A MODEST BRIEF DISCUSSION OF SOME POINTS TAUGHT BY M. DOCTOUR KELLISON IN HIS TREATISE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HIERARCHY. BY NICHOLAS SMYTH.  
In a Religious State, a man life's more purely, falls more rarely, rises more speedily, walks more circumspectly, dies more confidently, and is rewarded more abundantly.  S. Bern. Hom. Sim. est regn. Cael. etc. 
Printed, at ROVAN. Anno. M.DC.XXX.   

TO MY WORTHY FRIEND Mr. A. M.  
SrR, your letter contained a request, which I must needs say, was to my taste, bitter-sweet. It could not but be pleasing, as proceeding from yourself; and yet the quality of it, to my disposition, could not but seem bitter. Your dem und was, that I should give a brief Censure in general, and make some observations, upon such particular passages, as might seem to need explication, in M. Doctor Kellison his Treatise, of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. You know the natural antipathy of my complexion, with such businesses, as may have any face of Controversy; besides the want of many helps, requisite for such an employment. Nevertheless, I have submitted my judgement, and will, to your Command, & do here present you with such notes, as I have gathered: professing not to have set down, all that occurred to my mind: and to say the truth, I was willing to believe the best, & for my own ease, to omit the examine of some passages, which yet I might suspect would have given just advantage. I doubt not but some more diligent, and exact pen will supply my defects. The method I hold, is to reduce all to certain heads, or Questions, out of which may easily be drawn answer, to the particulars; for it had been a tedious business, to answer M. Doctor, line for line. Yet to the end the Reader may know, where to find the answer of every particular, my seaventh Question is employed, in a survey of M. Doctors book, chapter by chapter, pointing in what Question of mine, every chapter, and number of his, is answered. If this my labour do not satisfy your expectation, yet I doubt not but my endeavour willbe the more grateful, in that for your sake, I have done my best. And so, you will remain the more assured, that without any exception I am wholly  
Your humble servant in Christ jesus Nicholas Smyth.   

AN ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.  
BE pleased (gentle Reader) to know that the Author of this Discussion, while he lived, was wholly against the publishing thereof. But he being departed to a better life, the lay gentleman, a worthy, and virtuous Catholic, at whose request it was written, and whom the Author by reason of distance could not satisfy by word of mouth, finding M. Doctor Kellisons' Treatise, to be much dispersed, among all sorts of persons, many of which are not able of themselves, to judge of some points therein contained, as they deserve, caused it, as thou seest, to be printed, for the right information, & common good of Catholics in England.   

A TABLE OF THE QVESTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS DISCUSSION.  

QUESTION 1. What judgement may be framed of M. Doctor his Treatise, in general. pag. 1.  
Question 2. Whether without a Bishop, there can be a particular Church. pag. 11.  
Question 3. Whether by the divine Law, every particular Church must have a Bishop. pag. 31.  
Question 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. 62.  
Question 5. Concerning M. Doctors comparison between Bishops, Inferior Pastors, and Religious men. pag. 92.  
Question 6. Whether Religious, as Religious, be of the Hierarchy of the Church. pag. 163.  
Question 7. Whether by the precedent Questions, we have sufficiently answered M. Doctors Treatise, for such Points, as either deserved confutation, or required explication. pag. 181.    

THE FIRST QUESTION. What judgement may be framed of M. Doctor his treatise in general.  
1. MY meaning is not to set down what Censure others, even Secular Priests, to my certain knowledge, give of M. Doctor his book, because my desire is to give no offence. My own opinion, with d●e submission to better judgement, may be reduced to the ensuing considerations.  
2 It may justly seem strange, why M. Doctor should, at this very time, writ against Caluin, concerning an argument in these days not particularly spoken of, and already most learnedly, copiously, and eloquently handled by diverse, both in Latin, and vulgar languages: especially seeing men do not in M. Dortour b●oke discover any thi●, s●●g 〈◊〉, ●o● 〈◊〉, or manner, and although here ●ere something more the ●o●di●●●ry, yet the ●ooke co●ld not be pu● into the h●ds of any her●ticle for his conu●●sion, v●lesse 〈◊〉 would have him sc●n●dized, by sor●i●es of more vn●●erfull dissection, then ●●●●ed th●●e is. And as for C●tholickes, they h●ue no need to be confirme● in the belief of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: Wherefore it is easy to f●ll upon the tr●e mot●●e of his writing, that if he had uttered what he me●nt he should have chaged the title, and instead of (Against Caluin) put Against some other People, whom he thought good not to name.  
3 And whatsoever he speaketh of Charity, in his Epistle, and through his book, yet he could have given no greater blow against that virtue, then by being the first to print a treatise, in the English tongue, which every unlearned person might understand, and to which he could not but expect answer, whereby it would be almost impossible some office should not either be given, or taken, & with return of new answers, & replies, Charity more, and more endamaged.  
4 This treatise hath renewed, that no less improfitable, then odious comparison, betwixt the perfection of Secular Pastors, and that of Religious men: whereas it were to be wished, that men should rather be careful to perfect themselves in their several callings, then wax curious in comparing them with others.  
5 If Regulars printed any book, it was in latin; upon a necessary occasion; for their own defence; concerning one particular point: the contrary of ●ll which circumstances concur in M. Doctor his treatise. It is not (M. Doctor) believe me, the way to maintain charity is not, to labour in writing of books, in the English tongue, with dedicatory epistles, full of verbal exhortation to charity, but the true way requires no more pain●s, then only to let Religious men alone, with those privileges, of which for so many years they have had peaceable poss●ss●●●, and in practise whereof they have faithfully laboured, & many of them in sw●●t of their broud, by glorious Martyrdom.  
6 It would also much au●u● towards the conservation of charity, if all Superiors, & Precedents of Seminaries, were effect●●●lly careful, that their subjects speak of Religious men with due respect, & Charity. Heli ●hough for his own people, 
1. Reg. 1.  a man of comm●ndable life, yet he was not free fr● blame, in not correcting his Children, otherwise then in a cold remiss manner as if he had been half consenting to their misdemeanour, whereby men were averted from the Sacrifices of God; as S. Thomas avoucheth, 
S. Thom. 2.2. q. 184. ●7. 8.  Religion to be the most perfect of all Sacrifices, an Holocaust.  
7 This treacise cannot ●e pleasing to the Holy Sea Apostolic, from whence it had been good manners for us to learn, what is by Christ's institution necessary for God's Church ingeneral, & expedient in particular concerning our having a Bishop in England. But to tell every man, & woman, in a language understood only by those who ought to obey (and which could not serve for information of those who were to be our Umpires) that it is a divine commandment to have a Bishop in England, is but to lead men into temptation of disobedience (in case his Holiness should ever put in practise the contrary) and of condemning the judgements, and facts of so many learned, and holy Popes, who for diverse years, deemed it neither necessary, nor expedient togrant us a Bishop.  
8 The greater, and better part of English Catholics willbe nothing well contented with this book, wherein they are plainly enough taxed of want of Charity, and Obedience, in not being so united, & subordinate to my Lord of Chalcedon, as it seems M. Doctor thinks they should. They are also in effect condemned of mortal sin, by refusing so long time a Bishop, against the law of God, & for being occasion, on their parts, that our country wanted the Sacrament of Confirmation, which, according to M. Doctor, is so necessary in time of persecution, that neither any country, 
Chap: 14●. ●.  nor any one of the country, for fear of persecution, can oppose against the coming in of a Bispop, though thereby only the Sacrament of confirmation should be wanting, avouching moreover all those who have not had the Sacrament of Confirmation not to be perfect Christians, which is a saying by him more than once repeated, but how true it is, I hope, the reader willbe able to judge by what shallbe said in the follo●wing questions, as also how little probability his other reasons carry for evincing the necessity of a Bishop in England.  
9 Neither can my Lord of Chalcedon much like this book, wherein the reader will find some passages by me noted, whereby my Lord his Ordmariship is quite demolished, and other authority by him pretended, either extenuated, or made odious, & dreadful to Catholics.  
10 It cannot be pleasing to Almighty God, to treat of holy things upon particular design, and humane respects. For I know not how devotion is lessened even towards sacred things, when they are commended by exaggeration, and for some private end, as in this treatise M. Doctor doth extol Episcopal dignity above Religious state, urge the necessity of Confirmation, praise the Secular Clergy, and enforce the obligation of having a Bishop, much more than according to true devinity he could, and more then, I fear, he would have done, if all mortal men were as free from emulation, as the Saints in heaven. And as he hath written of the Hierarchy, so perhaps we shall in ty●e see some printed treatise of the Sacrament of Confirmation, and the general ambiguous speeches of some ancient Fathers, or the particular opinions of some few divines, misapplyed for the necessity of that Sacrament, or in proof that it cannot be administered but by a Bishop, or some such like subject, & business.  
11 As for the manner hel● by M Doctor in proving his Tenets, I fear it will not correspond to that opinion which hath been conceived of his learning: and in truth excepting those points which all Catholics believe, there is no one thing in his whole book, which will put a man to study for the answer.  
12 Against all good Logic, and as it may seem, against prudence, he proveth his conclusion by principles more harsh, and incredible, than the conclusion itself. For example, to prove the necessity of a Bishop in Eng●and he serveth himself of these strange, & untoward propositions: That it is de iure diui●●, a divine Law for every such particular Church, as England is, to have a B●●hop: That without a Bishop England cannot be a particular Church: That unless every ●●rticular Church have is Bishop, or Bishops, the whole, and Universal Church should not (as Christ hath instituted) be a Hierarchy composed of diverse particular Churches: That without a Bishop we cannot have Confirmation, which whosoever wants is not as M. Doctor saith, a perfect Christian. All which principles are worse than the conclusion, and are by us demonstrated to have no ground at all.  
13 He still doth not aright compare Religious with Secular Priests, always reduplicating Religious, as Religious, but never secular, as Secular. For example he saith, that Religious, as Religious have not authority to preach, govern the Church, or the like, but never telleth us, whether Secular, as Secular, can do it, as certainly they cannot, till authority be granted them, which being granted also to Religious, they may perform the same actions no less than Seculars, as in due place shallbe declared. In other points likewise, he speaketh, not so distinctly as a scholar would expect.  
14 But the thing at which I most wonder, in a man of his learning, is that those Fathers, & school Divines, which he produceth for witnesses of his doctrine, are indeed against himself, 
S●● quest. ●. 3. ●.  as the reader will see in his allegation of S. Cyprian, S. Clement, Sotus, Bamnes et●.  
15 Lastly, I desire the reader to be still carefully observing throughout his whole treatise, that whereas he maketh profession to abstain from the main question, betwixt my Lord of Chalcedon, and others, and further affirmeth in his fiftenth chapter num. 10. that my Lord can challenge no Bishopric, no not so much as the poorest parish in England: And whereas likewise my Lord of Chlacedon by his Brief of Delegation was to have no power in England, or Scotland, till his arrival in those Kingdoms, and then only over Catholics, and as long as his Holiness should think good; all which are manifest arguments, that he is not Ordinary, as other Bishops in Catholic countries are, who although they should never set foot in their own Dioceses, yet they have true Ordinary power over both Catholics, and Heretics within such dioceses, and are Ordinaries both personarum, et loci of persons, and place, both in fore interno & extern, and that not only add been placitum, but permanently, as always in the Church of God some Ecclesiastical princes must be: Notwithstanding, I say, all this, yet the arguments by which M. Doctor would prove the necessty of a Bishop in England, either proole nothing at all, or else more than he himself intends, or my Lord of Chalcedon chall●geth (namely that he must have authority also over heretics; that he may lay claim to some, or all the Dioceses in England, as well as to that of Chalcedon; that he must not be only ad beneplacetum etc.) and ●o M. Doctor must be forced either to arswere his own arguments, or else both contradict himself, & tax his Holiness, as having not yet sufficiently provided for the Churches of England, and Scotland: because the Institution of Christ, the practice of the Church, the decrees of Canons, the sayings of ancient Fathers, the doctrine of all Catholics concerning the necessity of having some Bishops in God's Church, concern Ordinary Pastors, & Prelates, in the proper sense about mentioned, & not Delegates in an extraordinary manner. And therefore, as I said, M. Doctor must defend himself against his own arguments. But lest I may seem to wrong so learned a man, I desire the reader not to give me credit till in the following several Questions, he find by particulars, the truth of what I have delivered in general.   

THE SECOND QUESTION. Whether without a Bishop here can be a particular Church.  
1 M. Doctor in diverse parts of his treatise doth teach, that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church, & in his 14. chapter, where he endeavoureth to prove, that a particular courtry may not refuse Bishops, by reason of persecution, one of his main arguments is num. 9 because without a Bishop there can be no particular Church; & thence deduceth, that Catholics of England, all the while they had no Bishop, were no particular Church, & shall no longer be a particular Church, than they shall have a Bishop, but shallbe a flock with out a Pastor, ●●army without a General, a ship without a Pilot, a speritualkingdom without asperitualking, a family without a Goodman of the house.  
2 This assertion he proveth out of S. Cyprian, who saith: 
Cypr. ep●●. 69. ad 〈◊〉.  that the Church is Sacerdo●i plebs adunata, et Pastori suo grex 〈◊〉 ar●us, the Churches the people vrit●d to the Pre●●● (Bishop) and the flock adhering ●●to its P●●●our. In the sime place M Do●to●● a lioy 〈◊〉 this reason, that as the ●h●le Church hath me supreme Bishop to govern it, so ●●●ry particular Church must have its Bishop 〈◊〉 Bishops else it should not he a particular Church, and so the whole, and vn●●● sa●● Church should not (as Christ hath instituted) he a Hierarchy composed of diverse particular Churches.  
3. Three thing; I will endeavour to perform. First, that the alleged words of S. Cyprian, upon which M. Doctor doth so mainly, and extremely often insist, make nothing against us, but rather are for us, against himself, and with all, that his application of them may seem injurious to English Catholics.  
Secondly, I will the nonstrate that England without a Bishop, may, & hath been a particular Church, and that the contrary assertion must both wrong the Sea Apostolic, and can subsist upon no better ground, then by heretics is wont to be objected against the said holy Sea. Thirdly, I will show, that although we should freely grant what M. Doctor assumeth (that without a Bishop we cannot be a ●●rticular Church) ●et it could not prove high-bent, 〈◊〉 particular country may not rosuse Bishops' by reason of persecution.  
4 For the first, it might be answered in a word, that S. cuprum doth not define the Church to be the people united, and the flock adbering to a particular Priest, and Pastor, but only in●iffi●itely to the Priest, and Pastor, which is verified, as long as we have for our Bishop, & Pastor the Pope of Rome Besides, S. Cyprian speaks of Ordinary Pastors with power over both places, & persons, Catholics, & here●icks●permanently, and not only ad b●neplacitum, & therefore by a Delegate 〈◊〉. Cyprians definition is not fulfdd, but still we must acknowledge the Pope for our immediate, and particular Ordinary.  
5 But for the ●●●e understanding of S. Cyprians meaning, we are to know, that the foresaid epistle was written to one Florinus or Florentius, surnamed Pupianus, who, as Pamelius observeth in his notes upon that epistle, was a Novatian heretic, and with too much credulity, and temerity, had given credit to certain falsely reported crimes against S. Cyprian, for which he esteemed that the Saint ought to have been forsaken by the people of his Diocese, as if he had not been true Bishop. Against this false▪ & seditious imputation, S. Cyprian proveth not that a Church wanting a Bishop is no particular Church, but that a Church ha●i●g its true, and lawful Bishop, as S. C●prian was, yet deviding itself, and falling in schism with him, is indeed ●oe Church at all, but a schismatical congiegation. That this is so, S. Cyprians own words demnostrate, for having alleged out of Scripture Nos credimus, 
joan. 6.  et cognovimus quia tu es filius Dei vini, addeth, Loquitur ●llic Petrus supra quem adificatafuit Ecclesia; Ecclesia nomine docens et ofterdes, quia et si contumax ac superba obedire nolemium mult●udo discedat, Ecclesiatamen à Christo non recedit, et illi simt Ecclesia pl●bs ●acerdoti adunata, et Pastori sui grex adhaerens: unde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo, & si qui cum Episcopo non sit, in Ecclesia non esse, & frustra sibi blandiri eos, qui pacem cum Sacordotibus Dei non habentes obrepunt, & latemer apud quosdam communica●e se credunt, quando Ecclesia, quae Catholica una est scissa non sit, nequo divisa, sed sit urique connexa, et cohare●tium sibi inudeem Sacerdotum glutino copula●a. We bele●ue, and know, 
joan. 6.  that thou art the sonn● of the liung God. These words are spoken by Peter, upon whom the Church was builded, teaching us in behalf of the Church, that although the stubborn, and proud multitude of disobedient persons do go away, yet the Church doth not departed from Christ, and they are the Church the people vaited to the Priest, and the flock adhering to its Pastor. Wherefore thou must know, that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop; and that if any be not with the Bishop he is not in the Church, (mark) and they do in vain flatter themselves, who having not peace with the Priests of God, creep in, and believe that secretly they are in Communion with some, where as the Church, which is Catholic, and one, cannot be rend, nor divided, but must be conjoined, and united with the tie of priests, succeeding one to another.  
6 Behold S. Cyprian never thinking of the necessity that every particular Church hath of a Bishop, if it neane to be a particular Church, but affirming that theirue Church doth not departed from Christ; that he who is not with the bishop is not in the Church; that in vain they flater themselues, who have not peace with the true priests of God, but are in secret communion with some schismatical, or heretical factions, whereas the Church which is Catholic, and one, can not be rend, nor divided. And what is all this to prove, that no particular Church can be such without a Bishop? no more than if one should say, King Henry the 8. and his adherents in Schism, deviding themselves from their lawful Pastors, were no true Church: ergo, English Catholics, living in perfect obedience to the Vicar of Christ, cannot be truly a Church: which in effect is as doughty an argument as this: The soul, and bo●y separated can make no true ma●●ergo if they be cōicy●ed they cannot make a true man; for as the conjunction of the soul with the body gives life to the body, so the life of the Church consisteth in obedience to true, & lawful Pastors, to whom English Catholics being still subordmate, they did, and do, most perfectly fulfil the definition of a Church given by S. Cyprian, which therefore maketh nothing against, but for us: & that it is rather against M. Doctor himself, may be evinced out of an argument of his, chap. 12. num. 4. where having cited the said authority of S. Cyprian that the Church is the people united to the Bishop, he argueth thus: seeing there cannot be a people united to the Bishop without a Bishop, it followeth that there cannot be a Church without Bishops. Now, according to the clear sense of S. Cyprians words, namely that a people which is in disobedience, & schism against their lawful Bishops, cannot be a true Church, I may use the very same form of argument, thus: Whosoever are not in schism with any lawful Bishop, do fulfil the definition of a Church given by S. Cyprian; but those who have no Bishop are not in schism with any lawful Bishop, ergo, those who have no Bishop do fulfil the definition of a Church given by S. Cyprian. This argument is directly against M. Doctor, & yet is more truly deduced out of S. Cyprians words then what he did ●●ferie. I know the Church must always, for other respects, have Bishops, and therefore what I have here said, is only ad hominem, to M. Doctors manner of disputing, and only if we respect S. Cyprians words according to the true meaning, purpose, and occasion, as by him they were uttered.  
7 That his application of S. Cyprians definition is injurious to English Catholics, is manifest by every word of the Saint, who affirmeth that they who are not united to the Bishop, in that sense, in which he speaketh, are not in the Church; that they have not peace with the Priests of God; that they are in secret communion with schismatics; that they are opposite to that Catholic Church which is one and not rend, nor deued●d●, which gentle Epithetons, or rather most ●o●le aspersions, to cast upon the most ●e●lo is Catholics of England, who for their union with the Sea Apostolic, constancy in profession of their Faith, ioyf●ll suffering loss of goods, liberty, and life, have been a spectacle, grations in the sight of God, and his Angels, and admirable to the eyes of men; to apply, I say, such Epithetons to those glorious Confessors, & Martyrs, our English Catholics, cannot be done without great injury, and yet by M. Doctor the said definition of S. Cyprian is to them more than once applied. And truly I should not be able to wonder enough, how a learned man could lay the foundation of so strange a doctrine, upon a ground so weak, & so much mistaken (for the true understanding whereof, was required no greater labour, then looking on the book, nor deeper learning, then understanding latin) unless I did consider, that such a doctrine could have but such a foundation. But I will urge this point no further. Only M. Doctor may gather from what hath been said that the true explication & reason of those words in S. Cyprian alleged by him in his 12 chap. num. 4 unde seire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse, et Ecclesiam in Episcopo, where upon thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop (which words we also even now cited) is not that which M. Doctor giveth, because the Church cannot be without a Bishop nor a Bishop without a Church but that, supposing a Church have a true Bishop, they must not be divided, one from another; and therefore S. Cyprian immediately after the said words, addeth; Qui cum Episcopo non est, in Ealesia non est: He that is not with the Bishop, is not in the Church: And yet, I hope, English Catholics, while they wanted a Bishop, were in the Church, other wise they had not been capable of falcation. But by this we may see how groundedly M. Doctor doth speak, and still confirmeth what I said of the i●●ury done to English Catholics, by applying to them the definition of S. Cyprian.  
8 The second point, which I undertook to make good, namely, that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop, is easily proved. For the Pope, in defect of particular Bishops, is the particular Bishop, Ordinary & Diocesan of such Churches; as Philosophers do teach, that almighty God, the supreme, and vmuc●sall cause of all effects, concurreth not only as immediate, but also as a Particular Agent, or Cause, to the producing of effects, when second particular causes do fail. For seeing the Pope hath plenitudinem potestatis, fullness, & eminency of power, he may, and is to perform whatsoever belongeth to inferior Pastors, when necessity so requireth: which is a doctrine so received by all Canomsts, and divines, that I suppose M. Doctor will not gainsay it. Seeing then England for many years was destitute of Bishops, the Pope himself was our particular Bishop: and to say, that while we wanted 〈◊〉 Bishop, we were a flock without a Pastor, an Army without a General, a ship without a Pilot etc. as M. Doctor avoucheth, seemeth injurious to the Vicar of Christ, as if he wanted either power, or good will, to be our particular Bishop, and Pastor. And indeed to singular hath been the care of Popes over our distressed England, that in fact they ever shown themselves to be our particular Bishops, and may truly say to our Church, as Almighty God said to his elected people. Quid est quod debui ultrà facere vineae meae, & non feci? 
Isa. 5. v. 4  what ought I to have done to my vineyard, more than I have done. We erected Seminaries, we sent learned Priests, both Secular, and Regular, we endued them with a●ple faculties; as judges we composed difrerences, as masters, we resolved doubts; as Fathers, we wrote letters of Comfort, of Exhortation, of Admonition; as Bishops, we prounded all spiritual helps requisite for the times, in nothing belonging ●o particular Pastors, we have been w●nting, Quid debuimus ultra fac●●e, et non fecimus? what more could we have done, than we have performed for the good of our beloved English Catholics?  
The Church of S. John Lateran, or the particular Dioceses of Rome, is, I trow, a particular Church, & a perfect o●e: yet it hath no other Bishop for Ordinary, besides the Pope. Leo the 9 Famous for sanctity, and miracles, being before his Popedom B●shop of Tul, for his affection to that Church did still remain particular Ordinary thereof. 
Baron Tom. 11. ann. Dai. 1049. Leon. 9 ann. ●. n. 6.  Adeò fuit (saith Baro●ius) suae Tullensis Ecclesia amator, ut licet Romanus Pontifex creatus esset, tamen titulum priorem non reliquerit, volueritque, dum vixi●, dici etiam Tullensis Episcopus. I demand, whether the Church of Tull, was not a particular Church, or rather, whether it was not a Favourite Church singularly graced, by having him for particular Bishop, who was Pastor of the whole world? If Leo, only for devotion to that particular Church, thought he did it no wrong, in leaving it without any Ordinary, beside himself, with what shadow of prob●b●●ty, can any man say, that England, when of necessity it was destitute of Bishops, could not be a particular Church, and have for imitate partil●r Bishop, the Successon● of Leo the 9 Vrba●e the 8? whom I beseech God ●ong to preserve, for the common good of his universal Church, and particular comfort of our afflicted Catholics.  
10 Loreto, and Recanati, in Italy (and the like may be said of other places, but I willingly name that most saded house wherein the eternal Word was made flesh, and dwelled in us) are two distinct Dioceses under one Bishop, and my Lord Bishop once styled himself Ordinary. both of England, and Scotland, beside the Church of Chalcedon: ergo every particular Church need not have it own particular, distinct Bishop, & much more may the Pope be particular Bishop of more than one Church.  
In the Church of God, there are many places, & persons exempt from the jurisdiction of all Bishops, beside the Pope▪ neither did any man ever dream, that for that c●use, they ceased to be particular Churches: Rather, such examptions were accounted favours, & such immediate subjection to the Pope, a great honour●til now M. Doctor tells the world, that the Church of Saivi john Late●an, of Tull, of all exempted places, & people, neither have been, nor shallbe particular Churches, till they be taken from the Pope's particular charge, and put in the hands of some other Bishop; & that in co●setence they are obliged, to endure whatsoever presecution, for the enjoying such a Bishop.  
12 I think M. Doctor will not say, if a Bishop, upon just causes, should take the particular care of some one parish, & govern it by his delegates, or Chaplains, himself remaining the only Ordinary Pastor of it, that it should therefore ce●se to be a particular parish: or if a King to grace some city, or Province of his Kingdom, should make himself the particular governor of such a province, or city, that therefore they should not be particular cities, or provinces: and the like may be said, of a General of an army, in respect of some particular Regiment: with what reason then can we say. that the Pope, who is Bishop of the whole Church, may not also be particular Bishop of some one country, and that country still remain a particular Church? Truly I cannot imagine upon what ground any man can frame such a conceit, except upon this inference: The Pope is universal Bishop, of the universal Church: ergo he cannot be particular Bishop, of a particular Church, because universal, and particular, are terms incompatible, and repugnant to be in one, and the same person; or subject. To which argument, I will vouchsafe no other answer, then that it seemeth the very same form of disputing, which heretics vulgarly use against Catholics, as uttering contradictories, and nonsense, while we join together Ecclesia Catholica, Romana, the universal, Roman Church, because, forsooth, a Church Universal and Particular are contradictory terms.  
13 But, let us suppose, that which can never be proved, or rather the contrary whereof is most manifest, let us, I say, suppose, that the Pope cannot be a particular Bishop of a particular church; I ask, whether for the existence of a particular church: it be not sufficient, that it be governed by such, as from his Holiness receive Delegated power, for all occasions, that may require jurisdiction. If he affirm that such a particular Church may be, than I infer, that a Bishop is not necessary for the making a particular Church; because whatsoever jurisdiction any Bishop hath, the like may be grated to others, not Bishops. If he deny that Delegate authority is sufficient to make a particular Church, than he must show me how England, by having a Bishop, is yet become a particular Church, if so it be, that the said Bishop be only Delegate, and not Ordinary, of place, of all sorts of persons, both Catholics, and heretics, not only ad beneplacitum etc. as Scriptures, Fathers, and Canons speak of Bishops, which power, my Lord of Chalcedon doth not challenge, and M. Doctor professeth to abstain from that whole controversy, and so he must either answer his own argument, or else confess, that as yet we are no particular Church.  
14 My last task, was to show, that although we shoul● freely yield ourselves to be no particular Church, without a Bishop; yet it were not sufficient to prove, that a Bishop could not be refused, by reason of persecution. This is easily done, by requiring of M. Doctor, that, which of his own accord, he should first of all have performed; namely, seeing he will needs have a particular Church, to be only that, which hath a particular Bishop, he ought to bring some precept, of God, or the Church, obliging us to be a particular Church in his sense, and why it is not sufficient for us to be members of the Catholic Church, in obedience to our Supreme Pastor, the Vicar of Christ, as our constant Confessors, and glorious Martyrs, before we had a Bishop, lived in sanctity, and died for justice in profession of the Catholic faith.  
15 Neither were this sufficienty, (though it be more than ever he willbe able to perform) unless he could further prove, that such a precept were undispensable, or did bind with whatsoever inconvenience, because there are many divine precepts, for example, Vows, material Integrity of Confession, Residence of Bishops etc. which do not bind always, nor in all cases, or are not by the Vicar of Christ dispensable, and until he have proved, this his imaginary precept not to be of such a kind, he is as near as he was. For certainly, if any cause may yield a lawful excuse, or require dispensation, a just fear of losing goods, liberty, and life (which case M. Doctor directly supposeth in his assertion) may yield a most reasonable excuse, o● cause of dispensation, and for the transgressor plead, not guilty.  
16 The reason which M Doctor added, that: as the whole Church hath one Supreme Bishop to govern it, so every particular Church also, must have us Bishop, or Bishops, else it should not be a particular Church, and so t●e whole▪ and Universal Church should no: (as Christ hath instituted) be a Hierarchy, compose● of diverse particular Churches deierlein no answer. For who dare say, that there is as much necessity, or obligation, to have a Bishop, in eairy particular Church, as to have one Supreme head of the whole Catholic Church? When Gregory, Clement, Paul, and other Popes, stood in deliberation, whether it were expedient to have a Bishop in England (as for many years it was by them judged inconuement) might they as well have doubted of the necessity, or conveniency, of having any Pope of Rome, for the government of the whole Catholic Church? to say, that a particular Bishop h●th not power to govern the whole Catholic Church: ergo, the Bishop of the whole Catholic Church cannot go●erne a particular one, is as good, as to say; the feet cannot guide the head: e●go, the head cannot guide the feet. His assertion, or inference upon his owns premises, that unless every particular Church have a Bishop, the Universal Church should not (as Christ hath instituted) be a Hierarchy, composed of divert particular Churches, if it be understood of particular Churches indeterminately, that is, the whole Church cannot be a Hierarchy, unless some particular Churches have Bishops, it is very true, but serveth nothing at all to his purpose of proving, that England must have a Bishop; because, although England, or some other particular, country want Bishops, other Churches, and countries may have them, and so the Universal Church shall still be a Hierarchy composed of diverse particular Churcher. But if he understand (as his w●res (every particular Church) and his whole drife seem to demonstrate) that, unless every particular determinate Church have a Bishop, the whole and Vuiversall Church should not (as Christ ●ath instituted) be a Hierarchy composed of diverse particular Churches: I must needs say, his doctrine is clearly subject, to a deeper Censure, than I am willing to express. For what Catholic dare a●onch, that because England, for the space of threescore years, wanted a Bishop, the Universal Church all that time, was not (as Christ hath institutea) a Hierarchy composed of diverse particular Churches? yea, if my Lord of Chu●●edon, be not properly Ordinary, both of England, and Scotland, M. Doctor must consequently affirm, that the Universal Church (at this day) is not (as Christ hath instituted) a Hierarch●● composed of diverse particular Churches O, to now great inconveniences is a man subject, if once he undertake the defence of a very hard cause.   

THE THIRD QUESTION. Whether by the divine Law every particular Church must have it Bishop.  
1 TO prove, that a particular Country ●●y not refuse Bishops by reason of persecution, M. Doctor in his 14. chapter allegeth, that it is the lu●e divino, of the divine Law, to have a Bishop in every particular Church: And for proof theoeof, citeth So●us, affirming, 
Sot. lib. 10. de●●u●●●et iure q. 1. a. 4. pos● s●● und●● conclusion●.  it to be de iure divino of the divine Law, quòd in genere singulis Ecclsi●s secundum Ecclesiasticum divisionem sut a●plicentur Episcopi. That in general to every particular Church according to the Ecclesiastical division proper Bishops are to be applied. And Bannes teaching, 
Ba●●es 2.2. q. 1. a 10. Coclu. 6. ad v●●.  that Bishops cannot by the Pope be remo●uea from the whole Church, or a great, or not able part of it. Having cited these two learned authors, he argueth thus: By the divine Law there must be particular Bishops in the Church, but there is no more reason why the particular Church of France, (for I speak especially, of great particular Churches, which are not able parts of the whole Church) should be governed by a Bishop, or Bishops, rather than the Church of Spain, or the Church of Spain, rather than the Church of England: or Flanders: ergo France, Spare, England, Flanders, and all other particular Churches of extent must be governed by Bishops.  
2 These be the best grounds, that M. Doctor in the said chapter bringeth for proof that it is de iure devino a command of God, to have a Bishop in England: & I will add such other arguments, as can be afforded from his 13. chapter, wherein although he affirm but that which all Catholics do grant, speaking in general, that cven in time of persecution, the whole Church may not be governed without some Bishops; yet because some of the proofs brought for the said verity, may perhaps seem pertinent to this present question, 
Suar. tom. 4. in 3. p. d. 25.  I will not dissemble them. Suare●●, saith he, concludeth that the Church cannot change this kind of government by Bishops. Then he allegeth examples of the African Church. When Hunericus began his reign, he offered to the Catholics of Carthage, to choose in that Church a Bishop (which ornament (saith Victor) Carthage had wanted for 24. 
Victor Vticen●●t lib. 2. perseq. vad. in●●●o.  years) but yet upon this condition, that the Arrtans at Constantinople might enjoy the free use of their Churches; otherwise (saith Hunericus) not only the Bishop that shallbe ordained in carthage with his Clergy, but also all other Bishops of the African provinces with their Clergy, shallbe sent to the Moors. The which when Victor Primate of Africa, and others heard, they refused his courtesy with so cruel a condition, and says: ●i●ita est, interposius his cond●tionibus periculosis, haec Ecclesia. Episcopum no● delectatur habere. Gubernat eam Christus qui semper dignatur guberuare. If it be so with these perilous conditions, the Church of Carthage is not dilighted to have a Bishop. But the people so cried out for a Bishop, that they could not be appeased without one.  
3 A second argument M. Doctour ●raweth from another example of Huneticus his cruelty, and of the African Catholics zeal to their Bishops, and Pastors. 
Victor V●●censis lib 2.  Hunericus his cruelty Victor V●●censis describes rather by tears, than words saying: Quibus autem prosequar flum●●bus ●●●●ry●a●um, quando ●●p●s●op●s, Presb●●eros, D●●cono● e●alia ●●●lsiae membra, id est quatuor willia D. cccc Lxvi. ad exilium eremi dasti●au●●, in quibus ●rant podagrici quamplurims, aly per aetatem an●o●u●n lumine ●emporali priua●● etc. But with what f●●ds of tears shall I proosecute 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rs his cruclt●. woens he sent Best ops Priests, Deacous, and other members of the Church ●●to encashment in the wilaernesse amongst whom were ●●my troubled with the gout, others by age, ●●●nd, and d●priue● of sight etc. Behold Hu●●●cus his cru●●ty. Now let us behold the zeal of the Catholics of these countries for their Bishops, and Priests. They complantned p●●●uf●ly that they were deprined of their Pastors, sa●ing or rather crying, 
Victor lib. 2. pe●ses. Vad.  Quibus nos miseros relinqui●ts, dum pergites ad coronas? qui ●os baptizatu●● sunt parunlos fon●●bus aqua perernis? qui nobis paen●tentiae munus collaturi sunt, et reconciliationis induigent●s, obstrictos peccatorum vinculis sol●tu●i? qui● vobis dictum est, quaecunque solueritis super terram, erunt sol●●a et on cales. Qui nos solenntbus or ation●bus sepulturi sunt mortentes quibus di●●ni Sacrifict●●●tu●●xhibedus est● Vobiscum et not ●●eebat pergere, siliceret vs tali modo filios a patribus nulla necessit at separaret. To whom do you lean us maser able wretches whilst you go to receive your crowns? Who shall give us the Sacrament of penance, and lose us tied with the boards of sins, by the Indulgence of reconciliation? For to you it was said whatsoever you shall lose upon earth, it shallbe loosed in heanen. Who shall bury us with solemn prayers, when we shall die to whom the rite of the acu●●● sacrifice is to be exhibited? We might have gone with you, that so no necess●t● might separate the children from their Fathers. After this example M. Doctor saith thus: Wherefore a● for other points of our Faith we must dye rather than deny them, so we must dye rather than a●●y the Hierarchy of the Church, it being a point of Faith.  
4 His third example is out of Orosius relating, how the A●ian Tyrant Tr●samundus commanced that the African Bishops should not ordain any more Bishops in the place of those that died. 
Orosius 〈…〉. ●. 10.  The Bishops considering that without Bishops▪ their churches could not long subsist, but would fall without any other persecution, or violence used against them, resolved to call a Council. And in that Council all the Bishops with one cons●●t decreed, notwithstanding the Tyrant's Edict to the contrary, to ordain Bishops. Cogitantes aut regis i● acund●am, siqua forsan existeret mitigandam, quo facilius ordinat●●●suis plebibus v●uerent, aut si persecutionis violentia nasceretur, corana●dos etia● sides confession, quos dignos inventebant promotione etc. Thinking that the King's wrath if any perchance should be, would be mitigated, or that they who were found worthy of promotion, would be crowned with confession of their ministry, And good reason had they so to do: For, as saith Baronius: Quaenam shes de Ecclesi●s ●astoribus destitutis ulterius reliqua esse poterat, 
Baron. An. Da●. 504.  convulsis earum fundamentis ip●is quibus initibantur Episcopis? What hope could there remain for the Churches, when their foundations, to wit the Bishops, to which they leaned, and on which they depended were ruined, and pulled up. Thus fare out of M. Doctor, whose words I have related at large, that the reader might see all the force of these examples, and out of the narrations themselves, gather the answers to them.  
5 In this question, certain it is, that the ●ure divino the Church must be governed by Bishops, that is, in the whole Church of God, there must be some Bishops; but to affirm, as M. Doctor doth, that it is de iure divino to have a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England, & n●●●nely, that there is such a precept, but moreover, that ho persecuion can excuse the obligation thereof, or give sufficient cause of dispensation (all which he must prove, if he will speak home) is a paradox, to speak sparingly without any show of probability, and which may seem to tax those Popes, as ignorant of the divine Law, who for so many years esteemed it neither necessary, nor expedient to send a Bishop into England; neither when he was sent did they ever dispute●, whether it was necessary ●ure divino, but all the deliberation was, quid expediret, what was expedient: yea M. Doctor must finally answer his own arguments, which either prove nothing at all, or else prove that his Holiness is obliged to give us an Ordinary, (for his reasons, and examples are for such) which is more than M. Doctor himself will avouch.  
6 And truly I cannot in●agine, what weigh one should go about to prove, that upon no cause whatsoever, the Pope can make himself particular Bishop of some particular Church, especially for a time, and govern it by his Delegates, endued with sufficient power, and still provided, that the said particular Church within, or without itself, have means to be furnished with sufficient Priests, and necessary Sacraments, and helps.  
7 But although we should grant, that as M. Doctor affirmeth, a great, or notable part of the church could not iu●re divino be gourned without a Bishop; yet that would be far from proving, that England, as things now stand, must needs have a Bishop. For if our country 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 true church, we shall find it to be more then far from a great, or notable part of the Catholic church spread over the whole world, And God grant that I might not with truth, affirm the whole number of Catholics in England, & Scotland also to be much less than the number of people in some one city in this Kingdom. Sure I am, that my Lord of Chalo●don, or some other in his behalf, in a certine writing called a Paralax sect. 4. saith, that all the Catholics would scarce make one of diverse Bishoprics in England Now, to affirm, that one Dicocesse, or city or indeed not so much as one Diocese, or city) is a great, or notable part, of that Church, which reacheth as far, as the rising, and setting of the sun, and that it must therefore iure divino have a Bishop, so as no cause can excuse the want of one; is a thing, that I will not say no divine, but even no man in his right judgement can affirm. But by this we may see into what absurdities partiality may lead men, though other ways learned.  
8 Enough hath been said to disprove M. Doctors Tenet in this present question. yet nothing will more disadu●●age his assertion, then when the reader shall by my answers clearly penrceive, his own arguments, either to go beside the matter, or to prove against himself.  
9 His first was taken out of Sotus affirming it to be deiure diui●e of the didevine law, quôd in genere singulis etc. that in general, to every particular Church, according to the Ecclesiastical division, proper Bishops are to be applied. This authority is either against M. Doctor, or nothing against us. For either we suppose, that the ancient division of dioceses remain ●ot in England, and Scotland, and then according to M. Doctors understanding of Sotus, every Diocese in England, and Scotland, must ●ure divino have a particular Bishop, which is absurd, & could never be the true meaning of so learned a man, as Sotus was. Or else we suppose, that all Ecclesiastical division of Dioceses in England hath ceased; and then there is not by the divine law, due to England any Bishop according to this authority of Soto, who only saith, it is deiure divino, of divine law, that to every particular Church proper Bishops are to be applied according to the Ecclesiastical division, and therefore where there is no such division, the words of Sotus have no● place, so that Divine as he is alleged by M. Doctor is against himself.  
10 If the Reader ask me, what indeed is the true meaning of Sotus? I answer: his meaning is not, that the Pope is obliged iure diunino, by divine precept, to institute this, or that particular Diocese, or to give particular Bishops to every such particular Diocese instituted, but only, that when the Pope doth confirm, and consecrate a Bishop, and gives him charge of some particular Diocese, in such eases he doth a particular action, which in general was instituted, and commanded by our Saviour Christ, who ordained in general, that in the whole Church there should always be some Bishops: which in effect is no more than we grant, but cometh far short of what M. Doctor intendeth. That this is the true meaning of Sotus, is plain by his onwe words. For having taught what M. Doctor cited out of him, he proves it in this mamnter: Dum Dei minister, id quod ips● instituit, ipsius iussu d●spensat, actio est de iure divino censenda: cum autem Pupa Episcopum confirmat, et consecrat, alicuique attribuit Ecclesiae id exequitur quod Christus in genere instituit, quodque facere iussit: ergo, id iuris divini censendum est. When the minister of God, by his command performeth that which he instituted such an action is to be esteemed of de●ine law. But when the Pope doth confirm, and consecrated a Bishop, ●●d applieth him to some Church he e●●ec●●et● that which Christ in general (M●rke) did institute & which he commanded him to ●o therefore su●● an action ought to be said to be of the divine law Can a●y thing be more de●re, or more direct to show that according to Sot ' the Institution & precept of Christ, was only in gineral which is plainly for us against M. Doctor. Yet to take away all doubt Sotus bringeth this example: Sacrament 〈◊〉 absilutio etc. sacramental absolutio, & the like, although they be immediately performed by the minesters of the Church, nevertheless they are to be esteemed a● of divine law be●●●se Christ did ●astitute them, and com●a●d●ed them, to be so done, and dispe●sed in his ●●me. ●●●vere a ●●●nesse by these words to ●aser our of So●us that every one having authority to administer sacraments, were therefore by deui●e law, and precept bound to do it, but all that could be rightly deduced, according to Sotus, would be, that in case he did administer such sacraments, such an action should be said to be the ●ure diuin● of the divine law. ●s a thing, in general, not of humane, but divine enstitution. Marriage, in general, was instituted, and commanded by God, & in the new law, by Christ's, institution, it is a Sacra●●●t, and therefore when Christians marry they perform an action, in general commanded, and instituted to be a sacrament: shall we therefore out of Sotus inter, that every Christian, or communite is bound to marry? M. Doctonr, I suppose, knows well enough, why Sotus did so much urge this manner of speech, that the confirmation, consecration, and appling of Bishops to particular Churches, is of divine institution. The cause was, more strongly against his antagonist Catharinus, to enforce the residence of Bishops to be a Devyne and not only an Ecclesiastical precept; which precept nevertheless, as Sotus himself affirmeth, & indeed none candeny, doth not oblige in alt●ms, & place; & therefore although Sotus should affirm that there were a divine precept, to apply Bishops to every particular determinate Church, yet that precept being affi●mati●● (as Divines speak) it would not bind in all occasions, as Sotus teacheth concerning the residence of Bishops. Finally by this occasion, M. D●●●er I doubt not, will be more circonspect in ●●adging authors lest he doth wrong his o●ne reputation, the authors than deives, the reader, and most of all the truth. For Sotus doth not speak only of such particular Churches, as are great, or notable parts of the whole Church, as M Doctor doth, but of particular Dioceses: & to say, that it is the ●ure ●iu●● a divine command, that every Diocese have a particular Bishop, and in such manner, as for no cause whatsoever it can be otherwa●es, is a proposition fare from Sotus his thoughts, & which neither M. Doctor, nor any other ●●ill, or can defend.  
11 The second author alleged by M. Doctor is Bannes saying: that Bishop's ●●n●a● by the Pope be removed from the whole Church, or a great or not able part thereof. I wonder M. Doctor would allege this learned deem, to prove that ●●●s de iure devino, to have a Bishop in England, the coutrary whereof is clearly deduced from this very authority of the same author, who having taught, that Bishops have all their authority immediately from the Pope, frameth this objection against himself: That if the Bishops have their authority immediately from the Pope, it were in his power to remove all Bishops from their Churches, and so the Catholic Church should be without Bishops. To this objection Bamnes answers, Quòd licet Summus Pontifex posset pros●● arbetr●tu, unum aut alterum Episcopum amovere, nec in locum corum ali quem design●re, non tamè admittendum est. quod in tota Ecclesia, aut in magna eius parte, tantemere sua potestate abuta●ur. Although the Pope might as he should think good, remove one, 〈◊〉 two Bishops, and design none in their place, yet it is not to be admitted, that he can so rashly abuse his power in the whole Church, or in a great part thereof. By the only reading of Bannes his words (which M. Dortour aught to haue alleged at large, & not by halves, as much as might seem for his purpose) the reader will quickly perceive that it is not the iure divino, a commandment of God, that every particular Church have a Bishop, seeing according to this Author, the Pope may leave some Churches without Bishops. Now I would ask M. Doctor, whether such Churches should cease to be particular Churches? and whatsoever he answereth, will either be against his other Principle, that without a Bishop there can be no● particular church, of else if he say, that they should not remain particular Churches, he must consider that then according to Bannes, it is not the iure diui●o, a devire la●, that every Church should be a particular Church, because, as we have seen. Bannes teacheth, that without breach of ●e●●e law, the Pope may leave some churches without Bishops. Besides, the 〈◊〉 will see that Bannes only speaketh of removing Bishops from the whole Church, or from a great part of it, and thence he would deduce a contr●rio sensu, that seeing the flock of Christ in England, is fare from being a great part of the Catholic church, and less than some one Diocese, from which Bannes granted the Pope may remove a Bishop (yea he teacheth that all Bishops may be removed from more Dioceses than one) he would, I say, out of his own assertion deduce, that the Pope may, not only deny a Bishop to England, but also, if the think good, remove one already granted. Moreover, the Reader cannot forget, how M. Doctor alleged first Sotus▪ as teaching that iure divino▪ by deui●● Precept, every particular Church must have it Bishop: and afterwards, to the s●me purpose, he ●i●ed Bannes, who y●● express●●● affirmeth the contrary, and teacheth that the Pope may le●ue some particular Church's without Bishops. How do these two things cohere? It passeth my understanding that two authors should be rightly alleged as teaching that very po●●●, wherein they are contrary. Contrary, I say, as Sotus is understood by M. Doctors for according to his true meaning, he is nothing ●g●inst Bannes, for as much as concerns out present purpose, as I have she wed ou● of their own words. And thus, I hope, to have made good that Bamnes alleged by M. Doctor▪ is indeed mainly against him. And this is so much the more strange, because Sotus, and Bannes were alleged, as teaching some singular matter in his favour, who both, upon examine are found to be his adversary's.  
12. The reason that M. Doctor did inser●● from the said authorities, maketh for him, just as they did. It was this. By the divine law there must be particular Bishop● in the Church; but there is no more reason why the Church of France, for example, should be governed by a Bishop, than the church of England; ergo, England, and all other particular churches of extent, must be governed by Bishops. Truly I cannot but wonder, that a learned man should use such a form of argument, which he cannot but know doth fail in a thousand instances. For example, some meat is absolutely necessary for the mainetenance of man, but there is no more reason, why eggs, or fish should be necessary to the maintenance of man rather, than other particular meats: ergo, eggs, fish, and all other particular meats are necessary for the mainetenance of man. Or, to bring an example nearer the purpose. It is of the law of God, and nature, that some men do marry for the preserving of mankind; but (if we precisely respect the law of nature) there is no more reason, why one person, village, or city should be obliged, rather than another: ergo, every particular person, village, and city is obliged to marry. To these instances M. Doct. must answer by distinguishing the minor proposition. If we compare one particular meat, to another paricular determinate meat, than the minor is true, that there is no more reason of one, than another, and so neither one, nor other determinately is necessary: But if we compare one particular meat, with other particular meats, taken in general or indeterminately, then there is more reason why one particular meat is not so necessary as others taken indeterminatly, because in that indeterminate sense▪ they signify all particular meats in general, which no doubt are more necessary for the maintenance of man, than any one determinate meat. Or to say all in one word, some meat is necessary, but not this or that in particular. And so we may easily answer M. Doctors argument by the like destruction, that iure divino, Bishops are necessary in some parts of the church indeterminately, but not determinately in this, or that part of the church, And this were sufficient to answer that sophism. Yet, that the reader may see how weak an argument it is, his Minor proposition might be easily denied, although we should compare one particular church with another particular church determinately taken: for there may reasons occur of persecution, or the like, to make the case of one church different from that of another. And as for England in particular (beside the known reason of persecution, different from other countries (which we also suppose should be increased by the coming of a Bishop, for of that case M. Doctor speaks) joined nevertheless with the paternal care of Christ's Vicar, whereby in so long time of persecution, we were abundantly provided of all means for our souls good, even according to M. Doctor his own assumpt, there is a different reason of England, which, as it signifieth a particular true church, is neither a great, nor not able part of the whole church, nor to use M. Doctors own words, a church of extent.  
13 I desire to know of M. Doctor, whether this form of argument be good. Religious institute in general is of the divine institution, and the Supreme Pastor of God's church, by his office, is obliged on his part, to procure, that in the Catholic church, so sacred an institution be maintained; but there is no more reason why it should be maintained in France, or Spain, then in England: ergo, the Pope is obliged to maintain the being of religious institute in England. When M. Doct. shall tell me what be thinketh of this manner of argument, I will then let him know what good use I shallbe able to make of his answer, whatsoever it be.  
14 Lastly, here also I must crave leave to show, that M. Doctor his manner of argument is rather against himself, and may be thus retorted, especial if we take what he himself seemeth to confess, & in itself is most evident, to wit, ●h●t it is not the iure di●ino, to have a Bishop in every particular little Church, or Diocese, but at most, in such Churches, as are great, & of extent. It is nor de iure divino, that there be a particular Bishop in every Diocese of England; but (if we respect the divine law) there is no more reason of o●e Diocese, then of another: ergo, all the Dioceses of England may be without a Bishop: which is directly against that, which M. Doctor by his said argument intended to prove. Moreover in the same manner one might go forward, and say: There is no more reason why all the Dioceses of England may be governed without a Bishop, than those of France, nor of France more than of Spain, and so of all other particular Churches: ergo, all particular churches of the whole world may be governed with out Bishops. A thing both false in itself, and directly contrary to what M Doctor intendeth. Nevertheless it is the very same manner of disputing which he himself useth, and so his own arguments overthrew their own grounds and distroie themselves.  
15 And here I would be glad to know, wherther his arguments do not prove, that Scotland must also have it particular Bishop. Sure I am, that if they prove any thing, they must prove that; and so M. Doctor both tells my Lord of Chalcedon, that he cannot be Bishop of Scotland (which being a Country of extent must have its particular Bishop) and lets his holiness know, that he hath not satisfied the divine law till he place a Bishop in Scotland. But I think M. Doctor will not proceed so far; yet by this he may see how his arguments outreach his own intention, and so while they prove too much, they effect nothing.  
16 Neither need I again put M. Doctor in mind, that if he prove any thing, his argument proves that England, and Scotland also must iure divino have an Ordinary, because by the divine law beside the Supreme Pastor, there must be in the Church of God other Ordinaries. And this be said concerning such arguments as M. Doctor hath in his 14 chapter. Let us now examine those of his 13. chapter.  
17 What he allegeth out of Suarez, to prove that the government of the Church by Bishops, speaking in general, cannot be altered by the Church, is most true. Only I wish, M. Doctor had not so abruptly broken of Suarez his discourse, who being to prove that in a Monarchy there must be, not only one supreme, but also other inferior, as it were, Princes of the Church, saith thus: the minor is declared, both because a monarchy must have something admixed of Aristocracy, because there must be in the Church many Princes, under one the first. Thus he citeth Suarez, against all Grammar, not giving any word answering to (both) which therefore I must do, and tell the reader, that in Suarez there follow immediately these words: tum etiam quia in rep Christana erat hoc maximè necessarium, nam est amplissima, & universalissima, & eius regimen est spirituale, & internum, quod non fit exactè ●●si per proprios pastors, & Principes Ecclesiae: & also because in the Christian common walth this (to have some other Bishops beside the supreme Pastor) was most necessary, because it is most large & most universal, & the government of it is spiritual, and internal, which is not exactly performed, but by proper Pastors, & Princes of the Church. If M. Doctor, had not omitted this re●s●, Imcane the amplitude, and universality of Christ's Church, the reader might have seen, that what Suarez affirmed, with all Divines, of the necessity to have some Bishops in the Church in general, could not be verified of the catholic Church in England, which is neither amplissima, nor universalissima, mostlarge, nor most uneversall, neither doth the want of a Bishop in England infer, that the Church shall not be a perfect Monarchy, governed by one supreme Pastor, & other inferior Ecclesiastical Princes, in some parts of it: For England is not the whole world. You see then, that I had reason to wish Suarez had been by M. Doctor cited not by halves, for he being entirely cited makes for us, against him.  
18 His examples drawn from the African church, may be answered all at once, if we consider. First, that examples prove little, unless we were sure, that all circumstances concur alike; and as those of Africa could best judge, what was fit for that Church, so English men can best tell, how things stand in England, and what is most expedient for that Church. Secondly it is clear, their case was fare different from ours in England. For the African Bishops, and people, had open meetings, yea the Bishops celebrated Counsels: The Catholcks were many, & public, or rather the whole face of the country was catholic: They had their known Primate, and other Bishops: and lastly (which I desire the reader still to observe) if there had not been Bishops in Africa, their Church would have wholly f●yled, because for ordaining of Priests, they had no such means as England, by the merciful goodness of God, and singular care of Popes, have had, and still enjoy, with such education for Clergy men, as God grant we may retain the like, if England be catholic. For other helps also, there was not betwixt Africa, and Rome, that intercourse which we now enjoy.  
19 And by this last observation is answered a demand of M. Doctor, in his 14. chap. num 2. Why the Popes, and Bishops, in the Primative Church, were so diligent in consecrating Bishops, ye● and making Popes, even in the midst of the greatest persecutions, but that they thought it was iuris divini that every church should have its Bishop. The true reason was, because in those times every country needed his own Bishop, for ordaining of Priests, and the like, without which their churches could not subsist, & least of all could the universal Catholic Church subsist, without a head the Pope: and I wonder at M. Doctor his (yea and making Popes) in his foresaid demand, as if it were more strange, that Popes, than that particular Bishops should be ordained in time of persecution.  
20 All this that I have said, of the different case betwixt Africa, and England, is clear out of the history, and words alleged by M. Doctor himself, which I cited in the beginning of this question, and in particular of this last main difference, you shall fi●de in Baronius Anno ●04. these words. Eo consilio ista preceperat Trasamundus, ut absque exerto ad persequendum gladio, ipsae Orthodoxorum Eccelsiae, aliquo temporis spatio orbatae universae Pastoribus sponte concidereat. To that end Trasamundus had commanded those things (namely that no more Bishops should be ordained in the place of those that died) to the end that without dint of sword, the Catholic Churches being all for some space of time destitute of Pastors, might of themselves fall. And for this reason Baronius said: what hope could there remain for the churches, when their foundations, to wit the Bishops, were taken away? And this I hope will satisfy the judicious reader, that the three examples drawn from the African Church, prove nothing for our case in England: yet by way of supererogation, I will touch every one of them apart.  
21 Concerning the first, of the people's crying on't for a Bishop for the Church of Certhage, which Hunericus offered them, but upon condition that the Arians of Constantinople, might enjoy the free use of their Churches, otherwise not only the Bishop that should be ordained in Carthage with his clergy, but also all other Bishops of the African● provinces with their clergy, should be sent to the Moors. I ask M. Doctor, whether in good earnest he think it necessary, or lawful, rather to admit such conditions, than ●o lec a particular Diocese (as Carth●ge was) be without a Bishops I do not believe but he will grant that it is not lawful, at least Victor, Primate of all Afrique, with other Bishops, was of opinion that upon such conditions a Bishop wos not to be desire●: Interposit●s his Conditionibus etc. (say they) with such conditions as these the church of Carthage is not willing to have a Bishop. And therefore the people, who with such a resolution cried for a Bishop, did either hope, that the threatened conditions would not take effect, or else their zeal is more to be admired, then imitated. Wherefore when M. Doctor, out of his zeal also to have a Bishop, num 7. turns his speech to Catholics in England, desiring them to imitate this zeal of the Carthaginians for a Bishop, & to imprint it in their hearts (although it must be with characters of their own blood) doth in effect say: O my dear c●●atrymen, you Catholics of England, be sure to cry for a Bishop, although it were upon condition, 〈◊〉 the blasphemous Arians, who den●●●our dear Saviour's Devinity, in son●●iefest Catholic city, have free use their abominable churches, and th● otherwise not only the Bishop that sh● ordained in England with the whole tholicke Clergy of that country, but a● all Bishops of some other large Catho●e Provynces, with their Clergy, shalb●nt to foreign barbarous countries: an●●is you must do, and not be appeased 〈◊〉 though your Superior, and the Superior of the Bishop himself, to wit your and his lawful Primate, together with their Bishops, should be of another mind, and should utterly dislike the having o● Bishop, upon such conditions; for so did ●he people of Carthage, against the judgement of Victor their Primate, and of the ●ther African Bishops. Were not this a vey pious exhortation? teaching men with the same breath to desire a Bishop, and disobey Bishops: And yet M. Doctor in effect saith so, while very pathetically, he begs of English catholics, an imitation of the Carthaginian people's fact.  
22 His second example maketh nothing to our present purpose. For it telleth us only, that the catholics lamented (and who would not have so done?) when their Bishops, Priests Deacons, & other Catholics, to the number of four thousand nine hundred six●●e six (which number why did M. Doctor omit to translate into English, having translated the words immediately, both precedent, and subsequent?) were sent into banishment. But what is all this? Can we not have Priests, be baptised, absolved from our sins, buried, enjoy the comfort of the holy Mass, without Bishops? and yet (as we have seen) want of the said helps was that, which caused such lamentations among those good Catholics, who at one time were deprived, not only of Bishops, but also of their Priests, and Deacons. This example being so fare from the purpose, I marvel he would couple with it a certain (wherefore) saying: wherefore as for other points of faith we must dye, so we must dye, rather than deny the Higher aroby of the church, Which consisteth principally of Bishops. To dye for the defence of the Hierarchy of the church, is indeed sufficient cause of martyrdom, but I neither understand how that truth is aptly deduced from the said example, nor can any body believe, that he were a martyr, who should dye for defence of the necessity of a Bishop in Englard, or for defence of some particular pretence of authority, which a Bishop in England might make: although perhaps M. Doctor might not think it impossible, but that his book being in English, ●ome unlearned person might take all these for one, and so think himself a happy man, and a martyr, by defending, and dying for whatsoever authority a particular Bishop might pretend. I deleeve M. Doctor himself would be loath to die for such causes.  
23 To his third example of Trasamundus commanding no Bishops to be ordained in place of those that died, that so without further persecution the churches might fa●le, I have answered already, and now will only note M. Doctors translation of a word, for his purpose. Cogitantes, ●u●●regis iracundiam mitig andam aut coronandos etiam sidei confession, quos dignos inveniebant promotione: Thinking that cyther the King's wrath would be mitigated, or that they who were found worthy of promotion, should also be crowned by the c●fession of their faith; this M. Doctor translateth (with the confession of their ministry) that so some might think it a point of martyrdom to confess the practice of some particular Bishop's pretended authority: otherwise I see not why he should change faith into ministry.   

THE FOURTH 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.  
1 FIRST, we protest that by God's holy assistance, we do, & ever will reverence the sacrament of Confirmation, no less than others, who now upon particular designs, do so much urge the necessity thereof. And further I declate, that for my particular, I am ready to follow any m●st severe opinions of whatsoever approved Catholic Divine, when that Sacrament may conveniently be had, and am persawded, that in such case, the neglect of so great a benefit, cannot be pleasing to almighty God. But to put upon men's consciences so strict an obligation, notwithstanding whatsoever persecution, to be raised by the very occasion of enjoying that Sacrament, is more than can be warranted by scripture, or any tradition, or definition of the Church, or by any Decree of any Pope, or, for aught I know, by the testimony of any one single Catholic Divine, whose works are come to public view, or can be proved by any good Theological argument. And besides this, to affirm that not withstanding whatsoever persecution, we must not only receive that Sacrament, but must have it only from a Bishop, and from a Bishop of England, or belonging to that Kingdom (all which points M. Doctor must prove before he prove his intent) is a thing, which no Author Thomist, Scotist, or Nominalist, not Doctor, Secular, or Regular ever taught, or can enter into the deliberate thought of any reasonable Divine, much less is it a doctrine to be broached upon so weak, & mistaken, or ill applied grounds, as I hope todemonstrat M. Doctors reason to be.  
2 True it is, the Sacrament of Confirmation was instituted for giving of grace to profess our Faith, and S Thomas teacheth that by it a man receiveth augmentation, 
S. Tho. 3. p. q. 65. a ●●n. corp.  and groweth: which yet cannot be so understood, as if this Sacrament were the only means to attain such spiritual groweth, 
Tanner. Tom. 4. disp. 4 q 4. dub. 2. n. 43. prof●ssio fide● debita, suo quidem tempore est necessaria, sed ad quam elian ord: naria gratiae a●xilia su●●iciut For the cof●ssio of our paith the ordinary be●ps of grace are su●●c●e it. S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. a. 2. ad. 1.  because by other Sacraments, & ordinary helps of almighty God, we may receive the effect of that same grace, which is given in confirmation; every one according to the measure of grace communicated by God, and seconded with the cooperation of man's freewill, as the Apostles in Pentecost in an extraordinary measure received the holy Ghost, without the Sacrament of Confirmation, rem Sacramenti sine sacarmento faith S. Thomas, the grace of the Sacrament without the sacrament; and the like he teacheth of those Christians, of whom S. Peter Act. 11. Sayeth: Cùm caepissem loqui cecidit Spiritus Sanctus super cos, sicut et in nos in principio: when I had begun to speak the Holy Ghost descended upon them, as it did upon us in the beginning.  
3 There is great difference betwixt corporal and spiritual growth: Corporal growth is by augmentation, or extension of Quantity, and although one should, never so much increase in health, strength, good colour, and the like, yet because these are within the compass of the Predicament of Quality, different toto genere from the Predicament of Quantity a man notwithstanding whatsoever improovement in the foresaid Qualities, might still remain but a dwarf, unless he increased also in Quantity. But our sauce is a spirit, & the gro●th of it consists in ●us●●fying grace, which is of the same nature, and offence, by whatsoever sacrament, or meritorious work ●t be given, and therefore is not ryed to one means, but may and is afforded by diu●rs, as neither the actual helps, or motions of gra●e, are necessarily to bo●●d to one sacrament, that they cannot likewise be given for, and by the receiving of other.  
4 S. Thomas saith: 
S. Tho. 2.2. q. 18 4 a. 3. ad 3.  If we compare the voluntary perfection of following the Enangelicall Counsels for the removing of all impediments of the acts of charity (which is the perfection of Religious state with that other necessary perfection of keepng the commandments, & removing only those impediments, whereby we forfeit, the grace of God, and charity (to which perfection all Christians are obliged) it is as if we should compare a man of perfect growth with a child. I demand of M. Doctor whether hence it follow, that all must be Religious men, lest otherwise they be like children without perfect growth? as M. Doctor avoucheth the necessity of confirmation, lest otherwise we be without perfect growth, & still like to children. And that this example, and demand is not wholly impertinent, I must crave leave, giving God all the glory, to say, that a Religious state, considering the secure means it hath of uncessant en●re as in grace by continual merit of good works, and frequent receiving of other sacraments doth strengthen a man not to f●●le in persecution, no less, than the only receiving of Confirmation commonly may be thought to strengthen people lining amoung continual dangers, & distraction, in the world; always supposed, that the same sacrament be not by such Religious men culpably omitted: and yet he were to blame who for this reason of greater growth would be as forward, as M. Doctor, in imposing I know not what obligations, notwithstanding whatsoever persecution.  
5 Baptism, the most necessary of all sacraments, may be supplied by death, undergonne for the profession of our faith, when the sacrament itself cannot be had. Persecution is the nearest participation of martyrdom, and may well be termed a lingering death, or martyrdom: & therefore we may confide in the goodness of our God, for whose sake we suffer, that lie will not forsake us for want of that sacrament, which we cannot have, without increase of our many afflictions; and will effect, that the same pressure be jointly a wound, and a cure, in virtue of his sweet providence who facit cum tentatione proventum, out of miseries draws increase of merit: especially we being still in such disposition, and humble subjection to his Divine will, that if we were once a certained of his greater glory, and good of souls, by having a Bishop in England, only for the Sacrament of Confirmation (which is our present question) we would rather hazard goods, liberty, and life, (as by his grace for other matters we freely do) than not perform therein his most blessed will.  
6 The times have been, when our persecution was most bitter, and yet would to God we now could behold the zeal, fervour, charity, and constancy which in those days without the sacrament of Confirmation Catholics shown. I hold it no rashness to affirm, that since England's enjoying a Bishop, more harm hath befallen Catholics in general, by disagreement, and frequent breach of charity, than they have received commodity, by the only sacrament of Confirmation, administered to a few; and that more have been in danger to fall by these dissensions, then for want of the said sacrament.  
7 Yet put c●se, that some perhaps have, or hereafter might fall for want of confirmation, the whole body of Catholics is not obliged to undergo a general persecution, for avoiding the particular damage of a few, whose fall is voluntary, & to be ascribed only to themselues, because they make not use of other means, and sacraments, which may be had in England, and through their own negligence, and liberty of life, do not cooperate with that particular grace, and assistance of Almighty God, which hitherto his goodness hath in abundance offered to English Catholics without the sacrament of confirmation. M. Doctor knows, that when the danger, and occasion of sin, is either not proximum, imminent, and such as morally will not be avoided, or else not of any determinate time, person, or place, but obely in general (that such a state, or function morally speaking willbe occasion of sin, although every particular occasion may be either avoided, or overcome) he knows, I say, that both a commonwealth may tolerate such a state, either for attaining some greater good, or avoiding some notable inconvenience, and also particular men may without sin embrace such a course of life, for example of a soldier, or the like: Much more then, the danger of falling for want of Confirmation, being neither proximum, not of any determinat person, time, place, or occasion, or which may not either be avoided, or overcome by other means, Catholics are not obliged for avoiding of such remote, and uncertain, voluntary dangers of a few, to to cast themselves upon present, certaune, and great inconveniences. Nay, if I should affirm, that more might be in danger to fall by increase of persecution voluntarily drawn upon themselves, then for want of Confirmation, and that therefore catholics could not in conscience admit a Bishop only for Confirmation (supposing as our present supposition is, that the persecution should be increased by that occasion) how would M. Doctor demonstrate that my conjecture, and argument were not as good, or better than his? For we know that in persecution some have fallen, but we cannot know that their fall was for want of Confirmation. But I will not imitate M. Doctor in multiplying precepts, upon uncertainties, nor forestall the decrees of Superiors, by denouncing aforehand what in conscience they must do, unless they will break a divine precept.  
8 Well, but suppose Confirmation were as necessary, as he will have it, must we therefore of necessity have a Bishop? It is strange M. Doctor never objected to himself, that Confirmation, by particular commission from the Pope, may be administered by a Priest: 
S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. a. 11.  which he knows to be the doctrine of S. Thomas, & common among Divines, in somuch as a learned modern writer teacheth▪ that the contrary is less, or not at all probable, 
Tanner ●oin. 4 diss▪ 4. q. 4. dull. 3. asse●●: 3.  adding that the said common doctrine hath been practised not only by Gr●gory the Great, (our Apostle) but often by other Popes also; that at this present it is practised in the indyes; that some Abbots by particular Privilege may confer the sard Sacrament, as the Congregation of Cardinals have declared upon the 7 session of the Council of Trent; that the same doctrine is declayed in the Council of Florence decreto unionts. I have been credibly informed that the Abbot of Monte Cassino of the holy order of S. Bennet hath authority to confirm; and Petrus Arcudius in a learned volume written of the agreement betwixt the Latin, 
Pelr. Arcudius de concordia Eccles●e Oc●idemalis & O●●etalis in s●pt●m Sacramen or i● administration 〈◊〉 ●. 2, cap.  and Greek Church, in the administration of the seven Sacraments, witnesseth that in the hearing of diverse other of the Greek College in Rome, he was told by a grave Father of the Society of jesus, by name Petrus Fonseca, who came to Rome the year 1593. that some principal men of the said Order, had authority to administer the Sacrament of Confirmation, and further the same Father certainly avouched, that himself was wont to administer the said Sacrament in Brasile, where there was kept the Popes Grant of such authority. Also the same Arcudius, writes that others relate, how Adrian the 6 (a very learned, and pious Pope) the year 1521. upon the 25. of April, granted for the Indies, and country; destitute of Bishops, that Priests Minorites might confirm, and that an Authentical of the Grant is kept at Seville, in the convent of glorious S. Francis his Order. Moreover, Arcudius allegeth anciennt Greek Fathers, to prove that even before the schism, it was the practice of the Greek Church, to have confirmation administered by Priests (with particular commission to that effect.) And to take away all scruple, 
Ita Suarez, coninck, Henriquez, quos citat, & s●quitur Pau●us ●at●●● lib. 5. tr●ct●t. 3. cap. ●. a. 1  some great Divines do teach, that although such commission ought not to be granted without just cause, yet it is of force, and valid, howsoever it be granted: because, it is not properly a dispensation in the law of Christ, but rather a commission of power according to Christ's insticution, which is, that the Extraordinary Minister of Confirmation, should be a Priest by commission from the supreme Pastor of God's Church. If M. Doct. hold against the common doctrine of Divines, and practise of most learned, and holy Popes, who have committed the Sacrament of confirmation to Priests, than he must undertake a new, and hard task; and prove that even for that slender probability which his opinion hath (if it hath any) Catholics must rather suffer increase of persecution, than not make all sure, by having a Bishop for confirmation: which is a thing, he will never be able to prove, espcially seeing Popes content themselves with the said doctrine, even in countries where Bishops might be emoyed with less danger, then in England.  
9 Yet although we should grant, that Catholics were bound to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation, and to receive it from a Bishop, it follows not that it must be had from a Bishop subject at least to all those penal laws which are enacted against English Catholics, and Priests. For matters might be so disposed, as some Bishop from abroad, and only taking England, ●s it were by the way, might confirm more in three months, than my Lord of Chalcedon in seven years, according to the proportion kept, since the times waxed more hard: especially if such a Bishop did administer Confirmation to children, according to the common practice of the Church in ancient times, and of the Eastern Church at this day, and as some relate, of some country nearer us, where children, two, or three years old, are wont to be confirmed: 
See Layman lib. 5. tract. 3. cap. 6. n. 1.  which practice may seem very fit for our country, both because Confirmation cannot often, and easily be had; and also that by this means children during the time of innocency, when they are sure to receive the grace of the Sacrament, might be armed, against the dangers of future persecution. But in this, if any difficulty appear, his Holiness would vouchsafe to ordain, what might be most expedient for the particular case of England: and by this means, within some compass of years, most Catholics living, would find themselves to have the Sacrament of Confirmation.  
10 Further if we did yield to M. Doctor, that for some sort of persecution, though very great, we ought not to want the Sacrament of confirmation: yet when the persecution is of such nature, that it hindereth the Bishop from administering that very Sacrament for which he comes, except but to a few, no man can with reason say, that such a persecution, doth not excuse from obligation of receving that Sacrament from a Bishop. That our persecution is of this quality experience tells us.  
11 Moveroner we must still remember the number of Catholics in England, which I have touched in the precedent question: and that of those Catholics, all the clergy have had Confirmation abroad, as likewise diverse of the laity, either in Seminaries, or otherwise in the●r travels: those who are in England, being so secret, and dispersed as they are, diverse of them could scarcely have that Sacrament, although a Bishop should be still in England: all which considered, we shall find that the number of those who want, and can receive the foresaid Sacrament, is not so great as at first sight may seem, & therefore still the difficulty on M. Doctor's side is greater to prove, that for such a number, it is necessary to have a Bishop for Confirmation, although by that means the persecution should be increased against all.  
12 Finally, though we should grant all, and more than with reason can be desired; yet M. Doctor will not have proved his intent, till first he effect an impossibility, namely, that this his opinion, which he is the first to put in print, is so evident, and certain, that the contrary is void of probability. For till then, Catholics are sure, they may with a safe conscience, keep their goods, liberties, and lives for some more necessary, and better warranted occasion, by conforming their practice to the contrary of that which M. Doctor teacheth; especially seeing he himself, in his 14. chap. n. 3. doth but fearfully deliver this doctrine, saying: I am of opinion (which I humbly submit to authority) that a particular Church cannot except any long time against having a Bishop, for fear of persecution. And n 8. he only saith, I think neither any Country nor any one of the Country, for fear of persecution can oppose against the coming in of a Bishop, though thereby only the sacrament of Confirmation should be wanting. We see; according to his own confession it is but his opinion, and thinking, which I hope he will not not bind all other to follow, although it were in deed probable, as I have demonstrated it not to be.  
13 And I should wish M. Doctor to be of my mind, if it were but, lest otherwise, he might seem to descent, in judgement from my Lord of Chalcedon himself: who upon occasion of speech, about some authority (nothing touching Confirmation) which his Lordship pretended, said plainly, that unless he did compass those pretences, he would leave all; which my Lord, a man of so great learning and zeal, would never have uttered, if he had conceived, the very receiving of Confirmation to be of so great necessity, that for it alone, all Catholics are obliged to endure increase of persecution: for if the matter be so, that sacrament alone were likewise a very sufficient cause of my Lords stay in England, although other pretences should not sucseede; especially it being a certain doctrine of Divines, that Bishops have greater obligation to administer Confirmation, than people to receive it. Moreover seeing my Lord hath styled himself Ordinary of Scotland, doubtless he would extend his charity to that kingdom, if he were of M. Doct. opinion, concerning the necessity of Confirmation, in a country groaning under a heavy persecution, as at this present the Catholics of Scotland do, and therefore stand in greater need of that Sacrament. Neither do I think M. Doctor will condemn of deadly sin the Catholics of Scotland, for not seeking to have a Bishop, to administer that Sacrament, or my Lord of Chalcedon, for not going to administer it. But now let us see, what M. Doctor in his 14. chapter, where he handleth this point, doth bring in proof of his doctrine.  
14 His first argument is, because without confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians, seeing according to S. Thomas by confirmation we receive our perfect growth. To this I have already answered, & now only wish the reader to be mindful, that according to S. Thomas, confirmation (and consequently the effect thereof, for example, perfect growth, and whatsoever else) may be had without a Bishop, and so if M. Doctor will stick to S. Thomas, his opinion must go down. 15 Then he allegeth S. Clement Epist. 4. saying thus: Omnibus ergo festinandum est sine morarenasci Deo, & demum consignari ab Episcopo; id est, septiformem gratiam Spiritus Sancti percipere, quia incertus est uniuscuiusque exitus vitae. Quum autem regeneratus fuerit per aquam, & postmodum septiformis spiritus gratia ab Episcopo confirmatus, quia aliter perfectus esse Christianus nequaquam poterit etc. All therefore must make haste without delay to be regenerated to God, and then to be consigned by the Bishop, that is to receive the sevenfold grace of the Holy Ghost, because the end of every one's life is uncertain. But when he shallbe regenerated by water, and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop, with the sevenfold grace of the Spirit, because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian etc. To this authority I answer.  
16 First M. Doctor should not have grounded so hard a doctrine, upon an Epistle, which I suppose he knoweth, not to be so authentical, as to settle thereon a doctrinal point, as he may see by Bellarmine in his book de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. Secondly, I may answer, out of Estius, in that very place, which M. Doctor cited out of him for the necessity of confirmation, in time of persecution: and it seemeth not fair dealing to bring Estius, as fare as he seemeth for his purpose, and not so much as take notice, or confute, what in the same author, in the same place, and to the same purpose, he finds against him. Estius therefore observeth, that the Fathers, when they say, that without Confirmation, faithful people are not perfectly, or fully Christians, do generally allude, to the name of Christ, which signifieth Anointed, & therefore they deny, that they are fully Christians, who have not received Episcopal Unction, namely, having reference to the word Christians, as S. Augustinel 17. civet. cap. 4. saith, that all who are anointed with Chrism, may rightly be called Christi, Christ's. By this is clear● on what sense the words of Clement (cited by M. Doctor) are to be understood. Thus fare Estius; whom M. Doctor highly commends for a learned, and holy man, & the reader may see, how directly he doth not only answer M. Doctors argument, but also saith that it is clear in what sense the words of S. Clement are to be understood. It seems a hard case, when M. Doctor is forced to allege Estius as his chief Author for the necessity of Confirmation (as afterwards we shall see) who in the very same place, destroyeth a main ground, brought by M. Doctor for the necessity of the same Sacrament.  
Thirdly, there occurreth an answer clearly deduced out of S. Clement's own words, and, I doubt not, but will fully satisfy the learned reader. The common practice of the ancient Church was (and is yet in the Eastern Church, and at Rome when converted Jews, or Turk's ar● solemnly baptised) together with Baptism to give the Sacrament of Confirmation, and so, whosoever in those times was not confirmed, wanted also Baptism, & hence S. Clement might well say that he that was not baptised, and confirmed, was not a perfect Christian. But this is fare from proving that without confirmation, as separated from Baptism, we cannot be perfectly Christians. This sense is manifest, if we ponder S. Clement's words: for having said: All must make haste to be regenerated to God, and then to be consigned by the Bishop, he saith not afterwards: But when he shallbe confirmed by the Bishop, because otherwise he cannot be a perfect christian, but still joineth it with baptism, and saith: But when he shallbe regenerated by water, and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop, because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian still, as I said, repeating together both those sacraments, because they were wont to be administered at one time, and whosoever had, or wanted one infallibly, had or wanted both of them, & in that manner it was all one to say, one was not confirmed, as to say, he was not baptised. Besides S. Clement's discourse (All must make haste to be regenerated to God, and then to be consigned by the Bishop, because the end of every one's life as uncertain, makes it clear that his speech is of Baptism. For howsoever necessary Confirmation be, yet certainly it is not of so great haste as S. Clement urgeth: yea it is che●fly for those who are to live, & have occasion to profess there faith, as S. Thomas allegeth out of Pope Melchiades, 
S. Tho. 3. p. q. 72. a. 8. 〈◊〉. 4.  & therefore it had been an unfit reason of S. Clement, to hasten men to confirmation, because the end of every one's life is uncertain, for, as I said, the less certainty we have of life, and more vicinity to death, the less necessity we have of Confirmation: but for Baptism his reason of the uncertainty of man's last end, is very fit, and urgent: & therefore it is clear, S. Clement's speech is refered to the sacrament of Baptism.  
My fourth answer is, that S. Clement is not faithfully alleged by M. Doctor. For S. Clement, after he had said: When he shallbe regenerated by water, and afterward, Confirmed by the Bishop with the sevenfold grace of the Spirits, because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian (where M. Doctor ends with an &c.) immediately addeth words, wherein the very point in question consisteth, saying: Saint non necessitate, sed incuria sic, aut voluntate remanserit: if he shall remain so, not by necessity, but by carelessness, or voluntarily. What good dealing this is, I leave to the censure of an unpartial reader. Our case is when Confirmation cannot be had without hazard of goods, liberty, & life. S. Clement speaketh in case it be omitted, not upon necessity, but carelessly, and voluntarily. What is this against us? Nay, is it not clearly for us against M. Doctor? For S. Clement affirming, that without Confirmation, we cannot be perfect Christians, if it be omitted without necessity, must be supposed to mean, that such as want it upon necessity, & not by will, may without i● be perfect Christians, other wise his exception, of necessity, were in vain Still M. D. cities Authors, which prove against himself, when they are cited aright. Fif●●ly I answer to this, & all the like arguments, or authorities that M Doct. stil●failes in his proofs. For if he will needs urge, that without confirmation we are not perfect Christians in some particular sense, than he must prove that there is a precept for us to be perfect Christians in that sense, & also that such a particular perfection cannot be had, but by Confirmation. For as for absolute perfection (consisting in Grace, & Charity) without the sacrament of Confirmation ●t hath been, and is had, by many holy men militant on earth, and Blessed Saints triumphan● in Heaven; among who n●l may reckon many of our constant Confessors & glorious Martyrs, to whose powerful intercession, & plentiful merits I most humbly commend my imperfect soul. And I wonder M. Doctor would seek to terrify people with the Confused sound of imperfect Christ's anity seeing when all comes to all, he himself chap. 14 n. 7. doth not deny, but that in Catholic Countries, Confirmation may be omitted by particular persons without a morcall sin; and n. 9 he further confesseth, that every man in particular, cannot be condemned of sin●e for omitting Confirmation, for fear of losing his life, lands, and liberty: and num. 7. he only say that it may seem pres●●otion to omit it when it may commodiously be had. By all which it is clear that not to be a perfect Christian in that sense, i● not so fearful a thing as the words may see●e to import, before they be distinctly explicated, and resolved into their true meaning, as I have endeavoured to do in the beginning of this question, by occ●sion of S. Thomas his doctrine, that by confirmation we get our perfect growth. And M. Doctor will not easily prove, that a whole Country is obliged rather to suffer increase of persecution, then want a Bishop for Confirmation, seeing he granteth, that every man in particular, canno● be condemned of sin, for omitting Confirmation, f●● fear of losing, his life, lands, or liberty for as it is true, that the spiritual good of many, is more to be weighed, then of any one in particular: so like wise the general persecution of a whole Country, is more to be avoided, then of any private person who yet, as M. Doctor confesseth, is not obliged to hazard goods, or life, for enjoying the Sacrament of Confirmation.  
17. M. Doctor immediately before S. Clement citeth S. Dionysius Areopagita l. d● eccles. Hier. cap. 5. calling the Sacrament of Confirmation, a perfitting and consummating Unction. But I fear M. Doctor, will prove no more exact in this allegation, than he hath been in so many other. For in Saint Denny, his fift chapter cited by M. Doctor, I find no such matter. In his fourth chapter, he speaketh expressly of the oil used in Baptism, which Sacrament he termeth divinus ortus, a divine birth, or regeneration, by which he sayeth Original sin is forgiven. Saint Dennys, speaks also sometime generally of the virtue of Oil, or Vaction, used not only in diverse Sacraments, but also in consecration of Altars. But what is this for M. Doctors purpose? Nevertheless, if S. Dennys either in the chapter cited by M. Doctor, or in any other place, call confirmation a perfitting and consummating Unction, it is nothing against us, who grant, that confirmation giveth indeed a perfection to the receiver, but not such a perfection, as may not be gotten by other means, as above we have demonstrated, and cannot be denied.  
18. His other chief argument is out of Estius, in these words: 
Es●ius in 4. a●s●. 7. u. 18.  Quòd si quaer as etc. But if thou ask, whether the omission of Confirmation when it can commodiously be had, be a mortal, or venial sin? I answer, that it cannot be omitted without mortal sin, in time and place of persecution of faith, when namely there is danger to a man by reason of infirmity lest he deny his faith in word or doed, or at least be ashamed to co fez (his faith) when he should: otherwise I think it only a venial, sin, so there be not contempt. I answer, that although Estius in some thing concerning the Sacrament of Confirmation, hold against the common doctrine of other Divines: yet in this particular he is nothing against us For his very demand as it is set down by M. Doctor answereth for us, seeing his question is, what sin it is to omit Confirmation when it can commodiously he had, which is not our case, but the quite contrary, namely, that it cannot only not be had commodiously, by reason of the persecution, and liwes common to all Priests (which were enough to put it out of the case proposed by Estius) but also, because we expressly suppose, that the very having a Bishop for Confirmation, is to increase the persecution: which I wonder M. Doctor did not remember, it being his own supposition in the very title of his 14. chapter, & in the same chapter is by him diverse times repeated. Yea, Estius by proposing the question as he doth, supposeth, that there cannot so much as question be made, of any obligation to receive Confirmation, in case it cannot commodiously be had. And finally M. Doctor himself (as I related above) num. 7. only saith: It may seem a presumption to neglect it (confirmation) especially in time of persecution, when it may commodiously be haa: Ergo, M Doctor seems to suppose the omission of Confirmation to be no sin, when it cannot commodiously be had, which is our very case: Besides, Estius speaketh, in time, and place of such persecution of saith, as bringeth with it danger of a man's denying has faith, which, thankes be to God, we may say, is not our case in England, where for so many years of most hot persecution, without the Sacrament of Confirmation, the zeal, and constancy of Catholics was so admirable, as God grant the like were seen, in these our days.  
19 His last argument, is out of a conjecture that without Confirmation, if one fall not, others probably will, as (saith he) Novatus did for want of it, for which he citeth Eusebius. This example of Novatus he bringeth not only here, but in diverse other places of his book, as if it were some master piece. To his conjecture, I hope to have given already a full answer. For Novatus, I find no such thing in Eusebius as M. Doctor allegeth (and I have seen, 
Euseb. lib. 6. Hist. ca 35. edit. Col●●.  and considered more impressions than one) but only Eusebius, out of Cornelius, in an Epistle to Fabius, recounteth that he fell, persecutionis tempore, metis debilitatus, et ni●●i a vite cupiditate adductus: In time of persecution, weakened with fear, and mooned with too much desire of life. Still M. Doctor hath ill fortune in alleging authors. It may well be that Novatur sell for want of Confirmation; yet I deny that Eusebius saith so, or that the case of our English Catholics is not infinitely different from his. First, he differred to be baptised till he was forced with danger of sickness, which delay was a thing vehemently reprehended, by the Fathers of ancient times, in so much that when Novatus was to take holy Orders, both the clergy, and lay men, did oppose it; Quoni●● (saith Eusebius) minime licebat, quequam in lecto propter morbum baptizatum, sicut huic contigerat, in Clerum assumt. Because it was not lawful, for any man baptised in bed, by reason of sickness, as he was, to be promoted to the Clergy. Afterwards, morbo clapsus, neque catera quibus post Baptismum, secundum Ecclesia Canonem, imbui oportuer at, acquisivit, neque Domine sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus fuit. He being recovered, omitted both other things which after Baptism according to the Canont of the Church he should have had, and also Confirmation; which Sacrament he might have received without danger, as other Christians did: and beside, this neglect was, when he had a particular obligation to ●●ce●ue that Sacrament, namely before he took holy Orders. All which things considered, I leave it to any indifferent man's judgement, whether it be not some injury to English Catholics, that they should by M. Doctor be frighted with danger of lapse, by the example of Novatus, in whom so many soul causes of falling did concur. For, besides all that hath been said, there was another fault, which might as soon be cause of his fall as any other offence, according to the saying of our Saviour. Quise exaltat, humiliabitur. 
Luc. 8.14.  He who exalteth himself, shallbe humbled. For, as Eusebius in the place above cited expressly recordeth, the fellow was ambitious. What? Ambition in those primitive ages? in those sad times of persecution? so it was. Wherein did his ambition consist? In desire to be a Bishop.   

THE FIFTH QUESTION. Concerning M. Doctors Comparison between Bishops, inferior Pastors, and Religious men.  
1 MUCH against my will, I am forced to handle this point, by occasion of M. Doctor his Treatise, through all which, and particularly in his 11. chapter, he speaketh with overmuch partiality, and disadvantage of Religious state, in comparison of Bishops, and other inferior Pastors, or Curates. First then we will speak of Bishops; and in the second place, of other Postours.  
2 As for the first, to the end we may not err in generalities, which breed confusion, nor deceive ourselves with specious words, not well understood: it is to be observed, that there be two States of perfection; the one, a state wherein we acquire perfection, the other, wherein we are to practice perfection already acquired, with this difference, that the former state yieldeth abundant means, to get that perfection, which it professeth; the other is to practise perfection, for attaining whereof, within itself, it yieldeth not such means, but only presupposeth, that the person by other means, must have gotten perfection, if he will exercise his function, and office as he ought. And hence resulteth a second difference, that the former state professeth to perfect a man in himself, and by consequence maketh him also more fit to perfect others: The second, of itself is ordained to the perfecting of others, and unless a man otherwise be perfect, humane frailty considered, may endanger his own soul: and therefore that same division of states, which other authors give under the terms: perfectionis acquisitae, et acquir●●dae, of perfection already gotten, & to be got: 
Caiet: 2.2. ●. 189. a. 3 Suarez. de Rel. Tom. 3. lib. 1. cap. 14. n●●.  Caietan calls statum perfectionis propria, vel alienae, a state of perfecting a man's self, or of perfecting others, which, s●●th Suarez, is all one with the other division  
3 It ought not to be denied, that a man by doing works to perfect others, doth perform actions, of themselves meritorious, and perfective of the doer: yet unless they be also done with perfection (which cannot be, unless a man by other means be perfect) they are more apt to hurt, then help, by reason of great imperfections, and manifold dangers, to which, by the evil performing of so noble actions, the party himself is subject. Let us hear that divine Bishop, and Martyr, 
S. Dyonis. Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3.  S. Dionysius Ar●●pag●ta speaking to this purpose:  in solis radijs tenuiores, limpidior esque, substantiae, primae influents luce replentur, sicque exuberante●● lucemin subsequentes, solis vice transfundunt: ita non sine periculo divinis in rebus, quibusque aliis se ducem praestare presumet, qui non per omnia evaserit similis De●. As in the sun beams, the more transparent, & clearer parts are the first to be filled with infused light, and then instead of th● sun, do transfuse an excessive light into other ad●oyning parts: so he who is not become like to God, shall not without danger presume to guide others in matters belonging to God. Hence it was, that all holy men did so much labour to avoid so high a dignity, as Histories are full: and not long since, a famous secular Doctor, coming to die, did say, that he took it from God as a sign of Predestination to eternal bliss Quod non ●●uisset Episcopum fieri that he had not permitted him to be made Bishop. 
Hist. soc. Ies● Tom. 2. ●●b. 1. n. 135.  Yet whosoever, against his will, is truly called to such a state, may, and aught to conside, that God who imposed the burden, will afford strength to support it with great n●er●t.  
4 But these two states (of perfect●●● already acquired, or, to be acquired, or, of perfecting one's self, & perfecting others) are not so distinguished, that they must of necessity be always separated. For although a secular Bishop, be only in a state of perfecting others: yet a Bishop Regular, is in state of perfitting himself, and others; and those Religious men, who by there institute, beside their own perfection, attend also to the help of there neighbour▪ are both in state of perf●tting themselves, & also in the state of perf●tting others, according to that measure, perfection, and multiplicity of measure, wherewith they are furnished to help their neighbour. For within the latitude of obedience, vowed by such Religious men, the actions of illuminating, or perfitting others are comprehended: & such Religious, not only as they attend to their own salvation, but also as they profess the helping of others, are properly in a state, because they have a perpetual obligation to both those kind of works; and even as they are employed in help of their neighbours, in this respect, they excel Secular Curates, who according to S. Thomas. and M. Doctor himself, are not properly in a state (which requires immobility) as hereafter we shall see. The same Religious differ also, from a Regular Bishop; because to be a Regular is merely accidental to Episcopal state, but the very vows of those Religious, whose proper Institute is to perfect, both themselves, and others, should wholly cease, if they were restrained, only to their own perfection. Moreover superiors in all Religions, if by their laws they be perpetual, are in a particular manner in both the foresaid states of perfection, as in my next question shallbe declared. Now, I speak of Religious in general, abstracting from particular Institutes, or Offices, as also of Bishops, not considering, whether they be Secular, or Regular,  
5 This being presupposed, it is not hard to answer the first comparison: by saying, that a Bishop is in a state, which supposeth perfection already acquired, & a Religious man in a state, not supposing, but yielding means for acquiring perfection. The Bishop is in a state ordained of itself to perfect others: A Religious men in the state of perfecting himself. And this is a●l that Divines understand, when they say, that Bishops are Illuminatours, and Perfectours; others to be illuminated, and perfected. The Bishop than is in a state, which presupposeth, but doth not give perfection, which a Religious state doth not presuppose, but give: so that we may truly say: The state of a Bishop is higher, the state of a Religious mon happier: That more to be honoured; this rather to be embraced. And hence it is, that the more voluntary, the election of a Religious life is, the more commendable it is, and contrariwise, the state of a Bishop is so much more securely undertaken, the less it hath of a man's own will, and election, but proceedeth from necessity, o● such Obedience, as cannot be contradicted. For the more such a dignity is pretended, the greater danger it apporteth.  
6 That the state of Bishops, doth not so wholly oversway the Religious state, as that there be not many good things in Religion, which are wanting in Episcopal state, is manifest by many reasons. A vow made of not accepting a Bishopric, is valid, and holy: A vow not to become Religious, is wicked, and of no force. If one have vowed Religion, he doth not satisfy his vow by accepting a Bishopric, as is defined cap. Pe●tuas de voto: where the Pope answereth to one, who after a vow of Religion, had accepted a Bishopric:  si conscuntiam suam sanare desiderat, Episcopatum relinquat, et votum suum impleat. If he would cure his soul, he should relinquish his Bishopric, and fulfil his vow. And that this was not only a Counsel, or merely for avoiding scandal, is proved out of S. Thomas. For he brings it, 
S. Tho. ●. ●. q. 189. a 3. ad 1.  in proof of another matter, which certainly obligeth of itself, abstracting from scandal, namely, that a certain Priest, who after a simple vow of Religion, accepted an Ecclesiastical Benefice, was bound in conscience to leave all, and enter into Religion, which, as I said, he proveth by the aforesaid cap. Per tuas. What the Pope declared of him who had a vow of entering into Religion, may with proportion be applied to a purpose, or vocation to such a state, that it is not, in the sight of God, satisfied by another course of life, although it were a higher calling. Besides, to desire a Religious state, is by the whole Church of God commended, and all vows are changed into Religious Profession; To desire a Bishopric, even for what is best in it, namely for the good of souls, according to S. Thomas 2.2. q. 185. ar. 1. seems presumption; 
Valent. Tom. 3. disput. 10. q. 3. punct. 2.  & there wants not, who saith, that commonly it is a deadly sin, but this belongs not to me to define. Only, out of the premises, I may infer, that something there must be, wherein a Religious state, surpasseth that of a Bishop; otherwise it were not lawful to vow, not to accept a Bishopric, seeing no lawful vow can be made of that, which hindereth matus bonum, a good in all respects greater: A vow of Religion might be fulfilled by being a Bishop, if to be a Bishop, were wholly better: To desire, yea to procure a Bishopric, were no less commendable, than the desire, or seeking to be a Religious man, if the state of a Bishop, do contain the whole perfection, and commodity of a Religious state. Moreover to be made a Bishop doth not dissolve Matrimonium ratum, matrimony contracted, but not consummated, 
joan. 22. in extran●g. unica de voto.  as joannes 22. doth define of holy Orders: but it is a point of Faith, that Religious Profession doth dissolve it. A Religious man when he is made Bishop doth still remain a Religious man, 
S. Thom. 2 2. q. 185. 〈◊〉. 8.  as S. Thomas teacheth out of the Canons, and it is the common consent of Divines; so as if a Bishop with leave renounce his Bishopric, and return to his religious Order, he need not make a new Profession: A Bishop, if he become Reliligious, forsaketh all that belongs to the jurisdiction, and office of a Bishop. The same Angelical Doctor 2.2. q. 184. a. 8. ad 4. saith, that it is an argument to prove the excellency of Religious men above Pastors inferior to Bishop, as Curates, or Archdeacon's, that when such enter into Religion they wholly relinquish their former offices; whereas Religious men, being made Curates, never cease to be Religious. If this be so, I may likewise thence argue, some great perfect●iō in a Religious state, which for Episcopal dignity is not relinquished, whereas a Bishop entering into Religion leaveth all Episcopal Jurisdiction, and functions: 
Vole●t tom. 3. disp. 10. q. 2. pi●●cto 4.  yea there want not who affirm, that a Religious man is not made Bishop without some dispensation; and Boniface the 8. in cap. si ●eligiosus de elect. in 6. makes void the consent of a Religious man, accepting of his own election to Prelacy, without leave asked, & obtained of his Superiors, and in punishment of that fault, doth make invalide the election itself. Wherefore, as a Bishop cannot become Religious without leave of the Pope; so a Religious man according to the Cano●s, cannot so much as ye●ld his consent to be elected a Bishop, without leave of his Superior: yea there is this difference, that the consent of a Religious man, without his Superiors leave, is unlawful, and invalide: But a Bishop elected may freely without any leave enter into Religion, because by his election, ●ll he be confirmed in his Bishopric, there is contracted no spiritual marriage betwixt him and his Church; and in this there is the same reason of a Bishop only Delegate, in respect of that country, for which he hath no more, than a Breve of Delegation, and ad beneplacitum, because a Bishop's spiritual marriage is only with that Church. of which he hath his Title (for Marriages are not ad beneplacitum, but require permanency) yea a Bishop both elected, and confirmed, if without leave he Profess in Religion, the act is valid; and that it is not also lawful, proceeds not from the nature, or any intrinsical, and inseparable perfection of Episcopal dignity, but only from the Church's prohibition; as likewise the inseparable Marriage, betwixt the Bishop, and his Church, ariseth only from Ecclesiastical command, according to the truer opinion of Divines: for we daily see renunciations of Bishoprics, and translations of Bishops from one Diocese to another, upon ordinary occasions, which could neither be lawful, nor valid, if the marriage betwixt the Bishop, and his Church, were de iure divino, a divine precept. For, in divine precepts, the Pope cannot validly dispense, without some particular cause, and yet if the Pope once give leave for a Bishop to renounce his Bishopric, the renunciation is valid, although we should suppose no cause at all. And finally, to give a Bishop leave to become Religious, there is required no other cause, beside the private good of the Bishop's soul, supposing his Church be otherwise provided of a sufficient Pastor. All which considerations, are manifest arguments, that somewhat may be found in a Religious state, wanting in the state of a Bishop, although still it is true, that the state of a Bishop is higher.  
If any demannd, wherein this particular perfection of a Religious state consists? My answer is, that for full satisfaction to this question, I wish the Reader could once peruse, that golden book, of Hieronymus Platus, de bono Status Religiosi, where he shall find this argument, so copiously, solidly, and eloquently handled, that he will never repent himself, of having red, so pleasant, and profitable a volume. In brief, I say, that it may seem to consist, in multitude, facility, continuation, & perfection of perpetual acts of virtue, and effectual means, speedily to get, securely to conserve, and plentifully to increase perfection, which if we speak properly as it is intended to be gotten by a sta●e of perfection, consisteth not in charity howsoever, but either in multitude, and perfection of Acts of charity, with as much continuation, and little interruption, as our mortal life will give leave, or else in an Habit, with particular reference to the said frequency, and continuation of such Acts, as Su●rez doth well explicate this matter. 
Suarez. de Rel. tom. 3. l. c. 4.  And clear it is, that for attaining of such a perfection, as we have described, upon earth there is no state, 
Suarez. loc. cit. c. 19 n. 22.  like to that of a Religious life, wherein (saith the same learned Divine) a man both avoids the dangers, to which Bishops are exposed, and by multitude of holy works, may recompense, the want, of some perfect actions, proper to Episcopal state.  
8 To all which, we must add, that these advantages are found in Religious state, in a particulari excellent manner, namely, in a kind of life, proper to the time of Grace, by observance of the three Evangelicall Counsels, Poverty, Chastity, & Obedience, which, 
S. Tho. 1.2. q. 104. a. 4. in corp.  as 〈◊〉. Thomas teacheth, are proper to the New law. And truly, abstracting from all other respects, the Counsels of Poverty, and Chastity, have I know not what prerogative, by being in a manner consecrated by the Practice, and, as I may say, deïfied in the Person of him, who for our sake, and to give example of all virtue, vouchsafed to assume our nature. And in this particular, there appears a main difference, betwixt a Religious man, and a Bishop, who is not at all bound to poverty, and to chastity, he is obliged only as other Priests, by a vow annexed to holy Orders, which yet proceeds but from the Church's Ordination: in so much as 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. For my part, I had rather want whatsoever perfection, wherein a Bishop may surpass a Religious man, then be in a state, not requiring of its nature and essence Chastity, as the state of a Bishop doth not, whereas the state of a Religious man doth necessarily, and essentially imply that Angellike perfection. Besides, if by occasion of solicitous, & exact endeavour, to observe the only vow of Chastity, with great purity, and perfection, all virtuous Priests by experience find, how many other virtues must be practised, and come annexed with that one, what shall we say of the triple knot of Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience? How many virtues must in it, be necessarily tied together?  
9 With these commodities, proper to Religious state, are to be joined, two other, most important considerations, of security, and Immobility, wherein a Religious state, exceedeth that of a Bishop. Security from evil, and Immobility in good, are great points of happiness, and participations of the Saints felicity in Heaven. And in the business of our salvation, every small addition to true, and not presumptuous Hope, aught to be greatly esteemed. For as Philosophers say, that a less knowledge of more perfect objects, for example, of God, or Angels, is to be preferred, before a greater knowledge of inferior things, as of the elements, or mixed bodies: so in matters that concern Eternity, a state more secure, & less subject to change, is in that, to be preferred, before a state, higher, but not so secure, or immoveable. It was a worthy saying, of a great Preacher, that men in election of Episcopal state, are apt to have their eyes upon certain considerations, which would quickly vanish, if they made another reckoning, and duly pondered, for how many souls they are accountable; and perhaps they would find, that even in a rich Bishopric, they pawn their own soul, for so great a number of other men's, that for each one, they receive in payment, not a shilling by the year, and inferior pastors, scarce two pence for each soul commited to their charge. A dreadful reckoning! It was likewise a wise, and witty conceit, of another great man, that in this world, men are most esteemed for Gratiis gratis datis, that is, for such gifts of God, as have reference to our neighbour, as learning, power of working miracles etc. and I may add, highness of degree and the like; But in the next life he shallbe most regarded, who is most replenished, with gratiis gratium facientibus, such gifts, as render a soul amiable, in the eyes of almighty God, as Humility, Poverty, Obedience, Chastity, mortification of our will, and passions, and the like; and that the distribution of Superiors, & Inferiors there, willbe in a fare different fashion, from what we behold here. Whatsoever therefore in speculation, be truly said of the height, & dignity of Episcopal state (which indeed cannot be too much exalted) yet in practice, and for election, a Religious state by a particular man, ordinarily is to be preferred, as more secure● yea, for this respect of security, and in regard of innumerable other helps, 
Ita docent Rich. in 4. d 38. art. 6 quest. 1. Angel. verb Religion num. 16. cited by Suar. de Rel. tom. 3. l. 5. c. 8. n. 2. who saith that it is a thing to be noted.  which make sweet, & easy the apprehended burden, & yoke of a Religious life, some good Devins expressly teach, that every one should judge a Religious state to be agreeable to his forces, unless by certain conjecture, or experience, he be assured of the contrary. That a Religious state, is also more immoveable, then that of a Bishop, hath been already sufficiently proved, because Bishops daily leave, or change their Bishoprics, by diverse ways, but a Religious man, never ceaseth to be such, even although he be assumed to the highest state in God's Church, which is that of a Bishop. Besides, the immobility of a Religious state, ariseth from the obligation of perpetual vows, which certainly bind by the law of God; but it is not certain, that the Marriage of a Bishop with his Church, proceedeth from any Divine precept, yea it is more probable, that it comes only from the Ordination of the Church, as before hath been touched.  
10 Neither is this perfecton of a Religious state profitable to the Religious man alone, but oftentimes disposeth him further, to the helping of his neighbours, with much security, profit, freedom, & extension, as S. Fer ardirus Senensis, after refusal of three Bishoprics, professed that he would not be tied to such a dignity, to the end he might mors plentifully, and freely bestow himself upon the helping of his neighbour: and a certain famors preacher, after he had been from Religion, assumed to a Bishopric, was accustomed to say, that it happened to him, as to a virgin, who before marriage is respected, & much sought after, but being placed in wedlock, is as it were forgotten: so he while he remained a private Religious man, was followed by innumerable multituds, but after his contract with a particular Church, few did look after him. And not unlike to this was that prudent saying of a holy, learned, and wise Bishop, who was most willing that one of his clergy should enter into a certain Religious Order, because (said truly zealous Prelate) whereas otherwise might have a Parish Priest, but in some one Church by taking a Religious course, he would be, as it were, a Curate, in many O●ocesses: And there have not wanted Religious men, who refused a gre●ter honour, then Episcopal, not only for humility, but particularly that by remaining in Religion, they might be more useful, for the common good of souls.  
11 The perfection of a Bishop consists in this, that by his office he is obliged to enlighten others, & if occasion require, to give his life for his flock, which occasion seldom happeneth. To those two obligations, the Bishop is tied by justice, in regard of maintenance, and honour afforded him by his flock, or by the virtue of Fidelity, in respect of a centaine implicit pact, where by he obligeth himself when he is made Bishop. But Religion's men, merely upon charity, or Religion (more noble virtues, than justice or, Fidelity) do illuminate others, & adventure their lives for the saving of souls: whereto some Religious are obliged, not only by their Institute, but by particular vow, made to that effect. And here I cannot but cast myself, at the feet of our Reverend, English Clergy, who for sole Charity without expectation of any recompense except from God, do faithfully labour the conversion of our Country, and I make bold to say, they would be untimely Counsellors, if any should be making I know not what propositions, of Parishes, and Parish Priests, whereby nothing else could be in these times gained, but the change of Charity, into some inferior virtue, and forfeiture of that glory, commended by our Saviour, to his Apostles; Gratis accop●stis; gratis date, 
Matt. 10.8.  what you have freely received, bestow freely: to say nothing of the strict obligation, which by being Curates, they should undergo for so poor wages as before hath been touched. Sure I am, that diverse of our Clergly, would never have been Priests, but that by occasion of the present state of England, they might without any recompense, help, and voluntarily expose their lives for the good of others.  
12 Merit doth not consist in office, but in the acts thereof. Let the whole world's experience decide, whether Secular Pastors, or Religious men, do in fact, more enlighten mankind, by preaching, reaching, filling libraries with learned volumes, reducing heretics, through Europe; and converting infidels in both the Indies, japonia, China, etc. So as their uncessant labours, with hourly hazard of their lives, have no more narrow extent, than the vast course of the Sun's motion: And the late Feast of one of these good men, namely, S. Francis Xavier, puts me in mind of a Distich, made of him, to this very purpose: 
Nascitur occiduis; at Eôis occidit oris,  
Hoc tantum differt: caetera Solis habet.  
He sets in th' East, but riseth in the West,  
Except in this; a Sun he's for the rest.  This Charity of Religious men, in exposing their lives for the conversion of Infidels, & of their greater fitness, for that purpose than of secular Priests, my Lord Philip Rovenius, Archiepiscopus Philippensis, and the Pope's vicar for Holland, doth plainly acknowledge, in his Treatise Demissionibus, parte tertia, with this addition, that, such places being once prepared by Religious men, the secular Clergy were to enter into them: as if there could be a better nurse for the Child, than the mother that brought it forth. S. Paul saith: 
1. Cor. 4.15.  If you have ten thousand Pedagogues, yet not many Fathers, for I begot you in jesus Christ; insinuating, that one who hath begotten a soul in Christ, by his conversion, aught with him to be in greater reckoning, then ten thousand Instructours, which yet the said Archbishop, a savourer of the secular Clergy, makes secular Priests to be, compared to Religious men, into whose labours he would have them enter. But of the fitness of Religious men, to preach, administer Sacraments etc. I shall have occasion to speak after a while, and now will address myself to the second comparison, betwixt Religious men, and Pastors inferior to Bishops, to whose sacred Dignity we willingly yield precedency, and therefore none can take it ill, that I have made longer stay, in a lower place.  
13 Yet before I end this point, I must set down what M. Doctor, in the end of his 11. Chapter, saith out of S. Thomas: 
S. Th. 2.2. q. 185. a 8. in co●p.  That the State of Religion is in way to perfection, and the State of a Bishop, belongs to perfection as a certain mastership of perfection, 
Hen● Gand. quod lib. 12. 〈◊〉. 29.  and (saith he) Henricus de Gandavo handling this question, whether the Religious ●or the Bishop be in the greater state of perfection, concludeth in th●se words: Status Praelatorum so h●thet ad statum Religiosorum etc. the state of Prelates hath that Comparison to the state of Religious, which the st●te of masters, hath to the state of scholars, but the master ought to be perfecter th●n his sch●ller. And again: Quando aliques Religiosus deductus est ad summum aliquid & perfec●um, tunc primum est idoneus, ut assummatur in Praelatum. When a Religious man is brought ta an high, and perfect degree of perfection, then fi●st he is fit to be assumed for a Prelate. And so (saith M. Doctor) where a Religious man endeth, there a Bishop or pastor beginneth, and the Bishop layeth his foundation, on the Religious man's top, and roof. But truly this inference of M. Doctor is built upon a sandy foundation, and he must either renounce the authority of S. Thomas, or of Gandensis, for this Author speaks of Prelates inferior to Bishops, wherein his doctrine is directly against S Thomas, who as we shall see anon, ex prof●sso doth prefer Religious Priests, before such Pastors; And Henricus de Gandavo holdeth also, that all such Pastors, even Parish Priests, are properly in a state, which is both against S. Th. 2.2. q. 84. art. 6. and M. Doctor himself, who in his 11. chap. num. 14. expressly saith: To a state immobility is required, which the Pastor, nor Bishop, hath not. And lastly, the same Gandensis, in the question by M. Doctor cited, holds that to be in a State, is sufficient, to have a purpose to remain therein, without any other obligation, or immobility, which is not only against the common doctrine of Divines, but also against M. Doctor, in the said 11. Chapter num. 13. for which he allegeth likewise S. Thomas 2.2. q. 184. art. 4. where this doctrine is ex professo delivered. And I wonder, M. Doctor would allege Gandensis particularly for Bishops, he speaking of inferior Pastors; and why in his inference upon the said Authors words, he should put in Bishop, or Pastor, saying, where a Religious man endeth, there a Bishop, or Pastor, beginneth, whereas before the said Authors words, he had put only Bishop saying, Henricus a Gandavo handling this question, whether the Religious, or the Bishop, be in the greater state of perfection concludeth etc. But most of all I wonder, that M. Doctor would ground his saying, that a Bishop layeth his foundation on the Religious man's top and roof, upon a doctrine not true, whatsoever the thing inferred be in it f●lfe, I mean, concerning the dignity of Bishops, whereof we have already spoken at large. Certes, if Bishops lay their foundation, upon the most perfect in Religious perfection, such as are taken immediately from a secular life, have reason to look in good earnest, upon what top of perfection they lay their foundation. And truly this doctrine of Gandensis ought to be a point of daily meditation, for all secular P●stouis. Finally, out of this same place of Ga●densis, M. Doctor might rightly have inferred, that Religious perfection is an excellent disposition to make a good, & worthy Pastor, with greater profit to others, and less danger to ones self. For there is great difference betwixt a master of Perfection, (as Gandensis said Pastors are) & a master of Sciences, by teaching whereof the master himself both renews the memory of old, & increaseth in new knowledge: But while a man teacheth his neighbour to be perfect, he may be in danger to forget, and impair his own souls good, unless he come well furnished with the spiritual substance of solid virtues.  
14 Now, as for the second comparison of Religious men with inferior Pastors, it may be done; either by comparing them absolutely, which o● them are more perfect in themselves; or else relatively to others, which of them is more fit to help souls, by preaching, teaching, administering Sacraments etc. In both questions, I will refer myself, to that Cherubin for knowledge, and Seraphim for sanctity, the Angelical Doctor S. Thomas of Aquin. He therefore 2.2. q. 184. art. 8. hath this express question: Vtrum presbytri Curati, & Arch-deacons', sint maior●s perfectionis, quam Religiosi: Whether Priests having c●re of souls, and Archdeacon's, be of greater perfection, then Religious men. His resolution is, that in State, the Religious as Religious, excelleth the secular Pastor, as Secular: If both of them be Priests, and both have care of souls, as (saith he) plertque Monachi, & Canonici Regulares habent, Most part of Monks, and Canon Regulars have, they willbe equal in Order, and Office; so as the only question remaining, is; Whether a Religious Priest, by reason of his State, be of greater perfection, than a Secular Priest Curate, in regard of his Office? The Saint's answer is, that in goodness the Religious Priest excels, and the secular Curate in difficulty; bonè conversandi; of living virtuously, amongst so many occasions of dangers in the world; which difficulty, saith he, in his answer ad 6. doth not increase merit, because that difficulty only increaseth merit, which ariseth from the nature of the works in themselves, and not from extrinsecall occasions, not avoided by secular persons, which difficulty of works in themselves is greater in Religion, by reason of the strictness of Regular observance, besides that the Religions do also merit much, by voluntary quitting themselves, of all such dangers, & impediments, as swarm in the world. Wherefore according to S. Thomas, the Religious Priest excelleth secular Pastors, in goodness, and in that difficulty, which is both full of merit, & security; beside that particular increase of merit, by flying from those impediments of the world which m●ke the paths of virtue far more difficult: in so much as the same Saint teacheth, that the Religious state, in comparison of the Office of Pastors, is like an Holocaust (the most perfect of all Sacrifices, wherein the whose victim was bestowed on almighty God) compared to other sacrifices, which were in a manner parted betwixt God, & man. The same verity S. Thomas proveth, because a Pastor may enter into Religion & wholly cease to be a Pastor; but a Religious man is never so made Pastor, as he doth not retain his Religious stat; whi●h is a sign, that the calling of a Pastor, is not so perfect as is a Religious vocation. Moreover, the Canons of the Church do not only permit, but also much commend the entering of Secular Pastors, into Religion, Quia meliorem vitam se●ui cupiunt: 
〈…〉  Because they desire to embrace a better 〈◊〉 de of life, saith the Toleran Council. And Gregory the Great, lib. 10. epist. 39 exhotteth, that by all means such a spirit be nourished, saying: Quibus valetis adhortationibus, Pastorali admonitione su●●endite, ut feruor huius desiderit in eo no●●epe● eat. By the best exhortation you are a●●● inflame him (a secular Clergy man, desirous to enter into Religion) that the fervour of such a desire may not in him wax cold. Yea S. Thomas 2.2. q. 189. art. 7. proveth out of the Canon law, 
19 q. 2. ●. Due sunt leges.  that a secular Curate may enter into Religion, although his Bishop should exprestely be against it: Etiam contradicente Episcopo, eat liber, nostra authoritate: Although the Bishop oppose himself, let him fr●el●e●ter your Authority, saith the Pope. Now, as M. Doctor in his 11. Chapter n. 15. proveth out of S. Thomas▪ 
S. Th' 22 q. 184. a. 7.  that the state of a Bishop is a state of gre●ter perfection, then that of a Religious man, because otherwise it were not lawful for him to be made a Bishop, because that were, retrò aspicere, to look back: So we may say, that seeing secular Pastors, may enter into Religion, it must be an argument, that Religious state is more perfect, for the very same reason, lest otherwise they should be convinced, retrò aspicere; to look back. Which reason will wax more strong on our side, if we call to mind, that a Religious man cannot yield consensent to his election to be a Bishop, without his own superiors leave, whereas a secular Curate may lawfully enter into Religion, even against the will of his Bishop. This whole resolution of Saint Thomas, is much confirmed, by an other doctrine, delivered by him in the same 184 question art. 6. That only Bishops, & not inferior Prelates, are in a State of perfection, whereas in the next precedent Article, he bade purposely taught, that Religious men are in su●h a State.  
15 To these determinations of S. Thomas, I will a●de nothing, save only, that Religious state is of Divine institution, as certaine●y Archdeacon's, Deans, Vicars etc. are not: and Suarez (in the same place, 
Suarez to. 4. in 3. p. disp. 25. n. 17.  which M. Doctor cited, to prove that Bishops are of Deume Ordinance) is of opinion that the Division of Parishes, with Institution of Parish Priests, (even in general) is not de iure divino, of Divine iustitution, because (saith he) the Church might divide more Bishoprics, and assign to each one a less territory, ordaining that the Bishop himself, should be immediate Pastor, in his whole Diocese, which he might govern by Vicars, and chaplains, which, although were not perhaps universally expedient, yet it is not directly, and clearly against the law of God. S. Thomas also, saith of all inferior Pastors, that in respect of the Bishop, 
S. Th. 2.2 q. 184. a 6. ad 2.  they are sicut Balivi ad Regem; & in his answer ad ●. he teacheth, that they have not principal care of souls, but some particular administration by Commission from the Bishop. But howsoever this matter be, at least, it is not so certain, that the Institution of Parish Priests is de iure Dirino, a Divine institution, as it is, that Religious state was instituted, by our Saviour Christ.  
16 And this shall suffice for the comparison of Religious men with Curates, if their callings be considered in themselves. Which comparison is always to be understood, betwixt Religious men, & such Secular Priests, as are Ordinary Pastors, or Curates. For in England, where all Priests both Regular, & Secular, attend to the help of souls only by particular Mission. Privilege, and Delegation, there is no doubt but Religious men are to be preferred; seeing both in Order, of Priesthood, & jurisdiction, or Office they are equal, and still the state of Religious, as Religious, is more noble than that of Secular, as Secular, which no Catholic can deny.  
17 For the second comparison, whether Religious, or secular, are more fit to help souls, by preaching, and other such Ecclesiastical functions, let us hear Saint Thomas teaching, that Religious men are made more fit for the performance of such functions of Preaching, 
S. Th. 2.2. q. 187. a. 1.  teaching &c. by reason of the exercise of sanctity, which they have undertaken, adding: Stulium est dicere, quod per hoc quòd aliquis in sanctitate promovetur, efficiatur minus idoneus ad spiritualia officia exercenda. Et ideo stult a est quorundam opinto dicentium, quòd ipse status Religionis impedimentum affert, talia exequendi: It is a foolery to say, that by being improved in sanctity, as man is made less fit for the performance of Ecclesiastical functions. And therefore the opinion of some, who say that the very state of Religion, brings an impediment to such functions, is a foolish opinion Quorum errorem (saith the same Saint) Bonifactus Papa exeludit, dicens, ut habetur 16. q. 1. Sunt nonnulls, nullo dogmate fulti, andacissimè quidem, zelo magis amaritudinis, quàm dilectionis inflammati, asserentes Monachos, qui mundo mortui sunt, & Deo vinunt, Sacerdot alis officii potenti â indignos. Sed omninò labuntur. Quod oftendit, primò quidem, quia non so●●r ●riatur Regulae; subdit enim: neque enim Beatus Benedictus, Monachorum Praeceptor Almificus, huiuscemodirei aliquo modofuit interdictor. Et similiter nec in aliis regulis hoc prohibetur. Secundò, improbat praedictum errorem, ex ideoneitate Monachorum, cum in fine Cap●tuli subdit: Quanto quisque est excellentior, tanto, & in illis (scilicet spiritualibus oper●bus) potentior. Whose error Pope Boniface doth reject, saying: There are some supported by no verity, who inflamed with zeal of bitterness, rather than of charity, do most boldly affirm, that Monks who are d●ad to the world, and live to God, are not worthy of the power of Priestly office. But they are altogether deceyved. Which he proveth. First, because it is not against the Rule: For ●e addeth; S. Bennet, the Father of Monks, did not any way in his Rule forbidden it. And likewise it is not forbid in other Rules. Secondly, he disproveth the foresaid error, by the fitness of Monks, for such functions, saying: By how much a man is more excellent, by so much he is more powerful in those (spiritual functions.) Behold the doctrine of the greatest Prelate, and one of the greatest Scholars, upon earth; a Pope, and a most learned Saint. To those vulgar objections (Vita Monachorum etc. The life of Monks signifies subjection, not an office of teaching, or governing others: Monachus non Doctoris etc. The profession of a Morke is not teaching, but weeping, & the like) S. Thomas in the same place ad 3. answers; that such sayings only signify, that Monks precisely by being Monks, do not acquire authority to preach etc. but not that by being Monks, they have any thing repugnant to the performance of such actions: And secular Priests, and Bishops, not only as secular, but also as Priests, or Bishops have no power lawfully to perform such actions, till it be granted them by lawful Superiors.  
18 And conformable to this Doctrine, hath also been the practice of God's Church, which thought itself best furnished, when Prelacy, & Religious state were joined together. For, as, Baronius witnesseth Negari non potest, 
Baron. Ann. 328. n. 25.  fuisse Monachismun, Seminarium in Ecclefia Dei sanctissimorum Episcoporum: It cannot be denied, but that Monastical Institute, hath been in the Church of God, a Seminary of most holy Bishops. the same most famous Author in the same place num 23. having related, how that Conqueror of the Arians, S. Athanasius, chose Monks for Bishops of diverse Churches, giveth this reason for it: Quòd for●ssimos, hos fore sciret, adversus ingruentem Ary haeresim in pugnatores, et quasi munitissimas turres contra Miletianos Schismaticos. Because he was sure, that they (Monks) would prove stoutest, against the approaching Arian heresy, and as it were most strong Forts against the Miletian Schismatics. It is therefore very strange, and full of partiality, what M. D. avoucheth, in his 8. Chap. num. 12. that the titles of Patriarhes, Archbishops, Priests, and Pastors, are not titles of Orders of Religious, as they are Religious, but only of the secular Clergy. Doth the name of Bishop, Priests etc. signify only a secular Bishop, or Priest? I always conceived, that there had been both Regular, and Secular Priests, till now I hear a new doctrine, that the title of Priest, is a title of the Secular Clergy. The names of Bishop, and Priests, are, I grant, names of the Clergy, but that they are names of the Secular Clergy, I do not understand. If I would make comparisons, I could say that Religious, men as Religious, although they have not so much as prima●● tousuram, which is but a disposition to Orders, yea even before they be Religious, and are but in their Noviship, or way to a Religious life, yet they enjoy the Privilege, Canonis, & Fori, as if in act they were Clergy men, which is not granted to Secular persons as Secular: But my meaning is not to say all, that with great truth might be spoken of a Religious state, in comparision of the Secular Clergy; & therefore, I will go forward to note, what I find in M. Doctors 9 Chapter. n. 19 That the assumption of Regulars to the Clergy is extraorainary; and n. 13. that Regulars were admitted, and sent to preach to the Gentiles, yet that office doth not appertain to them, ●ure ordinarto, by the ordinary law, but by Priniledg, and extraordinarily. I wish M. Doctor would explicat what he means, by extraordinary, or ordinary law. Is there any Law forbidding Religious men to be made Priests, or to receive authority to preach, if once they be Priests? or will be say that, Secular Priests, only by being Priests, may lawfully preach without any other Commission? I am sure, neither he, nor any Catholic can say so. Wherein then consists this difference of Ordinary, and extrordinary, betwixt Secular, & Religious. It is well known that in some countries, none but Religious men can be made Bishops, and in our country, the Monks of S. Benet's most holy Order, were so much of the Clergy, that a mere comparative, or conditional mention of like Right in these days, made such impression in some, that there was to that particular framed an answer, with title of a Parallel.  
19 As for conversion of Infidels, it is manifest, with how prosperous success Religious men have, & in these our days do still employ themselves, in that laborious good work, more than the secular Clergy. And although some misapply the old saying; that Monks out of their Monasteries, are like fish out of the water: yet they may be pleased to remember, that if those fishes, had never been out of the water, English men might have been in an everlasting fire. For such fishes are also Fishers of souls, as our Saviour styled his Apostles; and fishermen make no profession, to live only in the water. Yet Religious men cannot but acknowledge it, for a singular benefit, that for repairing the vigour of their souls, they may upon occasion, retire themselves to their Religious houses, and so return to the help of others, with less danger to themselues. Moreover that those Fishers, who converted England, were of the very same Order of S. Bennet, 
Apostolatus Benedictinorum in Angli●.  which now is so much impugned, hath been proved in a learned Treatise, by better arguments then M. Doctor will easily answer, if he chance to be of a contrary opinion.  
20 And indeed, there is great reason, why Religious persons, in regard of their state, should be fit for the conversion of souls, because by sanctity of life, they are more united to him, whose instruments men's endeavours are, in that great work: and he who with profit, and security, will shine to others, must first burn within himself. Our Saviour Christ having called a certain person to be his follower, 
Luc. 9●  and he demanding bespit, only for the burying of his father, was bid, to leave the dead, and that he should go and preach the Ghosple; Tu ●utem vade, e● annuntia regnum Det: whereby our Blessed Lord, gave men to understand, that a good disposition to be an excellant preacher, is a resolute, and actual leaving all. S. Ambrose in this point is round, 
●. ●●●ros●●s. 10. in Luc.  and clear. Ille (saith he) confirmare iubetu● fratres suos, qui dixit: Omnia reliquimus, et secuti sumus te. The charge of strengthening his brethren, is committed to him, who said: Behold we have left all, and followed thee: Which are the very words, from which Catholics prove the three Evangelicall Counsels, of Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, vowed by Religious men.  
21 M. Doctor in his 9 chap. n. 16. saith: That Pope's scent Regulars to convert Countries, because Bishops, & Priests were busied in governing their subjects, and so could not be spared. But this reason is insufficient. For, besides Pastors, who have subjects to be governed, there are numbers of the Secular clergy, free from any such charge; yea all Pastors, except such Bishops as are married to some particular Church, may easily leave their charge, & employ themselues upon the conversion of Infidels. And I know, M. Doctor will not approve his own reason, when he shall find it to be so very like, to that of Beza, cited by Bre●lay, in his lives of Luther etc. chap. 7. Non magnop●r● (saith Beza) nobis de legatione ad vemotissimas aliquas gentes laborandum, cum nobis domi, et in propinquo sit satis, superque quod nos, & posteros nostros exerceat. Has igitur potius tam longinquas peregrinationes, locustis illis, jesus nomen ementientibꝰ, relinquamus. We are not much to trouble ourselves, with missions to certain remote countries, seeing at home, and near at hand there is enough, and more then enough to busy us, and our posterity. Let us then leave such fare pilgrimages, to those locusts, who usurps the name of jesus. Wherefore we must of necessity, find some better cause, why Relious men, have been so much employed in converting Infidels, then that which was by M. Doctor alleged; which I doubt not, will be obvious to the reader, out of the reasons, which have been given, of the great fitness of Religious men, to deal with souls. But it must not be expected from me, who am resolved not to give any offence, to yield likewise a reason, why Secular Priests, do● not bestow themselves upon those cushions, as much as Regulars do.  
22 Out of what hath ●ine said, the indicious Reader will of himself infer two things. First that for such as intent to be made fit, to be of the Clergy, the nearer their education comes to a Religious life, the better it will dispose, and more enable them for their intended course, of profitably dealing with their neighbours. Secondly in how great an error they are, who conceive, that although it be not unlawful for Religious men, to employ themselves in help of their neighbour, yet such functions are not so connatural to them, as to Secular Priests, but do, as it were, put them out of their element, and strain their proper vocation, as if Religion, were ordamed only to perfect a man's own soul. But the contrary is manifest, out of what hath been said, in this Question. For seeing the proper, and essential end of Religious State, is the perfection of charity, which according to S. Thomas, consists not only in the love of God, 
8. Tho. 2 2. ●. 18 ●. a 3. 〈◊〉 corp..  but also of our neighbour, it clearly followeth, that when Religious men attend to help their neighbours, either in regard of their proper justitute, or by particular commission, and Mission from lawful Superiors they do a thing most connatural to their state, as the end of every thing, is most connatural to that thing in respect whereof it is the end. That the love of God, & our neighbour, is the very end of a Religious state, 
● Tho 2.2. q. 188. a. 2. in corp.  is a proposition by S. Thomas taught, in these express terms; Religiou●s Status ordinatur ad perfectionem charitatis, quae se extendit ad dilectionem Det, et proximi. A Religious State is ordained to the prefection of Charity which extends itself to the love of God, and of our neighbour. Wherefore the generical Notion of Religious State, which tends to the perfection of charity, finds itself, as it were, in his natural centre, and at home, when it doth compass the full latitude, & perfection of Charity, by being contracted by a Difference, or a Particular state, employed in perfitting both ourselves, and others: and the contrary persuasion, cannot, I must needs say, be interta●●ed by any man, well grounded in D●uinity, or who rightly understands the nature, of a Religious state of perfection, for it were in effect to say, that it is not connatural for Charity, to love both God, and our neighbour, or for the, Beauficall vision, in God to represent created objects. No, No: Marry, and Martha, Contemplation and Action are two; yet sisters: diverse; but not disagreeing: no more than the love of God, doth hinder the loving of our neighbour. 
S. Th. 2.2. q. 188. ●. 2. in corp S. Greg. Naz. ●at. 20.  For, as S. Thomas teacheth, Contemplation belongs to the love of God, & Action to the love of our neighbour. And therefore S. Gregory Nazianzen mentions it as a singular commendation of Saint Basil, that he conjoined the Active, and Contemplative life; ut quemadmodum terra & mare, ita etiam hae duae vita commoda sua inter se communicantes, ad unicam Des gloriam concurrerent. That as the Sea and Land do, so these two kinds of life, communicating with one another their several commodites, might both concur to the only glory of God. 
S. Th' 2.2. q. 188. artis. ●. 3.4.  S. Thomas having taught that a Religion may be instituted for the works of an Active life, and also for a holy warfar; thence makes a most reasonable inference, that it is, Conuenientissimum, Most convenient, that a Religion be instituted to preach, and exercise the like spiritual functions: which the Religious of ●he sacred Order of S. Domiusck, who have their very name from Preaching, have, and do still most happily perform, to the unspeakable good of souls. If then, it be most convenient, that Religious men should preach, hear confessions, and the like; certainly it is very connaturall to their vocation so to do. And out of this discourse may be taken a clear and weighty reason, in confirmation of all, that hath been said, of the great fitness of Religious men, to deal with souls. For in what proportion, a Religious state is more fit to attain the perfection of Charity, than a secular vocation, in the same degree, it maketh a Religious man more fit, to help his neighbour, then secular as secular are, because, as hath been said, charity extends itself also to our neighbour. I might add, that in God's Church, there want not many, who either are about election of a Religious state, or else desire in the world, to imitate the practice of Religious men, by contemplation, and such like means of union with almighty God: and to the direction of those well minded persons, no doubt but experience of such exercises, gotten in Religion, doth much conduce. And this shall suffice concerning the comparison of Religious men with secular Pastors or Prelates, wherein all that hath been said is to be understood only of the States, & Vocations in themselves, not of the Persons, whose merits, are known only to him, 
Act. 1.  Qui cord a novit omnium; Who knows the hearts of all men. It remaineth that I explicate a point, or two, handled by M. Doctor obscurely, & with disadvantage to Religious state.  
23 The first is: That perfection consists in Charity, and that the three Evangelicall Counsels are no perfection, but instruments, and means to atraine perfection: by which manner of speech, so indistinctly proposed, the reacer may be apt to value the Luargelicall Counsels, much under their true worth. And therefore to clear the matter: We must observe, that the said Counsels may be considered either as of themselves they are apt to remove impediments of Charity, and love of God, for example, Poverty, and Chastity even of their own nature, do necessarily free a man from the dangers, temptations, and impediments of the love of God, which arise our of the actual possession of riches, & enjoying the pleasures of sensual delights, and in this sense they may be termed, but means, or instruments to get perfection: or else they may be considered, as proceeding from particular virtues of Religion, Temperance &c: and in this consideration, they are not only bare means, or instruments. but also effects, properties, compamons, perfections, and causes of Charity, which alone makes not a man wholly perfect as the essence of a man without properties, & accidents is but imperfect. And therefore S. Thomas 2.2. q. 184. a. 3. in corp.. saith that: Secundariò et instrumentaliter perfectio consistit in Consili●s; secondarily, and instrumentally Perfection doth consist in the Counsels, which is a thing much different from only instrumentally, as in the same place he saith, that the perfection of Christian life consists in charity, prin●ipaliter quidem secundum dilectionem Dei. secundariò autem secundum dilectionem proximi; Principally in the love of God, and secondarily in the love of our neighbour: in which words, we see that secondarily, and only instrumentally, are terms much different, for who will say, that the love of our neighbour is only an instrument of christian perfection? It being indeed an act of charity, or perfection, although not the prime, but a secondary act of that virtue. And whosoever reads, the first Article▪ of the same Question, will quickly find, that other virtues beside Charity, are more than instruments, or means of perfection, which M. Doctor could not but see, having cited the same place in his 11 chapped. num. 10. Yea S. Thomas further teacheth, 
S. Tho. 1. p. q. 5. a. 1. ad. 1. & q. 6. a. 3.  that a creature is not absolutely good, nor perfect, by his essence, but by accidents, which perfect that essence; and this is particularly verified in charity, which is the essence of perfection, because it is increased by meritorius acts, not only of itself, but also of othervertues, whereas natural substances, cannot be intrinsically increased in their natures, by their accidents, or proprieties: yea if one do embrace Poverty, Chastity, & Obedience, merely out of love to God, without the proper motive of any othervertue, they are formal acts of charity, and in no sense, can be properly termed only instruments thereof. Seeing then the Evangelicall Counsels, sealed with a vow, are acts of great, and noble virtues, it followeth, that they are not only most fit instruments to attain perfection, which consists in charity, but also are causes, and perfections of perfection itself, not only removing impediments of Charity, but also affording it positive helps, & increase. All which willbe more confirmed, by what I am now going to say, concerning a second point of doctrine, avouched by M. Doctor, either confusedly, or not truly.  
24 In his 11. Chap. num. 12. thus he writeth: There is only this difference, betwixt Religious, and other Christians, that the Religious leave all things actually, other Christians must leave them in preparation of mind. The former leaving of them actually, is no perfection, but an instrument of perfection, unless it be joined with the love of God, in which consisteth perfection. By these words the Reader may be apt to conceive, that Religious state, hath no perfection more than all other Christians, because they differ only in actual leaving all things, which, as he saith, is no perfection. If therefore he understand, that in the preparation of mind, common to all Christians, and that which is proper to Religious men, there is no difference, the doctrine is Untrue, in●urious to Religious State, and against M. Doctor himself, who in the same place distinguisheth that perfection of Charity, necessary to all Christians, by which they are resolved not to offend God mortally, from another perfection of Charity, by which we so love God, as we are ready, not only to observe the commandments, but also the Counsels for his love, & this is the Charity of Religious: Ergo, even according to M. Doctor, the difference betwixt Religious, and other Christians, is not only in the actual leaving of all things, but also in a precedent greater perfection of Charity, and readiness of mind, of which the actual leaving of all things, is but an effect: ergo, according to his own doctrine, it cannot be true, that Religious men differ from others, only in leaving all things actually. If his meaning be, that betwixt Religious men, and other Christians, there is difference even in preparation of mind, and not only in actual leaving all things, than he spoke but confusedly, when he said, that only in leaving all things actually, Religious men differ from other Christians, who must leave all things in preparation of mind. I therefore must crave leave, to distinguish the preparation of mind, to leave all things, proper to Religious men, from that other, which must be found in all Christians, if they mean to save their souls: and I cannot do it better than out of S. Thomas, who plainly tells us: That it is the lowest degree of Charity, 
S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. art. 3. ad 2.  to love nothing above, or against or equally wih God. This is the necessary perfection of all Christians. But Religious men profess an higher degree of perfection by abandoning, not only what is contrary to the love of God, as utterly destroying it, but also whatsoever may be an impediment, to the very perfection thereof; which is a difference so remarkable, that the same holy Doctor in resp. ad 3. doubteth not to compare, the perfection of Secular men, to a child new borne, and that of Religious persons, to a man of perfect growth. Likewise a. 8. in resp. ad 6. he teacheth, that it diminisheth the perfection of virtue, when one doth not love it so much, that he is resolute to avoid the impediments thereof, according to the Apostle 1. cor. 9 Omnis qui in agone contendit, ab omnibus se abstinet: and thence he proveth, that although secular Pastors be in a calling, wherein virtue is exercised with greater difficulty, then in Religion; yet their vocation, is not so perfect, as a Religious state, because the very avoiding of worldly impediments, is a thing very meritorious. And if S. Thomas speak thus of secular Pastors, we may easily imagine, what difference he puts betwixt Religious, and all Christian secular People. I think there is no Father, who will not make a great difference, betwixt two Sons, of which the one cared no more, for contenting his Father, than were precisely necessary, not to incur danger of being put by his inheritance, but the other out of pure filial love, and respect to his Father's pleasure, were solicitous, and resolute, to perform his very propensions, and counsels, although not seconded with any command, or commination of punishment. This is the difference betwixt a Religious and Secular state.  
25 What M. Doctor saith, that the actual leaving of all things, is no perfection, but an instrument of perfection, must be understood, as above I have explicated, num. 23. For, as such actual leaving of all things, proceeds from the virtues of Temperance, Religion etc. it is not a mere instrument, of charity, or perfection, but doth meritoriously greatly increase the same: yea, I add further, that according to the doctrine of S. Thomas, and others, 
S. Th. 2.2. q. 189. a ●▪ ad 2.  that Religious profession, like to Baptism, or Martyrdom, remits the whole pain, due to our sins, the very external act of leaving all things, hath a particular effect, which the internal act should not have without it: To say nothing of the Laurea, or accidental Glory, of perpetual Virginity, or of that prerogative of judicature, promised by our Saviour to such as for his sake leave al. Sedebitis etc. you shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve Tribes of Israel. 
Matth. 1●  That also which M. Doctor saith: that the actual leaving of all things is no perfection, but an instrument of perfection, unless it be joined, with the love of God, in which consistteh perfection; needeth some explication. For if he understand, that the actual leaving of all things, conduceth not to perfection, unless it proceed from formal acts of Charity, the doctrine is not true, because, not only acts of the love of God, but also of other virtues, being performed in state of grace, and with other requisite conditions, do meritoriously increase grace, and charity. If his meaning be, that the actual leaving of all things is but an instrument of perfection, unless it be joined with the love of God, that is; unless a man be in state of grace, it is not meritorious of perfection, which consisteth in charity; he saith no more of this leaving all, than he might have said, of the acts of Faith, and Hope, and all other whatsoever good works, even acts of Charity itself, for example, perfect contrition, of which none are meritorious of Grace, unless the doer of them be in God's favour: and yet it ought not to be denied, but that as other acts of virtue, so the leaving of all things, may dispose a man for returning to God's grace, and in that sense, be an instrument, or means to get perfection. Moreover, it is not clear what M. Doctor means in saying, that the actual leaving of all things, is but an instrument of perfection, unless it be joined with the love of God. For, when it is joined with the love of God, is it more than an instrument of perfection? If it be; then perfection consists not only in the love of God, but also in other virtues; and so Poverty, Chastity, and Obedience, shallbe more then instruments of perfection. If the actual leaving all things, even when it is joined with the love of God, be no more than an instrument of perfection, and not perfection itself, what then meant he by that exception (Unless) saying, that actual leaving all is but an instrument of perfection, Unless it be joined with the love of God? for these words seem to signify, that if it be joined with the love of God, it is more than an instrument according to that Rules Exceptio firmat contrariam regulam.  
26 Howesoever men may flatter themselves with a Preparation of mind; yet it is not an easy thing, to possess riches for example, and not to affect, and be possessed by them. Seneca said well Qui non facit cum potest nunquam voluit. He who does not a thing when he may, gives to understand that he never had a serious will to do it. If men do not love what they enjoy, why find they so great renitency to depiive themselves thereof? O how few keep riches, freedom of their will, and the like, merely out of election, and judgement, that so to do, redou●●●s to the greater glory of our Creators We think our affections are at freedom, when upon trial we find it otherwise, like a bird, that thinks not it is in the net, till it make offer to fly; or as our soul, and body, never feel their mutual love, till by approaching death, they are upon their parting. That wonder of wit, and miracle of sanctity, blessed saint Augustin, percerued not how much his affection was tied to his most religious mother's life, till he beheld her deprived of life, and himself of her company. Q●oniam (saith he) dese●ebar tam mag●o eius solatio, 
8. Aug. Cos. ●9. c. 12.  sauciabatur anima mea, & quasi dilaniabatur vita, quae una facta erat examea & illius. Because, I was deprived of so great a comfort, my soul was wounded, and my life as it were torn in pieces, which till then had been composed of hers and mine. And that which pierced his soul was, ex consuetudine simul vivendi dulcissima & charissima repentè dirupta, vulnus recens: a green wound made by the sudden breaking off, of that custom, which I had to live in her most sweet, and most dear conversation. That young man in the Gospel, felt not how much his heart was upon his wealth, till by our Saviour he was told of actual leaving all, although before that time in preparation of mind he had left all, because he had kept the commandments: vade & v●nde omnia quae habes▪ & damn pauneribus, & veni, & sequere me, said our blessed Saviour. 
Matth. 19  Go sell all thou hast, and give it to the poor, and then come & follow me. For upon those words, he fell into a fit of melancholy, & rather chose to be rich than perfect, athough persuaded to such a state, by the, words of the Word Incarnate. Let us bear S. Augustin, speaking of that same young man to this very purpose: Nescio (saith he) quomodo cum superflua & terrena diliguntur, 
S. Aug. epist 34. add Paulin. et Therasiam.  arctnis adepta, quam concupita constring unt: Nam unde tristis ille dis●essit, qui consilium vitae a●ternae co●sequen●ae quaerebat à Domino, cùm a●dister vendenda esse omnia sua, si vellet esse perfectus, nisi quia maguas, ut Euangeli●●● loquitur, habebat divitias? Aliud est e●●n nolle incorporare quae ●esunt, aliud ram incorporata divellere: I●la velut cibi repudiantur, haec velut membra praeciduntur. I know not how when superfluous and earthly things are loved, they more straightly tie us if once they be possessed, then when they are only desired (and much more may I say then, when they are neither possessed, nor desired, but voluntarity contemned) for why did he, who asked our Saviour's advice, how he, might be saved, go away with a sad heart, upon the hearing, that if he resolved to be perfect, he must sell all, but because, as the Ghopell witnesseth, he was in possession of great riches? For it is one thing, to have a resolution, not to incorporate to us those things we have not, and an other to tear away things already incorporated: Those we refuse as we refuse meats; but these are cut off like parts of our body. The reason of this daily experience is, because the passion of love, being agreeable, and sympathising with one's natural inclination, is of great power to sway our soul, but not so easy to be felt, and discerned, except by its effect, namely, sorrow, when we find ourselves deprived of what we loved. For sorrow being a sour, and thorny passion, and much repugnant to our nature, is speedily discovered. To which purpose S. Thomas in proof that in some respect, 
8. Tho. 1.2. q. 35. a. 6.  men do more fly sorrow, then thirst after delight, allegeth S. Augustin saying: Amor magis sentitur, cum cum prodit indigentia. 
8. Aug. 10. De●rinit.  Love is most felt, when it is discovered by want of the thing we loved: because, as S. Thomas saith, from such want proceedeth sorrow. Therefore let not men trust the presumed indifferency of their affection, if they have never tried it by want of what they enjoy.  
27 Holy men were not ignorant, that perfection chief consisteth in Charity, & known as well, as men in th●se days know, what preparation of mind did signify: Nevertheless by word, writing, & example, they exhorted men to real, & actual leaving all. And indeed there is great difference, betwixt that young man, who, to keep his riches, refused to keep our Saviour company, and the blessed Apostles, in whose name, S. Peter could truly say; 
Matth. 19  Ecce nos reliquimus omnia: Behold w●, (not only in preparation of mind, but actually) have left all, and followed thee. It is a case worthy to be deplored with many tears, that in worldly, and temporal affairs, men will use their uttermost diligence, & employ all their wits, for compassing such poor ends, with all possible security; and yet in the main business of our soul, we are willing to find our any seeming probabilities or speculative distinctions, and all in effect to foster our already settled affections, by supposed preparation of mind, and the like goodly gay pretexts: whereas we cannot but know, that it is not an easy matter, to possess riches, and enjoy pleasures, upon a pure motive of virtue, or only for the love of God, not for the riches, or pleasures themselves; or to make sure, that our love to them be not greater than it ought, & so make us love God either in a less degree, or with less frequented acts, while we love other things, rather with him, then for him.  
28 But, say these mental Saints, Abraham was rich, and yet a Saint: And I say, that when they shall have but one only son, the sole hope, not only of the Posterity of Abraham, but of all faithful believers, & yet besides a mere preparation of mind, have their arm actually stretched out, to be his executioner, and to offer him in sacrifice, upon God's command; then say I, most willing I should be, to proclaim these men also for Sa●nts, if I did not further consider, that the case of those ancient Fathers, was much different from ours; because in those times our Blessed Saviour, had not promulgated the three Evangelicall Counsels, the excellency whereof was reserved for the law of Grace. For as S. Bernard saith: It was sufficient for the ancient Fathers, to follow the Spirit of God only in spirit, but after the Word was made flesh, and dwelled in us, 
S. Bern. Hom. Ecce nos reliquimus o●●●●.  in himself he gave us a pattern of perfection, to be imitated in act, & as it were corporally, that following him with both our feet, we may no more like the Patriarch lacob haut in one of our thighs, namely by an imperfect half imitation, in preparation of mind & not in act, or to use S. Bernard's words only in spirit, and not in act, and as it were corporally. Blessed S. Hierome speaking of chastity, one of the three Evangelicall Counsels, hath these divine words: Satim ut Filius Dei ingressus est super terram, novam sibi familiam insli●uit, ut qui ab angel●s adorabatur in caelis, haberet Angelos et in terris. Assoon as the son of God came upon earth, he made ●o himself a new family, that he who r●●s adored by Angels in heaven, should likewise have his Angels on earth. I will conclude this point with the authority of two Saints under one: S. Thomas citeth out of. 
S. Th. 2.2. q. 186. a. 4. ad 2.  S. Augustine lib. de bon● coniugale cap. 22. these words: Melior est castitas coelibum, quàm castitas nuptiarum. Esse autem castus sine coniugio potuit (Abraham) sed tunc non oportuit. The Chastity of single people, is better than that of marriage, Abraham might have been chaste without marriage, but it was not agreeable to those times. And then the angelical Doctor writes thus: Neither because the Fathers in the old law, did join perfection with riches, and matrimony, which proceeded from heroical virtue in them, therefore weaker persons ought to presume, that they have so great virtue, as with riches, and matrimony, to attain to perfection: as no man adventures unarmed to set upon his enemies because Samson with no other weapon, than the ●aw bone of an ass slew his enemies. For those ancient Fathers would have kept Poverty, and Chastity, more carefully than we, if it had been suitable to those times. Thus far S. Thomas: and I only add, that by this very example of Abraham, we are taught, that the best way to know, how fare our affections be engaged, is an offer in good earnest, to be deprived, of what we possess: in so much that God himself, after that great trial, said to Abraham: Now I know thou fearest God, 
Gen. ●●,  and for my sake, hast not spared thy only Son. Fare are they from Abraham's love to God, who fear not to hinder their Children, from Sacrificing themselves to their Creator, in a Religious life; therein passing the bounds of Parent's authority, while to enjoy their children a while on earth, they seem content that both of them, for Eternity, in a lower degree enjoy God in Heaven. For their Children to be Religious, is but of Counsel: but for them, or any else, not to hinder so good desires, is a strict Command: And the holy Council of Trent, 
Conc. Trid. sess. 25. c. 18. de Regular.  doth inflict Excommunication against all those: Qui sanctam Virginum, vel aliarum mulierum voluntatem veli accipiends, vel voti emittendi, quoquo modo sine iusta causa impedierint. Who without just cause, shall any way, hinder the will of Virgins, or of any other women, to be veiled, or to make a Vow. And although the Council, Excommunicate only such, as hinder women, because ordinarily they are more subject to fear, and the like passions; yet thence we may gather, that in like manner to avert Men, from a Religious course, cannot be free from a great sin: especially if with it be joined, some diminution of the perfection of Religious state in general, or else detraction, from some Religious Order in particular, which may happen in such as are either inexperienced, or not well affected to such a course.  
29 And here I might make an end of this Question, if M. Doctor in his 9 Chapt. num. 9 Had not touched a point, which I cannot wholly pass over unmentioned. In that place he writes, as if he were not unwilling, the Reader should believe, that the Apostles made no vow of poverty, and consequently were not Religious men. My meaning is not, purposely to handle this question, contenting myself, with saying; That it is the doctrine of the greatest Divine, S. Thomas; 
S. Th. 2.2 q. 88 a. 4. ad 3. S Aug. 17. ciu. c. 4.  of the greatest Doctor of God's Church, S. Augustine; Of one, of the greatest authority under heaven, a Pope, namely Pius the fourth affirming, that certain Religious men are of that Order, 
Nau. comment. 4 de Regular. n. 7. apud Suar. Tom. 3. de Rol. lib. 3. ●. 3. n●m. 6.  which was instituted by the Apostles, as Navarre relateth. And no man I think, can with reason deny, that the Apostles themselves were Religious men, if once he grant, that they did institute a Religious Order, of Clergy men. Lastly, M. Doctor, according to what himself writeth, must yield to this verity. For in his 11 Chap. num. 9 He saith; that those words Matth. 19 (There are Eunuches which have gelded themselves for the Kingdom of heaven) are most properly to be understood, of those that vow Chastity, because such have neither the act, nor moral, or lawful power of generation. By the same reason, I may say, when the Apostles answered our Saviour; Behold we have left all, and followed thee, those words are most properly verified in those, who have riches neither in act, nor power. For it is but an imperfect leaving of a thing, if it may be retaken at one's pleasure. And if M. Doctor, out of those words (Behold we have left all) deduce not a vow of Poverty, how will he out of the same words, prove a vow of Chastity? because after our Saviour had explicated the Counsel of Chastity, by the name of voluntary Eunuches, the Apostles said: Behold we have left all, namely, both wives, and goods: and to say, the same words (We have left all) as they signify Chastity, imply a vow, and not as they signify Poverty, or leaving of goods, were a mere voluntary explication. And therefore S. Augustine in the place above cited, explicated the words of the Apostles, (Behold we have left all) of a vow of Poverty, as S. Epiphaniu●, out of those words of our Saviour (There are Eunuches who have gelded themselves &c.) teacheth, that the Apostles had a vow of Chastity, saying; Quinam hi fuerunt, 
S. Epiph. H●ref. 58.  qui se castraverunt, propter regnum caelorum, nisi generosi Apostoli, a● Monasticam vitam d●gentes? Who were those, who gelded themselves, for the Kingdom of Heaven, but the generous Apostles, and such as lead a Monastical life.  
30 And it is most conformable to all reason that the Apostles, who were not only Masters, but also patterns of of all perfection, should have all the perfection of other Christians, not repugnant to their state, as certainly Religious vows are not, which is clear in Regular Bishops, who still remain true Religious men: yea, a Bishop not Regular, may with merit make a simple vow of Poverty, because there is no Divine, or Humane law to the contrary, & by an happy necessity, it compelleth him more to avoid superfluous expenses; besides that the vow itself, as an act of Religion, is very meritorious. As for Hospitality, Religious Bishops may keep it, no less than other not Religious, who are likewise bound, to employ in good uses, what is superfluous to their state, and to more, Regular Bishops, are not obliged. It is well known, that in England, none kept greater Hospitality, then Religious men. Certainly, in all reason, none are more like to be liberal to others, than who by vow are bound, not to make any thing their own. If the Apostles observed the Evangelicall Counsels, there is no reason to think, but that they did it by vow, which of itself addeth a great perfection, and as S. Thomas saith, it is a point of perfection, 
Opusc. 18. de perf. vi●. spirit. c. 15.  not only to perform a perfect work, but also to vow it, because both the work, and the vow, are Counsels: And who will deny, but the Apostles were careful, to do their works, in the most perfect manner? All this willbe much confirmed, if we call to mind, what in this Question I alleged out of S. Thomas: That the Counsels, of which we speak, are proper to the New Law; 
S. Th. 1.2. q. 108. a. ●.  and it is no way credible that the Apostles would want a great perfection, proper to the Law, which they themselves first promulgated to the world.  
31 What he citeth out of Vasquez, 
Vasq. 1.2. disp. 165.  that the three vows of Poverty etc. are not sufficient to make a Religious man, unless the Church by her Decree, or Consent, admit them, and ordain that the same vows, made before a Superior, shall make a man Religious, is nothing against us, who for the present, only intent, that the Apostles observed the three Evangelicall Counsels, by obligation of vow, and abstain from other particular disputes, debated among modern Divines, as may be seen in Vasquez cited by M. Doctor &, 
Vasq loc. cit. Suar. de Rel. tom. 3. l. 2. c. 4.15.16.  in Suarez at large; particularly in the places noted in the margin. Neither is it unknown to M. Doctor, that for diverse times, there have been different conditions required, to make one a Relious man; as also that Religious Profession, hath not always had the same effects, which now do necessarily accompany it. Only in general, we must say, that if to be Religious men, did well agree to the Persons, and Office of the Apostles, as I have already proved, none knew better than they, what was requisite to place them in that State, neither would they be careless in performing, whatsoever they knew, necessary to that end. M. Doctor, citeth also Vasquez, as affirming, that out of the facts of the Apostles, nothing could be gathered of certainty, whereas Vasquez, although he saith the thing is not certain, yet he expressly unbraceth the doctrine of S. Thomas, that the Apostles made a vow of Poverty, which M. Doctor concealed, and only brought as much as seemed for his purpose. He also citeth Vasquez, in such a fashion, as one would easily think, that he proved, the state of Bishops, not to require Poverty, because they must be Hospital, whereas Vasquez giveth no such reason. As for that which M. Doctor seemeth willing to hold, that Ananias and Saphira, vowed not Poverty, Coffeteau a Reverend, 
Coffeteau Discuss. cap. 12. lib. 2.  01 learned Father of the Order of glorious S. Dominicke in his book against Marcus Antonius de Dominis, showeth that it is against the whole stream of Fathers, citing to that purpose S. Augustine, S. Fulgentius, S. Gregory, S. Athanasius, Saint Basil, Ruffinus, Cassianus, and, (saith he) almost all beside. But truly I must needs say, M. Doctor seemeth propense enough, to take hold of any occasion, Author, or Opinion, that may less exalt Religious state: whereas indeed through the sides of Religious men the whole Clergy is wounded. For while he telleth men (so indistinctly as he doth) that Vows, are but instruments of perfection; that perfection consists in preparation of mind; that actual leaning of all things is no perfection, and the like; Married people may use the same discourse, concerning the vowed Chastity of Priests, and so while he speaketh less honourably of our two Counsels, of Poverty, and Obedience, he much extenuateth that of Chastity, common to Religious, and all Priests, in whom the Church is not content, with only preparation of mind, but in so perfect a profession, requireth actual Chastity, which is a sign, that voluntary actual Chastity, is some especial perfection. Besides, this Evangelicall Counsel of Chastity, is so prized by God's Church, that in Concessions otherwise most ample, for changing Vows, this is always excepted, as likewise a vow to be Religious; wherein God grant people be as tender, as they ought, seeing unless the cause be very sufficient, all such Dispensation is invalid, and can serve only to send a man to Hell, with a kind of quiet conscience.  
32 I will not say, the spirit, but sure I am, the style of some of this age, is far different, from the writers of ancient days, in commendation of Religious State: and some are wont to observe, that oftentimes, those, who either have had greatest obligation to Religious men, or vocation, to such a State, are the men who (to say no worse) speak most reservedly, in commendation of Religion, which although perhaps (for its part) may well say, 
Tob. 3.  as Sara said, of her husbands; Illi forsitan me non fuerunt digni: yet on their behalf, I wish they may in this business so proceed, that when the true colour of things shall begin to appear, by the light of an approaching future life, they may have no just cause, to frame a different judgement, and fill their souls with other wishes, than at this present they do. S. Thomas to prove that it was convenient, to Institute Evangelicall Counsels, 
S. Th●. 1.2. 〈…〉 4.  hath this weighty syllogisine; B●ms amici consiliis anima dulcoratur (Fr●tterb. 27.) Sed Christus maxime est sapi●ns, & amicus; ergo, eius consilia maximam utilitatem continent. The soul is comforted by the good counsels of a friend (as Solomon saith) But our Saviour Christ is most wise, & most friendly: Therefore his Counsels are most profitable. If it be so hearty a comfort, to hear the good, and wholesome Counsels of a friend; Let them consider, whether they may with ground look for so sweet a cordial, who reject the Counsels not of a mortal man, but of God and man; not in some particular business, but for the whole course of their life. One thing, such men must give me leave not to conceal, because I hold it for a certain truth, and it concerneth them to know so much: That one of the greatest punishments, which God can inflict, upon such as have neglected his vocation to a Religious State, is to permit them to run a course in opposition against Religious men: who, (if they be careful to answer to their vocation) may in all occasions, find comfort enough, in what they have so often heard alleged, out of that good Religious man, S. Bernard: 
S. Bern. Han. Sur. est ●eg●um Calor. hum. que●. bonas Marg.  Quae est ista tam pretiosa Margarita, pro qua vuinersa dare debemus, id est, n●smetipsos (quia totum Deo dedit, qui seipsum obtulit) ve possimus eam habere? Nun haec est Religio sancta? in qua homo vivit puriùs, cadit rariùs, surgit velociùs, incedit cautiùs, irroratur frequentiùs, moritur considentiùs, remuneratur copiosiùs. What is that so precious aiewell, for which we ought to give all, that is, ourselves (because he gives all to God, who maketh an oblation of himself) for the obtaining of it? Is it not holy Religious State? wherein a man life's more purely, falls more rarely, rises more speedily, walks more circumspectly, receives divine influence more frequently, dies more confidently, and is rewarded more abundantly.   

THE SIXTH QUESTION. Whether Religious, as Religious, be of the Hierarchy of the Church.  
1 NOthing is more frequent, then that some persons, who I dare say, scarcely ever red S. Dennys, nor ever were much conversant in S. Thomas of Aquin (from whom we have the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchy) will be discoursing of the Secular Clergy, as if they only were of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. And M. Doctor after his wont manner, is here reduplicating Religious, as Religious, but never Secular, as Secular, as he ought to have done, if he would make the comparison aright. But that had been against his design, for in such a comparison, it would instantly have appeared, that Religious would have had the better, who, if moreover they be Priests, or Bishops, in those respects are equal to Secular Priests, or Bishops, and at least as much of the Hierarchy as they: which were enough for my purpose. Nevertheless, I will endeavour also to show, that Religious, even as Religious, according to S. Dennys, and S. Thomas, cannot be excluded from the Hierarchy of the Church: and so Religious Priests, Pastors, and Bishops, shallbe in more respects, of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, then Secular Priests, Pastors, and Bishops, namely, not only as Priests, or Bishops, but also as they are Religious.  
2 I grant, if we limit the name of Hierarchy to Bishops, Priests, Deacons etc. then to say, that Religious not Priests, or Bishops, are not of the Hierarchy, is no more them to say, that Religious not Priests, or Bishops, are no Priests, or Bishops, which surely is no great mystery. But it should be proved, with what ground the name of Hierarchy should be so limited. The holy Council of Trent defineth against some modern heretics, 
Sess. 23. can. 6.  who would take away all Order, and distinction of Degrees, in God's Church; That there is a Hierarchy, and distinction consisting of Bishops, Priests, and other Ministers. But it were temerity, to affirm that the Council intended to d●●●●e as a matter of Faith, that under the name of Hierarchy, could be comprehended, only Bishops, Priests, or other Ministers, endued with Order, and jurisdiction  
3 And first of all, it cannot be deemed, but that the name of Hierarchy hath a latitude. For, if it hath not; I demand whether it signifieth only Order, or only jurisdiction. If only Order; then Bishops, Archbishops. Primates, and patriarchs, clected, and confirmed, and consequently endued with full jurisdiction of Ordinaries, shall not be of the Hierarchy, till they be consecrated: & so the Supreme Head of the whole Hierarchy, a Pope elected, shall not so much as be of the same Hierarchy, which, I suppose, M. Doctor will not grant. If the word Hierarchy, signify only jurisdiction, than Priests, Bishops, Deacons etc. shall not be of he Hierarchy; till they be made Pastors, and receive power of jurisdiction, which likewise is against M. Doctor, chap. 8. n. 2. Therefore I infer that the word Hierarchy, hath a latitude, and signifieth distinction, both in Order, and in jurisdiction.  
4 Moreover, I demand, whether the name of Hierarchy, must signify only such Order, jurisdiction, Office, or Ministry, as have their Institution immediately from Christ: or else that to make one of the Hierarchy, it is sufficient they be instituted by the Church. If none be comprehended, but such as are instituted by Christ, than it will remain doubtful, whether such as have only lesser Orders, as Ostiarij, Lectours, Exorcists, and Acolythes be of the Hierarchy; because diverse Divines hold, that those Orders were instituted only by the Church: and patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Deans, Vicar Generals, Archdeacon's &c. shall certainly be excluded from the Hierarchy, because, as such, they are not of D●uine Institution: yea, parish Priest, (abstracting from their Orders) may doubt, whether they be of the Hierarchy, because it is not certain, that their Institution is Divine. If to make one of the Hierarchy, Divine Institution be not requi●ed, it is a sign, that it hath a great latitude, and that it may comprehend Religious Superiors, whose particular jurisdictions, & Offices, are not immediately from the divine Institution, as neither Archbishops, patriarchs, Primates, Archdeacon's, Vicars etc. are, although the Institution of Bishops in general, be from our Saviour Christ, who likewise instituted Re●●●●●●s state in general: So as Religious S●●●●●● ours, must be of the Hierarchy, 〈…〉 we will also exclude Archbishops, P●●●archs &c. who ne no man ●oth 〈◊〉 exclude: yea seeing Superiors to 〈◊〉 ous Orders, are properly Ora●●●● 〈◊〉 Pastors of their subjects, i● that t● 〈◊〉 of ordinary jurisdiction, and as 〈…〉 Pastourship, they are more of the Hierarchy, than a Bishop only Dele●●te in ●espect of that place, for which 〈…〉 then Delegate. Moreover, those R●l●g●o●● Superiors who by their Office are immoveable, and perpetual, (whereby they are properly in a State) and are obliged to govern, illuminate, & perfect others (which be acts of perfection) are truly in a State of Perfection both to be acquired, & already acquired, & (in that respect) are in some particular manner, & degree, of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, more than Secular Bishops, even Ordinaries, although no doubt in other respects Bishops do fare excel them.  
5 That Religious Superiors as such, be of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, S. Bernard (cited by M. Doctor chap. 1. n. 17. to another purpose) doth expressly teach, while together which Primates, Patriarches, Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests, he puts Abbots in Hierarchy of the Church, saying, as that there (in heaven) the ●er●ph●●s, and Cherubins, Caeteri quoqu●●s●ue ad vangeloes, 
〈…〉. ca●. 4.  & Archangelos, and all the rest, even to the Angels, & Archangels (which M. Doctor translates, all the rest of the Angels, and Archangels as if Seraphins, and Cherubins were Angels, and Archangels strictly understood, and as they are of distinct orders, as S. Bernard here taketh them) are ordered under one head, God; so here also upon earth, under one chief Bishop, Primates, or patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, or Abbots, and the rest in the same manner. Behold, according to S. Bernard, Abbots, as distinct from Bishops, and Priests, belong to the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: yea, he giveth the true reason thereof; namely, because all are ordered under one chief● Bishop, Christ's Vicar. And here, I have reason, to complain of M. Doctors dealing in the said place, for alleging S. Bernard, as if he said, that the Hierarchy of the Church is perturbed, when Abbots are subtracted from the Bishop's jurisdiction; whereas S. Bernard, in the very same place which M. Doctor cities, doth in express words, approve the exemption of Abbots from Bishops, and only disliketh exemption procured out of a spirit of disobedience, pride, and Ambition. His words are: Nonnulla tamen Monasteria, sita in diversis Episcopatibus, quòd specialiùs pertinuerint, ab ipsa sua fundatione, ad Sedem Apostolicam pro volunt are fundatorum, quis nesciat? sed aliud est quod largitur devotio, aliud quod molitur ambitio impatiens subicetionis: Nevertheless who can be ignorant, that some Monasteries, seated i● diverse Bishoprics, have from their very foundation, particulary belonged to the Sea Apostolic, according to the will of the founders? But it is one thing what devotion bestoweth, and another, what ambition, not brooking subjection, do●h attempt. But doth M. Doctor indeed think, that Pope● perturb the Hierarchy of the Church, by exempting Religious men, from the jurisdiction of Bishops? or would he father on S. Bernard a thing, which neither himself, nor any good Catholic will avow? Mauclerus also, whom M. Doctor in his 10. chapter. n. 23. styleth a learned Doctor of Sorbon, 
Mancler. de Monarchia 1. partis l. 5. cap. 5.  compareth Superiors in Religion, to the Principalities; Secular Pastors, inferiors to Bishops, to Archangels; and Priests, not Curates, to Angeles: So that this learned Divine, not only placeth Religious Superiors in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, but also preferreth them before Secular Pastors, & other Priests not Pastors; as in the Celestial Hierarchy, Principalities are an Order above Archangels, & Angels. But let us now out of S. Deunys, & S. Thomas, prove that Religious, as Religious, be of the Hierarchy. This I will do, in that manner which M. Doctor, aught to have used, by giving the Definition of a Hierarchy, & by that to have comprehended, or excluded Religious, or other persons whatsoever.  
6 S. Dennys, de Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 1. defineth a Hierarchy in this manner. Qui Hierarchiam dixit, omnium simul sacrorum Ordinum dixit dispositionem. He that names a Hierarchy, names the disposition, or due ranking of all sacred Orders. What words are here, to exclude Religious men? I am sure M. Doctor knows well, that by sacred Orders, S. Dennys is fare from understanding, as some unlearned person might imagine, Holy Orders of Priesthood, Deacon, and Subdeacon. But by Orders, he understands Professions, Institutes, Offices, Degrees &c. as before he had said; Hierarchia nostra dicitur, estque, ratio complectens sacra omnia quae ad eam pertinent: Our Hierarchy, is a certain manner, comprchending all sacred things which belong to it. Otherwise all in lesser Orders, all Bishops, Archbishops, yea Popes, elected, but not consecrated, should not belong to the Hierarchy. But why should I seek, a better interpreter of S. Dennys, then S. Dennys himself? Who in his 6. chapped. Titulo. Contemplatio; doth expressly put Monks to be one of the Orders in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy: and a little after the beginning of the same Chapter, he plainly saith, Summus corum omnium qui initiantur, & perficiuntur, Ordo est sanctorum Monachorum. The highest of those, who are initiated, and perfected, is the Order of holy Monks. Before you heard him saying, that, a Hierarchy was the disposition of holy Orders, and now, almost word for word, he saith that Religion is, Ordo sanctorum monachorum: The Order of holy Monks; & addeth, that this Order inde●uoureth to express the State of the perfecting Order of Bishops, with many other Encomiums of Religious Order, inculcating again, that it is not Medij, eorum qui initiantur, Ordinis, sed summi omnium: That it is not of the middle Order, of these that are initiated, but of the chief of all. What could S. Dennys have written more, for declaration that Religious are of the Hierarchy? And not only that they are of the Hierarchy, but that they are of it in a high Degree.  
7 Out of S. Thomas it willbe no less easy to prove; That Religious men, are of the Hierarchy. He therefore 1. p. q. 108. art. 1. in corp.. saith thus: Hierarchia est sacer principatus. In nomine autem principatus duo intelliguntur: scilicet ipse Princeps, & multitudo ordinata sub principe. A Hierarchy is a holy Principality. By which name of Principality, two things are understood, namely the Prince himself, and a multitude ordered under the Prince. Are not, I pray you, Religious men, a multitude ordered under one Prince, the Vicar of Christ, & S. Peter's successor? And if we will put force in the word Ordered, what multitude is more Ordered, than that of Religious men, which hath his very name from Order? In his second Article, he demands, Whether in one Hierarchy, there be more Orders (of Angels.) And he answers, that there are. Because it should not be an ordered, but a confused multitude, if in it there were not diverse orders. Which diversity of Orders, is considered according to diverse offices, and acts, as in one City there are diverse orders, according to diverse actions: for their is one order of judges; another of fight men; another of such as till the ground. Mark how S. Thomas doth hold, that divers functions, and Acts, are sufficient for the distinction of Hierachies', although they do not always presuppose jurisdiction: And as temporal functions, not implying jurisdiction, may make one of a Civil Commonwealth, so in the same manner spiritual Acts, professions, or functions, are sufficient to place one in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. This is also clear out of S. Paul, in those very Texts, placed by M. Doctor in the Frontispiece of his Book, for proof of divers Hierachicall Orders in the Church. Are all Apostles? are all Prophets? are all Doctors? have all the gift of Curing? Do all speak with Tongues? Do all Interpret? 1. Cor. 12. v. 28. Likewise; And he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets, and some other Evangelists, and other some Pastors, and Doctors, to the consummation of the Saints, unto the work of the Ministry. Ephes. 4. v. 2. In which testimonies there are placed functions, ministeries, and acts, which import neither Order, nor jurisdiction, as Prophets, Evangelists, Doctors, Working of Miracles, gift of Tongues etc.  
8 S. Thomas goeth forward, saying; In Cities there is a threefold Order: Some are the highest, as the Chief men: Some of the lowest rank, as the vulgar people: Some are of the middle sort; as Persons of better rank; and so in every Angelical Hierarchy, Orders are distinguished. Out of which words, we may gather this ground; That all persons coipso, that they are parts of a Community, do belong to some Order thereof, according as the community itself is governed, by way of Democraty, Aristrocratie, or of a Monarchy; and so if it be a Monarchy, as the Church of Christ is, all persons that are parts of it, must like wise be of some Order. and rank in such a Monarchy (for in God's Church there is no confusion) yet so, as every one have a greater, or less eminent place, according to the perfection of his calling, and Profession, as we see S. Thomas placeth the common people in the lowest Order in a City, and S. Dennys c. 6. placeth in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Penitents, in infimo loco, scilicet, inter Purgandos, in the lowest place, namely, among such as were to be purged from their sins; and no Divine will deny, that the very lowest Angels, belong to the Celestial Hierarchy, as even now we have heard out of S. Thomas. Now, in what degree Religious men are to be placed, in the Monarchy of God's Church, if themselves were to determine, they would according to our blessed Saviour's advice, most gladly sit in the lowest place; but others who are well instructed, in the whole disposition of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 
I●c. 14.10.  come, and say, Amici ascendite superiùs. 
S. Greg. Nazian. orat. in laudem Basilii.  Ascend higher. S. Gregory Nazianzen tells them, that their Order, is a very great one in the Church; Ecclesiae pars selectior, & sapientior: The more choice, and wiser part of the Church; and in another place, he termeth them: The Servants, and Disciples of God; 
Orat 1. in julian.  the first fruits of our Lord's stock; Pillars, Crowns of Faith; precious Margarites &c. 
S. Hierom. ep. 17. ad Marcellam.  S. Hierom saith, that the Quyre of Religious men is: Flos quidam, & pretiosissimus lapis, inter Ecclesiastica ornamenta; A certain Flower, and most precious stone among the ornaments of the Church. 
S. Bern. lib. de Praecepto & Dispens●●.  S. Bernard, demanding why a Religious life, is called a second Baptism, giveth this answer: Arbitror ob perfectam mundi abrenunciationem, ac singularem excellentiam vitae spiritualis, quae praeeminet universis vitae humanae generibus. Huiuscemodi conversatio, professores & amatores suos Angelis similes, & dissimiles facit, imò divinam in homine reformat imaginem, configurans nos Christo instar Baptismi, & quasi denique secundò Baptizamur, dum per id quòd mortificamus membra nostra quae sunt super terram, Christum induimus, complantati similitudini mortis eius. I think (it is so called) by reason of perfect renunciation of the world, and singular excellency of spiritual life, which surpasseth all other kinds of humane life. This kind of conversation makes the Professors thereof like, and unlike to the Angels, yea it reforms in man the image of God, configuring us to Christ like to Baptism, and finally we receive a second Baptism, while by mortifying our members which are upon earth, we put on Christ, being complanted to the similitude of his death. S. Augustine, by saying, that it is not in his power worthily to commend a Religious life, 
S. Aug. l. de ●orth. Eccl. cap. 31.  doth by such silence highly speak in commendation thereof. Hunc Ordinem (saith he) si laud are velim, neque dignè valeo, & vereor ne iudicare videar, per seipsum tantummodo, expositum, placere non posse. If I would praise this Order, I am not able worthily to do it, and am afraid lest I should seem to be of opinion, 
S. Diory●. eccles H●r. cap. 6.  that of itself alone, it hath not power enough to please. What S. Dennys his esteem was, of the Order of Religious, we have already showed; and in a word, he saith, that it is Ad summam perfectionem evectus, raised to the height of perfection. Innumerable more praises of Religious life, I might allege out of the holy Fathers, but by these already produced, the reader cannot but rest satisfied, what place Religious men do ho●d in the Ecclessiasticall Hierarchy. Let us return to S. Thomas.  
9 In the said Question a. 8. he demands, whether Men be assumed to the Orders of Angels. And his resolution is: That by grace men may merit so great glory, that they may be made equal to Angels, according to every degree of Angels, which is as much as to say, that men are assumed to the Orders of Angels. If Gratia consummata, Grace in his full perfection, can place Men in the same Orders with Angels, in the Celestial Hierarchy; we have no reason to doubt, but that, a profession, and star of life, most powerful for attaining of perfection, in grace, and charity of this life, may suffice to place the professors thereof, among the chiefest Orders of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which is framed to the similitude of that other in Heaven: yea seeing the end of the whole Hierarchy, is the perfection of Charity; that profession cometh nearest to the very end, and scope of the whole Hierarchy, which tendeth most to perfection of our souls, consisting in Charity, and love of God, without which, it importeth nothing to be, or not to be of the Hierarchy. And therefore S. Paul after he had set down the Hierarchy of the Church, 
S. Paul. 1. Cor. 12.  wherein he saith, God hath placed, Apostles, Doctors etc. concludeth: Aemulamini autem charismatameliora, let your chief endeavour be, to attain Charity, and other virtues.  
10 What we have laboured, in proving that Religious, as such, truly, and properly are of the Hierarchy, hath not been, so much in regard of ourselves, as out of Duty, and Gratitude to those Pillars of God's Church, those Counselours, and sole Electours of Christ's Vicar, those whose sacred Robes, signify their ardent charity, and ready minds, freely to Sacrifice their life, for the good of the universal Church, I mean, the most Illustrious Cardinals, of the holy Roman Church, whoso care, protecton, and sage advice, next under God, and our Supreme Pastor, the Pope, have kept our Church of England in a flourishing state, maugre all heat of a long continued persecution. For, if we restrain the Notion of a Hierarchy, only to such as are endued with Order, or jurisdiction, those Peers of God's Church, must be excluded from the Church's Hierarchy, no less than Religious men: Because the name of Cardinals, as Cardinals, that is, as they are Counsellors, and Electours of the Pope, signifies neither jurisdiction, nor Order, although accidentally as Priests, or Bishops, they may have both, as likewise Religious men may have. And although a Cardinal hath power in his Church, and title, yet saith M. Doctor Chap. 10. n. 19 out of Belarmine, it is but like to the jurisdiction, of a Parish Priest in his Parish; besides that such a power, is also of itself separable from the dignity of Cardinal, as Cardinal, whose charge is the universal good, of the whole Church. But according to the grounds we have laid, out of S. Dennys, S. Thomas, and reason itself, to prove that Religious are of the Hierarchy, it is evident, that the most Illustrious Cardinals, as Cardinals, are not only of the Hierarchy, but have a most aminent place therein.   

THE SEAVENTH QUESTION Whether by the precedent Questions, we have sufficiently answered M. Doctors Treatise, for such points as either deserved confutation, or required explication.  
1. I must ingenuously confess that I have not laboured to examine all, that might have been discussed in M. Doctors Treatise. But whether I have sufficiently answered the points, by me handled, must in reason be left to the intelligent & unpartial Readers judgement: whom I entreat to consider, whether I had not just cause in my first Question, to say, that the Reasons, and Authorities, by M. Doctor produced, for the most part prove against himself. Wherefore, in this Question, for the Readers ease, I will run over, all the Chapters of M. Doctors Treatise; 
A survey of M. Doctors  and when any difficulty occurreth, point in what Question of mine, he may meet with the answer.  
2 His Epistle in words exhorts to Charity, 
Epistle.  but how much in deeds he hath by writing this Book prejudiced Charity, the Reader will find in my first Question. What he saith n. 12. that Secular Priests, are by the divine Institution governors of the Church I have showed to be a saying, without all ground, Question. 5. The Church must be governed by the Clergy I grant, but I never heard that it must be governed by the Secular Clergy. May not Bishops, and other Pastors, in God's Church, be Religious men? How then is it the Divine Institution, that the Church must be governed by the Secular Clergy? In the same Number M. Doctor saith, the Seculars must honour the Regulars as helps, S. Paul useth the word Opitulations. 
1. Cor. 12. v 28.  But he must give us leave to hold, that in England, Regulars are no more ordained to help Secular Priests, than they to help Regulars: because all are Missionary Priests, equally sent by the Vicar of Christ, for the conversion of souls. The literal sense of S. Paul, according to good Interpreters, is that by Opitulations, or Helps, are understood those, who help others, by exercising the works of mercy, towards the sick, poor, distressed persons, 
S. Th' 2.2. q. 184. a. 6. ad 2.  Pilgrims etc. S. Thomas, applies the word (Opitulations) to Archdeacon's in respect of the Bishop. His saying n. 17 That without a Bishop English catholics are a stock without a Pastor; a spiritual Kingdom without, a spiritual King etc. (which similitudes, through his whole Treatise, he often, and tediously repeats) is disproved Quest. 2. where also is confuted that other Assertion of his n. 18. That without a Bishop we can be no particular Church, and his proof out of S. Cyprian, affirming, that the Church is the people united to the Bishop etc. is clearly answered. All that he hath in the same number, concerning the necessity of Confirmation (without which, he saith, we are not perfect Christians) and the fall of Novatus, is answered, Quest. 4.  
3 For his first seven Chapters; as I embrace the Doctrine; 
His first seven Chapters in general.  so I cannot but be sorry, that Articles of Faith, and Divine verities, are no better employed, then to usher a few Chapters, written upon Humane design. 
Chapter. 4.  In his fourth Chapter. n. 2. he writeth: That an Ordinary must have others to succeed him in the same authority, without any especial new Grant, and that in this consisteth the difference betwixt an Ordinary, and a Delegate. Out of these words, it most evidently followeth, that my Lord of Chalcedon is no Ordinary, because he hath no successor in his Authority, without an especial new Grant.  
4 To prove that a Bishop is of an higher rank in the Church, 
Chapter. 6.  than a Priest, n. 4. he allegeth S. Ambrose in 1. Tim. 3. But I wish, he had brought a better proof, for so true, and certain a Doctrine. For it is much doubted, whether those Commentaries upon S. Paul's Epistles, be indeed S. Ambrose his work. 
Pet. Aroud. lib. 2.6.15.  Petrus Arcudius writeth, that the Author of the commentaries upon the Epistles of S. Paul, affirmeth, Ecclesiastical functions, to have been promiscuously performed in the primitive Church, so that the Priest did the Office of the Bishop, and the Deacon that of a Priest, and in particular, that the Priests of Egypt even in those times did Confirm in absence of Bishops. How doth M. Doctor like this doctrine about Confirmation? In this same Chapter n. 7. M. Doctor, saith that the ancient Fathers relying on scriptures, have ever taught that the Sacrament of Confirmation is to be ministered only by the Bishop, which hath also ever been the practice of the Church. But concerning the Minister of Confirmation, I refer the Reader to my Quest. 4.  
5 Hear, num. 14. He teacheth, 
Chapter. 7.  that Catholics ought to contribute maintenance to my Lord of Chalcedon. This point toucheth lay Catholics, nor will I further meddle with it then to say, that M. Doctors arguments prove only of an Ordinary as Scriptures, and Fathers commonly speak of Bishops. And accordingly S. Thomas sayeth: Plebs fidelis non tenetur, 
S. The. 2.2. q. 188. a. 4. ad 5.  ex debito juris, ad sumptus ministrandos, nisi Ordinarijs Praelatis: Faithful people are not bound, in justice, to provide for the expenses of others, beside Ordinary Prelates. I know some do further say: That (except for the Sacrament of Confirmation, which yet hath not been administered to many, and which also may be committed to a Priest) they find not what greater benefit, Lay Catholics have reaped by my Lord Bishop, than they may receive from Secular, and Regular Priests: That rather since my Lords coming, some inconveniences have happened, which they will not easily be persuaded, they are bound to buy with money: That they cannot take much comfort to spare from their own necessities (arising from daily pressures) for the maintenance of Agents, in diverse places, which they conceive may help, to make that weed grow faster, which all should wish were wholly rooted out: That this point, of exacting maintenance, should have been particularly made known to his Holiness, when the sending a Bishop to England was treated: And finally, That all concur in desire; that what they bestow may be given propriomotu, freely, and not importuned by the negotiation, or solicitation of other men. These things, I say, & the like are spoken; but truly I have no mind, to intermeddle in such matters, nor would I for a world divert the charity of any man, from my Lord of Chalcedon, or any other Secular, or Regular Priest. Rather, I wish, all would excite themselves, wish that noble saying, 
Chrysost. ●om. vlt. in watch.  of S. john Chrysostome; That he is more honoured by almighty God, who hath received ability to help the poor, then if he had received the power, to uphold the Heavens if they were ready to fall. What happiness then, O what an incomparable happiness is it, to have the occasion, power, and will, to maintain those good servants of God, without whose continued labours, the Heaven of mankind, true Religion, could not but fall in England?  
6 In this Chapter he treateth; 
Chapter. 8  Who in particular belong to the Hierarchy of the Church. Which point I have handled Quest. 6. and proved that Religious, as Religious, have a very principal place in the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. His example, of S. Francis Xaviers respect to Bishops, proves nothing, but where there are Ordinaries; & certain it is, whatsoever submission he yielded, even to Ordinaries, it was of Humility, not of Obligation, himself being the Pope's Legate, and above Ordinaries, to whom he could not in conscience subject himself, if it had been claimed as due, as likewise Religious men, cannot lawfully renounce Privileges, granted by the Sea Apostolic. His saying n. 10. that the titles of patriarchs, Archbishops, Priests, and Pastors, are titles only of the Secular Clergy, is rejected Quest. 5. and shown to be full of partiality.  
7 Num. 13. 
Chapter. ●  He citeth the Council of Trent Sess. 24. cap. 4. for bidding Regulars to preach, even in the Churches of their own Orders against the will of the Bishop. But why doth he not cite the Council entirely? The words of the Council are: Nullus autem Secularis, sive Regularis etc. Let no Secular, or Regular, enen in Churches of their own Order, presume to preach against the Bishops will. Hear is no more against Regulars, than Seculars: yea Regulars need no leave of the Bishop, for preaching in their own Churches: Only they must not do it, if he absolutely contradict them; which are two things much different. But Secular Priests, must have leave to preach in what place soever, unless they be Curates, and so may do it by their Office, which also Religious may, if likewise they be Curates. Moreover, the Council speaketh only where there are Ordinaries: and according to the Council, no Bishop can preach out of that Diocese, of which he hath his Title, without particular Privilege; as also Religious men may do, if to that end they be privileged. Num. 15. He cities certain sayings, as that, the Office of a Monk is not teaching but weeping etc. which out of S. Thomas I have answered Quest. 5. where likewise is confuted the reason he gives n. 16. why Regulars came to have care of the Church; and his saying, that their assumption to the Clergy was extraordinary. Num. 18. he writeh thus: some may object, that some Religion's Orders are instituted to preach, and to convert Nations. Ergo, to these at least it appertaineth as well, as to the secular Clergy to do these functions. I answer: that these Orders are indeed instituted to that purpose, but yet to help only, and assist the Clergy; and to this they were not ordained by the divine law, as Bishops, and Priests are, but by the Church's Institution. To this answer of M. Doctor, I answer, that, as I sad above, in England Regulars, are no more ordained to help Secular Priests, then Secular, to help Regulars, but both a like are sent, endued with Privileges to be helpers of souls; & Superious of Regulars, have as much authority to send their subjects, as Precedents, or Rectours of Seminaries to send Secular Priests. And because M. Doctor, in the objection speaks particularly, of converting Nations, where it is clear there is no division of Parishes, or Dioceses, or institution of Parish Priests, and the like: I understand not, how he can imagine that in such a work, Regulars are only to help the Secular Priests: yea, according to my Lord Philip Rovenius (as I related in my 5. Question) Regulars are more sit for that employment than Seculars. What he saith, that such Religious, were not by the divine law ordained to preach, as Bishops, and Priests are, hath been answered in the same 5. Question, where I shown, that neither Secular, nor Regular Priests, camn preach without authority, and that Religious be as capable of such authority, and Office as Seculars: So as (if he compare a right Secular with Religious) he will in this find no difference. And I may add, that Regular Priests, of such orders as M. Doctor mentioned in the objection, have a particular kind of right, or, as I may say, dispositionem proximam, to such functions, which secular Priests, precisely by being Priests, have not. For although Regular Priests of such Orders, have no actual jurisdiction, or authority for the exercise of such Actions, till they receive it from their Superiors; yet by their Institute, they have a kind of right, to have such authority granted by their Superiors, who without just cause, ought not to debar them of that, to which they have obliged themselves, by undertaking that particular course of Religious life. But Secular Priests have no obligation to such functions, unless they be made Pastors, and take care of souls, which thousands never do, nor have any obligation, to undertake such a charge. Of the Apostles vow of poverty, whereof n. 19 he taketh a needless occasion to treat by reason of an objection which himself maketh, I have spoken something in my 5. Question; & wish that some, more able, would do it more at large. In the end of the same number, he saith, that although we suppose the Apostles had been Religious men, yet Christ gave them not power to preach etc. as they were Religious, but as they were Bishops, and Priests; & so in this, not the Regulars, but the Seculars; to wit Bishops, & Priests, do succeed the Apostles. A strange speech! Because Bishops succeed the Apostles, therefore not the Regulars, but the Seculars succeed the Apostles: as if the name of Bishop, necessarily implied to be a Secular; or as if Religious Bishops, because they are not Secular, cannot succeed the Apostles in the office of preaching etc.  
7 In his 10. 
Chap. 10.  Chapter. he treateth of the Dignity of Cardinals, whom we Quest. 6. have showed to be in a most eminent place, of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, even abstracting from all Power of Order, or jurisdiction.  
8 Here he treateth of the state of Religious men, 
Chap. 11.  and to this his Chapter answereth our 5. Question. Num. 10. To prove, that by love two friends are one soul, he aleadgeth S. Augustine lib. 4. Confess cap. 6. saying, He thought himself half dead, when his other half, Nebridius was dead. But every woman, that reads S. Augustine's Confessions, translated into English, will see, that M. doctor in this is much mistaken. For, that friend, whose death S. Augustine, in that place mentioneth, died before the Saints own conversion, as is clear out of the 4. chap. of the 4. book by M. Doctor cited, whereas Nebridius was converted after S. Augustine; as may be seen lib. 9 chap. 3. That friend, died before S. Augustine went out of Africa; Nebridius was with him in Italy. And although this error be not, for the matter, of much importance, yet it showeth, how little exact M. Doctor is, in looking upon his Authors. In the 15 numb, he saith: Some infer that the Bishop's marriage with his Church, is fi●mer and more indissoluble, then is marriage betwixt man a●d wif●, which is contracted, but not consummated: because Matrimony conctracted only, is dissolved by entrance into Religion, but the marriage betwixt a Bishop and his Church, cannot so be dissolved. But M Doctor might hence have rather inferred, the excellency of Religious Profession, which dissolveth Matrimony, only contracted, which Episcopal Dignity doth not dissolve. For certain it is, that the Bond of Marriage, is more strict, than the conctract of a Bishop, with his Church; that being certainly of the Divine law; this, at least probably, being only of the Church's Ordinance. Daily we see Bishops, leave their Bishoprics, by renounciation, translation to some other Bishopric, etc. But men cannot so leave, or change their wives, because the bond of marriage is more indissoluble. If a Bishop elected, and confirmed (not in holy Orders) do marry, it is valid, and the former contract with his Church is dissolved; But if he were first married, and afterward should take a Bishopric, the first bond, as I said, still remaineth: All which are manifest arguments, that the contract of Matrimony, is stronger, then that of the Bishop with his Church. Wherefore the opinion of those author's by M. Doctor not named, must ●ot (if we will have it pass for good) be ●nderstood absolutely, as he seemeth to allege them, but in some one particular respect, namely, that a Bishop cannot enter into Religion without particular leave, as married persons may after Matrimony only contracted. I say, particular leave; for if we examine the matter well, it willbe found, that the bound of Matrimony, is dissolved by Religious Profession, only in virtue of the Church's Ordination, and as it were by a general dispensation, thereby to testify the singular excellency of Religious State: and so even in this point, there is not much difference, betwixt married persons, and a Bishop, who with leave may also enter into Religion. Num 16. he allegeth out of S. Hierom: 
S. Hieron. Ep. ad Rust. Monach.  Sic viue in M●nasterio, ut Clericus esse merearis: So live in thy m●●a●●e●y, that thou mayst deserve to be a Clerk, to prove that when a Rel●●●●us man is made a Pastor, he is preferred to an higher calling, and to a vocation of greater perfection. But by M. Doctors good leave, I find a man, whom I must prefer before him, bring a far different explication of S. Hieroms' words. 
S. Tho. 2.2. q. 184. a. 8. ad. 4.  For S. Thomas interprets those words, as exhorting lay Religious men, so to live, as they may deserve to be made Clerks; and no doubt, but Religious men, being promoted to Orders, are in a more perfect calling, then Religious men, who have no such Orders; and this interpretation saith S. Thomas, is apparent by the very manner of speaking used by S. Hierom. And it is worth the noting, that S. Thomas objecteth against himself, the said words of S. Hierom (& answereth them in the manner we have seen) in that very place, where, of set purpose, he teacheth, and proveth, that Religious Priests, have a more perfect calling, then Secular Pastors: So as M. Doctor both in the Assertion, and in his Proof, expressly, and directly opposeth S. Thomas, whom yet he styles the Prince of Divines. Vtri credendum? Whom shall we believe? S. Thomas, or M. Doctor?  
9 For as much as may seem doubtful in his 12. chapped. hath been examined Quest. 2. and 3. Particularly in my 2. Question, his allegation, and inference out of S. Cyprians words, so often inculcated that the Church is Sacerdoti plebs adunata etc. and an explication he gives, of those other words of the same Father (Thou must know that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop) are plainly confuted, as nothing consonant to S. Cyprians intention.  
10 This 13. Chapter, the Reader will find answered (for as much as needs explication) in my 3. Question, 
Chapt. 13.  where all the examples he draweth from the African Church are at large discussed. To prove, that notwithstanding whatsoever persecution, raised particularly by occasion of Bishops, yet the Church must of necessity have Bishops, n. 5. he writes thus: Wherefore, as we may gather out of the Ecclesiastical histories, from the cruel Tyrant Nero, to the Clement Emperor Constantine the Great, there was scarce any Bishop of Rome, who was not a Martyr, or who at least suffered not great persecution. Twenty seven of them are commonly avouched for Martyrs, to wit, Peter, Line etc. and in his margin he hath 27. Pope's Martyrs before the time of Constantine. But in this account M. Doctor is much mistaken. For, the three last Popes by him reckoned, namely, joannes, Siluerius, and Martinus, were long after Constantine, who reigned the year of our Lord three hundred & six, & two hundred forty nine years after Nero, whose reign was fifty seven years after our Saviour: whereas joannes was made Pope four hundred sixty seven years after Nero, and Siluerius thirteen years after joannes; & Martinus the year of our Lord six hundred forty nine: after Nero five hundred ninety two years: so that upon the whole account, in the first two, M. Doctor erreth more than two hundred twenty years, in the space of only four hundred sixty seven; and in the last, namely, Martinus, he erreth three hundred forty three years, in the space of fivehundred ninety two, which is more than half. Besides, these last three were made Popes in times, which did not particularly oppose the Creation of Popes, or Bishops, for which M. Doctor produceth them, but they suffered in time of Christianity, namely, joannes under justinus the elder, by the heretical King Theodoricus●● Siluerius by Theodora the Empress; and Martinus under Constans the Heretical Emperor. Still M. Doctor is found not to be so exact, as one would have expected.  
11 For the answer of his 14. Chapter, 
Chap. 14.  the Reader may be pleased to read what I have said, quest. 2.3.4. Num. 3. He saith that England was long without a Bishop, because Superiors were informed, that he would presently be taken, and put to death. If any reasons were proposed to Superiors, concerning the difficulties, of having a Bishop in England, I suppose they were other reasons, than this mentioned by M. Doctor: But this is a business which belongs not to me. Nevertheless, M. Doct. in his next following 15. chapter, seemeth to contradict, what here he saith, and to make good this very reason, which here he impugneth. For in that chapter n. 6. he telleth us, that King ●ames of famous memory, after he knew that the Bishop was entered, and was in London, he would not command him to be apprehended, as he might easily both in London, and any part of England, Kings having long, and powerful arms.  
12 His 15. chapter, 
Chapt. 15.  is to prove, that to have a Bishop in England, cannot probably increase persecution. It were easy to show, how insufficient M. Doctors arguments are, if it were convenient, to enter into some particulars, from which it is better to abstain, although M. Doctor, hath taken the freedom to do otherwise. Wherefore the judicious reader, willbe pleased to excuse me, from answering M. Doctors arguments in particular, which may be done only by distinguishing, what indeed ought to be, and what is likely will, or rather hath already happened, by reason of the present circumstances in our country: and his arguments, do also prove, that the whose profession, and practise of Catholic Religion, aught in reason to be tolerated in England, which is a thing in itself most true, yet we find the contrary by experience.  
13 Num. 10. He saith, that my Lord of Chalcedon, hath only a general ●●●rituall power and jurisdiction, over the Clergy, and lay Catholics in spiritual matters. I have no intention to dispute of my Lord's authority: But this proposition of M. D. makes good what I said in my first Question: that he will either displease my Lord, by extenuating his Authority, or else make such his authority dreadful to Catholics. For if this general authority which he gives to my Lord, be only in foro interno, than it taketh from my Lord, power to make a certain Hierarchy of Vicar Generals, Arch deacons, &c. (for such offices are for authority in f●ro externo) to meddle with Matrimonial causes, to prove Wills, dispose of pious Legacies, visit Catholics houses, erect a Tribunal etc. and hence it further is clearly deduced, that my Lord is Ordinary, neither in name, nor power: For Ordinaries can do these things mentioned: yea this is also manifest, by what M. Doctor teacheth, that my Lord of Chalcedon can challenge No Bishopric, no not so much as the poorest Parish in England. Ergo, according to M. Doctor. my Lord of Chalcedom hath not for England all the Faculties, which other Ordinaries have, who certainly can challenge some one particular Diocese, and diverse particular Parishes. Moreover, seeing M. Doctor teacheth, that my Lord hath no Title given him, to any particular Bishopric in England, but only to Chalcedon, he must consequently avert, that my Lord cannot give the ●●●les of Vicar General, Archdeacon etc. of London, or any other place, seeing my Lord himself hath no such Title, nor is Bishop of London, or any other Diocese. If M. Doctors meaning be, that my Lords general spiritual power over lay Catholics, is also in foro externo, and extends itself to the things above mentioned, than Catholics have already told my L. in a letter directed to his Lordship, how prejudicial such an Authority must be to them. To say, my Lord hath such power, but is resolved not to practise it, will not satisfy: because they are loath, all their security should depend upon the free will, or particular dictamen of a man, although never so learned, and wise, who either upon some new occurring motives, and reasons, or by the instigation of others, may alter his mind, and practise that, which himself once had no intention to practise. And they will think, that they are less to be blamed for such a fear, seeing my Lord claimed an authority (for example of approving regulars, for hearing the Confessions of secular persons) which proved not to be due unto him, & which did concern, even the lay Catholics, in highest degree (for who would not rather have their bodies disjointed on the rack, than their souls tormented with scruple of invalid Confessions?) they will, I say, think it no unreasonable fear, that if my Lord, in that particular, challenged an authority not due, he might in some occasion practise a Right granted as due. Finally, if such Authority be not practizable, why should it be pretended? especially with so great fear, and offence of many worthy Catholics. Rather, the very pretending it, will put men in fear, that something else is intended, beside a bare power, never to be practised. But, as I said, my meaning is not, to meddle with my Lord's Authority further than is necessary for Discussion, of some propositions, delivered by M. Doctor concerning that point.  
14 Num. 11. He endeavours to prove, that Religious need not fear, lest my L. Bishop encroach upon their Privileges, and that although there be some difference betwixt him, and them concerning approbation, yet they need not fear their other Privileges: as if their other Privileges, were more privileged than this, or had power to hinder men from making whatsoever claim against them. Rather, by what hath been attempted in one, we may conjecture what may befall the other.  
Num. 12. He saith there are no other laws against a Bishop, then are already enacted, and in force against Priests, and Religious. What the lay gentlemen, who are skilful in the modern, and ancient laws of England, judge of the particular danger, to which they might be able, if they should accept my Lord as Ordinary, M. Doctor will find in their said letter. That which more properly belongs to me, is, that although there were in this, the same reason of a Bishop, and Priests; yet the necessity of having Priests, and a Bishop is not alike. Without the one we cannot have remission of our sins, the holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the blessed Sacrament of the Altar etc. Without the other, we may have all things, even the Sacrament of Confirmation; for as for ordaining Priests in England, it is neither needful, nor, for any thing I know, practised by my Lord of Chalcedon.  
15 And thus having set down, some few, of those many things, which might have been observed, in M. Doctors Treatise, I will make an end, if first I have sincerely told the reader, what was my wish, when I undertook this Discussion, and what at this present my hearty desire is, & I hope in God for ever shall be. My wish at the first was: That, rather than I should utter any thing, in diminution of Charity, in disparagement of sacred Episcopal Dignity, in prejudice of the common good of Catholics; Almighty God would forbid my pen to cast ink, and (if that were not enough) benumb my right hand, as it happened to the Emperor Valens, while he was penning a Decree, to banish that holy Monk, and Bishop, S. Basil the Great, out of his Church. My present desire is, that howsoever Regulars may by some be esteemed to oppose for their own ends, the having a Bishop in england, or some authority by him challenged; yet in testimony of the contrary, I, who acknowledge myself, of all others the most imperfect, am not so insensible of the good of souls, but that I would most willingly spend my blood, for the purchasing of times, suitable with the enjoying of a Catholic Bishop in England, endued with as much Authority, as any particular Bishop in the whole Church of God. And upon this happy condition, I cordially wish, that the last moment of writing these lines, might prove, the longest term of my life.  
FINIS.   

Faults escaped in the printing.  
Page Line Fault Correction. 22 6 Dioceses Diocese 44 1 he doth wrong he wrong 64 1 reason reasons 95 24 means measure ibid. 25 measure means 110 1 (said truly (said this truly 123 15 as man a man 131 17 Relious Religious 151 Add in the margin over against the word S. Hierome this Note: Ep. 22. de Custod. virg. ad Eustoch.