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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Neyther is it a good Conſequence: The Pope ſendeth a Bishop to England, Ergo, he declares, that there is a diuine precept, to haue a Bishop in England. Many thinges are holily done, which a man is not obliged to do. When the Pope maketh a Dioceſſe, and endueth it with a Bishop, diſtinct from other particular Bishops, doth he therfore declare, that there was a diuine precept, to make ſuch a Dioceſſe, or to place a Bishop in it? We ſee ſome Territoryes, capable of Bishops, to be gouerned by Abbots which could not be, if there were a diuine precept, to place Bishops in ſuch Territoryes, although it had not likewiſe binne againſt the diuine law, to haue placed Bishops in the ſame Territoryes. This is a good Inference. The Pope, for many yeares, ſent vs no Bishop: Ergo, he iudged there was no diuine precept, obliginge him to ſend vs one; but the other conſequence is of no force, as I haue shewed. Will the Replyer admit 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 〈1 page duplicate〉 this argument; The Pope for many yeares left vs without a Biſhop: Ergo, he iudged there was a diuine precept, that we ſhould be left without a Biſhop?. It is as good as his. Nicolas Smith n. 4. ſayd truly; The deliberation about ſending a Biſhop to England, was only, Quid expediret, what was expedient, not what was neceſſary, by the diuine law, which, as I ſayd, is only of Churches taken in generall and indeterminately. And I cannot but eſteeme it iniurious, to thoſe Fatherly bowelles of his Holines, to thinke, that he euer iudged vs obliged, to accept a Biſhop, with a generall increaſe of perſecution. If he were perſuaded, that the comming of a Biſhop, would occaſion to Catholickes, a generall perſecution, I dare ſay, he would neuer impoſe vpon them ſuch an obligation. And yet M. Doctour, and the Replyer are rigid Cenſurers of Catholickes, as infingers of the diuine Law, if they ſhould refuſe a Biſhop, euen vpon that heauy ſuppoſition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE CONCLVSION.

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

FINIS.