A REPLY TO M. NICHOLAS SMITH, HIS DISCUSSION, of some points of M. DOCTOUR KELLISON his Treatise of the Hierarchy. BY A DIVINE Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse qui tacere noluerit. Aug. l. 5. de Ciu. cap. 27. It is easy for any man to seem to have answered, that will not hold his peace. PRINTET AT DOUAI. By the Widow of Mark Wyon. 1630. GENTLE AND CATHOLIQVE READER. MASTER Doctor Kellison, as he hath written diverse books tending to the Reconciliation of heretics to the Catholic Church: so of late he set forth a Treatise entitled: The Hierarchy of the Church, that thereby he might reconcile some Catholics, the one to the other, to wit the secular Clergy and Regulars, who, though both worthy members of the Catholic Church, seemed to be at some little variance. The reason why he published this Treatise, was, as I have heard him say, because he was informed by letters, and perceived by certain write and Pamphlets written toe and fro, that there was some division betwixt the most Reverend Bishop and Clergy on the one side, and the Regulars on the other side, to the great grief, I am sure, of both sides, to the edification of few, and dishonour of all. Wherefore partly out of compassion which he took to see two so worthy bodies (which bear no little sway in our little Church of England, and which heretofore joined both labours and blood in setting forth the Catholic cause) to be so divided in opinions and affections; and partly at the request of some friends, who wished well to both (for setting these two motives aside, he would not have intermeddled in so ticklish a business, wherein he might offend one party and peradventure both, though he honoureth and loveth both, he under took the writing of the aforesaid Treatise of the Hierarchy, and of diverse orders of the Church, that so he might take occasion to write of the dignirie and necessity of Bishop, and secular Clergy, which seemed by many clamours which he heard of, and writings also which he saw, to be opposed; in so much that Episcopal authority in England, and in these times was counted a novelty, odious, contrary to ancient laws of England, and prejudicial to souls, and yet to speak also of the state and perfection, belonging to Regulars, who seemed to be opposers, and so to dispose both parties to peace and concord. And therefore he written a long Dedicatory Epistle to all the Catholics of England, exhorting all to agree in affections as they do in matters of faith and Religion, and the Regulars to honour the seculars, and the seculars to embrace the Regulars as their fellow missioners, aiders and cooperatours. Which exhortation he oftentimes upon occasion repeateth in his Treatise, and hath not in all the book so much as one bitter or tart word against person or state, unless now and then a glance against Luther and Caluin: but so he extolleth the Bishop and Clergy, as he depresseth not the Regulars, but giveth them as much as S. Thomas of Aquin an holy and learned regular doth yield unto them. In so much that diverse were of opinion, and he himself also verily hoped, that this Treatise would not have offended any, but rather would have pleased all, and by pleasing all, induced all to an atonement Out of which hope and opinion he feared not to put his name unto his book, nor to present it as a grateful gift to the chief of our English Regulars in Douai, where the book was printed. But he hath understood by letters from England, and now lately by a certain Discussion fathered on a Regular deceased (the Father belike was ashamed to behold his Posthumus, and therefore died) that the Regulars took 〈◊〉 this his Treatise in that good pa●● he wished and hoped; but rather thought themselves dishonoured by it: which the more grieved him, because as he sincerely protested in his Epistle Dedicatory, and often times hath made the same protestation by word of mouth, he intended in no wise to disgrace the venerable and approved state of Regulars, but so t● commend the state of the Bishop and Clergy, which he saw wamainely opposed, as yet to give to the Regulars as much as the learnedst Regulars do yield unto them, and consequently so to right one party, as not to wrong the other, but rather to commend both. Some friends have urged him to make a Reply to this Discussion fathered on M. Nicholas Smith: but M. Doctor had not (as he said) the heart to write against a Catholic and him a Regular, counting it no grace to disgrace a Catholic, no victory to overcome him: and fearing least in writing against him, he might contristate other Catholics, and no less make glad our common enemies, who imagine our war to be their peace. Yea M. Doctor used to say: To what purpose should I answer one who writeth not against me. For I never think that he writeth against me, who wilfully or ignorantly mistaketh my words and meaning, and putteth upon me what I never said or meant, that so he may have the greater advantage and make a show of a victory. But he writeth against me (said the Doctor) who writeth against my words and meaning: and if he fathereth on me (as M. Nicholas useth to do) that which I never said or meant, and in that sort maketh his assault; he assaulteth not me, but a supposed and feigned adversary. And yet if M. Nicholas, had not feigned such an adversary, he could not have made so much as a show of an answer to the Hierarchy as shall every where be shown in the decourse of this reply. And beside (said M. Doctor) I am employed in more important businesses; and if I were not, yet do I not think a Reply necessary, where there was no answer, but only wresting of words, wittingly or unwittingly mistaking, scanning of intentions, imposition of untruths, so to make a show of a victory, where indeed M. Nicholas himself was foiled. And moreover he said the book will answer for itself, and the judicious Reader (as he heareth a learned divine in his Jnquisition, and some others have done) will out of it answer for him. And last of all, he said: why should I encounter with an adversary that dareth not show himself in the field, and therefore goeth masked under another man's name: though it is thought he walketh rather in a net; the question, who he should be, being not so hard to solve, as Gordius his Knot was to be dissolved. Yet out of the respect and affection I bear to M. Doctor, and in regard of the obligation whereby I am obliged to him (as having lived under his government) and out of the care I have of his good name and reputation (which I thought could not be impeached without some prejudice to the common cause) I have undertaken to answer for him, and in this my Reply to imitate the temper and moderation which he in his Hierarchy hath used: and not to follow the spleen, bitterness, immodesty and small respect of M. Nicholas. Many, who have red M. Doctors book, have much commended him (to my knowledge) by letters from England and other places for his mildness, temper and discretion; and therefore as many, do wonder why M. Nicholas, and he a Regular, should answer him with such bitterness and immodesty. What is there in M. Doctors book which so moveth his patience? I am sure there is not one tart word in all M. Doctors book: and he writeth against no person, no state, no order; nor meddleth he with the late controversy, and for no other reason but because he would not offend. It is true he writeth of the Hierarchy of the Church, and of all orders: but that is a point of the Catholic faith, which (as M. Nicholas confesseth in his first question n. 2.) Hath been handled most learnedly, copiously, and eloquently by diverse, both in latin and vulgartongues as indeed it hath by S. Thomas of Aquin, Suarez, and others in latin. Why then writeth not M. Nicholas against them, as well as against M. Doctor, they having not handled the matter with more temper than he, nor having yielded more to regulars than he? what then is it, M. Nicholas, that so moveth your Choler? M. Doctor exalteth the Bishop and Clergy. So do S. Jgnatius, S Ambrose, S. chrysostom cited by M. Doctor in his 7. chapter, so do all that write of the Hierarchy; so doth the Council of Trent, Conc. Trid. seff. 23. c. 4. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 185. art. 8. which saith, that Bishops do appertain principally to hierarchical order, so doth S. Thomans of Aquin alleged by M. Doctor in his 11. chapter n. 18. And as M. Doctor exalteth the Bishop and Clergy, so doth he the Regulars in their rank. But he giveth the precedence in dignity and state of perfection to the Bishop, as S. Thomas and all divines and Fathers do: he showeth the necessity of Bishops in the Church of God; the need that all countries have of Confirmation, which ordinarily can not be had without a Bishop, whose splendour, M. Nicholas peradventure feareth would obscure his own. This than may be the cause (for I can find no other, & hincillae lachrymae. This is the cause of his rough answer which in every page almost is so bitter, that as the laws of Draco the Legislatour of the Athenians were said to have been written with man's blood, by reason of their cruelty, so M. Nicholas his Discussion may be said to have been written not with ink, but with gall, it is so biting and bitter. Certes although I will not judge of his spirit, yet he seemeth to show little of the spirit of a Religious man, which is the spirit of humility, patience, modesty, charity, and of respect to Bishops, Prelates, Priests, and Pastors: such as was the Spirit of S. Benedict, S. Bernard, S. Dominike, S. Jgnatius, S. Xavier. For that he striveth to depress the state of Bishops and Pastors, and to extenuate the necessity both of Bishops and of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Wherefore I protest sincerely, and as God knoweth, from my heart, that I am heartily sorry that 〈◊〉 hath given me a just cause, and ●●●●osed a necessity on me to answer his Discussion, and defend M. Doctor and the true doctrine delivered by him: because I fear I can not do this sufficiently (as I must, seeing I have undertaken to answer for M. Doctor) without dishonour to M. Nicholas a Catholic and Religious man, and in credit and estimation in his Order. Yet what I can do without prejudice to D. Kellison, whose honour is dear unto me, and to the true doctrine, which he hath taught, I shall do: And therefore I mean not to imitate his odious manner of writing, which I hear is displeasing to all judicious and indifferent Readers; rather I will pass over his harsh speeches with patience, though not always with silence, and whereas it is his usual manner to insult before the victory with these and the like speeches: A doughty argument, pag. 16. I will not say no divine, but even no man in his right judgement, can affirm, pag. 48. I can not but marvel that a learned man should use such a form of argument, pag. 48 still M. Doctor citeth Authors against himself, pag. 89. etc. I shall not insult over him, though, as the Reader shall see, I get the mastery over him, and the victory of him; holding it a base thing, and not worthy a generous mind, to strike his adversary or insult upon him, when he lieth on the ground. But rather I will proceed with patience and charity, and will content myself to overcome, and to put my adversary to silence by argument, not by cries and clamours: and though I be no Regular, yet I will endeavour to give him example of religious humility, modesty, and charity. But to return to the Reader to whom this preface is addressed, I shall desire him not to be scandalised to see one Catholic write against another: Catholics as Catholics agree always in matters of faith, and good Catholics never break charity: but the best Catholics, Gal. 3. Act. 15. Hieron. Ep. 86. & seq. Aug. Ep. 8. & seq. Eus. l. 5. c. 24. & 25. Beda l. 3. hist. Angl. c. 24. & 25. l. 5. c. 16. Daniel 10. as men, may in other opinions. S. Peter, S. Paul, and S. Barnabas: and S. Augustine, and S. Hierome, disagreed in some opinions without breach of faith or charity. About the observation of Easter there was great debate betwixt Saints and Saints, till the Church decided the controversy, yea Angels have dissented in opinion. And so long as the dissension is not in matters of faith, it may be without prejudice to faith, and without breach of charity. And howsoever; this writing of one Catholic against another, is to be imputed to M. Nicholas, who was the first that written against a Catholic; for that M. Doctor written against no man, and I would never have written against M. Nicholas, but in defence of a Catholic, and Catholic Doctrine. And as thou (Gentle Reader) art to be a spectator of the encounter and combat betwixt me and M. Nicholas; so I desire thou shouldst be the judge and umpire also; so that thou followest not affection which oftentimes blindeth, but unblinded reason, which never deceiveth, but will cause thee to pronouncen sentencen where thou seest most reason, not where thou settlest most thy affection. TO THE VENERABLE CLERGY OF ENGLAND BOTH, SECULAR AND REGULAR. ALthough in this my reply which I have made for the just defence of M. Doctor, and of the truth delivered by him, I may offend some; for that veritas odium parit, and be it never so discreetly delivered, is dispeasing to some, yet my desire is peace; and as the end of war ought to be peace, so my intention in this my disputation was to sheweverie order the truth, which all men when they see do embrace; and so to induce them to peace. And therefore now I address my speech unto you the Reverend and venerable Priests of our afflicted Church, desiring you, that seeing I have set before your eyes (which otherwise you known) the perfection of the states, both of Bishops, Pastors, and Regulars: you would honour one another, Rom. 12. yea in honour prenent one another, and lay a side all contentions, that (as the Apostle wisheth) you may be of one meaning, having the same charity, Philip. 2. of one mind agreevig in one: nothing by contention neither by vain glory, but in humility, eahe counting other better than them selves, every one not considering the things that are their own, but those that are other men's. And truly if one order had not too great an overweening of its own perfections, but rather would cast an eye upon the perfections of another, which will be found to excel in one thing or other: this consideration would cause humility, and humility charity, and charity peace and amity. So our blessed saviour Christ jesus God and man, though even as man he was greater in dignity and sanctity than all the men that ever were, though never so holy (of which also he was not ignorant) yet he as man considering not so much the perfection he had by union with the divinity, as what he was according to his humane nature taken barely and nakedly in itself; and comparing himself with the grace and sanctity he saw in others, humiliated himself in conceit under others, who in state and dignity was above all others. So the Blessed virgin Mother, and Mother of God: so all the Saints of God, considering not what they were by grace (though they knew it full well) but what of themselves they were, and casting an eye of that which others were by the divine grace; cast themselves in conceit at the feet of all men, even those that were fare inferior unto them. If all orders would practise this, none would contend with another far perfection or state of perfection. Let the Clergieman (saith Thomas Waldensis) look into the state of the religions, Th. Wald. de Clericis & Regularibus Tit. 9 cap. 2. and he shall find something wherein he is inferior to the Religions: and let the Religious man behold the order of the Clergieman and he shall find wherein the Clergieman excelleth him. If this they do, Philip. 2. eahe will count other better than themselves, because every one (as S. Paul's counselleth them) considereth not the things and perfections, that are his own, but those that are other men's. If this they do, no order will prefer itself before another, but rather think more lowly of itself then of another and so contention will be avoided: If this they do, none will brag of their own state and perfection, but all will study and endeavour to get perfection: knowing that it is not the state or office, but the holy life and merit which God especially respecteth; and that if one live not according to his state, the higher his state is, the greater is his damnation; for that from the highest place is the lowest fall. The state of S. Paul and S. Peter is high, but as S. Hierome saith: Hieron Ep. ad Heliod. Non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri: It is not an easy thing to stand in the high place of Paul, or to hold and to stand steadfast in the high degree of Peter. S. Augustine looking into both states, so commendeth in both the good, that he discommendeth in both the bad, that so if they think to well of themselves for the good, Ep. 147. 2d Valer. they may humble themselves in consideration of the bad: for speaking of the Bishop and the Clergy he useth these words to Valerius: Ante omnia peto ut cogitet religiosa prudentia tua, etc. before all I desire that thy religions prudence would think that there is no thing in this life more easy, grateful and acceptable to men, especially in this time, than the office of a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, if carelesselie it be performed, but nothing before God more miserable and damnable: likewise that nothing in this life, especially at this time, is more difficile, more laborious, more dangerous, than the office of a Bishop, Priest or Deacon, but before God nothing more happy and blessed, if so they war as our Emperor commandeth. Which S. Augustine considering wept bitterly, when he was consecrated Bishop, as he himself in the same epistle confesseth. And in another epistle speaking of Religions, he maketh this protestation: Simpliciter autem fateor charitati vestrae coram Domino Deo nostro, etc. I confess simply to your charity before our Lord God, who is witness upon my soul, from such time as I began to serve God; as I have hardly experienced or found better than such as have profited in religion; so I have not found worse than such as in monasteries have fallen. Epist. 1 37. But as gold is not to be refused for its dross, nor wine for the lees, nor the good corn for the Chaff; so neither are stairs and orders of the Church to be less conceited, because some men's lives are not suitable to their order and profession. All orders are holy, yet none so holy but that the superior order wanteth some thing of the inferior. The state of the Regular is inferior to the state of the Bishop and Pastor in dignity, and Hierarchiall functions, but it is less subject to danger, and so exceedeth in security. The state of the Bishop and Pastor hath annexed unto it great honour, but this honos is onus, this honour is a greater charge and burden, then is the Regulars state, because it is harder to save one's self and others, which is the Pastors' office, then to save one's self only, which is the care of the Religions. Let then the Pastors behold in the Regular merit and mortification: let the Regular admire in the Bishop and Pastor great dignity, and no less charity in engaging his own life yea soul for others: and the one will not despise the other, but they will both love and honour one another. S. Greg hom. 10. super Ezech. c. 3. Gregory expounding that place, of Ezechiel: Vocem alarum animalium percutientium alteram ad alteram: the voice of the wings of living creatures striking one against another, hath these words: Omnes Sancti se invicem suis virtutibus tangunt, & sese ad profectum excitant, ex consideratione virtutis alienae. Non unidantur omnia, etc. The saints touch one another by their virtues, and stir up themselves to profit by the consideration of another's virtues. To one all are not given, least elevated by pride he take a fall, but to this man is given what to thee is not given, and to thee is given which to him is denied. That whilst this man considerenth the good that thou hast, and he hath not, he may in his cogitation prefer thee before himself: and again whilst thou seest that he hath what thou hast not, thou mayst in cogitation rank thyself after him, that what is written moy be fulfilled: Superiores sibi invicem arbitrantes: Each counting others better than themselves. So the same father a little after saith, Philip. 2. hat S. Paul even after his conversion when in sanctity and perfection he was peradventure inferior to none, yet considering what the rest of the Apostles by Christ his grace then were, and what he by his sin and hatred of Christians had been, counted himself Apostolorum minimum, the least of all the Apostles, 1. Cor. ●●. and S. Peter not regarding his own perfection admireth S. Paul's wisdom and learning shown in his Epistles. 2. Petr. 3. This hath been the practice of Christ and his Mother, as I said before in which all the Sanctes of God have imitated them. And if we practise the same mutual consideration and comparison of our defects with others perfections, this mutual consideration would cause mutual love, and mutual love would cause mutual praise, and mutual praise would cause mutual humility (for that the more we praise another, the less we esteened ourselves) and mutual humility would take awye all contention, (for that into humble men's consideration it never entereth, which is or should be greater,) and contention taken away, a peace would fellow. Luc. 9 And indeed, now that the Regulars in England are all almost Priests, and have the same authority that Priests have; the secular Priest hath inste cause to love the Regular, and in him, his own state and order: and the Regular Priest hath good reason to respect the secular Priest, Priesthood being the richest pearl of his crown and the fairest flower of his garland; and not to think that he is dispraised when the Priest is commended. The secular Priests who labour in the ship of Peter will be content to beckon to their fellow fishermen that are in another ship, that is in another state, Luc 5. to come and help them. And the Regulars will with all charity and respect also yield their helping ●arde. The secular Priests having lovingly invited them, and the chief Pastor having sent them to that end. And seeing the harvest is great, Gers. de statu Curatorum confid. 15. and the work men few, the secular Priests will (as Gerson saith they must) benignelie and lovingly receive them, so that (saith Gerson) they do not de tract, from the Pastors, or seek to bring them in contempt with their parishioners. If both secular and Regular Priests would but look back to former friendly offices which have passed betwixt them, it would be sufficient to make them renew former friendship. The time hath been when the Clergy of England invited the jesuites to be partakers with them of their merit and labours in the mission. Our most learned and zealous Cardinal of most pious memory, the first founder of the English Seminary, to wit, of Douai, and of the mission of Priests in to England in this time of Schism, writeth thus in his Apology for the Priests chap. 6. Cum itaque nos ante adverteremus, & paucis ab hinc mensibus cerneremus Anglorum nonnullos a superioribus Societatis jesu ad Indos amandatos, etc. when therefore we perceived, and few months since did see, that some English men by the Superiors of the Society of jesus, were sent to the Indians; we demanded of them (the Superiors) that they who were of this nation, should rather be reserved for the profit of their country, then of extern nations: to which petition after mature deliberation had of that matter, with great affection of charity, they yielded. The like D. Worthington Precedent also of Douai College, relateth in his Catalogue of our late English Martyrs. Doctor Pitse also in his book of the famous writers of England. In Edmundo Campiano, conformably to Cardinal Allen saith: Videntes autem sacerdotes nostri, multam esse messem, etc. Our Priests seeing that the Harnessed was great and Work men few, did earnestly request the Fathers of the Society of jesus, that they would adjoin them selves as cooperatours, and would send if not early in the morning, at least at the third sixth or ninth hour of the day some of theirs to labour in the vineyard of our lord. And with what charity and respect the Priests received the first Jesuits, extolled their order, conducted them from place to place for their more safety, and to bring them acquainted where they were not known, some yet living can tell; and that truly Religious and learned jesuite Father Campion acknowledgeth no less in an Epistle to his General, saying: Presbyteri nostrates, ipsi doctrina & sanctimonia prestantes, tantam opinionem nostri ordinis excitarunt, ut venerationem quam nobis exhibent Catholici, non nisi tim●dè commemorandam existimen. Our Priests, they themselves excelling in learning and sanctity, have raised such an opinion of our order, that I think the veneration which the Catholics give us, is not to be spoken of but fearfully. And will the Jesuits now de tract from the good name of them, who have so much extolled their order and given ●t the first name and credit it had in England? noe: it can not be imagined. And will the Jesuits seek now to supplant those, who first planted them in England? noe they will not; and if heretofore any would, hereaster they will not. Nor will the secular Priests seek now to exclude jesuites from the mission, whom they have lovingly invited, knowing that: Turpius eijcitur quam non admittitur hospes: 'tis better to deny a guest no doubt, Admittance; then admitted, turn him out. Rather both orders reflecting upon these former friendly offices will endeavour to renew the former friendship. The time also was when the secular Priests shown courtesies to the Benedictins, and were so fare from hindering their union or mission into England, that they helped to set forward both: and had the Clergy opposed their mission (as some others did) and not rather furthered than in their, suit; we should not have had perchance, at this Day a Benedictine in England. This the Benedictins have heretofore acknowledged, and must therefore have respect to the Clergy. And if they reflect upon the many good offices the Clergy hath done them, and if the Clergy like wise look back to the forner love and old friendship which bath been betwixt them, it will I hope renew old friendship and take a way all jars and divisions. The time also was when the Franciscans obtained their mission of Clement the eight, at the instance of Cardinal Allen, which notwithstanding the Pope had before refused at the instance of Cardinal Caietan; as some yet alive do affirm, who lived in Rome at that tyme. And the Reverend Father, F. Francis Nugent intending a mission of English Capucins, written to M. Birchet then Archpriest about the year 1611. to have his consent and assistance; to which his request the Archpriest willingly condescended. And I have heard M. Doctor Kellison affirm, that he also written to Rome to procure their mission. I know also that when our English Recollectes had obtained letters of the Nuncio in Bruxelles to the Magistrates of Douai to receive them into their Town; the Nuncio sent his letters enclosed in one to Doctor Kellison, in which letters he written to the said Doctor, that if he thought their admission into the Town might prone prejudicial to his College, he should not give them the letters, but keep them back: and yet Doctor Kellison gave the letters to the Franciscan that brought them, and did further their admission what he could. And this they also will acknowledge, and this acknowledgement will conserve a respect in them to the Clergy and a love of the Clergy to them. And all these orders have had their source and first beginning from the Clergy and College of Douai: most of their principal men having had a great part, at least of their education in that College. And so the Clergy and College will bear a fatherly love to their children and offspring, and the Regulars will never be wanting in a respect and filial love to their loving Parent, and will never be so unnatural children as to oppose their mother that did breed and bear them: nor so evil birds, as to seek to stain by evil aspersions the nest wherein they were hatched. If the Priests secular and regular be not devidet, their sheep will be united, and none will say: 1. Cor. 1. I am Paul's, and I Apollo's, I Cephas, but all will be Christ's, and seeing that Christ is not divided, all will be united, and the multitude of believers will have one heart and soul. Act. ●. If the workmen who endeavour to rebuild our Jerusalem and Temple, our little Church of England, will vouchsafe to follow the directions of their Architect, and with him and the other fellow-workemen join in all peace and concord their fruitful labours: the building will go on a pace, and will the sooner be finished; because virtus unita est fortior seipsâ dispersa: virtue and force united is of more force than the self same divided. But if the work men work every one a part, the work will proceed but showlie; and if they oppose one another, it will never be accomplished. Wherefore as we tender our own spiritual good, which with contention can not prosper; Catholics edefication, who by this discord can not be edified; heretics and Schismatics reconciliation unto us, who hereby will be rather alienated from us; God his honour, 2. Reg. 12. whose name as it was by David's sin blasphemed by the enemies of our lord, so it will be glorified by your concord and unity, obscured by your division; As (I say) we respect all these things, of which the least should be a sufficient motive to reconcile us: Let us not seek to trench upon one another; but let us rather as much as reason and conscience dictateth, yield to one another: let us not dispute who in state or dignity are greater, but rather let every one in humility and charity seek to excel and to prevent one another: and to end as I began with S. Paul; Philip 2. Let nothing be done by contention, neither by vain glory, but in humility, each one counting other better than themselves, every one not considering the things that are their own, but those that are other men's. APPROBATIO. VISO testimonio cuiusdam mihi probè noti, censui hunc libellum, cui titulus: A Reply unto Mr. Nicholas smith's Discussion, etc. utiliter imprimi posse, utpote nihil continentem quod cum fide Catholica & bonis moribus non consentiat. Duaci V Kal. Aug. 1630. GEORG. COLVENERIUS, S. Theol. Doctor, Regius & Primarius eiusdem in Academ. Duacena Professor, Coll. Eccl. S. Petri Praepositus, & Canon. necnon eiusdem Academ. Canc. & librorum Censor. THE FIRST QUESTION. WHAT JUDGEMENT may be framed of M. Doctors Treatise in general. MASTER NICHOLAS. MY meaning is not to set down what censure others even secular Priests, to my certain knowledge, give of M. Doctors book, because I desire not to give offence etc. n. 1. REPLY. 1. MASTER NICHOLAS, for an Introduction, sayeth his meaning is not to set down what censure others, even secular Priests (but what secular Priests, if there were any, may easily be guessed) give of M. Doctors book. And my meaning also is not to relate what I have heard from many, even principal men, of the impertinency and immodesty of M. Nicholas his book, and of the moderation and temper observed by M. Doctor in his Treatise: and a learned Divine in his Inquisition into M. Nicolas his discussion hath briefly, yet solidlie and clearly declared what censure his book deserveth: and I also shall make the same more known to the world by this my Reply, than otherwise I would, could I defend M. Doctor, and the truth by him delivered, without impeaching M. Nicholas his honour. 2. He styleth his book A MODEST BRIEF DISCUSSION. But how immodest it is, and how little beseeming the person who wrote it, and the person against whom he wrote it, the said learned Author of the In●●●●●ion, in his second Section, and I also in a catalogue of his taunts, gibes, and scoffs, have acquainted the Reader. 3. He sayeth It may justly seem strange why M. Doctor, should at this very time, writ against Caluin concerning the Hierarchy of the Church, which is an argument in these days not particularly spoken of. n. 2. And as strange it seemeth to me, why M. Nicholas should take upon him to examine M. Doctors intentions. But what M. Doctor intended, and what reasons moved him to set forth that Treatise at this time, may easily be gathered out of my preface to the Reader. For which reasons being resolved to write of the Hierarchy, he thought he had reason to write against John Caluin (as he doth in his second Chapter) which M. Nicholas, cannot take as written against him (as he seemeth to suspect n. 2.) Unless he, which God forbid, be also an enemy to the Hierarchy of God his Church. 4. But whereas, in the same place, he marveleth why M. Doctor should write of this matter, Which had been already most learnedly, copiously, and eloquently handled by diverse, both in Latin and vulgar languages: I must tell him, that if he will have no man to write of a subject, of which others have written before, he must tax almost all the writters of this present, and precedent ages, yea many of his own order; which were much for M. Nicholas to do. For what hath any man almost written of Philosophy, School divinity, Controversies, Cases, Histories, which hath not been treated of before? For, Eccles. cap. 1. as Ecclesiastes sayeth: Nihil sub sole nowm, nec valet quisquam dicere, Ecce, hoc recens est. jam enim praecessit in saculis quae fuerunt ante nos: Nothing under the sun is new: neither is any man able to say, behold this is new: for it hath already gone in the ages that were before us. Aug. lib 1. de T●in●t. cap. 3. Let S. Austin answer for M. Doctor: Vtile est plures libros à pluribus fieri, diver so stylo non diversa fide, etiam de quaestionibus eisdem, ut ad plurimos res ipsae perveniat, ad alios sic, ad alios autem sic: It is profitable that many books should be made by many, in a diverse style, not a diverse faith, even of the same questions; that the thing itself, may come to many, to some so, to others so. 5. Before I go any further I observe that M. Nicholas even in the beginning contradicteth the truth and himself also, and that within a few lines: Which is an evil presage of future lapses, in which M. Nicholas will be found tripping. For in his 2. page n. 3. he sayeth that M. Doctor is the first who hath put in print a Treatise (to wit of the Hierarchy) in the English tongue. In which words he contradicteth the truth wittingly (which redoubleth his fault) and himself also. The truth: because he knoweth that before M. Doctor set pen to paper about this subject, there was a book of the like subject published first in French, then in Latin, printed, as is pretended, at Herbipolis in the year 1626. then in English at Rouen where the Discussion was printed: and in Latin, this book is styled Vindiciae privilegiorum & gratiarum, quibus in Ecclesiastica Hierarchia etc. in which book the Author in his second reason, endeavoureth to prove Regulars to be of the Hierarchy by the arguments, which M. Nicholas in his sixth question hath borrowed of him to prove the same, as we shall see hereafter. And so he contradicteth the truth in saying that M. Doctor was the first who hath put in print a Treatise of the Hierarchy in the English tongue, seeing that the Treatise mentioned was printed and diwlged in England before. And in Queen Elizabethes' time (as M. Nicholas or some of his brethren must needs know) a treatise was set forth in a lay man's name to show that Religions were fit to hear Confessions, then Secular Priests. 6. He seemeth also to contradict himself, for that n. 2. he sayeth that diverse have handled this argument (before M. Doctor) most learnedly, copiously, and eloquently both in Latin and vulgar languages (as the alleged English book doth) and yet he sayeth M. Doctor was the first; and consequently he sayeth M. Doctor was the first, and not the first, which is a contradiction in himself. Whereby also it appeareth that it is fare from truth which he sayeth n. 4. that this Treatise (of M. Doctor) hath renewed the no less improfitable, then odious comparison betwixt the perfection of secular Pastors, and that of religous men: for that, by his own confession, this argument was alreader (that is before M. Doctor wrote) handed by diverse, both in Latin and vulgar languages. And he is not ignorant that Suarez, Suarez tom. 3. de Rel. l. 1. c. 18. Et 21. Platus. de bon. stat. Rel. l. 1 c a. c. 37. and Hieronymus Platus, men of his own coat have handled this argument and comparison more largely then M. Doctor hath done, and not more moderately. 7. He calleth M. Doctors exhortation to peace and charity Verbal. n. 3. & 4. as though it came not from the heart: Which all they who know M. Doctors sincerity and reality, will not think to be true: but rather that M. Nicholas taketh to much upon him, in judging of men's hearts: which is a thing belonging either to God, who is therefore said to search men's hearts, jerem. 17 1. Cor. 2. or to the Spirit of man which is in him: or to the Prophet or Saint, to whom God revealeth such secrets. 8. I agree to that he sayeth n. 5. that to conserve peace and charity it is good to let religious alone with their privileges: So that he agree with me that it is good also, that the Clergy and laiety be let alone with their rights: amongst which, one is to have a Bishop to govern the Clergy, and Confirmation to strengthen the laity in a time of persecution. But what privileges have been taken from them? Or what offer hath been mad to despoil them of the same? They will say, that before a Bishop was sent into England, Regulars were free from ask Approbation of the Bishop. But to this they are easily answered, that exemption from ask Approbation of the Bishop to hear confessions of seculars, is not any privilege annexed to their order: and therefore in all Catholic Countries, Religious men are obliged by commandment of the Council of Trent; and were before commanded by Bonifacius VIII. Conc. Trid. sess. 23 cap 15. Clemens V in the General Council of Vienna, joannes XXII. and Pius quintus, to ask the Bishop's Approbation (as they do) to hear confessions of seculars: but it was a privilege granted to secular Priests, as well as to Regulars, all the while they had no Bishop. And with good reason also: for how could they ask Approbation of a Bishop when they had no Bishop? But now since we have had a Bishop, it is a question, whether they should not ask approbation in England, as they do in other Countries: which question MY LORD OF CHALCEDON, and others have learnedly disputed: I will not meddle with it in this Reply, because M. Doctor did not in his Hierarchy. 10. I allow also of that which M. Nicholas addeth n. 6. that it would much avail towards the conservation of charity, if all Superiors, and Precedents of Seminaries were effectually careful that their subjects speak of religious men with respect and charity. And as for M. Doctor Precedent of Douai College (at whom M. Nicholas aimeth) I may say boldly, because truly, if some that come from other Colleges did not sometimes utter their grievances against some Regulars, there would not a word be spoken against them, scarcely of them, in his College: and I know some, that have been brought up in other Colleges, who have been sharply reprehended by him for speaking against some of them. And therefore, unless many lie that come from thence, there is more muttering against them in their own Colleges them in Douai College, where the greatest part scarcely think of them, much less speak of their affairs. And if the Rectours & Superiors of other Colleges did seek to instille into their subjects a reverence to the Bishop and respect to the Clergy, many clamours and harsh speeches, cast out against the Bishop and Clergy, might have been stopped & prevented. But unless also many who come from thence, do tell us, untruths if any in those Colleges speak but a word in commendation of the Bishop and Clergy (under whom yet they must live when they come into England) they are the worse thought of, and fare much the worse for it. Of this I could say more, but I was loath to have said thus much, had not M. Nicholas urged me unto it: To whom therefore I say: Qui alterum incusat probi, ipsum se intueri oportet: he that accuseth another of any fault, must look that himself be free from it, else in condemning another, he condemneth himself. 11. And would to God the Superiors of other Colleges would teach their subjects to think and speak well of the Bishop and Clergy and other Seminaries: I know M. Doctor would be as forward, as the most forward to teach and charge his to love and respect Regulars: which mutual correspondence if there were; a peace would not only follow, but also would be conserved; and this mutual peace would be pleasing to God, honourable and comfortable to both parties: but as S. Gal. 5. Paul sayeth: If you bite and eat one another (by detracting from one another) take heed you be not consumed of one another. 12. I wonder that M. Nicholas num. 7. should say that M. Doctors book should not be pleasing to the Sea Apostolic, it proving the Catholic Roman doctrine against Heretics; commending the Hierarchy, which the Council of Trent defineth to be of the divine Institution, Cont. Trid. Sess 6. c 22 & Can. 3 and to consist of Bishops, Priests, and other Ministers: & defending the mission of our most Reverend Bishop sent to England from the Sea Apostolic with that authority over England, which other Bishops have over their Dioceses, and highly commendeth also by the same Sea Apostolic: rather M. Nicholas might fear a check, if the Sea Apostolic were rightly informed, seeing that he, in his Discussion, speaketh so coldly of the Sacrament of Confirmation, because be would not have a Bishop, and so openly, that is, by a book in print glanceth at the Bishop's person, impugneth his mission, as not convenient for these times, as though he would control the chief Pastor, and knew better than he and his Counsel, what times are most suitable for a Bishop. Neither can M. Doctors book (whatsoever M. Nicholas sayeth n. 8. be ungrateful to our English catholics, much less to the greater and better part. Whom every where he commendeth for their zeal and constancy in defending God his cause with hazard of their liberties, lands and lives; and doth not tax them of want of obedience or charity (as he sayeth) in not being united to my Lord of Chalcedon: for that he knoweth, that the most of them are linked to him in love, respect, and obedience; and if some of them be not so much united to him as were to be wished, it is rather to be imputed to some regulars who are their Guides and Directours, then to them. And how the Catholics are not condemned of sin for refusing a Bishop (as M. Nicholas also sayeth) shall appear hereafter in my reply to the third question. But whom M. Nicholas meaneth by the better and greater part of Catholics, I know not. I had thought, when we talk of matters of faith, the Church, and her Hierarchy, the greater and better part had been the Bishop and his Clergy together with those that adhere unto him, as to their lawful pastor, and they as M. Nicholas knoweth are well pleased with M. Doctors book, as the rest also would have been had not M. Nicholas, and his, misinformed them of the contents. 14. Let M. Nicholas reflect upon himself; for if he and some others had not terrified them with vain shadows and made them to fear where was no cause of fear, they would have been as zealous for a Bishop, as the most zealous, knowing that by the presence of a Bishop, God would be glorified, our little Church of England graced, the weak Catholics in time of persecution strengthened, and all comforted. 15. But I did not think that M. Nicholas could Exeodem orefrigidum efflare & calidum: Out of the same mouth breath could and hot, had I not seen that in diverse places of his Discussion he chargeth M. Doctor as to partialie addicted to the Bishop and Clergy; & yet in this his first question n. 9 accuseth him as an enemy to his Ordinarieship. To which he may easily be answered that M. Doctor only sayeth in his 15. Chapter n. 10. that the Bishop of Chalcedon hath only a general spiritual jurisdiction over the Clergy and lay Catholics in spiritual matters, and hath no Title given him to any particular Bishopric in England, & so cannot challenge to himself any particular Bishopric, no more than the Priests by their faculties, which they have to preach and minister Sacraments all over England, can challenge any particular parish Church: Which he said to show that our Protestant Bishops have no just occasion to except against our Catholic Bishop. Yet who can doubt but that as the Pope hath given him that power and authority over England, which other Bishops have over their Dioceses, so he can Ex plenitudine potestatis, by fullness of power, with this general authority, make him Ordinary of England by an extraordinary manner, as at first he was styled. But whether he be De facto Ordinary, or no, because M. Doctor in his Hierarchy never determined it, neither will I. Yet I have seen certain writings, in which some have learnedly disputed for his ordinariship: on which he standeth not so much, as on the power of an ordinary, which he thinketh sufficient to demand approbation. 16. M. Nicholas (as he is very forwards in that kind) again chargeth M. Doctor, saying: that it cannot be pleasing to God to treat of holy things upon particular designs: And so still maketh himself judge of M. Doctors intentions. But let him look into his own conscience, and see whether he cannot there discover a particular design in opposing the having of a Bishop in our Country. M. Doctor hath protested before God in his Epistle dedicatory, and other parts of his Hierarchy, that he intended only that the Bishop should be honoured, and all orders, in their rank, respected, and I have already in my preface to the Reader laid open his intention. And therefore M. Doctor knowing his own good intention hopeth that he pleased God in writing his Hierarchy for so good an end, as to commend all orders in their kind, and thereby to induce them all to peace with one another. 17. Let M. Nicholas take heed of his Discussion full false dealings, wrong imputations, wilful mistake, gibes, and taunts to disgrace M. Doctor, as in their places shallbe showed; farse with many oppositions against a Bishop sent and commended by the chief Vicar of Christ: derogating to the holy Sacrament of Confirmation (whose necessity he slighteth, whose perfection he denyeth in denying that it maketh us perfect Christians; S. Cle. Ep. 4. S. Vr. banus ep. decr●t. opposite to the ancient fathers, who, as I have showed in my Reply to the 4. question. n. 15. attribute that perfection unto it. And for no other cause, but because he cannot brook a Bishop: Let him I say take heed lest his discussion fraught with this ill merchandise, be neither pleasing to God, nor man. 18. As for the manner hold by M. Doctor in preoving his Tenets, which M. Nicholas n. 11. averreth not to be correspondent to the opinion of his learning, but to be easily answered, and without any study; the truth thereof shall appear in my Reply, by which I shall defend all M. Doctors positions, and shall show M. Nicholas his answer to be altogether deficient or not to the purpose: Whereby I think in the end he will not have the face; and, I am sure, not the cause, to brag, as he doth. 19 I cannot here omit, how n. 12. he accuseth M. Doctor of want of Logic and prudence, though, he hath taught Divinity alone longer, than M. Nicholas hath been in studying Logik Philosophy and divinity. There are many manners of arguing, and all good in their degree, for the Logician sometimes argueth from the cause to the effect, which manner of arguing is called demonstratio propter quid: sometimes he proceedeth from the effect to the cause, which is demonstratio quia: and sometimes he argueth from intrinsical, sometimes from extrinsecall causes: and all these forms of arguing are good, because there is a connexion betwixt the cause and the effect, and so one inferreth another, and the cause is notior naturâ than the effect, and the effect is notior nobis than the cause, and soethey may infer one another. And it were to be marvelled if M. Dectour should hit upon none of these forms and manners. 20. But let us hear what M. Nicholas sayeth. for example (sayeth he) to prove the necessity of a Bishop in England, he serveth himself of these strange and unto ward propositions: that it is a divine law for every such particular Church, as England is, to havea Bishop: that without a Bishop England cannot be a particular Church: that unless every particular Church have it Bishop or Bishops, the whole Church should not (as Christ hath instituted) be a Higher archie composed of diverse particular Churches. That without a Bishop we cannot have Confirmation, which whosoever wanteth, is not, as M. Doctor sayeth, a perfect Christian. And are these harsh, strange and unto ward propositions, they being grounded in Scripture and the divine law? To speak with in compass, this saying of M. Nicholas, is a very rash assertion. 21. That these propositions are true & according to Scripture and the divine law, and consequently not harsh, I shall prove more at large in their proper places. Here I briefly argue thus: It is of the divine law that there must be Bishops in the Church, as M. Doctor hath proved in his 12.13. & 14. chap. and as M. Nicholas confesseth q. 3. n. 4. & 17. and cannot deny, if he willbe a Catholic. And why? But to supply the wants the Church hath of Preaching, Sacraments, and in particular of Confirmation, of which only the Bishop is ordinary Minister: but one Bishop cannot supply the wants of two notable parts, such as are England, Spain, and France: Ergo every notable part, such as these Countries are, must at least have one Bishop, and that also by the divine law. Soelikewise that without a Bishop a people cannot be a particular Church I shall prove in the next question. n. 2. For if it be true which S. Cypr. Ep. 69. ad Flor● Cyprian sayeth, that the Church is Sacerdo●i plebs adunata, Apeople united to the Priest, that is, Bishop; then that people which hath no Bishop cannot be a Church: and consequently also the whole Church cannot (as Christ hath instituted) be a Hierarchy composed of diverse particular Churches, unless these Churches have every one their Bishop. And hence it followeth also that without a Bishop, who is the Ordinary minister of Confirmation, we cannot, by ordinary course, be perfect Christians, because we cannot have Confirmation, which maketh us perfect Christians, as S. Clement and S. Vrban hereafter alleged do aver; as also other fathers, and S. Thomas of Aquin, and sundry divines, even jesuites, as we shall see in the 4. question. n. 15. These arguments are à priore, and are inferred from the extrinsecall cause, to wit, God his commandment and institution, which is a cause why Bishops are necessary in the Church. And therefore as we may argue from the ecclesiastical law, as from an extrinsecall cause, and say; the Church hath commanded to fast in Lent: Therefore we must fast: So we may argue from the divine law as from an extrinsecall cause, and say: God hath commanded that Bishops shallbe in the Church, and that every particular great Church must have it Bishop, ergo it must have him. And so it was harhlie and untowardly said of M. Nicholas that the above rehearsed propositions are harsh and untoward; they being grounded in Scripture and Fathers. 23. Th' 3. p. q. 72 art. 11. ad 1. And although S. Thomas of Aquin and many divines do affirm that by commission from the Pope, a Priest not Bishop may confirm: yet diverse also hold the contrary, as S. Bonaventure, Durand, Adrian VI Estius in 4. d. 17. Alphonsus à Castro, Verbo; Confirmatio: and they prove their opinion out of Eusebius Ep. 3. Pope Damasus Epist. 4. Innocentius III. de consuetud. cap. quando. Who expressly affirm that Confirmation cannot be given but by the Bishop, as in the primitive Church is was given by the Apostles only, to whom Bishops succeed, and not by the disciples to whom Priests succeed. 24. Yea they want not apparent reason. For (say they) the act of Confirming either it is appertaining to the Bishop by reason of his power of jurisdiction, or by reason of his power of Order. If by reason of his power of jurisdiction, than a Bishop elected and confirmed, but not consecrated, might confirm. For that he hath Episcopal jurisdiction, which yet never was seen, yea then this might be committed to a deacon, or an inferior minister, for he also is capable of Episcopal jurisdiction, as when one is elected and confirmed Bishop before he be Priest or deacon. If by reason of the power of Order, then as the Pope cannot give power to a deacon to consecrate, because that is proper to the Character and Order of a Priest, so he cannot give power to a Priest to confirm, that appertaining to the Character and Order of a Bishop. If the authors of the other opinion say, that the Priest's Character of itself is sufficient to confirm, they should contradict the Fathers alleged, who say that to confirm, is proper to the Bishop, and cánot agree to the Priest not Bishop. Besides thence it would follow that though the Priest in confirming might sinne, Confirmation being reserved to Bishops, yet as a Priest suspended if he consecrated, though he sinneth, yet consecration is valid: so if a Priest should confirm he should sinne, yet Confirmation would be valid, it being not above his character. And this opinion would answer to the fact of Saint Gregory, upon which the contrary opinion much relieth; that S. Gregory only permitted certain Priests! who before had presumed it, Greg. l. 3. ep. 9 ad januarium dist 90 cap pervenit. to anoint the baptised in the forehead, but not with the unction proper to Confirmation, nor with the form of words which the Bishop useth. Others answer otherwise. 25. And to the Counsels of Florence and Trent; which say that the ordinary Minister of Confirmation, is the Bishop, as though the extraordinary minister might be the Priest; They answer that these two Counsels define, that at least the Bishop is the Ordinary Minister, because it was disputed whether by commission, and as an extraordinary Minister, the Priest might confirm. And whereas the Council of Florence sayeth that It is read that sometimes by the dispensation of the Sea Apostolic a simple Priest hath confirmed; they answer the Council defineth not that this indeed hath ever been done, but that it is read so. Thus they. 26. But for all this, S. Thomas his opinion is most probable, being now especially most common, though not most secure. And this opinion would allege for it, the fact of S. Gregory and the two counsels alleged. And to the Fathers it would answer, that they mean only that the Bishop is the only Ordinary Minister of Confirmation, yet that the Priest may by commission from the Pope, confirm, and they would say that the Priest's Character of itself is sufficient to confirm, so that the Pope commit this to him; not that the Pope giveth him any power of Order, for that this Priests own Character is sufficient, so that this condition be also put, to wit, that the Pope commit him: and if he attempt to confirm without this commission he shall not validlie confirm; because he wanteth a condition necessary. But although this be a probable, & peradventure the more probable opinion, as being the more common, yet the first opinion is holden of all as undoubted, and so is most secure. 27. And so we have more reason to demand a Bishop then a Priest committed by the Pope, for that it is most certain that he can confirm, and by Confirmation give us strength against persecution, and make us perfect Christians. And therefore M. Doctor useth to say that without a Bishop, we cannot be a particular Church, nor have Confirmation, because the Bishop is the Ordinary and most assured Minister: and therefore this hereafter I will suppose. 28. M. Nicholas n. 13. affimerth that M. Doctor doth not a right compare Religious with Secular Priests. But to this he is fully answered in the sixth question, n. 1. Where he is told that if we take the Regular as Regular, according to that state and quality only, he is not, as so taken, of the Hierarchy, though as Regular he be above the laity, and an eminent member of the Church: but the Secular Priest, as a Secular Priest, considered in that state of a Priest, is of the Hierarchy. But more of this in that place shallbe said. 29. M. Nicholas number 14. sayeth the thing which I most wonder in a man of learning, is that those Fathers and Schools divines, which be produceth, for witnesses of his doctrine, are in deed against himself, as the Reader will see in his allegation of S. Cyprian, S. Clement, Sotus, Bannes etc. And I admire M. Nicholas, for many things; as for his cunning carriage of things, wilful mistake, false impositions etc. But most of all I wonder at his audacity, and that he hath the face to utter the aforesaid words so considentlie. No doubt the Reader cannot but think (he affirming it so boldly) that M. Doctor hath not alleged well these Fathers, and Doctors; but let him suspend his judgement until he come to the 2. question in M. Nicholas n. 2.9.10.11.17. Where he shall find it so clear and plain that those Fathers and Doctors are for M. Doctor, and against M. Nicholas, that when he hath read the places alleged, he will have cause never to credit M. Nicholas in this kind upon his word, albeit he make never so great or solemn protestations. 30. Lastlie M. Nicholas n. 15. accuseth again M. Doctor for derogating to my Lord of Chalcedons Ordinariship: but to this he is already answered and may have a fuller answer hereafter. 31. Thus in a cursory manner I have run over M. Nicholas his first question, not staying any long time about it, partly because the matter by him proposed did not require any longer discourse; partly because in his first question he seemeth principally to brag only what he will do, as in his seventh and last question he boasteth of what he hath done. But I having in the five middle questions answered him fully to all; and having showed that he hath not been able to disprove any one of M. Doctors assertions, nor to answer to any one of his arguments; it will plainly appear that in his firstquestion he breaketh promise, and in his last boasteth of more than he hath performed. THE SECOND QUESTION. Whether without a Bishop there can be a particular Church. MASTER NICHOLAS. MASTER Doctor in diverse parts of his Treatise doth teach, that without a Bishop, there can be no particular Church: And in his 14. Chapter where he endeanoureth to prove that a particular Country may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution, one of his main arguments is n. 9 because without a Bishop, there can be no particular Church. n. 1. REPLY. M. Nicholas Smith mistaketh M. D. kellison's arguments. 1. TRUE it is that M. Doctor Kellison in diverse places, of his Treatise doth teach, that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church: But as concerning that which M. Nichulas addeth, that one of his main arguments chap. 14. number. 9 is, be cause without a Bishop the●● cannot be a particular Church. I deny that this is one of M. Doctors main arguments to prove that a particular Country may not refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution, For that in that 14. Chapter. number. 4. M. Doctor, having affirmed that as England cannot except against the coming in of Priests by reason of persecution, so England cannot except against the coming in of a Bishop for fear of persecution: He addeth: And my reasons are two. The first is that, which I have often alleged, because the government of Bishops is instituted by Christ, and hath been in practice in the greatest persecution, as we have seen in the former Chapter. My secondreason is, because the commodity which a province reapeth by a Bishop is so great, and the want of him, is such a loss, that we should rather hazard persecution (as the Asrican catholics did) them to be deprived of a Bishop. And in this his second main reason he includeth 1. the necessity of a Bishop to make a perfect Christian: 2. the utility or necessity of Confirmation. 3. that without a Bishop there can be no particular Church. 4. that by Ordinary course without a Bishop there can be no hierarchical functions. So that these two only be M. Doctors main arguments; and that which he allegeth Chap. 14. n. 9 is not, as M. Nicholas sayeth, but only part of his second main argument. For if it had been by itself one of his main arguments, he would not have said: n. 4. And my reasons are two, but he should have said: And my reasons are five; because the seconde reason includeth four, which yet do all but make up one his second main reason. 2. Yet is that reason which M. Nicholas allegeth, a good reason also, because it being the divine law, that every particular Church of extent (for he speaketh not of every Diocese) should have its Bishop by whom it may be made a particular Church; the people that would resist a Bishop sent in by Lawful and Supreme authority (as our two last most Reverend Bishops were) should resist the divine Law and Institution, and so commit a sin. But of this more hereafter. M. NICHOLAS. Ep 69. ad Flor. This assertion, he proveth out of S. Cyprian, who sayeth, that the Church is: Sacerdoti plebs adunata, & pastori suo grex adharens: the Church is the people united to the Priest (Bishop) and the flock adbering unto its Pastor etc. And num. 3. Three things I will endeavour (sayeth he) to perform. First that the alleged words of S. Cyprian etc. Make nothing against us, but rather are for us, against himself &c. n. 2. & 3. THE REPLY. M. Doctor proveth sufficiently, and evidently out of S. Cyprian that without a particular Bishop, there can be no particular Church. 3 True also it is that M. Doctor alleged those words out of S. Cyprian to prove that a particular Church cannot be without a particular Bishop. And what bringeth M. Nicholas to disprove this? He answereth num. 4. that S. Cyprian doth not define the Church to be the people united and the flock adhering to a particular Priest and Pastor, but only. indefinitely, to the Priest and Pastor: and he addeth n. 5. and 6. that Saint Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schism do leave their Bishop. 4. But first, in that M. Nicholas denyeth that out of this definition of a Church, it necessarily followeth that a particular Church, cannot be without a particular Bishop; he contradicteth Cardinal Bellarmin who lib. 3. de Eccles militante cap. 5. allegeth this definition of S. Cyprian word by word, and lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae. cap. 8. he proveth that the Church by no means can be without Bishops, because S. Cypian sayeth, Ecclesians' esse Episcope adunatam, & Episcopum esse in Ecclesia, & Ecclesiam in Episcopo: that the Church is united to the Bishop, and that the Bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the Bishop. Where first by the word Sacerdoti, Priest, he understandeth a particular Bishop, not a Priest or Pastor indefinitely, as M. Nicholas said: because in that place he proveth that the Church cannot be without particular Bishops. Secondelie, he proveth out of this place, that the Church cannot be without Bishops, in the plural number. And why? But because particular Churches must have particular Bishops. For, the whole Church can have but one Supreme Bishop, her government being Monarchical, which requireth one Supreme Governor, as M. Doctor hath showed in his Hierarchy cap. 3. And there fore if it be necessary that in the Church there should be other Bishops, besides one Supreme Bishop, the reason must be, because the notable parts of the Church, which are of notable extent, must have their particular Bishops, by whom they may be made particular Churches, and so may compose the whole Church, and obey their particular Bishops with a subordination to the chief Bishop. Hence it is that the same Cardinal in the foresaied place, allegeth S. Hierom l. contra Luciferianos, who sayeth: Ecclesia non est quae non babet Sacerdotes: the Church is not, (or it is not a Church) which hath not Priests, that is, Bishops. And in his second Tome lib. unice de Sacramento Confirm. cap. 12. § Sextum augmentum, he sayeth out of S. Hierome contra Lutiferianos: Necesse est in singulis Ecclesijs unum esse Episcopum, ne si multi sine pares, & non ad unum summa referatur, schismata fiant: it is necessary that in every Church there be one Bishop, lest if many were equal, and the chief place or authorttie not given to one, Schisms should be. And dareth M. Nicholas gain say so learned a Cardinal, and him also a jesuite? 5. To Cardinal Bellarmin I shall add our learned Countryman Doctor Stapleton, whoin his fift book De potestatis Ecclesiasticae subiecto cap. 7. sayeth: non nisi propter pastors & praeposi●os, Ecclesiae nomine vocari debet aliqua multitudo. Vnde Cyprianus, Ecclesiam esse in Episcope; & Sanctus Hieronymus; ubi non sunt Sacerdotes, Ecclesiam non esse sapienter scripserunt: a multitude ought not to be called by the name of a Church, but only for the Pastors and Prelates. Whereupon, it is truly and wisely written by S. Cyprian, that the Church is in the Bishop; and by S. Hierome, that there is no Church where there are no Priests. And again Stapleton sayeth, that the word, Church, in Scripture signifieth properly, and, as it were, antonomasticallie, multitudinem non vagam aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: not a vagrant or head less multitude: sed cuiiam pastors & praepositi à Deo constituti sunt: But a multitude, to which Pastors and Prelates are constituted by God. 6. So that Cardinal Bellarmin and Stapleton (and so do all divines) require in the whole Church many particular Churches, and to particular Churches, particular Bishops: and M. Nicholas, in endeavouring to extenuate S. Cyprians definition of a Church, depriveth Catholic Authors of a principal authority, by which they prove against heretics that the Church cannot be without Bishops, and thereby he favoureth heretics. 7. Out of this definition of a Church given by S. Cyprian, to wit, that it is the people united to the Bishop, M. Doctor inferreth, that a people without a Bishop can be no particular Church. M. Nicholas q 2. n. 5. & 6. sayeth S. Cyprian speaketh of those who by Schism do leave their Bishop, and so are no Church. But this little availeth M. Nicholas: for that it is a Maxim in Logic grounded in one of the principal places or seats of arguments, called definitio, definition: That, Cuicunque non convenit definitio, non convenit definitum: to what thing soever the definition agreeth not, to that thing, the thing defined doth not agree: and so seeing that the definition of a Church according to S. Cyprian, is Sacerdoti plebs adunata, a people united to the Bishop; Stapl. l. 6. de potest. Eccles. Subiecto. c 7. which definition Stapleton in his sixth book Depotestatis Eccles. subiecto, cap. 7. commendeth for a good definition saying; Quenadmodum Ecclesiam bene definite Cyprianus, as Cyprian well defineth the Church to be a people united to its Priest (Bishop:) to what company or multitude soever that definition of a Church agreeth not, that multitude can not be a Church. Now a multitude may be without a Bishop, either because by Schism it cutteth itself disobedientlie from its Bishop, or because without its fault, it wanteth a Bishop: and which way soever it want a Bishop, it is no Church; because which way soever it want a Bishop, it is not a people united to its Bishop: Even as a body is not a perfect body without a head; whether it be deprived of its head, by a just, or by an unjust sentence, or whether it never had a head. Wherefore as S. Cyprian out of the a foresaied definition of a Church (which Stapleton commendeth for a good definition) inferred that the Novatians were no Church, because they had separated themselves by Schism from their Bishop; so M. Doctor might well also infer that what country or people soever hath not a Bishop, it is not a Church; because, as M. Nicholas is taught in Logic, Cui non convenit definitio, non convenit definitum: to whom the definition agreeth not, the thing defined agreeth not. This only is the difference; that they who separate themselves by Schism from the Bishop are not only no particular Church for want of a Bishop, but also are no members of the whole and universal Church, by reason of their Schism, which cutteth them of from the whole Church, as Bellarmin proveth in the place alleged: Bellar. lib. 3 de Eccles. milit. c 5. But they who without Schism, or heresy want a Bishop, though they be no particular Church by S. Cyprians definition, yet they are members of the whole Church. 8. And so the Catholics of England, who many years without their fault wanted a Bishop, wereindeed no particular Church; yet they were most worthy members, of the whole Church: and the heretics, of England, who by Schism and heresy, separated themselves from all particular lawful Bishops, yea from the universal Bishop himself, were not only no particular Church, but also were no members of the whole and universal Church, being cut of from it by schism and heresy. 9 But M. Nicholas cryeth out, that S. Cyprian out of that definition inferreth only that the Novatians, who had cut themselves of by schism were no Church. It is true: and what then? May not out of the negation of the definition diverse conclusions be inferred, and consequently, that they also who without schism want a Bishop be no Church? Else if M. Nicholas inferreth that a horse is not a man because to a horse agreeth not the definition of a man, which is; Animalrationale; M. Doctor must not infer that a mule is not a man, though the definition of a man agree not to it. And therefore this Maxim; Cui non convenit definitio, non convenit definitum; to whom the definition agreeth not, to it the thing defined agreeth not, as it is anuniversall proposition, so it is universally true: and seeing that the definition of a Church is a people united to a Bishop, that people which wanteth a Bishop whether by Schism, or otherwise, can be no Church because it cannot be a people united to a Bishop, unless it have a Bishop. And so all the while English Catholics wanted a Bishop, they were no particular Church, because all that while they could not be a people united to the Bishop. 10. M. Doctors ground being so fully proved to wit, that a people, cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop, his conclusion followeth in good consequence, to wit, that England, even as Catholic, all the while it wanted a Bishop, was not a particular Church; and M. Nicholas his foundation, which was, that a people Catholic is a Church though it have no Bishop, being shaken and refuted, all which M. Nicholas buildeth thereon falleth of itself, Nemine impellente, 11. As for example that which he sayeth pag. 13. ●. 4. that S. Cyprian speaketh of a Priest indefinitely, when he sayeth the Church is a people united to the Priest, and that therefore England, so long as it is united by obedience to the Bishop or Rome, is a particular Church without a particular Bishop; is rejected by that which is already said and proved. For as a Church in general is a Church, in that it is united to a Bishop, so a particular Church is that, which is united to a particular Bishop. To be united to the universal and Supreme Bishop, is sufficient to be a member of the Church; but to be a particular Church, is required also, that the multitude have a particular Bishop: else every Catholic family, every Nunnery, yea and company of Cathonlike women should be a particular Church, because they are subordinate to the Supreme Bishop. 12. And I wonder M. Nicholas cannot see this. For that as more is required to be a particular body of the Kingdom, then to be a member, so more is requisite to a particular Church, then to a member of the Church. For as if the King should take from a duchy the honour of a duchy, by depriving it for ever of a duke, that part of his Kingdom should still be a member of the kingdom, and subject to the King, but it should be no more a duchy: So if the Pope should deprive some one little province of its Bishop (as he may) though that Province be neither schismatical, nor heretical) that Province should cease to be a particular Church or Diocese, but yet should still remain a member of the universal Church. 13. So likewise that which M. Nicholas sayeth pag. 16. num. 6. falleth: because S. Cyprian in the Epistle alleged, by this definition of a Church. Which is; The people united to the Bishop, excludeth the Novatians, not only from being a Church, but also from being of the Church, in that by Schism they had separated themselves from their Bishop. But M. Nicholas demandeth: And what is all this to prove that a particular Church can be no 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 truly be a Church: Which is in effect, as doughty an argument as this: The soul, and body separated can make no true man: Ergo, if they be conjoined they cannot make a true man. Behold M. Nicholas his little subtility, who could not distinguish betwixt Schismatical separation, and faultelesse or merely negative separation. The Catholics of England, in King Henry the 8. his time, who remained in heart and profession subject to the Bishop of Rome, were only negatively separated from their particular Bishops, because King Henry, took them from them by urging them to follow him in his Schism. And so those Catholics not joined in that Schism with their Schismatical Bishops or King, were still members of the Catholic Church by their subordination and obedience to it, and its universal Bishop; but they were not a particular Church, because they wanted a particular Bishop. But the schismatics who left their law full Bishops and the chief Bishop also, or joined with their schismatical Bishops, were not only no particular Church for want of a lawful particular Bishop, but also were no more members of the Catholic Church, by reason of their Schism. 14. And so his example of the soul and body is not to the purpose, or is nothing against that I have said. For that as the soul united to the body maketh a man, and separated from it, maketh no man: so the people united to the particular Bishop maketh a particular Church; and if it be not united to him, maketh no particular Church, because it is not a people united to the particular Bishop; yet it may be a member of the whole and universal Church, if it be united to the rest of the Catholic Church and her chief pastor. Whereas they who are separated from their Bishop by schism, are not only no particular Church, as being not united to their Bishop, but also are no members of the Church because they are separated by Schism: So they who are separated only negativelie, are no particular Church, because they have no Bishop, yet are members of the whole Church, because they are not separated by Schism. 15. And M. Nicholas may learn by that which I said be fore (if he knew it not before) that it is not all one to be a particular Church or body, and and to be a member of the Church: and that every particular Church, is a member of the whole Church, but not every member of the Church, is a particular Church; because M. Nicholas alone is a member of the Church, but no particular Church, and every Catholic family is a member of the Church, but not a particular Church; as every subject & every town or village is a member of the Empire, which containeth many particular Kingdoms, yet is it not a particular Kingdom; for that a particular Kingdom requireth not only to be subject to the Emperor, but also to have a particular King under the Emperor. And therefore if the Emperor would for ever deprive a country of the dignity of a Kingdom, by decreeing that it should never have a King again, it should cease to be a Kingdom, but should still remain a member subject to the Emperor, in quality of a part and member of the Empire, but not in quality of a particular Kingdom. And I wonder M. Nicholas doth not see this, as it seemeth he doth not, in that he so often inculcateth it, and seemeth to think it most certain, that the Catholics in England remaining still good Catholics, not separated by Schism, must needs have been a particular Church all the while they had no Bishop. 16. In like manner that argument which he frameth against M. Doctor num. 6. out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church, is grounded in M. Nicholas his error so often refuted, by which he thinketh it is all one not to be cut of from the Bishop by Schism, and to be a particular Church; whereas how soever a people wanteth a particular Bishop, whether by Schism, or not schism, it can be no particular Church, because it cannot be a people united to its Bishop, when it hath no Bishop. Yet let us hear his argument. Thus than he argueth: 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. But M. Doctor I am sure would deny the first and Maior proposition of this M. Nicholas his Syllogism; for that the definition of a Church given by S. Cyprian is, Plebs Sacerdoti (Episcopo) adunata & Pastori suo grex adhaerens: a people united to the Priest (Bishop) and the flock adhering to its Pastor: Which definition is not fulfilled by those, who though free from Schism, have no particular Bishop, because they also are not a people adhering to their particular Bishop, they having none at all, and so are no Church. And if I should retort the like argument on M Nicholas, he would peradventure see his error, and the weakness of his own argument. For I could argue in the like manner: whosoever are not in Schism with any lawful Bishop, do fulfil the definition of a Church given by S. Cyprian: But a Catholic family consisting of the good man of she house, his wife, children, and servants, and considered by itself without a Bishop, is not in Schism with any lawful Bishop: Ergo such a family considered by itself without a Bishop doth fulfil the defifinition of a Church given by S. Cyprian, and consequenlie is a Church. Which yet M. Nicholas cannot grant; for although that Catholic family be a member of the whole, yet taken by itself, it is not a particular Church, as above is demonstrated, and by examples declared. MASTER NICHOLAS SMITH. That his (M. Doctor kellison's) application of S. Cyprians definition is injurious to English Catholics. n. 7. THE REPLY. M. Doctor Kellison is uniustly calumniated as injurious to English Catholics, for applying unto them S. Cyprians definition. 17. It will prove that M. Nicholas is injurious to M. Doctor, but not M. Doctor to English Catholics, when the matter shallbe examined. For, as we have seen above, S. Cyprian out of the definition of a Church; Sacerdoti plebs adunata, a people united to its Priest (Bishop) inferreth that the Novatians were not only no Church, because they had no Bishop, having left him; but also were not of the Church, because they had separated themselves by schism from Bishop and Church also. Cypr. ep. 69. And so (sayeth he) If any be not with the Bishop (to wit by reason of Schism) he is not in the Church, and they do in vain flatter themselves, who having not peace with the Priests of God, creep in, and beleine that secretly they are in communion with some etc. 18. But M. Doctor goeth not so fare, nor did he ever affirm, or think that the English Catholics were not of the Catholic Church, but in his Hierarchy diverse times calleth them most worthy members of the Church, and a mirror to all other Catholics, for their zeal towards God his cause, and their constance in Religion. Only he inferred out of the definition of a Church given by S. Cyprian, that they were not, all the time they had no Bishop, a particular Church, but yet were a worthy member of the whole Church. And so M. Nicholas wrongeth M. Doctor in saying, that in his application of S. Cyprians definition, he is Injurious to English Catholics, as though M. Doctor had inferred out of that definition, that the English Catholics, all the while they wanted a Bishop, were schismatics, & out of the Church, as the Novatians to whom S. Cyprian applieth his definition, were; Which is no less than a false calumniation. For although out of that definition of a Church, S. Cyprian inferred that the Novatians werenot only no Church, for want of a Bishop, but also Schismatics, out of the Church, because they were separated from the Bishop by Schism; which not only hindereth from being a particular Church, but also separateth and cutteth of from the whole Church. Yet M. Doctor inferred not that odious conclusion against the English Catholics; as M. Nicholas seemeth to say, and therefore sayeth that M. Doctors application is injurious to English Catholics: and giveth the reason, Because S. Cyprian said the Novatians are out of the Church: they have no peace with the Priests of God etc. but he only inferred out of the same definition (as I have told him above, that out of the same place or seat of arguments, as definition is, many conclusions may be deduced) that the English Catholics, all the while they had no Bishop, were no particular Church, because then the definition, of a Church, which is, A people united to its Bishop, did not agree to English Catholics: for how could they be a people united to their proper Bishop, who had none at all? And so M. Doctor is not injurious to Catholics, who pleadeth for a Bishop for them, to make them a particular Church and to have other honours and commodities by a Bishop; but M. Nicholas is injurious to them, who labours to hinder them from a Bishop, by whom they should be a particular Church (as formerly they have been) and that so glorious, that after the Church of Rome they might contend with the most glorious Churches of Europe. M. NICHOLAS SMITH. The second point which I undertook to make good, namely, that England may be a particular Church without a Bishop, is easily proved etc. pagin. 20. num. 8. THE REPLY. England was not a particular Church without a Bishop. 19 It is easily said M. Nicholas: but not so easily proved, as partly may appear by that which is already said: and S. Cyprians definition will still be a block in your way, at which you will infallibly stumble and perchance break your shins. 20. But how proveth he that the Catholics of England may be a Church without a Bishop? Because (sayeth he) the Pope in defect of particular Bishops, is the particular Bishop, Ordinary, and Diocesan of such Churches; as Philosophers do teach, that almighty God the supreme and universal cause of all effects, concurreth not only as an immediate, but also as a particular cause to the producing of effects, when second particular causes do fail. Thus he. 21. And if he mean that the Pope hath been a particular Bishop to England, he must show it, else M. Doctor may still say, that all the while England was without a particular Bishop, it was no particular Church; or if he think he may argue à possibili ad esse, from possibility to actual being, as if because the Pope can be England's proper Bishop, therefore be hath been so; then every one should be what he may be; and so M. Nicholas should be general of his order, because he may be, and he should be a man of fourscore years of age, because he may be; and be should now be at Rome again, because he may be. If he mean that the Pope so soon as a country or Diocese wanteth a Bishop, is actually that countries or Provinces particular Bishop, no Bishopric should be vacant; because so soon as the particular Bishop is dead, that Pope is the particular Bishop. And so when a rector of a College is dead, the Provincial should be rector, and when the Provincial is deceased, the General should be Provincial, and no office should ever be vacant; because the Superior officer should supply it; which is absurd: and yet be it never so absurd, it seemeth M. Nicholas his opinion. For he sayeth; that the Pope in defect of a particular Bishop, is the particular Bishop, ordinaie and Diocesan of such Churches, to wit, which want a particular Bishop. Which is a strange opinion of M. Nicholas his own invention. And by this his doctrine it would follow, that if per impossibile there were never a particular Bishop, in all the Church but the Pope, the Church should still be hierarchical, composed of diverse particular Churches, because the Pope should be in that case not only an universal Bishop of all the Church, but also a particular Bishop of every particular Church, and so one sole Bishop (the Pope) should make a Hierarchy, which consisteth of diverse particular Churches. 22. Yet I will not deny, but that the Pope to honour a Bishopric which before his Popedom he enjoyed, may retain still the Title of that Bishopric, Ex Baron. anno. 1849. Leon Papa 9 anno 1. as Leo IX. did the Title of the Bishopric of Tulle. Yea he may though universal Bishop of the universal Church, be also the particular Bishop of a particular Church, as he is de facto particular Bishop of S. John Lateran: but then he must either do the office there of a Bishop by himself, or by his delegate; or at least he must take unto himself the Title of that Church, not only in name, but in very deed; else he shall not be a particular Bishop. I say, or at least he must take unto himself he Title; for that seemeth to be sufficient to make a particular Bishop, as we may gather by diverse examples: for that there is a Patriarch of Jerusalem in Rome, who neither doth the office there by himself, or any delegate, because he cannot be permitted; and my Lord of Chalcedon, though he do the office of a Bishop only in England, and not at Chalcedon, either by himself, or his delegate because it will not be permitted him to do so; Yet he is truly the particular Bishop of Chalcedon, because he hath the Title and right to govern that Church granted unto him. 23. Now therefore if M. Nicholas can show me that the Pope hath done the office of a Bishop in England by himself or his delegate, or that he hath taken to himself the Title of the Bishop of England, I shall grant that all this while we had no particular Bishop in England, he hath been our particular Bishop: If he cannot, as all the world knoweth he cannot: for neither hath the Pope been in England in person, nor hath he sent before these two most Reverend Bishops any Bishop into England to do there the offices of a Bishop, which is to confirm and ordain; nor hath he ever taken unto him the Title of the Bishop of England: then M. Doctors assertion is true, to wit, that all the while England had no particular Bishop, it was no particular Church, because, as S. Cyprian sayeth, the Church is a people united to the Bishop, which England could not be, when it had no Bishop. It is true the Pope is Bishop of the whole Church, and so of England, as it was a member of the whole: but he having never done there the office of a Bishop by himself or his delegate, nor ever taking unto him the Title of the Bishop of England, he was not England's particular Bishop, and so England by him could be no particular Church. 24. To M. Nicholas his similitude which he mamaketh betwixt God the first and universal cause of all effects, and the Pope the universal Bishop; I answer, that as God can supply the external actions of second causes, called Actiones transeuntes, & therefore can produce heat without fire, a man without a man, a tree without a tree, as he did in the first creation of things: Yet he cannot, as some hold, produce immanent actions without their particular causes, and powers: & so cannot produce the act of seeing without the eye of hearing, without the ear, of love without the will, of understading without the power of understanding. But how soever; as God can produce the former external actions without their particular causes, and so supply the second cause: So the Pope if he be not only elected Pope, but also consecrated, can do all the actions by himself, which patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests and other inferior Ministers can do. For he can ordain Ministers, and confirm the baptised with the Bishop; he can consecrace, absolve, and minister other Sacraments, and preach with the Priest; Yea he can do other inferior offices with the Deacon, Subdeacon and therest, though it be not so convenient he should. And so as God can be not only an universal but also a particular cause, supplying the particular cause: so the Pope can be a particular Bishop, but then he must do the office of a particular Bishop by himself, or his delegate, or take the Title of that particular Church unto him. 25. That the Pope hath founded Seminaries of Priests for our country; that he hath sent thither first Priests, and then Religious men (as M. Nicholas telleth us n 8. and we all gratefully acknowledge) to preach and minister Sacraments in our Country; as this argueth his great care of England, and his no less charity; so it arguerh not (as M. Nicholas would make his reader believe) that he was our particular Bishop; he neither by himself, nor by his delegate doing the office of a Bishop in England, nor ever having taken unto him the Title of the Bishop of England. And so since the decease of our old Bishops, to these late years, in which his Holiness sent us two most worthy Bishops, England was no particular Church, because it had no particular Bishop to make it a particular Church, 26. And by this M. Nicholas may gather an answer to all that he sayeth n. 8.9.10.12.13. In his 11. number he objecteth against this; that many places and persons are exempt from the jurisdiction of a Bishop, be fides the Pope: neither did any man ever dream, that for that cause they ceased to be particular Churches. I here pity M. Nicholas his arguing, and the necessity he is driven to, which Cogit ad turpia. For although monasteries be exempt from the Bishop and immediately subject to the Pope; yet no particular congregation or multitude, that is a particular Church, can be exempt from a particular Bishop, as we have proved out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church, unless the Pope make himself particular Bishop of it. And therefore monasteries subject only to the Pope, and exempt from particular Bishops, are indeed members of the Church, but not a particular Church; unless M. Nicholas will make every nunnery of women a particular Church. 27. But here I cannot but marvel that M. Nicholas thinketh it so strange that M. Doctor sayeth, that there cannot be a particular Church without a Bishop; and it should seem thereby that he hath not much considered S. Thomas his doctrine in this point. For that this learned Doctor sayeth, D. Th. libr. 4. gent. c. 76. n. 4.1. p. q. 108. art. 1.2.3. that the Church militant, is derived by similitude from the Triumphant: and he sayeth also that every Order of the Angels consisteth of diverse Angels subordinate to one Prince, who in this Doctors opinion is higher and perfecter in nature them the rest, and is the particular Prince of that Order; and all the orders with their particular Princes are subject to one supreme Angel, who is Prince of the three Hierarchies, and nine Orders of Angels: And therefore in the Church militant, in every notable part of it, there must be, and most commonly is, a Bishop, a spiritual Prince of that Church, and all the particular Churches with their particular Hierarches and Bishops, are subordinate to one supreme Bishop, the Pope, as M. Doctor hath proved in the 3. and 4. Chapter of his Hierarchy. And therefore in his 2. Chapter he sayeth that the Church is compared to a Kingdom, in which besides the King are Dukes, Earls, Marquises, Barons, etc. who are princes, in their kind, of their particular dominions, and all are, with their Dominions & Lordships, subordinate to the King: and if any of these particular dominions be quite deprived of their Duke, or Earl, they are no more Dutchies or Earldoms; though still they be members of the Kingdom; and so that particular Province deprived of its Duke or Earl, giveth not that lustre to the Kingdom, which it hath by other particular Lordships, and bodies of the Kingdom. 28. In like manner the Church being a Hierarchy, is composed of diverse particular Churches of which every one hath its particular Bishop, who is not the Popes delegate, but an ordinary, and a Prince in his kind: and the Church receiveth by this variety of particular Bishops & particular Churches, a great lustre. And when any notable part of it wanteth its particular Bishop and spiritual prince, although the Church remain still a Hierarchy, in respect of other particular Churches, which have their particular Hierarche and Bishop; yet in respect of that part of the Church, which hath no Bishop, and which therefore is not a particular Church or body, it is not perfectly hierarchical, nor hath it by that part of the Church that variety, and lustre, which it hath by other parts, of which every one hath its particular Bishop. 29. Wherefore when the Pope giveth to a country a delegated Bishop, though many times he giveth to the delegate more power than the ordinary hath, although that country then be in its kind a particular Church, yet it wanteth some perfection, it being not governed by an ordinary Bishop and Pastor, as other Churches are, it being more perfect, and more honourable to have an ordinary, than a delegate. And likewise if the Pope should send a simple Priest into England with power to confirm, England should be in its kind a particular Church, but not in that degree of perfection, as if it had an ordinary Bishop and Pastor. 30. Whereas M. Nicholas n. 14. sayeth that his last task in this question was to show, that although he should freely grant that a particular Church cannot be without a Bishop; Yet it were not sufficient to prove that a Bishop could not be refused by reason of persecution. He bringeth in this out of its place; and somust expect his answer in the next question. Whereas he demandeth a precept to receive a Bishop, and that also indispensable: Hath not M. Doctor in his 12. Chapter of his Hierarchy proved at large, that by the divine law and institution, besides one supreme Bishop, there must be other Bishops in the Church, without which the Church cannot subsist, because without particular Bishops of particular Churches, the whole Churches should not be hierarchical? Hath he not in his 13. Chapter proved also, that Bishops by the divine institution and law, are so necessary, that even in time of persecution they are to govern the Church, as they ever have done in the greatest persecution? Hath he not proved in his 12. Chapter. that by the divine ordinance, every great part of the Church, such as England, France, Spain, is to have its Bishop? But more of this in due place; where also I shall show whether this divine law holdeth in all circunstances. What need then had Master Nicholas to demand a precept where the Divine law is so often inculcated. M. NICHOLAS SMITH. The reason which M. Doctor addeth that: as the whole Church hath one supreme Bishop to govern it, so every particular Church also must have its Bishop, or Bishops, else it should not be a particular Church, and so the whole and universal Church should, not (as Christ hath instituted) be a Hierarchy composed of diverse particular Churches. n. 16. REPLY. M. Nicholas wresteth M. Doctors argument to a wrong and odious sense. 31. M. Doctors argument is good and solid: for as the whole and universal Church requireth a a supreme and universal Bishop over all, to make it a whole Church; so a particular Church requireth a particular Bishop to make it a particular Church, as above is often proved; and otherwise if particular Churches had not their particular Bishop, the whole and universal Church, which consisteth of many particular Churches, should not be a Hierarchy, as Christ hath instituted. But M. Nicholas not so modestly as were to be expected of one of his coat, sayeth that this argument deserveth no answer, and why? Because, sayeth he, who dare say, that there is as great necessity or obligation to have a Bishop in every particular Church, as to have one supreme head of the Whole Calike Church? 32. And thus (as he useth to do) taking M. Doctor wilfully or ignorantly in a wrong sense he runneth on. For M. Doctor only said, that as the whole and universal Church cannot be a whole Church, without a supreme and universal Bishop; so a particular Church cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop: whence by no Logic it followeth that there is absolutely as great necessity of a particular Bishop, as of the universal and supreme Bishop. Because the Church cannot be at all without a supreme Bishop, or nor without order to him, when the Sea is vacant: but it may subsist though a particular Bishop, and his Church also should fall from the Church by Schism or heresy, and it should still remain hierarchical in other particular Churches, which have their particular Bishops, as is easy to see by that, which is already said. For although the Greek Church for the greatest part be cut of from the Roman Church by schism and heresy, and so the Roman Church in it, is not hierarchical, yet the Roman Church still subsisteth, and is hierarchical in other Churches. And this I shall illustrate by an example. The Empire is an universal Kingdom which containeth in it diverse particular Kingdoms. Wherefore as the whole Kingdom of the Empire cannot be a whole Kingdom without a supreme King and Emperor; so a particular Kingdom of the whole Empire cannot be a particular Kingdom without a particular King, but yet there is not absolutely such necessity of a particular King or Kingdom, as of the Emperor, who is supreme King. For that although that a particular King and Kingdom should be cassired, and should be no more a Kingdom, nor have its particular King, yet the Empire might still subsist by its supreme King and Emperor, and by other Kingdoms, which are governed by him. And therefore M. Nicholas forceth me to say that he showeth a great deal of spleen towards M. Doctor, in taking M. Doctor in a wrong sense, as though he had said that there was as great necessity of a particular, as of a supreme Bishop; and then inferring, that his doctrine is subject to a deeper censure than he is willing to express. 33. And what Censure, I pray you, M. Nicholas deserveth it to say, that as the whole Catholic Church cannot be without a supreme and universal Bishop; so a particular Church cannot be a particular Church, without a particular Bishop? In what council doth M. Nicholas find this censured? And doth not common sense and reason censure M. Nicholas, for calling this in question? Is it any more than to say, that as an Empire and universal Kingdom requireth a supreme King and Emperor, so a particular Kingdom of the said Empire requireth a particular King? And to infer hence that M. Doctor sayeth a particular Bishop is as necessary, as the supreme Bishop is, to uphould the Church of God, is as absurd, as to infer that a particular King, is as necessary to uphould the Empire as the Emperor himself is. 34. And so when M. Nicholas addeth: what Catholic dare avouch that because England for the space of 60. years wanted a Bishop, the universal Church, that time was not, as Christ instituted, a Hierarchy composed of diverse particulars: is of the same stuff: for where or when did M. Doctor ever say thus as M. Nicholas maketh him to say? I confess M. Nicholas his cavilling in this manner and false construing, yea false alleging, would move some little passion in me; but that I am resolved to imitate M. Doctors temper and mild manner of writing, of which he giveth me example in his Hierarchy. M. Doctor said only that the Church cannot subsiste a Hierarchy, as Christ instituted, unless it be composed in general of diverse particular Churches which have their particular Bishops: but he never said that the Church cannot subsist without a particular Church, nor that all the time England was without a Bishop, the rest of the Church, composed of particular Churches, which were, and are, and ever shallbe subordinate to the supreme Bishop, was not, as Christ instituted, a Hierarchy: as above he is sufficiently told: only he said, that England, so long as it wanted a Bishop was not a particular Church: and that the whole Church should not be a Hierarchy, if it were not composed of particular Churches and Bishops: Which it may be, and was in other particular Churches, when England wanted a Bishop, and should still be so, although (as God forbid) England were quite cut of from the whole Church and had not one Catholic in it. 35. Having thus demonstrated M. Doctors doctrine which averred that a people, Province, or Country, cannot be a particular Church without a particular Bishop, and consequently that all the time England wanted a Bishop it was not a particular Church: and having also detected in M. Nicholas wilful or ignorant mistake, which commonly are the grounds of all his arguments, & having answered to all his arguments; I will go to the next question, if first I add this; that seeing that England when it had no particular Bishop was no particular Church; M. Nicholas and his brethren, out of the love they ought to bear to their country, should labour with the Clergy that we may always have a Bishop or Bishops, by whom we may have the honour to be a particular Church, and enjoy many other comforts and commodities which other countries enjoy by their Bishops, which to English Catholics seem most necessary by reason of their persecution. THE THIRD QUESTION. Whether by the divine law every particular Church must have its Bishop. MASTER NICHOLAS. TO prove, that a particular Country may not refuse Bishops, by reason of persecution, M. Doctor in his 14. Chapter allegeth, that it is De jure divino, of the divine law, to have a particular Bishop in every particular Church and for proof he citeth Sotus affirming it to be of the divine law etc. and Bannes teaching etc. n. 1. THE REPLY. 1. I Confess M. Doctor in his 14. Chapter averreth that a particular Country cannot except against a Bishop sent by lawful authority; & one ground there of is because by the divine law & institution, not only the whole and universal Church must have an universal and supreme Bishop, but also there must be in the whole Church diverse particular Churches, governed by particular Bishops even in time of persecution, as he hath proved in his 13. Chapter. And this also he proveth in the beginning of his 14. Chapter n. 1. Yea M. Nicholas num. 4. sayeth, that certain it is, that jure divino, by the divine law, the Church must be governed by Bishops, that is, in the whole Church there must be some Bishops: but to affirm that it is De iure divino to have a particular Bishop in the particular Church of England, and not only that there is such a precept, but moreover, that no persecution can excuse the obligation thereof, or give sufficient cause of dispensation (all which he must prove if be will speak home) is a paradox. 2. But soft, M. Nicholas, bona verba quaeso. Remember your old fault of which you have been so often told. By your leave you make M. Doctor to say more than he doth, that he may seem to speak Paradoxes, and you may have more advantage. For M. Doctor in the same Chapter num. 3. (which M. Nicholas would not see) granteth that if the persecution be so great that a Bishop would not be permitted to enter into England, or would presently be taken and put to death; than it was to no purpose to send a Bishop with evident hazard of his life, and no hope of good to the people by sending him; and so in that case the obligation of having a Bishop should cease. But, (sayeth M. Doctor in the same place.) If a Bishop may be bad, and may so live in a Country (as he may in England) that as there is fear lest he be apprehended, so there is hope he may escape sometime, and so do some notable good: I do not think that the Catholics of that Country can except against his entrance. 3. Nor doth M. Doctor deny that the Pope may dispense in the divine law, or declare that in some cases it ceaseth to oblige: yea he speaketh not at all of dispensation in the divine law. Yet M. Doctor knoweth that the chief Pastor may dispense in vows, and in Matrimony contracted only, not consummated; which yet are of the divine law. 4. And he knoweth also the divine laws in many circunstances do not oblige. As for example every one is bound by the divine law to receive the B. Sacrament, at the hour of his death lest he adventure on that so dangerous journey from this life to the next, without his Viaticum; and yet, though a Priest be present, if he have not holy vestments (without which the Church commandeth not to celebrate Mass) he must not say Mass, because he cannot say it in that manner as he should, and the sick person is, in that occurance of the ecclesiastical law, freed from divine obligation to communicate. 5. So that Priest by the divine law is bound not to give the B. Sacrament to any whom he koweth to be in mortal sin, and so unworthy; and yet if this party be a secret sinner (though known to the Priest) and demand of the Priest in public to communicate he is bound to communicate him, lest he defame him; and the divine law which forbiddeth the Priest to give the B. Sacrament to unworthy Persons according to that: do you not give the holy to dogs; Mat. 7. doth in that case cease to oblige the Priest. 6. So it is a common opinion of divines whom Vasquez allegeth, Vasq. tom 3. disp 207. c. 4. 1. Cor. 11. Conc. Trid. Sess. 13 cap. 7. that by the divinelaw whosoever is in mortal sin must confess that sin before he presume to receive the B. Sacrament; which they prove out of those words of S. Paul: But let a man prove himself, and so let him eate of the bread and drink of the Chalice; which probation of ones self, the Council of Trent defineth to be by Confession; and yet if the Priest at Mass, or the lay party, that is in company kneeling before the altar, remember at that time his sin, he may communicate, if by omitting to do so he should defame himself. And so in that case also the divine law ceaseth to bind to confession, and it will excuse him from the sin of unworthy receiving, if he endeavour to get contrition. 7. And Navarre feareth not to say, Nanar in Silma c. 27 n. 263. that it is Omnium una conclusio etc. it is a conclusion of all, that many laws, agreeing to many by the divine and natural law, are restrained by the chief Prince 〈◊〉 the Church, in regard of spiritual things; and of the secular Prince, in respect of temporal matters, as well by interpretation betwixt right and equity interposed, as by imposition of punishment, as by inst dispensation, as by just and naturallreason, and Felinus, Decius and others do copiously deliver. 8. Wherefore M. Doctor doth not say that the Pope cannot in some cases dispense in the divine law, of having a Bishop, or declare that in son case it bindeth not, and therefore did not presume to say that the Pope, all this whlie he gave not England a Bishop, did commit a sin against the divine law; rather he defendeth him from all sinnein his 14. chapter n. 3. Only he sayeth that the Country cannot except against the entrance of a Bishop (so he be sent by lawful authority, as our two last most Reverend Bishops were) for that then the Pope rather declareth that the divine law ceaseth not to oblige: and therefore let our Regulars look how they can be excused, who except against a Bishop, whom the Pope hath sent, and who, no doubt, was informed of all circumstances: and therefore knew whether it were convenient to send him at that time or not. And truly seeing the Pope hath sent him, all Regulars, and they especially who have bound themselves particularly to the Pope by a fourth vow, should by a perfect resignation conform their wills to his will, receive and embrace his Bishop with all obedience and humility. M. NICHOLAS SMITH. But although we should grant, that as M. Doctor affirmeth, a great or notable part of the Church could not jure divino be governed without a Bishop: yet that would be fare 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 etc. n. 7. THE REPLY. Supposing it be of the divine law that a great or notable part of the Church could not be without a Bishop, whether England as things now stand, must needs have a Bishop? 9 M. Nicholas sayeth first that although we should suppose that a notable part cannot be without a Bishop, yet England (see how favourable he is to his country) might spare a Bishop, or at lest must not needs have one. And why M. Nicholas? because (sayeth he) we must not consider the extent of the land, but the number of Catholics in England, which, as he telleth us, is so fare from a great, or notable part of the Church, that the Catholics in England would scarce make one Bishopric or Diocese. And (sayeth he) to affirm that one Diocese or City is a notable part of the Church, is a thing which no divine, yea no man of judgement, will say. But by this we may see into what absurdities partiality may lead men. 10. See, how to hinder English Catholics, from a Bishop, what an handful of people he maketh them. The Ancient Fathers and writers, as justinus Martyr. Tertullian, S. Leo cited by M. Doctor in his Epistles Dedicatories to his Survey, and Hierarchy, gloried in the increase of Christians, maugre the fury of persecution; and M. Doctor in the same Epistles comforteth and encourageth the Catholics of England, that notwithstanding the like rage of persecution there are Catholics in the Court, in the Universities, Cities, Towns, Cottages, prisons: & are found amidst the Magistrates; yea Ministers (if we regard their hearts) and amongst all sorts of people: And this is a comfort to Catholics, a glory to God, and an honour to Chuste his Church, and Religion, for which Catholics suffer. But M. Nicholas to hinder England from a Bishop, who seemeth to be an eye sore unto him, maketh English Catholics an handful of men, a little, and, as it were, a contemptible number not worthy a Bishop. But, thankes be God, who hath the more multiplied English Catholics, Exod. 1. the more with the Israelites they have been oppressed, they are not so few, Deut. 12. as M. Nicholas maketh them; and in this Inimicinostri sunt judices: Our enemies (our persecutors) may herein be judges. 11. But if they were not so many, as they be, yet Confirmation, and consequently a Bishop, especially in time of persecution, were necessary to confirm them virtute exalto; with virtue of the holy Ghost from above; which virtue and force, Luca. 24. is the effect of Confirmation. Neither is the case of England, and of one particular Diocese annearing and joining to others, all one. For that one Diocese may be helped by another adjoining to it, or by recourse to the Bishop of it, if there shallbe heed, whereas England, as the Poet sayeth, is Divided, by Sea, from the whole world, and cannot have convenient succour, but by its own Bishop, with in itself. 12. And again M. Nicholas sayeth not truly that the multitude of Catholics, not the extent of the place, is only to be considered, Dist. ●o. cap. In illis vere civitatibus. Suarez to. 3. l. 1 destatu perf. c. ● 17. n. 5 for in the primative Church, as S. Clement in his Epistle to S. Tames, called the brother of our Lord, or as diverse think, to S. Simeon S. james his successor, which is alleged in the Canonlaw, and by Suarez and other divines, sayeth, that in the primative Church, in those Cities, which before their conversion, were esteemed Capital Cities, and were governed by Archflamines, primates and patriarchs were constituted; and in lesser cities, which had before their conversion lesser Flamines, Archbishops were placed, and in other lesser Cities, one only Bishop in one City, not two in one, were appointed. And Pope Auaclete, Anacl. ep 3 & refert. d 90. c. Episcopi. alleging out of S. Clement, whom he calleth his predecessor, the same words in effect, sayeth that this was done by S. Peter, and S. Clement, and himself, ORDINANTE DOMINO, Our Lord so ordaining. And the same S. Anaclete (as M. Doctor had alleged in the fift Chapter of his Hierarchy n. 11.) in the same third Epistle hath these words: Episcopi autem, non in castellis, aut modicis Civitatibus debent constitui, sed presbyteriper castella, aut modicas civitates atque villas debent ab Episcopis constitui: Bishops not in castles or little walled towns, must be constituted: but Priests must by the Bishop be placed in Castles or little Cities: And he giveth the reason: Ne vilescat nomen Episcopi, lest the name of a Bishop should be less esteemed. 13. So that a regard was had (whatsoever M. Nicholas sayeth) to the extent of the place where a Bishop was to be placed) and not only to the number of Christian Catholics there living. When S. Peter chose Rome the Head City of the Empire for himself and his successors; when S. Mark was placed at Alexandria, S. Euodius, and after him S. Ignatius at Antioch, and S. james, and after him S. Simeon at Jerusalem, they had respect to the material greatness, and the dignity of the place; & in such places appointed patriarchs or primates, who had under them other Bishops; because the extent of the place required it. And although at first, in some of these Cities there were not so many Christians as were afterward in one Diocese; Yet they perceiving that in these great Cities and extentes of place there might be many more Christians, which might be increased by the presence and industry of their Prelate, they placed in them patriarchs or Archbishops, or Bishops according to the extent of the place. Who as spiritual Fathers may beget many thousands to Christ, and may rule them when they are begotten; as the carnal Father first begetteth, then governeth his children. 14. M. Nicholas hath read in his Breviarie 17. Nou. how S. Gregory called Thaumaturgus of the wondrous miracles he wrought: at the hour of his death, demanding how many infidels there were remanent in his City, and answer being made that there were seventeen; God be thanked, said he, I found so many when I accepted of my Bishopric. Where M. Nicholas may see that for the placing of a Bishop, there was had a regard not only to the number of the Christians, but also to the extent, and greatness of the place; otherwise seventeen Christians should not by M. Nicholas his count have had a Bishop. And the reason is, which M. Nicholas considered not; for that a Bishop is appointed, not only as a Ruler to govern Christians already converted, but as a Father to beget Christians by his preaching, and example as Saint Paul and the Apostles did, who at their first preaching found few or none to govern, yet by their preaching were Fathers of the whole world. And so although in England there were not so many Catholics as there are in one Diocese in a Catholic Country (though, thankes be to God, there are many thousand Catholics, and many hundred Priests, who deserve a Bishop to govern them, and to confirm those that have not Confirmation) yet England by reason of the extent of the Island might require a Bishop, yea many Bishops, in that so great an Island is capable of many more Catholics, than a Diocese can hold, especially if it may enjoy the benefit of a Bishop or Bishops. 15. But I do not marvel that M. Nicholas laboureth so hard to hinder England from a Bishop, for that peradventure he is of the opinion of those, who in An answer to the Bishop of Chalcedons letter, to the Lay Catholics of England, which was sent unto him by the Heads of three Regular Orders, do call Episcopal authority in England, and in these times a Novelty, though as old as Christ and his Apostles; Odious, though proceeding from Christ his love to his Church, unto which it is much beneficial; Derogating to the ancient laws of England, though England by Bishops hath many hundred years been conserved in religion, piety, sanctity & all ecclesiastical splendour; Pernicious to souls, though instituted for their gaining, government and salvation. Which opinion, in a manner is worse than Caluins' opinion, for that it is less injurious to Christ, to deny all Episcopal authority, as Caluin doth, then to say that Christ hath iustituted and given to his Church an authority, which is a Novelty; odious, derogating to temporal laws of Kings; pernicious to souls. I say, In a manner; for that these Regulars do not absolutely speak in these terms of Episcopal authority; but only in England, in this time of persecution, they count it a Novelty, we having not had till of late a Bishop of long time; odious, derogating to ancient laws and pernicious, at this time: Which yet will hardly serve for a just excuse, Christ having instituted this authorities and given it to the Apostles in the beginning of the greatest persecution, and they having exercised it in the greatest fury of persecution, maugre all the laws threats and menaces of the cruel persecutors. And if Episcopal authority in time of persecution be odious and pernicious; when shall it be grateful and profitable. Certes if when the wolf invadeth the flock, the Pastors' presence be odious and pernicious when can it be profitable? M. NICHOLAS SMITH. Enough hath been said to disprove M. Doctors Tenet in this present question, yet nothing will more disaduamtage his assertion that when the reader shall by my answer clearly perceive his own augments, either to go beside the matter, or to prove against himself, n. 8. And n. 9 his first argument is taken out of Sotus affirming it to be De jure divino of the divine law etc. REPLY. Sotus his opinion concerning that point, whether by the divine law; every Church must have its Bishop, maketh for M. Doctor, and against M. Nicholas. 16. M. Nicholas braggeth that he hath said enough, and in deed to much unless he had said more to the purpose, as partly hath been, shown partly shall: but (sayeth he) nothing will more disadvantage his assertion, then when the Reader shall see by my answers, that M. Doctors arguments are beside the matter, or against himself. Thus he: but by his leave he still continueth his old fault in making M. Doctor say more than he doth. For M. Doctor doth not impose upon Sotus more than he sayeth, as M. Nichoas imposeth on M. Doctor. M. Doctor only relateth Sotus his words, leaving the Reader to conceive that sense which the words offer. And although M. Doctor doth not say so much of him, or his words: Yet his words may very well have; Yea indeed have a sense which favoureth M. Doctor. 17. Sotus. l 10. de Iust. & jure q. 1. ar. 4. Let us therefore hear Sotus his words: He sayeth it is Deiure divino quodin genere singulis Ecclesijs, secundum Ecclesiasticam diutsionem, sui applicentur Episcopi; it is of the divine law, that in general, to every particular Church, according to the Ecclesiastical division, their proper Bishops are to be applied. Which words may very well have, and indeed have another interpretation, then M. Nicholas giveth, and they do clearly favour that which M. Doctor said; to wit, that by the divine law, every particular Church, at lest which is a notable part of the whole Church (of which M. Doctor speaketh) should have its Bishop. For, supposing that Christ hath instituted a Hierarchy composed of diverse particular Churches, governed by particular Bishops, and hath given to the Church authority to make this division of diverse Churches and Dioceses; Sotus, as by the former words may be gathered, is of opinion, that supposing the division of Dioceses, every Diocese (much more every notable part of the Church, as England, France &c.) is by the divine law and appointment to have its Bishop, not Peter, or Paul, but one indeterminatelie: and this by virtue of our Saviour's institution in general, whereby that order is set generally, and every where to be observed, Singulis Ecclesijs ut sui applicentur Episcopi; that to every particular Church their proper Bishop should be applied. And thus in general, the election of Bishops is Deiure divino, of the divine law. And therefore when a Pope doth apply a Bishop to a Diocese, he doth but that which our Saviour, hath before instituted in his general institution, and commandment, singulis Ecclesijs sui applicentur Episcopi; that to every Church their proper Bishops should be applied. 18. That the division of Dioceses is Ecclesiastical, that is, introduced by the Church, it is not material; for that according to Sotus the divine law stillis general, commanding in general that all Dioceses divided by the Church, be they more or fewer, of greater or less extent, each must have its Bishop in it. 19 So our B. Saviour having instituted in general, that under every host rightly consecrated, there shall infallibly be his sacred body; be the host consecrated divided into many or few, great or small parts (which determination dependeth of man, as the division of Dioceses dependeth of the Church) the body of Christ is in each of them, by virtue of the consecration. And that this is the meaning and scope of Sotus, may appear by these words of Sotus himself: Nunquid propterea, quod per Ministrum Dei, illa factà fuerit applicatio, continuo fit consequens non fuisse divinam? Doth it therefore follow that it is not the divine Institution, that every Diocese should have its Bishop, because that application, of a particular Bishop to a particular Diocese, was made by the minister of God? Out of which M. Doctor may infer against M. Nicholas that, in the opinion of Sotus, according to the divine law, every Diocese must have its Bishop, and M. Nicholas can infer nothing against, but rather for M. Doctor, to wit that at lest by the divine law, every notable part of the Church (as England, France &c.) must have its Bishop. 20. To this. M. Nicholas answereth n. 10. that Sotus his meaning is not, that the Pope is obliged by the divine law to give particular Bishops to every particular Diocese; but only, that when the Pope doth confirm and consecrate a Bishop, and give him charge of some particular Diocese, in such cases 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. This M. Nicholas confirmeth by Sotus his own words in the same place, where he sayeth: Dum Dei minister etc. Whilst the minister of God by his command dispenseth that which he (God) instituted, the action is to be esteemed of the divine law: but when the Pope doth confirm and consecrate a Bishop and apply him to some Church, he executeth that which Christ in general (Mark) did institute, and which he commanded them to do; therefore such an action ought to be said of the divine law. Whence M. Nicholas sayeth, it is plain against M. Doctor, that Sotus speaketh of the Institution of Christ only in general. 21. But M. Nicholas, goeth about to deceive men in generalities, when he bids us Mark, that Sotus sayeth that Christ only instituted and commanded in general that there should be Bishops. For that this may have two meanings; the one, that Christ instituted and communded only in general, that there should be Bishops in the Church: and this is M. Nicholas his interpretation: The other, that Christ in general instituted and commanded, that not only in general there should be Bishops in the Church, but also that every particular Church or Diocese (after the division of Dioceses made) should have its Bishop, and this is Sotus his meaning, as I have showed out of his words above alleged; and as may appear even by his last words cited by M. Nicholas; for Sotus sayeth there, that when the Pope doth confirm and consecrate a Bishop and apply him to some Church, he executeth that which Christ commanded in general to do, that is, to confirm, and consecrate, and apply a Bishop to the Church, over which he giveth him charge. And Sotus in the former place alleged by M. Doctor sayeth not only, that there must in general by the divine law be Bishops in the Church, Sotus supra l 10. q. q. 1. ar. 4. but also that it is of the divine law that in general to every particular Church, according to the Ecclesiastical division, their proper Bishops are to be applied. 22. Sotus l. 10 de Just & iure q 3 ar. 4. That this is Sotus his opinion it may appear also by other places: as where he sayeth: Cum enim ius divinum sit, ut unicuique suus mancipetur Episcopus, idgue (ut demonstratum est) propter peculiarem curam & vigilantiam, quae eidem Ecclesiae est necessaria etc. For seeing that it is the divine law, that to every Diocese it's own Bishops should be mancipated or bound; (he sayeth not only that in general there must by the divine law be some Bishops in the Church, but also that by the divine law to every Diocese it's own Bishop must be bound and mancipated) and then he giveth the reason, Sot in 4 dist 20 q 1. art. 5 Concl. 1. for the peculiar care and vigilancy, which is necessary to that Church: And in another place he giveth also the reason why the Pope only is not sufficient to govern the whole Church without Bishops, nor a Bishop the whole Diocese without Pastors: Si autem aliorum rationem desideres, haec est egregia, quod officium Pastoris est ad salutem gregis oculatè attendere: supremus autem Ecclesiae Pastor non sufficit toti Ecclesiae prospicere, nisi singulis Dioecesibus Episcopos praeficiat; neque Episcopus toti Dioecesi, nisi parochijs, parochiales Sacerdotes praeponat. But if thou desire the reason of others, this is a notable reason, because the office of a Pastor is to attend with a vigilant eye to the safety of the flock: but the supreme Pastor is not sufficient to look to the whole Church, unless he ordain to each Diocese a Bishop, and unless the Bishop constitute Parish Priests to the Parochial Churches. So that seeing the Pope is bound by the divine law to have care of the whole Church; and that according to Sotus, he cannot look sufficiently to the Church unless he appoint to each Diocese a Bishop, it followeth in Sotus his opinion, that by the divine law, he is bound to give every Diocese his Bishop, as the Bishop is bound to give to every Parish its Pastor. 23. But M. Nicholas n. 10. sayeth that Sotus also sayeth that sacramental absolution, and the like are to be esteemed of the divine law; and yet it were a madness, out of these words to infer, that the minister is bound by the divine law, to administer Sacraments. I answer, that the Sacraments are of the divine law, though men dispense them: and so according to Sotus, that every Church should have its Bishop, it is of the divine law, though the Pope elect him. This is the Scope of Sotus, as appeareth by these words, Nunquid propterea quod per ministerium Dei etc. Is it therefore any consequence, that the application is not divine, because it was done by the Minister of God. And M. Nicholas out of this cannot infer any thing for his purpose. 24. Now whether all this which Sotus sayeth, be true or no, M. Doctor did not examine; he intending only to show that his own assertion, pag. 376. n. 2. which affirmeth it to be the divine law, that every notable part of the Church (such as is England, Spain, France) should have its Bishop, was moderate, in respect of the assertion of Sotus, who said that every Diocese by the divine law, in the aforesaided sense, must have its Bishop. And to this purpose only he cited Sotus. And therefore that was not modestly, nor truly said of M. Nicholas; but odiously, and not so charitably, as might be expected of him, in the 10. number towards the end, where he he sayeth: Finally M. Doctor, I doubt not willbe more circumspect in alleging authors, lest he doth wrong his own reputation, the Authors themselves, the Reader, and most of all the truth; Rather M. Nicholas should have been more modest, and more careful of the truth in his words. For that M. Doctor doth not say so much as Sotus doth (as M. Nicholas would make him) but only alleged him, to show that this assertion, in respect of that of Sotus, was moderate; M. Doctor affirming only, that it was of the divine law, that every notable part of the Church, such as England, France, Spain, should have its Bishop; Sotus averring that by the same divine law every Diocese ought to have its Bishop, which is much more than M. Doctor said: and that this was Sotus his opinion is showed out of his words; and so not M. Doctor, but M. Nicholas allegeth authors contrary to their meaning. MASTER NICHOLAS. The second Author alleged by M. Doctor is Bannes, saying; that Bishops cannot by the Pope be removed from the whole Church, or a great or notable part thereof. I wonder M. Doctor would allege this learned divine etc. num. 11. REPLY. Bannes' his opinion concerning that point; whether it be a divine law, that euerie notable part of the Church, must have its Bishop, and whether Bannes maketh for M. Nicholas, Bann. 2.2 q. 1. ar. 10 Concl. 6. add vlt. and against M. Doctor. 25. To this I shall endeavour to answer with much more moderation then M. Nicholas useth. I answer them that M. Doctor did not allege Bannes to prove that every particular Church of Diocese, is to have a Bishop; neither doth M. Doctor ever say so, as M. Nicholas himself observeth n. 14. but he alleged the sense of that Author, as he did of Sotus, to show that his assertion or opinion was moderate. And that which is cited as the sense of Bannes, is manifestly there in these words: Non tamen admittendum est, quòd in tota Ecclesia, aut in magna eius parte, tam temere (Pontifex) sua potestate abutatur: Yet it is not to be admitted, that the Pope in the whole Church, or in a great part of it, should so rashly abuse his authority. And what is this, but what M. Doctor said, to wit, that Bishops, according to Bannes cannot be removed from the whole Church, or a great or notable part of it? And further that Bamnes did believe that the Pope could not do this by reason of the divine law, it is easily gathered, by the example, he bringeth; and by those words: tam temerè sua potestate abutatur; that he should so rashly abuse his authority: for were it an Ecclesiastical impediment and law, he could take it away. That Bannes sayeth the Pope may remove one Bishop, and not appoint another, may seem to be against Sotus, but not against M. Doctor, who sayeth not that every Diocese must have by the divine law a Bishop, but only that at lest every notable part as England, France, etc. is to have a Bishop by the divine precept. Yet neither doth Bannes herein plainly contradict Sotus; because Sotus would also grant, that it pertaineth to the Pope to divide Dioceses, and to make them greater or less, and so to make of two one; and consequently he would grant to Bannes, that the Pope may take from a Diocese its proper Bishop, which it had, and subject it to another Bishop, by making it part of his Diocese: only Sotus sayeth, that supposing the division of Dioceses made by the Church, it is of Christ's institution and the divine law, that every Diocese should have its Bishop. M. NICHOLAS. The reason that M. Doctor did infer from the said authorities maketh for him, just as they did: It was this: By the divine law etc. n. 12. The truth in the foresaied point setting a side opinions of authors. 26. Before I show the force of M. Doctors argument, and the fault of M. Nicholas his manner of arguing, I shall explicate, and confirm M. Doctor his assertion, by which he averreth, that by the divine law, in every notable part of the Church there must be a Bishop: Which I shall easily do, supposing M. Doctors ground, to wit, that the Church must not be governed by one only supreme Bishop, but also by other particular Bishops, who are to govern particular Churches; because the supreme Bishop alone cannot by himself govern the Church; and because the Church is a Hierarchy. This ground M. Doctor hath proved in his 9 Chapter of his Hierarchy where he hath showed, how Bishops, & inferior Pastors are to govern the Church, to preach, and administer Sacraments. Secondly in his 12. Chapter, where he hath proved that Bishops are so necessary in the Church, that it cannot subsist without them. And thirdly in his 13. Chapter, where he hath could us how even in the time of persecution, though it was the greater for the Bishop's presence, the Church was, and aught to be governed by Bishops. Whence it is consequent, that by the divine law, the Church must be governed by Bishops, and that in general there must be particular Bishops in the Church of God: Which M. Nicholas also granteth with Suarez n. 17. And why are Bishops necessary, but to govern, to preach, and minister Sacraments. 27. Out of which assured ground, I argue in this manner. There must be by the divine law Bishops in the Church to govern it, and consequently as many as may suffice to supply the necessities the Church hath of government, preaching, and Sacraments: therefore by the same divine Institution and precept, there must be at lest a Bishop in every notable part of the Church, such as is France, Spain, England; for that fewer will not suffice; one Bishop being not sufficient to serve all France, England, & Spain, and in particular to confirm by the Sacrament of Confirmation all French and English. 28. I instance in Confirmation, because other Sacraments may more easily be in some sort supplied without a Bishop, especially in the country; for that neither the English can go all into France, nor all the French into England to receive Confirmation; neither can one Bishop go to one Country to serve it of Confirmation, without prejudice to the other country; nor can he, being but one, suffice for so many. Wherefore England must have its own Bishop, France its own, Spain it's own, and so of the rest, if they be notable parts of the Church; all having the like necessity; and there being the same reason of one, which is of another. And so M. Doctor in his 14. Chapter n. 2. pag. 376. argueth well from the like necessity in this manner: By the divine law there must be particular Bishops in the Church, to supply the necessities of particular Churches, but there is no more reason why the particular Church, of France (for he speaketh especially of great particular Churches, which are notable parts of the whole Church) should be governed by a Bishop or Bishops, more or fewer, according to the extent of the Country, rather than the Church of Spain; or the Church of England: Ergo France, Spain, and England, and all other such particular Churches of extent, must be governed by Bishops; and every one by his own, all having the like necessity. 29. M. Nicholas number 12. wondereth that a learned man should use such a form of argument, and therefore to make a show against this argument of M. Doctor, be bringeth other arguments very ridiculous, which though they may seem to the ignorant to be like, yet indeed are not so like as chalk and cheise. His first argument of diverse meats doth argue that he was hungry for want of arguments, else he would not have made use of one so weak and lean. Thus he argueth: Some meat is necessary for the maintenance of man, but there is no more reason, why eggs or fish should be necessary, rather than other particular meats; Ergo eggs, fish and all meats are necessary. 30. But I marvel that M. Nicholas (if he be learned) could not see the difference betwixt his own and M. Doctors argument. For that he arargueth from the necessity of some indeterminate means, to the necessity of some determinate means: Master Doctor argueth from like ends to the like necessary means. The first manner of arguing, which Master Nicholas useth, is ridiculous. For it followeth not: Meat which is an indeterminate mean, is necessary for man's life. Ergo this meat; Bishops are necessary in the Church: Ergo this Bishop in particular; Marriage of some men is necessary to maintain lawfully mankind: Ergo this man must marry. M. Doctors manner of arguing is good and solid; for that it is grounded in parity and equality of reason, Lib. 1. Post or c. 4. & 5. or in this principle known by the light of reason: Quod convenit alicui quâtale convenit omni tali, that which agreeth to a thing, as it is such a thing, agreeth to every such thing: as for example, sayeth Aristotele, because it agreeth to a Triangle, as it is a Triangle, to have three angles equal to two right angles; it agreeth to every Triangle to have three angles equal to two right angles; but because it agreeth not to a triangle, as it is a triangle, to be of brass, every triangle is not of brass. And so because it is necessary to a notable part of the Church, as it is a notable part, to have a Bishop, and that also by the divine law, because one Bishop cannot serve sufficiently two notable parts of the Church, every notable part must have its Bishop. And there being the same reason of England, France, Spain, every one of these countries, being of such extent, that one Bishop cannot serve two of them, every one of them must have its Bishop by parity of reason; and for that it being necessary to a Church to have a Bishop, because it is a notable part, every such notable part must have a Bishop: Because quod convenit alicui, quâ tale, convenit omnitali: that which agreeth to a thing, as it is such a thing, agreeth to every such thing. And if it be necessary to one, it is necessary to another. 31. If M. Nicholas his argument had been thus framed, it had been good: Meat or food in general is necessary to man's life: but there is nomore reason of one man then another (for that all mortal men do need meat or food) Ergo meat or food is necessary ot every man's life, but this food in particular, as eggs or fish is not necessary. 32. M. Nicholas his second argument is as ridiculous: for that by it he argueth from an indeterminate mean, to wit, from men who are necessary to maintain by marriage mankind, to every particular man. Which kind of argument is not the same with that of M. Doctor; but as fond as this: A ship indeterminatelie is necessary to pass from Dover to Calais, Ergo every particular ship. 33. His thirde argument is of the same or of a worse form and stamp: Religious institute in general is of the divine iustitution, and the Supreme Bishop is by his office obliged on his part to procure that in the Catholic Church so sacred an institute be maintained: but there is no reason why it should be be maintained rather in France or Spain, then in England: Ergo the Pope is obliged to maintain the religious institute in England. To his mayor or first proposition I answer that religious orders can be no more norso much necessary in the Church, I. 2. q. 108. ar. 4. than the Counsels, in which, according to S. Thomas, they are grounded; which counsels are instituted by Christ, but as M. Doctor sayeth in his Hierarthie pag. 300. they are not commanded to any, but counselled only. And so M. Nicholas cannot found out a divine precept to oblige the Pope to admit any religious order, as he is bound to give Bishops to the Church: and hence it is that the Pope doth much deliberate before he admit of any new Religious order; and when he admitteth it, he admitteth it only as profitable to the Church, not as necessary by any divine law. 34. But suppose it were of the divine law, that religious orders indeterminatelie and in general should be in the Church: yet no Religious order is necessary by the divine law in every notable part of the Church, as Bishops are. And so it would not be a good argument: Religious orders must by the divine institution be in the Church, Ergo in England, or in this or in that particular Coutrie. But, as I have proved, it is of the divine law that in every notable part of the Church there must be a Bishop; and so there being no more reason of one such part, than another, all such parts must have their Bishops. This, I suppose, would be M. Doctors answer to that argument. Now let M. Nicholas make what he can of this answer. Who, very politicly perhaps, as he thought, said. n. 13. pag. 50. When M. Doctor shall tell me what he 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. 35. And by this M. Nicholas his fourth argument will prove to have the same fault that the others had: It is not of the divine law, as M. Doctor confesseth, to have a Bishop in every particular Church or Diocese; but if we respect the divine law, there is not more reason of one, than another, Ergo all the Dioceses of England may be governed without a Bishop. But M. Doctor would deny his mayor, as it is Fathered on him: for he neither affirmeth nor denyeth that every Diocese must have its Bishop: only he sayeth pag. 375. that it is not so certain that by the divine law, there must be a Bishop in this or that particular Church, as that in general there must be Bishops in the Church: & pag. 376. he sayeth that it is of the divine law, that every notable part of the Church should have its Bishop. It is true Sotus sayeth that it is of the divine law that every Diocese should have its Bishop: but M. Doctor neither affirmeth it, nor denyeth it. Secondly I answer that there is more reason and necessity of a Bishop in a whole country or Kingdom, which is a notable part of the Church, then in every particular Diocese, because one Bishop may in some sort govern two Dioceses, but not all France, Spain, or England, or any such notable part, as I have showed, and one Diocese may be assisted by the Bishop of the next Diocese, but not one great Country by the Bishop of another country, as I have also proved. 36. By this M. Nicholas may gather an answer to that his question n. 16. whether that England & Scotland jure divino must also have an Ordinary. For if England & Scotland be both notable parts of the Church, both aught to have by the divine law their proper Bishop: be he Ordinary or delegate: & when men demand any thing, there is more reason to demand that which is ordinary, than that which is extraordinary. And if the Pope think best to give a Delegate; as so he may supply England's wants, so that is not the ordinary course observed in other Churches. And so England may demand an Ordinary, and leave the rest to the Chief Pastors' discretion, who is to judge whether he should give an Ordinary, or delegate, & whether the divine law obligeth to give unto a country a Bishop in this or that circumstance. 37. Out of all this I gather how unwilling M. Nicholas is to have a Bishop. I grant that he sayeth pag. 204. that he would most willingly spend his blood for the purchassing of times suitable with the enjoying of a Catholic Bishop in England. But what is that time which M. Nicholas deemeth suitable for the enjoying of a Bishop? Would he have a time which the supreme Pastor (whose office it is to give Pastors to everien Church) thinketh in his judgement suitable? That time is already come. Would he have a time in which the country hath men of its own, in it to be Bishops? that time is also come: for that two most worthy Prelates have been thought by the supreme Pastor sit and worthy to be sent, the one after the other. Would he have a time in which there are not particular laws enacted against the Bishop? no confiscation of goods, no loss of liberty or life executed on them, that receive Confirmation of him? That time also is come. Would he have England altogether Catholic, and no use of any other religion to be permitted in it, but Catholic, before he would have a Bishop come? If that time only be in M. Nicholas his opinion suitable, the primative Church lived in no time suitable for a Bishop; and yet Christ constituted his Apostles Bishops, and they constituted others in the greatest rage and fury of persecution, as M. Doctor hath showed in his 13. Chapter n. 3. And to say that a time of persecution is not suitable for a Bishop, is to say, that when the enemy is in the field, it is not a time suitable to have a General; when the wolf is ready to set on the flock, it is not a time suitable to have a Pastor. And so the time of the primative Church, in which the Church was assaulted by persecutors, in all Countries, and on all sides, was not a time suitable for enjoying a Bishop. And yet that is the time in which there is most need of him, to give them by Confirmation spiritual force and strength, to direct them by his counsel, to encourage them by his presence, and example. If none of these times be suitable for a Bishop in M. Nicholas his opinion: The primitive Christians should have been without a Bishop, till the Emperor Constantine appeased persecution; and Christ should not have sent his Apostles to govern, preach and confirm, till the said time of Constantine: for all the times before being times of persecution, were not by M. Nicholas his count, suitable to the enjoying of a Bishop. If then neither the time that Christ thought fit to send Bishops, nor the time that the Apostles ordained Bishops, nor the time that Christ his chief vicars have thought suitable for the enjoying of a Bishop in England, be suitable in M. Nicholas his judgement; Let him name us another time, which is suitable: lest if he except against so many times, men may think that M. Nicholas deemeth no time suitable for enjoying a Bishop in England. M. NICHOLAS. What he allegeth out of Suarez to prove that the government etc. n. 17. THE REPLY. Suarez is not against M. Doctor, but for him. 37. Suarez in the place alleged by M. Doctor hath two reasons, Suarez tom. 4. in 3. p. disput 26. sect 1. n 8. and it sufficed M. Doctor to cite the one, because the other matter, which the second reason toucheth, was not controverted, nor in question. Every Reader of judgement would observe that in the citation nothing is wanting, but an etc. which was not necessary, because the first reason served, M. Doctors turn, which was, that the Pope cannot change the government of the Church because the Church by Christ his institution is a Monarchy, and a monarchy requireth not only one chief Monarch, but also other subordinate princes; Which was enough to confirm what M. Doctor there intended, to wit, that in the Church there must be diverse particular Bishops and Churches. And the second reason, which Suarez allegeth, as it was not necessary to be alleged for M. Doctors purpose; so it was not left out as M. Nicholas rashly judgeth, because it made against M. Doctor, as it is manifest. His second reason therefore was: tum etiam quia in republica Christiana etc. and also because in the Christian commonwealth this was most necessary: for it is most ample and most universal, and its government is spiritual and intern, which is not done exactly, bu● by proper Pastors and Princes of the Church. And what is this against M. Doctor? rather it is for him. For as the Church is a must ample and most universal Monarchy, and therefore according to Suarez his second reason, needeth more spiritual Princes and Bishops, than a Kingdom doth need temporal Princes: so every notable part of this universal and ample Church, pleadeth for one Ordinary or Delegate Bishop, one Bishop being not sufficient to serve diverse great parts thereof, as above is declared. 38. By this, sayeth M. Nicholas num. 17. is answered a demand of M. Doctor. Chapter 14. V V by the Pope and Bishops in the primative Church were so diligent in consecrating Bishops, yea and making Popes in the midst of persecution, but that they thought it was the divine law, that every (great) Church should have its Bishop? M. Nicholas answereth, that the reason was, because in those times every Country needed its own Bishop, to ordain Priests etc. And why might not Priests than have been sent out of one country into another, as well as now? Was any one country so fare distant from all Catholic countries or Churches, as none could send Priests unto them, as now they do from Rome, Spain, Flanders and other places into England? And is not England separated from the whole world more than many of those countries? Did not Apostolical men than go further, and do they not now also? MASTER NICHOLAS. In the numbers 19.20.21.22.23. he examineth the Examples of the Africans alleged by M. Doctor Chap. 13. n. 7.8. and he sayeth, examples prove little, unless we were sure of all circumstances. THE REPLY. Why these examples were alleged by M. Doctor: and what they prove. 39 M. Doctor brought these examples, as he doth profess in his 13. Chapter. num. 7. to show their zeal, and great desire to have a Bishop notwithstanding persecution; and so M. Nicholas may let them stand, as they will, to all posterity. If all English Catholics and especially some Regular Catholics and their adherentes, had imitated this zeal, those oppositions against a Bishop sent by lawful and highest authority would never have been, but rather we should have alljoined unanimouslie for the procuring of a Bishop, not for private interests (of which M. Nicholas, though he inculcate it sometimes, had as much need to take heed of, as Secular Priests, who, considering the times, have little reason to desire such an office for humane respects, to which many labours and dangers, no worldly splendour or riches are now annexed) but for the good of our country, the comfort of Catholics, the salvation of souls, the honour of our Church of England, and the greater glory of God. Yet these examples of those zealous African Catholics prove also something. For why should they so cry for a Bishop, but that they knew it was the divine Institution, that the Church in all times should be governed by Bishops, Victor Vticens. l. 2. de persec .. Vandal. but that they reaped great comfort, and had much direction in persecution by his presence, and great strength by the grace of Confirmation, which for twenty four years they had wanted; they having had all that time no Bishop. 40. And thus M. Nicholas his third question being fully answered, though he peradventure not satisfied, M. Doctors position of the necessity of a Bishop in every notable part of the Church proved, and all M. Nicholas hath been able to say disproved, I will make an end of this question. 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. MASTER NICHOLAS. FIRST we protest that by God's holy assistance, we do, and ever will reverence the Sacrament of Confirmation etc. but to put upon men's Consciences so strict an obligation not withstanding whatsoever persecution &c num. 1. THE REPLY. M. Nicholas changeth the Question. 1. M. DOCTOR only affirmeth that as although no man in particular be bound to receive a Priest, if thereby he should hazard lands, liberty or life: Yet no country can except against the coming in of Priests, for fear of persecution in general; because the loss of preaching and Sacraments etc. is such a spiritual damage to a whole country, that it should rather hazard persecution, then refuse Priests, though none in particular be bound with such temporal loss to receive a priest, his private spiritual loss being not comparable to the spiritual loss, which a whole country should receive by want of Priests: So M. Doctor sayeth also, that although no man in particular be bound to receive a Bishop into his house, or Confirmation of him, with any notable temporallosse: Yet neither a whole country, nor any of the country can except against the coming in of a Bishop; by reason that the spiritual loss, which it should sustain by want of him: for that the Country should not be a particular Church, nor the Catholics could be perfect Christians, nor could they have so infallibly the grace of Confirmation given to that purpose, that men may have force thereby to stand constantly to the profession of their faith; nor should they have the example and encouragement of the Bishop, who in that case useth to put life into his subjects. 2. M. Nicholas changeth the state of the question, and imposeth on M. Doctor, as though he said, that every Catholic in particular is bound to hazard all for the Bishop, and Confirmation. 3. That M. Doctor speaketh only in general, may appear by those his words, which he hath Chapter 14. number. 3. 4. & 8. and also by the words, which out of Master Doctor, Master Nicholas himself allegeth q. 4. num. 12. Where M. Doctor sayeth: I am of opinion (which I humbly submit to authority) that this particular Church, of England, France, Spain and such like (of which notable parts he before spoke n. 2.) cannot except any long time against a Bishop. Again M. Doctor sayeth in the same Chapter nu. 8. But howsoever although every man in particular cannot be condemned of sin for omitting confirmation for fear of loss of his life, lands or liberty: yet I think etc. Which words M. Nicholas allegeth out of M. Doctor p. 85. 4. And yet that M. Nicholas in the beginning of this 4. question, chargeth M. Doctor as though he had said, that every one in particular is to hazard temporal losses, rather than to omit confirmation: appeareth, because he exaggerateth, this as if he had put upon men's consciences so strict an obligation, notwithstanding whatsoever persecution etc. And again pag 83. endeavouring to answer a place alleged out of S. Clement, he sayeth, our case is When Confirmation cannot be had without hazard of goods, liberty, & life; as though M. Doctor had said that one in particular is to hazard such loss rather than omit Confirmation. 5. But M. Doctor speaketh in general: and if because in particular no man is bound to hazard any notable temporal loss for the Bishop, or Confirmation, he may infer that the country may except against the Bishop and that Sacrament; by the like reason it may be inferred, that because no man is bound to receive a priest secular or regular into his house, or to receive any Sacrament of him, or to hear his sermon with hazard of loss of goods, liberty or life, he may except against the coming in of Secular and Regular Priests. For though there be not the like necessity of a Bishop & Priests in all points, yet if one argument concludeth, the other must conclude: especially in M. Nicholas his opinion who sayeth in this question numb 17. that the general persecution of a whole country is more to be avoided than of any private person. Who yet, as M. Doctor confesseth, is not obliged to hazard goods or life, for enjoying the Sacrament of Confirmation: by which it seemeth he would infer, that if a private person be not bound to hazard loss of goods or life for Confirmation, neither is a country whence it followeth in M. Nicholas his manner of arguing, that if a private person be not bound to receive a Priest with that hazard, a country is not bound to receive Priests into it with hazard of persecution. But the general spiritual loss is greater than any particular loss as M. Nicholas confesseth and so more is to be hazarded, rather than a whole country should want a Bishop or Priests, then that a private man should want them. 5. But M. Nicholas in the beginning of this question, fearing be like that he might seem no good Catholic in writing against the necessity of the Bishop, and Confirmation; protesteth that be reverenceth Confirmation, and that when Confirmation can conveniently be had (and when is it more necessary then in time of persecution, against which it is instituted? When is it more necessary that the soldier should be armed and have his Captain then when the enemy is ready to give battle?) the neglict of so great a benefit cannot be pleasing to God. Which protestation was indeed necessary, and I fear is not sufficient: for that hereafter Puritan may allege him against Bishops and Confirmation, the necessity of which he so much extenuateth. M. NICHOLAS. 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 and groweth etc. number. 2. THE REPLY. Whether according to S. Thomas without Confirfirmation we can be perfect Christians. M. Doctor in his 14. Chapter n. 5. pag. 180. being to prove that a particular Country, cannot refuse a Bishop by reason of persecution, allegeth two reasons. The first is, because the government of Bishops in the Church, is instituted by Christ, as he had proved in the former Chapter. The second reason is n. 2. because the commodity which a province reapeth by a Bishop is so great, and the want of him is such a loss, that we should rather hazard persecution, then to be deprived of a Bishop. For first without a Bishop we cannot be perfect Christians &c. then n. 4. secondly, the Sacrament of Confirmation pleadeth for a Bishop. Then n. 9 without a Bishop we can be no particular Church etc. Then n. 10. Without a Bishop no hierarchical action can be exercised in the Church. So that M. Doctors second reason includeth four reasons all which make one total reason. M. Nicholas beginneth with that part of the total second reason, which was, because without a Bishop, we cannot be perfect Christians. Wherein he playeth foul play, in taking these reasons a part; because virtus unita est fortior seipsa dispersa; and a child will break a sheaf of arrows one by one, which joined in one boundell he cannot; and many united can draw a ship, which severed they cannot; and so all M. Doctors partial reasons put together may make one good and convincing reason, though severally taken they could not. 7. But let us see how he answereth this partial reason singled out from the rest. S. Th. 3 p q. 65. ar. 1. M. Doctor had alleged S. Thomas of Aquin who compareth Baptism to our nativity, by which we have our first being, and Confirmation to our augmentation and increase, by which we get strength & grougth. To our nativity (sayeth this learned Doctor) is answerable, in a spiritual life, Baptism, by which we are regenerated, and receive our first spiritual being. joan. 3. 'tis 3. To our augmentation and grougth (sayeth he) is answerable Confirmation, by which the holy ghost is given to give us manly pitch and strength; Luc. vlt. according to that: And I send the promise of my father upon you: But you, tarry in the City, till you be endued with power from high. And again. But you shall receive the virtue of the holy Ghost coming upon you. Act. 1. So that according to S. Thomas by Baptism we are borne Christians, but little ones, 1. Pet. 2. and to use S. Peter's words, as infants even now borne: and by Confirmation me receive manly grougth: for as our nativity giveth us our being, and all our parts, and limbs, but all little and weak, and our augmentation giveth us full strength and quantity in all the body, and maketh us men; so by Baptism, we have our spiritual birth, and we are Christians, but weak, and infirm, and by Confirmation we receive full grougth and strength, and we become perfect Christians. 8. Whereby it is evident that S. Thomas, though a great Saint, and a great divine, sayeth as much as M. Doctor doth. Yea what M. Doctor sayeth, he speaketh out of his mouth: and none write against S. Thomas for saying so, as M. Nicholas hath written against M. Doctor. Yet let us hear M. Nicholas his answer; True it is (sayeth he) that S. Thomas teacheth that by it (Confirmation) a man receiveth augmentation and groweth: which yet cannot be so understood, as if this Sacrament were the only means to attain such spiritual groweth. And why? because (sayeth he) by other Sacraments, and ordinary helps of almighty, God we may receive the effect of that same grace. which is given men in Confirmation. I cannot like this his answer, if it were but for this, that it in a manner giveth Christian's occasion to neglect this, and other Sacraments, seeing that by other means, as the love of God, Contrition, prayer, meditation etc. they may get as much grace, as is given by Sacraments. But suppose that by other Sacraments and other means one may get as much grace, as Confirmation giveth: yet he should not so easily norsoe infallibly get it: nor should he sacramentally, and by a Character be a perfect Christian. 9 For as although a Cathecumene who beleiveth all that other Christians do, may peradventure by multiplication of acts of Charity and contrition, by prayer, alms, fast, get as much grace as is gotten by Baptism, yet he shall not be a Christian sacramentally, and by Baptism, nor shall he be so incorporated to the Church, as the Church shall have that authority over him, which she hath over the baptised; and therefore cannot bind him to any Ecclesiastical law, nor excommunicate him, he being, as S. Paul sayeth foris, without, 1. Cor. 5. and no actual member of the Church: So though one might get more grace by other works then by Confirmation, yet he should be no more sacramentally and by character a perfect Christian, than a Cathecumen unbaptized, should be a Christian, and so although (as M. Nicholas sayeth n. S. Tho. 2 2 q. 184. ar. 3. ad 3. 4. out of S. Thomas) by observing the counsels, as religious men do, a man may have greater perfection, than other Christians have, yet that will not make him a perfect Christian in S. Thomas his meaning. For as a man may have as much strength and skill in fencing and fight, as the best soldier, yet till he be admitted and doth receive his military livery, he is not a soldier by profession: So a Christian may peradventure have as much grace as one that is confirmed, but till he be confirmed, he shall not be an enroulled spiritual soldier, nor a perfect Christian. 10. And although a man may have grace without this Sacrament to profess his faith, and to suffer death for it, as many in England not confirmed have done, and as M. Doctor granteth in his Epistle dedicatory n. 18. and in his book pagin. 384. n. 7. Yet that grace was merely gratuitely and freely bestowed, and is not so infallibly given without Confirmation, as by it; because to the confirmed that grace is due by reason of the Sacrament and Character, which they have received, God by promise and covenant obliging himself to give the special grace of the Sacrament to them that receive it. And they that writ against this Sacrament, or they that neglect it when they may have it without any imminent or certain danger (for I do not hear that any have been particularly persecuted for having been confirmed, though thousands have been confirmed) may fear lest they may be denied this special grace, as neglecting the ordinary means to get it, which is Confirmation. To that he sayeth n. 3.4.5. he may gather his answer by what is said: To that he allegeth n. 7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14 he is partly answered, partly shallbe anon. For M. Doctor sayeth only that a Country, for fear of persecution, cannot except against a Bishop or Confirmation; Whereas M. Nicholas would make M. Doctor say, that every particular man is bound to suffer persecution, rather than not admit a Bishop or Confirmation; and M. Doctor by a Bishop meaneth him, who hath Episcopal authority to give Confirmation: M. Nicholas would have him mean an Ordinary, though I know, M. Nicholas for his part desireth no Ordinary. M. NICHOLAS. Then he allegeth S. Clement ep. 4. saying: omnibus ergo festinandum est sine mora renasci Deo, & demum consignariab Episcopo etc. but first M. Doctor should not have grounded so hard a doctrine upon an Epistle which I suppose he knoweth not to be so authentical etc. n. 15. & 16. THE REPLY. S. Clement's Testimony that without Confirmation one is not a perfect Christian, is defended, and M. Nicholas his answers plainly refuted. 11. M. Nicholas sayeth M. Doctor should not have grounded so hard a doctrine upon an Epistle not so authentical, as thereon to settle a doctrinal point as he may see in Bellarmine. Sel. de Script. Eccl. I note hear first that M. Nicholas counteth it an hard doctrine, to say that one is not a perfect Christian without Confirmation. S. Tho. 3 p q. 65. ar. z. Vrban ep. decretali. And yet S. Thomas, as we have seen: S. Clement already alleged: S. Vrban, S. Cyprian, and other Father's yea and Divines; whom I shall add after S. Clement, do affirm, and heretics only deny it, with whom M. Nicholas joineth in this point. 11. Cal. l 9 Instit. c. 19 n. 9 Let us hear Caluin speak. These are his words: Addunt praeterea fideles omnes Spiritum sanctum per manuum impositionem accipere debere post Baptismum, ut pleni Christiani inveniantur. They (Catholics) add also that all the faithful must receive the holy Ghost by imposition of hands after Baptism, that they may be found full Christians: which Caluin in his next words condemneth with M. Nicholas, who sayeth it is an hard doctrine. And Bellarmin. To. 2. l. 2. de effectu Sacramentorum cap. 29. sayeth that S. Cyprian l. 2. ep. 1. & S. Cornelius Pope ep ad Fabianum apud Eusebium l. 6 hist. c. 53 fear not to say that they are not fully sanctified, nor perfect Christians who want the Sacrament of Chrism, although Caluin and Kemnitius call this word an old calumny. But see how disaffection can transport even a Catholic and a Religious man. Because for sooth he would have no Bishop in England, he would not have Confirmation necessary to make a perfect Church or perfect Christians; and therefore sayeth against the ancient Fathers, and all divines, even jesuites, that treat of this matter, that a man may be a perfect Christian, without Confirmation; yea that it is an hard doctrine to say that without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians. He urgeth censures against M. Doctor, where no censure, but good, can be given, as I partly have and partly shall she we. But if this M. Nicholas his proposition: It is an hard doctrine to say that without confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians, were proposed to superiors I fear it would be hardly censured, it being against ancient Fathers, and the common opinion of Divines, and only being applauded by Caluin and other heretics, who, because they deny Confirmation, cannot abide to hear what the Fathers say, to wit, that it perfecteth Baptism, and maketh us perfect Christians. And therefore Caluin sayeth, lib. 4. Inst. c. 19 n. 8. Adeò nihil eos pudet ut negent Baptismum ritè sine Confirmatione perficiposse. They are so shameless, as that they deny Baptism to be rightly, perfected without Confirmation. These Fathers, and divines I shall allege after S. Clement. 12. secondly here I observe M. Nicholas his boldness in daring to reject S. Clement's epistles, and in particular the 4. Epistle alleged by M. Doctor, it being alleged to prove Confirmation a Sacrament, by Coccius tom. 2. lib. 3. ar. 20. Cocc. Suarez Conin. Bellar. Estius. Cate●● Baius. Valontia. Suarez 3. p. tom. 3 disp 32. art. 1. Conincke, 3. p. qu. 72. art. 1. Bellarmin, l. 1. de Confirm. c. 3. Est in 4. d. 7. §. 13. the Catechism ad Parochos, Confirm. Sacram. Baius l. 2. de Instit. c. 6. Valentia in Controu. lib. de numero Sacramentorum cap. 1. objecteth against decretal Epistles as M. Nicholas doth against S. Clement's epistles which are part of them; illas epistolas decretales Pontificum esse suppositias: that these decretal Epistles of the Popes are Counterfeit: Gregory of Valentia a jesuite answereth. Sed defensionem earum Epistolarum suscepit Franciscus Turrianus in lib. quem pro illis adversus Magdeburgenses Centuriatores eruditissimè conscripsit: qui hactenus illi non responderunt, neque satis unquam respondere poterunt. But a defence of those Epistles Franciscus Turrianus (a jesuite also) hath undertaken in a book, which for those Epistles he wrote most learnedly against the Magdeburgian Centurians. who have not hitherto made any answer to it, neither shall they ever be able to answer sufficiently And so M. Nicholas against all these (as well as against M. Doctor) who allege this place to prove Confirmation a Sacrament, might have said, that they should not have grounded the verity of a Sacrament (so much impugned by heretics) upon an Epistle, which (as is to be supposed) they knew not to be so Authentical as to settle thereon a doctrinal point, yea a matter of faith. Did not they know, as well as M. Nicholas how Authentical Saint Clement's works were? 13. But sayeth M. Nicholas, Bellarmine in his book de Scriptoribus Eccles. Sayeth, that the Epistles of S. Clement are not Authentical: And I grant that Bellarmine sayeth that the Epistles (of S. Clement) which now are extant, want not a so●uple, Lib. de Script. Eccles in Clement. by reason that there are many things inserted, as that two Epistles were written to Saint lame who was dead before. But, sayeth Bellarmine, perchance they were written to S. Simcon; and other things there are (sayeth he) which peradventure were inserted, and are not in the Vatican book. But yet he rejecteth not this Epistle, and therefore (as we have seen) he and many others do cite this Epistle, and in the Canon law S. Clement's Epistles, and other his works, Dist. 40 c In illis & 16 q. 1. capit. Cunctis. are alleged; and Turrianus, Gualterus, and many others do defend these works, and Catholic writers allege them against heretics, whom M. Nicholas must take heed lest he favour in so slighting the authority of these Epistles. 14. If this answer in which he denyeth S. Clement's Epistles to be of authority please not, M. Nicholas hath another n. 16. Which he taketh out of Estius whom he sayeth M. Doctor cited for the necessity of Confirmation, but did not cite his explication of Fathers how they say that one is not a perfect Christian without Confirmation: which, sayeth M. Nicholas, is no fair dealing. But why was it no fair dealing for M. Doctor to cite Estius for the necessity of Confirmation? Suppose in the other point he had been against M. Doctor? do not Divines commonly allege a father or Divine for the point wherein he favoureth them? And are they bound to allege him in another matter, wherein he seems to be against them? And so if Estius had been against M. Doctor and had said that without Confirmation a man might be a perfect Christian, he might yet have cited him for the necessity of Confirmation, without citing him for the point of a perfect Christian. Else how could Master Nicholas cite Estius for this point, seeing that in another point he holdeth against M. Nicholas, that a Priest not consecrated Bishop, cannot confirm by any commission of the Pope as we see above q. 1. n. But Estius his doctrine of a perfect Christian, is not against M. Doctor and so was not by him left out for that cause: but either because he is not so clear in that point as others, or because M Doctor had cited S clement whose words were plain. But let us hear Estius: these be his words in English: It must be observed, that the Fathers in such sentences (where they say that men cannot be perfect Christians unless they be confirmed) do allude to the name of Christ, which signifieth anointed. Whereupon they dency that they are fully Christians, who as yet have not received Episcopal unction, making force in the word Christian. Estius in 4. dist 7. § 9 Which his manner of explication may very well favour the explication above given, by which it was said that although a man may perchance by other means get as much grace as confirmation giveth; yet he is not a perfect Christian, because he hath not the Sacrament of perfection, which is the Episcopal Unction. 15. But our adversary fearing perhaps not to be fortunate enough in these two answers, addeth a third p. 8 1. He telleth us that the ancient practice was to give together with Baptism, the Sacrament of Confirmation, and that therefore S. Clement his meaning is only this; that they who have not both these Sacraments (for one was not given without the other) are not perfect Christians, and sayeth he, I doubt not but that this will fully satisfy the learned Reader. 16. But this answer argueth only the hard shifts, to which M. Nicholas is put: for else, what divine, yea Catechumen who knoweth his Catechism, would have given such an answer? For who knoweth not, that it is one thing to be a Christian, another thing to be a perfect Christian, and how that goeth before, this cometh after; that Baptism only maketh a Christian, Confirmation a perfect Christian; and he that wanteth both is no Christian at all? And therefore S. Clement could not have said of him that wanteth both, that he is no perfect Christian, but rather he should have said, that he is no Christian at all. For that a perfect Christian supposeth a Christian, and he that wanteth baptism, is no Christian, and so cannot be called an imperfect Christian, he being no Christianistiall at all. 17. Wherefore S. Clement to show that he speaketh not of both Sacraments when he sayeth that one cannot be a perfect Christian; distinguisheth the effects of both these two Sacraments, and therefore sayeth: all must make haste to be regenerated without delay: behold the effect of Baptism, regeneration. And then at length, that is, after Baptism, to be consigned of the Bishop. that is, to receive the sevenfould grace of the holy Ghost. See the effect of Confirmation, to wit, sevenfould grace; And then he addeth: And when he shallbe regenerated by water, See the effect of Baptism, regeneration: and after wards, as is mentioned, confirmed of a Bishop by the sevenfould grace of the spirit see the effect of Confirmation: quia aliàs perfectus esse Christianus nequa●uam potest: for otherwise (that is unless he be Consigned and confirmed) he cannot be a perfect Christian. Where otherwise, hath a reference only to Confirmation of which he spoke last: for if it had reference to both Sacraments (as M. Nicholas said) S. Clement should have said, he can be no Christian at all, because he that is not baptised is not at all a Christian, and so cannot be called an imperfect Christian. 18. And to confront M. Nicholas the more (for I see by experience, Bol. l. 1. de Confirm c 3. he will not he Satisfied with alitle) let us hear Cardinal Bellarmine: He, after he had cited those words of S. Clement: All must make haste without delay to be regenerated, and then to be consigned of the Bishop and receive the sevenfould grace of the holy Ghost: addeth: Et infra causam reddit (Clemens) quia non potest aliquis fine eo Sacramento esse perfectus Christianus: and after he (Clement) giveth the reason, because without that Sacrament (Confirmation) one cannot be a perfect Christian. Where the Reader must note, that Cardinal Bellasmine sayeth not (as M. Nicholas doth) that without both Sacraments, but without that Sacrament to wit, of Confirmation, one cannot be a perfect Christian. And so without Confirmation, according to S. Clement one cannot be a perfect Christian. 19 But as they who have never a good answer are forced to use many, whereas one good answer always satisfieth; so M. Nicholas knowing belike that none of his answers will abide the touchstone, nor stand the examination, bringeth many answers, not so much to satisfy us, as to press us with the multitude. He therefore hath in store for us a fourth answer: and what is that? He sayeth pag. 83. that S. Clement is not faithfully alleged by M. Doctor. And why? because he allegeth not all his words, but ends at these words before alleged; otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian. And what needed M. Doctor allege any more words, seeing he had alleged those that proved what he intended, to wit, that without confirmation one cannot be a perfect Christian? And truly M. Doctor alleged more of S. Clement's words then Cardinal Bellarmine in the place above cited did; and yet Bellarmine who saw those words that follow, as well as M. Nicholas; without alleging them, feared not to say: Et infra causam reddit (Clemens) quia non potest aliquis sine co Sacramento esse perfectus Christianus: and after he (S. Clement) yields the reason, because one cannot without that Sacrament be a perfect Christian. 20. But what are these words, which M. Doctor left out. Let us hear them from M. Nicholas his own mouth. My 4. answer is that S. Clement is not faithfully alleged by M. Doctor, for S. Clement after he had said: When he shallbe regenerated and by water afterward confirmed by the Bishop with the sevenfould grace of the spirit, because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian (where M. Doctor ends with an etc. immediately addeth words wherein the very point in question consisteth saying: si non necessitate sed incuriâ sic, aut voluntate remanserit: If be shall remain so not by necessity, but by carelessness or voluntarily. But first here I might (if I were is forward in carping at leaving out word, though not to the purpose, as M. Nicholas is) observe the like fault in him even in this place in which he taxeth Master Doctor, for that he omitteth those words: nec sedem habere inter perfectos: nor have place amongst the perfect, which are the immediate words that go before those, which M. Nicholas sayeth M. Doctor lift out, to wit; If he shall remain so not of necessity. And M. Doctor hath indeed cause to think M. Nicholas left them out of purpose: for that, as we shall see, they made against him and for M. Doctor. 21. Yet let us hear how M. Nicholas argueth out of these words, which not only M Doctor, but also Bellarmin left out, as also others above cited do. S. Clement (sayeth he pag. 83.) sayeth, that he who after Baptism is not Confirmed, cannot be a perfect Christian if he want it out of carelessness, not out of necessity, ergo sayeth he, the Catholics of England, who want it out of necessity may be perfect Christians without it; but what necessity is there now, or hath there been since the Pope sent our two last most Reverend Bishops, to want Confirmation? For we have, thankes be to God, a Bishop willing to give that Sacrament, and there is no special law against him, and never any as yet hath been persecuted for having taken it, Confirmation, at least the persecution is not so great, but that thousand have taken it. And these words which M Doctor left out, as they are some what obscure, so they are as much against M. Nicholas, as M. Doctor. 22. For first he sayeth out of Estius, that when S. Clement or other Fathers say, that a man cannot be a perfect Christian without Confirmation, they say so, because till he have it, he hath not the perfect unction, of which we are called Christians, that is, anointed. And then will I add these words in which M. Nicholas sayeth the point of the controversy consisteth, if not by necessity, but by carelessness, or voluntarily, he shall remain so: ergo if not by carelessesse, but out of necessity he want Confirmation, he may he a perfect Christian, that is, perfectly anointed without it; which were to say, he may be perfectly anointed without perfect unction, and so have it without having it. 23. secondly his third answer to S. Clement's words pag. 81. (as above we have seen) was, that the ancient practice was to give baptism and Confirmation together: and that therefore when S. Clement sayeth, that otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian; he meaneth that unless he have both Sacraments, that is, Baptism and Confirmation, he cannot be a perfect Christian: and then will I come M. Nicholas with those words following, if he shall remain so, not by necessity, but by carelessness or voluntarily: Ergo if by necessity, he want both Baptism and Confirmation he may be a perfect Christian: and yet without Baptism he is no Christian at all, and consequently no perfect Christian. Wherefore unless we will make S. Clement absurdly contradict himself, and make all Divines almost absurd, who allege, (as Suarez also allegeth) these last words, Suarez Supra. which M. Doctor omitted, as not necessary to his purpose, we must say that S. Clement meaneth not to say, as M. Nicholas inferreth, that if of necessity one want Confirmation, he may be a perfect Christian without it: for that were to contradict himself, he having said before, that unless one be consigned, he cannot be a perfect Christian. And so whether he want Confirmation voluntarily or of necessity, he cannot be a perfect Christian sacramentally as above is said; as whether voluntarily or by necessity he want Baptism, he is no Christian. Wherefore the sense of these words must not be, that which M. Nicholas gathereth, but some other, and as it is very probable, it is this sense following, which is gathered out of the words which M Nicholas left out, which are those, nor have place amongst the perfect, if he remain so, not by necessity etc. 24. This then is the sense of S Clement's words. 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 sevenfould grace of the holy Ghost, because the end of every one's life is uncertain (which he may say, because Baptism and Confirmation than were given together, and so Baptism at least was not to be delayed lest one should dye without Baptism) and when he shallbe regenerated by water, and afterward confirmed by the Bishop with the sevenfould grace of the spirit (as is memorated) for otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian, nor (these words M. Nicholas left out) have place amongst the perfect, if he so remain not by necessity but by carelessness or voluntarilie. Which last words cannot be referred to the words, otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian, but to the words immediately following (which M. Nicholas left out) to wit, nor have place amongst the perfect: that is, he cannot be admitted to the sacred Eucharist, nor to the rank of them that are admitted to it, if not by necessity, but by carlessenesse, or voluntarilie be shall remain so For if by necessity the party baptised wanted Confirmation (as when he was baptised, for some just cause, in absence of the Bishop who could not be gotten) then, not else, he might (being baptised) have place amongst the perfect, and be admitted with them to the Eucharist. And this exposition may be gathered out of S. Dionysius Areopagita according to the Translation set out at Colein an. 1536. l. de Eccl. Hier. c. 2. in fine. Ipse vero (Hierarcha) deificantissimo vnguento virum signans, participem manifest at de caetero sacrae perfectissimae Eucharisitiae. He (the Bishop) anointing the man with the most deifying ointment, manifesteth him partaker of the Sacred most perfect Eucharist. Vasq. to. 3. in 3 part. disp. 212. c. 2. And Vasquez a learned jesuite following the Translation of Perionius, citeth these words: Is, cum virum unguento, quod maximè divinos efficit, insignivit, Eucharistia, qua vim maximam habet perficiendae sanctitatis, participem esse pronunciat: He (the Bishop) when he hath marked the man with the oil, which maketh most divine, pronounceth him partaker of the Eucharist which hath greatest force to perfect sanctine, Whence Vasquez gathereth, that when one was baptised, he was declared capable of the Eucharist, and that the Eucharist used to be given after. Confirmation, yet he sayeth there was no divine precept to take Confirmation before the Eucharist, but only use and custom; So that they who were confirmed, were declared capable of the Eucharist, and commonly did presently after receive it, though there were no divine precept. And if any out of carelessness neglected Confirmation (which then by custom was to be taken presently after Baptism) he was not admitted to have place amongst the perfect, that is, amongst them who were capable of the sacred Eucharist: but if after baptism they could not be confirmed, and so of necessity wanted Confirmation, than they might communicate (there being no divine precept to receive Confirmation before the Eucharist) and so have place amongst the perfect, that is, the confirmed who were capable of the sacred Eucharist. 25. And thus it appeareth that M. Doctor hath not been unfortunate in alleging S. Clement, no more than Bellarmine, Suarez, Coninck, the Catechismus ad Parochos, and diverse others alleged, were; rather M. Nicholas hath been unfortunate: first in rejecting him, then in expounding him. 26. I add to S. Clement, S. Vrban Pope, S. urban. cp. decretali. who lived about the year 220. Who hath words which should make M. Nicholas grant, that one cannot be a perfect Christian without Confirmation, if he respect either Antiquity, Authority or sanctity, he thus pronounceth: Omnes fideles, per manus Episcoporum Impositionem, Spiritum Sanctum post Baptismum, accipere debent, ut pleni Christiani inveniantur. All the faithful by the Imposition of hands of Bishops, must receive the holy Ghost after Baptism that they may be full (perfect) Christians. S. Cornelius Pope and Martyr: sayeth: He (Novatianus) was not consummated by the seal of Chrism and therefore could not deserve the holy Ghost. S. Cyprian sayeth, Cornel ep. ad Fabianum apud Euseb. l. 6. c. 33. Et Boil. supra. Cyp. 72 seul. 30 ep. 1. Ep. 73. ad lubaian. Concil. Eliber. can 35. Christians are then fully sanctified, if they be borne of both Sacraments, to wit, baptism & Confirmation. And again he sayeth, that by Confirmation, which he calleth our Lords seal, they are consummated: And the Council Eliberinum sayeth, that the baptised, if he live after, must be carried to the Bishop that by imposition of hands he may be perfected. S. Ambrose sayeth that after the font of baptism the spiritual seal, remaineth that perfection may be made, by which they insinuate that Confirmation maketh perfect Christians. The Council of Orleans sayeth one shall never be a Christian (that is a perfect Christian) unless he be chrismed by the Episcopal Confirmation. Ambr. l 3 de Sacra. c 2. Conc. Aurel. c. 3. de consot. d 5. c. leiun. Bel. l. 2. do Sac effect. c. 28. 27. Wherefore Bellar. feared not to say: Cypr. l. 2. ep. 1. & Cornelius in cp. ad Fabianum apud Euseb. l. 6. hist. c. 53. Non timuerunt dicere, non esse plenè sanctificatos nec perfectos Christianos qui carent Sacramento Chismatis, ctiamsi hanc vocent Caluinus & Kemnitius veterem contumeliam: Cyprian and Cornelius feared not to say, that they are not fully sanctified nor perfect Christians, who want the Sacrament of Chrism: although Caluin and Kemnirius call this an old calumny; as M. Nicholas also condemneth the same speech and so in this joineth with heretics. in c 8 Act v 17 lit H. Lorinus a jesuite writing upon the 8. Charter of the acts sayeth, that Guilielmus Parifiensis deplores worthily the contempt of so great a Sacrament (Confirmation) whose grace is in some manner greater than the grace of Baptism (and without which (Sacrament) as the Fathers and counsels speak, we are not full, perfect, and consummated Christians. Wherefore (he sayeth) this Sacrament is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, consummatio, consummation: Bayus also citeth S. Clement his constitutions & the epistle which M. Doctor alleged to prove that the Bishop is the minister of Confirmation, Bas us l. 2 inst cap. 60 5 Clc. l. 3 const. c 10 16 17 & l. 7. c 44 & cp 4 and he giveth this reason, because Confirmation is the perfection and compliment of Baptism, and so must be ministered by the chief minister. And again the same Author citeth as M. Doctor did S. Clement Epist. 4. Clemens epist. 4. sic Demum à B. Petro accepisse refert, oportere renasci Deo ac consiguari ab Episcopo, ut perfecti efficiamur Christiani: Clement in his 4. epistle sayeth that he had from S. Peter that we must be regenerated to God, and then be consigned by the Bishop, that we may be made perfect Christians. L. 2. de Confir. c. 57 Wherefore M. Nicholas in condemning M. Doctor for saying that without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians, and for alleging S. Clement to prove, it condemneth the ancient Fathers & almost all Divines who say the same, and for it, In c. 17 Mar. n. 18. in fine. allege also S. Clement. Maldonate a jesuite also, observing that the gift of miracles and tongues, and the visible descent of the holy Ghost did not ordinarily, follow immediately Baptism, but Confirmation, sayeth: quâ re aperte significabatur etc. by which thing it was signified plainly, that by Confirmation, Baptism was in some sort perfected, which being said by some Bishops of Rome (he citeth in the margin Vrbanus and Melchiades) heretics do not only impudently, but also unlearnedly laugh at it. And Canisius also sayeth: he is no perfect Christian who is not confirmed. And so M. Nicholas whilst he condemneth M. Doctor for saying that without Confirmation we are not perfect Christians, and for alleging S. Clement for proof of that he said, condemneth also the ancient Fathers and all Divines who writ of this matter; yea jesuits' themselves; and so I cannot tell how hereafter he can look them in the face. Yea he favoureth Caluin as we have seen. M. Doctor immediately after S. Clement citeth S. Dionysius Areop. lib. de Eccles. Hierar. c. 5. calling the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfecting Sacrament. pag. 8. n. 17. THE REPLY. S. Denis calleth the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfecting and consummating action. 27. M. Doctor in calling the Sacrament of Confirmation a perfecting and consummating action: sayeth no more than Card. Bellarmin doth, who to prove Confirmation a Sacrament allegeth some Greek Fathers, Dion. l. di Eccl. Hier. c. 2 p. 3. C 4. p. 3. and first S. Denis in these words: perficiens illa unctio facit perfectum: that perfecting unction maketh perfect and again: Sed & ipsis &c. But to them also who are consecrated by the most holy mystery of Regeneration, the consummating unction of the ointment doth give the coming of the holy Ghost. Suarez also a learned jesuite, and Estius and others do attribute perfection and consummation to Confirmation, as M. Doctor did. Let us hear Estius whom M. Nicholas took for his friend in explicating how the Fathers say, that without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians. He sayeth, that the proper effect of this Sacrament, is robur Spiritus sancti id est Gratia etc. the strength of the holy Ghost, that is, a grace by means of which the mind of a Christian confirmed and corroborated by the holy Ghost, may persist and resist impugners He addeth: Hinc apud veteres etc. Hence, in the ancient fathers in many places we read, that perfection, consummmation, Confirmation, augmentation constancy, strength. fortit u●le, are given to this Sacrament, as effects thereof. And for this he allegeth S. Dionysius, S. Clement even in the place above allege by M. Doctor, and sayeth that S. Clement sayeth, Dion. l Eccl. Higher c. 4. p. 3. Clem. l. 3 cons. Apost. c 17 & epist 4 Fabia. cp 2. add cp. orien. Corn. aoud Euscb. l. 6. c. 35 Melch. ep. ad epist. Hisp. Dyon. Carth. in Elucidat c 4 in initi●ar 8. one cannot be a perfect Christian without it: and citeth to this end S. Fabian Pope, S. Cornelius, S. Melchiades and others. And this M. Nicholas would not see nor acknowledge for fear lest thence might be inferred, that without Confirmation one cannot be a perfect Christian: only he could espy. cap. 5. for c. 4. which fault (if he had been corrector of the print) might have been prevented. 28. Whereas M. Nicholas sayeth that S. Denys in that 4. chapter speaketh of Baptism; and some times generally of oil and Unction used not only in diverse Sacraments, but also in Consecration of Altars, as though, in that Chapter he spoke not of Confirmation. Dionysius Carthusianus standeth against him in the very beginning of his Elucidation of that 4. Chapter, saying. Postquam praehabito immedtatè capitulo etc. after that (by S. Denys) it hath been treated in the immediate a foresaid Chapter, of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, of the celebration, rites or hierarchical Acts about it, here (in the 4. Chapter) the same now is done of the Sacrament of Confirmation. M. NICHOLAS. His other chief argument is out of Estius in these words Quod si quaeras etc. but if thou ask whether the omission of Confirmation when it can commodiously be had etc. pagin. 87. numero 18. THE REPLY. M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctor say more than he doth, to wit that every one in particular is bound to take Confirmation with hazard of persecution, whereas M. Doctor sayeth only, that a country should hazard persecution rather than want Confirmation. Estius in 4. d. c. 29. Estius proposeth a question; whether the omission of Confirmation when it may be had commodiously be a mortal or venial sin. And answereth that it cannot be omitted without mortal sin in time and place of persecution of faith, when (forsooth) by reason of infirmity, there is danger to a man lest he deny his faith in word or deed, or at least be ash imed to confess (his faith) when he should. And M Doctor sayeth the same, as appeareth by his words which immediately follow these words of Estius. For if the reader turn over to the page 386. and 8. number, he shall find these words of M. Doctors. But howsoever, although every man in particular cannot be condemned of sin for omitting Confirmation, for fear of losing his life, lands, or liberty, Yet I think that neither any country or 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 hold be wanting. 30. So that M Nicholas playeth not fair play with M. Doctor in making him say that Catholics in particular are bound to receive Confirmation with loss of life, liberty or goods, whereas as M. Doctor confesseth in the a foresaid place, and before it also num. 3. & 4. granteth, that none in particular are bound with such danger; and only sayeth, that neither a country nor any one of the country (which yet he humbly submitteth to authority) can except against a Bishop, or Confirmation for fear of persecution in general; notwithstanding which general persecution, many commodiously and without danger may receive Confirmation. And this Estius, when he sayeth, that if Confirmation can commodiously be had in time of persecution, it cannot be refused by particular persons under mortuall sin, supposeth. 31. The reason of this is, because there may be a general persecution, and yet many in particular, may commodiously have Confirmation. for as notwithstanding persecution, and the general laws of England enacted against receiving a Priest, hearing Mass or going to Confession, many Catholics in particular without moral danger may many times receive a Priest, hear Mass, and go to Confession, as thousands have done: so many Catholics may receive the Bishop, and Confirmation of him without any imminent or moral danger; and therefore hitherto not any have suffered loss in life, liberty or goods for receiving of confirmation though thousands have received it. And as, although persecution in England is the greater for Priests, jesuites, and other regulars, yet many can, and do without moral danger hear Mass (as they are bound on holy days, when they can commodiously) can go to Confession and the like: so although the persecution in England were greater for the Bishop (as it is not, there being no special laws in force against him) yet many might receive him, and Confirmation of him, without any imminent danger: and consequently according to Estius his opinion, are bound under mortal sin to receive Confirmation, when there is danger, by reason of infirmity, of denying their faith, or of fearing to profess it when they should. And so I marvel that M. Nicholas could not see the difference, betwixt persecution in general, and in particular, for that persecution in general doth not excuse particular men from receiving Confirmation, they, notwithstanding a general persecution having commodity to receive it without danger: but when the persecution is particular to men in particular, than they cannot without danger, and so are excused. yet neither a country nor any of the country can except against Priests coming into the country by reason of a general persecution, because notwithstanding such a persecution, many in particular may hear Mass, receive the B. Sacrament, go to confession, hear a sermon now and then, without imminent danger; and so for respect and regard of these (who have right to the Sacrament) none can except against the coming in of Priests: into a country seeing that if the country were deprived of Priests, none could hear Mass, go to confession, receive the Sacraments, or hear exhortations: and so at this day, if Priests had not been sent into England maugre persecution, there had now scarce any Catholic or Catholic Religion been left in England: & nisi Dominus exercituum reliquisset nobis semen, quasi Sodoma suissemus, & quasi Gomorrha similes essemus: Unless the Lord of Hosts had left us (this) seed we had been as Sodom, and we should be like to Gomorrha. Isai. 1. 32. So although no man in particular be bound to receive the Bishop into his house, or Confirmation of him with imminent danger of the aforesayed temporal losses: Yet a country could not except against a Bishop or Confirmation, for fear of persecution in general: for that, notwithstanding such a general persecution, many might without the aforesaided danger receive a Bishop and Confirmation at his hands, as we see they have done in England. And so in regard of these who have right to a Bishop and to Confirmation, none can except against the coming in of a Bishop lawfully sent (unless as M. Doctor sayeth p. 378. n 3. the persecution were so great that the Bishop could not enter, or would presently be apprehended or put to death) because without a Bishop many should want the comfort, encouragement and example of such a Pastor, & they should want Confirmation which as Estius sayeth cannot in time of persecution, and when there is danger of falling to many, who might commodiously receive it, be omitted without mortal sin, as we shall prove anon. M. NICHOLAS. His last argument is out of a conjecture, that without Confirmation if one fall not, others probably will, as he sayeth Novatus did n. 19 THE REPLY. That Novatus fell for want of Confirmation, and that in time of persecution, without that Sacrament, if one fall not, others will. 33. M. Doctor indeed said pag. 387. n. 8. that if in time of persecution there were not a Bishop to give Confirmation: if one fall not, others probably would, as Novatus did for want of it. But M. Nicholas sayeth, that of Novatus he findeth no such thing in Eusebius, to wit, that in time of persecution hefell, for want of Confirmation. 34. And indeed neither Eusebius nor Cornelius by him alleged do say so in express terms, but they do so insinuate, and so it followeth out of their words, that as other writers have done, so M Doctor might say, that Noutatus (others, as Baronius ad Pamelius call him Novatianus) did fall in time of persecution for want of Confirmation. 35. Euseb. l 6 c. 33 alias 35. iuxta vers. Christophor soni. For Eusebius sayeth first, that Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus telleth all the particulars, quis, qualis suerit vita vel moribus, & quomodo ab Ecclesia Dei declinaverit: Who, what manner of man he was in life and manners, and how he declined from the Church. And after he sayeth of him. Et quod iacens in lecto, pronecessitate perfusus sit etc. and that lying in his bed he was baptised out of necessity, and that the rest which are wont to follow Baptism, were not solemnly fulfilled, and that he was not consummated by the seal of Chrism: where upon neither could he ever deserve the holy Ghost: that is, in that special manner as he is given by Confirmation, that is to give courage to profess our faith in time of persecution. Li. adversus Luciferia● nos. For as S. Hierome averreth the Holy Ghost is also given by Baptism, yea (as Divines grant) by other Sacraments, so oft as by them we receive instifying grace, but not in that special manner, nor to that particular end, which is to give force to profess our faith in time of persecution, maugre all threats and torments of the Tyrant. And therefore Eusebius a little after addeth that Cornelius writeth also of Novatus, that in time of persecution when he lurked in a certain little celle, (for fear) and was desired by the Deacons, as the manner is, help the Catechumenes at their departure out of this life, he fearing to come out, denied himself to be a Priest. And presently after he telleth how he also fell into Schism. And so seeing that he fell in persecution, and wanted the holy Ghost for ant of Confirmation, if we put all this together we shall find it at least very probable, that he fell for want of Confirmation, though other causes might concur, as ambition, which M. Nicholas allegeth in that manner, as though he meant covertelie to glance at the ambition of Priests who desire a Bishop: though (as above I have told him) in this time there is little cause why out of ambition any should desire a Bishop; and I pray God there be not ambition also in seeking to hinder the Catholics from having a Bishop. 36. But that Novatus fell for want of Confirmation, diverse before M. Doctor have affirmed. As first The venerable and learned Authors of the Rheims Testament (of whom M. Doctor had it) who writing on the eight Chapter of the Acts have delivered these words: To conclude, never none denied or contemned this Sacrament of Confirmation and holy Chrism but known heretics S. Cornelius that B. Martyr so much praised of S. Cyprian ep. ad Fabium apud Euseb l. 6. c. 35. affirmeth that Novatus fell to heresy for that he had not received the holy Ghost by the consignation of a Bishop, whom all the Novatians did fellow, never using that bolie Chrism. 37. Fulke in his answer to the notes of the Rhemists on this place answereth, that Novatus omitted the ceremony of anointing, yet doth not Cornelius say that he fell into heresy because he had not received the holy Ghost by consignation of a Bishop, but only showeth what manner a man he was. Thus he answereth the Rhemists. And M. Nicholas joineth with him in his answer to Master Doctor, saying: Only Eusebius out of Cornelius in an Epistle to Fabianus recounteth that he fell, persecutionis tempore, metu debilitatus & nimia vitae cupiditate adductus; in time of persecution, weakened with fear, and moved with too much desire of life. And presently after sayeth Master Nicholas: It may be well that he fell for want of Confirmation: Yet as Fulke said, so he sayeth, I deny that Eusebius sayeth so. But I had rather give credit to the Rhemists then to M. Nicholas, I having especially found him tripping so often and their one affirmation ought to be taken before ten negations or denials of M. Nicholas. Estins also having said that the Apostles use to give Confirmation so soon after batisme as might conveniently be, Estius in 4. d. 7 § 18. sayeth: Quorum alacritatem & studium in conferendo hoc Samentum imitari convenit omnes Episcopos, maximè quod huius subsidij neglectu fiat, ut persecutionis tempore multi deficiant aut labantur, sicut teste Cornelio Papa, Novato accidit: Whose alacrity and studiè in giving this Sacrament, it is convenient that all Bishops should imitate, especially because by neglect of this help, it comes to pass in time of persecution that many do fail or fall as (witness Pope Cornelius) it happened to Novatus. Behold another author of greater credit than Master Nicholas as being a Classical Author, & having been many year's professor of divinity in the famous University of Douai, affirmeth also with M. Doctor and against M. Nicholas, that Novatus fell in time of persecution for want of Confirmation. Bzovius also in his first tome speaking of Novatus or Novatianus sayeth thus of him: morbo tandem clapsus, neque caetera quibus post Baptismum secundum Ecclesiae Canonem, imbui oportucrat, acquisivit; neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus, quamobrem neque Spiritum sanctum ex sacro Chrismate adeptus, persecutionis metu debilitatus, & nimia vitae cupiditate adductus, se presbyterum esse negavit: At length having escaped, his sickness, he neither got the rest with which according to the Ecclesiastical Canon he should have been imbued or furnished, nor was he signed with our Lords seal: Wherefore neither having by the sacred Chrism gotten the holy Ghost, he in time of persecution being weakened with fear (to wit because by Confirmation he had not gotten the holy Ghost) and moved with too much desire of, life he denied himself to be a priest. Bzevius to 1. l. 3 Eccl hist. Anno. Christi 254. Corn. Papa an. 1. Colu ●49. And after, Bzovius relateth how at the request of the Deacons he refused to help them that were in danger and necessity; but in a Choler want from them, and afterward fell into Schism in ambitiously aspiring to be Pope: And why all this, but because he had not by Confirmation received the holy Ghost. Baius lib. 2. Instit. c. 631. l. 2. de Conf. c. 63. nam ideo Novatum ad haeresim procliviorem fuisse sensit Cornelius Papa quoniam signaculo Chrismatis confirmatus non esset, Eusebio teste l. 6. high c. 33. For Cornelius' Pope thought that Novatus was more prove to heresy because he was not confirmed by the seal of Chrism, Inc 8 Art. ve. 17. in fine. as Eusebius witnesseth libr. 6. Histor, cap. 33. Lorinus a jesuite sayeth that Novatus was possessed by the derull because he received not the Sacrament, yea rejected it? With these Catholic Authors M. Doctor thought it more honour tojoine, then with Fulke the heretic as M. Nicholas in this doth. 38. Now whereas M. Nicholas sayeth, that he hath answered to M. Doctors conjecture (so he calleth it) that in time of persecution, Confirmation is necessary for a country, because if one fall not, others will; I grant that he hath endeavoured in the beginning of this question numero 6. and 7. but, could never yet perform that he hath endeavoured. He sayeth numero 6. that the times of persecution in our Country have been most bitter; and yet would to God we could behold the zeal, fervour, Charity and constancy, which in these days Catholics without Confirmation showed. But why speaketh he in this manner? Doth he think a country in persecution may do better without Confirmation then with it, or that it helpeth nothing? Why then did Christ institute it to the end that in persecution we might with an undaunted courage profess our faith before the persecutor? And sayeth he. I hold it no rashness to say, that since England's enjoying a Bishop, more harm hath hefalne Catholik's in general. See how Passion transporteth Master Nicholas? And by whose fault is it that since we had a Bishop more harm hath befallen Catholics in general? Is it the presence of a Bishop that bringeth such harm? Why then did Christ and the holy Ghost appoint Bishops to govern the Church? Act. 20. Other Countries in time of persecution have ever received great benefits, much comfort and encouragement by their Bishops: Why then should we only receive a general harm by having a learned Bishop, a man of exemplar life, and a bishop sent by lawful and highest authority? I will not say who are the cause, but I refer that to all indifferent men's judgements, and even to Master Nicholas his calmer disposition, and better consideration. If every one had received and obeyed him as they ought to have done (Saint Peter's successor sending him) and if they who found themselves grieved, had proposed their grievances and difficulties unto Superiors in all quiet modesty, and without clamours, and had patienty expected their decision, and determination, there had not arisen such scandal as there did. 39 But to come to the matter. Ca 14 n. 7. Master Doctor said, that although even in time of persecution a man may have sufficient grace without Confirmation to stand to his faith and Religion, as may appear by them who neither confirmed nor Baptised with water, have endured martyrdom for their faith, and so have been baptised in their own blood, and as may be seen in our English Catholics who (though many of them were not confirmed) shed their blood to seal and sign their faith: Yet because Confirmation is the ordinary means instituted to give force and courage in time of persecution: to neglect it in such a time when every man may fear his own infirmity, is a mortal sin: and if it be neglected for a general persecution (in which, as above, many thousands in particular may commodiously receive it) if one fall not as Master Doctor sayeth, Estius in 4. dist. 7. § 18. Ca 14. n. 8. others probably will as Novatus did: And so, a country in such a persecution is obliged to receive a Bishop, lest it show itself cruel to so many thousands, who have right to the Sacrament, and might notwithstanding a general persecution commodiously receive, and may fall for want of it. 40. Of this I shall give these ensuing reasons. The first is this. Even in time of a ganerall persecution (of which we speak) many and sometimes many thousands, as above is showed, may receive this holy Sacrament of Confirmation without any moral danger (as now in England, since we had our two most Reverend Bishops, many thousands have done) and seeing that all these by Christ his institution have right to Confirmation; the rest of the country cannot, for a general persecution, refuse this Sacrament, lest they should do great injury to so many. secondly they who in time of a general persecution when they may in particular receive this Sacrament, do neglect it, though they know not how soon they may be called to make profession of their faith, do seem to presume to much of God his extraordinary grace: for seeing that Confirmation is the ordinary means to get this grace, thereby to confess their faith, if they neglect it, presuming of God his grace without this means, it cannot be but a great presumption. 41. thirdly in time of persecution when one is apprehended and brought before the persecutor, he useth to threaten loss of Lands and goods, liberty and life itself: he therefore who in time of persecution seethe himself exposed to all these difficulties, had need to arm himself by all the means he can: and (whatsoever Master Nicholas sayeth) he may fear his own infirmity, for that it is not an easy thing, even with ordinary grace, to forsake Lands, goods, liberty, life, Father, mother, wife, and children, rather than to deny or not to profess his faith; and it is above the force of flesh and blood: and although he may have grace sufficient (as many in our Country without Confirmation have had) yet this grace which giveth force to profess our faith before the Tyrant, is not due to any but these who are confirmed, to whom it is due by the Sacrament and character which it imprinteth, as ahove I have declared. 3. par. q. 72. art. 8. n. 89, Wherefore AEgidius Coninck a jesuite sayeth, that it may be a mortal sin not to receive this Sacrament by reason of ones conscience; si omnino crederet sibi imminere periculum nisi hoc Sacramentum susciperet, quod saepe posset contingere in ijs qui versantur continuò inter haereticos, & vel minis, vel promissis, aut alia ratione ad defectionem sollicitantur, nam est singulare Dei donum in talibus casibus fidem constanter tueri, quod etsi Deus paratus est omnibus dare, tamen saepe minus liberaliter illud dat iis qui non utuntur medijs ab ipso ad hoc institutis, qualis est Confirmatio: As if one should altogether believe, that he should be in danger unless he received this Sacraement, which might oftentimes happen in thsse's who live continually amongst heretics (as English Catholics do) and who there by threats or promises or otherwise are solicited to forsake their faith (as English Catholics are.) For it is a singular gift of God to defend constantly ones faith in such cases; which gift though God be ready to give, yet oftentimes, he less liberally bestoweth it on these who use not the means by him instituted to this, as is Confirmation. And so as a Vigilant and prudent soldier when he is in the field and knoweth not how soon the enemy will assault him, is always armed and even sleepeth in his armour: So the prudent Christian in time of persecution, when he knoweth not how soon the persecutor may set upon him, ought always to be armed, and especially with the armour of proof, Confirmation, it being the proper armour instituted by Christ to be used in time of persecution. 42. But M. Nicholas pagin. 88 & 89. sayeth that when Estius sayeth that Confirmation cannot be omitted without mortal sin in time of persecution, he speaketh in time and place of such persecution of faith, as bringeth with it danger of a man's denying his faith, which thankes be to God, we may saith not our case in England, where etc. And is there not danger in England of a man's denying his faith? I would to God there were not. Is there not danger of a man's denying his faith in England where not long since a Priest and a lay man were executed for their faith at Lancraster? and where many also not so long since were enforced to abjure their faith, not only for the time present, but also for the time to come: where so many not long since had their Lands seized on? Where the Pursivantes do lie in wait and watch continually to apprehend Catholics? where the Laws are still in force and may be executed every day? M. Nicholas sayeth in the hottest persecution the zeal of many was admirable. I grant it, and the greater was God's grace to them, but many also then fell, of whom some no doubt would have stood constantly to their faith, if they had had Confirmation. 42. fourthly, although heretofore in Queen Elizabethes' reign or, when we had not the honour nor hoppines to have a Bishop and so consequently were deprived of Confirmation. God out of his great mercy supplied the want of Confirmation, and gave to many the grace of confirmation without Confirmation: Yet now when we may have a Bishop (as thankes be God we have) and may commodiously in time of persecution receive Confirmation (as thousands have done without any temporal loss or damage) to except against a Bishop and consequently against Confirmation, of which the Bishop only, is at least, the ordinary Minister, almighty God might justly and should have just reason to deny us that grace, and many for want of it would fail and fall as Novatus and others have done. 43. Lastlie, it cannot be denied but that Christians are more able and likely with this Sacramen to profess their faith, them they are without it: and that more in a country persecuted are like to stand to the profession of their faith with this Sacrament the without, else this Sacrament should be needless, and Christ tolitle purpose should have instituted it: ergo in a country persecuted & destitute of this Sacrament, many do full who otherwise would stand, and for every one that standeth, perhaps twenty will fall. 44. For these reasons in the primative Church the custom was to give Confirmation presently after baptism, that so the baptised might never want his special armour instituted against persecution. Act. 2. Saint Peter by his first sermon having converted about three thousand, bade them do penance, and be euerie one haptized, and what else? and you shall, sayeth he, receine the gift of the holy ghost, the proper effect of Confirmation, given presently after Baptism. And when S. Philipp had converted and baptised the Samaritans, because he (as being no Bishop) could not confirm them, the Apostles who were in Jerusalem hearing of their conversion sent S. Peter and John that of them they might be confirmed and receive the holy Ghost. Act. 8. In like manner so soon as certain disciples at Ephesus were baptised, Actor. 19 Saint Paul imposed hands upon them and gave then the holy Ghost. And the first Popes and Bishops following herein the A-Apostles example, never separated (but in case of necessity, the one Sacrament from the other, and therefore S. Clement, S. Cle. 4. Ep ad Epist. Hispa. as above we have seen, biddeth all to hasten after baptism to be consigned of the Bishop: and S. Melchiades Pope, sayeth that these two Sacraments, Baptism and Confirmation, are so linked together, ut ab invicem, nisi morte praeveniente, nullatenus possint segregari, & unum sine altero ritè perfici non potest: that unless by preventing death, they can in no wise (according to that ancient custom in time of persecution) be separated nor the one without the other cannot rightly be accomplished. Estius in 4. d. 7 § 18 And so I conclude with Estius (as before) that it is a thing very fitting and convenient, especially in time of persecution, that all Bishops following the example of these their worthy Predecessors, should have can that Confirmation should not be differred too long after Baptism (much less quite omitted as M. Nicholas would) maximè quod huius subsidij neglectu fiat, ut persecutionis tempore multi deficiant aut labantur, sicut teste Cornelio Papa, Novato accidit: especially because by a neglect of this aid or secure it cometh to pass, that in time of persecution many do fail or fallie, as (witness S. Cornelius Pope) it happened to Novatus. THE FIFTH QUESTION. Concerning M. Doctors comparison between Bishops, inferior Pastors, and Religious men. MASTER NICHOLAS. MUCH against my will I am enforced to handle this point by occasion of M. Doctor his Treatise, through all which, and particularly in his 11. Chapter, he speaketh with over much partiality and disadvantage of a Religious state in comparison of Bishops and other inferior Pastors, or Curates. n. 1. THE REPLY. M. Nicholas untruely accuseth M. Doctor of partiality in comparing of Bishops and other Pastors with Religions. 1. Whereas M. Nicholas accuseth M. Doctor of partiality in comparing the state of Bishops and other Pastors with the state of Religions, I answer for him, as Suarez answereth for himself to a supposed objection which might be made against him, for making the self same comparison. Suarez to 3 l. ● de Statu perfectionis c. 18. Haec comparatio (sayeth he) odiosa videri potest, & ideo vitanda, ut tetigit Valensis lib. 3. tom. 3. de Sacramentalis. titul. 9 capit. 8. veruntamen facile tollitur invidia etc. This comparison may seem odious, and therefore to be shunned as Waldensis sayeth libr. 3. tom. 3. de Sacramentalibus tit. 9 c. 8. but yet the envy is easily taken away, if both prudentelie and modestly it be handled; and if with all it be considered, that the comparison is not made betwixt persons, but states: and their conditions and qualities; or, as S. Thomas sayeth 22. q. 184. art. 8. if comparison be made of the kind and nature of the work, not of the charity of the worker as Christ preferred the contemplative life before the active Luc. 7. saying that Marie had chosen the best part. And I refer me to the Reader, what moderation M. Doctor hath used both in his Epistle dedicatory and throughout all his Treatise, and even in his 11. Chapter, where he makes no comparisons betwixt persons, but only betwixt states and their conditions and qualities, and yields to the Regulars as much as Saint Thomas of Aquin and Suarez do, and giveth no more to Bishops and other Pastors than they and all Divines, even Regulars do. MASTER NICHOLAS. First then we will speak of Bishops; and in the second place, of inferior Pastors. n. 1. THE REPLY. M. Nicholas cannot deny but that Bishops are in higher and perfecter state of perfection, as is proved. 2. M. Nicholas after he hath told us that he will first speak of Bishops and their state, maketh some unnecessary preambles from the page 92. and number 2. to the 5. number, endeavoureth to answer this first comparison, but his endeavours are all vain; for that he neither hath, neither can he, or any for him ever prove or show, that the Regular state is to be parangoned to the Episcopal. And that the state of a Bishop is higher than the state of the regular, S. Th. 2.2. q 184. Suarez tom. 3 l. ● de Statu. perfectionis c 18. it is the common and confessed opinion of S. Thomas and all Divines which Suarez proveth largely and learnedly. 3. This is his conclusion concerning Bishops: Dico ergo primo Episcoporum Statum esse perfectiorem quocunque statureligioso: ac subinde statum perfectionis exercendae, perfectiorem ex suo genere esse, quam statum acquirendae perfectionis: I say therefore, first that the state of Bishops is perfecter than any Religious state: and that the state of perfection to be exercised, is of its nature and kind perfecter, than the state of perfection to be acquired. This conclusion concerning the first part of it, I could prove by many arguments, as M. Doctor hath done in his 11. Chapter numero 14. but, that less exception may be taken against my proofs they shall be no other in effect then those which Suarez hath. 4. First he proveth this out of Fathers, whom be allegeth in his fifteenth chapter, and amongst them S. Clement in his first Epist. Which Fathers do not only affirm that Bishops are in the state of them that are perfect, but also in that height that no state can equalise them; and therefore they style Bishops most Holy, the Legates of Christ, spiritual Fathers, pillars of the Church. 5. secondly this I prove as Suarez doth by the functions of a Bishop, to which by his state he is obliged: for as powers are specified of their actions, and therefore the understanding is a perfecter power than the will, the will then the sensitive appetite, the power of seeing them the power of hearing: so the state of perfection takes its eminency over other states, by its more perfect functions. And therefore seeing that to the Bishop's state there belong the highest functions in God his Church, his state is the perfectest of all states in the said Church. That the Bishop hath the most excellent and eminent functions, it is manifest: for that he by his state hath all the perfections and excellencies which are in the states and fruictions of inferior prelate's, and in a more eminent manner for he hath power to teach and preach, and to illuminate others by the word of God, which he preacheth, as inferior Pastors have; yea this function of preaching principally belongeth to him, as the Council of Trent hath defined, saying that it is praecipuum Episcoporum munus, the chief office of a Bishop: as indeed it is, Cone. Trid. sess. 5. c. 2. & sess. 24 c. 4. Marci. vlt. according to the commandment of Christ given to the Apostles, and in them, to Bishops their successors: praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae: preach, the Gospel to all creatures. And beside he hath his own proper functions, which they have not, to wit, to govern a more ample part of the whole Church, to sit in Counsels as judge, to direct and judge inferior Pastors, to ordain ministers, to confirm, to consecrate Churches, Altars, Chalices etc. which other Pastors cannot do. Likewise it pertaineth most of all to Bishops by their examples to illuminate others, even inferior Pastors, Mat 5 joan. 10. Conc. Tol. 11. c. 2. and therefore they especially are the light of the world and they especially like good Pastors are to go before their sheep by illuminating them by doctrine and example. For as the eleventh Council of Tolet sayeth: by how much any one hath the higher place, by so much the more it is necessary, that he go before others in grace of merits etc. 6. thirdly sayeth Suarez in a Bishop especially is required great charity, as well towards God, who is the principal Lord of his sheep, joan. 21. & therefore Christ calleth them his sheep: as also towards his subjects whom he must tolerate and assist; with whose infirmities he must bear, whose necessities he must relieve, and to whom he must be an honourable servant as S. Paul was, 1. Car. 9 when he said: factus sum omnium seruus ut plures lucrifacerem: I made myself the servant of all, that I might gain the more. 7. fourthly, the Bishop peculiarly and in the first place, by his office and state is bound to give his life for his sheep, which is the greatest charity, joan. 10. & 15. and which requireth great patience and fortititude. 8. Lastlie the perfection and height of the state of a Bishop, may be gathered by what M. Doctor hath said in his 6. Chapt. where he hath showed that the Bishop is higher in dignity, power and authority, than the simply Priest, by the Divine Institution; for that he can confirm and give orders, and with two other Bishops can ordain a Bishop: Which simple Priests cannot do, at least, as ordinary ministers; and therefore the Council of Trent sayeth, that Bishops, do principally appertain to the hierarchical order. Conc. Trid. sess. 23. cap. 4. de Sacram. Ordin. 9 The same may be deduced by what he hath delivered in his seventh Chapter, were he hath proved, that Bishops and Priests, are of the highest orders in the Church. This he hath proved out of diverse Fathers and examples, even of Emperors who attribute much to the dignity of Bishops, and amongst those Fathers he citeth S. Ignatius, Ignat. ep. ad Smyrn who sayeth, that in the Church of God, there is nothing greater than the Bishop. 10. The same may be also gathered out of his eleventh Chapter n. 18. S. Th' 2.2 q 185 are 8. in Corp. Where he allegeth S. Thomas his words: Status religionis ad perfectionem pertinet, quasi quaedam via in perfectionem tendens: Status autem Episcoporum ad perfectionem pertinet, tanquam quoddam perfectionis Magisterium. Vnde status religionis comparatur ad statum Episcopalem, sicut disciplina ad magisterium, & dispositio ad perfectionem: The state of Religion pertaineth to perfection, as a certain way tending unto perfection: But the state of Bishops pertaineth to perfection as a certain mastership of perfection. Whence it is that the state of Religion is compared to the Episcopal state as instruction to mastership. M. Doctor also allegeth there Henricus de Gandavo who hath the like words, and thence he concludeth, Henr. quodl. 12. q. 29. Math. 10. that where the Religious endeth, there a Bishop or Pastor beginneth. For (as Christ sayeth) the disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his Lord. It sufficeth the disciple, if he be as his master. And seldom it is seen, that the Scholar attaineth to the perfection of his master: and if he doth, yet the state of a Scholar is lower than the state of a master, and it requireth less perfection. Henr Supra. Wherefore Henricus as M. Doctor alleged, sayeth that the master ought to be perfecter than the Scholar: and again: that when any Religions is brought, ad summum aliquid & perfectum; to the height of perfection; he is then fit to be assumed for a Prelate. 11. Why doth then M. Nicholas so storm against M. Doctor as though he had spoken partially and with disadvantage of a religious state through all his Treatise, and particularly in his 11. Chapter? Hath he said more for Bishops, or less for Regulars, or could he say more for Bishops then S. Thomas, Suarez and Henricus have? Yea M. Doctor speaketh principally out of S. Thomas, let him them wreak his anger on S. Thomas and Suarez. 12. So that M. Doctor in this, needeth neither to leave S. Thomas nor Henricus de Gandavo, as M. Nicholas n. 13. sayeth he must. For that concerning the state of a Bishop they both agree, as their words alleged will witness; and although Henricus sayeth more than S. Thomas doth, to wit, that not only the Bishop, but also inferior Pastors are in an higher state of perfection than the regulars; much more in his opinion, the Bishop is in an higher state them the religious, for which only thing M. Doctor alleged him. And whereas M. Doctor said, that where a religious man endeth, there a Bishop or Pastor beginneth, which words (or Pastor) M. Nicholas carpeth at; M. Doctor addeth or Pastor, because he known that Henricus de Gandavo and Gerson do hold, that even Curates have a state of perfection above regulars, which opinion Suarez, as we shall see, deemeth not improbable; and at least, as M. Doctor a little before had proved, they have a calling and office of greater perfection than hath the religious. Yet M. Doctor not standing on this, concludeth only, that the Bishop (he now addeth not or Pastor) layeth his foundation on the religious man's roof and top. So that unless M. Nicholas will leave S. Thomas the Angelical Doctor, Suarez and all Divines, he must Grant, that the Bishop is absolutely in an higher state of perfection, than the state of Regulars is. 13. And in deed M. Nicholas cannot bring so much as one argument to equalise the state of a Regular to the state of a Bishop, nor hath he, or can he answer any one of M. Doctors arguments by which he preferred the state of a Bishop. What then hath he done? He telleth us n. 2. that we must distinguish betwixt the state, which is to exercise perfection, which is the state of Bishops, & the state which endeavoureth to attain to perfection, which is the state of Regulars, lest we err in generalities, as he said, and be deceived, with specious words not well understood; as though M. Doctor had not in his 11. Chap. made the same distinction, and therefore had deceived others. And what more? he seeketh all he can to extol a religious state, as being more secure, yielding more means to get grace: and to depress the state of a Bishop, as requiring perfection, but yielding no means to get it, as being dangerous etc. But let us come to particulars. M. NICHOLAS. The Bishop is in a state which presupposeth, but doth not give perfection; which a religious state doth not suppose, but give. n. 5. THE REPLY. M. NICHOLAS offereth injury to the state of a Bishop: for that it doth give perfection even ex opere operato. 14. I find by M. Nicholas his dealing in this point, that it is true which Philosophers say of the senses, to wit, that sensibile supra sensum positum non facit sensationem; and therefore the eye which can see the objects without it, cannot see the moat that is within it: for so M. Nicholas can espy odious comparisons of the state of Bishops and regulars in M. Doctor (who indeed made none) but he cannot see such comparisons in himself, because they are too near him, as being his own. For what comparison can be odious, if this be not, which derogateth to the very consecration of the Bishops, as though thereby he received no grace? for although the state of a Bishop be holy, and is also the most eminent state and order in the Church of God, yea and, as the Council of Trent sayeth, is onus Angelicis humeris for midandum, a burden to be feared even of Angels shoulders; Concil. Trid. sess 6. de Refor. c. 1. Suarez to 3 de Relig. l. 1.6.15. n. 12. and therefore of itself presupposeth grace and perfection, which may be gotten, and oftentimes is, out of a Religious state, as M. Doctor proveth in his 〈◊〉 Chapter n. 11. and Suarez also confesseth (wherein it hath a precedence of the religious state, which requireth no such former perfection, but admitteth even the greatest sinners, so they bring with them a purpose of amendment.) Yet the order of a Bishop which consisteth in an holy consecration under a certain form of words, giveth great plenty of grace, and consequently of charity (in which consisteth perfection) and that also ex opere operato as other Sacraments do. 15. I grant that Dominicus Sotus and others also are of opinion, Sotus ●n 9 d. 24. q. 2. ar. 3. Bel. to. 2. l. 1. de Sacr. Ord. c. 5. Vasq to 3. disput 260. c. 3 Petr. a Soto de Inst. Sacerd. lec. 4. de Sac. Ord. Mich. Med. l. 1. de Sacrorum hom. continentia cap. 15. that the order of a Bishop is an holy office and dignity instituted by Christ, and higher than the dignity of as Priest, but yet no Sacrament: Yet many other Divines do affirm it to be a holy Sacrament which is the opinion of C. Bellarmine, Vasquez, Petrus a Soto, Michael Medina, and commonly of jesuites. 16. This they prove out of S. Paul in the first Epistle to. S. Timothy and 4. Chap. Noli negligere gratiaen quae in te est, quae data est tibi per prophetiam, cum impositione manuum presbyterij: neglect not the grace that is in thee which is given thee by prophecy with the imposition of the hands of priesthood. Out of which Words the Fathers and Catholic writers do use to prove that order is a Sacrament, which giveth grace: and therefore seeing that in these words S. Paul speaketh of the ordination of Timothy a Bishop, which ordination is done by three Bishops, at least, who are understood in the words Priesthood, Episcopal ordination must be an holy order and Sacrament, and yet not make 8. orders, because it is counted one order with priesthood, in that in essentially supposeth priesthood, without which presupposed, one cannot be a Bishop, & it maketh of a simple Priest an high Priest, who is called Summus Sacerdos. This consecration then of a Bishop which consisteth in imposition of hands of the priesthood, that is of three Bishops (as M. Doctor hath showed in his Hierarchy Chap. 6. n. 6.) is an holy order and no less holy Sacrament, which giveth grace to the Bishop (as S. Paul averreth) & no doubt, copious and abundant grace proportionable to the state of a Bishop, which as it is an high state subject to dangers and many molestations, so it requireth great grace. For if carnal marriage requireth grace to bear the burdens and difficulties thereof, much more doth the Consecration of a Bishop, who by his office is to exercise the highest acts of perfection, and is to govern others & to expose himself by his office to many difficulties and dangers, requireth abundant grace. And this grace the Bishop receiveth by his consecration. 17. And so M. Nicholas derogateth to the Episcopal state & consecration when he sayeth n. 5. that the Bishop, is in a state, which presupposeth, but doth not give perfection, which a religious state doth not presuppose, but give. For that the consecration of a Bishop doth give great grace, and that ex opere operato and infallibly, whereas the religious state giveth only ex opere operantis and not infallibly, nor at all, unless to the profession it maketh, and to the religious acts of poverty, chastity & obedience which it exerciseth, charity be adjoined. 18. secondly the very exercise of Episcopal functions being the most eminent hierarchical actions, and most charitable and beneficial to others, cannot but continually (unless the Bishop by his own fault do hinder) augment this grace and perfection received in his consecration as M. Nicholas is forced to confess n. 3. For as the master by teaching others, perfecteth himself in learning, so the Bishop in perfecting others by ordaining, confirming, preaching, and governing perfecteth himself in grace, charity & perfection. 19 And although there be greater danger in the state of a Bishop then of a Regular (if he keep his rule and cloister, yet the Bishop by his consecration receiveth grace to perform his office, which grace also is due to his consecration, and never wanting but by the Bishops own fault. And this danger proceeding from the height of the Bishop's state, argueth it an higher state of perfection, because as S. Hierome sayeth: non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri, iam cum Christo regnantium: it is not an easy thing to stand in Paul's place, to bold the degree of Peter, who now reign with Christ. Hieron ep. as Heliodorum Quamto amore. For as the High Cedars are more shaken with winds than the low shrubs; so they who are highest in state and dignity, are most subject to the winds of temptations; and yet the Bishop in Peter & Paul's place may stand firmly against all such tempests and winds, if he use the grace which he receiveth in his consecration, as many a worthy Bishop hath done. M. NICHOLAS. But these 2. states of perfection already acquired or to be acquired, 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 Bihop regular is in a state of perfecting himself and others. n. 4. THE REPLY. A Bishop regular is not in an higher state of perfection than a Bishop secular. 20. If M. Nicholas his meaning in these words be, that a Bishop by his state is so to perfect others, as he hath no means to perfect himself, he goeth about to deceive his Reader: for that (as even now we shown) a Bishop by his consecration receiveth copious grace, and by exercising his function hath means to increase it. If his meaning be that a Regular Bishop is in an higher state than a Bishop not regular, he is deceived: for although the regular Bishop hath more states, than the Bishop not regular, yet he hath no higher state. It is true that a regular Bishop if he observe his counsels, vows and rules, hath more means than a Bishop not regular, because he hath the means of a Bihop and of a regular also: but he cannot when he is Bishop exercise much more his counsels and Rules then a Secular Bishop doth: for that both are bound to chastity, & the regular is now bound to no other obedience than the secular Bishop: and although the regular Bishop hath not Dominium of his revenues as the secular Bishop hath, yet he hath as much use of them, saving that he cannot make a testament, as the secular Bishop may. But howsoever he may have more means to get perfection, yet he is not always most fit to govern a Bishopric. 22. Now as concerning these Regulars who by their institute (as M. Nicholas sayeth the same place nu. 4.) beside their own perfection, attend also to the help of their neighbour; that is, do preach and minister Sacraments to Christians at home, and to infidels abroad: I grant that they as Priests are of the Hierarchy (of which I shall speak in the next question) and do exercise hierarchical actions of perfecting, illuminating and purging others: but that pertaineth not to a religious state in general, and therefore the Regulars of the primitive Church were few of them Priests, as we shall see in the next question, and so did none of the hierarchical actions, nor did they preach or minister Sacraments: and therefore Suarez sayeth that although the religious state doth sometimes exercise actions pertaining to the state of perfection to be communicated, or to be exercised about others, they do only participate it instrumentally, and by a certain delegation from the supreme Prelates: and therefore such a state doth not attain to the excellency of the Episcopal state, to which these actions do principally, and as it were by proper right appertain. Whereupon, the obligation of exercising such acts, and the procuring the salvation of souls, and losing his life for them (if so it must be) is fare greater and higher in the Bishop, then in any whosoever simple religious, of whatsoever institute he be. And therefore in this respect also his state is perfecter. Moreover the Bishops by their own right, and all privileges set a part, are Pastors and perfectors of the religious, of what order soever they be: and therefore by virtue of the office, more perfection is required in the Bishop. Suarez to. 3. l. 1 c. 18. n. 14. Thus fare Suarez, whereas M. Nicholas addeth that the religious, who by their institute are not only to perfect themselves but also others, is perfecter than the state of Curates, we shall examine that hereafter. M. NICHOLAS. 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 etc. A vow not to be come religious is wicked and of no force etc. Something there must be wherein a religious state surpasseth that of a Bishop, otherwise i● were not lawful to vow not to accept a Bishopric. n. 6. THE REPLY. Whether A vow not to be religious be wicked; and whether one may vow not to accept a Bishopric. 23. All that M. Nicholas here allegeth is little to the purpose; for although there may be some commodities in a religious life, as less danger more security, more means to mortify sensuality and that therefore one may rather vow to be religious then to be a Bishop, or to accept of that office and dignity, yet all would not prove that the state of a religious man is an higher state or as high, which yet is the thing we dispute of; for as the little shrub is less shaken with the winds then the Cedar, yet is not taller than it: and as the low cottage is less beaten by tempests then the princely palace, yet is not higher, so the religious life may be a more secure, yet not a more perfect state. 24. But sayeth M. Nicholas n. 5. the more voluntary the election of a Religious life is, the more commendable it is, and the state of a Bishop is hen most securely accepted of, when it is less willingly accepted. I grant this. But why? not because a Religious life is a perfecter state, but because it being a lower state is less subject to danger, & so may more willingly be desired & vowed. He proceedeth n. 6. a vow made of not accepting a Bishopric is valid and holy. A vow not to become religious is wicked, and of no force: ergo sayeth he, there must be something wherein a religious state surpasseth that of a Bishop. By the same argument M. Nicholas might prefer a religious state before the sat of the Pope, because a man may vow to be religious yet he may not vow to be Pope; or if he may vow not to accept a Bishopric, much more may he vow not to accept the Popedom. 25. Wherefore I demand of M. Nicholas when he sayeth that for this cause, there must be something wherein a religious life surpasseth that of a Bishop, What he meaneth by his something? if he mean some degree of state or perfectim, wherein the religious life surpasseth that of the Bishop, he contradicteth S. Thomas and Suarez & all that above is alleged to prove the state of a Bishop to be the highest state of perfection. If he mean by that something more security, less danger, and peradventure some better means to tame our flesh, to bridle our concupiscence, to remove the impediments of the love of God, in which consisteth perfection: it is not to the purpose. For so there is something in a fly which is not in an Eagle, something in a mouse which is not in a Lion, some thing in a little shrub, which is not in a Cedar something in a flint which is not in a Saphire, and yet absolutely the Eagle surpasseth the fly, the Lion the mouse, the Cedar the shrub; the Saphire the fl●it, and so there may be something in a religious state which is not in the state of a Bishop, though this state absolutely surpass that. 26. But M. Nicholas objecteth that to vow not to be religious, is wicked and invalid, to vow not to accept a Bishopric is laudable and valid: ergo a religious state hath some good which a Bishop's state hath not; else this might be vowed as well as that. I answer, first that to swear at least in some case not to be religious is not wicked & yet an oath hath a great affinity with a vow. For M. Nicholas knoweth that the Sea Apostolic hath commanded all these who will enjoy the benefit of the Pope's Seminaries, to swear that they willbe Priests, and will not enter into any religious order or congregation without licence of the Pope, unless they first labour in the mission the space of three years. And Navarre sayeth, Nava. in M●nuali. ca 12. n. 16. that for one to swear that he will not enter into religion, or receive holy orders is but a venial sin, ergo it is not to be called wicked: for saith he if to swear to commit a venial sin be but a venial sin, to swear not to be religious to which, under no sin he is bound, can be but a venial sin. 27. Nau. c. 12. n. secondly I answer with the same Navarre more directly, that to vow not to be religious bindeth not, and therefore, notwithstanding that vow, one may be religious; yet such a vow is but a venial sin, and so cannot be called wicked as M. Nicholas calls it, because in our English tongue, wicked soundeth as doth impium in the Latin tongue, and is taken for a grievous or mortal sin. And therefore M. Nicholas could not call him that committeth only a venial sin, a wicked or impious man. 28. Thirdely I answer that although to vow not to procure to be a Bishop may be holy and valid, yet to vow not to accept a Bishopric when it is imposed on a man by the Pope and in necessity of the Church, is not holy and valid, but it is rather wicked and invalid. For that to vow not to accept a Bishopric in that case, is to vow a great disobedience against authority, and which also in that case, is against the Charity we vow to God his Church, and so the vow is wicked being a vow of a mortal sin, and it is invalid because it is not the meliori bono, not of an act which is better done then undone, for that in that case it is not better not to accept a Bishopric imposed by Authority, then to accept it. 2. 2. q. 185. ar. 2. Wherefore S. Thomas sayeth that to refuse finally the office of a Bishop pertaineth to an inordination of the will for two causes. The one because it is against charity, S Thomas 2. 2. q. 29. ar. 7. ad 2. the other because it is against humility, by which a man subiecteth himself to the commandment of the superior. And in another place he sayeth: cum aliquis iurat quod non accipiet praelationem in casu quo expedit eum accipere etc. When one sweareth that be will not accept of a prelacy when it is expedient be should, that he sinneth because his oath hundereth a greater good. Navarre also sayeth, Nau. in man c 12. n. 16. that he who sweareth that he will not enter into Religion, or that he will not receive holy orders, or that he will not accept of a Bishopric sinneth, though not mortally: and he citeth S. S. Thomas in the last place, Angelus & Sylu. v. I● ramentum & Angelus, & Sylvester. And he sayeth that such an oath doth not bind. Azorius who citeth for himself. Antoninus, sayeth that the oath which one maketh not to accept of a Bishopric may be broken by the private authority of him that sweareth. Azor. to. 1. l. 11. c. 5. And so to vow absolutely not to accept a Bishopric is unlawful, because in a necessity one may be bound to accept is and to desire it, and if it be imposed by authority it cannot be refused. Only it is lawful and laudable to vow not to seek for a Bishopric, or to accept of it when it is offerred and when there is no necessity, and when it is not imposed by a commanding authority. 29. lastlly I answer that although to vow to procure to be a Bishop or to seek after that dignity, where there is no necessity of the church, be sinful and of no force to bind; and to vow to be a Religious man be an holy and valid vow: and to vow absolutely, not to procure a Bishopric is holy and valid, & to vow absolutely not to be a religious man is absolutely unholy and not valid: Yet that is not because to be a religious man is absolutely better than to be a Bishop (for as S. Paul sayeth, if a man desire a Bishop's office, he desireth a good work, 1. Tim. 3. Yom. 3. de Relig. c. 18. and as we have seen and as Suarez affirmeth, a work more perfect than the proper acts and functions of a religion are, but because the office of a Bishop (though good and of greater charity & perfection then religious profession & in that respect fit to be vowed as much as other good works) is subject to avarice by reason of the riches annexed unto it, to ambition by reason of the splendour and honour, and to presumption by reason of man's improportion to such a dignity, and lastlie to other dangers by reason of many distractions caused by Episcopal affairs, and so cannot be so much as desired, as S. Thomas affirmeth: yet as he also averreth, S Thomas 2 2. q. 185. are ●. to desire to do good to others, in the exercise of the Episcopal function is of itself laudable and virtuous According to which S. chrysostom cited by S. Thomas, Chrys. bom. 35. in Mat. saith: opus quidem desiderate bonum, bonum est, primatum tameu bonoris concupiscere vanitas est; primatus enim fugientem se desiderat, desider antem so odit: To desire a good work is good, but to covet the primacy of honour is vanity, for that primacy desireth him that flieth it, and hateth him that desireth it. 30. But in necessity of the Church, when there want men able and willing, or when other wise an unworthy person would be preferred, to desire or to vow to be a Bishop is no sin, nor is the vow invalid. Suarez having said, that though the state of a Bishop be better than the state of a religious man obliging to more perfect operations, and requiring more and greater virtues, yet cannot be vowed because that only can be vowed, Szarez to. 3. l. 1. c. 18. n. 5. 11. 12. which is not only good, but also hath no danger annexed: yet notwithstanding (sayeth he) it is not intrinsically evil, to vow to accept a Bishop's office if it be abstracted from these temporal commodities, as honour, riches, splendour (as now it is in England) and especially if it be joined with the contrary incommodities, to which it was joined in the primative Church, and as it is now in japonia and China, yea and in England. I speak sayeth he of a vow of accepting a Bishop's office, for them the judgement of the fitesse and worthiness of the person, is left to the Superior, and so the danger of presumption is taken away. and other dangers are supposed not to be. Wherefore to procure a Bishop office though the said conditions be supposed, can hardly be approved much less counselled or vowed: yet he also addeth, that if there were great necessity of the Church to have a Bishop, and yet such discommodities annexed to the Bishopric or danger of death etc. and none could be found fit and willing; then to offer one's self (to be a Bishop) would be a work of perfection and matter of vow. By this it is evident that the state of a Bishop fare passeth in perfection of state the state of religious, and that which M. Nicholas bringeth to exalt the religious, proves only that in it is less danger and some good means to attain to prefection, and that therefore religion may more frequently & securely be vowed. 31. But M. Nicholas sayeth n. 6. p. 99 that to desire a Bishopric even for that is best in it, namely for the good of souls according to S. Thomas 2.2. q. 185. ar. 1. seems presumption, and there wants not who sayeth that commonly it is a deadly sin and he citeth in the margin Valentia. to. 3. disp. 10.9.3. puncto 228. 32. I answer that this spoken, so rawly as it is by M. Nicholas, may derogate to the most perfect and most necessary state in God his Church, yea and to S. Thomas also: and therefore needeth examination. S. Thomas in that place sayeth, that in the office of a Bishop three things are to be considered. The first & principal is the good work of a Bishop, by which he attendeth to the profit if his flock in governing them, fieeding them by the word of God and Sacraments etc. The 2. is the height of his degree over others. The 3. is that which followeth these two, to wit, riches, honour, reverence etc. Wherefore sayeth he, to desire a Bishopric for the third is avarice or ambition; for the second it seemeth to be presumption: but for the first it is of itself laudable and virtuous. But because the first, which is the work of a Bishop, hath annexed unto it the height of degree, praesumptuosum videtur quod aliquis praeesse appetat ad boc quod subditis prosit, nisi manifesta necessitate imminete: it seemeth presumptuous, that one should desire to bear rule to profit others, unless in an evident and imminent necessity. So that M. Nicholas left out his answer in the last words unless in an evident and imminent necessity. For then it is lawful to desire a Bishopric, so to exercise the function, and to profit others, else S. Paul would not have said: he that desireth a Bishop's office desireth a good work. He allegeth Valentia also as though he said absolutely that it is a mortal sin to desire a Bishopric to profit others: but he also serveth him in the same manner, Tom 3 disp. 10. q. 3. puncto 2. Conclus. 3. V Epis. Tolet. l 5. c. 3. Nau. tom. 3. Miscel. 36. & 37. Hour. l. 10. c. 32. § 3. Valentia sup. Concl. 2. for he also sayeth: In casu necessitatis laudabile potest esse ut qui dignus est appetat Episcopatum: In case of necessity it may be laudable for him that is worthy to desire a Bishopric. And this he sayeth is the common opinion as in deed it is. Emanuel Sa sayeth that for the necessity or utility of the Church a Bishopric may be desired. The same do also Navarre and Tolet aver: So doth Henriquez. And Navarre against Valentia, sayeth that to desire a Bishopric with the honour and revenues annexed, is no sin, but merit if it be principally desired for the honour of God, and the good of our neighbour. And although Valentia thinketh that oftentimes it is a mortal sin to desire a Bishopric though he that desireth it be worthy and do also desire it for the end to do his office, and to do good to others: yet Navarre holdeth against him, and indeed if for the danger of sin in the discharging of the office (as Valentia sayeth) one that is worthy and intendeth God his honour, and the good of others, may not desire a Bishopric, he may not accept of a pastorship or seek for it though in many places pastorships be given by concourse, because though the danger be not so great, yet if it be a great Parish it is sometimes not much less: and if for danger one might not desire a Bishopric in this case, we could not accept of our mission to England where there is more danger. But as this danger in England is not imminent nor moral, so we prepare ourselves well and demand God his grace: so neither is the danger of a Bishop imminent or moral if otherwise he be fit and have a good intention. And Vasquez a learned jesuite sayeth, In op. dub. 1. de Episcopatu. that as to desire virtue or to do an act of virtue for honour or praise is but a venial sin of vain glory: so to desire a Bishopric for the honour and dignity, so that one intent withal God his honour, and the good of others and be also fit, is but a venial sin, and that therefore S. Thomas sayeth, 2. 2. q. 185. ar. 1. only that it is unlawful and seemeth presumption, but sayeth not that it is a mortal sin as Valentia doth. MASTER NICHOLAS. If you demand wherein this particular perfection of a religious life consisteth etc. I say it may seem to consist in multitude, facility, continuation of perpetual acts of virtue, and effectual means speedily to get it etc. n. 7. THE REPLY. How M. Nicholas herein contradicteth S. Thomas and Suarez, and how religious perfection according to Suarez consisteth not in acts but in habit. 33. S. Tho. 2 2. q. 184. ar. 3. ad 1. & in ●orp. M. Nicholas herein flatly contradicteth S. Thomas, who in his answer to the first argument which objected those words Math. 19 Si visperfectus esse, vade vend omnia etc. If thou wilt be perfect, go fell the things that thou baste, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, fellow me: sayeth: that in those words of our Lord, something is put as the way to perfection, to wit that which is said: go sell all the things that thou hast and give to the poor: But another thing is added, in which perfection consisteth, to wit, follow me. Whereupon S. Hierom sayeth, that because it is not sufficient only to leave what he hath, Peter addeth what is perfect, and we have followed thee. And S. Ambrose upon these words Luc. 5. follow me: sayeth: he biddeth follow not by the bodies going but by the minds affection, which is done by charity. And therefore by the manner of speaking it appeareth that the Counsels are certain instruments to come to perfection, when it is said: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell etc. as if he said, by doing this thou shall, come to This end. thus S. Thomas. Hiero. in hunc locum Ambr super illud Luc: 5. sequere meto. 5. cap. 5. And so poverty, chastity, obedience and other acts of virtue exercised in religion are not as M. Nicholas sayeth, the perfection of a religious life, but only means to come to perfection, that is charity. And in the corpse of the article in the end: S. Thomas allegeth Moses' Abbot, S. Tho. supra. Cassia. collas. 1. c. 7. who as Cassian relateth said: iciunia, vigiliae, meditatio Scripturarum, nuditas etc. fastings, watchings, meditation of the Scriptures, nakedness, and privation of all riches, are no perfection, but instruments of perfection, because in them consisteth not the end of that discipline (to wit of a religious order) but by them is attained the end. 34. He contradicted also Suarez who sayeth that the counsels, which are the acts of virtue practised principally in religion, Suarez to. 3. l. 1. c 15. n. 12. and which M. Nicholas must especially mean by his acts of virtue, are not perfection but instruments to attain perfection. Illa consilia (sayeth he) corumque obseruantia non continent formalem perfectionem sed sunt instrumenta ad illam acquirendam, sine illis tamen potest inveniri perfectio: those counsels and their observance, do not contain formal perfection, but they are instruments to get it; yet without them perfection may be found. 35. Suarez to. 3. l. 1. c. 4. Yea Suarez denyeth that the perfection which a religious person intendeth, consisteth in multitude, facility and continuation of acts of virtue, as M. Nicholas would have it, but sayeth it consisteth not only in charity which is the essential perfection of a Christian life and consequently of a religious order; nor in any act of charity or other acts of virtue as M. Nicholas would make us believe, but in an habitual promptitude and facility of loving God, and exercising other acts of virtue for the love of God. For (sayeth he) if this religious perfection consisted in acts, a religious man when he sleepeth looseth his perfection: for than he hath no use of reason nor of any reasonable actions. Only sayeth he acts of charity and other virtues pertain to perfection antecedentlie, because by them is gotten the aforesaided habit and promptitude, and consequently also because they conserve that promptitude, but in them consisteth not the perfection intended to be gotten by a state of perfection as M. Nicholas sayeth. Wherefore M. Nicholas not daring to stand constantly to this, addeth towards the end of this discourse in his 7. number, or else in an habit, with particular reference to the said frequentation and continuation of such acts. M. NICHOLAS. To all which we must add that these advantages are found in a religious life etc. n. 8. 9 THE REPLY. M. Nicholas endeavours to prefer a religious state before that of a Bishop by reason of the advantages of a religious life, of which the first is, the observation of the Counsels. 36. If I would be as carping as M. Nicholas is against M. Doctor, I could tell him that S. Thomas 1.2. q. 104. ar. 4. as he is cited in the margin by M. Nicholas, hath nothing of the Evangelicall counsels. Only in his 108. quest. and 4. artic. he hath, and sayeth, that the Evangelicall counsels are proper to the new law, which is true in respect of their perfection and vows annexed to them in the new law, but yet they were observed by the children of the Prophets and others: and therefore S. Hierom sayeth: filij Prophetarum quos monachos in veteri testamento legimus adificabant sibi casulas proper fluenta jordanis etc. The children of the Prophets whom we read to have been monks in the old law, builded to themselves little cottages ne'er to the rivers of jordan etc. Ep. 4. ad R●sticum. And again. Ep. 13. ad Paul●. Nos autem babeamus propositi nostri principes Paulos, Antonio's, Hilariones Macharios, & ut ad Scripturarum auctoritatem redeam, noster Princeps Elias, noster Eliseus, nostrifilij Prophetarum; but let us, have as Princes of our Institute those Paul's, Antony's, Hilarions, Machariouses, and to return to the authortiie of Scriptures, our Prince Was Elias, ours Eliseus, ours the children of the Prophets. 37. M. Nicholas addeth. and in this particular (to wit of observance of the three counsels, poverty, chastity, and obedience) there appears a mame difference betwixt a Religious man and a Bishop, whois not at all bound to poverty, and to chastity, he is obliged only as other Priests by a row annexed to holy orders. If by this reason M. Nicholas will prove that a religious state excelleth the state of a Bishop, because that state hath the wow of chastity annexed, this hath not; by the same reason he might prove that a simple Priest, yea a Deacon or Subdeacon hath an higher state than a Bishop because to the order of Subdeacon is annexed the vow of chastity which is not annexed a new unto the order of a Bishop. To 3. l. c 16. n 25. But let Master Nicholas say as he pleaseth, the Bishop is bound to keep chastity as much as the Priest, and although as Suarez sayeth, he maketh not a new vow when he is consecrated Bishop, yet because he can not be a consecrated Bishop unless he first receive priesthood, to which this vow is annexed, he cannot be a Bishop consecrated without this obligation to keep chastity. And although this vow of chastity be annexed to prieshoold by the law of the Church, which M. Nicholas addeth as though that did something derogate to the Bishop's state; I answer that as the vow of chastity which the religious maketh, proceedeth from his humane free will, yet aster it is made, bindeth by the Divine law; so although the vow of chastity in a Priest, proceedeth originally from the Church's law (and therefore the Greek Priests may use their wives they had before Priesthood because the Church bindeth not them to any such vow) yet a Priest voweth freely, for that he may choose whether he willbe Priest or Noah, and supposing that he voweth chastity, his vow bindeth him by the Divine law according to that. Vovete & reddite: vow and render. Ps. 75. 37. Whereas M. Nicholas affirmeth that a Bishop elected yea and confirmed may marry: I deny it. For, although (if he be not in holy orders) he hath made no vow of chastity, Cap; inter corporaliada Trans. Episcepi. Suarez Vasq. Canomist c. cum ap Mon. de statu monach. S Tho. Scotua yet (as Innocentius the third affirmeth) he that is elected and confirmed Bishop, contracteth a spiritual marriage with his Church which as Suarez lib. 1. cap. 16. cit. sayeth bindeth by the Ecclesiastical, or as Caietan. and Vasquez to. 3. in 3 p. disp. 2. & cap. 1.3.5. Caiet. 2. 2. q. 184. ar. 6. think by the Divine law; and so after he is confirmed, he cannot leave his Church without the Pope's leave or dispensation. So after a simple vow of religion if one marry he sinneth but his marriage is valid. Nay a regular professed by dispensation of the Pope, may of religious become no more religious and so may marry as commonly the Canonists, & diverse Divines do hold, And although S. Thomas in 2.2. q. 88 ar. 11. in Corp. teacheth that the Pope cannot dispense in a solemn vow, and Durand Riah. in 4. d. 98. Henr. de Gand. quod 5. q 28 Caict. Less. Caiet. Supra. yet Caiet. 2.2. q. 88 ar. 11. sayeth, that this his opinion proceedeth from a mistaking of the Ch. Cunad Monasterium. Wherefore we read that diverse Popes have dispensed with regulars professed, to marry, as may appear by diverse examples related by Caietan, Lessius, l. 2. de Veto c. 40. dubit. 14. num. 111. and others. Yea, as Navarre witnesseth the Commendators of the military orders of S. james of Alacantara and Calatrava, are truly religious, and do make the three vows, but their vow of chastity is only of conjugal chastity betwixt man and wife. And so their religion, though a true religious state, admitteth Marriage. I grant that some Divines do hold that these are not perfectly but imperfectly, and as they say secundum quid relireligious, but yet Rodericus to. 1. q. 1. ar. 6. Fortunius. Burg. de Pa. Roder. Nan. with Navar. trac. de Reddit. ibid. and diverse others whom he citeth do affirm them to be truly religious, though military religious. Whereas the state and order of a Bishop, consecrated priest, Deacon and Subdeacon admitteth no valid marriage. 38. As for poverty in which M. Nicholas sayeth the regular excelleth the Bishop, because he is not bound to poverty. S. Thomas. I answer with S. Thomas 2.2. q. 184. ar. 7. ad. 1. that the actual abrenunciation and leaving of all riches is not perfection but an instrument and means to get perfection: and therefore a state of perfection may be without this actual leaving of all. But to leave all in preparation of mind, so as that a man be prepared to leave all when the case happeneth that he must leave all or offend God mortally, is perfection: yea S. Thomas sayeth: & ho pertinet directe ad perfectionem: and this pertaineth directly to perfection, because this preparation includeth charity, and the love of God by which we are so disposed that we are prepared rather to leave all even life itself, then to offend god mortally. Ad hoc autem (sayeth S. Thomas) S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. are 7. ad 1, maximè tenentur Episcopi: quod omnia sua pro honore Die, & salute sui gregis contemnant, cum opus fuerit, vel pauperibus sui gregis largiendo, vel rapinam honorum suorum cum gaudio sustinendo: and to tbis Bishops most of all are obliged, to contemn all for the honour of God and the health of their flock when it shallbe needful, either by giving all to the poor, or by taking with joy the spoil of their goods. Hebr. MASTER NICHOLAS. With these commodities proper to religious state are to be joined two others of most important consideration, of security and immobility, Wherein a regious state exceedeth that of a Bishop. n. 9 THE REPLY. Of security and immobility and whether the regular, in them excelleth the Bishop. 39 M. Nicholas would prefer a regular at least in this particular respect of security before the state of a Bishop. And I grant that if the regular keep his cloister and observe his rules, he is more separated from all occasions of sin; but this as above I have said, argueth not, an higher or perfecter but a lower state; for as the low shrub (as I said before) is less shaken with wind and tempests than the higher Cedars, so the lower the state is the less it is subject to tentations, and dangers, & the higher it is the more dangerous it is, for that (as S. Hierome saith) non est facile stare loco Paulitenere gradum Petri: it is not easy to stand in the place of Paul, to held the degree of peter: Hier. supra ap. ad Helio dorum But as the state of a Bishop by reason of the height of it, & the charge annexed to it, is more difficile and dangerous than the state of a Regular; so his victory over these difficulties, is more meritorious and glorious than the virtue of a Religious man by how much the religious hath less and fewer difficulties to over come. A certain holy and learned Abbot Philipp de Harueing above four hundred years ago (whose works were approved and printed in Douai) in his 99 Chapt. sayeth the same in better words: for speaking of the states of a regular and a Pastor, he delivereth his conceit of this point in these words: est ergo quanto facilius tanto securius de medio fugere Babilonis & saluari: est antem quanto diffieilius, tanto gloriosus in medio Babilonis Victorem coronari: It is therefore, as much more easy, so much more secure, to fly out of the midst of Babylon (the world) as the regular doth and be saved: but it is so much the more glorious by how much the more difficile, to be crowned victor in the midst of Babylon, as the good Bishop and Pastor is. And S. Austin sayeth, that there is nothing in this life, and especially this time, more easy and joyful and more acceptable to menthe the office of a Bishop, Priest or Deacon if the office be done negligently and for a fashion; sed nihil apud Deum miserius & tristius, & damnabilins. But nothing before God more miserable, sad, and damnable. Item nihil esse in hac vita & maximè hoc tempore, difficilius, laboriosius, periculosius, si eo modo militetur quo noster imperator inbet: And there is nothing in this life, especially in this time, that is more hard more laborious more dangerous than the office of a Bishop, Priest or Deacon, if so We War, as our Emperor commandeth. Ep. 143 valer. Episc. And therefore S. chrysostom sayeth that if you should bring unto him a monk as good as Helias, yet he were not to be compared to him who being given (as Pastor) to the people and campelled to bear the sins of many, persisteth immoveable and strong. Chris. 16 de Sacerdetio. And the same Doctor Considering the difficulty & merit of the Bishop's charge: if one (saith he) should propose unto me where I had rather please (God) either in the Priestly office that is of a Bishop or in the solitude of Monks; without comparison I would make choice of that I first spoke of. And if the regular be sent in mission to do the functions of a Pastor than he is in as great danger as the Pastor, & in so much the greater as mutations from one extreme to another are more dangerous. And therefore in the primative Church when regulars were sent abroad into the world to preach or to take care of souls, they used to send none into the world, but such as by long practice of humility, and mortification in a religious state, were as dead to the world in affection as they were by profession. But if M. Nicholas may make comparisons with the Bishop because a regular is in greater security, he may compare the inferior regular with his Abbot and General, because their state as it is higher so it is less free from danger, it being harder to govern others than ones self, and easier to rule one then many. 40. Now as concerning immobility, which is another advantage that the regular, (as M. Nicholas affirmeth) hath of the Bishop, T. 3 li. I.C. 16. n. 23. I answer with Suarez that when the Bishop accepteth the office of a Bishop in such a Church, and is accepted of it, he maketh a pact and covenant with his Church to remain with it, and to exercise Episcopal functions in it (to which sayeth Suarez he is bound by charity and justice) and this is sufficient to make the Bishop to have a state immoveable. Yet this immobility is augmented by the ecclesiastical law (as he thinketh) or even by the divine law, as Vasguez affirmeth. And sayeth Suarez a vow is not required to make a state immoveable, because, sayeth he, a vow is not the total cause of a state. Suarez & Vasq supra. And whereas S. Thomas seemeth to require a vow annexed to the state of the Bishop, he answereth with Caretan, that S. Thomas meaneth only the aforesaided pact, which the Bishop maketh with his Church when he accepteth it. S Th. 2. 2. q 284. ar. 58 & q. 185 ar. 4. And because the Bishop is many times elected and confirmed Bishop of a place before he is consecrated, he is also then in a state of perfection, because than he maketh a pact and covenant with his Church & electors, never to leave that Church without licence or dispensation of the Pope, with which difpensation the religious may leave sus religious state and marry, as above we have showed. M. NICHOLAS. Neither is this perfection of a religions state prrfitable to the religions man alone but oftentimes disposeth him further to the helpeing of hes neighbours & c. n. 10. THE REPLY. Regulars as regulars are by office to have care of the souls of others. 41. Here M. Nicholas must be content to hear again M. Doctors reduplication of Regulars as Regulars, for as Regulars they are not to have care or charge of others but of their own souls, to the perfecting where of they endeavour: and therefore the regular state (as we have seen) and as M. Doctor teacheth Chap. 12. is status perfection is acquirendae, non exercendae vel conimunicandae, a state of perfection to be gotten not to be exercised on others or to be communicated unto them: & therefore sayeth S. Thomas Bishops are in state of a perfectors of others, S. TW. 2.2. q. 184. ar. 7. regulars are in state of them that are perfected. And so the regular state is to get perfection for ones self, the Bishop's state is to communicate perfection to others by preaching, administration of Sacraments etc. secondly we must distinguish bet wixt the obligation which one hath of justice and by office, and the obligation which is only of charity. By this second obligation not only Pastors, but also others not Pastors are bound when there is opportunity, to have care and to help their neighbour by fraternal correction, friendly counsel and exhortation. And by this obligation of charity, the religions when occasion occurreth are bound to help others. Ecc. c. 11. & 17. Mat. 18. By the first obligation which is of office and justice, only Pastors and Superioursare bound to assist their neighbours & to tender their salvation. I grant that the regular if he practise the counsels well and observe his rule exactly, and exercise himself in acts of humility; patience, mortification frequently, doth remove the impediments which hinder the love of God, and so hath good means to increase in himself the love of God, and consequently of his neighbour, this love being grounded in that: and so if he be called to preach, teach and minister Sacraments, his charity will much help him yea move and incite him to do good to others: but this belongeth not to him precisely as he is a regular, for than it should belong to all regulars even lay brethren & women (for, as above I said, quod connenit aliovi quà tali convenit omni tali) but as he is Priest and is called to do the office of a Pastor, which office belongeth not to him, as due to the state of a regular, but (as Suarez sayeth in the words above alleged) by privilege, by delegation and by participation. And therefore (sayeth Suarez) the obligation of exercising such actions, Suarez l. 1. c 18 p. 18. and procuring the salvation of souls and loofing life for them is fare greater & higher in a Bishop (as it is also in an inferior Pastor who also by office is to give his life for his sheep Io. 10.) them in any whatsoever simple religious of what institute soever he be, that is, although by his institute, he be to preach, teach, and minister Sacraments, as the Dominicans, Franciscans, & jesuites are. And so when regulars have been sent to preach to infidels (as many have been who also have performed these functions with great success, as M. Doctor, confesseth in his Hierarchy) they did these offices (as Suarez sayeth) by commission, delegation, and privilege, and not by any ordinary right. 42. I grant therefore that religious and some by their in stitute do many of the functions of Pastors, for as Pastors do preach; Cap. ●. n. 8. so do they; as Pastors do minister Sacraments, so do they at least some Sacraments: but in regulars this is accessory, in Pastors principal; in regulars it is voluntary, in Pastors necessary; in regulars it is will and pleasure, in pastors obligation; in regulars it is free offer, in Pastors' bound duty. Regulars assist souls without charge or obligation to answer for them; the pastors must answer soul for soul, yea for as many souls as he hath charge of the regulars doth minister Sacraments sometimes and to those that come to them, Pastors in summer & winter, by day and by night, in rain and snow in heat and cold, must oftentimes go to their penitentes houses, there to hear their confessions, there to minister unto them the B. Sacrament, there to give them the last Sacrament: The regulars meddle not with Baptism, marriage and extreme unction, the Pastor ministereth all. In fine the Pastor with jacob day and night is parched with heat and forced; Genes. 31. &. 35. Math. 20. and is by office vigilant and careful for his sheep that the sleep flieth from his eyes: and with the first workers in the vinyeard he bears the burden of the day and heat: Whereas the regular as they are the later workers, so they work at pleasure. And as one sayeth the Priests or Pastors of the Church, are the body of the army, regulars are the aiding wings, Priests are pressed soldiers, regulars are voluntaries; Priests by office and ordinary right do minister Sacraments and preach, regulars only by privilege. And therefore S. Denys sayeth that because that the monks when they were innitiated, did not kneel an both knees, nor had the Divine books laid on their head, but were near the Priests whilst he recited the prayer: Declarat monachorum ordinis non esse alios deducere, sed in se ac per se stare in singulari sanctoque statu. Lib de Eccl. Hier. co S. Contéplatio se. cundun vers. periotium. M. NICHOLAS. The perfection of a Bishop consists in this, that by his office he is obliged to enlighten others, and if occasion require to give his life for his Flock, which occasion seldom happeneth. To these two obligations, the Bishop is tied by justice in regard of maintenance and honour afforded him by his flock, or by virtue of sideline etc. but religions men merely upon charity or religion (more noble virtues than justice or fidelity) to illuminate others and venture their lives for the saving of souls. n. 11. THE REPLY. M. Nicholas speaketh to basely of the Bishop's office and duty. 43. when I red these words of M. Nicholas I confess I no little wondered to hear a religious man, who should honour Bishops and Pastors, speak in this manner. But, speak truth, M. Nicholas, & da gloriam Deo: give glory to God, in giving the due to his Bishop. Is not the Bishop also bound, and especially bound, out of charity to undertake and execute his office in illuminating and perfecting others, and in giving his life for them? If he be not; why did Christ three times demand of S. Peter whether be loved him, joan, 21 before he would commit the government of the Church unto him? Do not those words of our Saviour a good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep, joan. 10. pertain especially & more principally to Bishops (yea and to inferior Pastors) then to regulars? Suarez a regular as well as M. Nicholas, Lib 1. c 18 n. 14. and fare more learned and modest in the place last alleged, sayeth that the obligation of exercising actions (ordained to the perfecting of others) and the procuring the salvation of souls, and losing life for them, is fare greater and higher in a Bishop, then in any whatsoever simple religious, of what Institute soever he be. And is there any greater charity then to expose one's life for his sheep as the Bishop is bound? confess then, M. Nicholas, to the honour of God (who is honoured in his Bishops) that the obligation which the Bishop hath to illuminate others, & to give his life for them, is greater than any regular hath, unless he be also a Bishop or Pastor. Yea (as above we have said) it belongeth not to regulars as regulars to illuminate others, or to give their lives for them (for then they should be in statu perfectionis acquisitae & exercendae) but only to seek to save and perfect themselves. And M. Nicholas (see how partial affection domineereth sometimes even in Religious men) when he sayeth that a Bishop is eyed to illuminate others and to give his life for his flock by justice only in regard of his maintenance, and by fidelity in regard of his coucuant made with his flock, and that regulars merely out of charity expose themselves to dangers for gaining of souls, as he commendeth partially regulars, so he derogateth no little to all Bishops in making them all in a manner mercenaries, which kind of Pastors Christ discommendeth & rejecteth. For that the mercenary takes care of the flock not for the sheep's good & love of them, but for his own interest to wit, honour, maintenance, and lucre, as M. Nicholas seemeth to say all Bishops do. And so regulars are only the good Pastors who merely upon charity and religion do illuminate others, and adventure their life for saving of souls. wherefor as all Bishops ought to accept their office principally for the love of God and zeal of souls, so we must have that charitable opinion of them, as to think that they do so. Suarez speaketh more honourably of the charity of the Bishop. Tertiò desideratur maximè in Episcopo charitas, tum in Deum qui est principalis ovium Domineers, ut significanit christus joan. 21. come ter interroganit Petrum an se diligeret prinsquam illiones suas commendaret etc. thirdly (sayeth he) there is required most of all in a Bishop charity as well towards God who is the principal Lord of the sheep, as Christ signified joa. 21. when three times he demanded of Peter whether he. loved him, before he commended unto him his sheep; as also towards his subjects, Suarez c. 18. n. 4. whom he must tolerate, receive beinglie, patiently suffer & relieve their necessities, and serve them according to that of S. Paul 1. Cor. 9 I made myself the servant of all that I might gain the more. And after: To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak. And finally he is bound in a particular manner by virtue of his office, so to love his sheep, as to yield his life for them (if loit must he as Christ taughe joan. 10. Whence it is that patience is necessary for him, which hath a perfect work, because he must not only observe mercy, but also justice, & that sometimes stoutly and severely. Whence also it must needs be, that he must suffer many things of the naughty. For these causes therefore and the like, the Episcopal throne is a place of, greatest perfection. Thus, and thus fare Suarez. 44. Whereas M. Nicholas addeth n. 12. that merit doth not consist in office, but in acts thereof. I must tell him that though merit consist not in office only, yet there is great merit in executing a lawful & holy office, such as is the office of the Priest & Bishop, & the greater the state, office, and dignity is, the greater is the merit in executing it. And M. Nicholas cannot deny, but that the state & dignity of the person addeth merit to his actions. For as the regulars actions by reason of his state and vow, are more meritorious than are the same actions done by other Christians not regulars: so not only the Bishop's actions proper to his state, are of greater perfection and merit then the proper actions of regulars: but also the same actions done by a regular & a Bishop, are more meritoriousin a Bishop than in a regular. For as M. Nicholas know weth the dignity of the person dignifieth the operation, & therefore Christ his operations were of infinite merit and satisfaction, because his person and state of the natural son of God, was infinite. 45. And now one would think that M. Nicholas had made an end of his (I fear) too odious comparisons of the state of a regular with the state of a Bishop: but it seemeth he hath reserved the most odious to the last place, for that in the same 12. number immediately after the words alleged, he calleth the world to witness whether the regulars have not more enlightened, it than secular Pastors. These are his words. Let the whole world's experience decide whether the secular Pastors or Religions men do in fact enlighten mankind, by preaching, teaching, filling libraries with learned volumes, reducing heretics throughout Europe and converting iafidelles in both the Indies, japonia, China etc. To this his comparison I answer first, that I grant that many countries have been converted by religious men, as England by S. Austin and his Fellow Monks, Germany by S. Boniface and other religious men. And in this last age the jesuites are famous for the conversion of Infidels in japonia, China and other Countries, and amongst them S. Xavier was the chief. But M. Nicholas must grant that by the Apostles who were Bishops and Priests, and cannot be proved out of Scripture to have been properly religious, & by many of their successors not religious, many countries have been reduced to the Christian faith. Secondlie I answer that though it be most true that many countries have been convertedby religious, so for M. Nicholas to brave all secular Pastors under whom are comprehended Bishops & Popes, is to bold a comparison. Thirdly I answer that regulars did not as regulars nor as Abbots or Priors which are Titles of their religious state, convert these countries, but as Priests and Bishops and Popes which are Titles of the Clergy. To that which M. Nicholas, addeth n. 13. concerning the state of religion which tendeth to perfection, & of the Bishop which supposeth perfection, & therefore perfecteth others, I have answered him fully in the beginning of this question. M. NICHOLAS. Now as for the second comparison of religions men with, inferior Pastors etc. 11. 14. THE REPLY. M. Nicholas hath had no success in comparing Regulars with Bishops. 46. M. Nicholas in his comparison of Regulars with Bishops. (as the Reader will easily see) hath had no great good success: for whereas M. Doctor, compared state with state, and in state preferred the Bishop: he, seeing the Regular in this comparison to come fare short of the Bishop, hath changed, yea left the question, and hath had recourse to some commodities and good means which are to be found in a religious state, as security from danger means to attain to mortification and perfection, and now he cometh to compare the state of regulars with that of inferior pastors: and before I shall first speak of the state of inferior Pastors, and out of that I shall say of it, Ishall answer to all M. Nicholas allegeth against them. Of the state of Priests and Pastors inferior to Bishops. 47. M. Doctor, because he would not seem in any wise to contradict S. Thomas, had granted to the religious a perfecter state by reason of immobility which S. Thomas requireth to a state, then to inferior pastors who may leave their pastourships ●●d enter into religion; and he contented himself to glue only to these Patours a perfecter office & calling, S. Th. 2. 2. q. 184. a. 8. M.D. in his Hier. c 11 n. n. 14. the office of governing souls (which was the office of Christ and his Apostles) fair surpassing: and so M. Nicholas might have spared this labour; but seeing that he moveth this comparison, as making himself Cock sure that regnars are of a more perfect state than they. I shall show what probability there is for the preferring of these pastors before Religious. And lest I may be esteemed partial, Suarez to. 3. l. 1. c. 17. & 21. S. Th. 2 2. q. 184. ar. 8. in corp. I shall say little in this point which Suarez doth not avouch. And for a better & easier entrance into this matter it will not be amiss, if a certain distinction of S. Thomas be premised. For (sayeth he) in a secular Pastor we may consider three things, to wit, that he is secular (in which consideration, he agreeth with lay men) that he is a Priest, and that he hath charge and care of souls. So in a regular Priest we may consider that he is a regular, that he is priest, and that he hath care and charge of souls. In the first the regular excelleth the secular; and no marvel, for in that consideration he agreeth with a lay Christian, who in state is ever inferior to a regular. In the other two considerations, to wit in regard of Priesthood and charge of souls, the regular Priest and Pastor on the one side, & the secular Priest and Pastor on the other side, are equal. The question is whether a regular not Priest, be in an higher state of perfection than the secular Priest or Pastor. 47. And if we speak of the secular Priest who is only Priest & hath no charge of souls, he no douht by virtue of his Priestly order and character is in an higher state and dignity than any Regular not Priests, Because the Priest's state is immoveable by reason if his indelible Character, which by no sin, by no degradation can be taken from him. By his order and character he hath power to consecrate the sacred body and blood of Christ, and to offer them in Sacrifice; and by the same character he hath power to absolve from sins so that the Pope or Church give him comple are jurisdiction or apply subjects unto him, Chap. 6. nu. 11. & ch. 12. nu. 6. as M. Doctor hath in his Hierarchy declared: Which power also (as in the same Treatise is shown) is the greatest power that is in the Church of God and greater than any Angel hath. And if states be measured by their actions and operations to which they are ordained (as they must) then is the state of a simple Priest greater than any regular or whatsoever other state excepting the state of a Bishop, which includeth this power and is greater for it then for any other power; because by this power he with the Priest hath power over the natural body of Christ by consecrating it, by his other power of absolving from sins (which the Priest also hath) and by his power to ordain ministers and to confirm, he hath only power over the mystical body of Christ, which is his Church. And therefore by how much the natural body of Christ deified with the Divinity surpasseth the mystical body, the Church: by so much, portionably, the power of consecrating which the Priest hath, surpasseth the power of absolving, ordaining and confirming. And this Suarez granteth, so doth Valentia, who saith, Suarezlib. 1. c. 17 nu. 2. Valen. 2. 2. disp. 10. q. 2. De statu epist. Puncto 1. That if in inferior Prelates. We consider the degree of holy order, then speaking absolutely there is some thing more worthy and more perfect in them, then in religious as they are religions, and net also initiated with holy orders. Where by the way I note, that he useth M. Doctors reduplication (as religious) which so much offendeth M. Nicholas: and this no man can deny. This holy order of Priesthood in which is grounded this power, requireth (as S. Thomas saith) of a Priest greater sanctity than the regulars state requireth of him, and for that cause also (saith S. Thomas) the same act of sin in a Priest by reason of his holy order, is greater than in a Religious man, not Priest. The state of 2 Priest is so high and holy, that many, S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. a. 8. in Corp. Baro. anno Chris. 378. in fine. Hier. ep. ad Helio. though religious have seared to under go it as S. Antony, S. Benedict and S. Francis; yea S. Hierome though a great saint, Religious, and learned, did so at length permit himself to be ordained Priest, that as Baronius observeth he never received any Title or charge of any Church saying, That it is not an easy thing to stand in Paul's place, and to hold the degree of Peter: And therefore wisheth, That it may be fare from him to speak ill of Priests who succeeding to the Apostles, do consecrate the body of Christ, and judge us before the later day, and by whom we are made Christians. 47. For these and the like reasons there want not as Suarez, out of Antoninus and Augustinus de Ancona relateth, who affirm that a simple Priest is in an higher state than a Regular not Priest. Suar. l. 1. c. 17. n. 2 Anto. 3. P. in prolog. §. 4. & S. Aug. de An. con. l. de Potest. eckl. q. 26. a. 1. And although S. Thomas as we have seen, Caietan and others are of opinion, that simple Priests are not in a state of perfection, because Priests, if we except the vow of chastity, are by their ordination bound to no works of superegation or Counsels, but only to keep the commandments, though by reason of their sacred order, more sanctity be required of them, then of other Christians, and if they sin, their sin (if other circumstances be alike) is greater than the like sin in others: yet for the reasons alleged, the state of a Priest by Reason of his eminent and sacred functions, exceedeth in that respect the state of all Religious not Priests whatsoever. 48. L. 1. cir. c. 17. n. 4. in sine. Suarez concludeth this point in these words: Quapropter censeo Sacerdotes ex vi sui ordinis habere statum altiorem & sanctiorem, qui ab eis nonnulla perfectionis opera requirit, ratione cuius obligationis, merito dici possunt, esse aliquo modo, saltem inchoativen, in statu perfectionis. Wherefore I think that Priests by virtue of their order. have a state higher and holier, which requireth of them certain works of perfection, by reason of which obligation, they worthily may be said to be in some manner, in a state of perfection, at least inchoative, that is imperfectly, and in a certain beginning. And a little before he saith that the diversity of opinions in this thing is rather in the manner of speaking then in the thing itself: as indeed it seemeth to be. For if we understand by a state of perfection, a state which is immoveable (as the Priests is by reason of the Character) and which is ordained to high and excellent functions and which therefore requireth sanctity of the Priest, and maketh his sins the greater; then the state of a simple Priest is higher than any regulars state is: but if we understand by a state of perfection, a state that is bound to works of supererogation, such as are the works of the three Counsels, poverty, chastity, and obedience, than the Priest's state is not in that sense a perfect state of perfection, because chastitite excepted, he is not bound to the Counsels and works of supererogation, which are instruments by which perfection is attained. But yet, as not with standing that the Bishop is not obliged to such works of supererogation for neither is he bound to poverty nor to obedience to any but the Pope: and yet by S Thomas and all men's opinion is in an higher State of perfection than the Regular, by reason that his state is so immoveable, that he cannot leave his Church without licence of the Pope, and he is by his state obliged to more eminent functions and greater charity (which is to die for his sheep) so the Priest because his state is immoveable by his character, and is ordained to higher functions, as the consecrating of Christ's body, offering of the dreadful and unbloody sacrifice, absolving from sin, if he have complete jurisdiction: may seem to be in an higher state than a Regular not Priest. 49. Now as concerning Pastors inferior to Bishops who are not only Priests but also have charge of souls: it seemeth more probable that they are in a state of perfection higher and perfecter than the state of a Regular not Pastor. Garson. trae. de statu perfect. alpha. 67. l. v. ● p. 〈…〉 12. q. 28 & 29. 〈…〉 in 4 l. ●. ●. q. 7. Suaraz c. 17. n. 5. And this is affirmed by Gerson, Henricus de Gandavo, and Mayor, whom Suarez in the same chapter allegeth; and thus they prove their opinion: because they by their office are bound to works very perfect, to wit to minister Sacraments, to preach and to govern souls which is the art of arts, and to take care and charge of them, to perfect, illuminate and purge them, and to yield (when the occasion is offered) their lives for them. To which actions, Regulars not Pastors are not ordained or obliged. This the aforesaid and: ours confirm, because the disciples whom Christ sent two and two to preach, were in a state of perfection next to the Apostles: but Pastors succeed to them, as Bishops do to the Apostles: Ergo they are in a state of perfection and next to the state of Bishops. And for this (to wit that inferior Pastors succeed to the disciples) Suarez citeth S. Clement's first Epistle, against which more is objected then against the 4. Epistle alleged by M. Doctor. These arguments may seem much to urge for a state of perfection in inferior Pastors. 50. Yet S. Thomas whose authority is great not only in the School, S. Th. 2 2. q. 184. a. 7. but also in the Church, affirmeth that Curates are not in a state of perfection, because to a state is required immobility, which is not in a Curate or inferior Pastor, because he hath no vow to tie him to that state, but may leave it, if he will go to Religion, without the Bishop's licence, S. Th. sup. 19 q. 2. cap. due sunt. yea against his will as S. Thomas proveth out of Pope Vrban: whereas the Religious by reason of his vow cannot forsake his state of life. To this Suarez answereth, that if S. Thomas require a proper vow to make a state, than the Bishop's state should not be a perfect state, because when he is made Bishop he maketh no vow: But if by a vow he mean a pact, Suar l. 〈…〉 17. supra. convenant, or mutual promise betwixt him and his Church, such a promise or pact is to be found in the Pastor, as well as in the Bishop. 51. Caietan (saith Suarez) answereth, that the inferior Pastor hath not a divine commandment to stick to his Pastourslip, nor any humane precept, because none can be alleged: To whom Suarez replieth that neither the Bishop by any divine law is tied to his Bishopric, (though Vasquez in this contradicteth him, as above we have seen) only by the Ecclesiastical law he is wedded to his Bishopric, and by this law, the inferior Pastor also is wedded to his Pastourship. It is true that the inferior Pastor may enter into Religion without the Popes or Bishops leave, as S. Vrban affirmeth in the place alleged, yet, 19 q. 2. cap. dua snnt. Suar. l. 1. c. 17. n. 9 as Suarez assureth us, that is no sign that he is not in a state with obligation sufficient to stick to it, but only that his obligation is not absolute, but includeth this condition, to wit, so that he ascend not to an higher or securer state. For so also a religious man professed in a laxer religion, Cap. sand & ca licet de regular. Cap. admonet. de renunciat. & ca hath a state, yet he may leave it to enter into a stricter Religion as the canons do teach us. But unless the Archdeacon or inferior Pastor enter into Religion, he cannot leave his office or Pastorship without licence of the Pope or Bishop, as may appear by diverse texts of the canon law. And this (saith Suarez) S. Thomas supposeth when he saith that an Archdeacon or Curate may leave his Church by the licence of the Bishop, insinuating that otherwise he cannot. It is true that the Bishop hath a greater obligation to stick to his Bishopric because he cannot forsake it without dispensation or leave from the Pope; Si quis veron. & ca Episcopus de loco 17. q. 1. the inferior Pastor may leave his Pastorship with licence of the Bishop. but the reason of this may be, because the Bishop hath no Superior but the Pope to licence him, the inferior Pastor hath the Bishop who may dispense with him. To which may be added, that the Pope himself who hath the highest state in the Church, may renounce it, and yet because he cannot do this without great and urgent cause, he is in a state of perfection. Wherefore because the Curate or Archdeacon cannot leave their charges without licence of the Bishop, their state is morally immoveable, because that which we can not do without dispensation of the Superior is counted to us morally impossible. And so the state of an inferior Pastor is morally immoveable and unchaungeable and so in that respect wanteth nothing required to a state. And that their state is an higher and perfecter state, it may be proved, because Pastors even inferior to the Bishop are in a state of perfection to be exercised and communscated to others, the regular is in a state of acquiring or tending to perfection; and so the Pastors' state (though in an inferior manner) is as the Bishop's state is, to wit a state of Illuminators, the regulars is of those that are illuminated; the Pastors' state is of perfectors, the regulars state is of those that are perfected, that state is of masters, this of Scholars, that of Agentes this of patients. And so that the perfecter state, this the less perfect. 52. For as S. Anstine saith, the Agent (in that respect) is more noble than the patiented: and therefore the soul or spirit is more noble than the body, Aug. l. 12. de gen ad lie. c. 16. S. Th. 22. q. 84. a. 6. in ●●g. Sed centra Dionies. l. de Lecies. Hier. c. 5. S. Th. 2.2. q. 185 art. 8. Isidorl 2. de dimnis officijs. c. 7. that being the Agent this the patiented. And we see that the Sun's office in illuminating is more noble than the airs condition in being illuminated, the fires in heating then the waters in being heated, the masters in teaching, than the Scholars in being taught. And as S. Thomas out of S. Denis saith, that Pontisi●um ordo consummatiuns est & perfectiuns, sacerdolum autem illuminatiuns: the order of. Bishops is consummative and perfective, the order of Priests illuminative; so the order of inferior Pastors is illuminative and perfective: and as he saith that the state of a Regular is compared to the Episcopal state as discipline to magistery, and as a disposition to perfection; so the same may be said of inferior Pastors in their degree, for that they are in state not of Scholars but of masters and perfecters. hence it is that S. Isidore saith: Sacerdotibus ficut Episcopis dispensatio my. steriorum Dei commissa est: praesunt enim Ecclesiae, & in confectione divina corporis & sanguinis, consortes cum Episcopo sunt, similiter in doctrina Populoran & in officio praedicationis: To Priests, as to Bishops the dispensation of the mysteries of God is committed: for that they be are rule in the Church, and in the divine consecration of the body and blood of Christ, they are consores with the Bishop, like wise in teaching of t●e people, and in the office of preaching. And the Council of Trent saith That to all to whom the care of souls is committed, it is commanded by the divine commandment, to know their sheep, to offer for them the sacrifice, and to feed them by preaching of the word of God, administration of sacraments, and by example of good works. 53. But Suarez objecteth against inferior Pastors out of S. Thomas, S. Th. 2. 2. q 184. ar. 6. ad 2. that Archdeacon's and inferior Pastor have but under-administrations under the Bishop, and are to the Bishop as Baylives are to the Prince. And Caietan cited by Suarez saith, the Pastoral office, a. 2. & 20. and obligation to yield one's life for the sheep pertaineth principally to Bishops, and only secundarilie and ministeriallie to inferior Pastors, and that Curates and under Pastors do undertake the care of souls as Ministers and Officiales of the Bishops, who are the principal agentes, and so are not in a state, but Ministers and Officiales of the Bishops, who only are in state of perfection to be exercised on others. But Suarez answereth very well, that Curates are not instruments ', officials, or delegates of the Bishops, but are truly Pastors comprehended under the name of Proprius Sacerdos to whom every Christian of sufficient age is bound to confess once a year. Cap. omnit utrius que ●exus de poenit. & remis. And although the Bishop hath greater and more ample authority than the inferior Pastors have, yet they are not officials nor ministers, nor in instrumental causes in respect of the Bishop but true and ordinary Pastors though both, they and the Bishop also, be ministers and instrumental causes in respect of Christ. Supra n. 28. And although (saith Suarez) the Bishop be in an higher state, yet that hindereth not, but that Curates also be in a state though inferior: for so though all religious orders be in states of perfection, yet one is a perfecter state than another. Out of all this which for the most part is grounded in Suarez, it seemeth very probable, that inferior Pastors have not only an higher and perfecter office (which S. Thomas insinuateth saying that they rather have an office pertaining to perfection then a state of perfection) but also an higher state of perfection: their state being of perfection to be exercised, S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. a. 6. ad 3. not to be acquired as the Regulars state is, and being ordained to higher actions and functions, and they making a pact and convenant with their Church as Bishops do, which in a Bishop (as Suarez confesseth) causeth an immobility. 54. Wherefore Suarez at length concludeth, l. 1. c. 2. n. 5. that the state of Inferior Pastors and Regulas do exceed and are exceeded of one another in divers respects; for saith he if we demand which state is more profitable to one's self, less dangerous, and more sure, than the Religious state in this respect taketh the precedence: but if you demand which state contineth, n. 6. Mains Dei obsequium, greater service of God, & perfectiora opera ex genete she requirit; and requireth more perfect operations of their kind, then, saith he, the state of these inferior Pastors is in itself and of itself perfecter than the state of a Religious man. And in this sort speculativelie It may be granted that the Pastoral state is perfecter than the Regular state, S. Th. in c. 5. Mat. and this S. Thomas upon S. Matthew, seemeth to favour as Suarez confesseth. 55. And so whereas M. Nicholas nu. 14. proveth that a Regular state is perfecter than the state of an inferior Pastor, because 2 Pastor may enter into Religion without dispensation: his argument proveth only that a Regulars state is more sure for one's own salvation, S. Th. 2.2. q 184.7. arg. sed cütra. and so may be elected and vowed, but not that it is an higher or perfecter state. I grant that S. Thomas Proveth that a Religious state is inferior to the state of a Bishop, because a Religious man may become a Bishop, and his argument is good. Because a Religious man cannot accept of a Bishop's office because it is more sure, as is manifest, and therefore if he may accept of it, it must be because it is a perfecter state. But an inferior Pastor may undertake the state of a Regular not because it is more perfect (as Azorius Regular confesseth) but because in it he may more surely save his own soul which he may prefer before the soul of others, Azar. to. 1. l. 11. ca 24. charity first tendering once own salvation and so although the inferior Pastor doth thus descend in state yet he doth not properly Retrocedere nor Retrospicere go back or look back because he thus advanceth his own salvation. And so it is a good argument. A regular may be a Bishop ergo a Bishops state is perfecter: but is not a good argument: an Inferior Pastor may be a Religious man, ergo a Religious man hath a perfecter state; but only ergo a Religious man hath a more secure state. 56. But in a controversy so much disputed, and wherein to give sentence, may provoke the one party or the other, I will leave the judgement thereof to the judicious Reader who by what is said for inferior Pastors, will peradventure judge it more probable that inferior Pastors should worthily be preferred in state of perfection. And as M. Nicholas Pag. 103. Num. 7. referreth his reader to Platus a Regular concerning the Regular state: so will I (and with less exception) refer him to one Philippe de Harueing a Regular and learned Abbot concerning the Clergy and all Pastors even inferior. 57 This man was Abbot of a Monastery called Bona Spes; Good Hope and he wrote above four hundred and fifty years ago. His works were printed in Douai in the year M. D C. X X. and approved by Doctor Colvenerius chancellor of the University, and Censor of Books in that University. He in his work De Dignitate, Scientia, justieia, & Continentia Clericorum, commendeth highly Regulars (amongst whom he was very eminent,) yet in every chapter almost, he preferreth the Clergy, I will (for brevity's sake) cite only a few passages. In his 17. Chapter he saith, as M. Nicholas will not say; Nostrum est novissimum locum eligere, nec ad altiora volatu praesumptuoso nos ipsos erigere: It is our part (that is the part of Religious) to cboose the last place and not by a presumptuous flight to elevate ourselves to higher thing. In his 17. Epistle he saith that from all the bounds and limits of the earth, all antiquity did ever extol the clerical order, and ever gave it amongst the other orders, the principal rank and degree, and though by the divine disposition a soldier or Rustic do excellin sanctity, yet the Clergy man in excellency of Ecclesiastical dignity: and although the Clergy man, as we do sometimes, decline to wordly things and To the weak and poor elements, yet their order declineth not in authority. In his 84. chapter he saith, that the Blessed S. Benedict sounded many Monasteries, and instructed and informed many monks by the good and wholesome documents he left to posterity, and is not read to have been Priest: yet wanted not perfection of a monk, nor did he think it any disparagement to his monastical institute, that his monks should not contend to excel others in holy orders, but in holy manners, considering that the promotion to orders maketh not a monk, but abjection and vilifying of one's self, labour, silence, discipline, rest, Religion. And in his 99 chapter: Habeant sibi matorem monachi sanctitatem, relinquentes Clericis maiorem humiliter dignitatem: Let monks keep to themselves greater sanctity, leaving humbly to Clergy men greater dignity. And in his 98. and 97. Chapters, Pag. 462. he saith that S. Hierome did therefore invite Heliod. Paulinus, and Rusticus to be monks, not because he thought more basely of the Clergy, but because he esteemed their state, as more worthy, so not so secur, and therefore (saith he) S. Hierome wished it might be fare from him to speak evilly of Priests who succeeding to the Apostolical degree, do consecrate with their own wouth the body of Christ, by whom we are Christians, who having in their custody the Keys of heaven, do judge us in a manner before the day of judgement, As if he should have said: eos quorum gradus tanta est in Ecclesia dignitatis, quorum of sicium tantae est sanctitatis non audeo inseriores monachis iudicare, quamuis eos vidcan in or whibus habitare etc. those, whose degree is of such dignity in the Church, whose office is of so great sanctity, I dare not judge inferior to monks although I see, they dwell in Cities. But other is (saith S. Hierom) the cause of a monk, other is the cause of Clerks. clarks do seed the sheep, I am feed That is to say, us, who are fed no cause urgeth to be are the molestations of the popular tumult, which to tolerate the clerk is compelled by Pastoral necessity: yet is not he therefore esteemed inferior: Yea so much more worthier the clerk is judged then a monk by how much the Pastor is worthier than the sheep. But how much more worthier mace the Clerk obtaineth by so much it is more necess rye that he be of holier life: lest if the greater dignity want the greater sanctity; the Clarcke way take the greater detriment by his greager dignity. But because it is rare to stand with an undeclining san●●●ie, and to avoid that (mortal sin) I do not Counsel thee (thus he maketh S. Hieron to speak) to ascend to an higher place lest thou stand not, and find a greater ruin. It is not (saith he) easy to stand in the place of Paul nor to hold the degree of pecter. pag. 453. Aug. open 76 ad Aurel. And in his hundreth, chapter alleging that sentence out of S. Austin: Nimis dosendum si ad tam ruinosam superbiam monachos surrigamus etc. cum aliquande etiam bonus monachus vix bonum clericum faciat: it is much to be lamented if we elevate monks to such ruinous pride, and think Clerks, in whose number we are, worthy so great a contumely, whereas sometimes also a good Monk scarcely maketh a good Clerk, This Author Philip de Haruing addeth; That s. Austin hereby doth openly show, that not only an evil Monk ought tolbe removed from clerical office but a good Monk is scarcely worthy to be promoted to it And a little before these words he saith S. Austin saw Monks who being weary of their quietesse and silence, add not showing in their life monastical humility, impudently desired ecclesiastical honours, not considering (behold this Abbot's humility, and the reverend conceit he had of the Clergy) what is the difference betwixt the footstool (so he stilled his own Regular state) and the Chair, to wit the Clerks state, whereas in that state a man sitteth more securely, in this more dangerously. This humility this Abbot learned of s. Hierome how in his Epistle to Heliodorus saith: Mihi ante preshyterum sedere non licet, illa, si peccavero, licet tradere me Sathanae in interitum carnis: It is not lawful for the to sit before the Priest, for him it is lawful, if I sin, in deliver me up to Satan, to the destruction of the flesh. This humility and reverend conceit of Priests and Bishops if M. Nicholas also had learned, he would never have endeavoured so to detract from the Bishop's honour, as we see he hath done. 57 Out of this which I have said of the state and dignity of Bishops and Inferior Pastors (which I hope will not offend, it being all or the most part taken out of Regular Authors) may be gathered in how high and perfect a state or calling, not of perfection to be acquired, but to be exercised and communicated to others, the Priests of our Seminaries, and Religious houses are, who are sent in an Apostolical mission into England, to convert Heretics, to reclaim Schismatics, to govern and comfort Catholics, to illuminate, perfect, and purge the people by preaching, catechising, administering the Sacraments, and by offering the dreadful sacrifice of the mass: who are to show the people the ways to good life, virtue, and perfection, not only by wholesome connsailes and exhorrations, but also by good examples; who are to labour day and night, on horse back, on foot, and to expose their liberty, yea lives, for the gaining governing, and comforting of souls. 58. This office, and calling is the greatest, as being the calling of the Apostles, who were sent by their master Christ to traverse the world for the gaining of souls: this was the calling and office of our Lord and master Christ jesus, who was incarnate and became man, lived and conversed with us, preached, wrought miracles, gave examples of all virtue and perfection, and at last suffered a cruel death on the infamous Cross for the redeeming and gaining of souls. This is the greatest calling and office in this life. For there is no greater calling, after that of Christ, than an Apostolical calling, snch as this is: And the reason is, because there is no greater perfection than charity, joa. 15. and there is no greater charity than to expose once life for the saving of souls. 59 And let not any marvel that I call this an Apostolical calling, because in this, all Pastors, and especially they who are sent in mission to convert souls, do succeed and imitate the Apostles: and as the mission of other preachers to other countries, as first of Fugatius and Damianus, then of S Austme and his companions to our country, and of S. Denys to France, S. Palladias' to Scotland, S. Ronisace to Germany, is worthily called Apostolical, they all being sent by the Se. 2 Apostolic of Rome, which ever sent preachers to foreign Countries: so they who now are sent in mission to England with intention only to gain souls, are sent by Apostolical mission, because from the same sea and authority. And in this, as our Seminary Priests do excel all other Priests; so our Religious do excel all other Religious what soever, who are not sent in such an Apostolical mission, but live quietly in their Cells, endeavour their own salvation and perfection, but are, not sent in mission as our English Regulars are to convert, and to save the souls of others. 60. The question may be whether as these have the highest calling in the Church of God, so they have also a state, And this is not so certain as that To estate of perfection (as we have seen) twothing are required. The first that it be ordained to acts of perfection: The second that it be immoveable by vow, oath, promsse, pact, or convenant. The state of Seminary Priests wanteth not the first, as even now I shown: only there may seem to be wanting in them an immobility which is required to a state as S. Thomas hath delivered, 2.2.9. 134. a. 4. but if that were wanting it would not derogate to the perfection of the Seminary Priests office and calling, because still it should be ordained to the most perfect actions, and this is the principal in estate of perfection, and by this, onestate is judged to be more perfect or eminent than another. 61. And yet this immobility seemeth not altogether wanting: for that the Seminary Priest bindeth himself by oath to go to England, there to endeavour with hazard of liberty and life, to convert and gain souls. And indeed Pope Gregory the thirteenth who founded the English Seminary in Rome hath decreed, Greg. 13. in bulla edita an. that the Scholars who will enjoy the benefit of that house, shall swear (as appeareth by a Bull made for the erecting of that Seminary) that they will undertake an Ecclesiastical life, and willbe ready, omni tempore, at all times. to return to their Country at the Commandment of the Superior, there to aid souls, as much as in our Lord they can. 1579. 9 Kal Maij And in the oath of that and other Colleges, the Scholar sweareth unto Almighty God, that he Is and willbe in mind prepared, as much as his grace shall help him to receive orders, and to return into England to gain souls quotiescumque & quandocumque, so often as ever, and when or what time soever, is shall seem good in our lord to the superior of the college according to the Institute thereof to command him. And the more yet to bind the Seminary Priest to this state, the holy congregation De Propag. fide, by commandment from the Pope, hath ordained, that the Scholars of the pope's Semiys shall swear, that they won't enter into Religion without licence from the Pope, or not till they have laboured three years in the mission: and if thus they undertake a Religious life yet by the decree of the said congregation they must go to labour in the mission. 62. And if by these words, So often as ever, and When or at what time soever, it be understood that although the Priest upon occasion may retire himself out of England, he will yet return so often as his superior shall command; then the Seminary Priests state is immoveable, because his oath bindeth him perpetually to go to England when soever his Superior shall send him: which argueth a perpetual obligation by oath, which as Navarre and others do think bindeth more than a vow; Nau. c. 27. Man. n. 75. Maior. in 3. d. 39 q. 2. Va lentia to 3. diso. 6. q 7. punct. 4 S. Th. 2.2. q. 89. a. 8. or if not so much as S. Thomas thinketh; at least it bindeth sufficiently to make a state, and more than a pact or covenant, of the Pastor with his Church; which Suarez (as we have seen) holdeth sufficient to make an immoveable state. But because I will not take upon me to interpret so rigourouslie those words Quotiescunque & quan documque, but leave that to Superiors, and to the practice of the same oath, I will not affirm that the Seminary Priests calling hath a sufficient immobility to make it a state. At least this out of the premises is certain, that the Seminary Priests calling, under the Bishop, is the highest calling in the Church of God, by reason that it is ordained to acts of greatest perfection, which are to preach, teach, minister, Sacraments etc. amongst heretics, even with daily hazard of his liberty and life. 63. By this which hath been said of the state of Bishops, Secular Priests, inferior Pastors and Seminary Priests, may easily be gathered an Answer to all, which M. Nicholas allegeth from the number 14. to the number 16. for the precedence of Regulars in state of perfection. From which number 16. to the number 23. he goeth about to prove, that Religious men are fit to be sent in mission then secular Priests are (which is an odious comparison) whereas notwithstanding our Saviour Christ, who wanted neither wisdom nor will, hath made choice of Bishops and Priests as the Church to this day doth, though Regulars also be sometimes called to be Bishops and Priests, To. 3. lib. 1. de Rel. c. 19 n. 14. and to do Episcopal and Priestly functions. But this, as Suarez saith they do only by delegation and privilege, not by ordinary right and power. And in this sense, it is out of their element: though M. Nicholas pag. 232. thinketh this strange: But to this also he is answered above n. 41.42.45. and to his contentment, if reason will content him. M. NICHOLAS. It remaineth that I explicate a point or two handled by M. Doctor obscurely and with disadvantage to Religious state. n. 22 in the end. The first is, that perfection consisteth in charily, and that the three Evangelicall Counsels, are no perfection but instruments and means to perfection etc. n. 23. THE REPLY. M. Doctor speaketh as S. Thomas and Suarez do. 64. If that saying of M. Doctors displeaseth M. Nicholas, S. Th. & Suar infra Caiet. infra Caiet. in 2.2 q. 184. ar. 7 he must blame S. Thomas and Suarez, yea and all divines who speak as M. Doctor did. And although I have already cited S. Thomas and Suarez, yet to ease the Reader of the labour of looking back, I shall here again set down their words. S. Thomas allegeth Moses' Abbot his words to show that perfection consists in charity not in the Counsels. S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. a. 3. in corp. The words are these; leiunia, vigiliae, meditatio Scripturarum etc. Fast watchings, medication of the Scriptures, nakedness, and privation of all riches, are not perfection, but instruments of perfection, because in them consisteth not the end of that discipline, but by them is attained the end. And S. Thomas himself in his answer to the first argument, hath these words Et idcoex ipso modo loquendi apparet guod consilia sunt quaedam instrumenta perveniendi ad perfectionem etc. And therefore by the very manner of speaking it appeareth, that the Counsels are certain instruments to come to perfection. Suar. to. 3 l 1. c. 15. n. 12. And Suarez joineth with him or rather followeth him in the same: Illa consilia corumque obseruant●a non continent formalem perfectionem etc. Those counsels and the observation of them do not cont●yne formal perfection, but are instruments to acquire it: yet without them perfection may be found. 65. But M. Nicholas objecteth against this, 2.2. q. 184. n. 3. that S. Thomas in the same article saith: Secundario & instrumentaliter perfectio consistit in consilies: Secundarilie and instrumentally perfection consteth in the Counsels. I answer that to say perction consisteth iustrumentallie in the Counsels, is all one as to say with S. Thomas and Suarez, that they are instruments of perfection, but contain not formal perfection: otherwise S. Thomas should contradict himself. So the Sacraments do contain grace virtually and instrumentally, but not formally, because they are instruments by which grace is produced. And therefore Caietan saith: Vhitunque haec repereris esse perfectiones, fatere verum idesse, sed cum grauo selis, scilicet instrumentaliter, non essentialiter: wheresoever thou findest that Counsels Are perfections, grant it, but with a grain of salt, to wit instrumentally not essentially. Caiet. in 2. 2. q. 184. art. 7. But M Nicholas objecteth again, that S. Thomas saith that Perfection secundarilie and instrumentally, consisteth in the Counsels, which is more than instrumentally, because (saith he) S. Thomas saith also, that the perfection of Christian life consisteth principally in the love of God, secondarily in the Love of our neighbour, and yet (saith M. Nicholas) we see that secundarilie and instrumentally, are terms much different; for who will say that the love of our neighbour is only an instrument of Christian perfection. 65. I answer that S. Thomas in the same article cleareth this difficulty: For he saith, that Perfectio dicitur in aliquo consistere dupliciter: uno modo pierce & essentialiter: alio modo secunda. riò & accidentaliter: Perfection is said to be in one two manner of ways: one way essentially, another way secondarily and accidentally. And so when S. Thomas saith that perfection consisteth Secundarilie and instrumentally in the Counsels, his meaining is; that as the essential perfection of a man consisteth in his Essential parts which taken metaphysicallie are animal and Rationale, physicallie, are the body and the soul, but yet his accidental perfection which also may be called secondary, consisteth in the powers, faculties and other perfections of the soul, as science and virtue; so the essential perfection of a Christian consisteth in charity; but in the Counsels his perfection consisteth instrumentally, because they are instruments to get perfection, and means also to conserve it; in that they remove the occasions of sin and the impediments of charity, in which consisteth the essential perfection: and in these Counsels' perfection also consisteth, yet but secondarily and accidentally, as a man's perfection also secondarily and accidentally consisteth in Science and moral virtues. And this is S. Thomas his meaning, when in the first article of that question in his answer to the second argument he saith, 2. 2. qi 184. art. 1. ad 2. that as a living creature is said simply and absolutely to be perfect, when it hath all the members and dispositions required to life, but then is said to be perfect Secundum quid, when it hath accidental perfection: so the perfection of a Christian life, simply and absolutely consisteth in charity, but Secundum quid in other virtues which are accidental perfections. 2. 2. q. 184. art. 3. But when S. Thomas in the same q. and 3. article saith that the perfection of Christian life consisteth principally in the love of God, secondarily in the loud of our neighbour, he addeth not and instrumentally or accidentally, as he doth when he speaketh of the Counsels, but only saith, that perfection consisteth Secondarion Secundarilie in the love of our neighbour, by which diversity of speech he insinuateth a difference betwixt the Counsels and the love of our neighbour; for that in the Counsel's perfection so consisteth Secundarilie, that it consisteth also in them instrumentally and accidentally, as I have explicated: but in the love of our neighbour, perfection so consisteth secondarily, that it consisteth also in it essentially not accidentally or instrumentally, because the love of our neighbour for God, is a true act of Charity, though secondary: and in all acts of charity essential perfection consisteth, though principally in the love of God for himself, which is the first and Principal act of Charity, secondarily in the love of our neighbour for God, which is the secondary act of the same virtue. 66. And so let M. Nicholas endeavour all he can, he shall never be able to prove that perfection consisteth formally in the three Evangelicall Counsels, which are poverty charstitie and obedience, nor that they of themselves are more than instruments and means whereby to attain to Charity, which is our perfection: and he shall have S. Thomas, Caietan, Suarez and all Divines that treat of this matter against him. 67. I Deny not but that the acts of the Counsels, as also of the precepts, yea and of all virtues if they be done in sanctifying grace, and especially if they proceed from charity do augment grace and perfection and in this sense are causes of charity and increase of grace, but then they are not taken by themselves but with grace and Charity. Suar. 20.3. l. 1. c. ● 1. n. 16. And I grant with Suarez, that although the general Counsels of poverty, chastity and obedience be only instruments of perfection; yet there are particular Counsels, to wit the frequent love of God, or the intense love of God (which are Counselled but not commanded) which are formal perfection, because they are formal acts of charity, in which consisteth perfection. M. NICHOLAS. In his 11. chapter n. 12. he writeth thus: There is only this difference betwixt religious and other Christians, that the Religious leave all things actually, other Christians must leave them in prepation of mind n. 24. THE REPLY. This distinction is defended as good. 68 This distinction of leaving all actualie or in fact, and in preparation of mind is used by S. Thomas and all divines, who also grant that to leave all actually is proper to religious men; to leave all in preparation of mind is common to all Christians, who ought to be so disposed (as they are if they be in grace and charity) to leave all, 2.2. q 184. art. 7. ad. to wit, goods, liberty, life rather than offend God mortally. These be S. Thomas his words: Ad Primum ergo dicendum, quod abrenuntiatio propriarum facultatum dupliciter considerari potest. Vno modo secundum quod est in actu. Et sic in ea non consistit essentialiter perfectio, sed est quoddam perfectionis instrumentum etc. Alio modo potest considerari secundum praeparationem, ut scilicet homo sit paratus (si suerit opus) omnia dimittere vel distribuere. Et haec pertinet directe ad perfectionem. To the first therefore it is to be said, that the abrenunciation of our own goods may be considered in two manners. First in act, and so in that (abrenumciation) Perfection consisteth not essentially, but it is a certain instrument of perfection etc. secondly it may be considered in preparation of mind, that forsooth a man be prepared if it shallbe needful to leave all, or distribute all. And this directly pertaineth to perfection. Where M. Nicholas may see the distinction which he misliked in M. Doctor, and how in actual leaving all, perfection consisteth not; but in preparation of mind, which as S. Thomas saith Directly pertaineth to perfection. And therefore in the same place S. Thomas saith, that the bishop though he leaveth not all actually, is in a greater state of perfection than is the Religious who leaveth all actually, because the Bishop Is most of all bound to contemn all for the honour of God and the health of his flock when it shallbe needful And this preparation of mind (as we have heard S. Thomas say) pertaineth directly to perfection. But let us hear Caietan, and whether he also be not of S. Thomas his opinion. Caietan then upon the alleged article of S. Thomas, having, as before I alleged, affirmed that the Counsels are but instruments of perfection, and that actually to leave all riches, or actually to leave a wife, is not perfection, Caiet. 2.2. q. 184. a. 7. he addeth these words, liden auten actus secundum animi praeparationem sunt perfectiones long in altiore gradu quam primo modo quoniam sunt inseparabiles Comites seu effectus essentialis perfectionis, quae in charitate consistie: but the same acts (of the Counsels) in preparation of mind, are perfections in a fare higher degree, then in the first manner (that is of actual leaving) because they are inseparable companions or effects of the essential perfection which consisteth incharitie. Why then doth M. Nicholas so storm against M. Doctor who speaketh, no otherwise then S. Thomas and Caietan do? 69. But (saith M. Nicolas) M. Doctor in his eleaventh Chapter n. 12 distinguisheth the 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 and this is the charity of Religious. It is true M. Doctor said so in his Hierarchy, and why should you now seek to draw him into an odious sense, as though he meant now to deny it, and would leave to Regulars only actual leaving of things without the love of God. Religious may and do no doubt often times leave all actually for the love of god: and the Bishop, as S. Thomas saith, and all good Christians out of God his love are prepared only to leave all: and so the difference betwixt Religious and other Christians is, that the Religious leave all actually, other Christians not actually, but in preparation of mind. And the actual leaving of all is no perfection, but a means to get perfection, unless it be joined with the love of God. And therefore M. Doctor saith, Chap. 1. n. 12. that the former that is the actual, leaving of all Is no perfection but an instrument of perfection unless it be joined with the love of God in which consisteth perfection. 70. So that M. Doctor granteth more perfection to the Religious than he doth to other Christians. For he confesseth that they so love God that they not only are willing for the love of God, to observe the commandments as other Christians ought to be, but also the Counsels; and they are not only willing for his love to leave all in prepacation of mind as good Christians are, but also (which is more) for his love do actually leave all. Only this is the difference, that actual leaving of all may be without the love of God (for although many no doubt leave all for God his love yet some do not) but the preparation of mind to leave all rather than offend God mortally, is so nearly linked to the love of God that as Caietan above saith, Caiet. 22. q. 184. art. 7. it is an inseparable companion or necessary effect of Charity. And therefore both S. Thomas and he do affirm (as we have seen) that perfection consisteth in that preparation of mind, but not in actual leaving of all unless that actual leaving proceedeth also from charity: which is the self same that M. Doctor said, as appeareth by these his words: the former actual leaning of them is no perfection, but an instrument of perfection, unless it be joined with the love of God in which consisteth perfection, as S. Thomas of Aquin well observeth. In his Hier. c. 14. n. 12. Yea M. Nicholas n. 24. S. Th. 2. 2. qu. 184. ar. 7. ad 1. (such is the force of vertiei) confesseth that M. Doctor saith so. Why then doth M. Nicholas tax M. Doctor for distinguishing as he did betwixt actual leaving all, and leaving all in preparation of mind, which distinction S. Thomas, Caietan and all divines do admit? Why doth he in that 24. number seek to wrest M. Doctors words to an odious sense. as though he gave to religious only actual leaving without the love of God: but only because he was desirous quaerere nodum in scirpo, to seek a knot in a bulrushe, a fault where no fault was, and an untruth where there was nothing but truth. 71. By this which is said; all that which M. Nicholas allegeth from the n. 24. to the n. 29. is easily answered: for that all that he saith doth only prove these points; first that actual leaving all, conduceth to perfection, which is true, because it is a mean and instrument; and that it is more, out of the love of God to leave all actually, then in preparation of mind, because in actual leaving is more difficulty; secondly that actual leaving of all when it proceedeth from the love of God includeth formal perfection, because it includeth charity: which also M. Doctor had granted. Thirdly that it is hard to abound in riches and not to be entangled by them with an inordinate love or desire of them, Ps. 61. which is also true: though one may flow jam wealth and yet not be taking by these lime twigs: according to that: if riches abound set not your heart on them. Gen. 22. And therefore Abraham in the midst of his riches, was in mind prepared not only to have left them, but also to have killed his one and only son, and with his own hands also, at the commandment of God. M. NICHOLAS. In his nine Chapter n. 19 M. Doctor writes at if he were not unwilling the Reader should believe that the Apostles made no vow of poverty, and consequently were not religious men, etc. THE REPLY. M. Doctor only relateth what others say; and indeed it is not so certain, etc. as M. Nicholas would make it that they were religious. But supposing they were religious, yet Christ gave to them power to preach and minister Sacraments not as they were religious but as they were Bishops and Priests. n. 29. 72. M. Doctor in that place relateth only what some divines say, but doth not determine that they were not religious: and therefore saith, that supposing they were religious, yet Christ gave not to them as they were religious power to preach & minister Sacraments, but only as they were Bishops & Priests, another manner of life pertaining to religious, another to Pastors: for that they are fed, these feed, they are perfected, these perfect, they as regulars are to receive the Sacraments, these are to minister them, as we have seen above, and shall see more in the next question. And therefore as M. Doctor did not determine this question, whether the Apostles were religious or no; so neither will I: but if it be probable that they were religious (as diverse authors hold it) so it shall remain for me, who do not desire to detract from the religious any honour which probably they may claim. Yet I will relate what some Authors say in this matter, that the Reader may see that though it may be probable, yet it is not so certain as M. Nicholas thinketh that they were religious men. 73. 1. p. de Redditibus eccl. c. 1. & 1. p. defence. pag. 887. Franciscus Sarmiento a learned Bishop, confesseth that the Apostles whilst they were disciples observed poverty, either by commandment of Christ for that time, or out of their free will and devotion, for that than thy were in state of proficients and Scholars: and therefore Christ for that time said unto them: nolite possidere aurum, neque argentum, neque pecuniam in zonis vestris: do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses. Mat 10. But saith he this was but Counsel, or a temporal precept for that tyme. And for that time S. Peter said: Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, & secuti sumus te: behold weehave left all things and have fol. lowed thee. Matt. 19 But (saith he) after they had received power to absolve from sins, and to bind and lose, Matt. 18. joan. 20. and had care & charge of the Church and were become to be Masters, and in the state of the perfecters of others, than poverty (saith he) was not required at their hands, yea it was convenient that they should have goods, thereby to help the poor, and to give example of charity: and therefore, saith he pag. 216. Christ who exacted poverty of the young man Mat. 19 exacted only of S. Peter (when he made him Pastor) charity joan. 21. And although they were not at first Bishops and Pastors, yet because they were shortly to be, it was not requisite (saith the same Bishop) that whilst they were disciples, they should vow poverty. And then concludeth thus: Sub correctione Matris Ecclesiae existimo nullum votum expressè Apostolos emisisse, quia non legitur in Scriptura sacrae, secutos tamen consilia Euangelica, quia perfectissimi erant, etc. Saron. 1. p. defensionü pag. 887. Under correction of our mother the Church, I think that the Apostles made no vow expressly, because it is not read in the holy scripture, yet that they followed the Euangelical Counsels,) because they were most perfect, etc. And so according to the opinion of this learned Bishop, th' Apostles were not religious because they made no vows. 74. In opusc. § 1. dnb. 2. Vasquez saith, that by the fact of the Apostles nothing certain in this matter can be proved, but only that it was not needful as we have proved, that they should follow poverty by vow, but by Counsel they followed it whilst they were under the teaching of Christ. But although the matter be not certatne, yet (saith he without yielding any reason) the opinion of S. Thomas who saith that they vowed the things that pertain to perfection is more probable. But yet that as certain (saith he) may hence be gathered, that at least the state of Bishops requireth not necessarily poverue; 2. Cor. 11.2.2. q. 185. art. 6. ad 2. yea sometimes by reason of the condition of the time, it is more commodious) that they should have goods, as saith he S. Aussme, S Ambrose, yea & S. Paul (as S. Thomas confesseth) had. Thus fare Vasquez. So that in his opinion also it is not so certain as M. Nicholas maketh it, that they vowed poverty and the things that pertain to perfection. And consequently in his opinion, it is not certain that they were religious, because vows are necessary to make one religious, Vasqis. to. 2. in 1.2. disput. 164. c. 5. yet the same Author (I confess) in another place thinks that the Apostles vowed the counsels. 75. And although many in the beginning of the Church presently after the descension of the holy Ghost l●u●d in common, Acto. 2. & 4. In illa ioca. yet as Estius & Bartholomaeus Petrus Lintrensis affirm it is not necessary to say that all of ●h●left the propriety of all they had, it being only a Counsel, and some of these Christias say these two Authors had w●u●s and children, and so could not leave all, but did only contribute to the community; & so (say they) all was common amongst them all, as all things are common amongst friends in regard of use, but not amongst all in respect of propriety or dominion. So that all at least of the first Christians who are said to have lived in common, were not religious in the opinion of these two learned Doctors. 76. Baronius in his A●ales saith, Baron. to. 1. an. Christi 34. that this community of goods amongst the first Christians was not such as that every one that would be Christian, could not be admitted, unless be first sold all; or that being made Christian, be was compelled to this as if to all Christians that rule of life was prescribed: for of Paul it is known that he warned the Corimthians by his Epistle, that so they should give alms to the needy, that their giving should not be prodigal, lest, (said be) that which to others is an ease, should be to you a tribulation, but by an equality. Let in this present time, your abundance supply their want. 2. Cor. 8. But saith Baronius, at the first by a private motion of the holy ghost these things were done for many causes: as to set an example to posterity of a stricter life; and therefore (saith Baronitus) S. Austin & S. Basile from this example took the form of their religious life. And this (saith he also) at that time when persecution was imminent and was presen the to follow, was convenient, lest their goods might afterwards be an hindrance unto them & cause of falling in persecution 77. Azer. to. 1. li. 11. mor. Instit. c. 23. Act. 2. & 4. Azorius relating the manner of life of the first Christians, of which the Acts of the Apostles do make mention: saith: quae vivendi ratio veluti quidam Coenobyticae vitae typus & figura fuit: which manner of living was a certain type, and figure of Coenobyticall (or Monastical) life not that he saith not that it was a Coenobytical life, but a figure of that life, which afterwards was to be led. And (saith he) if the heretics object, that in those places (of the Acts) there is no mention of vows: we now do not endeavour to show against them that a form of a religious life in all parts perfect, hath been before, in Elias, Eliseus, S. John Baptist, & the first Disciples of the Apostles; but only for a great part it was shadowed & delineated in these things, which pertain to meat, drink, cloth, habitation, and manner of life, poverty, obedience, chastity. So that neither doth Azorius hold it as certain that the Apostles or first Christians were religious; S. Th. 2.2 q. 88 ar. 8. ad 3. though before he had cited S. Thomas who saith they vowed the things that pertain to perfection; yea and S. Austin who saith that the Apostles vowed poverty. Aug. li. 17. de Civit. Dei c. 4. Sarm supra p. 1. defes. pag. 887. To which place Franciscus Sarmiento answereth, that S. Austin by vow in that place understandeth a full purpose of keeping poverty, which purpose saith he, the Apostles left, when they were no more disciples but Masters and Pastors. 78. Cajetan a Regular, principal Thomist, and Cardinal, in his commentary upon the 19 Chapter of S. Matthew, explicating these words: Vade & vend omnia, etc. & vent sequere me: go & sell all, etc. and come and follow me: Hath these words. Attend lector, quod nullum indicitur à JESV votum, volenti perfectionem vitae assequi: quia non in vinculis votorum, sed in operibus consistit perfectionis assecutio. Laudabilia sunt vota Religionis, sed non in illorum professione sed operibus quibus imitamur JESUM CHRISTUM, acquiritur perfectio. Infinitus est hodie numerus eorum qui acquirunt perfectionis statum profit endo religionis vota: sed rari sunt qui volunt esse perfecti, imitando JESUM factis humilitatis, patientiae, mansuetudinis, charitatis, etc. Mark Reader that no vow is denounced (or commanded) from JESUS-CHRISTE to him that will attain to perfection of life: because the attaining of perfection consisteth not in the bonds of vows, but in works by which we imitate JESUS CHRIST. Laudable the vows of Religion, yet not in their profession but in works by which we imitate JESUS CHRIST perfection is gotten. There is at this day an infinite number of those who get a state of perfection, by professing the vows of Religion: but rare they are who will be perfect, by imitatim JESUS in works of humility, patience, mildness, charity, etc. So that Caietan is of opinion, that in the place of Scripture alleged there is no mention of vows, and yet they who hold that the Apostles were religious, out of this place especially prove the three vows of Religion. And seeing that without vows a man cannot be religious: if out of this place it can not (as Caietan thinketh) be proved that the Apostles vowed, it can not out of this place be proved, that the Apostles were religious, vows being necessary to make a man religious. 79. Suarez to. 3. de Relig. l. 2. c. 15. n 13.14 15.16. Vasqu. to. 2. in 1.2. disp. 164. c. 4. &. 5. But suppose the Apostles and first Christians vowed, yet doth it not follow that they were religious: For that as Suarez and Vasquez do confess, the three vows are not sufficient to make one a religious man. But the order and Institute must be approved either by the Bishop in his Diocese, as ancienthe it was, or by the Pope as afterwards was decreed. And the religious his vow must be accepted of the Superior who hath jurisdiction over him, and authority to receive his vows. And what certainty is there that the Apostles and first Christians lived in an order approved by Christ or S. Peter, or that their vows were accepted by Christ or S. Peter as sufficient to make them religious, seeing that h●ly Scripture saith nothing of any such acceptation? 80. Suarez to. 3. l. 3 de auttore & orig. & antiqu status relig c. 2. ●. 9 I confess that the learned Suarez defendeth that the Apostles vowed poverty, chastity, & obedience, and were religious, & that Christ not only instituted a religious state in general in regard of the three Counsels, but also made a religion in particular to which he called the Apostles eye proprium & particularem modum vitae religiosae tribuendo, giving to them a proper and particular manner of living. Nu. 10. And this particular manner of living he saith consisted in a life mixed partly contemplative partly active in endeavouring the conversion of souls. But yet his proofs out of Scripture do only prove that Chariste instituted the Counsels and commended them: what he allegeth out of some Authors proveth only that the Apostles vowed the Counsels, which yet is not sufficient to make them religious as we have seen: what he bringeth out of other Authors only proveth that the Apostles gave examples of religious l●f● by living at first in common, and by observing poverty, chastity and obedience, but not that they were religious, though I deny not but that some Authors do affirm, that the Apostles were religious, which yet might be understood, not that they were properl●e and compleatelie religious, but only for that they observed or vowed the three Evangelicall Counsels. 81. To. 2. in 1. 2. disp. 4. & 5. Wherefore Vasquez resolveth the matter thus: His praemissis, quod attinet ad station religionis distinguendum est, etc. These things premised, we must distinguish concerning the state of Religion. For either to have instituted the state of religion is all one as to have invented & excogitated it, and to have proposed it to others to be followed: and in this sense we must say that the state of religion was instituted by Christ our Lord, that is proposed and preached, as is gathered by the things we have said: or to institute a state of religion, is all one as indeed to erect it under the power and jurisdiction of one Head: and so it is not to be said that the institution of this state is of the deume or natural law. For seeing that to constitute a state of religion it is necessarily require● that he who voweth, should make the three vows under the jurisdiction of a Superior (praepositi) as above is explicated, and seeing that it is in the will of the legislatour to accept of the three vows of him that voweth them, that so he may have him for his subject; it followet that the erection of a religious state doth pertain to the positive law, or to the will of the humane legislatour; for that the three vows made, have not this by the law of nature or by the divine law, to constitute him that voweth under the jurisdiction peculiarly required to religion, of an head or superior: but this agreeth to them by the constitution of the Church or Chief Bishop. Thus he. And seeing it can not be showed out of Scripture or counsels, or ancient authors that the Apostles made their vows of the three counsels under the jurisdiction of an Head, who accepted their vows, it can not so clearly be showed that they were properly & compleatelie religious, though they had vowed the three Counsels which are the substance of all religious. It is true that Christ was head to the Apostles and Disciples, and so under Christ was S. Peter, joan. 21. as now the Pope his successor is, to all Christians. But that the Apostles or Disciples lived under Christ first, and after under S. Peter as religious under an Abbot, cannot so easily be proved. 82. This I have said only to show that it is not so certain as M. Nicholas seemeth to make it, that the Apostles were religiou●●en: but not in any case to take from the Regulars any honour to which they may make any probable claim; and therefore I leave this opinion which some hold of the Apostles being religious, in all the probability it might have, not intending to derogate to it: and this which I have said, I would not have said, had not M. Nicholas egged and provoked me in his 4. qu. n. 29. THE SIXTH QUESTION. Whether Religious as religious be of the Hierarchy. M. NICHOLAS. M. Doctor after his wont manner is here reduplicating Religious as religious but never secular as secular. THE REPLY. Reduplication is defended, and by it, Regulars are excluded from the Hierarchy. 1. REduplication (as M. Nicholas should know) is frequently used in the Schools, not only of Philosophe but also of divinity, and it serveth much to know, and to distinguish the natures of things. And to omit examples hereof, which might be brought out of Philosophy, as album currit but not as album; musicus aedificat, but not as musicus: In divinity we say, that God died, not as God, but as man; the man Christ created the world, not as man, but as God: the B. Virgin is mother of God, not as God, but as man: the son of God was borne of the Virgin MARIE, not as God, but as man, for as God he was borne only of his eternal father. And so regular Bishops or Priests, are of the Hierarchy as much as other Bishops and Priests, yet not as regulars, but as Bishops or Priests. 2. Whereas M. Nicholas excepteth against M. Doctor for saying that Regulars as Regulars are not of the Hierarchy, and yet saith not, that secular Priests as secular are not of the Hierarchy: I answer, that M. Doctor wanted not his reason. 3. For we may compare secular Priests with regulars diversely. First, as both are only Christians, and so both are members of the Church, neither of the Hierarchy, as it is taken for that part of the Church which ruleth perfecteth and illuminateth, as we shall show by and by. Secondly we may compare state with state, to wit, the state of a secular Priest with the state of the Regular. And then I say that a secular Priest as a secular Priest, that is considered as in that state, is of the Hierarchy as it consisteth of diverse orders, by reason of his order and character. And because this character maketh him apt for jurisdiction, he is apt also to be of the Hierarchy as it importeth degree in jurisdiction. But the regular as regular, that is, taken precisely in the state of a regular, is not of the Hierarchy, because, as a regular, he hath neither order nor jurisdiction. And so the secular Priest by virtue of his state of Priesthood, is of the Hierarchy, the regular by virtue of his state of regular is not of the Hierarchy, though if he be Bishop, Priest or Deacons, etc. He be also of the Hierarchy as much as the secular Bishop or Priest. But as regular he is not of the Hierarchy. And if as regular he were of the Hierarchy, than all regulars even lay brothers and religious women should be of the Hierarchy. 4. For as because it agreeth to man as man to be risibilis, it agreeth to every man to be risibilis, so if it agree to a regular as regular to be of the Hierarchy, every regular though but a Converse or a lay brother or Sister, must be of the Hierarchy. 5. Wherefore Dionysius Carthusianus useth M. Doctors reduplication. Dionies. Carthe. art. 13. in Theorian c. 6. For he explicating S. Dionysius Areopagita saith, that S. Denys; declarat, id est, significat monachorum ordinem non esse pralatum alijs iurisdictionaliter atque Pralaticè, in quantum sunt monachi; doth declare, that is, signify that the order of monks as they are monks (behold his reduplication) is not placed over others jurisdictionallie and in manner of Prelates: Though the same author presently after granteth that monks in their own orders have Prelacy over others as Abbots and Priours have, and that in later times religious men were more frequently admitted to be Priests, which M. Doctor also granteth. 6. Wherefore M. Nicholas must not except against that reduplication of Regulars as Regulars, lest he except against the mission of Regulars in o England; for although their observing of their vows and rules doth much perfect them if they observe them as they should do, yet as Regulars they can do little good in England in this time of persecution; for that they can not keep the Choir and Cloister, they cannot rise at midnight to sing Matins, they cannot wear their habit, nor use abstinence or other austerity, externally, thereby to give good example (for that by reason of persecution they far as others, are lodged and clothed & have almost in all things the same liberty that others have) and so as Priests they are sent to England, and as Priests by Preaching and Ministering Sacraments they are most benefical to our Country. 7. 2.2. q. 184 a. 8 in corp.. And that Priests not Curates or Pastors are in a perfecter state than Regulars as Regulars not Priests, Thomas plainly teacheth who comparing Religious with secular Priests who are Curates or Archdeacon's, saith only that a Religious man as Religious excelleth the secular Priest not as Priest but as in state of secular: and no marvel, for so the Priest is considered as he aggregeth with lay men: and therefore a little after in the same place, he saith: Si vero Religiosus etiam ordine careat (sicut patet de conversis religionum) sic manifestum est excellere praeeminentiam ordinis quantum ad dignitatem, etc. But if the Religious wanteth also order (as converses doc) so it is manifest that the preeminence of order doth excel in dignity: because by holy order one is deputed to most worthy ministeries by which service is done to Christ himself in the Sacrament of the Altar, to which is required greater interior sanctity, than the state of Religion requireth because as Dionysius saith in his sixth chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy; the Monastical order ought to follow Priestly orders, and by their imitation to ascend to divine things. Thus S. Thomas. And who doubteth but that the holy order of Priesthood especially, excelleth the regular state which is no h●ly order: and consequently who can doubt but that a Priest as Priest is in an higher state than a Regular as Regular? Val. to. 3. disp. 10 q. 2. punct. 5. conc. 2. Valentia a jesuite speaking of inferior Prelates saith: Simo in eiusmodi Praelatis, etc. If in such Prelates we confider the degree of the holy order, speaking simply, there is some thing in them worthier and more perfect, then in the religious as religious, not in holy orders. Where we see he useth M. Doctors reduplication which offendeth M. Nicholas, and preferreth the holy order before the state and perfection of a religious man who is not in holy orders. M. NICHOLAS. I grant that 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 than to say, religious not Priests or Bishops are no Priests or Bishops, which surely is no great mystery, but than it should be proved with what ground the mame of Hierarchy should be so limited. n. 2. THE REPLY. How regulars are of the Hierarchy, and how they are not. 8. M. Nicholas from this place beginneth to prove, that Regulars are of the Hierarchy. And truly if either God or his Church had bestowed that honour on them, God forbidden that I should go about to take it from them. rather I would by word and writing defend it and hazard even my life to assure it the more unto them. But if neither God nor his Church hath given them this honour, neither must we give it to them lest we break God his ordinance, neither should they desire it. But as the laiety murmureth not against the Clergy (as Core, Dathan and Abiron, Num. 16. and their followers did against Moses and Aaron) for that they may not preach nor minister Sacraments: and as those of the secular Clergy ought not to take it in evil part, that they are not esteemed religious: So neither should the religious be offended, if we say that they are not of the Hierarchy, neither God nor his Church having bestowed that honour upon them, though they be adorned with many other graces. Rather they may rejoice in God, that they have many perfections of a religious life, which others have not, and are furnished with more means to attain to perfection then secular Priests have, and that their state is more secure and free from danger then any other state is. 9 And if M. Nicholas who endeavoureth to prove them to be of the Hierarchy mean only, that they are members of the Church which is a Hierarchy; neither M. Doctor nor any good Catholic will or can deny it: Nay M. Doctor in his Hierarchy, Chap. 8. n. 7. saith: that religious men as religious, are a great ornaments to the Church and are in this sense of the Hierarchy of the Church, in that they are eminent members of the Church and are ordained to help and assist Bishops and Pastors, etc. 10. But if he mean that they are of the Hierarchy as commonly it is taken by S. Denys and divines, for that part of the Church which governeth, illuminateth, perfecteth, and purgeth the rest by preaching, and administration of Sacraments, etc. so only Bishops, Pastors, Priests, and other Ministers are of the Hierarchy. And in this sense the holy Council of Trent taketh the Hierarchy saying: Si quis dixerit in Ecclesia Catholica non esse Hierarchiam divina ordinatione institutam, quae constat ex Episcopis & Pres byter is & Ministris: Anathema sit: If any shall say that there is not in the Church a Hierarchy instituted by the divine ordinance, which consisteth of Bishops and Priests and Ministers: let him be accursed. Sess. 23 can. 6. Where we see that the Hierarchy is taken only for that part of the Church which consisteth of Bishops, Priests, and Ministers, and seeing that Regulars as Regulars are neither Bishops, Priests, nor Ministers in the Church, as Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are, they are not, as Regulars of the Hierarchy in this sense: for if as Regulars they were of the Hierarchy in this sense, then lay brothers and sisters who are truly Regulars should be of the Hierarchy in the same sense, and so should be comprehended under Bishops, or Priests, or Ministers in the Church. 11. And therefore I wonder that M. Nicholas pag. 165. should say, that it is temereity to affirm that the Council intended to define as a matter of fayto, that under the name of Hierarchy could be comprehended only Bishops, Priests, or other Ministers endued with order or jurisdiction: rather it may seem great temereity in M. Nicholas to comprehend Regulars as Regulars under that definition, they as such being neither Bishops, nor Priests, nor Ministers in the Church. But peradventure M. Nicholas will comprehend Regulars under th● word Ministers. And why so? are they as Regulars Ministers in the Church, who as Regulars can not by office preach or Minister Sacraments, or assist at the Altar with the Deacon and Subdeacon? did he ever read or hear that Regulars were called Ministers of the Church? Certes Vasquez a jesuite and Regular, Vasq. to. 3. disp. 238. c. 2. under that word Ministris, Ministers, comprehendeth only Deacons, not other inferior Ministers, much less under that word would he understand Regulars who as Regulars were never called Ministers in the Church, they as Regulars having no Church-functions. Others under that word Ministers, understand Deacons and Subdeacons': but none understand Regulars. 22. M. Doctor in his Hierarchy, chap. 15. touched this question, whether regulars be of the Hierarchy in the former sense; and indeed he seemed only to touch it, and that with great moderation and respect to Religious, and therefore alleged no Authors for the proof of it: And I also because I would not give the least occasion of offence, would have been sparing in this matter, but that M. Nicholas urgeth me much in his 6. question where he handleth this point at large, and saith n. 1. that nothing is more frequent, then that some persons (he seemeth to mean M. Doctor for one) who I dare say scarcely ever read S. Denys 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 though they only were of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. And because M. Nicholas will seem to be more conversant in S. Denys and S. Thomas than others are, and saith that from them we have the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchy: I shall especially examine what S. Denys saith of the Hierarchy, and I will show so plainly and clearly out of him (from whence indeed S. Thomas and all divines, have learned that which they say of the Hierarchy) that regulars in his opinion and as he taketh the word Hierarchy are not of the Hierarchy, that the Reader will confess, that either M. Nicholas never read S. Denys (and so is of the number of them who as he saith scarcely ever read S. Denys, or if he read him, that he understood him not, or wittingly and willingly dissembled his opinion. 13. L. de Eccl. Hierarch. cap. 5. S. Denys then in his book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy speaking of those who are of the Hierarchy reckoneth only the Bishop, Priest, and Deacons: and saith that the Bishop's office is to perfect, the Priests to illuminate, the Deacons to purge. And in the said Chapter in his contemplation he telleth how they all three are ordained. And the Bishop he saith is the first and Chief order, in whom the rest are consummated. For, saith he, as the whole Hierarchy of the Church is consummated in the Chief Hierarch and Bishop, Christ, so every spiritual and particular Hierarchy, that is every particular Church is terminated and consummated in its proper Bishop. Which may be noted against M. Nicholas who would have a particular Church without a particular Bishop. So that S. Denys in the Hierarchy placeth only Bishops, Priests & Deacons, to whom are reduced Subdeacons' and other inferior orders, if especially these be of the divine institution: of which point M. Doctor hath disputed in his Hierarchy. 14. Dion. l. Eccl. Higher, c. 6. In the next chapter which is the sixth he treateth of the three orders of those that are perfected. And Dionysius Carthusianus in his Elucidation or explication of this sixth chapter, saith that S. Denys in the former chapter treated of the three orders of perfectors, that is, the Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, but now in the sixth chapter he speaketh of three orders of those that are perfected. And he observeth that when S. Denys speaketh of the three orders of those that perfect others, the name order signifieth a name of dignity; but when he speaketh of the three orders of them that are perfected: the name order signifieth no name of dignity, but rather is a name of subjection. 15. S. Denys in that sixth chapter saith that the orders of those who are perfected are in general three. The last, as Dionysius Carthusianus explicateth, to wit, they that are purged are 5. that is, Catechumenes, Energumenes, Apostates, vicious, infirm and timide or fearful persons: the next above them are the people baptised and admitted to the sacred Euchariste: the highest order of those that are perfected, are the Monks and religious who therefore are called according to the Translation of Lanselius: Summus corum qui initiantur & perficiuntur ordo: The chief order of those that are initiated and perfected: not the chief in the Church, because S. Denys placeth Bishops. Priests, and Deacons before them, but the first of those who are initiated and perfected. Dion. Cart. saith that the order of Monks is perfectus inter perficiendos: perfect amongst those that are to be perfected, but not amongst those that perfect others. Art. 13. super That. 6. 16. All this may be confirmed by what S. Denys saith in his Epistle to Demophilus Monk, where checking him for having Kicked a penitent who was confessing to the Priest, and for contemptuously using the Priest himself, he taketh him up in these words: Nefas est sacerdorem a Ministris qui to superiores sunt, aut à tui ordinis Monachis corrigi & reprehendi, etc. It is not lawful that a Priest should be corrected or reprehended by the Ministers who are above thee, or of the Monks of they order, etc. and he giveth the reason, saying: Sacerdotes autem nuncij atque interprete (secundum pontifices) sunt dininorum iudiciorum: ab eis rectè & ordine, t● per medios interiectosque Ministros, cum tempus posiulabit, divina disce, à quibus etiam ut monachus esses habuisti. An non hoc etiam clamant sacramysteria? neque enim planè omnibus aditus ad Sancta Sanctorum interdictus est, sed proximè ad ea accedit Pontificum ordo, deinde Sacerdotum, tum secundum hos, ministrorum. Ijs autem qui Monachi instituti sunt, valuae adytorum occlusae sunt, ad quas & initiantur & assistunt, non ut eas Custodiant sed ut agnoscant & se & ordinem suum; propiusque populum quam Ecclesiastici ordinis homines accedunt, etc. Priest's next to the Bishops are the messengers, or relaters and interpreters of the divine judgements: of them by means of the middle Ministers, rightly and by order when the time shall require, do thou learn the divine things, of whom also thou hadst that thou waste monk. Do not the sacred mysteries, erye this? For that all is not interdicted access to the Holies of Holies; but next to them hath access the order of Bishops, then of Priests, then, after them, of the ministers. But to them who are instituted monks, the doors of the Chaunselles or secret places of the Temple are shut at which they are initiated, and do assist not to keep them, but that they may acknowledge themselves and their order, and they do approach nearer to the people than the men of the Ecclesiastical order do. By which it appeareth, that according to S. Denis Regulars in his time wen excluded from the presbytery and the Chaunsell, and only were admitted to the doors, but were not admitted into that holy and secret place. 17. But let us hear a worthy Regular speak. Father John de S. François General in his time of the order of S. Bernard called the order of the Fueillianes in Paris who is famous for his Translation of S. Denis his work into french. He (in his Apollogie for these works in answering an objection made by Scaliger against them) hath these words. Chap. 13. pag. 74. Rour l'intelligence de ce que nous disons, faut supposer que saint Denis, voulant monstrer le bel order qui est en la Hierarchie de l'Eglise, divise tout le peuple Chrestien en deux parties, dont l'vne est celle du Clergé l'autre est du peuple laique. Il distingue tout le Clergé en trois order: le premier esi celuy des Euesques, l'autre des Prestres, & le tiers de liturges, etc. For the understanding of this which we say, it must be supposed that S. Denys intending to show the goodly order which is in the Hierarchy of the Church, devideth all the Christian people into two parts; of which the one is that of the Clergy, the other of the lay people. He distinguisheth all the Clergy into three orders: The first is that of the Bishops, the other of Priests, and the third of the liturges, that is Deacons, to whom the other Ministers of the Church are reduced. He distribueth the people in like manner into three Quires: the first is that of Catechumenes, Energumenes and Penstents: the second part is that which is the holy people, and the third is of the Monks. And because that all the ministry of the Hierarchy consisteth in three things, either in purging or illuminating or perfecting; or in being purged, illuminated, or perfected. Therefore he (S. Denys) calleth the order of liturges (Deacons) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, purgative order; that of Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illuminative, and that of the Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 perfective or perfecting. Respectivelie he (S. Denys) calleth the Catechumenes, Energumen, and Penitents, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the order that is purged; the solely people 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, illuminated, and the order of Monks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, perfected. 18. And a little after this Author addeth: Voylà done premierement comme il constitue les Moynes entrele peuple laique qui esloient ceux qui faisoyent profession d'vne plus grande perfection que les autres, & d'vne vie plus devote & spirituelle, renonçans anx affections & soucis d●s choses de ce monde, se devoüans & consacrans totalement au seruice de Dieu, etc. Behold then first of all how he (S. Denys) placeth the Monks amongst the lay people, which Monks, were they who made profession of a greater perfection than others, and of a life more devout and spiritual, renouncing the affections and cares of the things of this world, vowing and consecrating themselves wholly to the service of God, L. de Hier. Eccl. c. 6. &c And after that, to wit in the page 76. and 77. he relateth out of S. Denys how the Priests that were under the Bishop had the office to consecrated the Monks who made (saith he) their profession entre les mains des Prestres ●● dessoubs des Euesques: betwixt the hands of the Priests under the Bishop. And pag. 78. this Author showeth out of S. Denys in his Epistle to Demophilus how the rank and place of the Monks in public assemblies was with the lay people, though as we have seen they were above the people and under the Clergy: and saith this Author: Leur estoit deffendu d'entrer dans le Presbytere: It was ferbidden them to enter into the Presbytery. All which and more S. Denys himself hath in his fift and sixth chapter, of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as may partly appear by that which I have alleged out of those two chapters. 19 By this it is manifest that according to S. Denys, and as he understandeth the word Hierarchy, the Regulars are not of the Hierarchy, that is of that part of the Church, which governeth the rest, and ministereth Sacraments and preacheth, and thereby purgeth, illuminateth and perfecteth, which (as S. Denys saith) are the proper actions of the Hierarchy, and are called hierarchical actions, which also are exercised in the Hierarchy of the Angels in which the Superior orders illuminate, purge, and perfect the inferior. And therefore in S. Denis his time regulars took their place beneath the Clergy and above the lay people. And although in later times the Regulars enjoyed the clerical privilege, and were more frequently ordained Subdiacons, Deacons, Priests, yea and Bishops, and as such are of the Hierarchy: yet as Regulars they are not of the Hierarchy in S. Denys his opinion; for then in his time also they should have been of the Hierarchy. And M. Nicholas who told us that many who never read S. Denys are forward to discourse of the Clergy as though they only were of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, Sheweth that he either never read, or understood not S. Denys, who will have regulars to be of the Hierarchy, and even according to S. Denys his opinion. 20. And thus I hope I have brought sufficient proof out of S. Denys to exclude regulars as regulars from the governing and perfecting Hierarchy, though I grant them to be eminent members of the Church which is a Hierarchy, to wit, in like manner as they are members and subjects of the Kingdom, who though eminent, bear no rule in it. And seeing that (as M. Nicholas confesseth) what other Doctors, even S. Thomas of Aquin, say of the Hierarchy they rake out of S. Denys, his Authority is to be preferred before them all. 21. secondly I add to S. Denis and his Translatours and Expositors a reason or two. And my first shallbe taken out of the Council of Trent alleged in my Reply to this question n. 7. The Council defineth, that there is a Hierarchy in the Church which consisteth of Bishops, Priests, and Ministers. Ses. 23 can. 6. But Regulars as Regulars are neither Bishops, Priests, nor Ministers; ergo they are not of the Hierarchy, as the Council of Trout taketh the word Hierarchy. The minor proposition I have proved in that number; and so the conclusion must follow. 22. My second reason which excludeth them from the Hierarchy in the meaning of S. Denis, shallbe this: They who are of the Hierarchy must sympathize with that part which is confessedlie of it, to wit, with Bishops, Priests, and Ministers, in their manner of life and profession, in their actions and functions: but Regulars as Regulars do lead a life altogether different from the life of Bishops, Priests and Ministers of the Church, and their actions and functions are as different: ergo Regulars as Regulars are not of the Hierarchy. The mayor or first proposition is evident, for that all who are of the same art or trade, or the same science or profession do agree in actions, functions and manner of life; and therefore lawyers agree in pleading and giving Counsel, Physicians are busied in prescribing and ministering Physic, Carpenter's work in timber; masons in stone, etc. 23. The minor and second proposition, to wit that Regulars as Regulars do differ in actions, functions, and manner of life I shall prove out of S. Amb. l. 9 Ep. 82. Ambrose, S. chrysostom, and other Authors of good authority: and so the conclusion must follow. S. Ambrose in an Epistle to them of Vercelles, comparing the state of the Clergy with that of the Regulars saith: Namque hac duo in attentiore Christianorum devotione praestantiora esse quis ambigat, Clericorum officia & Monachorum instituta? Ista ad comitatem & moralitatem disciplina, illa ad abstinentiam assuefacta atque patientiam. Haec velut in quodam Theatro, ista in secreto: spectatur ista illa absconditur: Who can doubt but that these two, the offices of Clerks, and the institutes of Monks are the more excelling in the more attended devotion of Christians. This discipline (of Clerks) accustomed to humanity and morality, that (of Regulars) to abstinence and patience. This (the state of Clerks) is as in a Theatre, that in secret; this is obvious to the eyes of men, that is hidden. And a little after: This life therefore (of the Clergy) is in a race, that in a den. This against the confusion of the world, that against the desire of the flesh; this subduing that flying the pleasures of the body. This more grate full, that more secure. This governing itself, that restraining itself, yet both denying themselves that they may be of Christ, because to the perfect it is said, he that will come after me, let him deny himself to himself, and take his cross and follow me. And again: Haec ergo dimicat, illa se removet, haec illecebras vincit, illa refugit, huic mundus triumphatur, illi ignoratur: huic plura tentamenta, & ideo maior victoria: illi infrequentior lapsus, & facilior custodia: This life therefore (of Priests) fighteth, that (of Regulars) with draweth itself from fight: this overcometh allurements, that flieth them: to this life the world is triumphed over, to that it is banished: To this life are incident more tentations, and therefore greater victory; To that life (of Regulars) seeldomer falling, more easy custody. 24. S. Ep. ad Heliodorum Hieron declareth this difference of lives thus: Alia est Monachi causa, alia Clericorum: Clerici pascunt ones, ego pascor: Other is the cause of a Monk, other of Clerks; Clerks feed the sheep (to wit by preaching and ministering Sacraments) James fed. 25. Possivine a jesuite out of diverse Fathers whom he citeth in the Margin, Possevin. to. 1. l. 5. c. 54. gathereth these differences betwixt the life and functions of Priests and Regulars: Alij Monastica vitae, alij vero Presbyterij fines, ac diversa penè verinsque status olim officia extiterunt. Monachorum illa propria erant, iugis oratio, psalmodia, vigiliae, etc. Others are the ends of Monastical life, others of Priesthood, and almost divers in times past were the offices of both states. These were the proper offices of Monks, continual prayer, singing of psalms, watch, fasting, and other exercises, contemplation of divine things, and even the manner of living was distinct in diet, clothing place from communication with other men, according to the Etymology of the name. And Dionysius Areopagita when he had constituted Monks above the people, but under the Clergy, (yet who for purity of life should approach nearest to Ecclesiastical functions) and had described their life and state, he testifieth that by the Apostles they were called Therapeutes of the lawful worship and contemplation of God, to which one thing, they wholly dedicated themselves, and were called Monks of the undevided and singular or sole life (which they professed) and separated from other things. Moreover the whole rite and ceremony of the Monastical consecration which is to be seen in S. Denys, doth design this secretion and separation, and transformation, into a sole life and contemplation of God. There are extant of this thing many decrees of the Fathers in Gratian and Juo. In the Council of Nice we read the 61. 1. q. 1. c. placuit. canon of the Arabicks, that the conversation of Monks according to their name should be separated from the rest. In the Council of Chalcedon cap. 4. the life of Monks is defined by prayer, fasting, quietness and clausure or shutting up. And S. Hierome in his Epistles to Riparius, Paulinus, Heliodorus, Rusticus and desiderius teacheth, that solitariness, prayer without intermission, watch, labour of hands, contemplation of divine things, and a penitent life, by the Apostolical institution altogether separated from others, and according to the interpretation of the name sole or singular, is proper to them, that is to Monks. In the same manner Chrysostomus also describeth the institute of Monks: Domusluctus (inquit) sunt Monasteria, ubi cinis a●que cilicium, ubi solitudo, ieiunia, terrenorum duritia lectulorum, nullae ibi perturbationes, nullae curae, tranquillo nempe in portu nanigant, alta ibi quies & silentium: Monasteries (saith he) are the houses of mourning, where is Ashes and hair cloth, where is solitude, fasting, the hardness of earthly bids, no perturbations there, no cares, for they sail in a quiet haven: there is great rest and silence. But (saith Possevine) these are the propter offices of Presbyters and Religious Priests of the institution of Christ, to employ themselves for the salvation of men, as God his coadioutors, to edify others by discipline of manners, doctrine of faith, and ministry of the word, administration of the Sacraments, exemplar life and prayer, to profit the people. To be brief (as by Dionysius it is delivered) to purge illuminate and perfect others: which are the proper actions of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. Thus fare Possevinus. 26. The mayor then and minor proposition being proved, the conclusion doth follow in good consequence, to wit, that Regulars who have so different a manner of living, from Bishops, Priests, and other Ministers of the Church (who by all men's confession, and by the aforesaid definition of the Council of Trent, are of the Hierarchy) and who agree not with them in any Hierarchiall actions and functions, which consist in purging, illuminating and perfecting, by preaching and administration of Sacraments, are not of the Hierarchy in the sense and meaning, in which S. Denys and his Translatours and Interpreters do take the name of Hierarchy, though they be by them placed above the laity, next to the Clergy, and are of them, and all good Catholics esteemed as worthy and eminent members of the Church ornaments and aids unto it. 27. By this all that M. Nicholas allegeth out of S. Denys himself and other Authors is answered; for that S. Denys will not be found contrary to himself: and other Autours as M. Nicholas truly confesseth n. 1. Have from him the bee● and almost only, Treatises of the Hierarchy. But yet lest he, or some for him, may imagine that I mentioned not his objections because I could not solve them, I shall set them down. M. NICHOLAS. And first of all, it can not be denied but that the name of Hierarchy hath a latitude. For if it hath not; I demand whether it signifieth only order, or jurisdiction, etc. n. 3. THE REPLY. The Hierarchy comprehendeth both oder and jurisdiction. 28. To this he might have found his answer in M. Doctors Hierarchy, in the 8. chapter n. 2. and 6. where he is told, that both order and jurisdiction do make men of the Hierarchy. For if we sprake of the Hierarchy (saith M. Doctor n. 2. as it importeth distinction of degrees in power of order: then only Bishops, Priests, and they who have some order are of the Hierarchy, and they only in this sense are of the Hierarchy. And in this same sense, Bishops, Arch-Bishops, and Primates elected only but not in any order, are not of the Hierarchy; and so if they be not consecrated Bishops, they are not of the order of Bishops, if they be not consecrated Priests, they are not of the order of Priests. But if we speak (saith M. Doctor) of a Hierarchy as it importeth a distinction of degrees in power of jurisdiction: so Bishops, Archbishops, and Primates elected only and not consecrated, are of the Hierarchy, because by their election, when it is confirmed, they have the jurisdiction of Bishops, Archbishops and Primates. And so that M. Nicholas his Dilemma: Ether the name Hierarchy signifieth order only: and then Bishops, Archbishops, Primates Popes elected only are not of the Hierarchy. If jurisdiction only: Then Priests, Bishops, Deacòns, etc. shall not be of the Hierarchy, till they be made Pastors. This Dilemma is vain and frivolous; for that the Hierarchy, as I said, so comprehendeth both, that order only will make a man of the Hierarchy as it importeth distinction in order, and jurisdiction only will make him of the Hierarchy as it implieth distinction in power of jurisdiction; and if he have both, then by both titles he is of the Hierarchy. To his other demand n. 4. he is also answered in the Hierarchy chap. 5. n. 18. and 21. for if the four lesser orders be of the institutition of the Church, as some Authors cited by M. Doctor affirm, than they who are under Subdeacons', are of the Hierarchy in regard of order, by the Church's law and institution, and not by the divine law and institution: but if they be of the divine institution, than these Ministers who are under Subdeacons', are of the Hierarchy in regard of order by the divine institution. And seeing that Regulars who are neither Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons', nor Accolytes, etc. have neither order nor jurisdiction over the Church, as other Ministers of the Hierarchy have, they cannot as Regulars, be of the Hierarchy. And therefore if an Abbot had only primam Tonsuram, the first Tonsure, which is no order although he have jurisdiction over his Monks; Yet he should not be of the Hierarchy of the Church, because he hath neither order, nor Ecclesiastical jurisdiction but only Regular. And so an Abbot as Abbot though he have ordinary power in his Religious order is not so much of the Hierarchy as a Bishop delegated: because an Abbot not Bishop, Priest, etc. is not of the Hierarchy at all, but the delegated Bishop hath both order and jurisdiction, and so by both ways is of the Hierarchy. And therefore S. Denys as we have seen, excludeth all Regulars from the Hierarchy, and yet some of them had jurisdiction over other Monks. Wherhfore Regulars must not take this in evil part, for I give them as much as S. Denys and learned Regulars give them, and would give them alfo this dignity to be of the governing and perfecting Hierarchy, if either Christ or his Church had given it unto them. M. NICHOLAS. That Religious Superiors, as such, be of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy S. Bernard cited by M. Doctor, chap. 1. n. 17. doth expressly teach, etc. n. 5. THE REPLY. S. Bernard is explicated. I answer that S. Bernard must be so explicated, S. Bernard. l. 3. de consid. c. 4. as that he do not contradict S. Denys, from whom (as Mr Nicholas in this truly saith q. 6. n. 1.) we have the best and almost only Treatises of the Hierarchy, Certain it is, that S. Denys, and his Translatours, and Interpreters, do give not place to Regulars (amongst whom some were Abbots) in the Hierarchy, but do place them under the Clergy and Hierarchy, and only about the laity: and therefore perchance S. Bernard putteth Abbots amongst them that are of the Hierarchy, not because they are properly of the Hierarchy, but because they are eminent members in the Church and have some resemblance by reason of their high rank in their Religious orders, with those that are of the Hierarchy. And if I would take hold of every thing (as M. Nicholas useth to do) I could confirm this, because S. Bernard in that place, placeth. Abbots after Priests. S. Ber. l. 3. de consid. c. 4. Or else S. Bernard reckoneth Abbots amongst them that are of the Hierarchy, because in his time most of them were Priests, many had Episcopal authority in some things, Bel. to. 1. l. 1. de council. c. 15. and many were perchance then (as according to Bellarmine they are now) admitted by privilege or custom to have their voice in general Counsels, and so by the Ecclesiastical law were of the Hierarchy, as we shall hereafter in the end of this question, declare. 31. Now whereas M. Nicholas in the same place saith, that he hath reason to complain of M. Doctors dealing in alleging S. Bernard, as if he had 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: whereas (I say) he saith he hath reason to complain on M. Doctor, it will prove that M. Doctor hath reason to complain on him, in making him say more than he doth, for doth not S. Bernard say as much as M. Doctor imputeth to him? Doth he not complain in that chapter that the order of the Hierarchy, was then perturbed by exemptions? hath he not these complaining words? Subtrahuntur Abbates Episcopis, Episcopi Archiepiscopis, Archiepiscopi Patriarchis sen Primatibus. Bona ne species hac? mirum si excusari queatvel opus. Sic fac titando probatis vos habere plenitudinem potestatis; sed iustitiae forte non ita. Facit is hoc quia potestis, sed virum & debeatis quaestio est. Honorum ac dignitatum gradus & ordines quibusque suos, seruare positi estis non invidere. Abbot's are subtracted from Bishops, Bishops from Archbishops, Arch-Bishops from patriarchs or Primates. And these words only M. Doctor alleged. But S. Bernard as we have seen goeth on further. Bona ne species hac? Is this a good show? forsooth if even the work itself can be excused by so doing. You (he speaketh to Pope Eugenius) prove that you have the fullness of power, but perchance not so of justice, you do this because you can; but whether you should, there is a question. Wherefore If S. Bernard in speaking thus much against exemptions (to wit which have no lawful cause) doth not deny but that the Pope hath power and just cause to exempt Abbots and Monasteries from the jurisdiction of the Bishop; much less can M. Nicholas infer against M. Doctor, who said not so much as he, that he is against all exemptions; but as S. Bernard for all those words doth allow of exemptions when there is just cause (as when a Monastery from the beginning hath been exempt) so might M. Doctor, and so he doth. M. NICHOLAS. Mauclerus also, whom M. Doctor in his 10. chapter n. 23. styleth a learned Doctor of Sorbon, compareth Superiors in Religion to the Principalities; secular Pastors, inferiors to Bishops, to Archangels; and Priests not Curates to Angels n. 5. THE REPLY. Mauclerus meaneth only that Superiors in Religion have some similitude with Principalities. 32. M. Nicholas now would place Superiors of Religion not only in the Hierarchy, but in one of the highst ranks also, for that he saith Mauclerus, compareth them to Principalities. And I also honour them not only for their Religious state, but also for their dignity in Religion: But if S. Denys as we have seen excludeth all Regulars, (amongst whom were Abbots) from the Hierarchy, and placeth them under the Clergy and Hierarchy, and above the laiety, they can not be of the Hierarchy, unless they be Bishops, Priests, etc. or have some Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or by privilege be admitted to the Hierarchy, as we shall see in the end of this question: and so as Abbots precisely they are not of the Hierarchy. I answer therefore first, that as I honour Mauclerus for that his learned work, and for the great good fame, and report that goeth of him: so if he did hold against S. Denys, I ought te prefer S. Denys, as he himself would. 33. secondly I answer that Mauclerus intended not in that place exactly to declare who are properly of the Hierarchy of the Church, but only to show how some in the Church militant resemble one order of the Hierarchy, some another, though they be not properly of the Hierarchy, Maucl. 1. p. l. 5. c. 5. de Monarch. as S. Denys and the Council of Trent do take the name Hierarchy. So he saith, that holy Christians who rapt with the love of God, do contemn the world, do resemble the Seraphins, as S. Gregory also by him allegeth doth affirm, and yet M. Nicholas will not say that all holy women or lay men who are so rapt with the love of God, are of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. And if for this resemblance which they have with Seraphins, they are of the Hierarchy of the Church militant, they should be in the highest rank of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, because they resemble the highest order of the Angelical Hierarchy; and so should have an higher rank than Bishops; and yet S. Denys excludeth all lay people from the Hierarchy though never so holy and burning with the love of God. And the reason of this is, because it is not charity or merit which maketh a man of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, but only order or jurisdiction, or Ecclesiastical office and dignity: and therefore an evil Bishop hath an high rank in the Hierarchy and an holy layman is not of the Hierarchy. So Mauclerus saith, that good Princes, such as Theodosius and others were, do resemble the Celestial powers, and yet Princes are reckoned amongst the lay people, which S. Denys, as we have seen, excludeth from the governing and perfecting Hierarchy; for although they be lawful governorus of the common wealth, yet they are no Governors nor Superiors of the Church, but subjects to her Pastors, and especially to her chief Pastor. So he saith that compassionate and charitable persons, are like to the Angels, because they have care of pupils, widows, and the poor, as Angels have of them who are committed to their custody: and yet say Christians though never so charitable, are not of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. M. NICHOLAS. S. Denys de Eccles. Hierarch. cap. 1. defineth a Hierarchy in this manner: Qui Hierarchia● 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, etc. n. 6. THE REPLY. The definition of a Hierarchy is declared against M. Nicholas. 34. Hear M. Nicholas urgeth us with the definition of a Hierarchy, and argueth, as he thinketh, a definitione ad definitum, which is one of the best manners of arguing. For if from the definition of a Hierarchy Regulars are not excluded, they can not be excluded from the thing defined, that is from the Hierarchy. And then as making himself cock sure to be of the Hierarchy by this definition: he demandeth: What words are here to exclude Religious men? I am sure (saith he) M. Doctor knoweth well, that by sacred orders, S. Denys, is fare from understanding, as some valearned persons might imagine, holy orders of Priesthood, Deacon, and Subdeacon. But by orders he understandeth professions, institutes, offices, degrees. Thus he. And if you let him go with this interpretation, all Regulars must be of the Hierarchy; though they be but lay brothers or sisters, and yet as we have seen S. Denys excludeth them from the Hierarchy and Presbytery, and placeth them under the Clergy and above the laiety. So that it should be strange that S. Denys should define a Hierarchy in the sense in which M. Nicholas taketh him, and yet should exclude them from the Hierarchy: which were to gross a fault to be attributed to S. Denys; for that it were to comprehend them in the definition, and yet to exclude them from the definitum, which were as gross a thing, as if a logician should grant one to be animal rationale, and yet deny him to be homo, a man. 34. I answer therefore first, that S. Denys hath not that definition of a Hierarchy which M. Nicholas allegeth: for he saith not, that he that names a Hierarchy, names the disposition of all sacred orders; nor hath he the word ordinum, orders, but only sacrorum sacred things, to signify that the Hierarchy is that, in which is a disposition of all sacred functions and hierarchical actions. Lib. de Eccl. Hier. c. 1. The Greek Text hath these words: Cap. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: which words Perionius translateth thus into latin: enim qui Hierarchiam dixit, omnium simul sacrorum dixit descriptionem: sic, qui Hierarcham dicit, is virum divino numine afflatum divinumque declarat, qui omni sacra scientia sit praeditus, in quo omnis quae eum attingit Hierarchia purè absoluitur ac cognoscitur: And Frere jean de S. François, whom I above alleged, translateth the same words into French thus: Car ne plus ne moins, que celuy qui dict Hierarchy, comprend sommairement l'ordre & disposition de toutes les choses saints & sacrees ensemble, etc. And the English both of the greek, latin and french is this: For as he that nameth a Hierarchy, nameth a description (or an order or disposition as the french translation hath) of all the holy things together: so he that nameth a Hierarch he declareth a man inspired by the divine power or majesty and a divine man, who is moved with all sacred knowledge, in whom all the Hierarchy which forteineth to him is purely complete and finished. And so in none of these translations is sacrorum ordinum sacred orders, but only sacrorum holy things, that is sacred and hierarchical actions which are performed by the Hierarchy: which (as S. Denys saith) are in general to purge, illuminate and perfect, by preaching, administration of Sacraments and such like sacred functions. So that according to S. Denys as the Hierarchy is an order and disposition of all the sacred functions and actions, so a Hierarch which is a spiritual Prince, to wit the Bishop, hath in him all sacred orders and functions, and comprehendeth all power and functions, which are in inferior ministers: and so all the functions of the Hierarchy of the Church are compendiously comprehended in him. And thus Dionysius Cartusianus doth expound the former words, Dion. Cart. art. 1. saying: Nefiraigitur Hierarchia, puta Ecclesiastica, dicitur & est continens omnium quae iuxta eam su●t sacrorum, id est, continua est omnium sacrorum ad ipsam spectantium, puta sanctorum actuum & sacramentorum: Our Hierarchy therefore, to wit Ecclesiastical, is named and is containing all sacred or holy things which are appertaining to it, that is, it is couteining all sacred things belonging to it, to wit holy actions and Sacraments. I grant that Petrus Lansselius of the Society of jesus, in his translation of S. Denys, hath the words which M. Nicholas hath and as it is like took out of him for he translateth it thus: enim qui Hierarchiam dixit, omnium simul sacrorum ordinum dixit dispositionem: For as he that nameth a Hierarchy, nameth a disposition of all sacred orders (in which word Orders M. Nicholas would have Religious orders and institutes comprehended) yet the same Author in his notes upon the first chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, confesseth that Perionius translateth these words of S. Denys as we have showed; and that other Authors read sacrorum, sacred things, without ordinum, orders, but saith he, verto sacrorum ordinum, I translate it holy orders, and yet giveth no reason sufficient, why he leaveth the text which hath sacrorum only, and why he dissenteth from other authors. 35. secondly I answer, that although S. Denys had said, that the Hierarchy is a disposition of all holy orders, yet he could not have understood Religious orders, but only those orders and functions which pertain to the perfecting illuminating and purging Hierarchy; because he who afterwards in his 5. and 6. chapter of his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy in express terms excludeth Regulars, and consequently their Religious orders from the Hierarchy; would not have defined a Hierarchy a disposition or description of all holy orders, even Religious; for that so he should have contradicted him himself, and should have denied them the definitum, in his 5. and 6. chap. to whom he had granted the definition, in his first chapter: that is should have denied them to be of the Hierarchy, to whom agreed the definition of the Hierarchy. I know that some do other wise translate the alleged place, Ambr. Cam. and for Hierarchia do put Sacerdotium: but yet so as their exposition also excludeth Regulars from the Hierarchy. M. NICHOLAS. But why should I seek a better interpreter then S. Denys himself? who in his 6. chapter 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 these that are initiated and perfected, is the order of holy Monks. Before you heard him say that a Hierarchy was a dispofition of holy orders, and now all most word for word he saith, that Religion is ordo sanctorum Monachorum, the order of holy Monks n. 6. THE REPLY. M. Nicholas by the aforesaid words proveth himself not to be of the perfecting, illuminating and purging Hierarchy, but only, as lay people are, of the Hierarchy of the Church. 36. By this one may gather, that M. Nicholas either doth not understand S. Denys, or else is driven to his shifts, and therefore is forced to make use of every thing that hath but the least appearance; though indeed it be against him. For in that S. Denys saith, that the order of Monks is the chief of those that are initiated he plainly excludeth them from the purging, illuminating, and perfecting Hierarchy, and placeth them under the Clergy, and amongst the people that have no government, nor Ecclesiastical, or hierarchical function, but are initiated, purged, illuminated and perfected with the people, yet so as they, by reason of their regular state, have the chief place amongst them. So that Regulars are of the Hierarchy of the Church, as the people is of the Kingdom, but they are not of that part of the Church which governeth, purgeth, illuminateth, and perfecteth by preaching and administration of Sacraments. And therefore Dionysius Carthusianus in his Elucidation of the 6. chapter of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, as above we have seen, saith, that S. Denys in the 5. chaprer treated of the three orders of perfectors, that is Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and in the 6. chapter of the three orders of those who are prefected, amongst whom are Regulars; and saith he, when he speaketh of the perfecting orders, the name order is a name of dignity, when he speaketh of the orders that are perfected, the name order is a name of subjection. And again (saith Dion. Carthusianus) the higher order of these which yet are perfected (as S. Denys himself also saith in the sixth chapter,) is the order of Monks who (saith Carthusianus) are called consummatus ordo, a consummate order, that is perfectus inter perficiendos, perfect amongst those that are to be perfected, not in the order of these that perfect others: for in that order the first (as we have seen) is the order of Bishops, the second is the order of Priests, the third the order of Deacons, to whom other ministers may be reduced: and after them S. Denys and the Bernardine above alleged do place the Regulars above the lay people, but under the Clergy. And so although the orders of Regulars, be orders of the Church and a great ornament to it, yet they are no orders of the purging, illuminating, and perfecting Hierarchy, unless they be Bishops, Priests, etc. but are purged, illuminated, and perfected by it. M. NICHOLAS. Out of S. Thomas, it will be no less easy to prove that Religious men are of the Hierarchy. He therefore 1. p. quaest. 108. art. 1. in corp. saith thus: Hierarchia est sacer principatus. In nomine autem principatus, etc. A Hierarchy is an 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 and S. Peter's Successor? n. 7. THE REPLY. Regulars are a multitude ordered under the head of the Church, as the people of a Kingdom are ordered under the King, but not as they who govern and rule. 37. M. Nickolas saith it willbe as easy to prove out of S. Thomas that Regulars are of the Hierarchy, as it was to prou● it out of S. Denys: and I believe him. But as it was impossible for him to prove it out of S. Denys, so is it as impossible for him to prove it out of S. Thomas, who taketh, all he hath almost of the Hierarchy, out of S. Denys, and will not, nay doth not in any wise contradict him. But saith M. Nicholas, Regulars are a multitude ordered under one Prince Christ's vicar: ergo they are of the Hierarchy. I answer that if this argment were good, it would prove also that the degrees and orders of the laiety are of the Hierarchy, for that they also are a multitude ordered by the head of the Church, and subordinate to him in matters of faith and Religion. 38. secondly I answer, that two ways one may be of the Hierarchy of the Church, first as the people are of the Kingdom, that is as subjects, and such as are ruled: and so all Catholic Christians are of the Hierarchy of the Church, and are a multitude ordered under one spiritual Prince, the Bishop of Rome. S. Peter's Successor. Seconlie, as the King and his Consellors and Officers who bear rule in the Kingdom: and so only Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Pastors, and those tha● under the chief Bishop govern the Church, and who purge (as S. Denys saith) illuminate, and perfect others by ruling, preaching, and administration of Sacraments, are of the Hierarchy: and in this sense, Regulars as Regulars, or who are not Bishops, Priests, etc. are not of the Hierarchy, as above is evidenlie showed out of S. Denys and others. And this distinction M. Doctor hath his Hierarchy, chap. 8. n. 1. where he hath these words, which if M. Nicholas had marked he would not have made this objection: for there M. Doctor hath these words: It felloweth now that I briefly declare which in partieular are these orders, and whether all that are in dignity in the Church be of the Hierarchy, not only as the laity is, which is of this Hierarchy, as the common people are of the Kingdom, but also as who bear office in the Church. M. NICHOLAS. In his second article he (S. Thomas) 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 there is one order of judges, another of the fight men, another of such as till the ground. Mark how S. Thomas doth hold that diverse functions and acts are sufficient for the distinction of Hierarchies, although they do not always, presuppose jurisdiction, etc. n. 7. THE REPLY. Not all acts and functions, but hierarchical which are purging, illuminating, and perfecting, make men of the Hierarchy: and there is a difference betwixt the Hierarchy of Angels, and of the Church militant. 39 M. Nicholas because he knoweth that Regulars not Bishops, Priests, etc. do not exercise hierarchical actions, which are purging illuminating, and perfecting, by preaching and administration of Sacraments; would fain have it granted unto him, that all diversity of acts are sufficient to make men of diverse orders of the Hierarchy. And this he proveth out of S. Thomas, by two examples, the one is of the diverse orders of Angels, the other is of the diverse orders in a city, as of judges, soldiers, and those that till the ground. But as concerning the Angels, 1. p. q. 50. ar. 4. it is true in S. Thomas his opinion, (who holdeth every one of them to be of diverse natures) that every one of them (saving the last and lowest) is of the Hierarchy: because every one purgeth, illuminateth, and perfecteth his inferours. I say saving the last, because the last and lowest Angels is purged from ignorance, illuminated, and perfected, but purgeth, illuminateth or perfecteh no Angel, he being the lowest, and so he in respect of the Superior Angels is not of the Hierarchy, but only as the people is of the Kingdom, as afore is said. Yet this lowest Angel, doth exercise hierarchical acts in respect of men, to whom he is superior in nature, and whom he can purge from ignorance, illuminate, and perfect. Yet all the lowest orders (as S. Denys teacheth lib. Eccl. Hier. c. 5.) may respectively be called orders initiated and perfected in respect of the higher Angels. But in the opinion of other divines, who hold that all the Angels of the same order are of one nature and do not differre in nature and function, but only individuallie; Vasq. 1. p. disp. 181. c. 2. and not specie, but numere: (for which opinion Vasquez citeth diverse divines, and which diverse learned jesuites do embrace) all the lower orders are of the purging, illuminating and perfecting Hierarchy in respect of the lowest order, but all of the lowest order, are in respect of all the higher orders, as the people is of the Kingdom, because this last order, in this opinion, beareth no rule or office over any order of Angels, nor purgeth, illuminateth or perfecteth any Angel; yet in respect of men, this order exerciseth hierarchical actions of purging, illuminating, and perfecting So that M. Nicholas may see, that there is a difference betwixt the Hierarchy of Angels and of men; for that in S. Thomas his opinion all the Angels as they are every one of distinct natures, do exercise hierarchical actions over inferior Angels, and only the last Angel is not of the purging, illuminating and perfecting Hierarchy, in respect of Angels, because he is purged, illuminated and perfected, of the superior Angel, but purgeth, illuminateth, and perfecteth no Angel, he being the last. And so according to this opinion, all the Angels are of the perfecting Hierarchy saving only the lowest. But the Hierarchy of the Church militant though it consist of diverse dignities, orders and offices, as under the Pope, Cardinals, patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc. yet there are many of the same order and jurisdiction, as many Bishops are of the same order of Bishops, many Priests are of the same order of Prieshood. But Regulars as Regulars having no hierarchical action though they have other Regular actions, are not of the ruling and perfecting Hierarchy. 40. Now as concerning M. Nicholas his other example of a City, in which are diverse orders, according to diverse actions, as the order of judges, the order of soliders, the order of husbandmen and tilers of the ground: I answer that S. Thomas bringeth this example, to show that there are diverse orders amongst the Angels, as there is in a well ordered City: but his intention was not to show that all the diverse orders in a City that have diverse actions, are of that part of the City that ruleth, and directeth, as the superior Angels illuminate and perfect the inferior. For in the City some rule and govern as the Mayor and Aldermen and judges, but the orders of Tailors and show makers, and other artificers, though they have diverse actions and functions, yet they are not of that part of the City which ruleth but which is ruled. And so although Regulars have diverse actions according to their diverse orders, yet these actions being not hierarchical, they are not sufficient to make them of the ruling, purging illuminating, and perfecting Hierarchy; but only they are of the Hierarchy, as the common people that beareth no rule in the common wealth, is of the Kingdom, amongst which people not with standing, there are may arts trades, and actions, which yet do not make them rulers in the Kingdom. 41. And by this M. Nicholas is answered to all that he bringeth in the 8. number; for that all he there allegeth in commendation of Religious orders, proveth only, that Regulars are worthy and eminent members of the Church for their sanctity and perfection of life, but not that they are of the Hierarchy in that sense as S. Denys taketh the Hierarchy, because as Regulars they are not to govern the Church, nor to preach and minister Sacraments, but only as Bishops or Priests, if they be so. And M. Nicholas should know that one may be a Saint, yea and a designed and resolved martyr, and yet not be of the Hierarchy in this sense, as if he be a lay man, or a lay brother. And so it is not grace, nor merit, nor mortification, nor perfection which maketh a man of the Hierarchy, but order, and office, by which he exerciseth hierarchical actions. M. NICHOLAS. In the said question art. 8. he (S. Thomas) 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, etc. n 9 THE REPLY. That men may be assumed to all orders of Angels in heaven in respect of glory, doth not argue that in this life they were of the Hierarchy in the sense aforesaid. 42. I grant that men by grace and merit, may be assumed to the orders of Angels and to the lower or higher orders according as their grace and merit is greater or lesser. But what then? If gratia consummata (saith he) 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 state of life, most powerful for attaining perfection or grace and charity of this life, may suffice to place the Professors thereof amongst the chiefest orders of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy which is framed to the similitude of that other in heaven. Thus M. Nicholas. And if you admit of his argument, you must admit all Regulars even lay brothers (so they be perfect) to be in the Hierarchy of the Church, as high in rank as Bishops: for Bishops are the chiefest orders. But first I answer that if his argument were good it would conclude against S. Denys, who as we have alleged above, excludeth all Regulars, as such, from the Hierarchy, though their states of life be never so powerful for attaining of perfection or grace and charity. Secondly I answer that this argument is so poor an one that I mernell M. Nicholas a divine, should propose it. For that divines know, that by grace men cannot merit to be indeed Angels or Archangels, or Cherubins, or Seraphins, but only can merit as great glory as they have: and because some saints have merited as great glory as Angels, others as Archangels, others as Cherubins or Seraphins have, therefore they are said to be assumed to the order of Angels, Archangels or other orders. And because it is not grace but the order, state and office of purging, illuminating, and perfecting, which maketh one of the Hierarchy: a Christian in this life may merit as great glory, and attain at length unto as great glory as Cherubins and Seraphins have, though he was not of any order of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy. And so it doth not follow, as M. Nicholas thought, that because men▪ by grace and merit do attain to the glory of the orders of Angels, that therefore in this life they were of any order of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, for that S. Benedict and S. Francis may by the great charity and grace they had here, be assumpted to the glory of the Seraphins, and yet here they were not Priests. And a lay brother or sister, yea a poor shepherd who was in no order of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, but only was of the Hierarchy as the common people is of the Kingdom, that it was a member of the Church, which is a Hierarchy, but did bear no office in it; may be assumpted in glory to higher orders than many are, who here were Bishops, patriarchs yea Popes. Otherwise according to M. Nicholas his doctrine because S. Francis in this life was in a state powerful for attaining of grace and perfection here by which be merited greater glory than a Pope doth and for which peradventure he is assumpted to the glory of Seraphins, he must in this life have had an higher rank in the Hierarchy than the Pope had. But as I have ●ould M. Nicholas it is not grace merit or perfection, that maketh a man of the perfecting Hierarchy, but Ecclesiastical order, office or dignity. M. NICHOLAS. 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 our selves as out of duty and gratitude to those pillars of God's Church, those Counsellors and sole electors of Christ's Vicar, etc. THE REPLY. M. Nicholas hath in this laboured in vain, and he wrongeth M. Doctor, as though he excluded Cardinals from the Hierarchy n. 10. 43. M. Nicholas hath indeed laboured to prove that Regulars as such, are of the Hierarchy: but as it is evident by what I have said out of S. Denys and other Authors, he hath not been able to prove it, and so he hath laboured in vain. And whereas he saith that he hath taken these pains rather out of respect to those most eminent Prelates the Cardinals, then for respect to the state of Regulars: as he currieth favour with the Cardinals: so he wrongeth M. Doctor, in that he insinuateth that he excludeth them from the Hierarchy: whereas he in his tenth chapter of his Hierarchy hath a great and long commendation of them, their office and dignity. And in his eight chapter, moving the question, who in particular are of the Hierarchy: he saith n. 2. that to the deciding of this controversy: we must distinguiths two ways by which Christians may be of the Hierarchy. First then (saith he) if we speak of the Hierarchy as it importeth distinction of degrees in power of order, then only Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc. are of the Hierarchy: And Cardinals, patriarchs, Archbishops, etc. unless they have some order, are not, in this sense, of the Hierarchy, because their dignities are not orders, but dignities and jurisdictions. By'r if we speak (saith he n. 6.) of a Hierarchy, as it importeth a distinction of degrees in power of jurisdiction and dignity, etc. in this respect there are diverse orders and degrees amongst Bishops, which make also a kind of Hierarchy, etc. to wit patriarchs or Primates, Archbishops and Bishops. And heretofore patriarchs were of the highest rank of Bishops; and amongst them the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and after wards of Constantinople, had the precedence, after whom followed Archbishops and Bishops: but now Cardinals, and ever since they were Counsellors to the Pope and his Electours, take place of all patriarchs and are in dignity next to the Pope. And so Cardinals though they have no order (as most of them have holy orders, yea many of them are Bishops) yet in this respect, to wit, as the Hierarchy consisteth, of diverse degrees in power of jurisdiction and dignity, (which is the second way by which M. Doctor said that men are of the Hierarchy) are of the Hierarchy and above Bishops, Archbishops and patriarchs, next to the Pope. Now whether this their dignity of Cardinal be of the divine law, as Turrecremata thinketh, or of the Ecclesiastical law, I will not dispute, but refer the reader to M. Doctors tenth chapter: certain at least it is that the Pope could institute such a dignity by which the Cardinal though not in orders, is Counsellor to the Pope, elector of him, hath his decisive voice in a general Council, and taketh his precedence above all other Prelates and next unto the Pope. And therefore Cardinal Bellarmine saith, that if we compare the jurisdiction which the Bishop hath over his own proper Church with that which the Cardinal hath over his title then ordinarily the Bishop hath the greater jurisdiction. To. 1. 3. 1. de Cler. c. 16. But if we consider the government of the whole Church in which the Cardinal hath his part, in that he is one of the Pope's Counsellor: then the Cardinal Priest or Deacon only, is greater than the Bishop. The same learned Cardinal in another place: saith that Bishops have an ordinary right of discipline and suffrage in provincial and general Councils, To. 1. l 1. de Conc. c. 15. and by privilege and by custom Cardinals and Abbots, and generals of orders, have the same right. And if by this custom or privilege granted by the Church, generals of Religious orders, and Abbots be of the Hierarchy, I will not giane say it: only I say with M. Doctor yea with S. Denys, S. Paul's Scholar, that Regulars as Regulars, and Abbots as Abbots are not of the Hierarchy, and therefore were excluded by S. Denys; but if they be now, it is by the Church's privilege or custom; which privilege and custom M. Nicholas shall never be able to show for other Regulars. 44. And therefore whereas M. Nicholas n. 10. saith that he hath laboured rather for Cardinals then Regulars in labouring to prove Regulars to be of the Hierarchy: he hath laboured in vain, not having been able te prove Regulars as Regulars to be of the Hierarchy; and he doth wrong to those most eminent Prelates and Pillars of God's Church, as though they could not be of the Hierarchy unless Regulars also were: whereas Cardinals by their dignity and by the care which they have in governing under the Pope the universal Church, are assuredly of the Hierarchy as it consisteth of diverse degrees in power, of jurisdiction and dignity, as M. Doctor said: they even as Cardinals (though not Priests) having the highest rank and Ecclesiastical dignity and office in the external court of all the Prelates of the Church, whereas Regulars as Regulars bear no rule nor office in the Church, and so are not of the governing Hierarchy. 45. Thus I have proved sufficiently, that to be true which M. Doctor averred; to wit, that Regulars as Regulars, are not of the ruling and perfecting Hierarchy: and this, by the testimony of S. Denys, S. Paul's Scholar, (of whom S. Thomas and all divines have learned that which they teach of the Hierarchy) as also by his Transtatours and Expositors, yea and by theological arguments: and I have answered clearly all the arguments which M. Nicholas hath been able to allege to the contrary. And therefore I conclude, that Regulars as Regulars, though their institutes and orders be most holy, and which add much aid and great splendour to the Church, and though they be eminent members of the Church, yet they are not of the Hierarchy in that sense as S. Denys and his Translatours and Expositors, or as the Council of Trent taketh the name Hierarchy. 46. S. Denys l. Eccl. Hier. c. 5. & 6. Conc. Trid. sess. 23. can. 6. But let not therefore either Priests or Bishop's glory (unless it be in our lord) that they are of the Hierarchy; for that their charge increaseth with their dignity, and their burden is the heavier, the greater their honour is: and if they live not accordingly, that dignity will not suffice to their salvation: but rather it will serve to their greater damnation. For as their rank and degree is higher in the Church of God, so it is more exposed to danger; and the higher they stand the more subject they are to falling: and the lower and greater is their fall, if they fall: because as S. Hierome saith: Non est facile stare loco Pauli, tenere gradum Petri: It is not easy to stand in the place of Paul, to hold the degree of Peter. And let not Regulars be dejected or grieved in mind, because as Regulars they are not of the Hierarchy: let it suffice them that of later years they are also assumpted to the Clergy and Hierarchy, most of them being Priests and some Bishops: and let it content them (as indeed it may both content and comfort them) that their life is more secure and free from all occasions of sin, and that they have better means to dompte their passions, to curb sensuality, to mortify their bodies, to satisfy for sin, to attain to perfection, and to gain an higher degree in glory, so that they use their means, fulfil their vows, and observe their rules and orders. 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. M. NICHOLAS. I must ingeniously confess that I have not laboured to examine all, etc. n. 1. THE REPLY. YOU have not left any one of M. Doctors propositions or assertions unexamined; but you have not refuted any one, as is evident by my Reply to the former questions. For neither have you proved against M. Doctor, that without a particular Bishop there may be a particular Church: nor that every notable part of the Church (such as England, France or Spain is) ought not by the divine law to have at least one Bishop: nor that such a country as England, Spain or France is, can except against a Bishop for fear of persecution though it should be increased by occasion of the Bishop's presence: nor that Regulars are in an higher state than Bishops; nay you have not proved sufficiently that Regulars are in an higher state than inferior Pastors: nor that Religious as Religious are of the Hierarchy: nor have you answered any one of M. Doctors arguments grounded in reason or authority of fathers or divines by which he proved the former positions, as is evident by my Reply. And therefore this your last question being principally a recapitulation only of what you have done, I might here make an end, all you have done, being just nothing. But because you could answer to nothing, disprove nothing, refute nothing that was to the purpose, or to the points in controversy, you carp at by speeches which it little skilled were they true or not; and therefore a reply to this your last question might well by me have been spared, yet lest you should think that even in those things. I refused to encounter with you: I shall also briefly give you your answer to them. M. NICHOLAS. His Epistle in words exhorts to charity but how much in deeds he hath by writing this book prejudiced charity, etc. n. 2. THE REPLY. M. Doctor hath not prejudiced charity. 2. I do not know how M. Doctor hath prejudiced charity by writing his book; unless to exhort to charity be to prejudice charity. For, of this I am sure, that in his Epistle dedicatory he exhorteth and allegeth many motives to charity, as he doth also in diverse parts of his book, and he hath not one tart or bitter word in his book against any state, order or person, but he commendeth all, and yields as much to the Regular state as S. Thomas of Aquin, Suarez and the leardnest Regular authors do. But to this he is answered in my Epistle to the Reader, and in my Reply to the first question. M. NICHOLAS. The Church must be governed by the Clergy, I grant, but I never heard that it must be governed by the secular Clergy, etc. n. 2. THE REPLY. This is a strange speech and is answered above chap. 9 3. It is to me a strange speech and little edifying, to say, that he never heard that the Church must be governed by the secular Clergy. By what other Clergy then by the secular Clergy hath the Church hitherto for the most part been governed, and by what other Clergy at this day is it ordinarily governed, then by the secular Clergy? Hath not M. Doctor showed and demonstrated in his ninth chapter out of Scripture and Fathers, that Bishops, Priests, and Pastors, are by the divine law to govern the Church and to preach and minister Sacraments? and hath he not showed very sufficiently that the government of the Church and preaching, and ministering of Sacraments doth not appertain to Regulars as Regulars? yet as M. Doctor granteth in that 9 chapter n. 15.16.17. that Regulars may be, and often times are assumpted to be Bishops, yea and Popes; and then, to them also appertaineth the government of the Church, but not to them as Regulars, for to them in that consideration, Monastical and Regular actions and functions appertain, not Ecclesiastical. And therefore S. Thomas cited by M. Doctor n. S. Tho. 2.2. q. 187. a. 1. in corp. 17. pag. 255. saith, that a thing may be said unlawful for one to do, two ways; first because there is some thing in him repugnant to such an action. So he who is irregular, may not receive holy orders; so a public sinner may not preach; so one in mortal sin may not receive the Blessed Sacrament; so a Priest in mortal sin must not celebrate mass, nor absolve from sins. secondly it may be said to be unlawful for one to do a thing, not because there is any thing repugnant in him, but because there is something wanting in him to do it: so it is not lawful for a Deacon to say mass because he hath not the order of a Priest. And in this sense (saith he) it is not lawful for a Regular to preach and minister Sacraments. Yet as a Deacon is capable of the order of Priesthood, and then may say mass; so a Regular is capable of order and jurisdiction, and then he may preach and minister Sacraments. But as you can not say absolutely that a Deacon may celebrate mass, because he as Deacon wanteth the order of Priesthood: so it can not be said absolutely that Regulars are Governors of the Church, because as Regulars, they want both order and jurisdiction which jurisdiction ordinatilie is not given to Regulars but to secular Priests; and therefore, that speech of M. Nicholas, I never heard that the church must be governed by the secular Clergy is very harshe. Sua●. to. 1. l. 1. do rel. c. 18. n. 14. For that to the secular Clergy ordinarily this government of the Church is given, and if to Regulars it be some times given. it is given as Suarez saith by delegation or privilege, not by ordinary right; and in this, Regulars are accessory not principal as I have above declared. And therefore Clement the fift calleth Regulars Cooperatours. Supra q. 5. n. 41. & 42. Clem. Dudun de sep. 1. Cor. 12. 5. And so M. Nicholas in this his 2. number was to forward in carping at M. Doctor for applying to Regulars that word of S. Paul Opitulations: for although diverse understand that word of those who lent their helping hand to the curing of the sick, etc. yet as S. S. Th. 2.2. q. 184. a. 6. ad 2 In 1. Cor. c. 12. Thomas by accommodation calleth Archdeacon's, Opulations, because they help the Bishop, and in his commentaires upon the Epistles of S. Paul, saith that they be called Opitulationes qui op●m ferunt maioribut Praelatis in regimine Ecclesiae: Who help the greater Prelates in the government of the Church, as Lyra also doth: so M. Doctor might call Regulars Opitulations, because they help Pastors, and are as Clement the fifth saith, their Cooperatours. 6. and therefore M. Nicholas who in this self same place, S. Th. 2 2. q. 184. ●. 7. & q. 185. a. ●. affirmeth so boldly that in England Regulars are not more ordained to help secular Priests, than they to help Regulars, saith not truly, for that Clement the V calleth them Cooperatours; and the reason is because their principal end is not to have care of other men's souls but of their own: and therefore, as we have showed out of S. Thomas their state is statue perfactionis acquiren●● non communicande alij●● A state of perfection to he acquired, not to be communicated to others: the state of Bishops and other Pastors, is a state of communicating perfection to others: and therefore if the charge of souls be given to them, it is per accidens, and doth not agree to them pierce, as it doth to secular Pastors; who have the character and ground of jurisdiction. And so it is not so connatural to Regulars (though M. Nicholas affirmeth it pag. 132) as to secular Priests, to have care of souls for that secular Priests by their character (so that jurisdiction be added to it) are ordained to minister Sacraments, to preath, and to govern the Church whereas the Regular order is not so ordained. And therefore Germanius saith, Germ. in prto. 5. tit. 37. Sot. l. 9 de Iust. & iure q. 4. a. 3. in fine. Rod. to 1. q. 35. ar. 5. that Monks should not have care of souls but in case of necessity when there are not secular Priests to be gotten: and Sotus would not have Regulars take care of souls, but to attend to their own institute. And Rodericus saith that the Franciscans did over fly the hea●ie burden of Curates. And Gerson saith: Debent parochi Religiosos tanquam coadiutores missos à superioribus, benign ac beneuole recipere, modo non obstet rationabilis causa, ut si detractor, si collusor, sicorruptor, si seductor appareat, & parochianos in contemptum parochi addncat, etc. Pastors' ought gently to receive Religious as coadiutours sent from their superiors, so that no reasonable cause be to the contrary, as if he be a detractor, one that useth collusion, a corruptour, if he appear to be a deceiner, or do bring the parishioners to contemn their Pastor, etc. Whence I gather that M. Nicholas is not so grateful to the secular Clergy as might have been expected, for that (as we have seen above in my Preface to the secular and Regular Clergy) Cardinal Allen of famous and pious memory, made suit to the General of the Society of jesus to send the first English lesuites to England to help and aid the Priests, who to the number of fowrescore were there labouring and end eavouring the conversion of souls, before the first jesuites were sent. And the Pope sent them, and the Clergy received them as Cooperatours. D●●itse in Edm. Camp. And therefore D. Pitse in his book of the famous writers of England saith, that the Clergy desired the Fathers of the Society, ut s●se Cooperatores adiungerent: that they would adjoin them s●lues as Cooperatours. And yet now M. Nicholas will nor acknowledge himself a Cooperatour and aider, but saith, that in England Regulars are no more ordamed to help secular Priests, than they to help Regulars: Which I suppose his brethren will not say. M. NICHOLAS. In his fourth Chapter n. 2. he writeth: that an Ordinary must have others to succeed him in the same authority, without any especial grante, etc. Out of these words, it most evidently followeth thut my lord of Chalcedon, is no Ordinary, he cause he hath no successor in his authority without an especial new grante. THE REPLY. What ordinary M. Doctor meaneth. 8. M. Doctor speaketh of an Ordinary made by an ordinary course and means; and it is most true, that such an one hath others to succeed him in the same authority without any new special grante, and therefore because a Bishop is Ordinary, when he dyeth or leaveth the place, another Bishop is to succeèd, who in that he is elected and confirmed Bishop of such a place, hath the power and jurisdiction belonging to it, without any new especial grant. But M. Doctor denyeth not but that by an especial grant, and by commission, the Pope may make my lord of Chalcedom Ordinary of England. Whether he hath or Noah, I thought not to have disputed, but because M. Nicholas not only in this, but also in other places still accuseth M. Doctor, as though he derogated to my lord of Chalcedon his ordinariship and carpeth at it as though it were most certain that he is not Ordinary I will demand only of M. Nicholas, what it is that is wanting in my lord to make him ordinary? 9 There wanted not power in the cause efficient or him that gave him the power of an Ordinary over all England; for that the Pope who hath plenitudinem potestatis fullness of power gave him his authority. And Sylvester saith: Ordinariam iurisdictionem dant quatuor. Primo, lex inanimata, vel Canon. 2. Silu. verbo iurisd. Lex animata: ut Papa vel Imperator. 3. Consuetude. 4. Vniversitas approbata, ut mercatorum, etc. & similiter universitas facultatum artium vel legistarum: Fowre do give ordinary jurisdiction. First the dead law or Canon. 2. The living law: as the Pope or Emperor. 3. Custom 4. An approved company or community, as of merchants, etc. and likewise an university or company of the faculties of arts, or of lawiers. Wherefore seeing the Pope gave my lord of Chalcedon his jurisdiction, there was no want of power in him to make him Ordinary. And seeing that the Pope made him Pastor of England, as his letters do witness, there wanted not lex inanimata, the dead la or canon, for that the law and canon giveth to him that is Pastor, all power belonging to his Pastourship. 10. M. Nicholas will say, that he was made by delegation and commission, and so is only delegate, not Ordinary. But although this may hinder him from being made Ordinary according to the ordinary course, yet it hindereth him not from being made Ordinary after an extraordinary manner, that is, by delegation and commission. 11. For first according to the received Axiom of lawyer's; Delegaius à Principe ad universitatem causarum, est ordinarius: He that is delegated by the Prince, (as my lord of Chalcedom was by the chief visible and spiritual Prince of the Church, the Pope) to an university of causes, is an Ordinary. 12. secondly a Commissary General, who is made by commission, is (as Rodericus saith) an ordinary: and his reason is, Rod. to. 1. q. 51. art. 3. Glos. in c cum ab Eccl. Praelat. De Of. Ordin. Pan. in c susp. de office del. n. 9 Innoc. in c. l. 1 & in c. ad hoc de off. Archi. Sylis. V del. n. 1. because eligitur à communitate, he is elected by a community. Which Rodericus saith is determined by a general Chapter called Pincianun confirmed by Apostolical authority. And again he saith that the rule which saith that a delegate cannot subdelegate, doth not hold in him who is delegated, ad universitatem causarum, to an university of causes. 13. Thirdly the Pope's legate is made by commission and delegation, and yet he is ordinary, as Sylvester teacheth. For, saith he, Legatus est is cui a Papa certa patria vel provincia committitur gubernanda: A legate is he to whom by the Pope a certain country or province is committed to be governed. And this he proveth out of the Decretalles in the sixth book, where Innocentius the fourth saith, that Legates, Cap. leg. de of. leg. in sexto. to whom in certain provinces the office of a legate is committed, are reputed ordinaries. 14. fourthly a Vicar General of the Bishop is Ordinary, and yet he is made by commission, as Germonius affirmeth: and Sanchez, Lib. 1. Anim. c. 6. Sanch. tom. 1. l. 3. de consensu cland. disp 29. qu. 1. concl. 1. & add 2. who affirmeth also that he is Ordinary, proveth it because the Bishop and his Vicar General have one Tribunal. And, saith he, a vice gerent in a diverse Tribunal, is delegate, but in the same Tribunal he is Ordinary, and may assist at marriage as an Ordinary Pastor. 15. If M. Nicholas object that my lord of Chalcedom is constituted ad beneplacitum Papae: at the pleasure of the Pope; neither will that hinder his Ordinariship; for that a legate is constituted also ad beneplacitum Papae, and yet, as we have proved out of Sylvester and the Canon law, he is Ordinary. And so it willbe hard, fellowing the opinion of these authors (for I will say nothing of myself but refer the determination of this to Superiors) for M. Nicholas to exclude my lord of Chalcedon from being an Ordinary by commission or delegation. If this anger M. Nicholas, let him blame himself for that I would not have touched this point, if he had not provoked me. In his fourth number he taxeth M. Doctor for alleging S. Ambrose 1. Tim. 3. the book being doubtful. But M. Doctor having alleged other proofs to prove that the Bishop hath an higher rank in the Church than the Priest, and writers using to allege diverse books of Fathers which yet are doubted of by some, this M. Nicholas might have overpassed. M. NICHOLAS. Here nu. 14. he teacheth, that Catholics ought to contribute maintenance to my lord of Chalcedon n. 5. THE REPLY. This M. Nicholas should not have objected. 16. M. Nicholas maketh M. Doctor a beggar for my lord of Chalcedons maintenance, wherein he showeth little respect to my lord. M. Doctor only alleged S. Paul, 1. Ti. 5. to prove that Priests or Bishops who rule well should be esteemed worthy of double honour, that is, not only of the honour of cap and knee, but also of honourable maintenance: and therefore we see that Bishops and Pastors are by the Church honourably provided for. But M. Nicholas objecteth that S. S. Th. 2 2.188. ar. 4 ad 5. Thomas saith that the people are not bound in justice (S. Thomas his words are, ex debito iuris) to provide for the expenses of others besides Ordinaries. To which he is easily answered; for that S. Thomas supposeth that the people hath their ordinary Pastors, who receive their ordinary Tithes, and other renenewes; and than if any will voluntarily preach unto them, they are not bound to maintain them; but when there are no ordinary Pastors, them the people is bound to give them competent maintenance, whether they be ordinaries or delegates, for as S. Paul saith: Who ever playeth the soldior at his own charges? who planteth a vine and eateth not of the fruit thereof? who feedeth a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock. And as in the same place he saith: If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things? and a little after: they that serve the Altar, participate with the Altar. So also our lord ordained for them that preach the Gospel, to live of the Gospel. S. Th. 2.2. q. 87. a. 1. And S. Thomas and other divines affirm that by the law of nature the people is bound to give in general, necessaries to them that minister unto them the things that pertain to the worship of God and their salvation; as the same people is bound to minister necessaries to soldiers and Princes, that fight for them or have care of their common wealth, though the determinate part which divines call quota, and which in the old law was the tenth part, be of the positine law. And so the Catholics in England are bound to give competent means not only to their Bishop but also to their Priests, though the Priests be not ordinary Pastors. To which I add that in the opinion of the alleged authors, my lord of Chalcedon is an Ordinary by commission. Where as M. Nicholas n. 5. addeth, 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. I leave this to the consideration of the judicious and indifferent Reader; whether in this he speaketh like a religious man, yea or a zealous Catholic. But for the like speech to this, he is a little taken up above pag. 123. n. 38. 18. But I marvel that M. Nicholas should exaggerate, as he doth n. 5. the charges to which the Bishop and Clergy put the Catholics of England for the maintenance of their Agents in diverse places. And many will, think that M. Nicholas showeth no great discretion or prudence, to complain of the charges to which the Bishop and Clergy put the Catholics unto; considering that M. Nicholas and his brethren have and do daily put the Catholics to fare greater charges; as appeareth by the stately houses, purchasses, and many other expenses, which cometh from the Catholics states and purses. But such things should not have been mentioned, but that M. Nicholas giveth the just occasion. 19 To that which M. Nicholas addeth in this question concerning a particular Church without a particular Bishop, and a notable part of the Church without a Bishop, and of a perfect Christian without Confirmation, and of the Fathers and divines alleged by M. Doctor, and of regulars state of perfection, and of their being of the Hierarchy, and all such points, he is answered fully, as the reader will confess if he read my Reply to his former questions. 20. And so that which he saith n. 8. is little to the purpose: because M. Doctor in his cleventh chapter of his Hierarchy, intended only to show that charity is the perfection of a Christian life, in that it uniteth us to our first efficient, and last end, God. That charity uniteth us to God M. Doctor proveth out of Scriptures, and also by the effect of all love, which is to make two friends one soul by affection in two bodies, as (saith M. Doctor) S. Augustine confessed of himself and his friend; who, were he Nebridius of whom S. Augustine spoke before in the third chapter, styling him charissimus mous amicus: my most dear friend, or another, it was all one to M. Doctors purpose, and so might by M. Nicholas have been omitted, but that he, not able to answer to any main point, is enforced to take hold of every trifle. The rest which M. Nicholas allegeth in this question is answered, or else is not worthy any answer. Only there resteth one thing which I shall examine in the next number. M. NICHOLAS. In this account (of Pope's martyrs) M. Doctor is much mistaken, for the 3. last Popes by him reckoned, namely joannes, Syluerius, and Martinus, were long after Constantine, etc. qu. 7. n. 10. THE REPLY. This error is wrongfully fathered on M. Doctor. 21. M. Doctor in his thirteenth chapter n. 5. to show that in the greatest fury of persecution, it was the custom of the primative Church not to except against Bishops, as some now do in England, but to consecrate Popes and Bishops (maugre all the threats and cruelty of the tyrants) thereby to practise the government of the Church instituted by Christ, to strengthen the Christians by the grace of confirmation and by their authority, presence, example, and encouragement to put life into them: affirmeth that from the cruel Tyrant Nero, to the clement Emperor Constantine the great there was scarce any Bishop of Rome, who was not a martyr, who at the least suffered not great persecution. Twenty seven of them are commonly avouched for martyrs, to wit Peter, Linus, Cletus, etc. 22. M. Nicholas because he can not disprove any one of M. Doctors positions, as I have showed evidently; impugneth by-speeches, which be they true or not, it skilleth not at all, for whether just so many Popes were martyrs or more, and whether before Constantine or after, it is not to the purpose, it being true that many Popes were martyrs, and that the creation of them was not intermitted for fear of persecution, as M. Nich. would have the succession of Bishops in England to cease for fear even of an imaginary or uncertain persecution. But let us see how M. Nicholas cavilleth and imputeth to M. Doctor this error in the number of the Pope's martyrs, which indeed is none. 23. M. Doctor said first that from Nero to Constantine there was scarce any Bishop of Rome who was not a martyr, who at least suffered not great persecution. And there M. Doctor maketh a full point. And then he addeth: Twenty seven of them (that is of the Popes in general) are commonly avouched for martyrs: but he saith not that all the twenty seven, which he reckoneth, lived before Constantine, as M. Nicholas imposeth. True it is that in the margin there is this note, (27. Pope's martyrs before the time of Constantine.) But M. Doctor after he had finished his book, trusted others with the setting it forth, and did neither make the contents of the chapters, nor all the marginal notes, and so, that was put in by the error of one who marked not the full point which I even now specified, as neither M. Nicholas did or would not. 24. And that M. Doctor meant not only those Popes who lived before Constantine, but the Popes in general, of which he said 27. were martyrs; it may clearly be gathered. For that M. Doctor was not ignorant (for who knoweth it not?) that there was diversity amongst authors concerning the number of Popes, who were martyrs; some reckoning 27. some 33. some 35. some more, some less. But he, that he might be sure to speak within compass, contented himself with the lesser number according to Bozius his reckoning, whom he cited in the margin l. 8. c. 3. And to the end that the number twenty seven might not seem a Catalogue of his own making, he put their names in a distinct character, and cited Bozius in the margin. Which M. Nicholas if he had dealt fayrelie, should have mentioned or noted that thereby the Reader might have seen M. Doctors intention, and whether he had falsified Bozius whom he cited. 25. Moreover it well appeared that M. Doctor confined not himself (in setting down that Catalogue of Bozius) to the Popes before Constantine, because in that Catalogue he left out Hyginus who succeeded Thelesphorus, and in the next paragraphe or number which is the sixth, he putteth him in his place after Thelesphorus, whom all they who recite their Breviarie, know to have been a glorious martyr. 26 If M. Doctor had himself made a Catalogue of the Pope's martyrs, yea and of those only before Constantine's death, he would not have set down 27. Pope's only, as Bozius doth, but rather thirty according to the Roman martyrologue, Baronius and others: which Popes (that the Reader may see at how small matters he cavilleth) I will set down. To wit: Petrus, Linus, Clemens. Cletus, Anacletus, Euaristus, Alexander, Xistus, Thelesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zepherinus, Callistus, Vrbanus, Pontianus, Anterus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xistus H. Foelix, Eutichianus, Caius, Marcellinus, and Marcellus. And Rishton in his Synopsis; with other authors numbereth three more, to wit. S. Dionysius who in the Register of Popes followeth Xistus the second, and Eusebius and Melchiades, who succeed Marcellus. All which thirty, were before Constantine's death; yet these three last I will not enrol in this Catalogue, there being not so great certainty whether they were martyrs or Noah, and therefore I will content myself with the former thirty: whereas M. Doctor contented himself with 27. Pope's martyrs in general, according to Bozius, it being not to his purpose in that place to examine the number of Pope's martyrs. 27. Thus I have answered to all M. Nicholas his questions; I have made good all M. Doctors assertions and arguments grouned either in reason or authority; and I have showed that he hath not beme unfortunate in alleging authors as M. Nicholas to often affirmeth. I have also disproved M. Nicholas his assertions, refuted his reasons, and answered to all his arguments, as the Reader will plainly see. And this I have done, not to disgrace M. Nicholas, nor his, or any approved order of the Church, nor in any sort to avert any one from a Religious state, which (as I ought to do) I honour from my heart: but only to defend M. Doctor, and the truth by him delivered. Rather I wish and counsel every one, to embrace that state of life to which God shall call him, and in which he is persuaded he may save his own foul, and promote the glory of God. For that Christ to provide for every man, and to condescend to every one's liking, hath furnished his Church with diverse orders, Ps. 44. and hath clothed her round about with varieties, that every one may make choice of what he best liketh, and which he thinketh most suitable and proportionable to his own forces. And therefore he that findeth himself able to overcome the temptations of the world, and with the grace of God hath confidence not only to work his own salvation but also the salvation of many others: let him if he like that state take upon him an Apostolical Priestly course of life; Priests being to live in the midst of the difficulties of the world by reason of their preaching, teaching and administering of the Sacraments: if he otherwise be weak, feeble and is hardly able to pass through those temptations and allurements with the safety of his own soul: let him hasten to some religious course of life proportionable ro his force and liking, with the advice of his Ghostly Father and those that are sufficient by their wisdom and discretion to give him counsel herein: and if he hath not those talents which are required in Priests, and that he can not brook the austerity of Religion, 2. Cor. 9 let him endeavour to serve God in the world: Vnusquisque prout destinavit in cord suo; every one (as by God his grace and inspiration) he hath determined in his heart: and as he shall think most conducing to God his glory, and his own salvation. FINIS. A MIRROR OF M. NICHOLAS SMITH'S, pretended Modesty. IT could not be put into Heretics hands for their conversion, unless we would have them scandalised, pag. 2. By it be giveth a great blow against charity, pag. 2. His Dedicatory Epistle is full of verbal exhortations to charity, pag. 3. Jniurions to the Vicar of Christ, pag. 21. They deserve no answer, pag. 28. They are against himself, pag. 181. They are lick unto Beza pag. 130. His argument is a doughty one, pag. 16. Jnsufficient, pag. 199. Weak, pag. 49. Directly against himself, pag. 17. 51. His form of disputing seemeth the same which Heretics use against Catholics, as uttering contradictories and nonsense, pag. 25. He treateth of holy things upon particular designs and humane respects, pag. 6. He proveth his conclusions against all Logic, by principles more barsh, incredible, and worse than the conclusion, pag. 7.8. He serveth himself of strange and untoward propositions, pag. 7. He must answer his own arguments or contradict himself, and tax his Holiness, pag. 10. 26. 37. His assertion must wrong the Sea Apostolic; and can subsist on no better ground, then by Heretics is want to be objected against the said holy Sea, pag. 12. He is mistaken in things for the true understanding of which, is required no greater labour, then looking on the book; nor deaper learning, then understanding latin, pag. 19 Is a thing that no divine, but even no man in his right judgement can affirm, pag. 39 He citeth Suarez against all Grammar, pag. 53. He teacheth in effect with one breath to desire a Bishop and to disobey Bishops, pag. 59 He contradicteth himself, and impugneth his own reason, pag. 198. M. Nicholas taxeth him of want of good manners, pag. 4. of want of prudence, pag. 7. of not using fairedealing, pag. 80. of speaking partially, pag 92. 126. 187. By this scantling of the whole piece which is enterwoven in enery leaf almost with the like stuff: the judicious and impartial Reader, will (after he hath read this defence of M. Doctors Hierarchy) easily gather, how little he deserved these aspersions of M. Nicholas. ERRATA. Pag. Lin. Faults. Corrected. 8 7 fare far 9 in mat. Sess. etc. 21. & can. 3. Sess. 23 c. 2. & can. 6. 2● 17 full false full of false 26 my Reply this my Reply 2● 6 mies Reply this my Reply ●● 22 this the 30 first other ●● 11 constance constancy ●● in mat. l. 9 l. 4. 17 cap. 29. cap. 28. 19 c. 53. c. 35. 101 21 Christianistiall Christian 100LS 30. 31. and by water by water, and 20● 18 carelessesse carelessness 2●● 12 baptised confirmed 2●● 6 c. 53. c. 35. 2●● 10 use used 2●● 17 want went 2●● 15 these those 2●● 3 can care 250 17 vow own 252 15 is it 253 12 fitesse fitness 15 Bishop Bishops 267 30 contradicted contradicteth 26● 20 regious religious 26● 22 glorious gloriosius 269 20 doth do 33 regular regulars 270 9 an on 275 22 before wherefore 278 5 Prelates. We Prelates we 29● 13 quitesse quietness 18 stilled styled 22 how who 295 21 Palladias' Palladius ●●● in mat. 1. 11. ●38 6 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 9 solely holy 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉