above n. 2.3.  
11. In his numbers 28.29. he teacheth, that it is a great Lustre to a Church to have a particular Bishop: That a Church governed by a Delegate, wanteth some perfection of that, which is governed by an Ordinary: That if a Pope should send a Priest into England, with power to confirm, England should be in its kind a particular Church, but not in the degree and perfection, as if it had an Ordinary Bishop. What? Is the necessity of having a Bishop come only to a greater Lustre? Must Catholics be trodden under foot for a greater lustre? Doth all this dispute end in degrees of Comparison? Hath our being, or not being a particular Church, so great latitude, that it may reach to a Church with a Bishop Ordinary, a Bishop Delegate, a simple Priest? I confess the Replyer is forced to step back, and not to stand so punctually on his ground, of England's not being a particular Church, without a Bishop. I desire he would speak plainly. Doth the divine law, in these sore times, oblige us to be a particular Church, in the greatest perfection you mention, by a Bishop Ordinary? You will not say so. Is the divine law, of our being a particular Church well satisfied, by persons endued with authority, sufficient, and proportionable to these days, let them be Priests, or Bishops, Ordinaries, or Delegates? So you must say. Let us then speak no more of being a particular Church, or of having determinately a Bishop, by the diviuine law; but let our care be, in the sight of God, unpartially to consider, and with indifferency to desire, what may be most expedient for Catholics, not in France, Spain, Italy, and other Countries, happy with peaceable possession of Ecclesiastical splendour; but in England blessed only with joyful suffering a long continued persecution.  
12. Well, to leave speculations, & Schoolpoynts, seeing you constantly persist in this, that without a Bishop we cannot be a particular Church; before you burden our consciences, with a heavy obligation, to purchase our being a particular Church, with hazard of goods, liberty, and life; you must not blame us, if we request you, to produce some precept of God, or the Church, commanding us to be a particular Church, in your sense: & why we may not content ourselves, with being good Catholics, and members of the Universal Church, as Nicholas Smith n. 14. proposed to M. Doctor? In this consisteth the point of the difficulty. The Replyer answereth, that this demand is by the Discussour brought out of its place, & so must expect answer in the next question, which treateth, Whether by the divine law, every particular Church, must have its Bishop? What is this, but to avoid the difficulty? for M. Doctor proposeth as two reasons, or titles, The divine precept of having a Bishop in every particular Church, and, The necessity of having a Bishop, because without him we cannot be a particular Church, as may be seen Chap. 14. n. 4. 5. 6. 7. and in other places. Now the Replyer will make M. Doctor walk in a circle, and prove, that we are bound to be a particular Church, because we are obliged to have a Bishop; and we are obliged to have a Bishop, because we are bound to be a particular Church. If the Replyer will defend M. Doctor, he must tell us, what command we have, precisely to be a particular Church, so that, if a Bishop were not necessary in other respects, yet for this cause alone, he could not be refused. This the Replyer doth not prove in the next question, nor is it a thing, in itself, factible or credible.  
13. From the number 13. to the end of this Question, he taxeth the Discussour, as stretching M. Doctors words Chap. 14. n. 9 further, than he intended. But those words which he seeketh to defend, must either teach as fare, as the Discussour extendeth them, or else they will come short of proving M. Doctors purpose. For if it be as necessary, to have a particular Bishop, to make a particular church, as to have an Universal Bishop, for the making an Universal church; and that, by the divine law every country of extent must be a particular Church; it followeth clearly, that according to M. Doctor there is as much necessity to have a Bishop in England. which in his opinion is a particular church of extent, as to have a Pope of Rome. You will perhaps say, that the divine Law, of having a particular Bishop, in every particular church, doth not so generally bind, as the other doth, but may cease to oblige, by reason of some particular circumstances of time, or place. This answer overthoweth M. Doctors whole edifice. Because if any reason may take away the obligation of a divine law, certainly a general persecution, threatened to a whole Country, may free us from such a bond. How then will M. Doctor conclude, that by the divine law we are bound to have a Bishop, in a case, wherein the divine law ceaseth to bind? You see the Discussour had reason to say, That M. Doctors words imported too much, or else you must yield, they proved too little.  
14. In like manner what M. Doctor said, in the same place; That unless every particular church have a Bishop, the Universal church should not, as Christ hath instituted, be a Hierarchy, composed of diverse particular churches, is rightly taxed by the Discussour, as either not sound, or not sufficient for M. Doctors purpose. If it be understood only indeterminatly, that is, The whole church cannot be a Hierarchy, unless some particular churches have Bishops it proveth not, that England must have a Bishop: because, although England want a Bishop, other churches may have them, & so the Universal church remain a Hierarchy. If he understand of every determinate particular church; than it followeth, that the church of God cannot be a Hierarchy unless the determinate particular church of England have a Bishop, as the Discussour urged n. 16. and the Replyer doth not confute.  
15. By the way I espy in his n. 32. a word for my purpose, which overthroweth the Repliers whole discourse in this Question. The church (saith he) cannot be at all without a supreme Bishop, or not without order to him, when the sea is Vacant. This I take as granted, and very true: and hence I infer; That as the Universal church may be an Universal church, without actual union to a supreme Bishop, while the sea is Vacant, because it still hath Order, reference, and aptitude to be governed by an Universal Bishop, as soon as he shall be elected; so a particular church, may be such, by Order, and aptitude to be united with a particular Bishop, whensoever he shall be apppointed; & so S. Cyprians definition (The Church is the people united to the Bishop) doth not require, that the people be actually united to the Bishop, but only in readiness of mind, or aptitudinally. And thus England while it wanted a Bishop, was a particular church, because it was always in disposition to be united to a Bishop. Where now is that argument, so often inculcated by M. Doctor, the Inquisitor, and the Replyer? S. Cyprian defines a church to be the people united to the Bishop. But the people cannot be united to a Bishop, unless they have one: Ergo, they cannot be a church unless they have a Bishop. For the Replyer himself hath told us, that when the Sea is vacant, the people may be a church, with only Order to a Bishop, which implieth not the actual having a Bishop, but only a fit disposition to have one.   

THE III. QUESTION. Whether by the divine Law every particular Church must have its Bishop?  
THE divine precept, of having Bishops in the Church, is only to be understood indeterminatly, or in general; that in the whole church, there must be some Bishops, as many, or few, as may be necessary, or requisite, to the end of governing the same Church. But in respect of particular, and determinate churches, the command is not absolute, but beareth a great respect to circumstances of time, place, and the like, as the Vicar of Christ shall judge it best fitting, for governing, and providing such churches of all things necessary to salvation. Wherefore from the divine precept, of having Bishops, in general, we cannot infer a necessity of having Bishops, in this, or that particular country although otherwise of extent. For there may occur good reason, why some other government, in some particular circumstances may conduce more to the glory of God, and particular good of such a country. Contrariwise it may happen, that some church of small extent, may in particular circumstances more require the government of a Bishop, than a larger country. The thing therefore which is (as I may say) formally to be considered, is the quality, or greater, or less necessity; not the greater, or less quantity of place, or number of persons, but in as much as these may induce, a greater necessity of having Bishops.  
2. For this cause, in the primitive church, even in time of hottest persecution, Bishops were multiplied, and placed in diverse Cities, because those times did so require. In so much, that some Authors write, that in those first days of Christianity, in a manner all Priests were Bishops, contrary to the present practice of God's church. The reason was, the paucity of Priests, of which if many had not been made Bishops, to ordain Priests, particular churches would have remained unfurnished of Priests, to convert infidels, & assist them being converted. Every church having enough to do within itself, could not afford help to others. For this same cause, Bishops were allotted to smaller flocks, then is now either usual, or lawful, to be commonly practised. S. Gregory the Thaumaturge, cited by the Replyer n. 14. was created Bishop over only 17. persons. A number competent for those old, not these latter times, in places where by neighbour-churches, the want of other may be relieved. The more the Universal church is dilated, the less every particular church needeth a a Bishop of its own. Because other churches, without much prejudice unto themselves, may frequently, lend them a helping hand. In countries, by vast distance, remote from help, and comfort of Christian Nations, a Bishop may be needful for a few. In Europe, the case is otherwise. If one ship be in want, it can because to those who abound in diverse others.  
3. Hence it followeth, that, to prove the necessity of a Bishop in England in vain we have recourse, to the divine precept in general, of having some Bishops in the church. All the question must settle on this; Whether England, can be sufficiently furnished of Priests, and provided of all necessaries for our journey to heaven, without a Bishop; Or whether the inconueniece of coming, might not counterpoise the commodities he would bring. This should be the only Question; and the answer ought to be referred, to the same Bishop, to whose charge Christ hath committed England, & all other countries'. In the mean time, let not Catholics be frighted, with divine precepts where none are.  
4. The Replyer doth not rightly state the Question, while he telleth us n. 8. that M. Doctor only teacheth, that Catholics cannot refuse a Bishop, although by his coming persecution should be increased, supposing he be sent by lawful authority. Because (saith he) in that case, the Pope rather declareth, that the divine law ceaseth not to oblige. A goodly construction of M. Doctors meaning, and a fair account of all his pains; which are reduced to this issue: Catholics are bound, by the divine law, to receive a Bishop, if the Pope declare, that the divine law, of having a Bishop, bindeth them. As if the Question were, whether Catholics be obliged, to believe the Pope's declarations, whether or no divine Laws do oblige. Surely for this, there need no writing of Hierarchyes, Inquisitions, Replies. The answer might speedly have been given. That in all things, the Catholics of England have been, are, and eternally will be, as zealous, prompt, and constant in submitting their understandings, and wills, to the commanders, or declarations of his Holiness, as any Catholics whom the Sun beholdeth. But it is evident, that M. Doctor speaketh absolutely, and ex natura rei, of the necessity we have, to receive a Bishop, abstracting from the Pope's declaration or Mission. This, his reasons demonstrate, drawn from the divine precept of having Bishops in every great part of the church; from the utility, or necessity of Confirmation, without which men are in danger to forsake their faith, as M. Doctor urgeth &c. as may be seen in the very title, and throughout his whole 14. Chapter.  
5. Neither is it a good Consequence: The Pope sendeth a Bishop to England, Ergo, he declares, that there is a divine precept, to have a Bishop in England. Many things are holily done, which a man is not obliged to do. When the Pope maketh a Diocese, and endueth it with a Bishop, distinct from other particular Bishops, doth he therefore declare, that there was a divine precept, to make such a Diocese, or to place a Bishop in it? We see some Territoryes, capable of Bishops, to be governed by Abbots which could not be, if there were a divine precept, to place Bishops in such Territoryes, although it had not likewise been against the divine law, to have placed Bishops in the same Territoryes. This is a good Inference. The Pope, for many years, sent us no Bishop: Ergo, he judged there was no divine precept, obliginge him to send us one; but the other consequence is of no force, as I have showed. Will the Replyer admit this argument; The Pope for many years left us without a Bishop: Ergo, he judged there was a divine precept, that we should be left without a Bishop?. It is as good as his. Nicolas Smith n. 4. said truly; The deliberation about sending a Bishop to England, was only, Quid expediret, what was expedient, not what was necessary, by the divine law, which, as I said, is only of Churches taken in general and indeterminately. And I cannot but esteem it injurious, to those Fatherly bowels of his Holiness, to think, that he ever judged us obliged, to accept a Bishop, with a general increase of persecution. If he were persuaded, that the coming of a Bishop, would occasion to Catholics, a general persecution, I dare say, he would never impose upon them such an obligation. And yet M. Doctor, and the Replyer are rigid Censurers of Catholics, as infingers of the divine Law, if they should refuse a Bishop, even upon that heavy supposition.  
6. Supposing the Institution of having Bishops, do not oblige in all times, places, and other circumstances, Nicolas Smith had had reason to say, n. 4. That M. Doctor, if he will speak home, must prove, not only that there is a divine precept for us to have a Bishop, but also that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof, or yield sufficient cause of dispensation. For although we should grant, a divine precept in general, yet if in some circumstances it do not bind, the transgressors should not sinne. Now, if any cause may afford a lawful excuse, what can be greater, than the avoiding of a general persecution, whereby not only goods, and life, but also christian souls are exposed to danger.  
7. The Replyer n. 3. speaketh in such manner, as one would conceive Nicolas Smith to have affirmed, that M. Doctor denied the Pope may dispense in the divine Law; which Nicholas Smith never said: yet because the Replyer first mentioneth this matter, I must add, that seeing M. Doctor proveth our obligation to have a Bishop, by the necessity of Confirmation, and danger of denying our faith, through want of that Sacramet; it will not be easy for him, to defend, that the Pope can dispense in that obligation. For what dispensation can be given, for exposing of men's souls to damnation? Or if M. Doctor, and the Replyer grant, that the Pope may dispense in this command; I must be bold to say, their arguments, drawn from the necessity of Confirmation, are farre-fetched frights, not solid reasons.  
8. Whereas the Replyer n. 12. writeth, that Nicholas Smith said not truly, that in England the multitude of Catholics, not the extent of the place, is only to be considered: I say truly, that Nicholas Smith saith no such matter, but only, That if England be considered, not materially, but formally (as Divines express themselves) that is, not the extent of land, or multitude of people, but the number of Catholics, which only can make a trae Church, we shall find it to be more then far from a great, or notabic part of the Catholic Church spread over the whole word. Whether or no the extent of place, or number of persons, although not Catholics, be also considerable, Nicholas Smith would answer, that it dependeth upon other circumstances, which may make such an extent, more, or less, or not at all, considerable, as we have showed n. 2. As for England in particular, if the extent of place were less, a Bishop would be more useful, for the Sacrament of Confirmation, which might be administered to more, if they were less distant in place▪ And this urgeth much against the Replyer, who, in proving the necessity of a Bishop in every great country, finally n. 20. reduceth all, to the necessity of Confirmation.  
9 It is strange, how zealous the Replyer n. 10. is against Nicholas Smith, for making the Catholics, as it were a contemptible number, only because he saith, they are not a notable great part of God's Church, notwithstanding that Nicholas Smith cited in that behalf, a Writing entitled; A Paratell etc. (the Author whereof, is thought to be a person of greater rank, than the Replyer) wherein it is said, that all our Catholics together, would scarcsely make one, of diverse Bishoprickes in England. And it is worth the noting, that the Paralellist said so, in proof, that some Regulars, who wrote that the government of certain Churches, anciently belonged to them, did thereby make a greater Challenge, than my lord of Chalcedon, which surely must have respect only to the number of persons, and not extent of place. For those Regulars never challenged power over all Catholics, through England, as my lord of Chalcedon doth. But by this we may see, how the number of Catholics must be raised, or cried down, as it maketh most for their purpose. It seemeth his Holiness had consideration, chiefly of Persons, not of the Place, by making my Lord, not Bishop of the country, but only giving him authority referred to the persons. Ordinaries have jurisdiction, in respect both of place, and person, Catholics, and Heretics: and therefore in them, extent of place is much more considerable. Lastly, although it were granted (as a thing not making much for our present purpose) that the extent of place in England, were much considerable, thence at the most could be inferred, that England is capable of a Bishop, not that it must of necessity have one, which is our only Question. As there be some Dioceses, for extent of place, well capable of too, or more Bishops, and yet it doth not follow, that of necessity they must have too or more, if by one they can be sufficiently governed; yea there are diverse places, capable of one, or more Bishops, who have no Bishop at all, but are governed by other superiors.  
10. Likewise the Replyer n. 9 about this point, citeth the words of the Discussour n. 7. very imperfectly in this manner. To affirm, that one Diocese, or City, is a notable part of the Church, is a thing, which no divine, yea no man of judgement will say. The words entirely cited are these: To affirm, that one Diocese, or City, or indeed not so much as one Diocese or City, is a great, or notable part of that Church, which reacheth, as fare as the rising and setting of the Sun, and that it must therefore, iure divino, by the divine law, have a Bishop; so as no cause can excuse the want of one, is a thing, which no Divine etc. This saying of Nicolas Smith is so evident, as no man can deny it to be true; and yet for this speech, he is deeply charged by the Inquisitor, and Replyer of great immodesty. Besides Nicolas Smith never say d M. Doctor affirmed all this, but only by good consequence, he shown that this and diverse other hard conclusions, must follow out of his Principles.  
11. What he citeth n. 14. out of the Regulars Answer, to my Lord of Calcedons letter, is by him odiously forced, to a sense by the neither meant, nor written. It is clear, they speak not of Episcopal authority in general, but of a Bishop, in these times, with power of Ordinary, in foro externo, coactive, to erect a Tribunal etc. which they say, would in these times, prove pernitions to souls etc. as M. Doctor Chap. 15. confesseth, my Lord of Chalcedon to say, that such a Tribunal is not suitable to these times. Preaching is a holy thing, and as ancient, as our Saviour Christ; yet to do it publicly, in these times, may be called, a Novelty, and pernicious to Catholics.  
12. In more than three whole leaves, from n. 16. he laboureth to make good, that Sotus favoureth M. Doctor. All his discourse is reduced to this. When Sotus teacheth it, to be of divine law, that in general to every Church according to the Ecclesiastical division, proper Bishops are to be applied; those words (in general) are to be interpreted, as if one should say, Christ in general hath ordained, that every man shall be baptised, and therefore by our Saviour's command, every particular man is to be baptised. The Discussour interpreteth Sotus by the word (in general) to mean indeterminatly of some Dioceses according as particular circumstances of persons, time, and place shall require, & not that Sotus did teach an absolute precept, of placing Bishops in every determinate particular Diocese. This interpretation, is gathered out of Sotus his whole drift, which was to prove afterward against Catharines', that the Residence of Bishops, is de iure divino, of the divine law; and also out of his words, cited by the Replyer n. 22. that the Bishop must, adsalutem gregis oculate attendere; look as it were with his eye, to the good of his flock: &, propter peculiarem curam & vigilantiam; for the peculiar care and vigilancy necessary to his Church. All which demonstrate Sotus his meaning only to be, that Bishops, by the divine law must be so applied to particular Churches, as may suffice for the good government of the same, but not so absolutely, that when they may be otherwise provided for, every Diocese must of necessity have its Bishop; which Sotus knew well to be against the practice of the Church, wherein diverse Territoryes, as great as Dioceses, are exempt from all particular Bishops. As Sotus teacheth, that Bishops must be applied to particular Dioceses; so he teacheth, that Parish Priests must be applied to particular Parishes, as may be seen in the words cited by the Replyer; & it were strange, that Sotus should therefore be alleged, to hold, it a divine law, that every Parish, have its Parish Priest, if otherwise it be sufficiently provided. Sotus then must be understood, only indeterminately, that some Dioceses must have their Bishops, because otherwise they cannot be sufficiently governed; but not absolutely, that by the divine law each one must have its Bishop, although otherwise it can be furnished with all necessaries. And this in effect is no more than we said in this Question n. 1. and evinceth, the no necessity of a Bishop in England, by the divine law, if without a Bishop we can be sufficiently provided for. According to this true meaning of Sotus, it followeth not, as the Replyer thinks; Sotus teacheth, that there must be a Bishop in every particular Diocese: Ergo much more in every notable part of the Church; because if a notable part of the Church, can be otherwise well governed, it will no more, according to Sotus, require a Bishop, than a particular Diocese. Yea there may hap to be a greater obligation, of placing a Bishop, in some particular Diocese, then in a great Country, where the Bishop cannot perform his office or cannot come without great damage to Catholics, which are considerations depending wholly upon particular circumstances, and not to be determined by general notions of greater, or less extent of place. Besides, M. Doctor alleged Sotus absolutely; now the Replyer hath recourse to inferences. If Sotus mean as the Replyer will have him; That by the divine law, the Pope must apply a particular Bishop to every Diocese, or rather to every place capable to be a Diocese, the doctrine is not true in itself; and is against the Replier pag. 30. n. 12. who granteth that the Pope may govern some little Provinces, otherwise then by a Bishop, as we see frequently practised in Territoryes of good extent. It was then a hard shift out of a doctrine not true, by inference to prove a point so prejudicial to Catholics, as M. Doctors conclusion was. At least it cannot be denied, but Sotus his words, by this diversity of Interpretation, appear to be obscure, and therefore could yield but uncertain relief to M. Doctors hard assertion.  
13. Concerning Bannez, see the Discussour n. 11. who truly affirmed, that he made nothing for M. Doctor. When he teacheth, that the Pope cannot remove Bishops from a great part of the Church, he understands as we commonly call one thing, a great part of another, as certainly one country is not a great part of the Catholic church, which extendeth itself as fare as the world, especially, if in such a country, there be no more Catholics, then are in England.  
14. The Replyer n. 28. doth his utmost to prove, that by divine Law, every particular Church must have a Bishop, and when all comes to all, the point is reduced to the necessity of Confirmation. But this is a weak ground, to oblige Catholics to receive a Bishop, with increase of persecution. For first a Bishop, for Confirmation only, can be no more necessary, than Confirmation itself, which is not a Sacrament of necessity, and according to all Divines, may be omitted without sin, when commodiously it cannot be had; which certainly happeneth, when a Bishop cannot come into the Country, but accompanied with addition to a grievous persecution. 2. That Sacrament may be administered by a Priest, with commission from the Pope. 3. Although it were necessarily to be administered by a Bishop yet it requireth, only Episcopal Order, with voluntary jurisdiction, as Priests in England have over their Penitents. 4. It requireth not a Bishop belonging to England, or residing in that Kingdom. 5. M. Doctor allegeth the divine precept, of having Bishops in every notable part of the Church, as a distinct argument from his other reason of the necessity of Confirmation, as may be seen in his chap. 14. n. 4. and the Replyer doth not sufficiently defend M. Doctor, by flying from one to the other. The point touching Confirmation belongs to the next Question.  
15. All that he hath n. 29. 30. 31. 32. is the very same with the objections, of the Jnquisition Sect. 6. and is answered by the Qualificatour, in the same section so clearly, as I need add no more.  
16. By the same form of argument, whereby M. Doctor proved the necessity of a Bishop, in every Country of exent, the Discussour said, it might be proved; That in every Country, Religious Institute is to be maintained, because the Pope is obliged to conserve it, in the whole Church of God. But there is no more reason of one Country, then of another: Ergo it is to be maintained in every Country. To this the Replyer answereth n. 33. 34. First, that Nicholas Smith can not find out a divine precept, obliging the Pope to admit any Religious Order, as he is bound to give Bishops to the Church. But I believe if he consider the matter better, he will not adventure to say; That the Pope can deprive the Church of a Religious Estate, Instituted by our Saviour Christ, whose Counsels faithful people cannot, without injury, be universally hindered to follow. Secondly, he answereth; That he hath proved it to be of the divine law, that every notable part of the Church have a Bishop; whereas no Religious Order is necessary by the divine law in every notable part of the Church. But he neither hath proved, what he assumeth as proved, nor doth he answer the form of Nicholas smith's argument, which was the same with that, which M. Doctor used to prove the necessity of a Bishop in England. And so when the Replyer biddeth the Discussour make what he can of this answer; till he give a better, this use any man may make of it, to say with truth, that it maketh nothing for M. Doctors reason, but only to show the insufficiency of it.  
17. No less deficient is he, in satisfying another form of Argument, brought by Nicholas Smith, in resemblance of that of M. Doctors: It is not of the divine law, to have a Bishop in every particular Diocese of England: But, if we respect the divine law, there is no more reason of one Diocese then another; Ergo, all the Dioceses of England may be governed without a Bishop. And the same argument may be made of all other countries'. To this form of argument the Replyer answereth; That there is more necessity of a Bishop in a whole Country, then in every particular Diocese, which was not the question, but whether it was not as good a form of argument, as that which M. Doctor used. I omit to note, that the Replyer misciteth the Discussour, who said not, that M. Doctor confessed, that a particular Diocese may be without a Bishop, but spoke reservedly, that M. Doctor seemed to confess it; which is true, because he still expressly declared himself to speak, of a notable great part of the Church. Howsoever, the thing itself is true, that the Pope is not, by divine law, obliged to give a Bishop, to every place capable of one, as we see often practised. Would M. Doctor perhaps, have in England, as many Bishops, as there be Dioceses? What mystery may there be, that the Replier doth so purposely conceal M. Doctors opinion in this point? To confirm more, what Nicholas Smith said, I argue thus in M. Doctors form. It is not of the divine law, that England have a Bishop: properly called Bishop of England, or of any Diocese therein: But there is no more reason of England, then of other Countries. Ergo all other Countries may be without a Bishop, properly called Bishop of such Countries, or of any Diocese therein. This is M. Doctors form of argument, and yet the consequence cannot by any Catholic be maintained.  
18. At length the Replyer n. 36. agreeth with us, that it must be left to the supreme Pastor's discretion, whether the divine law obligeth a Country to have a Bishop, in this, or that circumstance, and so M. Doctor and the Replyer might have spared their pains, in proving that England must have a Bishop, because there is a divine law, that every great part of the Church, as they conceive England to be, have its proper Bishop. Yet I cannot approve his other saying, that when we demand any thing, there is more reason to demand, that which is ordinary, then that which is extraordinary, and therefore England may demand an Ordinary. For the rule of wise men ought rather to be, that they demand, what is most suitable to time place, and other Circumstances, and not what is ordinary, or extraordinary. God grant our case of England, were not extraordinary, and much different from that of other Catholic Countries.  
19 He doth likewise not a little relent, in the same n. 36. where finding M. Doctor sore pressed by the Discussour n. 15.16. that his arguments, if they pass for good, must also prove, that Scotland is obliged to have its Bishop, yea that both England, and Scotland must have an Ordinary, properly so called, because Scotland is a Country of extent, and by the divine law, beside the supreme Pastor, there must be other Ordinaries, or Ecclesiastical Princes in the whole Church, and consequently (according to the grounds of M. Doctor & the Replyer) every notable part of the Church, must have a Bishop, in that proper sense. To this the Replyer answereth: If England, and Scotland be both notable parts of the Church, both aught to have, by the divine law, their proper Bishop, be he Ordinary, or Delegate. If? Doth he begin to doubt, whether they be both notable parts of the Church, or Churches of extent? Or can he assign us a divine law for England, not for Scotland? I see, he may in time accord with Nicholas Smith, whom ere while he so much taxed, for saying, that England, as now things stand, is no notable part of God's whole Church. Morever, the divine law, of having some Bishops in the Church, is of Ordinaries in an ordinary manner, not of Delegates; and therefore if Delegates suffice in England, or Scotland, it is a sign the divine law doth not oblige in those Country's; and if by Bishop's Delegates the divine law be fulfilled, it may be fulfilled by Priests Delegates, for as much as concerneth jurisdiction.  
20. I will answer his n. 37. only by adding, what he leaveth out in citing the Discussours' words q. 7. n. 15. I (saith Nicholas Smith) would most willingly spend my blood, for purchasing of times, suitable with the enjoying a Catholic Bishop in England. Where the Replyer leaveth off, and maketh a long needless descant upon a point every plain, if he had added the words, immediately following, namely (endued with as much authority, as any particular Bishop in the whole Church of God.) Which times almighty God grant us with speed, if so it be his divine will.  
21. The confutation of M. Doctors arguments, drawn from the African Church, is by the Replyer answered, with a gentle, & implicit concession, of all that the Discussour had objected. For omitting all particulars, he telleth us, that they were alleged by M. Doctor, only to show their zeal, and great desire of a Bishop. But seeing Nicholas Smith did show, that there was no parity betwixt their case and ours, and also that the African Bishops, did not approve the people's zeal, but rather gave a precedent, that zeal is to be tempered with discretion, the said examples, were neither rightly alleged by M. Doctor, nor is M. Doctor well defended by the Replyer. As fare as Knowledge will give way, English Catholics will yield to none, in zeal to have a Bishop.   

THE FOUR QUESTION. Whether a Country, although the Persecution should be increased, by occasion of having a Bishop, could refuse one, if it were only for the Sacrament of Confirmation.  
THE Replyer chargeth Nicholas Smith, for changing the question, as if he had imposed upon M. Doctor that he taught, every man in particular to be obliged, to hazard goods, liberty, & life, for enjoying Confirmation, whereas M. Doctor only spoke of persecution in general. But Nicholas Smith never imposed upon M. Doctor that saying, nor do the Discussours' words, alleged by the Replyer, import any such matter, but he ever spoke of persecution, to be increased by the coming of a Bishop, which might as well fall upon this, as that man, and in that sense, every one in particular, might fear it for himself. Yet Nicholas Smith never disputed, whither some in particular, might not, without danger, receive Confirmation, supposing we had a Bishop, which touched not the question in hand. For certain it is, that Confirmation cannot be said, to be had commodiously, (which was the point that made most for the purpose) if it cannot be received, without a Bishop, whose very coming, was supposed to cause increase of persecution, to Catholics in general; which is more considerable, then if it were certain, that by his coming, some one man only were to suffer damage, as Nicolas Smith n. 17. said truly, but is not rightly taken by the Replyer n. 5. And by this is answered his long discourse n. 29. 30. 31. 32.  
2. His arguments, concerning Perfect Christianity are examined in the Qualification sect. 4. where it is explicated, in what sense we are by Confirmation, made perfect Christians, and is demonstrated, that Nicholas Smith never denied it, in the sense in which the holy Fathers spoke.  
3. Likewise the Qualificatour sect. 3. showeth that Nicolas Smith, concerning the authority of S. Clement's Epistles, hath no more, yea less, then is to be read in Bellarmine, Possovinus Sixtus Senensis, and Baronius. And further showeth, that Nicolas Smith doth not reject them, as Heretics do; and lastly, that the said Epistles make nothing against the Discussour.  
4. That which M. Doctor and the Replyer should have done, and by Nicolas Smith n. 16. were urged to do, should have been, to prove that to be perfect Christians in the Father's sense, was of so great necessity, that for attaining thereof, Catholics ought to endure persecution: But this neither M. Doctor did perform, nor doth the Replyer, as much as take notice of. And truly in what sense soever we take S. Clement, and other Fathers, or Counsels, teaching, that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians, nor properly Christians, yea not Christians at all (for so some speak) it is always to be understood, if that Sacrament be omitted voluntarily, when it may be had, otherwise we may be perfect Christians; that is, it shall not be imputed to us, that we are not perfect Christians, but God will supply that want by other means. As if a Cathecumen, believing perfectly in Christ, die without Baptism yet with intense Contrition, not having possibility to be actually baptised, he may be said to dye a Christian, yea a good, and holy Christian; because the want of Baptismal Character is not imputed to him (as it would to one, who by his fault had omitted it) in regard he wants it, only negative not privative; he hath it not, yet wants it not, by reason in that case he was not bound to have it in act, but only in effectual desire. As after Baptism, remission of deadly sins, the proper effect of the Sacrament of Penance, may be obtained by Contrition, as it includes a desire of that Sacrament; which desire in that case, is reputed for the act. This is a clear explication, of those words left out by M. Doctor, in citing S. Clement (si non necessitate etc. If he shall remain so, not upon necessity, but by carelessness, or voluntarily.) Which were words of chief importance, when we disputed of omitting Confirmation, not carelessly, but for just fear of persecution, because we are not bound to be perfect Christians, in that peculiar sense, with so great damage; nor will the want of such perfection, in that case, be imputed to us, but God of his goodness, will be ready to supply, the effect of Confirmation, for as much as concerneth actual grace, and assistance, without the Character; because, upon that supposition, of persecution to be increased, there is a moral kind of impossibility to receive it. By which observation, falleth down all that the Replyer objects, n. 16. about Baptism not actually received, and Confirmation n. 22. and both Baptism and Confirmation n. 23. as the Reader will perceive, by applying to his objections, what even now I have noted. For we do not say, that without unction one can be anointed, although it be omitted upon necessity, but only, that the want of it shall not be imputed, yea shall be otherwise supplied; and the like I say of Baptism: whereas if unction be omitted voluntarily, the party shall be anointed neither Sacramentally, by the character, nor Equivalently by other helps from God, and so he shall deserve to be truly called not a perfect Christian. By the way I observe, that n. 22. he confoundeth two disstinct answers given by the Discussour, by which means it is easy to make a show of difficulty, or to confute any two opinions, or answers given as different, yet both as probable, as Scholars daily give diverse probable answers to one difficulty, which taken together cannot both subsist, being quite different, or contrary; and if one be determinately embraced as true, the other must be relinquished as not true, although it may still retain its probability, & to some other man perhaps seem also more true. The Qualificatour Sect. 7. n. 17. showeth that other Catholic Authors, might well leave out those words of S. Clement (if not by necessity etc.) because they treated not the case of persecution, of which M. Doctor did speak, and so they had no like obligation to cite those words.  
5. But (saith the Replyer) rather Nicolas Smith falsifyeth S. Clement, whose words are these: All therefore must make haste, without delay to be regenerated to God, and then to be consigned by the Bishop etc. And when he shall be regenerated by water, and afterward confirmed by the Bishop, with the seavenfolde grace of the spirit, for otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian, nor have place amongst the perfect, if he so remain, not by necessity but by carelessness, or voluntarily. Where the Discussour left out these words (nor have place amongst the perfect,) which he thinks to be of great importance, and to signify that he cannot be admitted to the sacred Eucharist, nor to the rank of them that are admitted to it, if not by necessity, but voluntarily he shall so remain. For if by necessity, the party baptised wanted Confirmation, he might be admitted to the Eucharist. But I am not of his opinion that those words were of importance, and dare assure him in the Discussours' behalf, that he never dreamt of any mystery, which could move him, purposely to omit them. It is very strange that the Discussour should be blamed, for omitting only the mentioned words, and M. Doctor excused, although he left out the very same words, & also the words that followed (If not by necessity etc.) Are you so unfriendly to Nieolas Smith, that upon condition to espy one omission in him, you are content to acknowledge a double one in M. Doctor? Yourself must satisfy for Nicolas Smith, and answer your own arguments n. 22.23. wherewith you so much pressed the Discussour; for in S. Clement, these words (If not by necessity, but by &c.) are refered to both the precedet clauses (he cannot be a perfect Christian) & to the other (nor have place among the perfect) as appeareth by the conjunction (nor) & therefore S. Clement signifieth, that he cannot be a perfect Christian, if not by necessity, but voluntarily he omit Confirmation. Wherefore those words, nor have place amongst the perfect, either are but a repetition or explication of the former, or if they signify somewhat else, they have no more reference to the words (If not by necessity etc.) then the other clause (he cannot be a perfect Christian) which as I explicated above, signify, that the want of perfect christianity, acquired by actual unction, and by receiving a military Character, shall not be imputed to him, but that God will supply the grace of Confirmation, by other means, if indeed he want it upon necessity, as they do, who are deprived of it, upon just fear of persecution. The Replyers explication of these words (nor have place amongst the perfect) must be rejected by himself for he teacheth, that there was in these times, an Ecclesiastical custom of being confirmed, before one received the B. Eucharist, and consequently it was not lawful to do it, except in some case of necessity; for example, at the hour of death, when the divine precept of communicating did oblige and as it were drown the Ecclesiastical precept; in which case the person unconfirmed was bound to receive the B. Sacrament, whether he had omitted Confirmation by necessity, or voluntarily; only he was bound to have Contrition for his former omission. And therefore the Replyer cannot assign any case, in these times, of disparity betwixt him, who had omitted Confirmation voluntarily, and him who had omitted it upon necessity; because when such a necessity did urge, both of them might, and aught to receive the Blessed Sacrament, (and so according to the Replyers explication have place amongst the perfect;) and when no such necessity did happen, neither of them could receive the B. Eucharist: and therefore as I said, the Replyers explication cannot subsist with his own grounds. Moreover, Nicholas Smith had reason to think it a hard doctrine that without Confirmation, we shall be sure to want such a perfection in our Christianity, as we should be obliged under sin, to suffer a general persecution, for redeeming the want of such a perfection. For to that severe purpose M. Doctor alleged S. Clement and in that sense Nicolas Smith had reason to deny, that without Confirmation we could not be perfect Christians.  
6. What he saith n. 27. that Confirmation is a perfecting unction, is not against the Discussour, who never denied it, nor ever treated, whether S. Denis in his 5. Chapter spoke of Confirmation; but only saith, and proveth, that in the said Chapter, he speaketh also of oil used in Baptism, and that therefore out of such general speeches alone, M. Doctor could not infer any thing peculiar to Confirmation. See the Discuss. n. 17. which in this point is clear enough.  
7. The Reader must understand with circumspection, the Replyers doctrine n. 10. That God obligeth himself, to give the special grace of Confirmation (to profess our faith) to such as receive it. For this must be understood, if Persons Confirmed, do on their part concur with God's grace, moving, and inciting them, to the observation of his commandments, & performance of other good works, according to his inspirations, besides the only receiving of Confirmation. Otherwise he may justly deny them particular efficacious grace, permitting them to fail in the Confession of their faith, whiles others, by humble frequentation of other Sacraments, & diligence in good works, do by those means supply the want of Confirmation, and remain constant, in the confession foe their faith. Likewise, whereas n. 40. & in other places, he teacheth, that Confirmation is the ordinary means to get grace, for confessing our faith; If he understand that all other means are extraordinary, his doctrine is not true. For otherwise Confirmation were a necessary means, for the profession of our faith, and for salvation; so as no man unconfirmed, could without miracle confess his faith, although he inculpably omit Confirmation, & otherwise keep the commandments, frequent Sacraments, be assiduous in prayer, & fervent in all other good works: which no man can defend. If, by ordinary means, he understand a means ordained to give grace, for the Confession of our faith, the doctrine is good. But thence doth not follow, that other means also may not suffice, for the Confession of our faith, because the same end may be attained by different means. See the Qualification Sect. 4. n. 7. Nevertheless, if in some particular case, one did in Conscience persuade himself that without Confirmation, he should not have strength to profess his faith, such an one were bound to receive that Sacrament, as Conic related by the Replyer n. 41. affirmeth. But this is per accidens, as one may some time be obliged to fast, or undertake other corporal austerityes, to confess, receive the B. Sacrament, or some such pious work, if he were in Conscience persuaded, that without such a particular determinate means, he could not overcome some temptation.  
8. From the 33. to the 38. number he endeavoureth to defend M. Doctors saying, That Eusebius recounteth, Novatus to have fallen, for want of Confirmation. First, he answereth, that indeed Eusebius doth not say so in express terms: Ergo do I infer, M. Doctor said not well, that Novatus fell for want of Confirmation, as Eusebius hath remarked, for so, he speaketh in his Epistle n. 18. Secondly, he telleth us, that Eusebius doth insinuate so much. But M. Doctor saith more: and I deny, that Eusebius doth otherwise insinuate it, then by saying, that he wanted the grace of Confirmation; as likewise he relateth, that he was ambitious, with many other crimes. And indeed his schism, and heresy may be ascribed to his ambition, and opposition to Cornelius for the Popedom, rather than to any thing else. For Heresy, and schism, are the immediate brood of pride, and ambition. Thirdly he saith, that at least it may be probably inferred out of Eusebius, that Novatus fell for want of Confirmation. But here we talk not of inferences, but whether, or no, Eusebius do affirm it? Neither doth it follow; He fell, and wanted Confirmation: Ergo, he fell for want of Confirmation. For as he wanted Confirmation, so was he ambitious, and loaden with other sins. Yet Nicholas Smith out of respect to that Sacrament, said, it might well be, he fell for want of Confirmation, as also it may be, that he fell, both for his sin of neglecting, and contemning that Sacrament, and jointly for other his gross enormities. Only I still deny, that Eusebius saith, he fell for want of Confirmation. His last answer is, that others before M. Doctor have written out of Eusebius, that Novatus fell for want of Confirmation, which is to confess that M. Doctor taketh his arguments upon trust, in a matter concerning the obligation of afflicted Catholics, to endure a heavyer persecution, and upon trust from Authors, who treated not that particular, important Conclusion, which M. Doctor was to prove: and this is so much the more to be wondered at, because, the example of Novatus, is by him diverse times repeated, as if it were some Masterpiece, and yet finally the Replyer confesseth, that M. Doctor took it from the notes of the Rheims Testament, granting thereby, that for alleging some other Authors, to the same effect, he is obliged to the Replyer, and so not those Authors, but only the Rheims Testament can excuse M. Doctor. But indeed, neither those Venerable Authors of the said notes, nor other Catholic Authors, can give excuse for his misalleadging Eusebius. For out of Eusebius they clearly prove against hereticques, that Confirmation is a Sacrament, and a thing not to be contemned, because for want of it Novatus received not the holy Ghost, and was by Cornelius condemned for neglect to receive it. All which Eusebius doth in express teams relate, and so makes good, what Catholic Authors intent to prove against Hereticques, although indeed he say not, that Novatus fell for want of Confirmation, which made not much to the purpose of the said Catholic Authors. But the strength of M. Doctors argument, doth wholly rely, upon Eusebius his affirming, that Novatus actually fell for want of Confirmation. For it was to prove, that without Confirmation, if one fall not, others probably will, as (saith he) Novatus did for want of it. Thus he speaketh Chap. 14. n. 8. and in other places. And it had been a strange argument, to say: Novatus fallen not: Ergo, English Catholics by his example, may fear to fall.  
9 But what if M. Doctor do also mistake the Rheims Testament, and so the Replyer in lieu of apologizing for M. Doctor his misalleadging Eusebius, be put to defend both M. Doctor and himself, for mistaking those very notes of the Rheims Testament? I believe it will prove so. We must therefore distinguish a double fall of Novatus. The one, when for fear of persecution he denied himself to be Priest, refusing to help some Christians in necessity, and hazard, for which and the like occasions, against fear in time of Persecution, Confirmation is peculiarly ordained. His other fall, was into schism, opposition to Cornelius for the Popedom, and heresy. This second lapse was not caused by fear of persecution, but proceeded from pride, ambition, and neglect, or contempt of Confirmation, which in him was either a formal act of heresy, or a disposition preparing his soul for a fall into further schism, and heresy: neither did he in this second kind of fall deny himself to be Priest, but rather sought to usurp the highest Priesthood; and the persecution tended not to drive men into schism or heresy, but wholly to bereave them of Christianity. Now M. Doctor must understand, that Novatus his fall, or denying himself to be Priest, in the foresaid circumstances, for fear of persecution, happened, because he wanted Confirmation; whereas the Rheims Testament saith no such matter, but speaks only of his fall to heresy, and of his contempt of that Sacrament, and so makes nothing for M. Doctors purpose. Let us hear the words of the Rheims Testament, cited by the Replyer n. 36. Never none denied, or contemned the Sacrament of Confirmation, and holy Chrism, but known Heretics. S. Cornelius that Blessed Martyr so much praised of S. Cyprian, affirmeth that Novatus fell to heresy, for that he had not received the holy Ghost, by the consignation of a Bishop, whom all the Novatians did follow, never using that holy Chrism. What is here for M. Doctors purpose concerning the fall of Novatus for fear of persecution? Perhaps, if he had been more persecuted, he had not been so subject to ambition, and prone to schism, & heresy. Bayus likewise, cited by the Replyer, speaks of Novatus his propension to heresy, and so makes no more in excuse of M. Doctor then the Rheims Testament did. Besides, the Replier giveth no answer at all, to Nicholas Smith, showing, that the case of Novatus, was infinitely different, from that of our Catholics in England, although it were granted that Novatus indeed fell for want of Confirmation, which he omitted not upon just cause, but neglected, and contemned, whom all the Novatians did follow, never using that holy Chrism, as even now we have heard out of the Rheims Testament. The Replyer then is many ways deficient in this point. I could add, that M. Doctor cities Eusebius more than once, very particularly, lib. 6. Chap. 33. alias 34. whereas the Rheims Testament citeth Chap. 35. so as it is not very obvious, how M. Doctor took his relation from those notes, seeing with such particularity, he cities Eusebius differently from them. But I will not be so minute with the Replyer.  
10. In his number 40. he saith, that many who may commodiously receive Confirmation, have right to receive it, and that the rest of Catholics cannot, for a general persecution, deprive them of that right. But this at the most proveth, that if once we have a Bishop, those who may commodiously receive Confirmation, cannot be hindered, but not that they should be wronged, if others for avoiding a general persecution, and providing for their own indemnity should, by lawful, and orderly means, oppose the coming of a Bishop. Rather, the particular good of some, must give place to the general harm of others. Besides, the danger being general, every one might fear that it would fall upon himself.  
11. To prove, that a Bishop cannot be refused, he bringeth this reason n. 43. It cannot be denied, but that Christians are more able, and likely to profess their faith, with the Sacrament of Confirmation, then without it, and that more in a Country persecuted, are like to stand to the Profession of their faith, with this Sacrament, then without it; Ergo, in a Country persecuted, and destitute of this Sacrament, many do fall, who otherwise would stand; and for every one that standeth, perhaps twenty will fall. God forbidden. Hitherto we have not, nor I hope ever shall behold so twentifold infirmily in our glorious Catholics. To your argument, I answer. No doubt, out considering the Sacrament of Confirmation in itself, Christians are more able to profess their faith with it, then without it yet if we suppose, that by the very having of it, persecution must be increased, some will be of opinion, that more might be in danger to fall by reason of that increase of Persecution, then in calmer times, although they wanted Confirmation. And if the Antocedent be granted without distinction, yet it would not infer the necessity of a Bishop, with increase of Perfecution. No doubt, but by often receiving the Sacrament of Penance, and the most B. Sacrament of the Altar, for example, every eight days, Christians are more enabled, to profess their faith then without them. Will therefore the Replyer, impose upon Catholics, an obligation of frequenting those Sacraments, every eight days, even with increase of persecution? Which instance will be of more force, if one affirm (as I doubt not but diverse will) that by humble, and diligent frequenting those two Sacraments, persons who without their fault want Confirmation, may be thought to have greater strength, for professing their faith, than such as have received Confirmation but are remiss in frequenting those other two Sacraments.  
12. Yet M. Doctor, and the Replyer, come short of their intent, unless they can further prove, that persecution is to be undergone, not only for enjoying Confirmation, but also, for the assuredness or vudoubtednes the ●ro by having it from a Bishop, as I touched in the first Question n. 2. and the Discussour handleth n. 8. and the Qualificator Sect. 6 n. 21.22. Which point, & diverse others in this Question treated by Nicholas Smith are omirted by the Replyer, as may be seen in the Discussion.   

THE V QUESTION. Concerning M. Doctors Comparison between Bishops, inferior Pastors, and Religtous men.  
1. IN this Question, the Replyer extendeth himself either in proving things expressly granted and taught by Nicholas Smith as that the state of a Bishop, is higher than that of a Religious man; or else in impugning Nicholas Smith, as if he had said, what he never said nor thought, & therefore we may be more brief in returning him an answer. Only, I must renew my first request to the Reader that if he find any seeming difficulty, objected by the Reptyer, he will be pleased to peruse Nicholas Smiths words, before he spend his judgement.  
2. The Qualificator Sect. 4. n. 16.17.18. answereth the objections of the Inquisition, and Reply against Nicholas smith's saying, that the state of a Bishop doth suppose, but not give perfection which is the express doctrine of Suarez & common among Divines. The state of a Bishop is not only different, but also separable from Episcopal Order, or Character, as is manifest in a Bishop confirmed not consecrated, who hath the state, not the Character of a Bishop. Nicholas Smith never denied, that Episcopal consecration conferreth grace, but only that Episcopal state of itself yieldeth means to acquire personal perfection. By this is answered what the Replier objecteth n. 14.15.16.17.  
3. To prove that in some case, an Oath not to be Religious, is not wicked, he allegeth n. 26. the command of the sea Apostolic, that all those, who will enjoy the benefit of the Pope's Seminaries, do swear that they will be Priests, and will not enter into any Religious Order, or Congregation, without licence of the Pope, unless they first labour in the Mission, the space of three years. I answer Nicolas Smith spoke of an absolute Vow (or oath) not to enter into Religion, which certainly is invalid, & unlawful, and may be well termed wicked. For what greater disordination can there be in man's will, then deliberately to swear, or vow, that he will resist almighty God, inspiring him to follow those Counsels, which were recommended by the Saviour of mankind? The oath alleged by the Replyer, is as it were conditional (not without the Pope's leave, or the leave of his Nuntio, for so is the oath now conceived) and temporary (for the space of three years.) The reason of difference is, because a vow is invalid, if it be impeditiwm maioris boni, incompatible with a greater good, as a temporary and conditional vow is not. For, not to enter into Religion without leave, or not for a certain time, doth not absolutely hinder entering into Religion. If one vow to make a pilgrimage, or to perform some such pious work, the vow is valid, although the performance thereof, do for a time, hinder the Pilgrims entering into Religion. Neither doth it follow, that therefore a Pilgrimage, is an act more perfect, than the embracing of a Religious life, taking holy Orders etc. Or that the Vocation of students in the seminaries, is more perfect than the state of a Bishop out of England, which yet Seminarists, by reason of their oath to go into England, cannot embrace without leave, at least, unless first they satisfy their doth, by coming into England. Or that the state of Religion, or Vocation of Seminary Priests is more or less perfect, by the expiring, or not expiring of three years, after which time, seeing all may freely enter into Religion, even in England, it is a sign, that Religious state, all things considered, is to be preferred.  
4. Without any necessity, he endeavoreth to prove, that in case of necessity of the church, when it cannot be otherwise provided, a vow to accept a Bishopric is lawful, of which Nicholas Smith did not dispute, but only said in general that a Vow not to accept a Bishopric is lawful, which no man can deny, unless he will oppose himself to all those Popes, who have approved the Institute of the society of jesus. And those very words, which the Replyer n. 32. without cause, noteth Nicholas Smiths to have left out of S. Thomas 2.2. q. 185. a. 1. (Unless in a manifest, & imminent necessity) confirm what Nicolas Smith said, that according to S. Thomas, it seemeth presumption to desire a Bishopric, even for the good of souls, namely speaking in general, and not in some particular case of necessity, which is not very frequent; and who I pray you, will persuade himself, that he alone is fit for so high a state? It is also most true that, Valentia as he is cited by Nicholas Smith, teacheth, that (in general and abstracting from particular case of necessity) to desire a Bishopric, even for what is best in it, is commonly a deadly sin, although the Replyer telleth us, that Valentia thinketh oftentimes it is a mortal sin. Besides, Nicolas Smith, because he would not meddle with that dispute, knowing there was multiplicity of opinions, after he had alleged the doctrine of Valentia warily, added: This belongeth not to me to define. But the Replyer willingly taketh all occasions to dilate himself.  
5. His 33. and 33. numbers, are employed, by occasion of a mere partly misinterpreting, and partly misciting Nicolas Smith n. 7. as the judicious Reader will found, by perusing the place in the Discussour.  
6. I cannot excuse the Replyer from fault in saying n. 37. that Nicholas Smith affirmeth, that a Bishop elected, yea and confirmed may marry. Nicolas Smith his words num. 8. are these: A Bishop, not in holy Orders, Elected, may lawfully marry, and some also hold, that a Bishop confirmed may do the same; but of this I do not dispute, yet if he marry, it is valid. Nicholas Smith then only saith, that some hold that a Bishop confirmed may marry, which is true, but himself a bstayneth from that Question.  
7. He showeth that willingly he would found fault with any thing while n. 36. he telleth us, that S. Thomas 1. 2. q. 104 ar. 4. as he is cited by Nicolas Smith, saith nothing of the Evangelicall Counsels, yet confesfeth that in his q. 108. ar. 4. he teacheth that, for which Nicolas Smith cireth him, namely, that Evangelicall counsels are proper to the new law. The misciting of the place was an error of the print, as the Replyer might have seen in Nicolas Smith himself pag. 161. where the same place of S. Thomas is cited aright.  
8. What he writeth n. 37 of the knights of Calatraud etc. is answered by the Qualificatour sect. 5 n. 4. etc. by occasion of a like objection made by the Inquisitor.  
9 His saying n. 41. that Regulars, as Regulars, are not to have care, or charge of others, but of their own so dies, is either a mere Equivocation, or a doctrine very untrue, and often confuted by the Discussour. For some Regular Priests, as Regulars, have at least as much to do with other men's souls, as secular Priests, as secular, have; and if Regular Priests, be also Bishops, and Pastors, they are equal to secular Bishops, & Pastors. Every body knows, that Religion in general, is divided into the Active, Contemplative, and Mixed life, by which such Religious are obliged to attend, both to their own perfection, and to the help of others, neither doth that Mixed kind of life, make a Regular to be Secular; Ergo such Regulars, even as they are Regulars, and not seculars, are to help others. If secular, as secular, did artend to the help of others then all seculars should attend to the help of others, even lay men, and women, according to the Replyers frequent-manner of disputing, who is wont to infer, that if Regulars, as Regulars, were of the Hierarchy (and the same may be said of attending to the help of others) than all Regulars, even lay-Brothers, and Religious women, should be of the Hierarchy, and attend to the help of others. If he say, that secular Priests, not precisely as Secular, but as Pastors, attend to the help of others, the same say I of Regulars if they be made Pastors. In a word, he ought to compare Regular as Regular, with secular as secular, Regular Priests, with secular Priests, Regular Bishops or Pastors, with Secular Bishops or Pastors, which yet could never be obtained of M. Doctor, or the Replyer. This manner of unequal reduplication, Nicolas Smith reprehended, and not reduplications in general, which every body so well knows to be usual in Schools, that the Replyer need not to have taken so much pains to prove it q. 6. n. 1. I add, that these Religious, who by their Institute, must help others, by preaching, administering Sacraments etc. must also by their Religious Institute be Priests; but no Secular, precisely as Secular, is bound to be Priest. I say precisely as Secular, for a Secular man, by some other title, may be obliged to be Priest.  
10. The Discussour n. 11. saith that a Bishop is obliged to enlighten others, & give his life for his flock, by justice, in regard of mantenance, and honour afforded him by his flock, or by the virtue of Fidelity, in respect of a certain implicit pact, whereby he obligeth himself, when he is made Bishop. But Religious men, merely upon Charity, or Religion (more noble Virtues, than justice or Fidelity) do illuminate others, and adventure their life for the saving of souls, obliged, not only by Institute, but also by particular vow made to that effect. In which doctrine I can espy nothing blame worthy. But the Replyer n. 43. somety mes citeth these words of Nicholas Smith by halves, and sometimes draws them to an odious sense, as if Bishops performed their functions mercinarily, for honour, and mantenance, or, as if their giving their life for their sheep, were not a work of Heroical Charity, or did not require in the Bishop very great Charity according as our Saviour said Joan. 21. Amas me? Pasce ones meas: whereas the Discussour only saith, that the obligation which Bishops have, ariseth from the virtues of justice, & Fidelity, although when they give their life for their flock, administer Sacraments etc. they may exercise acts of diverse virtues, as Charity, Religion, Fortitude, Patience etc. yet, as I said, the obligation of those very acts originally proceedeth from the virtues of justice, and Fidelity; and if another man, should chance voluntarily to exercise the same acts, he should not perform them, by the same title, and obligation of justice, by which Bishops, and Pastors, are bound to perform them. The soldier, by reason of his pay, is bound to adveture his life, wherein he may exercise acts of Fortitude, Charity to his Country, Religion in a pious cause, and of other virtues; and yet his obligation to these acts of virtues, radically proceedeth from justice. Neither can we rightly affirm that he dyeth for his Pay, if he chance to lose his life, but only that by reason of his Pay, in justice he was bound to dye.  
11. The Discussour n. 12. saith: Merit doth not confist in office, but in acts thereof. Would any man think that in this speech there could be difficulty? Or doth any say, that we merit otherwise then by acts? Yet the Replyer is not pleased with it and entereth into a question, which would require a long dispute, to wit: When there, and how fare the dignity of the person, dignifyeth the operation? Which Axiom requireth many limitations, and explications, as for example; If a Bishop pay his debts, fast, or the like, I see not why by these acts he should merit more, than a private Person, endued with equal degree of justifying grace, and working with equal fervour: neither can I hold for true, what the Replyer saith, that the same action done by a Regular, and a Bishop, are more meritorious in a Bishop, then in a Regular, not only in respect of actions, proper to the State of a Bishop, but also of other actions; unless the Bishop be more in God's favour, and do those actions, with greater perfection. If it were to our present purpose, one might add, that in Scholastical rigour, for the point in hand, there is great difference betwixt height of Office, and Dignity of person, as our B. Saviour's operations were of infinite value and merit, by reason of the dignity of his person, not precisely, and formally by any office.  
12. In his 49. & diverse other numbers he treateth of Secular Curates compared with Religious Priests: and no doubt but that some things there are, wherein Secular Curates excel a Religious Priest, not Curate; which his arguments do prove, & no more. But the Question is, whether all things considered, a Religious Priest be not more perfect than a secular Curate, as S. Thomas 2.2. q 184. art. 8. cited by the Discussour n. 14. proposeth the Question, and resolveth it in favour of Religious Priests, as may be seen at large in the Discussion. And the Replyer n. 54. citeth Suarez very imperfectly, that so he may seem the more to favour Secular Curates. For he, tomo 3. de Relig. lib. 1. cap. 21. absolutely prefers Religious Priests, teaching that the state of inferior Pastors is more perfect only in speculation, not in practice, or secundumquid, in some sort, seu ex quadam hypothesi, quae moraliter vix adimpletur; or upon a certain supposition which morally speaking is scarcely fulfilled. The Replyers arguments, That secular Curates are Illuminators and Agents, and therefore more perfect than those who are illuminated, do not concern Religious men in respect of whom Secular Curates are no Illuminators. Besides according to S. Thomas, Secular Curates do illuminate not principaliter, but with limitation, and some participation from the Bishop, who by office is principal Illuminatour etc.  
13. Because S. Thomas, and out of him M. Doctor proved, that the state of a Bishop is more perfect, then that of a Religious man, because otherwise a Religious ma could not be made a Bishop, for that were retrospicere, to look back; The Discussour by the same reason proveth, that Religious state is more perfect, than the vocation of a Secular Curate, because he may lawfully enter into Religion. The Replyer answereth that the reason of this is because Religious vocation, is more secure than that of a Curate, not because it is more noble. But he doth not satisfy. For according to this answer, a Secular Curate might forsake his charge, and leading a private life, attend to himself, without obligation to give account for the souls of others, which no doubt were more secure; and yet the Replier would not excuse such a one from a Retrospection. Moreover a Religious state is more secure than that of a Bishop, and yet a Bishop cannot without leave enter into Religion, as a Secular Curate may; Ergo, it is a sign that Religious vocation is not only more secure, but also more perfect than that of a Secular Curate, especially if we add, what the Replyer seemeth to admit, that as the Bishop is wedded, & hath a pact with his Church, so also, in proportion, a Curate hath with his charge.  
14. He saith n. 62. that he will not interpret so rigorously, the words of the Oath, which students in the seminaries do take, as if they were bound to return into England, so often, as the Superiors of the said seminaries shall command. Neither will I dispute of that point, but only say, that what soever perfection they have by reason of that oath, they own it to Regulars, by whose motion the taking of that oath was enjoined. If we respect the practice, I conceive that the Replyer will find men, more eminent in the English Clergy than himself, not to admit of so strict an interpretation, and consequently, that the Replyer cannot by virtue of the said oath, place Seminary Priests in an immovable state. Without doubt, Religious men have an obligation to transfer themselves into England, as often as their Superiors shall so command. Moreover seeing Regulars in England, expose themselves to the same dangers, and exercise the same functions, with Secular Priests, and in the same manner, namely, by Delegation, and Commission, not as Ordinary Pastors; it followeth, that in this, Regulars are equal to them, and in respect of Religious state surpass them, as Nicholas Smith n. 16. observed, and therefore the comparison betwixt Regular Priests, and Secular Curates, can only be in respect of such, as are Ordinaries. Wherefore the Replyers saying n. 62. that the Seminary Priests, under the Bishop, is the highest calling in the Church of God, is not to be approved, if he intent to prefer their calling before all Regulars, who certainly, as Regulars, excel them, as Seculars, and in Calling, some are at least equal. I say, at least, because there want not Regulars, who are bound by an especial Vow, to expose their lives for the good of souls, not only in England, or for a limited time, but perpetually, and in whatsoever most remote place of the world; and even in that respect, although they had no other Vow of obedience, are in an immoveable state, binding them to acts of great perfection, with hazard of liberty, and life, forsaking of Country, kinsfolks, friends etc. I will not stand with him, whether Pastors in Catholic Countries, who are properly Ordinaries, will be content, that he prefer the Seminary Priests Calling, before theirs, whereby they are also obliged to hazard their Isues for their sheep, and with greater immobility, than Seminary Priests are. This I will say, that his assertion destroyeth those grounds whereby n. 42. he end eavoureth to prefer the Calling of Secular Curates, before those Religious, who by their Institute perform the functions of Pastors, by Preaching, admanistring Sacraments etc. For the same reasons, which there he alleadgeth, in favour of Curates, against Religious men, do in the very same manner urge against Seminary Priests, all being reduced to this, that Curates do those functions by Ordinary right & office, Religious by Commission, Delegation, and Privileges, as likewise Seminary Priests do: and therefore he must either prefer those Religious, or not prefer Seminary Priests before Curates. Besides, if Seminary Priests ought to be preferred before Curates, because they daily hazard their liberty, and life; Curates will say, that this reason proveth too much, namely, that the Seminary Priests calling is not only the highest under the Bishop, but also, that it is higher than the calling of those Bishops, who do not daily hazard their liberty and life, that is to say, of most part of Bishops. Lastly, if once the Replyer grant, that the Ordinary Pastorship of Curates, may be preponderated by the danger to which Seminary Priests expose themselves, he openeth an easy way, to defend, that Religious Priests by reason of their state, fitness to help their neighbour etc. may be preferred before Curates, although these be ordinaries, and Religious be not, especially if those Religious, be also ordained to help their neighbour. And here I cannot omit to note some strange speeches of the Replyer, who n. 42. speaking of those Religious who by their Institute do many functions of Pastors, as preaching, ministering of Sacraments etc. saith, That in Regulars this is accessary, in Pastors principal; in Regulars it is voluntary, in Pastors necessary etc. For who ever heard that it is accessary, or voluntary to a Religious man, to perform those things, to which he is obliged by his very Institute?  
15. All that he hath against the Discussour about the distinction of leaving all things in preparation of mind, and actual leaving all things, goeth upon a supposition, as if Nicholas Smith had denied that distinction, which he never did; and therefore in vain he allegeth Authors in proof of that distinction against the Discussour, who only said, and proved, that even in preparation of mind to leave all things, Religious excel secular People; & that the leaving of all things added a great perfection to the preparation of mind, it being an Heroical, and very meritorious act; so much, that S. Thomas 1. part. q. 43. art. 6. doubted not to teach, that the Holy Ghost is sent in a particular manner, when one forsaketh all that he possessed. Likewise all that the Replyer bringeth to prove, that Counsels are iustruments to Perfection itself, for which he needlessy allegeth Authors; is answered out of the Discussion, where we may gather, that a thing may be said to belong to Perfection only instrumentally, or essentially, as Charity is; or lastly instrumentarily and secondarily, as S. Thomas saith the Cousels are, which is more than only instrumentally, as the habits of virtues distinct from Charity, are Perfection secondarily, but not only instrumentally; which the Discussour explicateth n. 23. What Nicholas Smith alleged out of S. Thomas that Charity consisteth secondarily in the love of our neighbour, was only to show, that there is differece betwixt secondarily, and only instrumentally; because according to S. Thomas, Charity consisteth secondarily in the love of our neighbour; but no man will say, that Charity consisteth in the love of our Neighbour instrumentally; and that therefore M. Doctor said not well, that Perfection consisteth in the Counsels only instrumentally; whereas S. Thomas had said, that Perfection consisteth in the Counsels instrumentally, and secondarily. But the Discussour never intended, to make a parity in all respects, between the love of our Neighbour, and the Evangelicall Counsels. And so all is answered, that he hath n. 65. Finally that which Nicholas Smith chief found fault with in M. Doctor, was not the distinctions of preparation of mind, and actual leaving all things, or a perfection essentially, and instrumentally; but his indistinct, ambiguous, and obscure manner of proposing, & applying them, as in express words may be seen in the Discussion n. 23.24.25. And indeed Nicolas Smith did of purpose use, that circumspection, because he knew well, that those distinctions were good, being rightly understood, and fitly applied. I desire the Reader to peruse the place alleged in the Discussion.  
16. To prove that the Apostles were not Religious, he doth his best endeavour, and in fine Sarmiento alone is the man, by him alleged, who doth indeed deny, that the Apostles were Religious. But seeing that, as Nicholas Smith q. 7. n. 7. did wish, a Learned Pen hath since the printing of this Discussion hand led this matter, so fully, as more cannot be desired, I refer the Reader to that Treatise, namely the Apology for etc. which in my Preface I mentioned, where he shall find this point handled, Cap. 7.   

THE VI QUESTION. Whether Religious, as Religions, be of the Hierarchy.  
1. THE whole discourse of the Replyer, in this question, is answered by only setting down the state of the Question aright, as the Discussour hath done n. 8. & the Qualificator Sect. 5. where all is answered, that is brought by the Inquisitor; & the Replyer hath no more in effect than he. For both of them will needs have the Question to be; whether Religious, as Religious be of the Hierarchy, as Hierarches, Princes, or Governors thereof, which is to make the hierarchical body of God's church consist only of Heads: whereas the Question is; Whether properly, simply, and abiolutly, Regulars, as Regulars, be not of the Hierarchy; as without doubt they are more than Secular, as Secular, who, as such, are inferior to Religious, as Religious. Not only amongst the Hierarches, but amongst those also, who are governed, there is diversity of degrees, and all belong to the High rarchy, more, or less, according to the perfection of their state, & calling, which in Regulars, is very remarkable among diverse degrees of Persons in God's Church.  
2. He endeavoureth at large to prove, out of S. Denis, That none are of the Hierarchy, except Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, which is true in that particular sense, which S. Denis intendeth. But the Replyer must answer his own argument, & confess, that in another sense, others besides those three mentioned, are of the Hierarchy. For M. Doctor Chap. 8. teacheth, that all in lesser Orders, as Acolyts &c. are of the Hierarchy, and the Replyern. 43. endeavoureth to prove, that M. Doctor placeth Cardinals in the Hierarchy. Besides, as I have said, some Religious, by their Institute, must illuminate others, & be Priests; Ergo, such, even as Religious, belong to the Hierarchy.  
3. If the Replyer will exclude all from the Hierarchy, except Bishops, Priests and Deacons, than M. Doctor Chap. 8. n. 8. doth by the sacred Council of Trent, pronounce h●m accursed. Thus he writeth: Certain it is, that the Orders of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons' are of the divine Institution. Wherefore the Council of Trent thus pronounceth (Sess. 23. can. 6.) Si quis dixerit etc. If any one shal● say, that there is not in the Church a Hierarchy, instituted by the divine Ordinance, which consisteth of Bishops, Priests, and Ministers, let him be accursed. In which words the Council defyning, that there is a Hierarchy instituted by the divine ordinance, & which consisteth of Bishops, Priests, and Ministers in the plural number, must needs understand at least Deacons, and Subdeacons'. So that this Hierarchy of Order, at least in respect of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons' is instituted by Christ. Thus far M. Doctor. Wherefore to free yourself from a Curse, and S. Denis from error in M. Doctors opinion, you must grant, that you have not rightly alleged S. Denis, to prove, that only Bishops, Priests and Deacons, are of the Hierarchy, in such manner that all other must be excluded. For M. Doctor hath told you, as a matter of Faith, that Subdeacons' also are of the Hierarchy, & that by divine Institution. You must then explicate S. Denis, that he nameth Bishops, Priests, & Deacons, not to exclude all other, but because these are the highest Orders in the Chutch, and so Religious may be of the Hierarchy, notwithstanding what you allege out of S. Denis, who doth expressly place the order of Monks in the Hierarchy Cap. 6. tit. Contemplatio.  
4. Likewise, when the Council of Trent defineth, as a matter of Faith, that by divine Ordinace, there is in the Church a Hierarchy, which consisteth of Bishops, Priests. and Ministers, which some modern Heretics denied, it only followeth, that such are certainly of the Hierarchy, but not that they only are, as many Divines hold lesser Orders not to be of the divine Institution: and yet M. Doctor teacheth that all in lesser Orders, are of the Hierarchy, and no man will affirm, that the sacred Council intended to condemn as Hereticques, those Divines, who teach that the Lesser Orders are not of divine institution: or that, according to the Council, it is an Heresy to say, that Car●inals, Vicars-general, Archdeacon's &c. who are not of the divine Institution, yea are not necessarily Bishops, Priests, Deacons, or Subdeacons', can belong to the Hierarchy. And therefore the Replyer had no reason to blame Nicholas Smith so severely, as he doth n. 11. for saying, that it were rashness to affirm, that the Council intended, to define as a matter of Faith, that under the name of Hierarchy could be comprehended only Bishops etc. At length the Replyer n. 13. is forced to extend S. Denis his doctrine, and to bring in Subdeacons', and other inferior Orders, as likewise he must find means to bring in Cardinals, Archdeacon's, Vicars-general etc. & finally give some place to poor Religious men.  
5. Thus his reasons from n. 21. to 26. fall of themselves, as only proving that Religious, as Religious, precisely, are not Governors, or Illuminators in the Hierarchy, but not, that they are not of it properly, and absolutely, or not more than Secular, formally as Secular. And if they be Priests, & Pastors, they are as much of the Hierarchy, in every respect, as Secular Priests, and Pastors.  
6. It is strange to see how n. 28. he trifleth, as if Nicolas Smith had ever denied, that the Hierarchy comprehendeth both Order, and jurisdiction. Whereas he expressly affirmeth it n. 3. and thence inferreth, that the word Hierarchy hath a latitude.  
7. He doth not n. 31. sufficiently free M. Doctor from the Discussours just complaint, for his saying, That S. Bernard affirmed the Hierarchy to be perturbed, when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishop's jurisdiction. For the Saint expressly approveth Exemptions, & only reprehendeth such as are granted without cause, or procured upon ambition, as at length the Replyer himself confesseth; and therefore M. Doctor ought not absolutely to have alleged S. Bernard, as saying, the Church is perturbed, when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishop's jurisdiction.  
8. The Discussour never taught, Grace, or Charity alone can place one in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: For they alone, are not sufficient, to make one a member of the Church militant. But he taught, that an external Profession, and state of Life, ordained to Perfection of Grace, and Charity, is sufficient to place the Professors thereof in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, in that degree, wherein according to their rank, they excel others not in that degree, wherein some particular Religious man, may chance to excel some Bishop, in grace, and Charity, because that is accidental to their states: as likewise some lay man, or woman, may exceed some Religious man, in perfection of the love of God. And by this is answered, what he hath n. 33. about Nauclerus, who cannot be denied, to have placed Religious men in the Hierarchy, in a high degree, not only accidentally, by reason of some particular Religious men's Charity, but per se loquendo, & by reason of their state. Also, out of what we have said, is easily answered the objection he bringeth n. 42. against the argument, which Nicolas Smith made n. 9 where he proveth; That if some men by Grace, may, according to S. Thomas, be assumed to the Order of Angels, in the Celestial Hierarchy; an external state of life affoarding most effectual means, for perfection of grace in this life, may well place men on earth, in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. But Nicholas Smith never dreamt, that men by grace become indeed Angels, Archangels etc.  
9 All that he hath n. 34. 35. about the translation of S. Denis his definition of a Hierarchy, is answered in the Admonition to the Reader, adjoined to the Qualification.  
10. The Discussour, to prove that one may be of the Hierarchy, although by office he do not illuminate, or perfect others, instanceth in the lowest Angel, who is not to illuminate any other, and yet cannot be excluded from the Celestial Hierarchy. What doth the Replyer answer? Nothing in effect, but by denying, that the lowest Angel, or Order of Angels, are absolutely of the Celestial Hierarchy, but only in a certain sense, which indeed he must needs affirm, by the same reasons for which he denyeth Religious to be of the Hierarchy, because their office is not to illuminate, or perfect others. But this doctrine is a thing unheard of amongst Divines, who with the holy Fathers teach, that there are nine Orders of Angels, comprised in three Hierarchies: but now the Replyer will have one Order of Angels, belonging to no Hierarchy. If he put Angels out of the Celestial, Religious men have, I confess, less reason to wonder, or take it ill, if he exclude them from the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.  
11. What he saith n. 43. 44. to wit, that M. Doctor denied not Cardinals to be of the Hierarchy, he will not be able to maintain, without granting, that to be of the Hierarchy, neither jurisdiction, nor Order is required. For although Cardinals may be in Orders, and actually have jurisdiction over their titles, yet their jurisdiction, as M. Doctor Chap. 10. n. 19 saith out of Bedarmine, is but like to the jurisdiction of a Parish Priest in his Parish; & that jurisdiction is accidental to the office of Cardinal, as Cardinal, which respecteth the common good of the universal Church, and yet even as Cardinals, they have a most eminent place in the Hierarchy, next to the Pope. If once it be granted, that neither Order nor jurisdiction is required, to place one in the Hierarchy, then Religious men, whose state is in the Church of God much respected, yea besides whom, none except Bishops, are in state of Perfection, according to S. Thomas, may be, & are of the Hierarchy in a very perfect manner, In a word. if Cardinals be not of the Hierarchy, M. Doctor had not been much wronged, although Nicolas Smith had said, that by his Principles they must be excluded from it: and yet for this cause the Replyer n. 43. is much offended with the Discussour. If they be of the Hierarchy, than not only Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are of the Hierarchy, as the Replyer hath much laboured to prove out of S. Denis: and by that labour, hath only put himself upon an inevitable necessity, to answer the arguments he made for excluding Religious men.  
12. Nevertheless, if to make one of the Hierarchy, it be necessary that he illuminate, & perfect others; Religious, even as Religious, cannot be excluded: because for Regular observances, they illuminate one another, and in that, do not necessarily depend, but are exempt from Bishops, as the King or Master of a house dependeth not on the Bishop, for the mere temporal administration of his Kingdom, or family. And so that part of the Hierarchy, which by S. Gregory Nazianzen orat. in laudem Basil. is styled Ecclesiae pars selectior & sapientior, the more wise & choice part of the Church, hath its proper Illuminatours, touching noble actions, and a state of life▪ which for the perfection of it, was by our B. Saviour counselled not commanded, as being above the reach of Ordinary persons, according to that of Matt. 19 Qui potest capere, capiat.   

THE VII. QUESTION. Whether by the precedent Questions, we have sufficiently answered M. Doctors Treatise, for such points, as either deserved Confutation, or required explication.  
1. THIS Question was proposed by Nicolas Smith, not to boast of what he had done, in the precedent Questions, as the Replyer pag. 20. n. 31. is pleased to insinuate, but to the end the Reader might know, where to find answer to any difficulty in M. Doctors book, which the Discussour did not answer Chapter for Chapter, and number for number.  
2. The Replyer n. 3. writeth, that to him it seemeth a strange speech, & little edifying, to say, as Nicolas Smith saith, that he never heard, that the Church must be governed by the Secular Clergy. Nicolas Smith did indeed wonder, to hear M. Doctor say in his Epistle n. 12. that Secular Priests, are by the divine Institution, governors of the church. The Church (said he) must be governed by the Secular Clergy. May not Bishops, and other Pastors in God's Church be Religious men? How then is it a divine Institution, that the Church must be governed by the Secular Clergy? Thus the Discussour. And what can be more true? For if by divine Institution, the government of the Church belong to the Secular Clergy, then is it a breach of the divine law, to assume Religious men to be Bishops, or Pastors, which is to condemn the daily practice of God's Church. The Replyer bringeth not one reason to confute what Nicolas Smith said, save only, that the Church, for the most part, is governed by the Secular Clergy, which is fare from proving, that it is a divine Justitution, that the Church be governed by the Secular Clergy; as it cannot be proved, that Preaching, for example, or converting of Infidels, by divine Institution belongs to the Regular Clergy, because they preach at home to faithful people, and are sent to remote Countries for the Conversion of Infidels, more than Secular Priests. Snarez cited by the Replyer n. 5. never said, that Religious Pastors, govern by Delegation, or Privilege or that it is against the divine Institution, that Religious me be made Pastors.  
3. From his n. 10. to 15. he goeth about to prove, that my Lord of Chalcedon is Ordinary, after an extraordinary manner, by arguments, easy to be answered, if it were pertinent to the defence of Nicolas Smith, as it is not; and therefore I refer the Reader, to the answer of the Regulars, to my Lord of Chalcedons letter. For the Defence of Nicolas Smith, it is enough, to take what the Repiyer yieldeth, to wit, that my Lord is not Ordinary, in an Ordinary manner, as Nicolas Smith proveth by the definition of an Ordinary, given by M. Doctor. For this grant supposed, I argue thus: The divine Institution, that in the whole Church, and (as M. Doctor would thence infer) in every notable part thereof, there should be Bishops, is either fulfilled in England, by placing there my Lord of Chalcedon, or not. If it be fulfilled, than the Pope might in the whole Church place only Ordinaries in an extraordinary manner, by Deputation, or Commission, which no Catholic can grant. If it be not fulfilled in England, than 〈◊〉 the Pope is yet obliged to give us a Bishop, Ordinary in an ordinary manner, which I believe he will not admit, and therefore he must finally yield to the Discussour; That there is no divine precept, to have a Bishop in England, but all must be left to the supreme Pastors' discretion, whether it be best for us to be governed by a Bishop, or otherwise.  
4. The Discussour n. 5. concerning my Lord of Chalcedons maintenance, uttered nothing upon his own opinion, but truly related, what others did, and do say, himself abstaining to intermeddle in that matter: yet the Replyers argument n. 17. rather proveth▪ that Catholics are not obliged to maintain my Lord of Chalcedon, if without his Lordship they can be sufficiently provided, of all spiritual helps, by Priests, Secular or Regular; because by the law of Nature, they are obliged only to provide themselves, of means to atrayne salvation. Whether or no, Catholics can be sufficiently provided for, without my Lord of Chalcedon; Nicolas Smith never disputed, nor did he ever give the least insinuation, that it were better not to have a Bishop in England, wholly referring that point, to the determination of his Holiness: and the Replyer is much to blame, for his taxing the Discussour, as opposing the coming of a Bishop into England. Those Houses which the Replyer n. 18. termeth stately, and turneth from the singular, to the plural number, are known by those, who have best reason to know it, not to have put English Catholics to charges; and although they had, yet it is known, that all was for their service, to prepare such as might, in due time, employ their labours, and life, in help of England.  
5. The Replyer hath no reason, to be offended with the Discussour, for saying, that M. Doctor was mistaken, while he put joannes Siluerius, and Martinus to have suffered martyrdom before Constantine's tyme. For his marginal note hath (27. Pope's martyrs before the time of Constantine) amongst which 27. those three were placed. Yea M. Doctor produceth them to prove, that Popes were created, even in time of Persecution, when the Creation of Popes, or Bishops was opposed; for which purpose, the example of those three Popes, could not serve, unless he had conceived, that they were before Constantine, for otherwise he could not imagine, but that they suffered in time of Christian Emperors, as de facto those three Popes did, when the creation of Popes, was not particularly opposed. The reasons alleged by the Replyer, only prove, that if M. Doctor mistook, he had no reason for it: yet to do the Replyer a favour, I will be content with him, to cast the error upon one, whom he saith M. Doctor trusted, in making the marginal notes, upon condition that he give me leave to say, that those three Popes, who died not before Constantine, made not to the purpose, for which they were by M. Doctor alleged. And because I would not wrong him, who made the marginal notes, I must in his behalf say, that he had but reason, to make the note as he did, considering M. Doctors drift, & manner of expressing himself. It is a wonder that in this very place, the Replyer would help himself with a marginal note, and excuse M. Doctor, because he citeth Bozius in the margin, which (saith he) Nicolas Smith should have mentioned. But Bozius never said, that those three Popes were before Constantine, and therefore yieldeth no excuse for M. Doctor, nor had Nicolas Smith any obligation to mention him.  
6. The Replyer n. 27. endeth his book with these words. He that finds himself able to overcome the temptations of the world, and with the grace of God, hath Confidence not only to work his own salvation, but also the salvation of many others; let him, if he like that state, take upon him an Apostolical, Priestly course of life; Priests being to live in the midst of the difficultyes of the world, by reason of their Preaching, Teaching, and Administering Sacraments. If he otherwise be weak, feeble, & is hardly able to pass through those temptations & allurements with safety of his own soul, let him hasten to some Religious course of life, proportionable to his force, and liking: and if he hath not those talents, which are required in Priests, and that he cannot brook the austerity of Religion, let him endeavour to serve God in the world. Thus he declaring, what mean conceit he hath of Religious perfection. And I pray God, the like apprehension, have not taken deep root, in too many now a days. Your division of diverse sorts of persons, is not adequate. For, besides those whom you mention, there is a fourth kind of persons, who have confidence, by God's grace, to save their souls in the world, and yet for attaining of Perfection, & greater union with their Creator, are not content, only to keep God's Commandments in the world, but also are inflamed with a desire, to observe the Euangelical Counsels in a Religious state: & some of those, besides the perfection of their own soul, are further called, even in a Religious state, to procure the salvation, and perfection of their neighbour, either by their proper Institute, or by command of their Superiors. If your conceit were solid, whosoever beboldeth a Religious man, might point at him, and say: This was a weak, and feeble person, & hardly able to pass in the world, with the safety of his own soul. A rash, unworthy, &, I may say,  censure. S. Thomas 2.2. q. 189. ar. 1. of purpose teacheth, that not only persons, already habituated in observation of the commandments, but all sinners may enter into Religion; those to increase in perfection, these to avoid sin. This Saint than held it for certain, that Religion is not only for those, who are weak, & feeble, & hardly able to pass through the temptations of the world, with the safety of their soul, but much more, for such as are already grounded in virtue, and by that means, better disposed to attain Religious perfection. Certainly, the Angelical Doctor would have made us an Exhortation, fare different from yours, and would have said: If any fear his own frailty in the world, and otherwise have talents for Religion, let him undertake that state. Religion is a state of security. If any with the keeping of the commandments, desire to join the observation of the Evangelicall Counsels, let him hasten to Religion. Religion is a course of life, for its height, counselled, not commanded. If any already good, desire to be perfect, let him fly to Religion. Religion is a school of Perfection, as our B. Saviour Matth. 19 to one that had all ready kept the commandments, said: If thou wilt be perfect go sell the things that thou hast. etc. If any together with his own Perfection, thirst after the salvation, and perfection of others; with great merit, and security to himself, let him embrace a Religious course. Religion not only perfecteth a man's self, but also enableth him to help others, with less danger to his own soul. God grant we were as careful to correspond to our Vocation, as we are certain the Vocation in itself is perfect; of which S. Bernard (l. de precept & dispo.) was not afraid to say, Praeeminet universis vitae humanae gencribus: It hath a preeminency before all kinds of humane life.   

THE CONCLUSION.  
One saith, it is the worst property of war that prosperous successes are imputed to all, misfortunes to some one. (Tacit. in vita Agric.) Contrariwise in this Pen-Combat, I wish, that whatsoever is amiss, may fall only upon myself. If any thing yield satisfaction, I heartily desire, it may wholly redound to the honour of Episcopal Dignity, to the commendation of a Religious state, to peace amongst ourselves, and, above all, to the Eternal Glory of the most B. Trinity.  
FINIS.   

Faults escaped.  

PAg. 37. lin. 7. every corrige very.  
Pag. 52. lin. 1. thero corrige thereof.  
Pag. 53. lin. 1.- mily corrige- mity.  
Pag. 66. lin. vlt. Chrity corrige Charity.