An apolagy of the Holy Sea apostolicks proceeding for the gouernment of the Catholics of England during the tyme of persecution VVith a defense of a religious state, vvritten by Daniel of Iesus reader of Diuinity.

THE THIRD ASSERTION.

23. Hence it is certayne, that M^r. Do∣ctours argument to proue the state of Bi∣shops to be more perfect then that of Re∣ligious

is of no validity.* 1.1 If (sayth he) the state of Bishops were lesser, it were not lawfull for the Religious to be a Bishop▪ because, as S. Thomas sayth, it is lawfull for no man to go from a greater state to a lesser, for this were to looke. backe, but the Bishop can not leaue his Bishopricke were it to be a Religious man, vnlesse the Pope who hath full power vnder Christ vppon some iust cause dispence with him, as S. Tho. expressly auerreth, for as Euaristus Pope, Callistus Pope, Innocentius Tertius Pope, do assertayne vs, the Bishop when he is con∣secrated, elected, and confirmed, doth contract a spirituall marriage with his Church, and so may not leaue it, vnlesse the Pope vppon an vrgent cause dispence with him. Thus M^r. Doctour, with more confusion and entanglinge of thinges, otherwise cleare enough, then may become so great learninge. First it is false that a Bi∣shop elected to his Church doth contract spirituall marriage, and so may not freely passe to Religion without the Popes leaue as Suarez teacheth,* 1.2 nor do I Know any that doth hould the contrary. Also a Bis∣hop consecrated not for any particular Church of whom M^r. Doctour may see∣me to speake, because he puts consecration before election, saying a Bishop consecra∣ted, elected and confirmed, such a Bishop I say, may freely passe to Religion as Suarez teacheth. Episcopum si nullius Ecclesiae Episcopus sit,* 1.3 posse liberè Religionem ingredi, a Bishop consecrated that hath no church may free∣ly

enter into Religion, finally a Bishop elected, confirmed, consecrated may wi∣thout leauing his Bishopricke professe the state of Religion, so that his profession,* 1.4 though he haue not the Popes licence, shal be valid and of force, though whether in so doinge he should offend against some precept of the Church, a question is made.

24. Secondly, as the Bishop cannot wi∣thout the Popes licence leaue his Bishopri∣cke to become Religious; so no Religious man without licence of his Religion may consent vnto his election to the state of Bishop, and this is so forbidden, that if he giue consent, the same is of no force, as is determined in the Canon law cap. si Religio∣sus & cap. quorundam de electionibus in 6. con∣sensus sic praestitus non teneat, let his consent so giuen be of no force. yea moreouer in punish∣ment of this his presumptuous giuing as∣sent, the election afore-hand made becomes inualid, in poenam praesumptionis illius electio eadem ipso facto viribus vacuetur. And this proueth the state of Bishops not to be so absolutely more perfect then Religious, as M Doctour doth conceiue. For a Religious man may passe from his Religion to another that is more perfect by his owne will, nor need he haue leaue of his Religion and su∣periours: wherfore if the state of Bishops be more perfect absolutly and without compa∣rison then the state of Religion, why should

not Religious men haue power to passe to that state without theyr superiours leaue?

25. Thirdly M••. Doctours argument: it is lawfull for no man to goe from a greater state to a lesser, for this were to looke back, but a Religious man may be preferred to be a Bishop as the practise of the Church tea∣cheth, which argueth sayth S. Thomas that the state of a Bishop is a greater state of per∣fection. This, I say, is not properly S. Tho∣mas his argument, much lesse doth S. Tho∣mas say, this argueth as M••. Doctour preten∣des. It is only argumētum sed contra, brought by S. Thomas before his resolution, and wheron his resolution doth not rely: which kind of arguments haue no force giuen them by the Autority of S. Thomas, but onely that which theyr natiue efficacity doth afford vnto them. In which considera∣tion this argument maketh against M^r Do∣ctour, as much as for him. For groundinge my discourse vppon his principle, I dispute thus: It is lawfull for no man to goe from a greater state to a lesser, for this were to loo∣ke backe, but a Bishop may passe from his Bishopricke to Religion, therfore this ar∣gueth the state of Religion to be the hi∣gher. If he say that a Bishop cannot passe to Religion without the Popes leaue, I likewi∣se say that a Regular cannot passe to bee a Bishop without the leaue of his Religion, nor without the Popes licence, yea not wi∣hout

his confirmation, and so his argument is no more against vs then himself. I adde that this argument may be turned against him in this manner, to looke backe is dam∣nable and reproued by the mouth of verity it selfe. Luc. 9. v. 21. and so the Pope cannot make it lawfull. But the Pope may giue li∣cence to a Bishop, that leauinge his Bisho∣pricke he goe to Religion, as it is certayne, ergo, as there is somethinge in the state of a Bishop, wherby a Religious man that is ma∣de Bishop may be sayd to goe fore-ward, so likewise in Religion there is somethinge aboue or beyond the state of Bishops, so that Bishops who become Religious do not absolutely looke backe.

26. Fourthly M^r. Doctours assertion, that S. Thomas affirmes,* 1.5 that the Pope may not dispense with a Bishop to become Reli∣gious, but vppon some iust cause, yea vppon an vrgent cause, is not S. Thomas his doctrine faythfully related but with some addition. S. Thomas in that place sayth, solus Papa po∣test dispensare in voto perpetuo, quo se quis ad curam subditorum adstrinxit Episcopatum susci∣piens. The Pope only can dispense in the perpetuall vow, wherewith one doth binde himselfe in the charge of subiects vnderta∣kinge the office of Bishop. Where S. Tho∣mas sayth that the Pope can dispense, but he doth not say, that he cannot dispense but vppon iust and vrgent cause. M^r. Doctour

may say, that the Pope may not dispense in a vow at his pleasure, but vppon vrgent cau∣se, and so S. Thomas sayinge that the Pope may dispense in this Bishops vow, he suppo∣seth he cannot dispense without iust and vrgent cause. I answeare M^r. Doctour should haue truly related S. Thomas his doctrine without addition, and not haue giuen vs his owne commentary as S. Tho∣mas his text, especially, because he cannot but know that many learned Deuines teach against it, to wit, that S. Thomas speaketh de voto improprio, of a vow impoper∣ly, that is, a solemne contract, and promise, wherwith the Bishop bindeth himselfe to the charge of soules in his consecration. This solemne obligation is tearmed a vow in the same sense, as the faythfull in baptis∣me are sayd to make a vow to professe Chri∣stian Religion, which is not a vow properly, but only a solemne promise and obligation. And as S. Thomas tooke the word vow improperly, for a solemne pact, or contract, so likewise the word dispense, is by him vsed improperly for any permission or licence, so that in the sense by S. Thomas intended, the Pope may dispense with the Bishop in that vow, that is, he may release him of that contract without any vrgent cause.

37. This certaynly is the doctrine of Po∣pe Innocentius, Cap nisi cum pridem, saying to a Bishop that would haue flowne to Re∣ligion,

your winges are so tyed wit•• the bondes of preceptes, that without our licence you cannot fly, he doth not say they are so tyed with the band of vowes, that without our dispensa∣tion you cannot fly, but only without our licence, signifying the prohibition a Bishop hath not to leaue his state to bee Religious is humane, and may be released at the Popes pleasure, for any cause pious or honest, though not vrgent; so the Pope sayth in that Canon to the sayd Bishop, si propter aliquam causam vtilem & honestam in huiusmodi proposi∣to perseueres de licentia nostra cedas, if you doe still continue in yowr former purpose vpon any cause good and honest, with our leaue you may renounce & cap. quidam de Renunciatione, he sayth, that Bishops, that haue asked and obteyned licence to leaue theyr Bishoprickes to beco∣me Religious, are to bee forced to renounce, quia in postulatione huiusmodi aut Ecclesiarum commoda▪ aut salutem videntur propriam atten∣disse, because in that request they seeme to haue had reguard eyther of the good of theyr churches, or of theyr owne saluation; so that a Bishop may be licenced to renounce his Bishopricke in fauour of a Religious state, for any good cause soeuer though not con∣cerninge the good of his flocke, but onely the greater security of his owne saluation. M^r. Doctour might haue saued vs a labour, had he more faythfully related S. Thomas, yet our labour is not lost, for by clearinge

the truth from this cloude, the splendour of the state of Religion more shew it selfe to be such, that a Bishop may be permitted to embrace the same, leauinge his Bisho∣pricke vpon any good cause soeuer, which is enough and enough to shew the state of Bi∣shops is not perfect and excellent aboue Re∣ligious accordinge to M^r. Doctours measure of the height therof.

Notes

• * 1.1

  c 11. n. 15. pag. 330. lin. 19.
• * 1.2

  tom. 3. de Rel. l. 6. c. 8. n 1.
• * 1.3

  ibid. n. 4.
• * 1.4

  Suar. ibid. n. 7.
• * 1.5

  1. 2. q. 185. ar. 4.