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 [Page 2]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 [Page 3] 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 [Page 4]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 [Page 5]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 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 [Page 6]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 [Page]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 [Page 8] 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 [Page 9]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 [Page 10]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 [Page 11]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 [Page 12]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 [Page 13]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 [Page 14]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, [Page 15]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.

[Page 16]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 [Page 17]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 [Page 18]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 [Page 19]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 diuine precept, of hauing Bishops in the Church, is only to be vnderstod indeterminatly, or in generall; that in [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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 [Page 22]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 [Page 23]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 [Page 20] [...] [Page 21] [...] [Page 22] [...] [Page 23] [...] [Page 24]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 [Page 25]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, [Page 26]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 [Page 27]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 [Page 28]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 [Page 29]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 [Page 30]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 [Page 31]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 [Page 32]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.

[Page 33]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, [Page 34]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 [Page 35]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 [Page 36]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, [Page 37]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 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 [Page 39]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 [Page 40]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 [Page 41]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 [Page 42]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 [Page 43]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 [Page 44]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 [Page 45]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 [Page 46]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 [Page 47]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, [Page 48]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 [Page 49]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 [Page 50]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, [Page 51]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 [Page 52]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 [Page 53]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.

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 [Page 45]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 [Page 55]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, [Page 56]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 [Page 57]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, [Page 58]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 [Page 59]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 [Page 60]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 [Page 61]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 [Page 62]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, [Page 63]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 [Page 64]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 [Page 65]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 [Page 66]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 [Page 67]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.

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 [Page 69]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, [Page 70]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 [Page 71]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 [Page 72]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 [Page 73]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, [Page 74]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, [Page 75]& 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.

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 [Page 76]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.

[Page 77]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, [Page 78]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 [Page 79]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 [Page 80]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. [Page 81]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, [Page 82]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.