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 APOLAGY OF THE HOLY SEA, &c.

HOW GREATLY M^r. D'O∣ctour is mistaken in saying that a particular Church cannot be without a Bishop. CAPVT I.

1. FIRST M^r. Doctour layeth an essentiall necessity on a particular Church to haue a Bishop, which is tacitely to taxe the ho∣ly Catholicke Sea, as hauing for so longe a time togeather de∣priued vs of the very essence of a Church of Christ: Lett vs heare this doctrine, and consequently the accusation out of the Doctours owne mouth, to geather with his profes: in his Epistle dedicatory. n. 18. thus he writeth. Without a Bishop you can be noe particular Church, because according to

S. Cyprians definition, the Church is, Sacerdoti plebs ad vnata, & pastori suo grex adhaerens. The people vnited to the Priest (Bishop) and the flock adhering to the Pastour. and c. 14. n. 9. he repeateth a gaine all this in as many wordes, and then addeth, As the whole Church hath one supreme Bishope to gouerne it, who is Pe∣ters successour, to wit the Bishop of Rome, so euery particular Church also, must haue its Bishop, or Bishops, els it should not be a particular Church, and so the whole and vniuersall Church should not as Christ hath instituted, be a Hierarchie, com∣posed of diuerse particular Churches: wherefore the Catholikes of england all the while they had no Bishop, were no particular Church; and shall no longer be a particular Church then they shall haue a Bishop; but shall be a flocke without a Pastour, an army without a generall a shipp without a Pilot, a spirituall Kingdome without a spirituall King, a familie, without a God man of the house.

2. I shall breefly proue three assertions, by which will appeare how mightiely M^r. Doctour mistaketh. The first that it is most false, and in consequence dangerous, that there can be no particular Church without a Bishop. The second, that Englant was a particular Church vnder the Pope, before the Bishop of Chalcedon his entrance. The third, that if England was not a particular Church before, it is not now a particular Church, vnder the Bishop of Chalcedon.

THE FIRST ASSERTION.

THe first assertion is proued, because if it be of the essence and definition of a particular church to haue a Bishop, soe that a Church can be no longer in being or es∣sence, then it hath a Bishop, then, when the Bishop a particular Church dyeth, that ••hurch faileth, and ceaseth to be; and (soe ••ong as the sea is vacast) is no church; for ••f the Catholiks of England be no longer a Church, then they haue a Bishop, the Ca∣t••oliks of Paris, of Rome, of Naples &c. are ••o longer Churches, then they haue their Bshops. But when the Bishop is dead and the sea vacant, they haue noe Bishop, but w••nt that which (in M^r. Doctours iudg∣ment) is as the very essence and definition ••f a Church. Therefore particular Chur∣hes faile and cease when their Bishops ••••e, which is a thing most false, to speake with the least.

3 (Secondly, if there can be no particu∣la church without a particular Bishop, su∣rey the vniversall Church can not exist, when it hath no vniversall Bishop, for the v••iversall Bishop is no lesse essentially per∣ta••ning to the definition of the vniversall church, then a particular Bishop to the defi∣nition of a particular Church; yea much ••ore as the Doctour doth acknowledge.

But to say that in the seavacancy when the∣re is no Pope, or vniversall Bishop, the Ca∣tholike vniversall Church is not in being, or becomes no true flocke, not family, nor ship, nor Kingdome of Christ Iesus; is most false, I might say false in the highest de∣gree, and more then false, for it is against the expresse promise of Christ that the ga∣tes of hell shall neuer preuayle against the Church; and in the 28. of S. Mathew Be∣howld I am with you all dayes vntil the end of th•• world: signifying, that the Church shoul•• not be wanting so much as for one day i•• the world, till the consummation thereo. But the vniversall Catholike Church, han wanted an vniversall visible Bishop mar•• dayes; yea, and some years; As after the dea•• of Clement the fourth, Rome was withou•• a Bishop two yeares and nine months, tll the election of Gregory the tenth vnde Decius the Emperour, after the Death of S Fabian, because of the violent persecutio•• the Church of Rome, and consequently t••e Catholique, was without a Bishop a yeae and foure months, till S. Cornelius was ch••∣sen, as Baronius proueth; After the death ••f Gregory the eleuenth till the election ••f Martinus quintus, that is 40. yeares t••e church was without Pope or vnivers••ll Bishop; there being then a schisme in the Church, and noe knowne and vndoubte. Pope, and so in effect no Pope, cum dubia

Papa, non habeatur pro Papa, soe that if M^r. Doctours assertion be true, that the vniver∣sall Church is no longer a church then it hath a Bishop, it followeth that since Christ, for many dayes, yea years, his church had no being in the world: contrary to his promise.

4. Thirdly the falshood of M^r. Doctours assertion is proued by his owne examples. He sayth that Catholiks of England wi∣thout a Bishop were no church, but a flocke without a pastour, an army without a Ge∣nerall, a ship without a Pilote, a spirituall Kingdome without a spirituall King. Hen∣ce I thus argue, but a flocke without a Pa∣stour is a true flocke, an army without a Generall, a true army, a Kingdome without a King, a true Kingdome, ergo Catholiks without a Bishop, are a true flocke, army, ship, Kingdome of Christ, and consequently a true Church: yea M^r. Doctours speech, may seeme to imply, and one part to destroy the other. Catholiks were no Church (sayth he) without a Bishop, but a flocke without a Pastour, What is a flocke of Christ without a Pa∣stour, but a Church without a Bishop? How then doth this speach hang togeather? there is no Church without a Bishop, and yett there is a flocke of Christ, without a Pastour. And what is a spirituall Kingdo∣me, but a particular Church? You say in the same sentence Catholiks of England with∣out

a spirituall King, were a spirituall King∣dome and yett without a Bishop, you say, they were no Church. Is not this to speake contradictories with the same breath? The cause of M^r. Doctours mistakinge, is his not calling to mind that rule of Philoso∣phy, that words in definition doe not signi∣fie the act, but the aptitude of a thing. If one say a man is he that doth discourse, the sen∣se is, by nature apt to discourse. Thus, a floc∣ke may be defined to be sheepe ruled by one Pastour, that is, so disposed and vnited to geather as they may be fittly ruled by one Pastour. A shipp is that which is gouerned by a Pilote, that is, a frame of wood so com∣pacted as it is fitt to passe through the sea vnder gouernment of a Pilote. In this man∣ner a Church may be sayd a multitude of Christians gouerned by a Bishop, that is, a company so disposed and vnited togeather in the fayth of Christ, as they may haue, and need a Bishop, and are in mind ready, apt prepared to receaue him, when he is lawful∣ly sent.

5. Fourthly, hence I proue the falsehood of M^r. Doctours assertion, by shewing the true sence of S. Cyprians saying, the Church is a flocke adhering to their Pastour, a people vnited to their Bishop. For his meaning is not, that to haue a Bishop, is of the essence of the Church. So that when Catholiks simply want a Bishop, they are not a Church (so to

vnderstand S. Cyprian may seeme silly:) but that the true Church is still vnited to their Pastour, actually when they haue one, and when they haue none, yet vnited in prepa∣ration of mind, and by professed ready sub∣iection to him, as soone as they shall haue one lawfully chosen. Euen as a Kingdome ceaseth not to be a Kingdome by the death of the King, so longe as they continue in a professed resolution of mind, to haue a King and obay him, so soone as he is lawfully chosen; So likewise a Church ceaseth not to be a Church, by the death of their Bi∣shop, if they continue such a multitude as they need a Bishop, with readines to recea∣ue him, so soone as he shall be lawfully gi∣uen them. But as a Kingdome resoluing ne∣uer to haue King more, and not to obay the King next chosen, is no more Kingdome; so a Church banding agaynst a Bishop, and resolute not to receaue him when he is law∣fully giuen, ceaseth to be a Church, and are made a company of schismaticks.

6. Hence with S. Cyprian, not to be vni∣ted to their Bishop, is not simply to want a Bishop, but to be opposite and schisma∣ticks against the Bishop they haue, and if they haue none, yet to be schismaticks against him in preparation of mind, as being ready to oppose and refuse the Bishop, when he shall be chosen. For which cause he tearmeth those that are not vnited to

their Bishop schismaticks, not of the Church, men not hauing peace with the Priests of God, Contumax & superba obedire nolentium multitu∣do. A stubborne and proud multitude of re∣fusers to obey. Will M^r. Doctour say that the Catholiks of England when they wan∣ted a Bishop (because so many learned and holy Popes thought it not sitt to giue them one) were during that time schismaticks, aliens from Gods Priests, out of the Church, a proud and contumacions multitude of people? In deed by the consequence of his discourse, the black note of schisme falleth euen on the purple robes of our renowned Martyres. But I presume against his mea∣ning. Because he mistook S. Cypriās meaning. For our Catholicks euer were vnited with their Bishops, so longe as they had them, and now at vnited in preparation of mind to as many Bishops as euer were in the Real∣me, when times shall be such as his holines shall think fitt to restore them. I could wonder that a proposition so strang as this is, To haue a Bishop is of the definition of a parti∣cular Church, was by so learned a Doctour so easily affirmed, and so slightly proued, by a text of Sainct Cyprian so mainely mistaken against the whole drift of his discourse: But I remember Bellarmines frendly censure, Mirum non est Cyprianum errantem; errantium moreratiocinari.

THE SECOND ASSERTION.

7. A Catholicke Country or Citty may be, and English Catholicks, de fa∣cto, were still a particular Church, vnder the Pope, without any other Bishop. To proue this we must suppose a Catholicke truth, to wit, that the Pope is Pastour of the vni∣versall Church, and of euery particular Christian, not only mediatly, because he ru∣leth Bishops, and by Bishops, mediatly and consequently euery particular Church and Christian; but allso because he hath power and authority direct and immediat over euery particular Church, and parish, and christian person. This is proued. First by the wordes of the Ghospell, where our Sa∣uiour gaue to S. Peter and his Successours, the charge not only of his sheepe, but allso of his lambes, for by sheepe which breede lambes at vnderstood Pastours, and Prelates, and by lambes euery particular Christian, which is more playnly expressed by the Church in the office of sainct Peter, where Christ sayeth to him, Super plebem mean•• principem te constitui. I haue made thee prin∣ce of my people, ita vt (sayth sainct Leo) omnes PROPRIE regat Petrus, quos principa∣liter regit & Christus, Peter is the proper ruler of all and euery one of whom Christ is the principall ruler. yea by the wordes pasce ones meas, vn∣derstood

as commonly all Fathers vnder∣stand them, that by them, Christ did com∣mit vnto Peter his whole flocke, it is mani∣fest that he is proper and immediate Pa∣stour of all and euery one, for not only the Apostles, Bishops, and Pastours, are by that grant committed to his power, but allso euery one of his flocke, as properly and immediatly as they.

8. The same may be proued by many te∣stimonies of Councels, and Fathers, which I omitt and remitt the reader to the learned worcke of the most Reuerend Lord Bi∣shop of Antwerpe, Malderus in 2. 2. q. 1. a. 10. disp. 4. dub. 2. the title where of is, An Papa habeat iurisdictionem in singulos fideles im∣mediatè. Whether the Pope hath iurisdictiō ouer euery faithfull Christian immediatly, which question he resolues in these wor∣des. Omnino dicendum est Pontisicem Romanum habere potesiatem iurisdictionis in omnes & singu∣los Christianos, non solum, quia in ipsorum Episco∣pos, eam habet, sed immediatè, sicut habet sibi sub∣iectos fideles diaecesis Romanae. It is all togeather needfull that wee acknowledge the Roman Bishop to haue the power of iurisdiction ouer all Chri∣stians, and euery one, not only because he hath that power ouer their Bishops, but immediatly, euen as he hath vnder subiection to him the faithfull Chri∣stians of the dioecesse of Rome. Which he pro∣ueth by many testimonies of Popes and Fathers, and namely, by the words of sain••t

Bernard to the Pope, habent illi sibi assignatos greges singuli singulos tibi vniuersi crediti. Other Bishops haue their flockes assigned them, each one their single flocke, but to thee the flockes of them all, and of euery one are committed.

9. But we must note that the Pope to be the proper Pastour of euery Bishopricke may be vnderstood, either in respect of iu∣risdiction and power, that he may euery where exercise his power at his pleasure: or in regard of obligation and charge, that he is bound to haue care of euery one. In re∣spect of power, the Pope may euery where as proper Bishop exercise his immediate power ouer all and euery one of the Dio∣cesse, as he thinckes good, giuing to Priestes faculties to absolue, to penitentes leaue to choose their confessours, exempting whom he pleaseth from the power of the Bishop, reseruing cases to himselfe. In respect of obligation he is not bound towards Chur∣ches (that haue Bishops) to deale immediat∣ly, except in case the proper Bishop be ne∣gligent, or some extraordinary exigent oc∣curre, which the Bishop cannot discharge by himselfe. But when Countries or Citties haue no Bishop, nor any appointed to be their immediate Pastour, then the Pope be∣comes their Diocesan Bishop, not only in regard of iurisdiction that he may, but allso of obligation, that he is bound to vse pro∣per Episcopall power ouer them, prouiding

them Priests and other thinges necessary to saluation, so farre as the circumstances of time and place permit.

10. This truth supposed I proue cleerly, that the Catholicks of England, were a par∣ticular Church vnder the Pope, when they had no other Bishop. For a Church by the definition of S. Cyprian is Sacerdoti plebs ad∣unata, & Pastori suo grex adharens, the people vnited to their Bishop, and a flocke adhering to their Pastour, But English catholicks, subiect to the Pope in those daies were a people of God vnited to their Bishop, a flocke of Christ adhering to their Pastour. Ergo they were a particular Church, What can M^r. Doctour reply to this argument. The pro∣position is sainct Cyprians, authorised mo∣re then once by himselfe; in the assertion, what can be denied or doubted of without greeueous offence? can it be said that Ca∣tholiks were not a people of God, nor a flocke of Christ, but infidels, till my Lord of Chalcedon came? none will say so of them, but hereticks; or can it be sayd they were indeed the people of Christ, yet not vnited to the Pope but schismaticks? none will so affirme but madd men. Or may one say they were a flocke of Christ vnited to the Pope, but he is not their proper Pastour? none will so auouch but one grossely ignorant.

11. Hereby we discerne M^r. Doctours flo∣rish, so often repeated to be more fluent

then solide, saying to our English Catho∣licks. Without a Bishop you were a flocke wi∣thout a Pastour, a spirituall Kingdome with out a spirituall King, a family without a Good man of the house, an army without a Generall, you sai∣led in Peters ship amidst the surging waues, stor∣mes and tempests without a Pilote, you trauailed without a guide, you were a body with our a head, Thus he, shewing his thoughts, then were so full of my Lord of Chalcedon, as though he were the only Bishop, as euen naming the ship of Peter not finding there in his Lord∣ship gouerning the sterne, he proclaimes it to want a Pilote; soe farre had he forgotten the Pope. For, I demand of him, Catho∣licks in those dayes, were they not vnited with the Pope? if they were (as he will not say they were not) how can he say they were without a Pastour, a Goodman, a King a Generall, a Pilote, a Guide, an head? If he say the Pope is the Pastour, the King, the Generall, the Pilote, the Guide, the head of the Church, but not a Pastour, a King a Generall, a Pilote, a Guide, a head, that is, not the proper and immediat gouernour and Priest of euery Church; if he will maintaine this, he is in an errour, which I remit to censure; I haue cited the most Re∣uerend Lord Bishop of Antwerp, saying, that it is omnino tenendum alltogeather ne∣cessary to hould the Pope to haue prop••r and immediate power of euery particular

Church, euen as much as of his Roman Diocesse; anda Ioannes Medina, andb Gabriel Vasquez (whom M^r. Doctour with reason doth much esteeme) teach, that to say the Pope is not the proper immediat Bishop and Priest of euery Church and Pa∣rish, is an errour against faith, condemned by Ioannes 22. in extrauaganti vas electionis, de haereticis, censuring for that errour Ioan∣nes de Poliaco a Priest and great adversary vnto Regulars.

THE THIRD ASSERTION.

12. IF Catholicks were no particular Church before my Lord of Chalce∣dons comming, they ar not now a particular Church, nor can be made such a Church, by being vnited to him. This assertion some may ground on this, that my Lord is no or∣dinary, nor hath any coactiue iurisdiction, being but a meere voluntarie delegate, or according to the phrase of the law, a char∣tulary iudg. This they proue, for a chartula∣ry iudge is a delegate of arbitrement with∣out coactiue iurisdiction, or any subjects whom he may command, yet such as will, may of selfe accord yeeld to his iurisdicti∣on; and make their benefit thereof, when, wherin, and so long and litle, as they be pleased. Now my Lord to be but a delegate of this kind, they thinck it cleere by the

text of the Breue of his institution, which are these, for the solace of soules and spirituall good of faythfull Catholicks, we giue you faculty and leaue, that you may during our pleasure, haue, vse, enioy, the facultys, which ordinaries in their dioceses haue, vse, and enioy, and vnto all and euere one of the thinges premised we delegate you. In what wordes could a meere voluntary iuridiction be more cleerly signified, to witt, faculty and leaue to vse power, for the solace of such as will enioy it. Now if my Lord be not ordinary nor Pastour, Catho∣liks by being vnited to him, can not be ma∣de a Church, that is, a flock cleauing to their Pastour, But vpon this argument, I will not insist, nor meddle with my Lords Delegated Ordinaryship, the same being referred to higher powers. Requicescat in pace, in the hands of the supreme iudge on earth, till he be pleased to giue sentence for, or against it.

13. Wherefore I ground my conclusion vppon a principle more certaine, which is that howsoeuer my Lord may pretend to be ordinarius extra ordinariè ordinary delegate, yet in respect of England, he is not Bishop, nor such an ordinary as Bishops are; this is granted by my Lord himselfe in his paralell, and it is cleere, because a Bishop for iuris∣diction is a true Prince, and not the Popes Delegate as my Lord of Chalcedon is, in respect of England. This supposed it is cle∣ere that my Lord of Chalcedons being Bi∣shop,

cannot make the flocke of the ca∣tholicks of England a Bishopricke or par∣ticular Church. For as a state can not be made a King••ome, but by being gouerned by the iurisdiction of a King, nor a dutchy but by being gouerned by the iurisdiction of a Duke, nor a County, but by being gouerned by the iurisdictiō of a Count, soe can not a Country be made a Bishoprick, that is a particular Church, but by being gouerned by a Bishop, that is Bishop for iurisdiction and office. Nor doth it suffise that he be a Bishop for order, els if a Bi∣shop for order be a Pari••h preist, the parish would be made a Bishop••icke. Father Ca∣rolus of Lo••rayne, a prince of the most il∣lustrious family of Europe being Bishop of Verdune, leauing his Bishopricke entered into the Society of Iesus, and now is Prae∣positus of the professed at Burdeaux, being still a Bishop for order, as much as my Lord of Chalcedon is. Will any man say that because that Father for order is a Bi∣shop, therefore the house of Iesuites by him gouerned is a Bishopricke? surely no man that is wise will so thincke, and consequēt∣ly, though my Lord of Chalcedon be Bi∣shop for order, he is not of dignity, not au∣thority to make England a Bishopricke, ex∣cept he be Bishop, in iurisdiction and office, which surely my Lord of Chalcedon is not in respect of England. He will be content to

be ordinary as the Pops deputy, if he can be soe declared.

14. Hence I argue, that England eyther was a particular Church before my Lords coming, or now is not, for I demaund of M^r. Doctour, whether his Lordship be the Pops deputy in a particular Church, or not, if not, then our Catholicks are not yet a parti∣cular Church; if he be, then English Catho∣licks are a particular Church, by reason of their being subiect to the Pope, as their pro∣per Bishop. For that one be deputy of a Bi∣shopricke, it doth not suffice that he be de∣puty of a Bishop, but he must be deputy of one, that is proper Bishop in respect of that place wherein he is deputy. Euen as that one be deputy in a Kingdome, it is not enough that he be deputy of a King, but he must be deputy of the proper King of that country. For example, the King of Spaine his deputy for Millan is the deputy of a King, yet is he not deputy of a Kingdome, because the King of spaine is not King, but only Duke in re∣spect of Milan. But the same Kings deputy for Naples is deputy of a Kingdome, becau∣se he is not only deputy of a King but allso of the proper King of that place. But my Lord of Chalcedon by being the Popes de∣puty in a particular C••urch and Bishopricke; Ergo England, is the Popes particular Church and Bishopricke, and as they had the Pope for

their immediate pastour before his Lord∣ships coming, soe they were a Church befo∣re his coming, and if not, they are not a Church as yet.

15. Thirdly, I proue this assertion out of that which M^r. Doctour often affirmes, that my Lord of Chalcedon cannot challen∣ge any particular Bishopricke in England. c. 15. n. 10. Ergo (say I) he can challenge no particular Church, a particular Church and a particular Bishopricke, being the same thing. But if Catholicks of England were his particular Church, his particular Bisho∣pricke, he might challenge a particular Church with in England; therefore if M••. Doctour say true, England is not my Lord of Chalcedons particular Bishopricke, or Church, but the Popes. If M^r. Doctour say that by no particular Church, he meant no materiall church, whether Cathedrall, or Parochiall, not a liuing Church composed of Catholicke professors, for ouer these my Lord hath the iurisdiction of a Bishop, but without teritory, diocese or district. I reply this doctrine cannot subsist. Because a Bi∣shop without a diocese cannot subsist. Ge∣neralls and Prouincialls of Regular orders, haue Episcopall iurisdiction most ample, ouer persons spread ouer the world, or some great prouince, yet are they not Bishops, be∣cause they haue no teritory, diocese, or di∣strict. Therefore if my Lord of Chalcedon

haue not a Diocese, he is no Bishop, and if he haue a diocese in England, how can M^r. Do∣ctour say truely, that he hath only the gene∣rall iurisdiction of a Bishop, by which he can challeng, no Bishopricke, no not soe much as the poorest parish.

16. More ouer the iurisdiction of a Bishop, intrinsically requireth a tribunall, that such as are aggreeued may thither repaire for right, according to the precept of our Lord, Dic Ecclesiae. But if my Lord of Chalcedon haue no territory or diocese, he can haue no tribunall, which doth necessarily suppose a territory, seing no Bishop can haue a tribu∣nall, but within his owne territory or dio∣cese,a as all Canonists affirme. In a word I conclude, eyther my Lord hath a Diocese in England, or he hath not? if he haue, then may he challeng the Parishes poore and rich sea∣ted within that his diocese, or district, which M^r. Doctour denyes. If he haue no diocese no territory, no district, not so much at the poorest Parish or peece of ground, then he hath no place where to erect his tribunall and summon his sheepe before him except in the ayre.

17. Therefore I exhort the worthy Ca∣tholicks of our Country to cleaue still con∣stantly, as hitherto they haue done to the successour of Peter, as to their onely proper immediate Bishop, vnder whose gouernment they still haue beene, and are a princly flocke, a

people of saluation, a royall Priesthood by whose liberality they haue so many worthy and learned Priests, to afford them remission of sinnes, and the double foode of spirituall li∣fe, whereby they are made and consecrated the spirituall Kingdome of God, by whose charity and care in the midest of humane certaine vncertaine miseries, they breath in the comfortable hope to be at last Gods eter∣nally triumphant Kingdome, whose proper and immediat Bishopricke ouer vs to for∣sake, to be a particular Church vnder my Lord of Chalcedon as M^r. Doctour would haue them, were to let goe the substance and catch at a shadow.

The second necessity of a Bishop to giue Confirmation examined. CAPVT II.

1. THe second necessity of a Bishop for England, most of all vrged by M^r. Do∣ctour, is causall, because by wanting a Bishop we to∣geather want the sole necessary cause, and meanes of perfection, to wit, Confirmation, without which we cannot be perfect Chri∣stians; which perfection of Christianity, not

not giuen but by Confirmation, M^r. Do∣ctour thinkes to be soe maynely important, and soe necessary for a persecuted country, that, if there were no other domage to that country by want of a Bishop, then that it should th••reby loose Confirmation, a Bi∣shop were to be admitted, yea procured, though with increase of persecution. If this be true, we haue reason to complayne of the holy Apostolike sea, and of the Prouidence of the Bishops thereof, that they haue been very defectiue in respect of England, in lea∣uing vs so long without so necessary a Sa∣crament. But if this necessity of Confirma∣tion be without probability exaggerated by M^r. Doctour, if in this point he refuse the full consent of Catholicke Deuines to im∣pugne the proceeding of many holy, vigi∣lant, and learned Pastours, seeking single Authors for his singular conceite, then I doe not see, how this discourse can auoide some note of irreuerence, and ingratitude to the sea of all Power, and Authority in Gods Church; and fountayne of much charity, prouidence, liberality, bounty, towards En∣gland; whereof M^r. Doctour for his part hath experienced noe small part.

2. His Arguments to proue we cannot be perfect Christians without Cōfirmation, are foure. First because it giueth vs our full pitch and grouth. True it is, that by Baptisme we are borne new Creatures, and regenerated to the

life of grace, but we are borne only little ones in spirituall life; and are sicut modo geniti infantes, as infants euen new borne; but we grow to be men in spirituall life, and receaue our full ••••rength and grouth by Confirmation, and Confirmation we can not haue ordinarily without a Bishop.

Secondly he proueth this by the testimo∣ny of two Fathers, for Dionysius Ariopa∣gita calleth this Sacrament a perfecting, and consummating vnction; and S. Clement Ep. 4. sayth; when a man shall be regenerated by wa∣ter; and afterwards confirmed by the Bishop with the seuenfould grace of the spirit, because otherwise he cannot be a perfect Christian &c.

Thirdly because Confirmation being the ordinary meanes to giue courage to pro∣fesse our faith before the Persecutour; and therefore is giuen on the forehead, it may seeme presumption for any particular man to neglect it, specially in time of persecution; when it may commodiously be had. This he proueth by the Authority of Doctour Estius, saying, I answer it cannot be omitted without mortall sinne, in time and place of persecution of faith, when forsooth) there is daunger to a man by reason of infirmity, least he deny his faith in word or deed, or at least be ashamed to confesse it, when he should.

Fourthly though Confirmation be not a Sacrament of such necessity to euery par∣ticular man; that he should hazard his life, or liuinges for it, yet it is so profitable a Sa∣crament

to euery one in particular, so neces∣sary to a persecuted country, it beinge the ordinary meanes instituted by Christ, to gi∣ue courage and force in time of persecution; that it cannot be refused for feare of persecu∣tion, for that if one fall not, others probably will; as Nouatus did for want of it.

This is all that M^r. Doctour hath to con∣firme his nouell fancy about the necessity of Confirmation, which I dare say, is such, as it will neuer be confirmed by the supreme Bishop.

2. Fower thinges I will shew. First how much he erreth in attributing weakenesse and imperfection vnto Baptisme. Secondly how much he mistaketh the similitude of S. Thomas, wronging him, and other Fa∣thers. Thirdly how Catholicks chrismed in Baptisme, be perfect christians in the Fathers sense without Confirmation. Fowerthly how he exceedeth in his doctrine about the necessity of Confirmation.

M^r. Doctours discourse doth derogate from holy Baptisme. §. 1.

THE similitude whereby Baptisme is compared to generation; and Confir∣mation to Augmentation, (as Suarez no∣teth) is not to be followed exactly; other∣wise we may fall; or giue others occasion to fall into dangerous errours. M^r. Doctour

followeth this similitude more closely then any other I haue read; and soe farre, as he may seeme to somwhat extenuate the true force and effacacy of Christian Baptisme, which Sacramēt beinge as S. Dio∣nysius tearmes it, Mater Adoptionis, the sacred virginall wombe, from which we came forth the sonnes of God, and heyres of his eternall Kingdome; I hould my selfe bounde by the duty of a Christian, to cleare M^r. Doctours darke and doubtfull phrases, that may seeme to blemish the honour of this our spirituall Mother.

3. For when he saith; By Baptisme we receaue the bare life of Grace, being borne only little ones in spirituall life, as Infante, euen now borne, but we grow to be men in Spirituall life, and re∣ceau•• our full strength and grouth by Confirmation, what can Readers conceaue by this speech, but that Christians are borne as imper∣fect, weake, miserable, by Baptisme in respect of spirituall life, as by generation, in respect of humane and corporall life, and that grace is as sparinge and niggar∣dly to giue the spirituall strength and vi∣gour of perfect Christians, as nature to giue the corporall ability, and full per∣fection of men. And when pressing the comparison more hardely, he sayth; as by our Natiuity we receaue our being; and haue all the partes, and limbes of men; yet all weake, and little; and by augmentation we receance

our full grouth; and quantity in all our limbes; soe by Baptisme we are borne Christians; yet little ones in spirituall life; and by Confirma∣tion we bee made perfect Christians, and re∣ceaue our manly grouth and strength; this si∣militude, I say, thus extended, what con∣ceite in the Reader can it breed, but this, that in Baptisme we receaue the life of grace, that is, infused abilities, and faculties of gra∣ce and vertue but soe weake and little, that vntill we receaue strength by Cōfirmation; we can noe more performe the Actions of Christian and spirituall life, then babes can the functions of manly, and reasonable life.

4. Which conceite may seeme to iumpe right with the Schismatickes of Greece; who teach that by Baptisme men are bor∣ne to God, but imperfect; weake, and impotent, which defect Confirmation doth supply; and therefore must still be inseperably conioyned with Baptisme. Hence they take occasion to censure, and reprehend the Latin church; as wanting motherly care to hir children, whom af∣ter Baptisme shee leaueth for many yeares without Confirmation, and consequently imperfect, defectuous, feeble. The very wordes of Symeon Bishop of Thessalonica a grand Schismatique be these, which I set downe out of Petrus Arcudius; that M^r. Doctour may marke, how nere (at the least in phrase) he cometh to this

erroneous doctrine. We haue neede of th spirituall Chrisme euen in the Baptisme it selfe for noe man shall be perfectly Chrisned, till he haue receaued the Sacrament of Chrisme; true it is, that by Baptisme he is regenerated; and cleansed from sinne, but the pleadge of the spirit; the breathing of life, the scal••s of the Holy Ghost, he hath not as yet; The faithfull then when they are baptised, must be annoynted with the Sa∣crament of Chrisme; that they remaine not im∣perfect, as the children of the Latines doe.

This Schismaticall Aduersary of the Latin church, iumpeth in phrase with M^r. Doctour; that by Baptisme we are borne onely little ones, imperfect, noe lesse weake, then babes, which to be false, and against the Principles of faith, is easily shewed.

5. For if by Baptisme we were borne soe weake, miserable, and impotent in res∣pect of he life of grace, why doth the scripture soe much comm••nd this benefi••t of deuine a••option? Videte qualem charitatem dedit nobis Pater, vt silij Dei nominemur, & sim•• 〈…〉〈…〉 ••d the greate charity, the Father hath shewed, that we are named, and indeed are the children of God. If by Baptisme we receaue ••••••e, in soe small, and little mea∣sure, as we are thereby only little ones in spiritual life; why doth S. Paul soe much magnify th•••• fauour? Secundum suam mise∣ricordiam salu••s nos fecit per lauacrum regene∣rationis:

& renouationis Spiritus Sancti quem effudit in nos abunde. According to his mercy he hath saued vs by the lauer of regeneration, and renouation of Spirit: which he powred out on vs aboundantly through Iesus Christ our Sa∣uiour, that iustified by his grace, we be the heyres of eternall life. Doe you not hear•• that by the lauer of Baptisme, we receaue the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of fortitude and strength in aboundance? and shall we say that by Baptisme we are borne but weake, and feeble in spirituall life? Be∣hould here the Doctour of the Gentiles his phrase about Baptisme, how opposite is it to M^r. Doctours? Noe lesse oposite is S. Peter, magna & pretiosa nobis promissa do∣nauit nobis, vt efficiamur Diuinae consortes na∣turae, Spiritu Sancto misso de caelis, He gaue vs greate and pretious guiftes, whereby we bee made partakers of the Deuine nature: sending downe from heauen the Holy spirit. Now in Baptisme we are regenerated and made partakers of the Diuine nature, as being regenerated his children; therefore in Baptisme the Holy Ghost cometh downe on vs, bestowing on vs great and pretious guiftes; if the grace of the spirit whereby we are borne in Bapti∣sme, be great and pretious, how then are we thereby borne only little ones in spiri∣tuall life?

6. Trees able to bring forth aboundance of fruite, ripe, excellent, agreeable to the

perfection of their kind, haue they not sufficient perfection of grouth? But persons regenerated, being planted by Baptisme in Christ Crucified, are able presently to produce the fruit of good life worthy of God, and his eternall Kingdome: euen that most compleate fruyte of Charity, to loue all and die for him, in which respect S. Thomas say h, Esse••lus Baptismi est saecunditas, qua quis producit opera bona. The effect of Baptisme is fruytfullnesse, whereby a man produceth good workes. How then can persons baptized and endewed with Baptismall grace, bee tearmed only, weake, and not come to the state of man?

7. Finally they that be souldiers, that weare armour, that fight, that repulse their enemyes, that conquer, can they be in spirituall life as Infantes euen now borne in regard of imperfection, and weaknesse••. M^r. Doctour will not so affirme, and if any should, Tertullian would deride him in these wordes. Aliud est si penes vos infantes in praelium erumpunt, credo ad solem vncti prius, de∣i••de pannis armati, & butyrostipendiati, qui an∣te norent lanceare, quam lancinare, enim verò nunquam hoc natura concedit, ante militem, quā virum facere: It is another thing if amongst you, Infantes vse to go to the feild, and assayle their enemies. I weene being first annoynted in the sim∣ne, armed in swadling cloathes, and hauing a Buttrum for their stipend, who are able with a

I aunce to wound their enemy, before they can vse their teeth to knaw their meate. But indeede natu∣re doth not graunt one to be a souldier before he be a man: But persons regenerated by Baptisme, are able by vertue of Baptismall grace to weare the armour of a perfect christian de∣scribed by S. Paul in the firft to the Ephe∣sians, and to sight constantly against sinne, and conquer. Whosoeuer is borne of God sinneth not (saith S. Iohn) because the seed of God (that is regenerating grace) abideth in him and againe. Omne quod natum est ex Deo, vincit mundum, & haec est victoria, quae vincit mun∣dum, fides vestra. whatsoeuer is borne of God con∣quereth the world, and this is the victory, that doth conquer the world, your saith. Behould S. Iohn sayth, that not only the Confirmed, but whosoeuer they bee that be baptized, and borne of God cōquer the world, that is, haue power by faith to conquer the world, how can those be Babes and Infantes in spi∣rituall life, that by force of the spirit con∣quer and subdue the world?

8. If M^r. Doctour obiect that Infants baptized, till they come to the yeares of reason, cannot exercise acts of christian life, therefore they be impotent, and weake as infants in respect of spirituall life. I an∣sweare, first Infants confirmed cannot exer∣cise acts of good life, and yet M^r. Doctour must say that they be growne, and perfect men in regard of spirituall life, and so he

must answeare this Argument himselfe. But the Angelicall Doctour will saue me a la∣bour, answearing for me, as he doth in these wordes, quidam videntes pueros inhabiles ad actus virtutum, crediderunt eos nulla tenus post Baptismum virtutes habere Sed ista impotentia non accidit pueris ex defectu habituum, sed ex im∣pedimento corporali, sicut etiam dormientes quam∣••is habent habitus virtutum, impediuntur tamen abactibus propter somnum; Some seing children vnable to doe the acts of vertue, haue beleiued, that after Baptisme they had not the facultyes of vertue. But this impotency happens to children not through default, or any imperfection of the habitts (that is, of spirituall limbes) but through corporall impediment, as men that sleepe, though they haue the habitts of vertues, yet a••e hindred from the ex∣ercise of them by sleepe. T••••s the Angelicall Doctour clee••••y against M^r. Doctour, af∣firming that children baptized are not me∣ere infants in spirituall life, but perfect Christian men, and that the cause they doe not the workes of christians, is not for want of full quantitie and bignesse in their spirituall limbes, but only by reason of so∣me corporall impediment, as strong and able men are hindred from working by sleepe.

S. Thomas his similitude declared, and how Hee, with other Fathers is wronged. §. 2.

9. To declare that comparison so much vsed by the Angelicall Doctour, as it is by him vsed, that is, without any derogation from the force of Baptisme, we must know that there be three kindes of spirituall man∣ly states, to wit, the manlinesse of spirituall birth, the manlinesse of spirituall grouth; the manlinesse of consummate grace or eter∣nal life. The state of the Blessed to be a man∣ly state, so that the saynts of this life bee but children comparatiuely vnto them: S. Paul doth shew in his Epistle to the Ro∣manes the 12. chapter. That in Baptisme to∣geather withour Diuine birth, we receaue grace, spirituall strength; and aboundance of spirit, that is, the fortitude of māly state, i•• proued in the former paragraph. To which I add the testimony of S. Dionysius Arcopa∣gita, expressely affirming that by Baptisme, togeather with our spirituall Natiuity, we receaue the perfection of manly state. He tearmes iustification by Baptisme, Sacratissi mam & ineffabilem prorsùs operationem, qua Diuinus in nobis status efficitur. A most Sacred and alltogeather ineffable operation; whereby a diuine state is produced in vs. And that by a Diuine state he vnderstands a perfect state, correspondent to a manly state, is cleare, by the wordes following. Si enim Diuinus hic status diuina Natiuitas, nunquam ille aliquid s••iet, ex his, quae tradita sunt à Deo, neque opera∣bitur, qui nec diuinum hu••c statum consecutus est.

An verò nobis ipsis non dicimus prius esse neces∣sarium humanae vitae statum, vt sic demum possi∣mus humana operari? Seing this diuine state is our diuine Natiuity, neuer shall the man know the thinges deliuered of God, Nor worke them, that hath not get attayned vnto this diuine state. And doe we not vse to say that to our selues, the state of manly life is first required, that so then we may be able to doe the worcks of men. Thus S. Dio∣nysius expressely teacheth, that the state of spirituall manlinesse, that is, of knowledge, ability, and strength to know, and doe the thinges of God, is giuen by Baptisme togea∣ther with our birth, refuting the Grecian conceite, that by Baptisme we receaue the being of grace imperfect, weake, infirme without strength, and sufficient ability to work.

11. The manlinesse of spirituall grouth, is a middle state, betwixt the perfection of Ba∣ptisme, and of grace consummate, to wit, per∣fection gotten by growing and increasing in grace. This perfectiō, though it be gotten also by meritorious actes, and other Sacra∣mentes, is particularly attributed vnto con∣firmation for three respects First in respect that Confirmation is the next Sacrament in order vnto Baptisme, and so the first Sacra∣ment to be receaued for the perfecting of Baptismall grace, and attayning vnto the fulnes of spirituall strength. Secondly in re∣spect that this Sacrament is instituted to gi∣ue

solidity, firmitude and strength in grace, which is the property of a ful manly state, which commonly is more stayed, and con∣stant then lower age. Thirdy because by Confirmation a man is marked, and chara∣ctered vnto the greatest ād most māly act of fortitude, to wit, open confession of Christ, exposing his life to most cruell death for his honour. True it is, that by Baptisme we re∣ceaue a character, by which we are made and marked as souldiers of Christ to fight in generall against all sinne; in particular against enemies inward, and inuisible, as are Diuells and the concupiscences of the flesh. But to fight against the visible enemies of faith, by patient suffering and constant con∣fession vnto death, men are properly and peculiarly marked by Confirmation; and to that end receaue speciall strength.

11. Hence I inferre, the comparison of Baptisme to corporall generation; and of Confirmation to Augmentation, hath simi∣litude with dissimilitude. The similitude is, that as by generation we receaue the first being of life, which is made greater and mo∣re perfect by augmentation. Soe by Baptis∣me we receaue the first being of Gods rhil∣dren by grace, which is made more perfect and strong by confirmation. The dissimili∣tude is, that the being of Corporall life in birth is miserable, impotent, imperfect, and by augmentation, receaueth perfection and

sufficient strength to doe the deeds of men, which before was wanting. But in our spi∣rituall birth, we receaue spirituall life, with great aboundance of spirituall perfection, and strength, so that by confirmation, wee doe not passe from the state of weaknesse, and impotencie, to the state of sufficient ability, and strength, but from the state of perfect infused grace, and full sufficient strength, to a more perfect state of the same grace growne to greater perfection, by the receauing of Sacraments ordayned to that end.

12. M^r. Doctour to proue his conceite of the imperfection, and weakenesse of Baptis∣mall grace, citeth S. Tho. S. Peter, and S. Cle∣ment, wo are wrested to speake dishonou∣rably of Baptisme against their wills and meaning. S. Thomas of Aquine (sayth he) compareth Baptisme to our Natiuity: for as by our Natiuity we receaue our being, and haue all the limbes, and partes of a man, but yet all wea∣ke and little: soe by Baptisme we are borne Chri∣stians, though, as yet but little ones in spirituall life. But by M^r. Doctours leaue, it is not so as he sayth. The Angelicall Doctour neuer did, nor euer would haue spoken, what might sound so much to the disgrace of Ba∣ptisme. True it is, he compares Baptisme to generation, but thus farre only, that as by generation we receaue the first being of cor∣porall life; so by Baptisme we receaue the

first being of spirituall life, this is Angelicall truth: The Addition, as our being in our Nati∣uity is all weake and little, and without the due quantity of limbes to doe the workes of men, so by Baptisme we are borne but weake, and little ones in spirituall life. This Addition, I say, or amplification of the similitude, is not the Angelicall Doctours, but against him, who sayth expressely, that the cause, that Infants baptized exercise not the actions of Chri∣stians, is not ex defectu habituum, through any defect or imperfection in their spirituall ha∣bilities or lymbes, but meerly through cor∣porall impediment.

13. Also whereas M^r Doctour in his E∣pistle dedicatory n. 18. sayth to Catholyc∣kes. S. Thomas affirmeth that Confirmation gi∣ueth you your manly stature, and full pitch, and growth: he doth not so faythfully and exact∣ly cite him, something being added, and so∣mething detracted from his discourse. This is the full text of S. Thomas. In corporali vita praeter motum generationis, quo aliquis accipit vi∣tam corporalem, est motus augmenti, quo aliquis perducitur ad perfectam aetatem: sic igitur & vi∣tam spiritualem accipit homo per Baptismum, qui est spiritualis regeneratio, in Confirmatione autem homo accipit quasi quandam perfectam ae∣tatem spiritualis vitae. In corporall life, besydes the course of generation, by which one receaueth corporall life, there is the course of augmenta∣tion, wherein a man getteth perfect age so therefo∣re

a man receau••th spirituall life by Baptisme which is spirituall regeneration, and in Confir∣mation, a man obtayneth as it were a certayne perfect age of spirituall life. Behould with what aduised nessethe Holy Doctour applieth the similitude, that Confirmation giueth manly state, not absolutely, as augmenta∣tion doth, but as it were in a certayne manner. No doubt to signify this difference, that augmentation giueth manly perfection, and strength, to the being of nature, that by birth was imperfect and imp••tent, but Confirmation giueth spirituall manly perfe∣ction, to the being of grace that was strong, and able before, adding new great perfe∣ction of spirituall grouth, to preexisting great perfection of spirituall birth.

14. Now M^r. Doctour pretending to sett downe S. Th••mas his discourse, leaueth out the limitation, as it were a certayne per∣fect age, making him say absolutely. Confir∣mation giueth manly stature; which being al∣ready greater then S. Thomas meant, yet he set it out hygher by adding in the end, and full pitch and grouth, which wordes S. Tho∣mas doth not vse, and they may seeme to magnify Cōfirmation more then may stand with Catholicke doctrine. For full pitch and grouth is taken in common speech to signi∣fy the state of a man ••o, which when he is come, he can not by the course of nature grow higher. So that following the propor∣tion,

the full pitch, and grouth of spirituall life, is, when a man cannot grow higher in grace. But it is a point of faith defined against Pelagius that the Confirmed, may, and must, by the ordinary course of grace dayly grow and increase in perfection, so long as they liue in this world. Therefore the speech; Confirmation giueth the full pitch, and grouth of grace: Seemeth not so currant. By which one may see, how strong partiali∣ty is to make a man mistake.

15. The text of S. Peter cited by M^r. Do∣ctour, to shew that men only baptized be weake, and impotent as Babes, sicut modo ge∣niti infantes, a•• Infantes euen now borne, is also mistaken and turned against S. Peters mea∣ning, for S. Peters speech is not declaratiue, to shew how feeble men newly baptized are, but Exhortatiuer to moue them to be like Infantes and little ones, as naturall In∣fancy is the forme and patterne of Christian perfection, proposed euen by our Sauiour himselfe, and commended by S. Leo serm. 6. de Epip••an. Soe that M^r. Doctour applieth this text of S. Peter, as opposite to his inten∣tion as is west to East, for with M^r. Do∣ctour, to be as Infantes new borne, is to be all feeble, and litle, in spirituall life, but with S. Peter, it is to be by grace as perfect, and excellent in humility, innocency, mildenesse, obedience, tractability, as by nature Infantes euen now borne are.

16. And here I will not omitt to note the circumspection of S. Thomas, in vsing this place, greater then M^r. Doctours, and wor∣thy of his Angellicall learning. For answea∣ring an argument brought to proue Con∣firmation should not impresse a character, because the character of Baptisme doth sufficiently discearne the faithfull from the Infidells, nor can Confirmation be a chara∣cter to discearne Christian souldiers, from not souldiers, because not only the confir∣med, but also the Baptized are bound for warre, he writeth thus; Spirituall warre against inuisible enemies agreeth to all, but against visible enemies, namely the persecutours of the faith, to sight openly professing the Name of Christ, is the duty of the confirmed, who be Spiritually growne to manly age, according as it is sayd, Ioan 2. I write to you young men that you are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and you haue conquered the naughty one, Et ideò character Confirmationis est signum distinctum, non fidelibus ab infidelibus, sed spiritualiter prouectorum, ab his quibus dicitur, Sicut mo∣dò geniti Insantes.

Therfore the character of Confirmation is a distinctiue signe, not betwixt faithfull and In∣fidells, but betwixt the spiritually growne, and them to whom it is sayd, as Infants euen new bor∣ne. Thus S. Thomas. He doth not say that the character of Confirmation doth distin∣guish them that be spiritually growne, from

them that be but weake and litle ones in spi∣rituall life: nor that the Baptized be those de quibus dicitur, sicut modò geniti Infantes: of whom it is sayd, as Infants euen now borne, but, quibus dicitur, vnto whom it is sayd, or whom S. Peter exhorteth, saying, as Infants euen now borne couet the reasonable mil••k, that therewith you may grow vnto saluation. In a word, he sayth, the character of Confirma∣tiō, doth distinguish the spiritually growne, from them that be recently baptized, not yet growne in grace, but exhorted to grow. Nor may we argue, they be not as yet spiri∣tually growne. Ergo they be butt litle ones, weakelings, and impotent in spirituall life. This Argument, which may seeme to haue carried M^r. Doctour away into errour, or into a manner of speech dishonourable to Baptisme, is not sound. For though such as haue onely Baptismall Grace, be not spiri∣tually growne, yet they be greate in grace, and strong, as hauing perfection and aboundance of spirituall strength infused them in their birth, and so they be manly, able, strong to exercise christian vertue, though they haue not exercised that power as yet, and so haue not added to their manly birth, manly strength of spirituall grouth, which the confirmed haue.

17. The third Authority brought by M^r. Doctour, to proue Baptisme without Con∣firmation to be imperfect, is S. Clements.

Cum autem regeneratus fuerit per aquam, & post modum septiformis spiritus gratia ab Episcopo con∣firmatus, quia aliter perfectus esse christianus ne∣quaquam poterit. But when a man shall be by wa∣ter regenerated, and afterward confirmed by the Bi••hop with the seauenfould grace of the spirit be∣cause otherwise he cannot bee a perfect Christian &c. Thus M^r. Doctour, and here he lea∣ueth, leauing poore English Catholiques in a fright, as though for the time they wanted a Bishop, they were indeed christians, but imperfect, and not worthy of God. But to what purpose Bugbears, which may be so easily discouered by looking into the place, or into some Catholick Authour, that ci∣teth truly the place. As, besydes others, Do∣ctor Estius doth, whom M^r. Doctour had read and so could not be ignorant of this clause omitted. For S. Clement hauing sayd. He that wants confirmation cannot be a perfect christian, addeth this exception, si tamen non necessitate, sed incuria & voluntate sic remanserit. If he soe remayne without con∣firmation not forced by necessity, but through negligence and wilfulnes.

18. This last exceptiue clause, added to mittigate the seeming seuerity of the pre∣ceedent doone, being so substantiall, is by M^r. Doctour omitted, to make S. Clement seeme a stearne censurer of poore Catho∣licks that could not in time of persecution, though they would neuer so fayne, haue

confirmation, and so it may seeme, he clip∣ped the wings of this Father, that he might not fly beyond his purpose, which, I presu∣me, he would neuer doe with aduice to de∣ceaue, specially about so mayne a poynt of Religion, as is our Christendome, yet mi∣staking, leauing out, and adding still to his owne aduantage, may giue cause to suspect, that his desire to haue a Bishop in England could make him content, that English Ca∣tholicks should esteeme christēdome with∣out Bishoping, a thinge not of soe greate effect. But for my selfe, I shall still presume the best, as also that in his speeches about Baptisme, though difficill and darcke he had a true meaning, which perchaunce was this. When he so of••en saith, that by Baptis∣me we are borne only litle ones, and weake in spi∣rituall life, but by confirmation wee receaue our full strength and growth, he would not say, that a man by Baptisme, is not made suffi∣ciently strong, and able to doe the duties of a christian, or that absolutely he is not a man in spirituall life, but only that the strength of one baptized, though sufficient, and competent, is farre lesse then the stength of one that is confirmed, and lesse in such a degree, that a man baptized only may seeme a child and infant, euen now borne in re∣spect of one that is confirmed. The conceite for substance is true, aboute which, that there be noe mistakinge, I aduertise three

thinges. First that this is to be vnderstood of a person hauing baptismall grace only, for no doubt one that is Baptized, and not yet confirmed may by the exercise of good worke, by deuoute prayer, and frequen∣tinge the Sacramentes attayne such perfe∣ction of grace, as persons confirmed may be much inferiour vnto them. Secondly when the grace of confirmation is sayd to be farre greater then that of Baptisme, this is spoken of the grace of confirmation as including the grace of Baptisme, otherwise if we com∣pare the grace of confirmation by it selfe, with the grace of Baptisme by it selfe, it is not certayne, that the grace of confirmation is greater, yea the grace of Baptisme is farre greater then that of confirmation, sayth the subrilest of the Diuines. Hoc modo dico quod Baptismus est simpliciter nobilius Sacramentum, loquendo de nobilitate Sacramenti penes princi∣palem finem Sacramenti▪ qui est collatio gratiae: nam ad maiorem gratiam, & ad plures effectus simpliciter nobiles conferi Baptismus, quàm con∣firmatio. In this manner I say, Bapti••me is a Sa∣crament simply more noble then confirmation, spee∣king of the nobility of a Sacrament according to the principall end of a Sacrament, which is to giue grace, for Baptisme is giuen vnto greater grace, and vnto effectes more in number, and simply no∣ble, then Confirmation. Thirdly, though the grace of Confirmation as including Bapti∣small grace, be greater then bare Baptismall

grace by it selfe, yet whether it be so farre greater, that a man Baptized in this respect only, may be tearmed but a Babe euen now borne. This, I say, seemeth not soe currant, not doe I finde the fathers to speake so. I know some later writers, to shew the ex∣cellency of Confirmation vse the compa∣rison of a man in respect of a childe, as doth Bellarmyne lib. 2. de Confirmatione c. 7. But I finde none that affirme, as M^r. Doctour doth, that Baptisme maketh vs only little ones in spirituall life, that we are regenerated by Baptisme wth spirituall Limbes, but all weake and little: yea rather they say the contrary, namely Bellarmine, Baptismus perficit in suo genere quia facit verè & integrè iustos, & Dei fi∣lios. Baptisme doth make men perfect in his kinde, because it makes men truly, and fully iust. It is true, Baptisme properly by Christs institu∣tion, giues but the bare essence of our ado∣pted sonne of God, not the perfection, not the strength, and power thereof, yet becau∣se the grace of diuine Adoption in the very essence thereof, is great, strong, and power∣full, it is not possible but that Baptisme togeather with the essence of grace of Adoption, should giue perfection, power, and strength, and so cannot make men only weakings, and little ones in spirituall life. Which Bellarmine ••ell noteth, saying, Baptismus propriè ad vitam regenerat, quamuis gratia illa regenerationis valeat etiam ad vitan∣da

peccata: Confirmatio autem propriè datur ad ••ugmētum roboris. Baptisme properly doth regene∣rate men vnto life, though also the grace of regene∣ration be strong and forcible to ouercome sinne. But Confirmation is giuen to the increase of strength. Thus B••llarmine: w••ich shew••th that by Baptisme we are made not only the chil∣dren of God, but also strong, and able, and by Confirmation we growe not of wea∣klings, to be strong, but of strong already to be stronger.

That Catholickes chrismed in Baptisme, though not confirmed by the Bishop, be perfect christians in the Fathers sence. §. 3.

19. THe contrary conceyte to this asser∣tion, is much buzed into the heads of Catholickes, and textes of fathers, to proue Baptisme without Confirmation to be imperfect are alleadged, but against their mindes. Wherefore to preuent mistaking about so mayne an article of faith, and to remoue dangerous doubtes aboute the per∣fection of Baptisme, which such speeches not well vnderstood may engender, it will, I hope, be worth the labour to shew the fathers true meaning, whereby it will ap∣peare, that the Catholikes of England, chrismed in their Baptisme by the Priest, though otherwise not confirmed by the Bi∣shop,

were fu•••• and perf••ct Christians, euen in the sence of the Fathers. To proue this clearely, two thinges are to be supposed. First that to be a Christian, signifies to be anoynted and chrismed, hence none are ac∣counted fully christians, till they be fully, and perfectly c••rismed, that is, not only inwardly by sanctifiyng grace, but also out wardly with materiall chrisme, such as are baptized without chrisme want not the thing, or substance of a christian, as hauing the inword vnctiō of the holy spirit which is the forme and essence of christianity: yet they want an externall cōplement required, that they m••y receaue fully the christian name, whic•• complement if they neglect to take, they deserue not the name, not are to sitt in the Church amongst perfect. This is signified by Iustine Martyr saing,a in Ba∣ptismo vngimur, vt vncti & christi dicamur. In Baptisme we are anoynted, that we may be tear∣med christs, that is anoynted S.b Cyprian.c S. Basill.d S. Damascen in like manner deny not the thing, but the full name of christian, to such as are baptized wthout the vnction of Chrisme. And S. Augustine lib. de ciuitate Dei c. 4. omnes vnctos sancto chrisma∣te ritè christos possimus dicere. All that be anoyn∣ted with t••e holy chrisme may be rightly tearmed Christs christians. as who should say, they that b•• not chrismed cannot by right chalendge that name.

20. Secondly in the p••••matiue Church Priestes in baptizing people did not vse chrisme, but baptisme being ended, the p••rsons were presently brought to the Bi∣shop to be confirmed▪ and chrismed by him, as S. Dionisius Areopagita. Hierar. eccles. p. 1. c. 2. S. Cypran. ep 7. the Councell of I••••be∣ris can: 20. and others testifie. This custome continued vntill the dayes of Constantine. Then the multitude of them that desired Baptisme so increased, that the Bishop could not baptize, or chrisme them all him∣selfe presently after Baptisme, whence that men baptized might not want ch••••sming, the complement necessary to enioy fully the name of christian, the Church ordayned that the Priest in the absence of the Bishop should chrisme the baptized on the crowne of the head, the consignation of the fore∣head being reserued to the Bishop, as say Rabanus 1. de institutione cleric. c. 28. and Hu∣go de Sancto Victore de Sacram. l. 2. v. 3. c. 7. This was ordayned by Sainct Siluester (as Damasus in vita Siluestri writeth) and by cu∣stome still remained in the Church, as all Authors testifie. Hence S. Hierome dialog. aduers Lucifer. 2. saith, Priestes must not baptize without chrisme: And the first Councell of Arausica. can. 1. let none of the Ministers that haue the office of Baptizing goe about without chrisme, for it is decreed amongst vs, that Chri∣sme be giuen once in Baptisme.

21. Hence two thinges be clearely dedu∣ced: first that the Baptized in the Primitiue Church, could not be accounted christians fully, vntill they were confirmed by the Bi∣shopp. The reason is, for that none can be tearmed christians fully, that be not fully chrismed, that is, annoynted with chrisme inwardly, and outwardly in soule, and bo∣dy. None were then chrismed outwardly, but in Confirmation by the Bishop, so then none could be tearmed fully christians, that were not confirmed by the Bishop. Secon∣dly I inferre, that the English Catholickes that are baptized after the Catholicke rite, or that haue receaued the Catholicke cere∣monies of Baptisme, though not confirmed by the Bishop, were, and are fully christi∣ans euery way. For those that be chrismed are truly christians as sayth S. Cirill, hauing receaued the holy chrisme, you be worthily tear∣med christians. But Catholicks in this man∣ner baptized, haue receaued the holy chri∣sme which was instituted in lieu of Confir∣mation, when the same could not be had, as Bellarmine lib. 1. de Baptis. c. 27. Suarez. 3. p. in. q. 91. a. 3. in 3. p tom. 2. disp. 168. n. 8. Vasquez 3. p. 9. 77. a 3. ad 4. and other di∣uines affirme.

22. But the Decree of S. Siluester being, that the Priest chrisme the Baptized on the crowne of the head propter exitum mortis, or occasione mortis. by reason of death or the

vncertainty of death: Some may demaund, what is the meaning of this? Chrisming being not necessary to Saluation, what greate harme were it, though men bapti∣zed die without any chrisming by a Priest necessary, propter incertum exitum mortis, in regard of the vncertainty of death? I ans∣weare, chrisming is necessary in respect of Baptisme, because the Church would ne∣uer giue Baptisme but ioyned with chrisme, except in the extremity of deatha for Ba∣ptisme being the Sacrament of chris••endo∣me, that is, vnction the giuing thereof without chrisme and vnction w••re imperfect, vnsignificant, vndecent,, and so not law∣full, but when danger of death doth info••ce. Heerupon in the primitiue Church, becau∣se none could chrisme but the Bi hop, men were enforced to exspect a long while, be∣fore they could be chrismed, and conse∣quently before they could be baptized. By which occasion of exsp••ctance, death being euer vncertaine, and often suddaine, many desirous of Baptisme died without it, b ing suddainly surprised by death. Hence propter exitum mortis, to preuent this incōueniēce of dying suddainly without Baptisme whilst men exspect a Bishop to chrisme them, the Church ordayned, that Priests might chri∣sme the Baptized on the crowne of the head. Soe that now neither the externall rite of the Sacrament of christendome is imper∣fect,

through defect of chrisme, not are men put in danger to dye without Baptisme whilst they stand exspecting the Bishops pleasure to chrisme them.

23. This supposed, it is cleare that men chrismed in Baptisme by the Priest, are full and perfect christians, though they want Confirmation. For they that haue receaued the Sacrament of christendome full and compleate, be full and perfect christians: But such as are chrismed in baptisme by the Priest, haue the Sacrament of christendome full, and compleat, not only inwardly, but also outwardly, and according to the signifi∣catiō imported by the worde christian, that is, one chrismed or anoynted. Or if Baptisme wherin men are chrismed by the Priest hath still a signification imperfect, vncongruous, and not fully agreeing with the name of christian, why should not the Church ioy∣ne Baptisme and Confirmation togeather, that nothing but death may iustifie the gi∣uing of the one without the other, as the Primitiue Church did, before chrisme by the priest was instituted?

24. I add that this Chrisming in Baptisme by the Priest, was instituded by the church, to supply not onely the signification of Episcopall Chrisme, but also the effect, to wit, to conserue and confirme men in Baptismall grace. This is taught by S. Thomas 3. p. 9. 71. a. 3.

ad 4. Eorum (sayth he) quae aguntur post Baptismum circa baptisatum, aliquid est, quod non solum significat, sed etiam efficit, putà, vnctio Chrismatis in virtice, quae operatur con∣seruationem gratiae Baptismatis. Of the thinges which are done vppon the Person Baptised after Baptisme, there is one that doth not only signi∣fy, but also work, to witt, the chrisming on the crowne of the head, which causeth a mans con∣seruation in Baptismall grace: And conse∣quently this ceremony maketh a man strong to resist sinne, to professe his faith in persecution, succeeding in place of Confir∣mation in this respect. Which Doctrine is cleerely deliuered by Rabonus l. 1. de Insti∣tut. Cleric. c. 28. Saying, Spiritus sanctus per vnctionem Chrismati•• in Baptismate fidelibus confert vigorem coelestis gratiae. The holy Ghost by the Chrisming in Baptisme giueth vnto Christians the vigour of heauenly grace. Which motions of strength and courage, are giuen by this Baptismall chrisming▪ Ex opere operato, as many Diuines teach, at least by the prayers of the Church, and of her appliyng this cere∣mony to that end, which is a doctrine of much comfort for Catholickes, that can∣not commodiously haue Confirmation, and shewes that since the Institution of Priests Chrisming in Baptisme, Chrisming by a Bishop is not so necessary as before.

M^r. Doctours Assertions about the necessity of Confirmation, shewed to be exorbitant. §. 4.

22. IN M^r. Doctours discourse about the necessity of Cōfirmation, we may cō∣sider fower defects. First it doth not reach the drift of the cōclusion he would establish, for though the necessity of Confirmation, were as great as he could find in his hart to make it, yet thence he cannot inferre the necessity of a Bishop in England, either in respect of iurisdiction, or Order. He thin∣keth that a Bishop in England were neces∣sary, though there were no other vse of him, but to giue Confirmation, yet I may saie, C••rist Iesus himself is of another mind. If our Sauiour would haue Bishops appoin∣ted meerly for C••nfirmation, why did hee giue power to h••s Vicar in such cases, to commit the administration of Confirma∣tion to Priests that be not Bishops, but sim∣ply Priests? What was this but to oppose M^r. Doctours Assertion by his Institution, saying noe, when there is noe vse of a Bishop but to Confirme the faithfull, I will not haue him needfull in that respect, but my Vicar in such occurrence shall haue po∣wer to substitute Priests vnto this Office of Bishops; Voluit Christus (sayth learned Suarez) extraordinariè Ministrum esse posse

simplicem Sacerdotem, authoritate Pontisicis de∣putatum vt in absentia Episc••pi, haberent fideles suf••icientem Min••strum. Christ d••d ordaine that a Priest might be deputed by the P••pe to Confirme, that the faithfull in defect of the Bi••hop might not want the Sacrament. What will M^r. Do∣ctour reply? Will hee say that our blessed Sauiour did not institute that his Vicar may commit the administring of Confirmation to a Priest? If he doe, there doe not wantg Learned deuines that tell him that he vtters an errour against faith, And though Suarez shew this censure to bee too seuere, yet he being so mild and modest a Censurer, sayth: Temerarium est contrarium pertinaciter velle desendere; It were rash and temerarious stif∣fly to maintayne the contrary, to wit, that Christ did not institute that ••his Vicar may a••t orize a simple Priest to giue Confirma∣tion, with whom agreeth the whole Senate of Catholicke schoolemen, who deliuer this doctrine as certaine.

23. Why then (some may demaund) did his Holines neuer commit the administra∣tion of Confirmation to any of the Priests of England in the tyme of so long defect of Bishops? I answere, wee are not to search, into the secrets of our Superiours, but belieue they haue iust reasons, though to vs hidden, and the perpetuall charitable care the holy sea still shewed vs in our per∣secution, may sufficiently assure vs, this was

not our of neglect. If it bee lawfull to gues∣se, I could giue this cōiecture; In the Coun∣sell of Florence was discouered a Grecian errour, that a Priest is by Office and Insti∣tution a competent ordinarie Minister of this Sacrament. Hence the Church, not to seeme to countenance this errour, by fre∣quent extraordinary Commission of Chris∣ming vnto meere Priests, since that tyme, hath been more reserued and sparing to gi∣ue such C••mmission specially in these we∣sterne parts. Nor did the holy and Learned Bishops of Peters sea, esteeme Confirmation of such need that Catholikes of England vsing frequently and feruently (as they then did) other Sacraments and meanes of piety, might not without danger of any great dammage be for a tyme depriued of this; yea perchance they might feare that confidence in this Sacrament causing re∣missnes in the vse of others, might do them harme. Clemens Alexandrinus ••iteth, that S. Iohn the Euangelist committed a certaine youth to the custody and care of one of the Bishops of Asia; The Bishop in the begin∣ning was wery sollicitous and diligent to cherish, to promote in vertue, to preserue from danger that Apostolicall charge. After a while he gaue him Confirmation; Post haec autem (saith Clemens) tanquam qui perfectam illi custodiam signaculum Domini imposuisset, ni∣••niam illam curam & custodiam remisit. Nowe

hauing giuen him that souerayne safegard the-seale of our lord, he remitted someth ng of his former exact care. What was the issue? The youth getting liberty, fell into dissolution, and by degrees came to be a ringleader of theeues, whom yet afterwards that diuine Apostle by his teares recalled to repentan∣ce. This sheweth, that confidence in the strength of Confirmation may import great danger vnto soules, and that after Confir∣mation we must not omit the vse of other meanes of constancy, Otherwise wee are not sure. M^r. Doctour saith to Catholickes in his Dedicatory, n. 1••. Without Confirma∣tion, you cannot haue so infallibly Virtutem ex alto, that aboundant and speciall grace to pro∣fesse your saith in tyme of persecution with an vndaunted courage. As who should say, by Confirmation men receiue such aboundant grace, as they are made infallibly secure they shall professe their faith with an vndaun∣ted courage. Which yet wee see often not to be soe nor will it euer be so, if Catholicks confiding in Confirmation growe remisse in deuotion towards other Sacraments and pious exercises. I pray God, with Confirma∣tion presuming confidence enter not into the mind of some (corrupt nature being ouer apt and ready to lay hould of euery least comfort in slouthfull security) wher∣by it may be thought that former Popes kept from vs not so much an instrument

of feruour, as an occasion of remissnes, not through defect in the Sacrament, but through our owne default.

24. So that there is no such necessary connexion betwixt this Sacrament and a Bishop, but Confirmatiō might be brought into England without a Bishop. Much lesse is it required that a Bishop sent to Confir∣me, haue not only the Order, but also the Charge, Office, and coactiue Iurisdiction of a Bishop. Why may not a Bishop sent with only voluntary iurisdiction suffice? that is, a Bishop hauing licence to vse all the facul∣ties of Ordinaries for the solace of soules that shall be willing to make vse therof? Wherfore what M^r. Doctour saith, c. 14. n. 8. I thinke that neither any countrie, nor any one of the countrie for feare of persecution, can oppose against the comming in of a Bishop, though therby only the Sacrament of Confirmation ••hould be wanting. If he thinks thus of a Bishop comming with voluntary Iurisdiction, im∣porting danger and persecution to them only that shall harbour him, and vse his power by their voluntary choyse, I will not herein contend, nor oppose my thought against his, as perchance with some proba∣bility I might. My thought is, that vulgar people not being soe able to distinguish in a Bishop, order, from iurisdiction, nor betwe∣ne voluntary iurisdiction and coactiue; men being also apt to streatch there power beyōd

the due limits, hence vsurpation and discord would arise, greater mischiefes then the so∣le want ••f Confirmation can be, to a people aboundantly furnished with all other mea∣nes of piety, yet them (as I said) I will not stand ••ith M^r. Doctour. But if he meane the comming in of a Bishop with charge and office of head-pastuor and spirituall Prince, forcing euery catholicke man vnder paine of Schisme to acknowledge subie∣ction to his Lordship, which is M^r. Do∣ctours pretence, I doe not doubt but Catho∣likes may wort••ily oppose his comming in, if noe other more necessary good then Con∣firmation come with him, seing without the coactiue power and tribunall of a spiri∣tuall prince, by sole voluntary iurisdiction Confirmation may be giuen, as is manifest; soe that Bishoprickes not being soe conne∣xed with Confirmation as is supposed, we may hope some will desist from so much vrging the necessity of Confirmation.

25. The second defect in M^r. Doctours discourse, is, that his doctrine being very strange, is poorely prooued. His opinion is, that without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Christians, that is, cannot haue strength and courage to professe our faith before the Per∣secutour. What is consequent hereupon. That Confirmation is the necessary meanes, without which in tyme of persecution none are saued, for in tyme of persecution, no

man called into question is saued without courage and strength to professe his faith, as saith S. Paul, Ore autem confessio sit ad salu∣tem, but this perfection cannot be had with∣out Confirmation. Therfore in tyme of persecution, saluation cannot be had with∣out Confirmation. The same he affirmeth in other wordes, when he saith c. 14. n. 7. that Confirmation is the ordinary meanes which is instituted to giue force and courage to professe our faith before the Persecutour. For ordi∣narie meanes, is that, without which had in act, the end cannot be obtained, except in some extraordinary case, and then the end is obtained by vertue of that meanes desi∣red, Thus Baptisme is the ordinary meanes to remitt originall sinne, because without Baptisme had in act, noe man obtaines re∣mission of originall sinne, but in some ex∣traordinary case when Baptisme cannot be had, in which case also a man is not saued, but by desire of Baptisme, or by Baptisme desired. Wherfore M^r. Doctour saying that Confirmation is the ordinary meanes insti∣tuted to giue strength to professe our faith, affirmeth two things: first that no man can haue strength to professe his faith without Confirmation had in act, except in some extraordinary case; secondly, that in such extraordinary cases, a man obtaineth not streng••h and courage, nisi ex voto Confirmatio∣nis, by vertue of Confirmation desired. What

Catholicke Doctour houldeth this.

26. True it is, S. Thomas. 3. p. q. 72. a. 6. ad 1. hath a saying which soundeth of this conceit, but all agree that text to be dif∣ficile and hard,g and that certainly his meaning was not to teach that Confirma∣tion is a necessary meanes of perfection, or of constancy in faith, nor doth any of his followers so expound or affirme. In testi∣mony of this consent of Catholikes against M^r. Doctour. I will cite (omitting others) one Authour in lieu of many, because a secu∣lar Doctour of the Church of Milan, and of great Authority and esteeme. This is Mar∣tinus Bonnacina,h who writeth thus; The Sacrament of Confirmation is not necessary as being a necessary meanes, the reason is, this neces∣sity is not prooued by any words of Christ, further Confirmation is not necessarie because commaun∣ded, because this precept is no where found. Hen∣ce it is that the who doth omit C••firmatiō wittingly, yet without contempt, doth not sinne mortally, although he omit the same, euen when he is to ma∣ke prosession of ••is saith before the persecutour, For, though Confirmation giue a man strength and courage, to prefesse his faith, and to be constant therin, yet the same strength and courage may be obtained by other meanes as by the meanes of pra∣yer, alme••deeds, Confession, the Blessed Sacra∣ment of the Auliar, &c. This Bonnacina al∣leadgi••g for this doctrine S. Thomas, Nun∣nius, Toletus, Valentia, Petigianus, Suarez,

Reginaldus, Angles, Vuadus, Victoria, Cha∣merota, Petr••s de Ledesma, Sayrus, Nauarrus.

27. Other innumerable might be cited, against whom the single Authority of Do∣ctour Estius, magnified by M^r. Doctour, is not able to counterpoyse, specially seing Estius doth not say, that it is a mortall sinne for a man to omit Confirmation in tyme of persecution, when he is to professe his faith absolutely, but with two condi∣tions, first when the same may commodi∣ously be had, and without danger, which can neuer happen in Englād as nowe things stand: secondly, vbi videlicet homini propter infirmitatem periculum sit ne fidem abneget. when forsooth a man is in danger by rea∣son of his infirmity to deny his faith, &c. Noe man will deny this, ād it is also taught by Suarez saing per accidēs potest esse peccatum mortale ratione conscientiae, si quis sibi persuadeat se esse in morali periculo. Accidentally it may be a mortall sinne, by reason of ones consci∣ence, if he persuade himself he is in morall danger to deny his faith, except he be con∣firmed. But a man that frequenteth the Sa∣craments, a man that is giuen to prayer and good workes, can hardly euer persuade himself that he is in morall eminent perill to deny his faith without Confirmation, seing soe many in the dayes of Queene Eli∣zabeth, did soe constantly without Confir∣matiō persist in the profession of their faith.

Besides, I must here note M^r. Doctours hard fortune, neuer to cite Authour lightly for himself, that doth not make expressely against himself, euen in that very point. For wheras M^r. Doctour sayth noe man can be a perfect Christian, or haue the strength ot spirit without Confirmation, Doctour Estius (chosen by him to be his second in this sigle combate, against the consent of diuines) in this very place teacheth to the contrary, saying, non negamus robur illud spi∣ritus sine hoc Sacramento eius{que} voto haberi posse. We doe not deny but that the strength of spirit or perfection giuen by Confirmation, may be had without Confirmation, or without any vow or desire therof. How directly doth Doctour Estius goe against M^r. Doctours repeated saying, without Confirmation we cannot be perfect Chri∣stians.

28. This doctrine then being soe strange and hard, the sole ground he buildeth it on, is this. Confirmation was instituted to giue perfect strength and courage to confesse Ch••ist, ergo without Confirmation we can∣not be perfect christians, or haue this per∣fect strength, which argument is as good as this, fruite, as apples, peares, plummes, and the like were instituted of God for the mayntenance of life, Ergo without apples, peares, plummes, and such kind of fruite, a man cannot bee mayntayned in life, Chil∣dren

may perceiue this arguing not to be of force, seing without fruite men may be nourished with butter, cheese, and milke. An hundred other the like instances might be brought to shewe the want of coherence in such kind of discourses; The reason is, because it is one thing, to be a meanes insti∣tuted of God, and an other, the only mea∣nes instituted of God. Confirmation is one meanes instituted of God, to make perfect Christians, and giue strength against sinne, but not the only meanes, there being many other, as prayer confession, and specially, the most diuine Sacrament of the Aultar, which hath by vertue of the institution therof, singular force to make the worthy receiuer, to cleaue by loue vnto Christ, that noe persecution can seuer them, as he saith, in the 6. of S Iohn, He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him. Hence when M^r. Doctour sayth that Con∣firmation is the ordinary meanes which is instituted, to giue vs force and strength to professe our faith before the Persecutour, if he meane the ordinary meanes, that is, one of the ordinary meanes, he saith the truth, but thence he cannot inferre, that without it we cannot obtaine perfectiō and strength of spirit, If he meane, Confimation is the ordinary meanes, that is, the sole and only ordinary meanes to make christians stronge and perfect, his saying is not consonant

vnto truth, there being ot••er meanes in∣stituted of Christ to make vs strong, as pra∣yer, and the diuine Sacrament aboue all, and more ••fficaciously then Confirmation, as S. Cyprian doth declare:b Quos excita∣mus ad prelium, protectione corpores & sanguinis Christi muniamus, & cùm ad hoc fiat Eucharistia vt possit ac••ipientibus esse tutela, quos tutor esse contra aduersarium volumus, munimento Domi∣nicae saturitatis armemus. Whom we call and animate to the battaill of persecution, let vs guarde them with the protection of the bo∣dy and blood of Christ, and seing the Eu∣charist is consecrated to be the safegard of them that take it, let vs arme them we desire may be safe against the persecutour with the defence of our Lords banquet.

29. The third defect. M^r. Doctours may∣ne intended conclusion, Confirmation though not necessary for this or that person, yet is soe neces∣sary for a persecuted countrey that it cannot be re∣fused for feare of persecution, is prooued only by a voluntary surmise, for (••aith he) if one fall not, others probably will, as Nouatus did for want of it. Nowe prooue you this M^r. Do∣ctour? or wall you haue our Catholike Gentry beleeue your single word against all, in a matter of such moment, as is to prouo∣ke the indignation of a mighty Prince to the ruine of their worldl•• fortunes? you say, for the common goo••, they must pro∣cure a Bi••hop, and Consumation, though

with increase of persecution. Why? be∣cause if one fall not, others will, that is, for one that falleth not others, that is many will fall, and therfore better is persecution of the body, then soe great losse of soules. This M^r. Do∣ctour needeth proofe; for some will rather beleeue, (and I am of their mind) that if a violent persecution be raised in regard of Confirmation, for one that standeth by ver∣tue of Confirmation, which otherwise would haue falne, ten will fall by force of persecution, that otherwise would haue stood, and beene saued. Howe strong the brunt of violent persecution is, to supplant, euen (if it were possible) the elect, our Sa∣uiour doth proclayme; Math. 24. v. 20. saving: Nisi breuiati fuissent dies illi; non fieret salua omnis caro. Except those dayes (of vio∣lent persecution) had been shortned, noe man would be saued. Experience sheweth, that in such a storme the Dragon with his taile striketh downe starres by clusters, but that some stand constant by Confirmation, which wanting Confirmation, would not haue beene constant by the vse of daily de∣uout prayers, or frequent accesse vnto the diuine Sacrement, is not I weene so easely proued. So that this if one fall not, others will through want of Confirmation, is rather spoken by way of prophecie, then of proofe, which prophecie, why Catho∣lickes should soe firmely beleeue, as theru∣pon

to aduēture a persecution, and the losse of al, you must giue them a good reason, be∣fore they can with discretion soe proceede. But if you giue noe reason, but still vrge that they prouoke a persecution to get a Bp. we haue reason to wonder and saye: Cur miser•••• toties in aperta pericula Ciues proijcis?

30. The little probability of M^r. Do∣ctours surmise, that many Catholickes de∣uoutly vsing other Sacraments, ha••e fallen, and will fall in persecution, for the sole want of Confirmation, is shewed by the falsehood of the only instance he hath brought therof out of antiquitie. Hee na∣meth Nouatus, out ofr Eusebius, as an example of them that fel in persecution, for want of Confirmation, which is more then•• Eusebius in that place cited by M^r. Doctour doth affirme. Eusebius there alled∣geth certaine passages of an Epistle of S. Cornelius Pope, wherin amongst other things, it is said that Nouatus being a Priest, for feare of persecution, when he was in∣treated by the Deacons, to assist, and incou∣rage some Christians that were in combate, refused, saying he would noe longer be Priest, but apply himself to some other trade of life, but that he did deny Christian Religion before the Persecutour, I doe not reade. And if he did not howe is he brought as an example of them that deny their Religion before the Tyrant, for want

of Confirmation? It is true, he fell into he∣risy, not for feare of persecution, but for loue of innouation, inuenting many nouel opinions; of which crime, the proper and immediate cause, was pride, and immoderate desire to be Bishop; the remote, not the na∣ked want of Cōfirmation, but other imper∣fections, and defaults ioyned therwith. First, he would not be baptized, vntill he was dan∣gerously sicke, that he verily thought he should die▪ receiuing Christendome, not soe much for the loue of Christ, as feare of Hell; secondly being recouered, non curauit sayth Theodoret, he did neglect to haue the cere∣monies of Baptisme supplied; particularly he had noe care to receiue the holy Chris∣me of the Bishop, wherin he did grieuously offend, aswell because in that tyme, there was an Ecclesiasticall precept to receiue Confirmation togeather with Baptisme, or as soone as might be after, (as Petrus Lay∣man proveth) which precept Nouatus transgressed, as also because he neglected Confirmation out of contempt, esteeming it a thing of noe profit, or vse; wherupon his followers doe not vse the Sacrament of Chrisme, as witnesseth Theodoret in the place before cited.

31. This is the cause that Eusebius, or ra∣ther S. Cornelius sayth of Nouatus, Neque Domini sigillo ab Episcopo obsignatus fuit, quo quid••m neutiquam potitus, quomodo Spiritum san∣ctum

adeptus est? Nor was he signed by the Bishop, with the seale of our lord, which he, not hauing receiued, howe obtained he the holy Ghost? to wit, omitting to receiue it in that manner, as he did, when he might commodiously haue had it, yea when he could not without note omitt it, when the precept of the Church did bind him to receiue it, specially presuming to take the order of Priesthood, without Confirmation had before; Omitting I say to receiue Confirmation, in those sinnefull circumstances, and vpon such wicked moti∣ues, howe could he haue the holy Ghost dwelling in him? Otherwise if M^r. Doctour will say, that he who doth barely omitt Confirmation, forced therunto through want of a Bishop, or of other commodity, cannot haue the holy spirit; S. Hieromep will contradict him, saying; We affir∣me the Holy-Ghost to be giuen by the Priest in Baptisme, and that the spirit doth not slowe downe from Heauen, only at the inuocation of a Bishop. Sainct Pauleq will contradict him, assu∣ring vs, that by the lauer of Regeneration God p••wreth d••wne his spirit on vs in aboundance; Yea M^r. Doctour will contradict himself, seing in ••ne place he saith, dedicat. n. 18. A man may haue sufficient grace to professe his faith, and to dye for it without this Sacrament of Confirmation, as diuers of our Countriemen in our late pers••cution did; Thus he.

32. Howe could these Martyrs doe this

without the Holy-Ghost? Without which, noe man can soe much as say, Lord Iesus? And if they had the Holy-Ghost without being Confirmed, then the cause of Noua∣tus his wanting of the Holy-Ghost, was not the bare want of Confirmation, but his re∣fusing the Sacrament with contempt, when he might commodiously haue had it, and when Custome, and the Churches precept did bind him to receiue it. If M^r. Doctour will make Nouatus a President, that in per∣secution men sanctifyed by Baptisme, and vsing frequently other Sacraments, and meanes of increasing in Grace, fall from their Religion, sometymes for the bare want of Confirmation, he must prooue first, that Nouatus was sanctifyed by Baptisme, whe∣rof S. Corneliuss doth doubt; secondly that he wanted Confirmation in tyme of persecution, because he could not haue if without danger; thirdly that he did not omitt it out of contempt; fourthly that he did supply the want of Confirmation soe well as he could, by frequent vse of other meanes of perfection. These things I am sure M^r. Doctour will neuer be able to prooue, without turning vpside downe the Records of Antiquity; soe that I may conclude that Eusebius, and the example of Nouatus, is, against historicall truth, applied to his pur∣pose, by concealing soe many mayne diffe∣rences betwixt Nouatus and our English

Catholickes, in respect of his and ther wanting of Confirmation.

33. Further (if I be not deceiued) I thin∣ke I can conuince M^r. Doctours prophe∣cy, or surmise to be false, by a like example. Many Catholike Deuines hould that the Sacrament of the Eucharist vnder the for∣me of wine, giueth a newe encrease of spe∣ciall grace, besides, that giuen by the Sacra∣ment vnder the forme of bread; for though the grace giuen by the Sacrament of bread, be of the same kind as that giuen by the chalice, yet this is greater, and giuen to a speciall effect, to cause spiritual ebriety of soule, that is, excessiue feruour of charity towards God; which opiniō is maintayned, and learnedly proued by Vasquezr and diuerse other Authors; Yea this doctrine may seeme taught by Clement the Sixt, ci∣ted by Vasquez in his Bulla to our king Edward the third, giuing him leaue to re∣ceiue in both kinds, ad maius gratiae augmen∣tum, for the greater increase of Grace, And though other Doctours defend commonly the contrary, yet euen they,o saie the opi∣nion of Vasquez is probable, and they yeeld vnto Protestants that they may suppose this in their arguing, and yet saie they, it doth not follow that it is needfull to receiue in both kinds. Nowe a Protestant supposing this, (as Catholikes giue them leaue) may dispute in the same forme, and with the sa∣me

force, as M^r. Doctour doth. Though this greater grace of special deuotion giuen ••y the chalice, be not necessary for this or that person, yet it is necessary for the whole Church, for though one fall not, yet others wil for want of it, specially in time of per∣secutiō, against which this spirituall ebrie∣ty of feruorous loue hath singular force to make men constant, euen vnto death, as S. Cyprian saith; Quemodo ad martyri•• pecu∣lum idoneos facimus si non eos ad hibendum Do∣mini poculum t••re c••mmunicationis admittimus, How shall we make them able to drinke of the cuppe of Martyrdome, if we do not admit them by the right of Communion to drinke in the Church the cuppe of our Lord.

34. Verily, I see not what reason M^r. Do∣ctour can giue, why the Protestāt discourse should not be as good as his, and if theirs be false (as doubtlesse it is most false) noe lesse false is his. And I answer them both in the same manner, first to the Protestant, I saie, though the chalice giue greater grace, yet that grace is not necessary vnto saluation or good life, without it men haue sufficient and aboundant grace, soe that the cause why they sometyme liue ill, or fall from God, is not bare want of the cuppe or of gra∣••e giuen by it, but want of their cooperatiō with the diuine grace, that is giuen by the Sacrament vnder the forme of bread, and other helps. Nor is the grace giuen by the

chalice such, but men may by other meanes obtaine altogeather as great by more fre∣quent receiuing vnder one kind, or by gi∣uing themselues to prayer, which ioyned with the Eucharist in one kind, wil breed in them that sacred ebriety of loue. Soe by wanting the cuppe, they want nothing they n••••d, not any thing which they may not ••••••••hase by other meanes if they please. Thus the Protestant is answered, and the same answer will serue M^r. Doctour. None in England fall precisely for want of Con∣firmation, seing euery one hath other suffi∣cient and aboundant meanes to keepe him frō falling. If he vse those meanes worthily he will not fall; if he doe not vse them, or not as he should, he falleth not for the bare want of Cōfirmation, but for his not vsing; or vnworthy vsing of other Sacraments. Nor is the Grace of Confirmation such, but as great and as good may be obtained by other meanes, specially by singular deuotiō in worthy frequenting the venerable my∣sterie of the Aultar. This sheweth M^r. Do∣ctours argument to be vaine, that some fall for want of Confirmation.

35. Fourthly, and finally, the Doctours concept of the necessity of Confirmation is refuted by the institution therof, by the Churches practise, auncient, recent, by my Lord of Chalcedons exāple, and by M^r. Do∣ctours himself. If Christ would haue ma∣de

Confirmation of such necessity, as with∣out it no Christian can be perfect nor con∣stant in faith, nor comply with that precept, Be perfect, as your father in heauen is perfect, why did he institute that the Ministers therof be Bishops, fewe in the world, and hardly to come vnto, specially by those of the vulgar sort. The matter therof pretious and rare, being as saith S. Dyonisius, Confectio suauiter s••arantium materierum, a confection of sun∣drie sweet fragrant ingredients, specially of balme soe deere, brought from countreys remote, and hardly knowne when it is true, and yet without true balme Confirmation wanteth being. Well saith S. Chrysostome, Quae necessaria etiam facilia fecit Deus; things of necessity God instituted as they may with ease and facility be had, as in Baptisme, Pennance, Eucharist, appeereth. Soe that the very institution of Confirmation, in re∣spect of Ministers and matters so difficultly had, sheweth the noe necessity therof.

36. What practise of the auncient Church, wherin any signe of so great necessitie may be perceaued? M^r. Doctour pag. 365. brin∣geth out ofa Victour, the people of Afri∣ca, when all their Bishops and Priests were sent away into banishment, thus complai∣ning, saith hee, or rather crying, who shall nowe baptise these babes with the fountaine of li∣uing water, who shall giue vs the Sacrament of Pennance, and loose vs tyed with the bonds of sin∣ne?

Who shall bury vs when we dye, by whom is the rite of the diuine sacrifice to be offered? Be∣hould the Affrican Catholickes reckoning in particular their losses by loosing Bishops and Priests, doe not reckon Confirmation, they do not so much as name it, Wherfore I could not reade without smiling, what M^r Doctour writeth, applying this their complaint vnto English Catholikes. The like complaint saith he, did, or might our En∣glish Catholikes make, when in the daies of Queene Elizabeth they were depriued of ther Bi∣shops and Priests, and consequently of the Sacra∣ment of Confirmation whose vse especially ••s re∣quisite in tyme of persecution; This M^r. Do∣ctour: of whom I would gladly knowe why our English being depriued of Bishops and Priests should complaine for the want of Confirmation, more then the Affricans did? Why should the Affricans complaine of other wants, without mentioning the want of Confirmation, and our English cry for want of Confirmation without regard of the rest? The English were in persecution, when Confirmation, is specially requisite. True: But were not the Affricans also in persecu∣tion, and in a very grieuous persecution? Truely I can conceaue noe reason of this difference, but only this, that the Affricans were taught to complaine according to the doctrine of those holy auncient Bishops, namely S. Victor, with whom the want of

Confirmation, by it self, was not esteemed so great; but our English are made to crie, according to M^r. Doctours concept, who conceauing Confirmation to bee ioyned in∣separably with Bishops, can apprehend no greater necessity, nor lamentable want, then of it. As for those Affrican Bishops and Fa∣thers, that they were not so deepely con∣ceyted of the necessity of Confirmation, as M^r. Doctour, hence appeereth. Two hun∣dred and twenty of them were by King Thrasimundus banished into Sardinia, where they liued in celles, twenty yeares and more, during which tyme the people of Africke wanted Confirmation, being only gouerned by Priests, yet none of those Bi∣shops, being many hundreds, passed into Affrica to giue Confirmation, fearing that the king would therupon haue increased the persecution, by depriuing Catholikes of Priests.

37. The practise we daily behould of the Church doth aboundantly shewe, her iudgment is, Confirmation not to be so ne∣cessary, seing shee vsed noe such great care and diligence that all haue it, and none dye without it. The Blessed Sacrament, no ne∣cessary meane of saluation or perfection, but only necessary because commaunded by our Sauiour; Howe carefull is the Holy Church to comply with this diuine pre∣cept, and that none passe from this world

without the sacred viaticum? for this end prescribing, that that Sacramēt, be still rea∣dy to be carryed to the sicke, both day and night, and that Ministers bee not wanting, but still at hand to carrie it; what signe is the practise of the Church of any such ne∣cessity in respect of Confirmation.

38. The Bishop of Chalcedon hath by this Breue commited to this charge, the Catho∣likes of Scotland, as well as the Catho∣likes of England, they be nowe in great persecution and pressure, in which case, as M^r. Doctour saith, Confirmation is most requisite, and soe necessary as to be procured with increase of persecution. Notwi••hstanding my Lord of Chalcedon stirreth not thither, but thinketh they may be sufficiently fortifyed without Confir∣mation, specially ex voto Confirmationis, by the desire of Confirmation, of his Lordships comming, they doe desire it. For if my Lord be of M^r. Doctours con∣ceipt, why standeth he still? why doth he lay a necessity on those Catholikes to fall, by keeping from them Confirmation, without which they cannot be perfect Christians, nor haue strength of spirit to professe their faith? specially seing, as Di∣uines hould, a greater obligation lyeth on the Bishop to giue, then on his subiects to receiue Confirmation. I could wish their practise did agree with their Doctrine;

otherwise, the preaching of the necessity of Confirmation for England, ioyned with no more carefulnes to giue the same in Scotlād, may giue men cause to suspecte, that so∣mething besides the good of soules, maketh men so forwarde to vent this assertion.

39. Finally, I adde an argument out of M^r. Doctour himselfe affirming, c. 14. n. 7. that it may seeme a presumption to neglect Confir∣mation, specially in time of persecution, when it may commodiously be had. Where M^r. Do∣ctour insinuateth, that men are not bound to receaue Confirmation, when it cannot commodiously be had. Whereby I confute, what elsewhere so oft he sayth: it cannot be refused for feare of persecution. And againe: we are rather to hazarde persecution of the bodie, then to vndergoe such a losse of the soule. This to be false, I conuince by M^r Doctours former assertion: I argue thus: we are not bound to receaue Confirmation, but when it may commodiously be had, so that when it can∣not commodiously be had, we may refuse it. But when it cannot be had without perse∣cution, it cannot conueniently be had; for persecution is not only incommodious to temporall estate, and corporall life, but also doth endanger the saluation of soules; Ergo for feare of persecution it may be refused, and we may rather vndergoe the want of it, then hazarde a persecution, that is, a danger both to bodie and soule.

40. And here I humbly entreate such as are of M^r. Doctours minde and zeale, what will gett Confirmation euen though with encrease of raging persecution, to consider in the sight what warrant they haue to thrust not only themselues, but also innu∣merable other poore Catholikes into so dreadfull danger? what testimonie of scri∣ptures or Fathers? what ancient custome? what consent of learned Diuines haue they, that the good of Confirmation ought to be with such terrible venturing of soule and bodie procured? what assurance is there, that this is not temerarious and a tempting of God? to putt not only themselues, but manie others into strong temptatiōs, which neuer without Gods singular assistance are ouercome, and in which manie perish, which otherwise it is likelie would haue bene saued, whose soules and bloud they may feare God will require at their hands, if without neede and without sufficient ground they binde them to make such ad∣uentures. For I see no reason, why M^r. Do∣ctours bare word of the so great necessitie of Confirmation, should in a matter of such moment be taken as a sufficient warrant to hazarde the liues and soules of so manie in∣to a persecution.

The necessity of the Diuine law for a Bishop in England, praetended by M^r. Doctour, confuted. CAPVT III.

1. THE third necessity much insisted vpon by M^r. Do∣ctour is, the obligation of the diuine law, binding the Pope as he thinks to giue England a Bishop to reside amongst Catholicks, which ordinance he thinketh to binde so seuerly and inuiolably, that ney∣ther a Country, nor any of the Country can ex∣cept against the mission of a Bishop into it, though his entrance might cause a persecution. His ground is because the Diuine law requi∣reth, not only that in generall there bee so∣me particuler Bishops to gouerne particu∣ler Churches, but also that a Bishop be pla∣ced in this or that particuler Church; this he proueth by three arguments.

First is the authority of two late Schoole Diuines, Sotus (sayth he) a learned Domi∣minican affirmeth, that it is, De Iure Diuino of the Diuine law, that in generall to euery particular Church according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision proper Bishops be applyed. And Bannes

a later but learned Diuine of the same or∣der sayth, that Bishop•• cannot by the Pope be remoued from the whole Church, or a great and notable part of it.

Secondly I thus argue, sayth he, by the Deuine law there must be particuler B shops in the Church; but there is no more reason why the particuler Church of F••ance should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops more or feawer according to the extent of the country, rather then the Church of Spay••e, or the Church of Spaine, rather then the Church of England or Flanders: Ergo France, Spaine, England, Flanders, and all other parti∣culer Churches of extent, must be gouerned by Bishops.

Thirdly I demand (sayth M^r. Doctour) why the Popes and Bishops of the primitiue Church were so diligent and exacte in consecra∣ting Bishops, yea and making Popes euen in the midst of the greatest persecution, and when the persecutions were principally intended agaynst Popes and Bishops, and would not for feare of pers••cution and other humane respectes, lett any Country or Church especially of any greatnes to be without a Bishop; but that they thought it was Iuris Diuini, of Diuine law, that euery Church or Country should haue its Bi••h••p.

Fower things shall be demonstrated, first that M^r. Doctours discourse is deuoy∣de of due respecte to the ••oly sea. Second∣ly that at least the Pope is not bond to send a Bishop into Englād. Thirdly that he is not

bound to giue a Bishop to euery Church that is capable of a Bishop. Fourthly, though he were, yet England as now things stand, is vncapable of a Bishop by the holy Canons.

M^r. Doctours discourse not so duetifull towards the holy sea. §. 1.

2. SInce our persecution and defect of Bishops in England, seauen Souerai∣gne Bishops haue seat in the sea of Peter, to witt, Pius Quintus, Gregorie the 13. Six∣tus Quintus. Gregorie the 14. Innocentius 8. Clement the 8. and Paulus 5. which neuer thought it fitting much lesse necessa∣ry to reestablish in England the gouernmēt of Bishops: may it not then seeme much bouldnes to preferr the verdice of these Schoolmen, before the iudgment and con∣stant practise of so many Bishops of God, especially directed by his holy spirit not to err in the gouernment of his Church? and vpon the testimony of these two (and that extorted vpon the rack, extending theyr words beyond theyr meaning, as will appeare) to condemne the holy sea of a so longe a continued violation of the Diuine law.

3. Nor is Pope Gregorie the 15. who sent into England the first Bishop of Cal∣cedon, free from this censure, no nor his

Holines which now sitteth in the Aposto∣licall Chaire, who sent the second: for they sent thither the Bishop of Calcedon (at the most (and (as som•• pretende) as theyr de∣legate o•• deputy vniuersall for England, with falculties reuocable at their pleasure: But in M^r. Doctours opinion Delegats or Deputy Bishops that be not Princes, be not such gouerners as the law of God requires: The Church (sayth he) 12. n. 3. contayned in it diuers particular Chur∣ches, which must be gouerned by Bishops who are Spirituall Princes: and againe: although Bishops depende of the Pope for theyr iurisdi tion, yet they be Spirituall Princes in theyr Kinde, and not his delegates. This supposed, M^r. Doctour must eyther graunt that the diuine law doth not exacte a proper Bishop in euery Church, or else accuse the Pope as doing against the Diuine law. I argue thus, eyther the Church of England now hath the go∣uernment ordayned by Christ for particular Churches, or not: if it haue, then the Pope may without violation of the diuine law gouerne all particular Churches by deputy Bishops that be not Princes, but his tenants at will, hauing faculties reuocable at his pleasure, for there is no more rea••on that the Church of Spaine, or France, or Flaun∣ders, or any other particular Church, be go∣uerned by spirituall princes and not by De∣puty Bishops, rather then the Church of

England, as M^r. Doctour doth suppose as certayne, but the Church of England doth not by the diuine institution, require a spi∣rituall Prince, but it may without breach of the diuine law be gouerned by Deputy Bi∣shops that haue no iurisdiction, but dele∣gated and reuocable at will. as now it is go∣uerned: Ergo the Pope without breach of the diuine law may gouerne France, Spaine, Flaunders, and the rest of Catholike Coun∣tries, by Bishops that be no spirituall Prin∣ces, but his Delegats only. If M^r. Doctour think this to be false, and hereticall, as he doeth, then he must say that the Church of England hath not as yett such Pastours, and gouernours as Christ by his diuine institu∣tion required should be seated in euery Church. whence it is further consequent, that the Pope is not giuing the Church of England a proper spirituall Prince, by the consequence of M^r. Doctours doctrine, doth grieuously offend against the diuine institution and law.

4. M^r. Doctour may seeme to haue en∣deauored in some sorte to excuse the Popes, by pretending they were misinformed. True it is (sayth he) that in England we were long without a Bishops, but that was because we could not gett one, and our Superiours were informed that a Bishop would not be permitted to enter into England, or would presently be taken, and putt to death, and so it was to no purpose to send one.

Thus he, not clearing but rather aggraua∣ting his accusation of Popes; for by this excuse he maketh them seeme light of be∣leefe, and yett also leaueth them not suffi∣ciently excused. They are made light of beleefe in giuing credit so easily to a tale incredi∣ble, which M^r. Doctour sayth was tould them, that a Bishop sent into England might not for a longe time escape to do some good.

M^r. Doctour must enforce the credit of his tale more then with his owne bare word, otherwise we shall neuer beleeue, that men of such authority, grauity, and prudence, as the Popes are gaue, credit to so silly a suggestion, rather we doe and will thinke that they knew a Bishop might for a time escape and confirme some Catholi∣cks, yet they esteemed this not so greate a good, as to be procured with increase of that persecution which was seuere and ra∣ging more then enough before. So we doe not doubt but these Popes held constantly against M^r Doctours Fancie of giuing En∣glish Catholicks a Bishop, whether they will or noe, and of forcing them to enter∣tayne him though therby the fury of per∣secution should be neuer so much incensed against them. This conceipt those holy Bi∣shops neuer esteemed cōforme to the piety, charity, discretion the holy Sea euer vsed: whose iudgment if we preferr before. M^r. Doctours, he hath no cause to complaine,

they being the guides of our soules, and in∣fallible teachers of truth.

5. Secondly though we should graunt the Popes were so slightly wonne to beleeue a tale, yet this doth not saue them from transgression of the Diuine law in in M^r. Doctours opinion, for he is so hott vpon a Bishop, as he will haue Bishops placed in particular Churches during the time of per∣secution, specially, though there bee no hope they should escape. This is manifest, because he sayth that a king hath so longe and powerfull armes as a particular Bishop cānot escape him if he bēde his minde to ap∣prehend him and yet he sayth, that in time of greatest persecution, when the rage and fu∣ry therof is intended principally against Bishops, Bishops are to be placed, and the auncient Po∣pes did euen then ordayne Bishops Knowing (sayth he) that the Church according to Christs institution, was to be gouerned by Bishops. What is this but to say that latter Popes who thinking a Bishop in England would in∣crease persecution, left vs without a Bishop did transgres the diuine institution, which theyr auncest••urs did in time of persecution so inuyolably obserue.

6. And how soeuer his excuse might som∣what protect former Popes, yet the same cannot serue to saue his Holynes that now is, from being (in M^r. Doctours iudgment) guylty of the breach of the Diuine law. For

M^r. Doctour sayth, that now experience sheweth that a Bishop may escape, and doe notable good in England, and yet we see his Holynes will not ordayne for England a Bishop, that is, one with the office, and iurisdiction of Bishop; nor giue vs any spi∣rituall Prince, and proper Pastour, but at the most, but a deputy Bishop. The summe of all is, that eyther we must say that M^r. Doctour is ouerseene much in venting t••o∣se kinde of assertions, so disgratfull to the holy sea; or else graunt that the Vicar of Christ may erre against the Diuine Law, in gouernmēt of a notable parte of the Church as M^r. Doctour houlds our English Catho∣licks to bee; and if he may erre about En∣gland, why not about Frāce? if about, Frāce why not a bote Spayne•• Italie, and Germa∣nie, and other Christian Gountries? Oh into what a laborinth of difficulties doe they vēture thēselues, who to satisfie theyr priuate, and particular intent's, will prae∣sume, though but indirectly to call in que∣stion, and taxe the facts of theyr Soueraigne Pastours?

Catholicks of England are not bounde with increase of persecution to enter∣tayne a Bishop. §. 2.

7. ALthough we should graunt that the law of Christ requires that

England should haue a particular Bishop besides the Pope, yet this Bishop is not bound to goe into England, nor to stay there in time of persecution, yea, he were bound not to goe thither, especially against the will of Catholicks, in case he should bring a persecution with him. This con∣clusion standeth vpon most ce••tayne Catho∣lick doctrine, to witt, that a Bishop though he cannot fly in persecution, or bee absent from his flock when his presence is necessary, for theyr constancy and courage, to giue them the meanes of Saluation, yet when a Country is abundantly fournished with courage to suffer, with a competent number of Priests, with all necessary Sacra∣ments, and helpes, then the Bishop may retyre, or not come (if he be absent) spe∣cially when the persecutiō is raysed against his person, and by his absence like to cease. This is a trueth defined by the Church against Tertullian, & other Montanists, and is proued by the words of the Ghospell contayning our Sauiours precept cum per∣secuti vos fuerint in vna ciuitate, fugite in aliam: whē they shall persecute you wn owe cittie fly to an other, which sheweth that a Bi∣shop in time of persecution may leaue his citty, ād Bishoprick, and fly to an other: For that this speech belōgeth not only to lay ca∣tholicks, but also vnto Bishops and Priests. S. Athanasius hath taught vs by word and

example, and with him all other Catholi∣ck fathers agree, that therof there can be no doubt, yea this case is putt expresly in the Canon law, that a Bishopa persecutio∣nis rabie sauiente de Superioris licentia ad mona∣sticam vitam descendat: may in persecution leaue his flock with licence and become a Monck.

8. Now that a Bishop is bound not to come, w••en his presence is not necessary, and yet would cause a persecution, or vio∣lent increase therof, is manifest. For the office of Bishop and his residence w••s com∣manded only for the good of soules com∣mitted to his charge, but as S. Bernard sayth, what is vndertaken for charitie, and the good of soules is not to be continued against charitie, and with ruin, of soules, as many by violent persecution will certaynly be lost. This I confirme by the testimony of S. Cyprian, which is direct to this pur∣pose, where he giueth the reason why he retired in persecution, and would not re∣turne when the same was particularly ray∣sed against his person Sicut Domini mandata instruunt orto statim turbationis impetu primo, cum me clamore violento frequenter populus flagi∣tasset non tam meam salutem quam quietam fra∣trum publicam cogitans intercessi ne per inue∣recundam praesentiam nostram ••editio, quae cepe∣rat prouocaretur As the precepts of our Lord di∣rect, strait vpon the first brunt of the persecution,

when the people with violēt clamors called for me (to haue me cast to a Lyon.) not regarding so much my owne saftie, as the common quiet of my Bretheren. I retired my selfe least by the impuden∣cie of my presence, the rage of the tumult might be inflamed. And in another place when his flock did much desire his comming, though he had a greate desyre to concurr to theyr comfort. Oportet nos tamen (Sayth he) paci communi consulere, & interdum cum taedio ani∣mi nostri deesse vobis ne praesentia nostra inuidiam & violentiam Gentilium prouocet, & simus autho∣res rumpendae pacis, qui magis quieti omnium cō∣sulere debemus. not withstanding we ought to haue a care of the common quiet and ease from persecu∣tion, and somtimes though with taedious grief of minde be absent that our coming doe not in crease the enuye and violence of the Gentils, and so we become authors of persecution, who rather should procure the peace & quiet of all. Thus S. Cy∣prian sheweth, that a Bishop is bound to retyre, or not come when, his presence would cause an increase of persecution. Hence Pontius S. Cyprians Deacan who writt his life, sayth; Saint Cyprian retired for feare, least by staying he should haue offended God, to witt, in being the cause to increase persecution. Fuit vero (Sayth hee) formido ista, sed iusta formido quae dominum ti∣meret offendere formido quae praeceptis Dei mallet obsequi quā sic coronari. It was indeed feare that moued him to fly, but holy feare to offende God,

feare that made him rather obey the Diuine pre∣cepts then by staying to gett a cr••wne.

9. This being to, how 〈◊〉〈◊〉 M^r. Doctour be able to maintayne his paradox, that ney∣ther a country, nor any of the country can except against the coming in of a Bishop, though his entrance might cause a persecution. If a Bishop who by coming into a Country fournished aboundantly with Priests, and all necessaries, rayseth a persecution, goeth against the precepts of God, disobey his Diuine order, sinne against the dutie of a Bishop, so that his entrance in such cir∣cumstances be inuerecunda praesentia, a sha∣melesse and impudent coming, seeking his owne Good with the desolation of his flock, if, I say, his comming be liable to all these exceptions (as sainct Cyprian sayeth it is) wi••y may not Catholicks of that countrie except against this his entrance.

10. M^r. Doctour giueth two reasons of his assertion, first (sayth he) because the go∣uernment of Bishops is instituted by Christ and hath been putt in practise euen in the greatest per∣secutions as hath been proued in the former chapter. This reason hath no force, for put case that the diuine law require a Bishop to be made for England, yet it doth not binde a Bishop with danger of his life, to come to his flock when his presence is not necessarie. In that case he may without breach of the Diuine law looke to his owne saftie, specially if by

comming he should cause a persecution where none was before. For where is M^r. Doctours diuine precept written, that a Bishop must tome, or not departe what per∣secution soeuer and desolation fall on his Church, in regarde of his entrance. The pri∣mitiue Church in the time of greatest per∣secution did appoynt Bishops (for reasons which haue not force in respecte of Englād, as in the next chapter is proued) yett those Bishops did in time of persecution often keepe absent, in so much as in the persecu∣tion of Decius, Seauenteen Bishops were absent from theyr flocks in Rome, yea they thought them selues bound so to doe, rather then by comming to bring a persecution vpon theyr flock, as hath been shewed by S. Cyprian his example.

His second reason is, the vtilitie and ne∣cessity of Confirmation, which cannot be giuen in the Bishops absence This hath been answered allreadie for there is noe shew of probabilitie, that a Countrie is bound to gett Confirmation, when the same cannot be had without a persecution. All deuines say Confirmation is not commanded but onely cum commodè haberi potest, when it may with commoditie be had, or as others say,a quando commodissimè, when it may be had without any the least incommoditie in the world.

11. And wheras M^r. Doctour sayth that

the former Chapter, to witt, the thirtienth of his treatise; he proueth that by the diuine law, Bishops are to be placed in Churches euen in greatest persecution, the truth is, in that Chapter he speaketh much to litle pur∣pose. He proueth indeede that Bishops and Pastours must repaire to theyr flocks, and not desist for feare of persecution, when other sufficient preachers of Gods word, and ministers of the Sacraments be wanting. But he doth not proue that when other Priests sufficiently doe the deede, that then a Bishop is bound to come to his flock, with euident hazard of his life, and of bringing a violent persecution vpon the Catholick peo∣ple. Lett vs heare some of his proofes.

Certes, sayth he, our B. Sauiour fooresaw, yea foretould the persecutions which were to be raised against his Apostles, for sayd he, behould, I send you as sheepe in the middest of wolues, and take heede of men, for homo homini lupus, for they will deliuer you vp. He foretould Peter his death by the Crosse, and did he therfore omitt to make him Bi∣shop? nay he made him not only Bishop, but chief Bishop, and Pastor of the Church; yea the Apostels knowing that they were made Bishops, to preach and conuerte the world, and after to gouerne it maugre all the Tyrants and all theyr engins of cruelty, they sett vpon this greate peece of worth, though they knew the persecution was specially raysed agai••st them. Thus M^r. Doctour which makes little to enforce Catholicks

to receaue a Bishop in England. True it is, that Pastors and Preachers of the Ghospell, must goe to their flock maugre all Tyrants and engins of crueltie when theyr flock needeth theyr presence, when they want other ministers of the word, and Sacramēts, nor are Pastors then to shrinck, though the persecution be bent personally against them. But when the Church is fournished aboun∣dantly with Priests and spirituall helpes, that a Bishop may be spared, (which is the case of England) where doth Christ com∣mand that then the Bishop goe to his Church, though he cannot goe without danger of his owne life? yea without put∣tinge nott onely the liues of others, butt euen their soules, into perill by causing a persecution to be raysed vpon them; And though M^r. Doctour say, that such an obli∣gation lyeth on the Bishop to goe, and on Catholicks to admitt of his comming, yet he must proue it; els it is soe heauie a bur then that noe wise man will vndertake to beare it, without first knowing why or wherfore.

12. His arguments if they haue any for∣ce, may seeme to enforce my Lord of Chal∣cedon not to stay, in England, which is so wel prouided, but to goe to his Church of Chalcedon: for that Church is on the one side miserably destitute of Sacraments and Pastors, and needeth the presence of a Ca∣tholick

Bishop, and on the other is my Lords proper body and spouse, wherof he cannot refuse to haue care. Vasquez much com∣mended by M Doctour writeth thus: A titular Bishop ordayned of a Church possessed by Turcks and infidels contracteth a spirituall ma∣riage, with that Church, so that he is bound to haue charge and care thereof, though he be not bound to goe thither, if there be noe hope to doe-good, and by going he shall incurr danger of his life, yett there haue not ••anted some that haue chosen to vndergoe that danger, rather then to be thought to loue themselues more then the people committed to theyr charge, in which number was Barth••lomaeus of Bononia, whoe as soone as he was ch se•• and consecrated Bishop of Arme∣nia went thither were he wrought wonderfull things. This Vasquez whose doctrine may seeme to touch his Lordship. But into my Lords conscienciall obligations in respecte of Chalcedon I will not Search, only this I will say that M^r. Doctour may sooner proue that he is bound to goe to Chalce∣don with euident hazard of is life, then that Catholiks are bounde to accepte of him in England, though theyr acceptance of him bring a persecution vpon them.

And to binde and encourage my Lord to this glorious enterprise, M^r. Doctours di∣scourse doth soe serue as it may seeme pen∣ned to that purpose, specially when he so vr∣geth the constancie of the Romane Bishops

in these words. Although the persecuting Em∣perour sayth S. Cyprian was so infestus Sa∣cerdo ibu•• vt ••anda & infanda comminaretur, and did so hate the Bishop of Rome that multo patientius & tolerabilius audiret leuari aduersus se aemulum Principem, quam Romae constitut Dei Sacerdotem▪ indured more pa∣tiently to heare of a prince competitor, then of a Bishop constituted at Rome, yett should you then haue seen•• (sayth hee) Cornelium sed••re intrepidum, to sitt in Peters chaire without fea∣re, nowing it to be protected by Peters Maister. O the courage and constancie of the Bishops of Rome who neuer shrunck their shoulders, neuer intermitted theyr succession, but least the Church should want a head, and the Herarchy an Hie∣rarchicall prince with euident hazard of theyr liues did maintayne ••e succession of Bishops in that seate, maugre the barberous crueltye of the bloody ••yrant. Thus much M^r. Doctour, and he proceedeth further with exclamations very efficaciously to binde his Lordship for Chalcedon, and so eloquently that in deede I am sorry that his discourse looseth the force with the learned, through some want of historicall truth specially in fower poyntes.

14. First what he sayth, that namely in the election of Cornelius the succession of Peters chaire, was neuer intermitted, to witt, by any longe Scauacancie, is a com∣mendation spoken soe out of season, as he

may seeme to speake by contraries, for after the Martyrdom of Fabian vntill the election of Cornelius there was an intermission or sea-vacancie of more then a yeare, to wit, of Sixteene months at least, as Baronius proueth, which was a longer intermission, then euer happened eyther before or after for more then a thousand yeares. Sancto Fa∣biano (sayth Baronius) martyrio coronato, ne per annum quidem valuit ei subrogari successor, licet causae vrgentissimae intercederent, quibus consultandis vniuersali optes esset Episcopo. S Fa∣bian being crowned with martyrdome a suc∣cessour could not be subrogated in his pla∣ce, no not within the space of a whole yea∣re, though there were greate vrgent que∣stions for the decision of which an vniuersall Bishop was needfull. And this is proued by a letter of the Roman Clergie to S. Cyprian. Post decessum nobilissimae memoriae viri Fabiani nondum est Episcopus propter rerum & tempo∣rum difficultates) constitutus▪ qui omnia isla moderetur: Since the decease of Fabian, a man of most noble memorie a Bishop is not yett (by reason of the difficulties of things and time••) appoynted to determine all these things. Hence M. Do∣ctour may learne that by reason of the per∣secution, the succession in Peters chaire was intermitted for sixteene monthes, euen at that time when heresies sprong vp. This may serue to somewhat allay his zeale, for Bishops in England, for the church vniuer∣sall

to want a Pastour sixteene monthes, was a greater inconuenience then for our En∣gland to want a particular Bishop for sixsce∣re yeares, being so sufficiently prouided of necessaries as it is, and still hath beene through the particular prouidence, care, and liberalitie of the supreme Pastor.

15. Secondly wheras he sayth the Tyrant did so hate the Bishop of Rome as he did more patiently heare of a prince competitour, then of a Bishop constituted at Rome, cannot stand with truth. For that Tyrant was De∣cius, who neuer heard of a prince competi∣tour stirred vp against him, so long as he li∣ued, and if he had, is it likely he would haue bene lesse troubled at such an opposition, then at the constitution of a Romane Chri∣stian Bishop? M^r. Doctour therfore mista∣kes, and with S. Cyprian speaketh of S. Cornelius, he applyeth it to the Tyrant. the text of S. Cyprian is: Quod nos simplici corde perspicere & laudare debemus sedere intrepidum in sacerdotali Cathedra eo tempore cum Tyran∣nus infestus sacerdotibus Dei fanda atque in∣fanda comminaretur, cum multo patientius & tolerabilius audiret leuari aduersus se aemulum principem, quam Romae constitut aemulum Sacer∣dotem▪ wherin we ought with sincere harte to acknowledg and prayse Cornelius his constant sitting in the priestly chayre wi∣thout feare, when the tyrant inraged against the Bishops of God, threatned things not to

be named, at which time, he (Cornelius) did more patiently heare that the opposite and emulous Prince was stirred vp against him; then that at Rome was constituted an emulous and opposit Bishop; This is to be vnderstoode of Cornelius, that he was les∣se troubled to heare of the emulation, ra∣ge, and fury, of the Prince against him, then of the emulation of Nouatus made Bishop of Rome, in schisme and opposition against him.

This Panelius well noteth, and that ther∣fore the true lection is not Dei Sacerdotem as M^r. Doctour citeth it, the Bishop of God, but aemulum Sacerdotem, an emulous and schismaticall Bishop, which lection also Ba∣ronius followeth.

16. Thirdly in the same amplification of the constancie of the Roman Bishops, he sayth, that twenty seauen Popes were ma∣de Martyrs before the time of Constantine, whose names he setteth downe, and in that number nameth I••annes, Siluerius, and Martinus, whoe suffered at the least two-hundred yeares after Constantine▪ Finally to shew the zeale of the ancient Popes, whoe made Bishops for particular Chur∣ches in the time of greatest persecution, to moue his Holynes to doe the like for En∣gland, he beginneth thus: S. Linus S. Peters immediat successour ordayned eighteene Priests, and fifteene Bishops, in the persecution of Vespa∣sianus.

The persecution of Nero, the persecu∣tion of Domitian, the persecution of Tratan, I haue heard named, but the persecution of Vespasian, now first soundeth in mine eare, which I weene cannot but seeme strange to any man acquainted with Ecclesiasticall historie; for this Emperour was so far from being a persecutor of Christians, as he was specially affected to them, in so much that Iosephus the Iew, to please and flatter him, writt honourably of Christ; And though in his dayes some Christians were martyred by inferiour Magistrates, yet none by his order.

To conclude, M^r. Doctour bringeth noe solide proofe of the heauy obligation he would thrust vpon a Church sufficiently prouided of Priests, and other necessaries to receaue also a Bishop to reside amongst them, though his entrance begin, and his presence continue a most heauie persecu∣tion vpon them.

There is noe absolute diuine law binding the Pope to put Bishops in euery particular Church. §. 3.

17. SOme Diuines hold that Bishops in particular, and not only in generall bee of the diuine institution, which other Diuines of greater authority with fair grea∣ter probabilitie reiecte. But to abstayne

from questions, this is certayne, wherin all Catholicks doe and must agree, that that diuine precept if there be any) is not abso∣lute nor determinate in respecte of particu∣lar circumstances of pers••n, place, time, power; the reason is, because when the ne∣cessity and conueniencie of the thing com∣manded, dependeth of circumstances of ti∣me, and place, then the diuine precepts can∣not be absolute; for circumstances may al∣ter things, so that what at this time, and in this place is necessary, and conuenient, in an other place, and time, may be needlesse and inconuenient; hence the Diuine Wisdo∣me about such things commandeth nothing in particular, but leaueth all to the discre∣tion of his Vicar, or at least his diuine pre∣cepts be not absolute, but so far forth, as the circumstances of persons, times and places, make them possible, necessary, or conue∣nient.

This reason sheweth that the diuine pre∣cept, to put Bishops in euery particular church or Country cannot be absolute, but at the most condicionall, for places which at one time require a Bishop or many Bis∣hops, may with time so change, that Bishops seeme in respecte of them neyther conue∣nient nor needfull nor vsefull. For example, if a Country that was once a Florishing Christianitie be brought to that state, that now the Catholicks are so fewe as they may

be sufficiently prouided of priests without a proper Bishop, and in such seruitude that if they haue a proper Bishop it is likely so∣me seuere persecution will thervppon be raysed; in this case noe wise man will thin∣ke, God bindeth the Pope to giue that church a Bishop.

18. Hence that diuine institution (if there be any (doth intrinsecally include two li∣mitations or conditions; the first is, that the Pope put in euery church a Bishop so far forh, as the ende of the diuine institu∣tion doth require; for when the ende of the diuine institution and law ceaseth, then al∣so the obligation of the diuine law ceaseth, or rather God neuer intended to binde in such circumstances. What is the end that God commandeth that in euery particular Church there be a Bishop? noe doubt to the end that all Christians might be furnished with Priestes, and such necessary Sacramēts as depend on Priests, for the Ordination of Priests, and Church Ministers, is the only thing that doth infer the necessity of a Bishop, as shall be proued in the next pa∣ragraph; hence where a church that once needeth Bishops to ordayne Priests, now needeth them not, but is in such state that a Bishop would rather breede inconuenien∣ce then any furtherance, then noe doubt the Pope is not bound to giue that country Bishops. This is the State of England, and

so the ende of the diuine law ceaseth wholy in respecte of it; as afterward shall be more largely prooued.

Secondly if there be such a diuine Insti∣tution, the same is giuen with subordina∣tion to the supreme Pastour, and without derogation to the plenitude of is power: this plenitude of power is, that he may exempte particular places and persons from the iurisdiction of particular Bishops, reser∣uing them to himselfe as he shall thinke fitting. wherfore the diuine precept that in euery Church there be a proper Bishop ouer all, hath this limitation, except the Pope by the supremacye of his power, except some places or persons; This power to be in the Popea noe Catholick can denye, the pra∣ctise therof being dayly notorious to the whole Church, especially through the Po∣pes exempting of soe many Religious or∣ders. In the same manner, the Pope hath re∣serued from Bishops sundry greate townes and Cittyes placing therin secular Abbots with Episcopal Iurisdiction; such was the gouernment of the Cittye of Valladolid in Spaine, till of late yeares, and such is now the gouernment of Medina Campi, and of other great places and townes in Spaine; wherby it is cleare, the Pope may witho••t breach of any diuine law exempt from par∣ticular Bishops and reserue to himselfe that handfull of Catholicks that liue within

England. Why may not he doe this? Is it because they be so greate a number, and a notable parte of the Church? Suerly the townes exempted in Spaine only containe more persons, then be the Catholiques of England, yea one Religious bo••y by it selfe, may be thought to exeede in number all En∣glish Catholicks, to witt, those of the Sera∣phicall order of S. Francis. And seing the Pope hath reserued all iurisdiction ouer the places in Englād to himselfe, seing the who∣le territorie of England in respect of spiri∣tuall Iurisdiction is subiect to the Pope only, so that my Lord of Chalcedon cannot chal∣lenge the poorest Church or parish as M. Doctour doth acknowledg, why may he not also reserue to himselfe the gouernmēt of the persons of Catholicks within this Territory, which is his owne and no other Bishops?

20. But that which doth alone suffice to make M^r. Doctours assertion loose all cre∣dit, is the weaknesse of his proofes, both in regarde of the authours and arguments he bringeth. The two Schoolmen Sotus and Bannes are alleadged otherwise then they meant, and in truth both the one and the other are against him. Sotus sayth it is de iurè diuino of the diuine law quod in genere s••••gulis Ecclesi••s secundum Ecclesiasticam diui∣sionem sui applicentur Episcopi; that in generall to euery particular Church proper Bishops be applyed, according to the Ecclesiasticall

diuision. Doth not M^r. Doctour heare Sotus say that this precept is not absolute nor de∣terminate, in all occasions and times? &c. but in genere secundū Ecclesiasticam diuisionem: in generall, according to the Ecclesiasticall diuision, that as the Ecclesiasticall diuision shall require which is variable as times va∣rye. True it is that as Sotus sayth, the diuine law doth in generall binde the Pope to de∣uide the Church into sundry distinct dioce∣ses, or particular Churches, and to apply vnto euery one a proper Bishop to ordayne Priests, ••nd Church-ministers according as times permit, and require, If the Ecclesiasticall d••∣uision be (as ordinarily it is) of such extente and multitude of persons as it cannot be cō∣ueniently prouided of Church-ministers, without a proper Bishop, then the Ecclesia∣sticall diuision bindeth the Pope to apply there a proper Bishop. If Diocesses be very smale, the Ecclesiasticall diuision dot not ne∣cessarily require that euery Church haue a proper Bishop, but two Bishopricks or mo∣re may be vnder the same Bishop, as antien∣tly the Bishoprick of Funda, was vnder the Bishop of Tarrason, or Tarracina, as it is noted in the Canon law, Cap. Illud. 21. q. 1. if some Diocesse, that according to the antient Ec∣clesiasticall diuision, did require a proper Bp. grow in time to be so small, as it needes not a proper Bp. to ordaine Priests, the Ecclesiasti∣call diuision doth not binde the Pope to put

there a proper Bishop any longer, he may make it parte of an other Bishopprick or make, it a Church exempte from Bishops, vnder some Arch-priest or Abbot, or other Ecclesiasticall power, receiuing ordination of Priests from neighboring Bishops. So that Sotus his very words cited by M^r. Doctour, shew, he was not of his minde that the Pope is bound to make Bishops in euery particu∣lar Church absolutly, and inuiolably, in all occasions and euents of what persecution soeuer; but in generall, according to the Ec∣clesiasticall diuision as hath been decla∣red.

21. Much lesse doth Bannes make for his purpose whom he citeth, teaching that Bi∣shops cannot by the Pope be remoued from the whole C••urch, or a great and notable part therof; what doth this make for M^r. Doctour? Suerly that is noe great nor notable part of the Church in respect of hauing Bishops, that can be aboundantly and conueniently supplyed with Priests, without hauing any proper Bishop, as England is; Bannes in the same place sayth; potest Summus Pontisex pro suo arbitratu vnum aut alterum Episcopum amo∣uere, nec in eorum locum aliquem designare: the Pope may at his pleasure remoue one or two Bi∣shops and not substitute any other in theyr places, is not this against M^r. Doctour? If the Pope may remoue some Bishops, and leaue some Churches without proper Bishops, why

may he not leaue England in that sorte, re∣seruing Episcopall Iurisdi••tion ouer the Ca∣tholicks therof to himselfe▪

22. We may also note that when Bannes sayth that the Pope cannot rem••ue Bis••ops frō a greate or notable parte of the Church, he meaneth pro suo arbitratu▪ for his sole plea∣sure, onely to honour such persons and pla∣ces by immediate subiection to himselfe; otherwise if necessity vrge (as when with∣out raysing a grieuous persecution, Bishops cannot be sent to some notable part of the Church,) then the Pope is not bound to send. Thus Africa a notable part of the Church, being depriued of more then two hundred Bishops at once, the Pope sent no other in theyr places, not to increase the persecution by such a supply vngratfull to their king. I wonder M^r. Doctour would broach a doctrine so dreadfull bi ding the Pope and English Catholicks to a thing most dissicill vnder paine of violation of the diuine law, for which he cannot alleadge one Authour truely, and fully, which makes not against his purpose.

23. But perchance the argument wheron he buildeth his doctrine is invincible; ve∣rely I cannot thinke it worthy of his much learning, noe, nor of his discretion to buyld so heauye a fabrick, on so feeble a foundation. Hee would proue because t••e diuine law bindeth the Pope to place Bi∣shops

in the Church indeterminatly, that therfore he must put them in all Churches absoutely. I argue thus, (sayth he) By the diuine law there must be particular Bi••hops in the Church, but there is noe more reason why the par∣ticular Church of France, should be gouerned by a Bishop or Bishops, rather then the Church of Spai∣ne, or the Church of Spayne, rather then the Church of England or Flanders: ergo, France. Spayne, England and all other particular Churches of Ex∣tent must be goue••ned by Bishops. This fashion of arguing maketh against all diuine pre∣cepts, wherby a thing is commanded inde∣terminatly, leauing the particularities to humane, arbitrement, of which yet noe doubt there be many. I will exemplifie to shew the weaknesse of this argumente in three precepts of this kinde. God com∣mandeth that euery, man to maintayne life, eate some kinde of meate, leauing the par∣ticular to his choyse, now comes M^r. Do∣ctours argument: By the diuine law euery man is bound to eate some meate, but there is no more reason he should eate flesh, rather then fish, or fish rather then whit∣meate, nor whitmeate rather then fruite; ergo, by the diuine law a man is bounde to eate fish, flesh, whitmeate, fruyte and all the sorts of viand. Againe, there is a diuine precept that euery one fast some dayes pre∣scribed, eyther by priuate deuotion of the Church, to mortify the lusts of the flesh, to

satisfie for sinns past, to o••••er a Sacrifice of religious worship to God: Now M^r. Do∣ctour argueth thus; euery one by the diui∣ne law, is bound to fast some dayes in the yeare: But there is no more reason why the days of March should be fasted, then the dayes of April, nor the dayes of April, then the dayes of May &c. Ergo, all the dayes of March, April, May, and all other mouthes, are to be fasted by the di∣uine law; Thirdly there is a diuine pre∣cept in generall, that the Pope appoynt some ceremonies at masse, that the Action of Sacrificing be with religious decencie performed, Hence in M^r. Doctours forme one may thus dispute. By the diuine law, some ceremonies are to be vsed in Masse; but there is no more reason why the cere∣monies of the Introitus be vsed, then the ceremonie of ••h•• Epistle, nor of the Epistle, then of the Ghospell, Offertory, Eleua∣tion. &c. Ergo, by the diuine law, all and euery one of these ceremonies are to be vsed.

24. He that shall examine M^r. Doctours argument according to the rules of logick, might finde many defectes therin, for i•• is apparent that there be more then tres termi∣ni, and his assumption hath no connexion eyther with his proposi••ion or conclusion. By the diuine law there must be a particular Bishops in the Church, this is true, But there is

n••e more reason that the Church of France should be gouerned by Bishops, rather then the Church of Spayne, nor the Church of Spayne, rather then the Church of Englād, what is this to the purpose be it so, what then, Ergo France Spayne and England are to be gouerned by Bishops; this doth not follow, but rather the contrary. Ergo, it is in the Popes arbitrement to giue Bi∣••hops eyther to France or to Spayne or to England as he thinks good, seeing the di∣uine law that there be some Bishops in the Church, may be kept though Bishops be wanting in eyther of these Realmes: In true forme M^r. Doctour should haue argued thus: By the diuine law there must be some particular Bishops in the Church, But this diuine law cannot be kept according to the the ende and intention therof, except there be Bishops in France, Spayne, and England Ergo Spayne, France and England are to be gouerned by particular Bishops, this argu∣ment is in forme and to the purpose, if the premisses be true as they haue some sh••w.

But I answer that the Minor may be sēsed two wayes, beīg in the one false, in the other partly true, partly false: If the sense bee, ex∣cepte there be Bishops in France, Spayne and England, this diuine law, that there bee particular Bishops in the Church, cannot be kept, so much as indeterminatly, ab∣stracting from the present circumstances of thi•• or t••at place or time, it is false; for the

diuine law requires no more then that there be some Bishops in the Church, so many in number, as there be no danger that the whole order be suddaynly taken away by theyr deathes, and so dispersed ouer the world, that all christians are pro∣uided sufficiently of learned and vertuous Priests. If this be done, the diuine law is sa∣tisfyed, though there be no Bishops in France, or Spaine or England: But if the sense be, that according to the present dis∣position of times, and circumstances of place, the diuine law, of hauing Bishops, cannot be kept except, there be Bishops in France, Spaine and England, it is partly false, true in respecte of France and Spa••∣ne, which cannot be prouided of Priests as the diuine law intendeth, except they haue proper Bishops; false in respecte of England which may sufficiently and most conueniently (as now things stande) be furnished with Priests, and not by the meanes of a proper particular Bishop. Hence M^r. Doctours assumption: there is no more reason that Spayn should be go∣uerned by particular Bishops, rather then England, speaking of what is requisite now, according to the present disposition of things, is palpably false, Though speaking in generall, abstracting from times, the di∣uine law of hauing Bishops, doth noe mo∣re concerne Spaine then England.

The Church of England as now things stand, according to the Holy Canons is not capable of a Bishop. §. 4.

26. THe diuine law is farr from en∣forcing the Popes Holynes to giue England a particular Bishop, as hath beene shewed: Rather our church (as things now stande) may seeme vncapable of a Bishop, except with some dispen∣sation in the Holy canons, which for the perfect obseruation of the diuine insti∣tution haue beene exacted. To proue this, we must suppose that the diuine institution and holy canons require, that a Bishop be not placed in townes and villages, or ouer a pettie multitude of Christians, nor where he is not needed in respect of orday∣ning Priests. The reason is, the honour and dignitie of a Bishop, that Office grow not contemptible, if one be placed where he is not generator Patrum, the Father of fathers, that is, of Priests, and where he can giue the people nothing necessary which they may not haue from Priests. For if this were, the feete might say to such a head, wee neede you not without you wee had, and when you are gone, wee shall haue all things necessary vnto saluation.

25. Some may say that not onely for ordi∣nation

of Priest, but also for gouernment, Bishops are necessary, to wit, to administer iustice, to conserue in the Church vnity and peace. I answere, when a Church may haue iuridicall administration of iustice, the power of gouernement is needfull, in which case they of such a Church neede a gouer∣nour; but if they neede not also ordina∣tion of priests from their gouernour, there is no neede their gouernour bee a Bishop. The power of gouernement of that Church, may be fitly committed and sufficiently exercised by a Preist. But if a Bishop be ne∣cessary in a Diocesse to consecrate Preists, so that the priests of the diocesse bee his sonnes, the deuine law (if not of necessity yet in reason and decency) requireth that the scepter of gouernemēt bee in his hands, not in the hands of any of his sonnes. The∣refore, giue me a multitude of Christians neuer so greate that hath no neede of a Bishop to ordaine priests, and I will bouldly say, that there is noe neede that the gouer∣nnour of that Company bee a Bishop, yea, put case, Ordinatiō of Priestes and Church∣men were not necessary in the Church, it will presently follow that there is noe nee∣de that the vniuersall Church be gouerned by Bishops superiour to Priestes. Generalls of Orders haue vnder them a great multitu∣de of subiectes, yet bee they not Bishops, nor is there neede they bee Bishops, because

their subiectes neede the direction of go∣uernement, not the ordination of priest∣hood at their handes.

26. Hence the Blessed Apostles appointed, that Bishops should not bee placed, where the power and care of Priestes may suffice, as testifieth S. Clement Epist. 2 Anicetus Epistol. 3. Euaristus Epistol. 2. & habetur Can. Audiuimus 3. q. 2. where a••so the de∣cree of the Counsell of Sardica is registred. Licentia ne sit Episcopo passim ordinandi in ci∣uitate modica, cum satis vnus esse p••ssit presb••∣ter. nec enim necesse est ibi Episc••pum fieri, vt Episcopi vilescat nomen & honori•• summi autho∣ritas. Let there be no Ordination of a Bishop in a little citty, where one priest may sufficie, (for there is noe neede of a Bishop,) that the name of Bishop, and the power of highest honour ••row not contemptible. Accordingly writeth S. Leo, that ouer little flockes, Bishops bee not placed, cum vbi minores sunt plebes, Presbyte∣rorum cura sufficiat, Episcopalia autem guber∣nacula non nisi maioribus populis & frequentio∣ribus ciuitatibus oporteat praesidere. Because when the flockes bee small, the Care of Priests doth suffice, but the gouernement of Bishops is not to preside, but in greater townes and places that haue multitude of people. In these Canons of the Church you see that Bishops are not to bee placed ouer little flockes, nor where there is no neede of Bishops. But in En∣gland, and where a Bishop is not needefull

to ordaine Church-Ministers, Priests may suffice, and a Bishop were needeles, soe that if one bee there placed, it is against the Ca∣nons, against the Churches perpetuall pra∣ctice, and a disgrace to Bishops.

27. If any say, that in England a Bishop is needefull, though not to giue Orders, yet to giue Confirmation, I answere, that Con∣firmation is noe Sacrament of necessity, nor is there any absolute necessity, that the sa∣me bee giuen by a Bishop as hath beene shewed. And so his giuing of Confirmation, doth not hinder but his flocke (if they neede him not to ordaine priestes) may still say to him, to witt, the feete to their head, wee neede you not, as you are Bishop. If the sole necessity of Confirmation were such, as it did inforce a Bishop to bee placed precisely in respecte of it, Bishops were to bee placed in euery village and towne, that none de∣parte this life without that Sacrament, as now thowsands doe through want of Bishops, and did also euen in the auncient Church, yea this was the cause, why the power of chrisming in Baptisme was giuen to Priestes, that none might die without Chrisme, soe saith Damasus of S. Syluester, Ordinauit vt Presbyter baptizatos lineret in ver∣tice propter transitum mortis. Hee ordained that the Priests should Chrisme the Bapti∣zed on the cro••ne of the head, by reason of the passage of death. That is, that none

might passe by death out of this world without holy Chrisme. Since which Or∣dination, to be Chrismed by a Bishop, non habet necessitatem legis saith S. Hierom, no law bindeth people to receiue the Sa∣crament of Chrisme of the Bishop, nor is that Sacrament absolutely required to giue any necessary perfection of Spirit, alio∣quin, (saith hee) si ad Episcopi tantum im∣precationem Spiritus Sanctus desluit, lugendi sunt qui in viculis & castellis & remotioribus ••••cis per presbiteros baptizati antè dormierant, quam ab Episcopis inuisentur: Otherwise, if at the Bishops inuocation onely the holy Spirit floweth downe, theyr case were lamentable, who in villages, townes, and remote places being baptized by priest, dy before they be visited by the Bishop.

28. I Add, that should wee graunte (what M^r. Doctour will neuer bee able to prooue) that there is a Diuine precept to take Confirmation, yet this will not inforce a Bishop, except also hee be needfull to or∣daine preistes. The Reason is. Because if there bee such a precept to receiue Confir∣mation yet it bindeth not, cum non potest com∣modè haheri as all teach, when Confirmation cannot bee had, but incommodiously, nor without the Churches doinge a thing vn∣usuall, vndecent, forbidden by the canons, as is the Ordaining of a Bishop for a place, where hee cannot haue imployment worthy

of his state, nor bee father of fathers. This I farther Confirme, by what Deuines com∣monly teach concerning the Holy Eucha∣rist, And I argue thus. The Church is not bound to prouide Christians of the Sacra∣ment of Confirmation, more then of the Sa∣crament of the Eucharist at the houre of death. Yea this obligation is the greater, because without doubt the Deuine law bin∣deth to receiue and giue the Eucharist against death; but that there is a diuine pre∣cepte to receiue Confirmation, is very vn∣certaine, the more common tenent of Deui∣nes being for the contrary. And yet the Church is not bound to giue the Sacrament of the Eucharist, when the same can not bee giuen without doing against the recei∣ued Customes, Ceremonies, and Canons. As when a Preist to giue a Consecrated hoast celebrate not beeing fasting, or in leuened bread, or without the sacred roabes of priesthood, as al deuines commonly teach. Therefore much lesse is the Church bound to prouide Christians of Confirmation, by doing against her receiued custome and Canon, of not makinge a Bishop ouer Com∣panies that neede not Ordination of priests, and consequently needeth not a Gouernour Bishop.

29. Hence wee may admire gods singu∣lar wisedome in directing his Vicar, in the gouernement of his Church to obserue the

sacred Canons, and by no importunity of men to bee mooued to violate receiued auncient customes. Wee may learne also euer to obey his Holynesses ordinances, which although wee see not the reason or conueniency of them, yet are still iustified within themselues. And the more that they are impugned euen by the learnedest Do∣ctours, the more their rectitude wil appeare, and now, most iust causes of their conue∣niency shew themselues, and how farre the spirit of diuine truth, is eminent aboue hu∣mane learninge. If any say that later Popes haue giuen England a Bishop, and so may seeme to haue gone against the Canons, I answere they haue not giuen England a proper Bishop, to rule it as his proper floc∣ke, and as their spirituall Prince, but onely haue sent a Titular Bishop for a time to gi∣ue Confirmation with voluntary ••urisdi∣ction, reuocable at his will, which is not against the Canons.

The practise of the ancient church, M^r. Doctours fourth pretended necessity of a Bishop. CAPVT IV.

1. THe fourth obligation in M^r. Doctours opinion, ••inding the Pope to or∣••ayne a Bishop for En∣gland, is the ancient pra∣ctise of the primitiue Church, which in tyme of greatest persecutions, that were intended principally against Popes and Bi∣shops, and euen Popes, and would not for feare of persecutions, or other humane respects, let any country, or Church, specially of any greatnes to bee without a Bishop. With greate curiosity M^r. Do∣ctour numbers how many Bishops euery Pope made from Linus to Telesphorus, and beeing weary to number all, hee remitts Priests to their Breuiaries for the rest. Hēce hee often demandes what may bee the cause of this, but that the Church thought it was, Iuris diutui, of the deuine law, that euery Church, or country should haue its Bp. ab∣solutly, in what circumstances, or persecu∣tions soeuer. Hee also hath some examples of the African Churches, that made Bi∣shopes in persecution. These African exam∣ples are in deede against him, as I shall shew

th•• practise of the primitiue Church is the only thinge that maketh for him a faire shew.

To which I answere, the primitiue Church did ordaine Bishops in tyme of per∣secution, not because they iudged that the hauinge of a Bishop in euery Church was a deuin or••enance, to bee in all occasions in∣••iolably kept, but three reasons forced them to this, all which now cease in re∣spect of the Church of England.

2. The first was to preserue the order of Bishops in the world, without danger of beeing vpon the suddaine all at once extin∣guished. If Bishops in the Church were •• win number, in one Prouince or citty only they might by a storme of persecution, by some inundation of warre, by the conta∣gion of some pestilent disease bee suddanly all taken away, wherefore that this may neuer happen the diuine institutiō requiers that a greate multitude of Bishops bee dis∣persed ouer the world, and placed in euery principall citty, euen in the greatest futy of persecution, accordinge as his vicar shall thinke sitting. The care of this thinge so essentially necessary to the beinge of a Church, caused the primitiue Church to doe som things that now are forbidden. For this respect in the begininge all Priestes, or in a manner all were Bishops in respect of order, as is shwed by Franciscus a Messana

in his annotations vpon S. Hierom. which is alsoe affirmed bya Scotus▪ byb Suarez by Pinlippus de Gaumashe Doctour of So••bon. primis temporibus (sayth hee) pauci erant Sacerdotes, qui non essent simul ••piscopi pro∣pter frequentes, & quotidianas persecutiones. In the primitiue tymes, there were few Priestes that were not also Bishops in regarde of soe frequent, and dayly persecutions, to witt, least all the or∣der of Bishops might fayle at once. This was the cause of placinge Bishops in citties where christians were very few in number, as S. Gregory Thaumaturgus was ordained Bishop of Neocaesarca, when the christians of the citty were not aboue seauenteene. This was the reason why Bishops were made in vilages, and little townes tea••med Chore episcopi, country Bishops. Finally to our pourpose, this care inforced the Church to make Bishops in the ••age, and fury of persecution when there was noe hope they should escape; for when Bishops died, or were taken away by martyrdome vniuersally ouer the world, as in those per∣secutions they were: if new had not been presently made in their ••oo••••es with in a short tyme, the whole vniuersall Church would haue been left without Bishops. Now this reason to cease in respect of En∣gland who doth not see? For though there bee no Bishops, or Bishop in England, the order of Bishops may subsist in the

world, without danger of beinge sudd••i∣nely extinct.

3. The second reason of ordaininge Bi∣shops euery where in tyme of persecution was, that which of ten hath been touched, that all christians might bee sufficiently fur∣nished with Priestes of learinge and Au∣thority to giue them all necessary Sacra∣mentes, and instruction of sauinge truth. For this cause the deuine institution, (as hath been sayd,) will haue the Church deuided into Dioceses and districts, and that euery diocese haue a proper Bp. to or∣daine Priestes, when the Diocese is at such extēt as they cannot bee prouided of Priests without a proper Bishop within them sel∣ues. This necessity was greater in the pri∣mitiue Church when noe Bishop, or Priest was ordained but in the Cathedrall Church in the presence of all the cleargy, and peo∣ple that would bee present, which Canon, euen in tyme of persecution wasa in∣uiolable kept, now England may bee, and is aboundantly furnished with Priestes, by the prouidence of the supreme Pastour, wherevnto a Bishop at home cannot helpe: yea by ordaininge Priestes with in England may bee do much harme to the Catholi∣que cause; and soe this necessity of makin∣ge Bishops duringe persecution in the pri∣mitiue Church ceaseth now in our English Church.

4. The third necessity was the externall gouernment of the Churche••, to mantaine peace and concord among christians, by way of authority banishinge sinne, honouringe vertue, promoting•• men vnto dignity as they deserue. The exercise of this external iurisdiction was necessary, and vsed in the primitiue Church, because the persecution was not so hard, and seuere but christians had thyre knowne Church, and cemeteries, to which all of that citty or diocese might repayre, and it need re∣quired might bee there s••moned before the Bishop; and though some persecutions were soe violent, as they did not per∣mitt christians to meete in theyr cemeteryes or Churches, yet that violence was not so frequent nor so vniuersall, nor euer lasted a boue three, or fowre yeares at a tyme, when most. Hence it is manifest, that also this necessity of hauing a particular Bi∣shop ceaseth in respect of England, our persecution being now, and hauing euer been so violent in this behalf•• these three∣score yeares, as there is no hope of hauing Churches where all Catholiques of one diocesse may meete, and assemble with their Bishops, and Pastors; nor is there any place vnto which litigan••s, or delin∣quents may bee iutidically summoned, and compelled to appeare, no•• can one be conuicted of contumacy if hee refuse to

appeare, seing hee may euer iustly pretend danger not to meete with his aduersary be∣fore the Bishop in iudgment, acknowled∣ging his tribunal, so that coactiue iurisdi∣ction forcing men to iustice, peace and vnity by iuridicall courses is impossible as things now stand in England: Wherefore one that would chalenge externall iurisdi∣ction, and coactiue power ouer the Church of England, might bee questioned by the sayd Church, as S. Augustin makes the people moue a question to S. Paul, quid te iactas iudicaturum? vbi sedebis: primo inueni locum vbi sedeas, & sic minare te iudicaturum. why dost thou chalenge the authority of a Iuge? where wilt thou sit to exercize iudgment? find a place where to sit, and then speake of being our iudge.

5. Hence also may bee answered the in∣stances, and similitude to proue a Bishop to bee most necessary in tyme of persecution, so tediously inculcated by M^r. Doctour, when is a Pilote more necssary then when a shipp is most dangerously tossed with the surginge waues? or a Pastour, then when the woulfe is ready to deuour the flocks? or a Generall then when the ene∣my approacheth, and offereth battayle? I answere neuer. But there bee other Pilots Pastours, and Generalls of a Church per∣secuted besides my Lord of Chalcedon. Christ Iesus is the supreme Pilote, Pastour

General, who in the tyme of persecution is most especially necessary to gouerne the Church by the law of his loue, the inforce∣ment of externall iurisdiction then hauing no place. The Pope is the supreme visible Pi∣lote, Pastour, Generall, then most neces∣sary to declare the doubts about faith, and resist errour that may creepe in. The particular Bishop is also a Pilote, Pastour, and Generall necessary, if otherwise the Church cannot bee prouided of Priests, who by theyr word, by theyr example, by the administration of Sacramens in∣courage Catholiques vnto the batayle; otherwise if without him, Christ Iesus and his vicar may immediatly furnish the country with Priestes: that particular Pi∣lote, Pastour, or Generall is needlesse, spe∣cially if by coming, the storme and tem∣pest should much increase, and this is our case.

M^r. Doctour argueth a genere ad speciem. a Pilote for England is necessary in per∣secution. Ergo my Lord of Chalcedon is necessary, as who would say without him the Piloteship, Pastourship, and Generalship of Christ, and his vicar is not sufficient. By this it may appeare, that M^r. Doctour by no president of former ages can confirme the necessity of a Bi∣shop, with such circumstances as he vr∣geth for the gouernment in England. To

conclude I will produce some few exam∣ples of antiquity to proue te contrary, since the tyme of Constantine, when not Paganisme, but heresy did persecute the Church, not vniuersally, but in one country only, which is our present case.

6. It is recorded by Theodoret: that Va∣lens the Emperour an Arian, banished all Catholique Bishops out of his dominions from theyr Churches, and to execute this decree vpon Eusebius Samosacenus a most holy and learned Catholique Bi∣shop, sent a messenger of his chamber. The good Bishop entertained him cour∣teously, and gaue him warning not to make the cause of his comminge know∣ne in regard the Cittizens beeing zea∣lous in Catholique religion, and loue to theyr Bishop migh•• do him some mis∣cheefe. In the darcke of the night, that the people might not know of his ba∣nishment, and therevpon resist the Em∣perours edict, priuatly with one seruant bearing for him only one booke, and a cushion, hee went to a barge prepared to carry him vnto Thrace, the next morninge the cittizens missinge him, came to the barge to bringe him back, hee would not but persuaded them to bee content, put∣tinge them in mynde of the Apostles, com∣manding Christians to obey the ciuill magistrate and Prince, and so went vn∣to

banishment, during which, hee did not omit to visit at tymes the Churches of Syria Phenicia, and Palestina, there ordaining Priestes, and Pastours. By this example wee are taught, that a Bishop ought not to continue in his Church against the hereti∣call Prince his will, with danger to bring trouble, and persecution vnto his flock. That a Church in tyme of persecution nee∣deth a Bishop, only for the ordination of Priestes, that hauing Priestes, they ought to rest satisfied, and not by the continuall kee∣ping of a Bishop against the Prince his will, prouoke his indignation.

7. The Church of Africk liuing vnder the persecution of Arian Kings, giueth vs many examples, and proper for vs in En∣gland.

Gensericus hauing conquered Carthage, forbad the Catholiques of that citty to mee∣te togeather in Churches, or to make any publique Ecclesiasticall assemblyes, where∣vppon after the banishment, and death of theyr Bishop named Quod vult Deus, they were a longe while without a Bishop, not presuming against the Kings will to ordayne any, vntill at the request of Va∣lentian Emperour, the King gaue leaue, and so p••st longum silentium desolationis (sayth Victor) the holy Bishop Deo gratias was chosen. Behould the Church will not make Bishops against the will of the per∣secuting

magistrate wit•• danger of irrit••∣ting him. Againe after the death of Bp. Deo gratias t••e Kinge tooke from the Ca∣tholiques the vse of Churches, forbad publique assemblyes, commanding that as the Bishops then liuing dyed, none should bee ordained in theyr places. Whence the Church of Carthage rested 24. yeares wi∣thout a Bishop, and of a 163. Cathedrall Churches th••t where in two prouinces of Africk, only three had Bishops, the rest beeing dead, and the Churches ordaining none in theyr roomes, vntill the Kinge againe gaue liberty of religion, and Churches. Which sheweth that the Church in her wisdome thought it better that so many Churches should want B••∣shops, and bee holpen as they could by Priestes, then by ordrining a Bishop against the Kings will, prouoke his indignation against his catholique subiects. Yea, that a country where there can bee no ordination of Priestes, no publique assemblies is no fit place for a Bishop.

8. T••is to haue been prudently done, appeared not long after in the Raigne of Trasimundus also an Arrian Prince, for hee gaue leaue to catholiques that they might freely frequent their Churches, and practise their religion with the Bishops for the present they enioyed, but that after the death of the present, none should bee su∣b ogated

in their roome. Not withstan∣ding this prohibition, the holy Bishops considering that by this meanes Priesthood and religion would within a short tyme vtterly bee extirpated, moued with zeale, and hopinge, the thinge beeing done, to satisfy the Kinge, and mitigate his displea∣sure, presumed in the seas vacant to ordai∣ne new Bishops; wherewith the King beeinge implacablely incensed, Banished the Bishops of Africa to the number 220. or 255. into Sardinia where they lead reli∣gious liues in celles,o beeing comforted, and mantained by the charities, and liberalities of Simmachus Pope but none of them against the Kings will returned to their seas,p many died in Banishment, and none weare chosen and consecra••ed in their roomes. So that for the space of more then 20. yeares those Churches were with∣out Bishops, least to the charity of Prieste: Here wee haue more then two hundred exemples of the like proceeding in the tyme of persecution, as the Pope nowe v••e••h with vs in England.

9. I will conclud with an other example which doth fully containe this dictamen, and publique iudgment of the ancient Church of Africk about this controuersy recoun∣ted by S. Victour. The Church of Carthage hauinge been ••4. yeares without a Bishop, in the beginning of the raigne of Hunneri∣cus,

Zeno Emperour sent an Embassadour to him, that hee would afford liberty of con∣science to the Catholiques of Carthage, and allow them to choose a Bishop. The king yeelded vnto the Emperours request, sent the sayd Embassadour vnto the Catholi∣que cleargy and people, that in his presence a Bishop might bee chosen, whom the peo∣ple would name. With the Embassadour the Kinge also sent his secretary with an Edict which was read that the Kinge gran∣ted them the free exercize of their religion, restoringe vnto them the Cathedral Church of Carthage, commandinge them to choose a Bishop, but with this prouiso that, the Em∣perour should grant the like liberty to the Arians in Constantinople, otherwise hee would banish all Catholique Bi••hops, and send them amongst the Sauages of Maurita∣nia. Wee (sayth S. Victor) began to groane at the reading of this edict, seeing clearly that they delt deceitfully with vs and that a greate persecu∣tion was contriued, and plotted against vs; hence it is well Knowne, wee sayd to the Embassadour, si ita est his conditionibus periculosis haec Ecclesia Episcopum non delectatur habere. Vppon such dan∣gerous tearmes as these are, the Church hath no comfort, nor mynde to haue a Bishop. Gubernet eam Christus sicut eam semper dignatur gubernare. Lett Christ gouerne it as hee doth still vouchsafe to gouerne it Behould the iudgment of S. Victor Bishop of Vtica, and (if M^r. Doctour bee

not mistaken) Primate of Afri••k with other Bishops, and a••l the Priestes and cleargy of Carthage consentinge with him, their iudg∣ment I say containing the decision of the two poyntes in controuersy against M^r. Do∣ctour. First that in tyme of persecution it is not Good, nor conuenient, nor any comfort for a Church to haue a Bishop when there is no puplique vse of religion. Secondly that in tyme of such a persecution Episco∣pall Iurisdiction for peace, and discipline cannot bee vsed, Christ then must by the law of his loue keepe men in order. What can bee more cleere in our behalfe, and for the iustifiing of the Apostolicall seate?

10. Hence I may inferre, that M^r. Doctour without cause doth so much insist vppon this history, in that S. Victor wryteth, that notwithstanding his verdict the peo∣ple so cried out for a Bishop, a Bishop, as they could not bee appeased, and so Eu∣genius was made Bishop. Wherevppon a trymph followed specially of boyes, and girles, who flockinge togeather she∣wed greater signes of ioy, testifying that they neuer had seene a Bishop sitt in Epis∣copall throne. M. Doctour is here so mo∣ued, as hee sayth hee cannot but turne his speach to his countrimen to Catholiques of England and to desire them to mitat•• this zeale of the Carthaginians for a Bishop and is M. Doctour of this mynde in good earnest?

will hee giue this zeale of the Carthagenians for good, and prudent? The persecuting Tyrant commandes a Bishop vppon certai∣ne conditions to be chosen, t••e Primate of Africa with the Priestes of Carthage iudgeth the choyce of a Bishop with such conditions to bee dangerous, not to bee admitted; the people of Carthage follow the Tyrants will, maugre theyr Bishops counsell, and aduise to the contrary, that is, they obey the woul∣fe against the voyce of their Pastour. Is this to bee allowed? would M^r. Doctour bee the counsellour of the Catholiques of En∣gland to doe the like? God forbid.

11. As for zeale, lett M^r. Doctour put our English Catholiques truly in such cir∣cumstances as the Cathagenians then did persuade themselues to bee in, and I dare warrant him they will burne with desire of a Bishop as much as they did. For those catho∣liques chose a Bishop not against the Kings will, but by his expresse licence, and order, they chose not a Bishop to ly hidden in a house, or to ryde about disguysed (euen the people had no desire, nor would haue had ioy of such a Bishop) but togeather with the Bishop they had the cathedrall Church of Carthage with all the glory and maiesty of Catholique religion, euen to the Bishop sitting in his Episcopall throne. If his maiesty should bee pleased to giue to the Ca∣tholiques of London the Church of Pauls

with full leaue to excercise the rites of their religion, with expresse order that they should choose a Bishop with the assistance of their cleargy, and Primate, if Catholicks should in these circumstances refuse to haue a Bishop, M^r. Doctour might seeme to haue some cause to complaine. But if (as hee would haue them) they make a Bishop against the Kings will, with increase of persecution to goe about in secular attyre, hauinge no chapter, throne, nor Cathe∣drall Church, but in the ayre, if they do this, I say, they shall not imitate the catholiques of Carthage, but a new deuised fancy, vnto which christian antiquity doth afford no pa∣ralell.

12. And heare I note that M••. Doctour to apply this Carthagenian example to En∣gland, is forced to wrest the story against truth, with some wronge to those catholi∣ques. Those (Sayth hee) would haue ha∣zarded their liues for their Bishop, because they had not seene one in their Church for the space of foure and twenty yeares. How zealous should you bee for your Bishop, you not hauing seene a true Bishop in England till these two last you haue had for some more yeares. As who would say the Catholiques of Carthage desired a Bishop out of curiosity, because they had not seene a true Bishop in their Church a greate while, which is manifestly false, be∣cause they had seene many Bishop in Car∣thage,

and namely S. Victor, whom M^r. Doctour nameth Primate of Africa, and so was a true Bishop, and their Prelate, and spirituall prince: nor doth S. Victor say that they so reioyced, because they had not a long tyme before seene a Bishop, Sed quia nun∣quam in Episcopali throno sedentem videssent. be∣cause they had neuer before seene a Bishop with a Cathedrall Church sitting in his Episcopall throne. This cause that made those Catholiques so ouer ioyed with a Bi∣shop, M••. Doctour could not apply to the Catholiques of England as enioying the like in my Lord of Chalcedon; wherefore hee makes bould with S. Victor to tell his tale after him otherwise then hee tould it himselfe, that those Catholiques did re∣ioyce because they had not seene a Bishop in their Church for 24. yeares; that so hee might come vppon English Catholiques with an argument a minori ad maius. God forbidd that a good cause should euer bee brought to such strayghts as by such tri∣ckes to help it selfe.

M. Doctour, if hee will moue Catholi∣ques, must find out an example of a church reioycing to haue a Bishop without any ca∣thedrall church, without a throne, going about without the state of a Bishop, with whom they cannot meete, nor heare him, and all this not casually for a tyme, but per∣manently, without any probable immediate

hope of change. What church did euer re∣ioyce to haue a Bishop in these tearmes, when without him they might haue prie∣stes, and all other necessaries? Sure I am that the Primate of Africa S. Victor, who Knew the mynde of the church in those dayes bet∣ter then M^r. Doctour, sayth, Ecclesia his con∣ditionibus Episcopum non delectatur habere, with these conditions the church hath noe ioy to haue a Bishop.

Wether Regulars be eminent members of the Hierarchie. CAPVT V.

1. MR. Doctour hauing diuided his Ecclesiasticall Hierar∣chie into rankes, whereof Ostiaries be the lowest, he himself according to the counsell of humilitie, sitts downe in the lowest place, doing the office of Ostiarie. In the exercise of which charge he is so se∣uere, as some be kept out of the Hierarchie, who neuer, I dare say, dreamed they should be questioned about their entrance. For he keepeth the doore so close, that is, he ta∣keth the word Hierarchie in a sense so strict, that Cardinalls as Cardinalls, Pa∣triarchs

as Patriarchs, Primates as Primates, Archbishops as Archbishops, are barred out. And although, after some stay, he be content to open the doore somewhat wi∣der, that Patriarchs, Primates, and Metropo∣litans enter, yet Cardinalls cannot gett in by the open way and doore; they must stande out, or else creepe in with Regulars through a hole, to be of the Hierarchie, in a certaine kinde of sense.

That M^r. Doctour from his great ban∣ket he makes vnto his secular Clergie, ex∣cludeth Regulars as Regulars, I nothing wonder. And Regulars though they come accompanied with manie Nations conuer∣ted by their labours vnto Christ, yet being professours of Pouertie, they might expect to finde the Prouerbe true:

Si nihil attuleris, ibis, Homere, foras.

2. For Religious Pouertie findes M^r. Do∣ctour not verie liberall in her prayses, he is so farre from bestowing on her anie almes, as he may seeme to take from her her due, when he sayth, that actuall pouertie or lea∣uing all things to follow Christ, is no per∣fection; as shall be shewed. Nor would holy Pouertie (humilitie being her profession) blush to stande at the doore of their Hie∣rarchie, begging some crumes of repast, that fall from the table of the secular by her euer-reuerenced Clergie her Lords and maisters, but that our Blessed Sauiour, who

is the true doore and soueraigne Prince of the Hierarchie, will haue her enter togea∣ther with his sacred person, as S. Bernard sayth: Saluator, cuius est aurum & argentum, sacram in suo corpore dedicat paupertatem: The sauiour being lord of golde and siluer▪ did conse∣crate sacred Pouertie euen in his owne bodie. Hence all his friends haue so honoured po∣uertie by word and example, and placed her in such an high state of perfection, as her professours haue neede to haue care they loose not the gemme of humilitie, by hea∣ring so much of her prayses. Wherefore S. Bernards aduise to Religious is not here out of season: Audimus Apostolicam profes∣sionem: Ecce nos reliquimus omnia, & secuti sumus te. Si gloriari libet, hab••mus gloriam. sed si sapimus, habere curabimus apud Deum. Neque enim manus nostra excelsa sed Dominus fecit haec omnia. Fecit nobis magna, qui potens est, vt meritò magnificet anima nostra Dominum. Ipsius enim magno munere factum est, vt ma∣gnum propositum, vnde magni gloriabantur Apo∣stoli, magnificè sequeremur. We heare the Apo∣stles professe: Beholde, we haue left all, and haue followed thee; ••f we be minded to glorie, we want no ground; but if we be wise, we will seeke to haue glorie with God. For not our lifted vp arme, but our lord hath donne all these things. Magnificent things hath he donne vs, he, who is potent; and great reason hath our soule to magni∣fye him. For by the magnificent guift of his grace,

he hath wrought, that we magnificently follow that magnificent state, whereof euen the greatest of the Apostles did glorie.

By M^r. Doctours wordes it is proued, that Regulars haue an eminent place in the Hierarchie. §. 1.

3. THree things are to be proued: That Regulars are in the Hierar∣chie, absolutely, not in a sense, as M^r. Doctour would haue men thinke. Se∣condly, that they are of the Hierar∣chie euen in that degree, from which M^r. Doctour would exclude them, Thirdly, that they are of the Hierarchie in a more eminent ranke then secular Priests. These three points I will demonstrate by M^r. Do∣ctours owne wordes, whom the euidence of truth hath forced to speake, whence more may be concluded, then he intended.

And first, that Regulars are of the Hie∣rarchie absolutely, and not only in this or that sense, I holde it a point of faith. For whosoeuer are members of the Church, are of the Hierarchie or Hierarchicall bodie of Christ, consisting of members of different orders and offices. Let vs heare M^r Do∣ctour c. 2. n. 5. The Hierarchie or distinction of orders and degrees, is proued, because S. Paul compareth the Church to a mans bodie, in which are diuerse members, as the head, eyes, and the

rest, which haue diuerse functions Thus he; whereby it is cleare, that to say, that Regu∣lars are not of the Hierarchie, is as much as to say, they are not of the Church, nor members hauing anie function in Christs' mysticall bodie; so that if anie stagger about making Regulars of the Hierarchie, they may in the same manner moue doubtes, whether they are of the Church. Would M^r. Doctour be thought to doubt of this? Againe sayth M^r. Doctour: The Church may be proued a Hierarchie, because it is compared to an armie, in which is a Generall, Captaines, Lieutenants, Sergeants, Corporals, and common Soldiers. To a familie, in which is the Paterfami∣lias, the good-man of the house, his wife, his children, his seruants; To a shipp, which sayleth in the sea of the world, tossed with waues of temptation, whose shipwright is God, whose Go∣uernour is Christ, and vnder him, his Vicar; he that ruleth the decke or foreparte of the shipp is the Bishop, whose shipp-man and mariner is the Priest, whose dispensers are Deacons, whose sol∣diers the rest of Christians: To a kingdome, which is a multitude ordered and disposed by diuers dignities and degrees whereof some gouerne▪ so∣me are gouerned. Thus M^r. Doctour; where by it is apparent, that whosoeuer is absolu∣tely of the Church, is absolutely of the Hierarchie; but Regulars absolutely are of the Church, therefore they be absolutely of the Hierarchie, that is, in the armie of

Christ, if not Captaines, at the least, cōmon soldiers; in his familie, if not children, at the least seruants; in his ship, if not marriners, at the least soldiers; in his kingdome, if not Gouernours, at the least in the degree of the gouerned.

4. Secondly, Regulars are of the Hierar∣chie, euen in that sense, in which M^r. Do∣ctour would exclude them. For the question is, sayth he, who be of this Hierarchie? Not only as the Laytie is, which is of this Hierarchie, as the common people are of a kingdome, but also as they are, who beare office, and haue an emi∣nent place in the Church; In this sense Regu∣lars to be of the Church, I proue by M^r. Doctours words: Religious, saith he, euen as Religious are a great ornament to the Church, and are in this sense of the Hierarchie of the Church, in that they are eminent members of the Church, and are ordained to helpe and assiste Bishops and Pastours in preaching and hearing Confessions, as the Pastours shall desire and neede, or as their priuiledges shall permitt them. Hence I gather three things. First, Religious as Religious haue an eminent place in the Church. For how can eminent members of the Church not haue an eminent place in the Church; if they be eminent members, how can they be of the same ranke with lay-men, who be but the feete.

5. Secondly, Religious as Religious bea∣re office in the Church; for they are ordai∣ned

to helpe and assist Bishops, or to be the assistāts and coadiutours of Bishops, which is to be in office. Dicuntur enim, sayth S. Thomas, in o••ficiis esse, qui ad diuersas actiones deputantur: They are sayd to be in offices, who by publike authoritie are deputed to diuerse actions; which actions, as he there addeth, must be actions tending towards the helping and perfecting of others, espe∣cially towards God. Hence S. Isidorus sayth: Officiorum illud praecipuum est, quod in diuinis sanctisque rebus habetur: of all offices that is the chiefest, whereby actions are exercised in diuine and sacred things. But Regulars are de∣puted and ordained to exercise actions in sacred things tending towards the perfecting of others; such are the actions of preaching and hearing of confessions: Therefore Re∣gulars as Regulars haue an eminent place in the Church, and haue not only an office, sed officiorum praecipuum, one of the chiefest of∣fices, to further the spirituall perfection of soules, as Bishops shall neede and require.

6. Thirdly, that Regulars as Regulars be Priests and Preachers. For Regulars euen as Regulars are ordained to helpe the Bis∣hop in preaching, and in hearing of con∣fessions, as M^r. Doctour sayth; but this they cannot doe, except they be Priests, as is cleare: ergo Regulars euen as Regulars are Priests; not that by their instituts they be formerly made Priests, but because the offi∣ce

and calling of Priest hood is with their institute and state connaturally and neces∣sarily ioyned. As Bishops or Curats be sta∣tes or callings of Priesthood, because by their state they are deputed to actions, that require Priesthood, though some Curats and Bishops be not Priests; so Religious Or∣ders haue the state and calling of Priests; because by their institute they are ordained vnto actions, which require the power of Priesthood; as to heare Confessions, as the Bishop shall neede. So that a Religious man, that is not yet Priest, is not come to the per∣fection due to his calling.

7. Hence appeareth that M. Doctour contradicteth himselfe, w••en else where he sayth, that Regulars as Regulars are not Priests, nor haue the office of preaching. If Regulars euen as Regulars, be ordained to preach and heare Confessions: how haue they not as Regulars the office of Preachers and Priests▪ And much more clearely doth he contradicte himselfe in another place, where he sayth: When Religious men are sent to preach to Infidels, and to conuerte soules, as that appertaineth not to them as Relegious, but as they are extraordinarily called; so they are sent to exercise greater actes of perfection, then pur••ly Monasticall or Regular, which are properly be∣longing to them. I cannot conceaue, ho•• he could more formally and expressely haue contradicted himselfe. If Religious euen as

Religious be eminent members of the Church, ordained to assist Bishops in prea∣ching and hearing Confessions, when they assist Bishops as being sent by them to preach and conuert, how doe they then performe actions that appertaine not to them as Religious? how be these actions hi∣gher then purely regular, if euen as Regu∣lars they be ordained vnto them? And that none may thinke, that M^r. Doctour did casually, and not forced by truth fall on this saying: that Regulars euen as Regulars are ordained to preach, heare confessions, &c. to witt, some Religious Orders, he repeates it againe c. 8. n. 8. where setting downe some diuisions of Religious Orders, he sayth: Others by the constitutions of their Order doe ap∣ply themselues not only to the contemplatiue life, but also to the actiue, in ayding Bishops and Pastours by their preaching and administration of the Sacraments of Confession and of the sacred Eucharist. If by their verie institution Re∣gulars apply themselues to these actions, how be these actions higher then Regular? doe not these actions appertaine to Reli∣gious as Religious? which Religious by their verie constitution, and euen as Reli∣gious, are ordained and bound to exercise.

8. The third thing I vndertooke to proue, is, that Regulars are in a higher de∣gree of the Hierarchie, then secular Priests, which I demonstrate by the words of the

Apostle, 1. Cor. 12.28. ioyning them with M^r. Doctours interpretation. The words are: Et quosdam quidem posuit Deus in Ecclesia, primùm Apostolos secundò Prophetas, tertiò D••∣ctores, deinde virtutes, exinde gratia•• curatio∣num, opitulationes gubernationes, genera lingua∣rum, interpretationes sermonum. And some God hath placed in the Church, first Apostles, secondly Prophets, thirdly Doctours, then vertues, and so forwards the graces of curing, opitulations, go∣uernements, strange toungs, interpretations of speaches. Here S. Paul intendeth two things; first, to sett downe the varieties of states, ministeries, and offices, that are in the Church, that is, the degrees of the Hierar∣chie, as M. Doctour sayth, and no man doubteth thereof. Secondly, to number those offices in order, first, second, third, ac∣cording to their degree and eminencie of place, as the Text sheweth. Hence if in this text S. Paul place Regulars before secular Priests, then the place of Regulars is more eminent and high and neere vnto their head. But how can this be proued? because S. Paul putteth Opitulations, that is, helpers before Gouernements, that is, Gouernours. For so he sayth: Opitulationes, gubernationes, first helpers, and then gouernours. But Opitulations be Regulars, whose office is to helpe and assist Bishops; gouernours be secular Priests, that haue the gouernement of soules. who doth so expounde? euen M••. Doctour him∣felfe

in his Dedicatorie n. 12. Regulars, sayth he, must honour secular Priests, who are by the diuine institution gouernours of the Church (S. Paul vseth the word: gouernements 1. Cor. 12.28. and the secular must honour the Regulars as helpers, S. Paul sayth, Opitulations. where you see that Opitulation•• be Regulars, and Gouernements secular Priests as euen M^r. Do∣ctour doth acknowledge; but S. Paul num∣bring the offices of the Church in order, puts Opitulations before Gouernements; the∣refore in the iudgement of S. Paul, and truth, Regulars are of a higher degree in the Church, then the secular Priests. And though M. Doctours credit be sufficient to authorize this exposition against him∣selfe, yet I adde that his exposition is proba∣ble, and may seeme to be the Angelicall Doctours: for he expounding this place sayth: gubernationes, vt Parochi gouernements, such as Parish Priests are; and though he doe not there say, that Opitulationes be Regu∣lars, yet he doth often affirme, that the pro∣per office of some Regulars, is to be opitula∣tions, aydes and helpes of Bishops and their instruments to perfect and sanctifye sou∣les: subseruire Episcopis in tali ministerio est hu∣ius Religionis proprium: It is proper vnto Reli∣gious Orders of this kinde, to serue and helpe Bishops in the ministerie of sanctifying soules.

9. Yea Religious Orders haue this fa∣uour, that euen the supreme Pastour, and

Prince of God's people doth not disdaine to acknowledge them to be his helperrs, his fellow-workemen, labourers sent for his assistance by the Diuine speciall proui∣dence. For Gregorie the Thirtenth spea∣king in generall of Religious orders sayth: Cum tanti laboris socios & validos remiges nobis Diuina prouidentia praeparauit, eorum opera in superandis soeuientis mundi tempestatibus nos ma¦ximè sub••euat. As the Diuine Prouidence hath prepared such strong marriners to be our parteners in this so great labour, so their assistance doth most of all helpe vs to breake through the furious tem∣pests of the raging world. And againe: Diuina prouidentia pro temporum necessitate varia ac sa∣lutaria Ordinum instituta in Ecclesia sua produxit nouisque subinde in ea nascentibus morbis noua re∣media, nouisque emergentibus hostium impugna∣tionibus noua Regularium Ordinum auxilia exci∣tauit: The Diuine prouidence according to the ne∣cessitie of times doth produce sundrie holesome in∣stitutes of Religious in his Church, prouiding against new diseases, that by seasons raigne, new remedies, raysing against the new discoue∣red impugnations of enemies, new helpes of Regular Orders, quorum alumni per multiplices probationum gradus altius prouecti semper nobis praesto sunt quos in suscipiendis rebus arduis vtiles operarios asciscamur whose children be euer rea∣die for vs at hand, whom we may designe to be vsefull workemen for the vndertaking of diffi∣cult entreprises, tending to the good of soules.

That Regulars are by their verie institute immediatly subrodinate to the Vniuer∣sall Bishop; secular Priests to par∣ticular Prelates. §. 2.

10. THis may serue to shew how fitly Regular instituts be tearmed Opi∣tulations by S. Paul, and the reason that mo∣ued him to preferre Opitulations before Go∣uernements, that is, Regulars before secular Priests. The reason is, because seculars are by their calling, helpes of particular Bi∣shops in the gouernement of particular churches; but Regulars are by their institu∣te helpes subordinate immediatly to the Vniuersall Bishop, to be employed for the good of the vniuersall Church; By the na∣ture, I say, of their state, setting priuiledges of exemptions aside, standing in the rigour of Diuine institution, Regulars are imme∣diatly subiect to the Pope, and free from Bi∣shops, as they be Regulars, that is, accor∣ding to their vow of Obedience and Regu∣lar obseruances they are bound vnto by wow, Rule and Constitutions. This is taught and proued by Sanchez (an Authour of high esteeme) tom. 2. in Praecepta l. 6. c. 1. n. 16. Religiosi non tenentur obedire Episcopos ex vi voti Obedientiae, etiam stando in iure diuino & secluso exemptionis priuilegio. vnde quoad obser∣uantias Regulares, non ipsi sed Abbati subsunt.

Ratio est, quia etsi secluso hoc priuilegio diuina iure atte••t•• subessent Episcopo, & is esset eorum supe∣rior, id tantum est eo modo, quo Episcopus est supe∣rior omnium Clericorum, non autem quoad obser∣uantias, ad quas ex solo voto tenentur. Religions are not bound to obey the Bishop by their vowe of obedience, euen standing in the diuine law, and secluding their priuiledge of exemption. So that according to their Regular obseruances they be subiect not to h••m, but to their Abbot or supe∣riour. The reason is, because though setting a side priuiledges, Regulars be subiect to the Bishop, and he be their superiour; yet this only is in a generall manner, as he is superiour of all the Clergie••, to wit, in regarde of Ecclesiasticall discipline, not in regarde of Regular obseruances, vnto which they are bound only by vowe. And though Petrus Ledesma seeme to holde the contrarie, yet sayth Sanchez: Nostra doctrina est verissima, quae constat ex eo, quòd quoad obseruantias Regu∣lares & punitionem transgressionum eorum iuxta Regularem disciplinam magis est obediendum Praelatis Regularibus. Our doctrine is most true; which is euidently shewed by this, that in regar∣de of Regular obseruances, and the punishment of transgressions against them, according to Regular discipline, Regulars are bound to obey their Regu∣lar Prelates, more then the Bishop. This doctrine is the common tenent of Catholique Do∣ctours cited by Sanchez, yea the same is ex∣pressely deliuered by S. Thomas saying: In his quae ad disciplinam Regularem spectant, Mo∣nachus

plus tenetur obedire Abbati, quàm Epis∣copo; in his enim se voto obstrinxit Abbati; sed in eis, quae pertinent ad Ecclesiasticam ordinationem, plus tenetur obedire Episcopo. The monke in things appertayning to Religious discipline, is bound to obey his Abbott more then the Bishop; but for Ec∣clesiasticall ordinations he is more to obey the Bi∣shop, to witt, secluding the priuiledge of exemption.

11. Hence Regulars, who by vow and by their Constitutions are bound to helpe towards the saluation of their neighbour, are not therein subordinate to particular Bishops, but only to the supreme to be commaunded, and sent by him for the Good of the vniuersall Church, whether and in what manner he shall thinke fit. Nor can Bishops commaunde them nor exacte of them the performance of this their profes∣sion and vowe. Wherefore seing in the Hierarchicall bodie those members are most eminent, that are by state most imme∣diate to the head, those most excellent, that are ordained and employed to the most vni∣uersall Good (For Bonum quo vniuersalius, eo melius: A Good thing the more vniuersall it is, the better) who doth not perceaue great reason, why S. Paul should put Regulars before secular Priests in the Church hierar∣chye? This is confirmed, because as in the Church vnder Christ liuing on earth the 72. disciples were next vnto the Apostles

so they that most properly succeede the 72. disciples and be most like to them, are in the Church in the next degree vnto Bishops, that succeede in place of the Apostles. These are Regulars, as S. Tho∣mas proueth 2. 2. q. 188. a. ad 5. Saying, that not only Parish Priests, but also Re∣gulars, who helpe Bishops in their offi∣ce, succeede the 72. disciples: Non enim legitur, quod septuaginta duobus discipulis Do∣minus aliquas determinatus Parochias assignaret, sed quod mittebat eos binos ante faciem suam in omnem ciuitatem & locum, quo erat ipse veniu∣rus, For we doe not reade, that our Lord did determine Parishes vnto the 72 disciples, but that he sent them by couples into euerie cittie and place, whether himself was to come. Thus S. Thomas, shewing that Regulars, who are instruments of Christs Vicar on earth, not restrained to one Parish or Diocese, but for euerie cittie and place, vnto which they shall be sent, are most like the 72. disciples, and so most properly succeede in their pla∣ce, and consequently are to be preferred before those, whose labours and charges are vnder the commaunde of particular Bi∣shops, and by state and calling are assigned to one little particle of a particular Church.

12. Hereby may be discouered some want in M^r. Doctours discourse, when he will preferre euerie Pastour, and all such as are

lawfully called to gouerne soules, before Regulars. Not only, sayth he, the Bishops, but also euerie Pastour, yea and all they, who are lawfully called to gouerne soules by prea∣ching, teaching, and ministring of Sacraments, especially, if in performing these offices they expose their lands, liberties and liues, haue a more per∣fect calling then the Religious as Religious haue; because the Religious man by his calling seeketh only to saue his owne soule, he hauing by state and office no care of soules; and he is not by his cal∣ling to giue his life for others, as euerie Pastour, and they who haue charge of soules, are. In these words M^r. Doctour may seeme much to forget himselfe, in saying that a Religious man by his calling seeketh only to saue his owne soule, not the soules of others. Doth not himselfe else where say, that Regulars as Regulars are eminent members of the head, and ordained to helpe Bi∣shops in preaching and hearing Confes∣sions? and in another place, that some Re∣ligious men by the institution of their order apply themselues to actiue life, by ayding Bishops by their preaching ād administratiō of the Sacraments &c. how then do they seeke to saue only their owne soules, and not the soules of their neighbours? Of the institute of the societie of Iesus, Pope Gre∣gorie the Thirteenth, as it were, contradi∣cting M^r. Doctour in tearmes sayth. Gratia ipsorum vocationis proprium est diuersaloca pera∣grare

ex Romani Pontificis directione, & vitam agere in quauis mundi plaga, vbi maius anima∣rum auxilium speratur Of the grace of their cal∣ling ••t is proper to goe about the world by the dire∣ction of the Romane Bishop, and to liue in an••e coaste of the world, where they may hope to make greatest gayne of soules. And that M^r. Do∣ctour may not escape, by saying, that Regu∣lars do not attende principally to the hel∣ping of soules, as seculars doe, but only cō∣sequently, the Pope addeth: Cuius finis praeci∣puus est Catholicae Religionis defensio & propaga∣tio, animarumque in Christiana vita & doctrina profe••us▪ Of which societie the principall ende is, the defending and propagating of the Catholike Religion, and profiting of soules in Christian life and doctrine. This proueth also that to be fal••e, that a Religious man by his state and calling is not to giue his life for others, seing some Religious men are bound by vowe and institute, that is, by their state and calling to go amongst Infidells when they are sent, and not to shrincke, though they cannot goe without euident hazard of their life.

13. And though Priests, that haue bene∣fices, vnto which care of soules is annexed, be bound by office, by reason of the stipen∣de they haue, and so are bound euen in iusti∣ce for euerie soule (wherein they may see∣me to make a hard bargaine) yet is not their calling more perfect then that of Re∣ligion.

First, because though the tye of iu∣stice, into which Curats enter, be more strict, and of greater obligation in regarde of sinne, yet the obligation of charitie, obe∣dience, Religion, wherewith Regulars bin∣de themselues to helpe soules, is more high and excellent and greater in regarde of me∣rit, specially because they are bound by their state to labour in the haruest of soules with a more pure intention, and more free from earthlie rewarde, then are secular Priests, who do not labour without their wages. Secondly because that the Parish Priest doth not by obligation binde his whole life to the ayding of soules, but he may forsake his calling, leaue his floc∣ke, and passe to Religion, without the Bishops leaue, as S. Thomas sayth, but the Religious bindeth his whole life vnto God, to be employed for the sauing of sou∣les, according to the arbitrement of the su∣preme Pastour. So that looke (sayth S. Thomas) what perfection an Holocauste hath, aboue anie other ordinarie sacrifice, the same perfection haue Religious men by state, aboue secular Priests, euen those that be Curats.

M^r. Doctours comparison betwixt the state of Re∣ligion and of Bishop examined. CAPVT VI.

REGVLARS, who as Regu∣lars and by their institute be Opitulations, and attende to the helping of soules, are conuinced by the testimonie of S. Paul, as vnderstood euen by M^r. Do∣ctour, to be seated in the Hierarchie aboue secular Priests.

The Order of S. Benedict in the number of Opitulacions. §. 1.

1. FRom which number neither truth nor gratitude will permit vs to se∣clude the most venerable Order of the grea∣test Patriarch of Monkes by diuine destina∣tion, named Benedict, to signifie, quod in se∣mine eius benedicerentur omnes gentes, that by the charitable labours of his glorious of∣spring, all nations should be made blessed. Their worthies eternally famous haue bene so manie in number, so super-celestiall in all Christian excellencies, that what the Poët sayde of Rome so fortunate in her children,

renowned for Martiall prowesse, may with greater truth and fitter signification be ap∣plyed to this Religion, most flourishing for Saints of Apostolicall dignitie and per∣fection:

Imperium terris animos aequauit Olympo Felix prole virûm, qualis Berecynthia Mater Laeta Deûm partu centum complexa nepotes, Omnes coelicolas omnes capita alta ferentes.

Manie be the diuine benedictions and ex∣cellencies of this Order, but one more then the rest I doe and will eternally honour. A singular happinesse it is of the Romane Church, that from Nero to Constātine, sho hath had 33 Bishops, as manie in number as were the yeares of our Sauiours life; all which partly by the persecutours sword, partely pined away with other pressure, suf∣fered martyrdome for Christ; that Church giuing him the life of one of her Bishop, in recompence of euerie yeare of his life. No lesse is the happinesse of this Religion, that hath conuerted vnto Christ 33. kingdomes, for euerie yeare of his life giuing him a w∣hole natiō of people, to giue him thākes and adore him; so that, as I sayde, neither truth nor gratitude, I adde, nor shame will per∣mit them to be excluded from the ranke of Opitulations, to whom for their helpe the Christian world, especially Europe, aboue all, England, is immensely beholding.

For though by their Rule giuen by S. Be∣nedict, they be not specially ordayned to at∣tende to actiue life in the ayding of soules, yet the same Rule doth not forbidde them this kinde of sacred employment. And the supreme Pastour seing the fruitfulnesse of their labours, and the necessitie the Church had of them, did institute, that they should be made Priests, that so they might sanctifye the whole world with their sacrifice, and be still readie instruments, whom the holie sea might sende about glorious enterprises. Wherefore M. Doctour is mistaken, when he sayth: Monkes by profession are to liue in Mo∣nasteries, and to attende to the contemplatiue, not to the actiue life Such, sayth Bellarmine, are the Be∣nedictins of Monte-Cassino, and others of that Or∣der. And againe: Monkes by their institution should keepe their selues within their monasteries, and apply themselues only to contemplation and prayer, and singing in the quire. Here, I say, M^r. Doctour is deceaued, perchance not against his will. Bellarmine doth not say, that the Benedictins are bound by their profession to attende to contemplation only, but sayth, that those of Monte-Cassino do not now actually attende to actiue life, but the addi∣tion, and others of their Order, is not Bellarmi∣nes, but M^r. Doctours, desirous to stretch Bellarmines saying from Cassino as farre as Doway. S. Bonifacius Pope (who knew the Rule of S. Benedict better then M^r, Do∣ctour)

sayth: neque enim B. Benedictus mona∣chorum pater Almificus huius rei aliquo modo fuit interdictor, sed secularium negotiorum edixit ex∣pertes fore tantummodo. For B. Benedict, the glorious father of monkes did no wayes for∣bidde his monkes this (helping their neigh∣bour) but only gaue commaunde, they should abstaine from secular negotiations.

How the holie ancient Fathers did highly honour and preferre the state of Religion. §. 2.

3. M^R. Doctour will needes renew the ancient comparison betwixt the state of Religion and the state of Bishops, which of them is the most perfect and ex∣cellent, wherein he doth extoll Episcopall excellencie with such excesse, as may bree∣de in Regulars an appetite to make his di∣scourse more regular and within measure. Nor can I for the renewing of this disputa∣tion commende his discretion, seing Regu∣lars in this behalfe contende with great ad∣uantage in two respects. First M. Doctour commendes a state, setting the same forth as most excellent, and consequently amia∣ble and to be desired, which he will not say he himselfe desires, nor will anie man wi∣thout blushing yeelde to say, he desires it from the bottome of his hart. For he kno∣wes the saying of S. Augustine: Locus supe∣rior,

sine quo populus regi non potest, etsi admini∣stretur vt deceat, tamen indecenter appetitur. Superioriti•• of place, without which peo∣ple cannot be ruled, though it be perfor∣med gloriously, yet it is neuer desired but shamefully. The Oratour thought he did sufficiently discouer the follie of Philoso∣phers, for that in the frontispice of their bookes, they writ against the cupiditie of glorie, they caused their names to be pain∣ted, that they might be celebrious. M••. Do∣ctour takes a contrarie course, setting forth Episcopal dignitie as a most excellent and desireable thing, yet dareth he not put his name amongst the desirers thereof, how will he induce others to thinke, he is highly perswaded of the goodnesse, beautie, and ex∣cellencie of that state, wherein he will not wish himselfe placed. yea, if one should say: the loue of a Bishoprick burnes in his hart, he would thinke himselfe much disgraced. For presently S. Chrysostoms saying will be brought vpon him: Primatum Ecclesiae con∣cupiscere neque iustum est neque vtile; quis enim sapiens vult vltro se subijcere seruituti, vt det ra∣tionem pro omni Ecclesia, nisi fortè, qui non timet Dei iudicium? To longe for, primacie in t••e church, is a thing neither reasonable, nor of profitt. For what wise man will of selfe-ac∣corde enter into obligation to giue accoun∣te for euerie one of a whole church, except such a man, that feareth not the iudgemēt of God▪

4. On the other side, no wisedome, no sanctitie, no dignitie on earth may blush to professe loue towards the state of Religious pouertie and humilitie, or to be deepely enamoured therewith. S. Augustine, that mirrour of Christian learning and sancti∣tie, let him speake for the rest, who were doubtlesse all of his minde; he giueth this testimonie of himselfe: I the writer hereof haue ardently loued that perfection, whereof our Lord spake, when he spake to the rich yong man: Goe, sell all thou hast, and giue it to the poore, and come follow me; and I haue em∣braced the same, not by mine owne forces, but through the helpe of his grace. How much I haue profited in this way of perfection, my self can tell better then anie other man, but God knowes bet∣ter then myselfe. To follow this state, I exhorte others with all the force and efficacie I can; and in the name of our Lord I haue parteners, vnto whom this perfection hath bene by my ministerie perswaded. What holie man, will M^r. Do∣ctour finde, that was thus enamoured of an Episcopall state? that did delight himselfe and ioye in that charge? that did professe to exhorte others to seeke and embrace it with him?

5. The second aduantage, is that all holie Bishops, that euer were, stande on our side, commending the happinesse of a Religious state, farre beyond the state of Bishops, what can be more dreadfull and more terrible to

shew, how vnlouelie is the state of secular Prelats, then what S. Chrysostome writeth: Non temerè dico, sed vt aff••ctus sum ac sentio: Non arbitror sacerdotes mulios esse, qui salui fiant sed multò plures, qui pereant. In causa est, quoniam res excelsum requirit animum. I speake not at random, but from my hart, and a•• I belieue; I thinke, that of Priests there be not manie, that are saued, but that the farre greater number of them perish; the reason is, because the office re∣quires a high resolution, for the Bishop hath manie occasions, which will driue him from his good cu∣stomes, and he hat•• neede to haue on euerie side innumerable eies.

6. He that doth deeply apprehende eter∣nitie, will iudge, that he had great reason, who sayde, that if it were reuealed of God, that in all the posteritie of Adam, only one man were to be damned, that is depriued of God, and deputed vnto torments vnsuppor∣table for euer; yet that might suffice to ma∣ke euerie one to liue in perpetuall feare and trembling, least perchance he be that vn∣happie creature, on whom that dismal de∣stinie is to lighte. What a dreadfull thing then is it, to be ranked amongst them, in which number the farre greater parte is not saued, manie times not for their owne dissolute liues, but only for the damnation of others, which they were bound to hin∣der. Quòd al•••• peccant, sayth S. Chrysostome, illi imputentur. Nihil dico praeterea, si vel vnus

decedat non initiatus, vnum hoc totam ipsius sub∣uertit salutem. The sinnes of others are imputed to him. I say no more but this, if one only chance to departe this life without Baptisme, this alone will suffice to make him wholy voyde of saluation.

7. S. Gregorie to the same purpose. Penset, qui ad satisfaciendum districto iudici de sua tan∣tummodo anima fortasse non sufficit, quia quot regendis subditis praeest reddendae apud Deum ra∣tionis tempore, vt ita dicam, tot solus animas ha∣bet. Lett the Pastour consider, that being perhaps notable to giue good satisfaction to the seuere iud∣ge about his owne onlie soule, at the day of giuing account vnto God, being but one in person, he shall as •• may say, haue manie soules, for which he must answere. And in another place in pastorali li. 1. cap. 9. Quid est potestas culmin••s, nisi tempe∣stas mentis, in qua dum cogitationum procellis nauis cordis quatitur, huc illucque incessanter impellitur, vt per importunos excessus cordis ac operis quasi per obuiantia saxa frangatur. What is the power of dignitie, but a storme of minde, wherein the shipp of the soule beaten conti∣nually with thoughts this way and that way tossed without rest, that by suddaine excesses of hart and worke, as it were, vpon hidden rockes, the same be broken

8. On the other side, how eloquent and copious are holie Bishops, to sett forth the happinesse, excellencie, sanctitie and securi∣tie of Religious men. S. Gregorie, whom we heard comparing the state of Prelats vn∣to

a stormie sea, doth liken the state of Reli∣gious to a calme and peaceable hauen. For writing to Desiderius a Bishop, he exhor∣teth him not to giue anie impediment to a secular Priest or Pastour, that was desirous to retire to Religion, but rather by his Epis∣copall admonitions to inflame him, that the feruour of his prompt deuotion might not gr••we colde, vt qui à turbulento secularium cu∣rarum metu se segregans, quietis desiderio Mona∣sterij portum appetit, rursus in Ecclesiasticarum cu∣rarum non debeat perturbationibus implicari. Thathe, who freing himselfe from the furious con∣fusion of worldlie troubles, through a desire of sou∣les repose, longes for the hauen of Religion, be not againe intangled in the perturbations of Ecclesia∣sticall or Pastorall cares.

9. Yf M^r. Doctours conceipt were true, that a secular Pastour layeth his foundation on a Religious mans roofe, S. Gregorie may seeme to haue bene sollicitous, not to pro∣mote in perfection, but rather to pull downe this secular Priest from the verie roofe the∣reof, and to haue approued his doings against our Sauiours precept: Qui in tecto est non des∣cendat; he that is on the roofe lett him not descende. But no wonder M^r. Doctour is otherwise conceipted of Religion, then was S. Grego∣rie, not hauing proued the excellencie the∣reof, as he did. For well sayth a holie Pa∣triarch: Nemo certè nisi expertus percipere suffi∣cit, quàm amabilia, quàm dulcia, quamne precio∣sa

sunt, quae largitur Deus ijs, qui pro ipsius amore suis sibique renunciant. No man, that hath not had experience thereof, can conceaue▪ how amiable, how sweete, how precious the things are, which God bestoweth on them, who for his loue renounce all they haue, togeather with themselues.

10. Lett a holie Bishop speake out of his owne experience, S. Basil: Huic vitae instituto quid est tandem, quod iure aequiparari possit•• quid beatius dici? qui dum laudabili ratione caelestis status formam egregiè exprimunt futura regni pre∣missi bona percipiunt; what is there that may be equalled vnto this kind of life? what may be thought more blessed? Liuing in community as they do, excellently expresse the forme of the heauen∣ly Kingdome, so they doe afore hand reape the futu∣re happinesse of the same. Thus sainct Basil, and much more in commendation of religious state.

11. But finding the excellency therof to be beyond all human eloquence, conclu∣deth thus. Non ea est mihi facultas dicendi, vt rebus per se magnis splendorem possim afferre, ve∣lui tamen quoad fieri posset dignitatem & excel∣lentiam tam preclari studij demonstrare. Nam quid est tandem quod si huic comparetur, non iure long•• inferiùs iudicetur? I haue not such faculty of speach, as I am able to giue light and splendour to thinges great and glorious of them selues, yet I haue end••wored so farre as it was possible, to lay open the dignity and excellency of this noble state, for indeed, what thing is there which being vnto this

compared, will not be iudged farre inferiour? Thus this holy Bishop, preferres the state of religion before all others, for dignity, and excellency, professing his want of eloquence to declare the great worthynesse therof. In like manner S. August. shewing himselfe rauished with admiration exclaimes. Hoc tam excellens fastigium sanctitatis cui non sua sponte mirandum, & honorandum videtur, nostra oratione videriqui potest? to whome this excel∣lent beight of sanctity doth not seeme admi∣rable and honorable of it selfe, how can my discourse be able to make it so seeme? Ha∣uing so great aduantage what need we feare to encounter M^r. Doctour in this cō∣tention, seing what soeuer we say of the ex∣cellency of Religion all holy bishops will grant to be the truth.

The excellency of Religious Pouerty not well conceaued by M^r. Doctour. §. 3.

12. BVT before we enter to discusse this question, we must cleare the perfection of Religious pouerty, from some blemish, that M^r. Doctours im∣perfect discours may seeme to fasten vp∣pon it. For as he is not bound, nor mea∣neth to practise this perfection, so doth he not speculatiuely comprehend the right definition therof, (yea which

seemeth lesse excusable) he doth not fully, nor faythfully relate S. Thomas his do∣ctrine in this behalfe. I answer sayth he, c. 12. n. 17. with S. Thomas the honour of the Schooles and glory of Religion, that actually to renounce all, is no perfection, but an instrument and meanes to perfection: and therfore though the Religious person do actually leaue all, that argueth him not to be perfecter in state, then the Bishop: And in another place, c. 11. 12. there is only this difference betwixt Religious and other Chri∣stians, that the Religious leaue all thinges actually, other Christians must leaue them in preparation of mind: the former actually leauing of them it no perfection, but an instrument of perfection, vnlesse it be ioyned with the loue of God in which consisteth perfection, as S. Thomas of Aquin well obserueth; but to leaue all in pre∣paration of mind, is perfection, because it is eyther for the loue of God, or is ioyned with it, thus M^r. Doctour of whom I would know where S. Thomas sayth that actually to leaue all is not perfection. In the place by him ci∣ted,a S. Thomas sayth only this in ea non consistitessentialiter perfectio, in actuall lea∣uing of all things, perfection doth not es∣sentially consist, Hence S. Thomas conclu∣des, quod nihil prohibet esse statum perfectionis absque renunciatione propriorum, that there is no repugnance, but there may be a state of perfection, the professours whereof be not bound to renounce all; but he doth not con∣clude

as M^r Doctour makes him, that the religious man who actually leaueth all, is not in this respect more perfect in state then the Bishop.

13. To cleere this matter, we must distin∣guish with S. Thomas two Kindesb of perfection, the perfection of merit, and the per∣fection of state. Speaking of perfection of merit, it were a great errour, if not the very herisy of Iouinian and Vigilantius, to say, that actuall leauing of all is perfecti∣on. For Religious leauing of all is an act of the loue of God, being done to the end to cleaue and adheare vnto Christ, an act of charity, and liberality to the poore, by bestowing all on them, an act of religion because done by vow, giuing away to God our power and faculty of hauing any thing besydes only him. Seing actuall leauing of all (done as it ought) is an act of many excellent vertues, how can it want the perfection of high merite. And if it haue the perfection of merit, how can M^r. Do∣ctour with truth say so absolutly, it is no perfection. But speaking of the perfection of state, actuall leauing of all is an instru∣ment of perfection, not essentially perfe∣ction; for the perfection of state is an habi∣tuall constant disposition of mind, quae sayth S. Thomas ab hominis affectu excludit quicquid impedit ne voluntas eius totaliter feratur in Deum. Which doth remoue from mans

affection, whatsoeuer may any wayes hinder his will from being totally carried towards God. Or it is a readinesse of hart, still virtually continuing to reiect what∣soeuer may diminish, alay, and to imbrace whatsoeuer may further and aduaunce the feruent exercise of diuine loue. Now actu∣all leauing of all things for Christ, is not an habituall disposition, of mind, but an actuall exercise of pure loue towards God. Therfore it is not essentially perfection but an instrument therof. Actes be instruments to produce the habit, yea by one act per∣fect and intense, the habit is oftentimes ingendred. Actuall leauing of all thinges to cleaue vnto Christ, is an act of diuine charity, most perfect, pure, and excellent. It is therfore a most excellent instrument to settle the mind in perfection, that is in a constant disposition to fly whatsoeuer may hinder the soule from being carryed total∣ly towards God.

14. Some learned Diuines hould, that perfection of state doeth consist in one per∣fect act of Diuine loue, not as actually exercised, but as virtually, and morally still remaining as being neuer retracted or recalled. Accordinge to which doctrine, one may defend that the essentiall, perfe∣ction of a Religious state, doth consist in a mans leauing of all thinges, and conse∣cratinge of himselfe with perfect charity

vnto God, as this act doth still morally remaine, in being neuer recalled, eyther outwardly befoore men by goinge back, or inwardly in the sight of God, by repen∣tance, or voluntary neglect of his vowed duty. But rather dayly renewed, conti∣nued, and increased, by the exercise of new actes of Religion and Diuine loue. And thus wee may say, that actuall leauing of all thinges by vow, out of desire of per∣fect vnion with God as actually exercised, is an instrument of perfection, as morally and habitually remayninge in the Obliga∣tion of vowes exactly obserued, is formal∣ly and essentially perfection.

15. M^r. Doctour hath two propositions in this matter, which may seeme strange, and shew that his speculations about Re∣ligious Pouerty are no deeper then his affections. Actuall leauinge of all thinges (sayth he) is no perfection, but an instru∣ment of persection, vnlesse it be ioyned with diuine loue. I demand of him, if actuall leauing of all thinges be ioyned with di∣uine loue, is it then essentially perfection and not an instrument thereof? Doth an in∣strument cease to be an instrument because it worketh the effecte? Doth the way to London cease to be the way, because it reacheth as farr as London, and is ioyned therewith, way rather the instrument can∣not be effectuall, except, it be ioyned with

the effect, nor the way good and perfect, ex∣cept it be ioyned with the iournies end. He sayeth also if it be ioyned with Diuine loue, as who should say, actuall leauing of all thin∣ges to follow Christ, to be vnited with him, to cleaue eternally to him, could be voyd of Deuine loue.

16. Wherfore his speculation about pouerty, that Pouerty in preparation of minde is either Diuine, or ioyned with Diuine loue: actuall leauing of all thinges, as many heathens (sayth he) did, is not perfection, nor still ioyned with Diuine loue; this specu∣lation I say, is not solid. For eyther M^r. Doctour speaketh of leauinge of all thin∣ges, as it may be vsed by humane vanitye, or as it is practised accordinge to our Sa∣uiours counsell. In the first way as actuall leauing of all thinges, may bee heathe∣nish and prophane, so likewse preparation of mind to bee poore, and leaue all▪ some heathens actually left all for honour, or humane glory, or that they might attend better to contemplation of naturall thin∣ges. True; But▪ amongst them also there were tousands tat were praepared in minde to be poore, and leaue all rather then loose their honour, or some humane com∣moditye, to which they were addicted. Kinge Alexander himsel was as poore and naked as Diogenes in preparation of minde, in case that were necessary to gaine fame,

and reputation with the world, as him∣self sayed, If I were not Alexander I would be Diogenes. Would M^r. Doctour say that this preparation of mind to follow Dio∣genes his pouerty, was diuine loue, or ioyned with diuine loue in king Alexan∣der▪ His learninge will not lett him once imagine this; so that when he sayeth, that preparation of mind to leaue all, is eyther the loue of God or ioyned therewith, he must speake of Religious preparation in minde, conceaued vppon the motiue of charity, to be rather poor, then to leaue God, And this way speakinge of actuall abrenuntiation of all worldly thinges, to cleaue vnto Christ, or to be more ready & expedite to follow his stepps, he must needes say that the same is euer, eyther the loue of God, or ioyned therewith.

17. More strange is his other proposition, there is onely this difference betwixt Reli∣gious and other Christians, that the Religi∣ous leaue all thinges actually, other Chri∣stians in preparation of minde. Plato de∣fined a man to be animal bipes implume, a liuing creature two legged without fea∣thers. Diogenes to refute this definition, takinge a Cock, and hauinge pluckt of his fethers brought it to Platoes schoole, sayinge to his scollers, Ecce homo Platoni∣cus, behould Platoes man. If a Good Chri∣stian beeing prepared in minde to leaue all,

chance to meet with a theefe, and rather then kill him p••rmittes him to take all, he hath in the world from him, and stripp him as naked as Diogenes his Cock, they might bringe him to Dowaye and say be∣hould M^r. Doctours Religious man, For M^r. Doctour sayeth there is onely this dif∣ference, betwixt a Christian prepared in mind to leaue all, and a Religious man, that Religious actually leaue all, But this Christian hath actually left all, and hath nothinge in the world and so there is no difference betwixt him, and a Religious man, if M^r. Doctour speake truely.

18. And will he defend this in good ear∣nest? How many differences be there, besides M^r. Doctours onely one, betwixt Religious and other Christians prepared in mind? First their Mentall leauing of all is passiue, to suffer all thinges to be taken from them, when they can not hould them any longer without sinne. Religious mens leauing of al is actiue, giuinge away all they haue to the poore of free loue of Christ, when they might haue kept their states without lea∣uinge him. Secondly those though they leaue all, yet still retayne a right to recouer them, yea allso a preparation of minde to recouer them, or other wealth, if conue∣niently they may: But the Religious man giues away, all that he hath, retayning no right to any things, nor any will, so that

by his vow, he hath left in preparation of minde, whatsoeuer he might haue desired whih more then one world. Multum reliquit (sayeth S. Gregorie) qui affectum habendi reli∣quit. H•• leaueth much who leaueth all desire to haue and S. Augustine, omnia dimisit, qui non solum quantum potuit, sed etiam quantum voluit habere contemnit: he leaueth all thinges who contemneth whatsoeuer he might haue had, yea whatsoeuer he might haue desyred Third∣ly other Christians are readie to leaue all, in case they must so do, or leaue Christ, yet they be not therevnto bound by vow & by the vertue of Religion, but Religious men haue consecrated themselues to God in Po∣uertie, that by the loue of creatures, their loue to the creatour be not diminished. Fourthly other Christians are bound to lea∣ue all thinges, when the retayning and vse of them, is contrarie to the Diuine lawe: the Religious man hath, by vow left all that may any wayes hynder the perfection of Di∣uine Loue, and stay his will from runninge totallye into the Diuine imbracements, which is not ordinary, but singular perfe∣ction, as sayeth S. Augustine. Non est hec per∣fectio communium iustorum, sed perfectorum filiorum Dei, quia magnae & beneficientissimae bonitatis existit. This perfection of sanctity is not of ordinarie iuste men, but of the per∣sect Children of God, because it is of most greate, and bountifull goodnesse.

19. Finally the preparation of minde to leaue all, which euery Christian is bounde to haue, is onely in a generall, and confuse manner, so farforth as he doth in generall purpose neuer to offende God. He is not (beinge out of occasions) bound to descen∣de to particulars, preparinge his minde to leaue all expressely in case it were necessary. Hence their preparation of mind is excee∣dinge weake, and such as were they put to it, they would neuer endure the onsett, but runne away, leauinge rather Christ, then their wealth. And yet this preparation so in generall and in darke, miserable, and infir∣me, doth (when occasions doe not vrge) suffice vnto saluation. But the Religious man with his preparation of harte, must and doeth descende to particulars, with an hea∣uenly altitude of minde, and loue of aeterni∣ty, treadinge vnder foote, whatsoeuer is emi∣nent and desireable in this world. Whence pouerty in preparation of minde, which euen Bishops ordinarily must haue, is no wayes comparable to the heyght and strength of Religious pouerty; much lesse had M^r. Doctour reason to compare with it, yea preferre before it, that preparation of minde euery Christian by state is bounde to haue, wherein he may seeme to approach too neere vnto the condemned opinion of Gulielmus de sancto amore related by Ca∣stro (lib. 12. contra haereses, verbo Paupertas:

haeresi 3.) paupertatem in promptitudine animi quando necessaria fuerit ad Christi honorem esse optimam, actualem verò nec consulendam, nec laudandam. That pouerty in preparation of mind is best, but actuall leauinge of all, is neyther to be counselled, nor praysed.

20. Further what M^r. Doctour doth very confidently affirme (cap. 11. n. 11.) that there are many, not onely secular Priestes who are not bound to pouerty, but also many maried men more perfect oftentimes then are many of the Re∣ligious, speakinge of Religious men, that keepe their vowes, and obserue their rule. This is (I will not say false) but vncertay∣ne, and more then he knowes; nor would he so easily, and so firmely haue entertay∣ned, that imagination had he bene of S. Hie∣roms minde. For this holy father writing to Iulianus, a secular man of much worth in the world, and of very holy conuersa∣tion, leading a chast single life, bestowinge on the poore large almes, nourishinge t••em with his meanes, which were greate, Sancto∣rum Monachorum greges flockes of holy Mon∣kes; writinge I say to him he exhortes him to follow the state of pouertie, that is, to mount vp to heauen with Elias, & mundo immunda vestimenta relinquere. Cur autem (sayeth he) & tu nolis esse perfectus? Cur qui in saeculo primus es, non in familia Christi primus sis? why wilt not thou allso be perfect? thou that hast a prime place in the world, why

shouldst thou not also haue a prime place in Christes familie? After much exhortation he concludes with these wordes which are to my purpose. Quod si reipsum dederis Deo, & Apostolica virtute perfectus, sequi caeperis salua∣torem, tunc intelliges vbi fueris, & in exercitu Christi quam extremum tenueris locum. If thou giue thy self vnto God, and beinge made perfect with Apostolicall strength, follow our sauiour: then thou shalt know where thou wert before, and in the army of Christ how exceedinge low a place thou hadst. Thus S. Hierom. If a secular person so noble and excellent, leadinge so holy a life in the world as Iulianus did, was in a very low degree of sanctity in respect of Religious men, how can M. Do∣ctour so certainly knowe, that many secu∣lar Priestes, many married men are oftenti∣mes more perfect, then many of the Reli∣gious that keepe their rule? But no wonder M^r. Doctour speaketh more for seculars then did S. Hierom. and lesse in the behalfe of pouerty, beinge so affected as perchaun∣ce this speech of S. Hierom will not giue him much content. Si vis perfectus esse, si Apo∣stolicae dignitatis culmen cupis, & in primo stare fastigio sanctitatis, fac quod fecerunt Apostoli, vade & vende quod habes & da pauperibus, vt nudam solamque crucem nudus sequaris. If thou wilt be perfect, if thou desyre the heyght of Apo∣stolicall dignity, and to stand on the prime toppe of sanctitye, doe what the Apostles did, sell all

thou hast, giue all to the poore that naked thou mayst follow the naked crosse. S. Hierom, without, anie doubt, sayeth, that Apostles did professe the state of pouerty, and that the state of pouerty, is the heighest toppe of Apostolicall excellency: but M. Doctour would fayne haue it thought that the Apo∣stles vowed not pouerty, and that Aposto∣licall pouerty, is but the very lowest steppe of Episcopall sanctity. These two Doctou∣res, beinge so differently affected no mar∣ueill their conceipts differ. But who will not preferre S. Hierom?

In what sorte the state of Bishops is preferred aboue the state of Religious. §. 4.

21. NOw cominge nearer vnto the comparison to decide the same accordinge to Theologicall rigour, I set downe, and proue brieffly these 7. asser∣tions.

THE FIRST ASSERTION.

It is certaine that the state of Bishops is not so perfect, as it doth include, and embrace the perfection of a Religious state, or that the Bishop layeth his foundation on the Religious mans toppe and roofe, as M. Doctour speaketh. This is proued

because if the state of Bishops were per∣fect, as includinge and embracinge Re∣ligious perfection as a part and lowest step therof, one that hath vowed Religion might accept of a Bishopricke, without hauinge first performed his vow of Reli∣gion. For if in the state of Bishop the state of Religion and all the perfection therof were included, by vndertakinge the state of Bishop, he should fully, and for∣mally fulfill this vow. Euen as he that hath vowed a Religion of lower perfection may fulfill his vow by entringe into a Re∣ligion of higher perfection, where all the perfection of the lowe•• and much more is included; neyther could there any doubt bee made of this, if Episcopal state did include the perfection of Religion. But one that hath vowed Religion can not be Bi∣shop vntill he hath performed his vow, and if he accept of a Bishopricke and bee consecrated, he is bound to leaue his Bis∣hopricke and to become Religious, as it is decided Cap. per tuas de Voto. where the Po∣pe declareth that is bound to renounce his Bishopricke and become Religious. Si suam desiderat sanare conscientiam, if he desire to heale the wound of his conscience, and put himself in a good state.

THE SECOND ASSERTION.

22. It is certayne that in the state of Re∣ligion, there is some perfection, dignity, and excellency, that is not in the state of Bishops, wherby he that of Bishops beco∣mes Religious, may be sayd in some sorte to mount, or fly higher, and not altogea∣ther to descend. This is proued by the Pope in Cap. nisi pridem de renunciatione, saying vnto a Bishop that desired to bee Religious, leauinge his Bishopricke, si pennas habeas quibus satagas in sollitudinem aduersare, ita tamen adstrictae sunt nexibus praeceptorum, vt liberum non habeas absque nostra permissione velatum, though you haue winges wherby you endeauour to fly vnto the wildernesse (of Religious profession (yet these win∣ges are so streight tyed with the bandes of precepts that you bee not free to take that flight without our leaue. In which wordes the Pope doth suppose the state of Reli∣gion to be such as a Bishop passinge thi∣ther, flyeth higher aboue earthly thinges, then he was before in the state of Bishop.

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. 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, 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, 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, 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, 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.

THE FOVRTH ASSERTION.

28. It is probable, that Bishops are not by their state, and by the ordina∣rie power they haue of deuine institu∣tion, the Perfectors and maysters of Reli∣gious men, in reguard of their vowes and vowed perfection, euen settinge the Priui∣ledge the Religious haue, of exemption from Bishops aside. This is not so certayne, because I find that Suarez houldeth the contrarie, but he bringeth no authour for his opinion, but many against him, and doth professe to hould it, tantum probabi∣liter, & non sine formidine, only probably and not without feare. But Sanchez▪ whom I haue cited, an authour of great credit in morall matters, doth constantly defend our assertion sayinge, that it is verissima most true, and that Constat, it is euidently pro∣u••d. Nor (as I am persuaded) will this do∣ctrine be displeasinge to holy Bishops vnto

whom the obligation of a Bishop seemes so heauie, as they wilbe glad vppon good probability to be released of so high an obli¦gation, as to be bound by state to be able to teach Religious men the way of perfection. And this doctrine supposed, which is alreadie proued. M^r. Doctours argument wheron he doth much insist, is answeared, brought out of Henricus a Gandauo, the state of Prelates hath that comparison to the state of Religious, which the state of maysters hath to the state of schollers: but the may∣ster ought to be perfecter then the schol∣ler. This argument M^r. Doctour dilates vppon saying, therfore what difference there is in state betwixt Agentes and Patienes, Illu∣minators and Illuminated, maysters and schollers: that is betwixt Bishops and Prelates, and the Religious, and by how much the greater science there is in the mayster then in the scholler, so much in reguard of state: is there more perfection in the Bishops then in the Religious. Thus M^r. Doctour.

29. I the least, and vnworthiest of all Religious doe here professe in the sight of God and in the name of Regulars, that wee haue no difficulty by voluntary humility and obedience, to lay our selues and all we are, and are able, at the feete of Bishops, gloryinge to be vsed and employed, directed and gouerned by them as instruments for the good of soules, at their euer vnto vs

venerable will, and pleasure. But when what we offer to theyr honour by volun∣tary sacrifice of veneration, is challenged as due in Iustice, when vnder the title of Bi∣shops, others that haue not that high princely Autority, will clayme more then euen in such cases vndoubted Hierarchie would exact, when thinges are amplified to the derogation of Religious excellency, for humane intents: reason doth warrant, and all equity will permitt, that we yeald vnto such exactors no more of subiection then they can draw from vs, by the force of euident proofe. To M^r. Doctours argu∣ment then I answeare, that he supposeth regulars as regulars to be the Bishops sub∣iects and schollers, which is not so. For all Regulars for the most part, but ••arti∣cularly in England all are exempted and freed from the Gouerment and mayster∣shipp of Bishops. They are to learne and to be gouerned by their owne Regular Su∣periours in the highest schole of perfection, immediatly vnder the soueraygne Bishop, whom the holy spirit doth euer infallibly teach and guide. I adde, that settinge this priuiledge by them so longe time enioyed aside, standinge in the rigour of the de∣uine law, Bishops by state are not the may∣sters or Superiours of Regulars, to direct and correct them, about theyr Regular obseruances, which they are bound vnto

by vow; This S. Thomas worthely by him tearmed the honour of the schooles and glorie of Religion, supposeth, in saying that about Regular obseruances they are to obey theyr Regular Superiours more then Bishops, which could not bee true, if the Bishops were the Superiour of them, and of theyr Superiours. If M^r. Doctour will hould the contrarie, he must proue it by arguments vnanswearable. In the meane•• time I say, that though the M^r. be by state more perfect in learninge then his owne schollers, yet not necessarily more learned then the schollers, of a higher mayster, that go to a higher schoole. In such a schoole schollers may be found equall or Superiour in learninge to lower maysters. Religious state I confesse is a scholler, and I approue, for all Religious what is sayd particularly of Monckes, The life of monckes hath the word of suiection and of a scholler, wherby is proued they are not to teach and preach as principall maysters. M^r. Doctour should proue the state of Re∣ligion to be a scholler vnto the state of Bi∣shops, or that the Bishop is by his state theyr mayster about their Religious obser∣uances. Else if Regulars in regard of theyr Regular obligations are taught in a higher schoole, then any secular is, and haue their immediate mayster the souueraigne Bi∣shop, how will M^r. Doctour inferre they

are vnder Bishops in regard of theyr Religi∣ous state? Nor doth S. Thomas say, that Regulars are Bishops schollers, but only that they are schollers and so inferiour to Bi∣shops in this respect, which doth not imply, but for either respects theyr state may be higher.

THE FIFT ASSERTION

30. THe excellencye of a Religious state, which is wantinge in the state of Bishops is this, that Religion is a state of perfection to be gotten, wheras the state of Bishops is a state of perfe∣ction alreadie gotten. To bee in the state of perfection alreadie gotten, doth not im∣port to bee in a state by profession wherof perfection is actually gotten, but to bee in a state which supposeth a man to be afore-hand perfect, giuinge him no mea∣nes proper to his state to be made perfect, if perhaps he be not so when he vnder∣takes the state, so that a man imperfect beinge made Bishop, if afterwardes hap∣pely he come to be perfect, this is done by the exercise of actions vnto which he is not bound by his state. As one that is in the middest of his enemyes, is in the state of a man alreadie well armed, that is, in a state which requires that a man be armed afore-hand, because beinge in those

most straights it is too late to seeke for armour. Thus Bishops are sayd to be in a state of perfection alreadie gotten, be∣cause in a state which requireth a man aforehand perfect, and complete in charity and habituall disposition of pure deuine loue. If he be not so alreadie he is in a dan∣gerous state, because in a state requiringe much perfection without the proper mea∣nes to get it. But the state of Religion is a state to get perfection, or of perfection to be gotten, because it bindeth men to vse all excellent meanes to get perfection by renouncinge all impediments of perfection, and by tyinge themselues by vow vnto the fountayne of all perfection. Hence a Re∣ligious man when he first vndertakes his state, is not bound to be alreadie perfect, but by the very profession of a Religious state, and by his continuinge therin, he is made excellently perfect.

31. The comparison betweene a Reli∣gious man and a Bishop in respect of per∣fection, seemeth to me not vnlike to the comparison betwixt the state of a Gent∣leman and of a Marchaunt, in reguard of wealthinesse. The Gentleman is the state of wealthinesse alreadie gotten, because his state bindeth him in honour to actions wherin riches are consumed and wasted, but hath no meanes as Gentleman, to get or encrease the sufficiency of his tempo∣rall

substance, whence it happely he be not really wealthie, he is in a poore state, because eyther he must omitt actions vnto which he is bound in honour, or else runne into debt, or finally vse some waye of gettinge riches inferiour to his cal∣linge. But the marchant is in the state to gett riches or of riches to be gotten, be∣cause by state he is bound to actions wherby wealth is assuredly gotten, and is not bound to those actions the Gentleman is, by which riches are consumed. The Bi∣shop seemes like to the Gentleman, and Religious vnto the Marchant, only there is this difference that the state of Marchant is ignoble, because it is tendinge to the gaynige and gettinge of earthly pelfe, which be thinges vile and abiect, but Reli∣gious profession, is not only rich, and wea∣lethy, but also noble and honorable, assen∣dinge to the purchasinge, of the wealth of vertues, which be of all thinges the most glorious, and illustrious accordinge to that of S. Hierome, summa apud Deum nobilitas, clarum esse virtutibus.

THE SIXT ASSERTION.

33. THe state of Bishops considered by it selfe, and accordinge to the name therof, settinge the accidentall cir∣cumstance of dangers and impediments

aside, is more a noble and excellent then that of Religion. This is cleare enough, and M^r. Doctour hath sufficiently proued it in the 7. chapter of his treatise. For Bi∣shops are bound to actions of high perfe∣ction, as is the preachinge of the Gospell, which is properly theyr office, to lighten all by theyr example, and to be a patterne of perfection. Tantasayth S. Hierome, dobet esse scientia Pontificis, vt gressus eius, & motus, & omnia vocalia sint, quicquid agit, quicquid loquitur doctrina sit Apostolorum. The Bishop also vndertakes that great and deare obligation of his soule, for euery soule committed to his charge, that if any soule perish through his default, ••is soule is lost. They are by theyr state lest Vicars of Christ in the office of louinge his sheep, to die for them as he did, and M^r. Doctour sayth he is bound to giue his life for euery soule of his Diocesse. Hence conditi••∣nally, if a Bishop do perfectly comply with his office, and really practise all the perfection his estate requireth, he is far in merit beyond Religious men. To this purpose S. Chrisostome sayth, si quis mihi proponerit optionem vbi mallem placere Deo in officio Sacerdotalian in solitudine Monachorum, sine comparatione eligerem illud quod prius dixi. If it were put to my choice, whether I would please God in the office of Priest and Bishop, or in the retired state of

monkes, I would without comparison pre∣ferre the first. Where S. Thomas noteth Non dicit quod mallet esse in officio Sacerdo∣tali quam solitudine Monachorum, sed quod mal∣let placere Deo in &c. He doth not say, he had rather be in office of Bishop, then in the state of monkes, but that he had ra∣ther please God in that office, because it is more difficult and therfore if it be done, it is a token of greater vertue.

THE SEAVENTH ASSERTION.

34. HEnce finally I conclude, that though speculatiuely the state of a Bp. be be more perfect, as considered according to the meere nature therof; yet because in pra∣ctise a thing is to be taken according to all the circumstances that waite vpon it, and according as morally the same may be had, therfore absolutly the state of Religion is to be more esteemed, and accompted the hap∣pier, and for euery one in particular the more perfect. For in a state to know the excellen∣cy therof, we must consider not onely the perfection of the actions vnto which it bin∣deth and the strict obligation it layeth vpon the professours, but also the possibility or probability to performe such high obliga∣tions; for to be bound vnder payne of sinne and damnation to performe actions, that morally speaking are not performable, is not

so much a perfect as a pittifull state. M. Iohn de Auila a secular Priest of great estee∣me for his learning and sanctity of life, did vse to say, that so great and so many were the obligations of a Bishop, that if on should performe but one third part of them, he should be accompted a great saint, and yet this a loue would not suffise to saue him from Hell. Pius quintus of the order of S. Dominike, famous for wisdome, fortitude, sanctity, miracles, of whose canonization there is now treaty in Rome, was wont to say, that he did thinke that the state of Bp. was impedimentum salutis aeternae, an impe∣diment of the Bishops euerlasting saluatiō, and as often as he remembred the religious state from which he was aduaunced, he did sigh and affirme that he had neuer but there found quiet of conscience and security. Pau∣lus 3. (as Iouius writes) in the article of his death sayd. How I wish I had been vnder∣cooke in some conuent of Capucins, rather then to haue susteyned this dignity next vn∣to God these 16. yeares. The like feeling had Cardinall Alexandrino, Nephew to the fo∣resayd Pius, in the passage of death. Oh (sayd he) how do I now wish I had spent all my dayes in my owne order, that I had neuer been made Bishop and Cardinall, but had liued vnder-cooke in some conuent. Al∣phōsus Ramirius Vergara a famous Doctor of spayne, being towards death, sayd with

great comfort, that he tooke two fauours of God donne him as pledges of his euerlasting saluation. The one that he neuer permitted him to be made Bishop; the second that he had giuen him for his spirituall guide F. Villanoua of the Society, whom he did vse to call his good Angell. By these examples we may gather that at the howre of death when by the light of approaching eternity the true colours of thinges are discouered, many will frame an higher iudgment of the excellency of Religion, and apprehend mo∣re deepely of the daungers and difficulties of saluation attending on the state of Bi∣shops, then now they doe.

35. But happy are they that by the light of diuine grace discerne the truth before theyr death, as many holy Bishops did, and therevpon forsooke theyr Bishopricks and became Religious. Which theyr ele∣ction hath euer been admired and praised by the Church as prudent, holy, hono∣rable before men, glorious in the sight of God. Of this king B. Petrus Damianus nombreth these. Lucidius Siccolensis, Bo∣nitus A••uernensis, Gaudensius Aspasensis, Martyrius Antiochenus, Iustus Lugdunen∣sis, Petrus Rauennas, Sergius Damasce∣nus, Farnulphus Cistertiensis, Aldulphus Treuirensis, Deodatus item 〈◊〉〈◊〉, Gondebertus Senonensis Lambertus Flo∣rētinus, all which were famouse for sanctity,

and many of them also illustrious for mira∣cles, as B. Damianus doth shew. To whom we may ad the examples of S. Gregory Na∣zianzen, of S. Adelbertus Bishop of Prage monke and martyr. Of B. Petrus Damianus himselfe, of S. Nonnus who conuerted S. Pelagia. I omit the glorious example of Pope Celestin, who leauing the Popedome reti∣red to a Religious life, triumphing ouer hu∣man greatnesse by an example then which (our Sauiour excepted) the sunne neuer beheld a greater. S. Arnulphus must not be pretermitted, who being Duke of Lorayne, grandfather vnto Pipinus the father of Ca∣rolus Martellus, and so the fountayne of the Royall family of the Charlemaignes of Frā∣ce: leauing his Dukedome became Reli∣gious in a Monastery vpon Mosella; being thence taken away by force and made Bi∣shop of Mets, hauing gouerned that Church some yeares, very holily, moued with desire of greater perfection, and of secu∣ring his saluation, leauing his Bishopricke, retired againe to Religion, bequeathing an heroicall example of preferring Reli∣gious humility before wordly magnificence to his posterity, by them followed euen in these dayes.

36. It is now some eight or nine yeares since the most Illustrious Prince Charles of Lorayne. Vnkle to the now Duke, neere allyed to the greatest Monarks of Christen∣dome,

and namely to our Dread Soueray∣ne, forsaking his Bishopricke, resolued to enter into the Society of Iesus, a resolution glorious in the sight of heauen and earth, and to be praysed by the tongues both of men and Angels, as I may affirme and con∣firme by the warrant of the greatest autho∣rity vnder heauen. For Gregory the Fif∣teenth who then ruled the Apostolicall Chayre, approuing and applauding his reso∣lution, writ two letters one to the Duke, and another to the Bishop. The letter to the Duke was congratulatory wherof this is part.

DILECTE FILI NOBILIS vir salutem & Apostolicam benedictionem.

SOlenne est Lotharingiae Principibus edere illu∣stria exempla Christianae pietatis plane Catho∣licae Ecclesiae totiusque coeli oculos in se conuertit haec venerabilis fratris Caroli Episcopi Virdu∣nensis, hominum angelorumque linguis laudanda deliberatio, magnum profecto est amplas Princi∣pum Aulas strictis Religiosorum ••oenobiis per∣mutare, voluntariamque paupertatem opibus an∣teferre. Hoc porrò qui faciunt magistrum habuere Deum, etenim ex aeternae sapientiae thesauris non aliundè ea ad homines dona emanant.

BELOVED AND NOBLE SONNE health and Apostolicall Benediction.

TO shew forth noble examples of Christian piety is a thing that hath been euer vsed by the Princes of the family of Lorayne. Certs the re∣solution of our venerable Brother Charles Bishop of Virdune, to be praysed by the tongues both of men and Angels, hath rauished the eyes of the Catho∣lick Church: yea of the heauenly Court, to looke vp∣pon it It is mighty greatnesse of minde to chaunge the hereditary pompe of Princes Courtes, with the strict obseruance of Religious conuents, to preferre voluntary Pouerty, before aboundance of wealth. They that performe these thinges had God for theyr maister, for from no other source but the eternall fountaines of wisedome, do such guifts flow vnto men.

The letter vnto the Bishop him selfe I ha∣ue thought fitt to set downe, in which euery sentence seemeth a vent of heauenly flame, shewing the excellency, perfection, and hap∣pinesse of a religious state,

VENERABILI FRATRI CAROLO Episcopo Virdunensi, Gregorius PAPA. Venerabilis frater salutem.

QVam dilecta tabernacula tua Domine vir∣tutum, quam dulcia Christianis faucibus eloquia Dei nostri? planè desiderabilia super au∣rum & dulciora super mel & fauum; Neque de∣sunt hac aetate Principes, viri qui id intelligentes patriam, aulas, prae arctis Religiosorum▪ canobiis contemnunt, sapientique diuitiarum neglectu, bea∣tiorem Indicis opibus paupertatem existimant: id autem diuinae beneuolentiae, adeò certum est argu∣mentum, vt nos planè earum animarum statum Regibus inuidendum arbitremur, quas à morta∣lium curarum contagione secretas in sanctiora domus suae penetralia miserens Dei bonitas dedu∣cit, salutarium praeceptorum lacte & caelestium consolationum manna nutriendas. Agnosco ve∣nerabilis Frater in his verbis foelicitatem tuam. Nos quandam in tuis litteris caelestem sancti Spi∣ritus lucem contemplati sumus, gratias autem Deo agimus qui te diuitiarum honorumque con∣temptore Lothaeringiae domum augeri vult, nouis∣que sanctarum artium Christianorumque trium∣phorum exemplis. Triumphat planè de humanis cupiditatibus & diabolicis insidiis Fraternitas

vestra, cum opulentiam atque Episcopatus digni∣tatem quae mortales tanto studio atque contentione petere solent ab Apostolica auctoritate d••missè flagitas, vt tibi per eum relinquere liceat sub v••∣xillo nominis Iesu in sancti Ignati•• Castris milit∣turo. Benedicimus tibi intimo cordis aff••ctu V. F. veram salutis scientiam edoct••, & ne quod te im∣pedimentum remoretur Apostolica auctoritate concedimus, quod tibi in solitudinem secedenti diuinitatis voce praeceptum esse credis. Quod igi∣tur Reip Christianae bono si••i abuctis humanarum curarum opumque impedimentis proficiscere ad eam sacrae militiae societatem Catholici nominis desensione, & haereticorum excidiis clarissima•••• quam quidem quanti nos facimus duo illi Chri∣s••iani Imperij propugnatores Ignatius & Xau••∣rius sanctorum cognomento nuper à nobis auct••, cunctis terrarum prouinciis saeculorumque aetat••∣bus declarabunt Scuto diuinae maiestatis circun∣datus, & fideli lorica munitus distringe ardentem charitatis gladium, non minores Catholicae reli∣gioni in claustris victorias comparaturus qu••m Lotharingiae Principes maiores tui in castris pe∣pererunt. Vt Virdunensem Ecclesiam optimus Episcopus hactenus salutaribus consiliis instiuxi∣sti, & moribus lectissimis ornasti, eam deinceps acuratissimis precibus iuna. Nobis vero qui••us Deus humani generis tutelam concredidit ha•• à bonorum omnium auctore virtutes continenter po∣stula, quae declarare possini Pontificatum maxi∣mum Christianae Reip. praesidium atque orbis ter∣rarum patrocinium esse, id enim si fauente Deo

consequemur, nobis certissimam aeternae beatitu∣dinis spem datam esse gaudebimus: quâ vt felicis∣simè perfruatur fraternitas vestra, à Deo obnixe petimus, teque iterum Apostolica benedictione communimus. Datum Romae apud sanctum Pe∣trum sub annulo Piscatoris, die 22 April. 1622. Pontificatus nostri anno secundo.

TO OVR VENERABLE BROTHER Charles Bishop of Verdune Gre∣gory Pope. Venerable Brother health.

HOw desirable are thy tabernacles o Lord of vertues? How sweet is the speech of our God to the tast of Christians. Certes desirable aboue gould and sweet aboue the hony and the hony combe. Nei∣ther in this age are Princes wantinge who beinge persuaded of this truth, in reguard of religious Cloisters contemne theyr gen∣try and Courtes: and taught by heauenly wisedome to despise riches, esteeme pouer∣tie to be more blessed then Indian treasures. And this is so sure a token of diuine bene∣uolence, and loue, as we deeme their state may be enioyed euen of Kinges, whose sou∣les seuered from the contagion of humane cares, the diuine indulgence guides into the

in most Closets of his howse, there with the milke of wholesome doctrine, and with the manna of heauenly comfortes to be nourished. Venerable Brother, we ack∣nowledge your felicity as in your lettres we beheld the heauenly light of the holy spirit. We giue thankes vnto God, who through your contempt of earthly riches and ho∣nours, will haue the howse of Lorraine adorned with new examples of Christian exploite and triumph. Ouer humane ambi∣tion and diabolicall deceite your pietie doth conspicuously triumph, when you submis∣siuely beseech the Apostolicall Sea to grant you licence to abandon wealth and the di∣gnitie of Bishop (thinges vnto which mor∣talls with stronge indeauours and all ear∣nest contention aspire) and to become a souldier vnder the ensigne of the name of Iesus, in the army of S. Ignatius.

We from inmost affection of soule giue you our benediction (venerable Brother taught of God, the true way of saluation) and that no impediment may cause delay vnto your happy desire; by our Apostolicall authoritie we grant you leaue to performe what in your retiremēt into the wildernesse you esteeme to be the voice of God to your selfe commanded. Wherefore which may be for the good of the Christian Com∣mon wealth, shakinge oft the clogges of hu∣mane care and wealth, passe vnto that so∣cietie

of sacred warfare, for the defence of the catholike name, and ruine of heresy most renowned, which Societie how much we esteeme and fauour the two champions of the C••ristian Empire, Ignatius and Xa∣uerius, by vs honored with the title and re∣gistred into the Cannon of Saintes will to all nations of the world and all future ages testifie. Armed with the sheild of diuine pro∣tection, guarded with the curace of faith, brand••h the fiery sworde of Charitie, bein∣ge to gaine vnto Catholike Religion no lesse glorious victoryes in the Cloyster, then the Princes of Lorrayne your Auncestors in the campe obtayned. The Church at Ver∣dune which you with wholesome coun∣sells haue instructed and with singular examples of sanctitie adorned, being a most worthy Bishop thereof, now hereafter assist with t••e helpe of your most recollected prayers. On vs to whom God hath com∣mitted the custody of humane kinde, inces∣santly beseech him to bestowe such vertues as may shew our Popedome to be the su∣preame safeguard of the Christian church and defence of the world. For if by the di∣uine fauour this we shall obtaine, we will reioyce as hauinge obtayned of God an as∣sured pledge and hope of euerlastinge beati∣tude. V••to which that yow may most hapily arriue we earnestly intreat of God, and once more strengthen you with our Apostolicall

Benediction. Giuen at Rome at S. Peters, sub annulo Piscatoris, the 22. day of Aprill in the yeare of our Lord 1622. in the second yeare of our Popedome.

That the Apostles vowed the state of Religion, and were properly Regulars. CAPVT VII.

1. WHether the Apostles were, Regulars M^r. D. doubteth, yea hee shew∣eth more countenāce to the Negatiue part. His reasons of doubt bee two. First it is not certaine they vowed pouerty. Indeede (sayth hee) S. Thomas and some others are of opinion the Apostles vowed pouerty Others as Sarmientus thinck they vowed not pouerty, he cause although such a vow perteineth to Religious, they beeing in statu perfectionis acquirendae, in state of perfection to be gotten, yet it apper∣tained not to the Apostles who were Bishops, & so were in state of perfection already at∣teined: because they are to teach and perfecte others. Secondly Suppose (sayth hee) the Apo∣stles had vowed pouerty, yet all three vowes of Po∣uerty Obedience and Chastity are not sufficient to make a Relegious man, vnlesse the Church by her decree or consent admit them, and ordaine that the said vowes made before the Superiour

shall make a man Religious, as Vasques prooveth at large, and yet it is not certaine that the Apostles vowes were euer so admitted.

2. These bee M^r. Doctours arguments, which giuing him at the most, but a slender reason of doubt, wee may wonder why hee should in other places of his Treatise, sup∣pose as certaine the Apostles were not Re∣gulars, as c. 9. n. 13. The first Conuersion of the world was done by the Apostles, Bishops, and Priests, although afterwards Regulars were ad∣mitted, and sent to preach to the Gentiles; Here M^r. Doctour without doubting supposeth that the first conuersion of the world was not done by Regulars, and consequently that the Apostles were not Regulars. And againe ibid. n. 15. Regulars in deed haue beene assumpted and elected to these offices and di∣gnityes of Bishops, yea of Popes, onely I contende that by the diuine law and institution, the gouer∣nement of the Church was not giuen them, but to Bishops and Preistes; which names of Bishops and Priests are not names of Regulars as Regulars, for that at the beginning especialy, few Regulars were Priestes. Here also it is absolutely sup∣posed that the Apostles were not Regulars; otherwise how is it true that at the begin∣ninge few Regulars were Priests? or that Christ at the first did not commit the Go∣uernement of his Church to Regulars, which hee committed at first to his Apo∣stles? so that not without cause M^r. Do∣ctour

sayth that in this matter hee doth contende (which importeth the oppo∣sing of a thinge by strength of will and af∣fection) for in this pointe his affections bee strong and absolute mouing him to denie, whereas his reasons, as hee doth acknowledge, imply but a doubte.

3. I am perswaded that did not affection carry away some of our Secular Cleargy to contende with Regulars for the excellency of state, and similitude in calling with the Apostles, they would neuer vpon so weake surmises, yeeld to deny what is taught by the constant consente of Catholique Do∣ctours; yea to ioyne against Regulars with Protestant Ministers in this article. For mi∣nisters cannot endure it should bee thought the Apostles vowed pouerty, that is, that that they leaft all by profession and state, whose motiue to contend about this mattet a learned expositour of scripture wittily l••veth open in these words, vellent vtopinor boni isti viri Apostoli videri, sed quia similes Apostolis fieri nolunt, volunt sibi Apostolos simi∣les sacere. I weene these good men would s••ine seeme Apostles but because they will not in deede be like the Apostles, they will make the Apo∣stles seeme like themselues. Because they will not be Religious as the Apostle•• were, they would make the Apostles seeme to haue been Seculars such as they are. Before zeale and contention beganne to take roote, the

learned guides and Doctours of the English Secular Cleargy, held as a thing without doubt, as deliuered in scriptute and taught by the Fathers, that the Apostles vowed pouerty, & were Religious; which I prooue by the testimony of three eminent persons, against whose authority there is no exception. The worthy & renowned worke termed the Rhemes Testament, to the setting forth of which the learnedest of our English Cleargy, Doctour Allen being cheife, did concurre, hath these words: The Apostles vowed pouerty, and professed the Religious state of perfection; in the table of controuersies in the word vow, which also they deliuer in their annotation vpon the 21. verse of the 19. Chapter of S. Matthew.

4. Doctour Bristow spendeth the 25. motiue of his second tome, wholy in the description of the state of Monckes & Re∣ligious men, which whosoeuer shall pe∣ruse, will finde as great difference betwixt M^r. Doctours writing and his, as betwixt hott and cold. Hee there setteth downe eight defences of Religious men against their Aduersaries, whereof the last by him tearmed, omnium clarissima is this, that Re∣ligious life is so farre from being cōdemned in scriptures, as it is not onely praysed, sed etiam omnium perfectissima iudicatur, esteemed the most perfecte of all states: whence, saith hee, those were the first professours thereof, who

by the consent of all men were most holy vpon the earth, and are most glorious in heauen; and first of all our Lord Iesus Christ, then his most pure and Immaculate Mother, also the most diuine Apostles; yea the Primitiue Christians, in a man∣ner all: All which things are so clearly conteined in holy scripture, as herein they neede no expositour. Thus this Doctour.

5. Doctour Harpsfeild bestoweth his second booke of dialogues vnder the name of Alanus Copus, vpon this subiecte, where so much is spoken to shew the dignity of a Religious state aboue all others, as more cannot be desired. To our purpose hee hath these words. Wee haue fully prooued that S. Marck the Euangelist was the leader and teacher of monasticall life in Aegipt, which his followers exactly obserued vnder so worthy a Maister, of which life also in the other Apostles, yea & in Christ himselfe wee haue cleare and manifest signes: Wee heare Peeter proclame, behould wee ha∣ue leaft all and followed thee. Wee read the first Disciples of Christ did sell their lands and brought the price of them vnto the Apostles to be distributed by them vnto the poore, and that amongst them none had any thinge of theyr owne, and the greiuous punishment inflicted vpon Ananias and Sapphira for retaining a part of their money vowed to God. Therefore by the Apostles examples, the professours of monasticall life defend themselues. What doe I say of the Apostles? they haue Christ himselfe for their Cheis∣teine,

who as hee was the most cleare myrrour of virginity, so likewise did hee performe the other dutyes of monasticall life.

6. To these three let mee adde one yet li∣uing. M^r. Colleton I meane, who, that no merit of a faithfull seruant of Christ might be wanting to him, hath also concurred to the helping of Religion by writing. The tenth booke of his Theater of Religion, is for the most part imployed about this argu∣ment, and I neede not cite particular passa∣ges, whole Chapters beeing for our purpo∣se brought by him against heresy. The first chapter being spent to declare the nature & excellency of a religious life: The Title of the second is that the Apostles and their follo∣wers in the Primitiue Church, followed this state of perfection. The title of the fourth is, that Priests in the primitiue Church euen from the Apostles time were Religious, and obserued Reli∣gious order of life. The title of the 9. how greatly Religious people fructisie vnto God. And that they are the best labourers that are therein. These things are by him brought and pro∣ued so euidently as heresy it selfe cannot but see the truth. Thus write those Aunciēt Doctours & Pillats of our English Cleargy, mooued with zeale of truth against Here∣sy, which Flaming in their ha••ts consumed the straw of silly suspition, whereat some Moderne Cleargy men seeme to stumble; Against whom I bring two Theologicall

arguments esteemed sufficient to make a Conclusion certaine.

7. The first which I named before, is the consent of Catholique Authors auncient and Moderne, which is such as M^r. Doctour hath not named so much as one of his opi∣nion besides Sarmiento. hee bringeth Vas∣ques as houlding it is not altogether cer∣taine the Apostles vowed prouerty. But hee concealeth Vasques his immediately following resolution. Tamen probabilior est Sententia S. Thomae, yet the opinion of S. Thomas, that they vowed prouerty is mo∣re propable. But some may say at least Vasques houldeth it is not certaine, and So M^r. Doctour may with out no••e hould as he doth. I answere wee must distinguish two questions; the Apo∣stles vowed Pouerty, the other, what kind of pouerty they vowed. In this se∣cond Question Catholique Doctours be diuided, some say they vowed pouerty, so as they were incapable to bee owners of any thing in particular, though they had something in Common: this is taught by Nauarr, and S. Thomas, others hould that they were owners of somethings, of which yet by reason of their vow they had onely a restrained and subordinate vse; thus Suarez teacheth, and Sarmiento seemeth to haue held no more. Vasques saith the thing is vncertaine, yet the sentence of S. Thomas,

is more probable, to wit, that the Apostles vowed so perfecte pouerty, as that they could not be owners of any thing in parti∣cular. But in the first question, whether the Apostles vowed some Kind of pouerty suf∣ficient vnto a regular state or no, Vasques was neuer doubtfull, though in the place by M^r. Doctour alledged, being part of a worke which was neuer by him reuewed, or made ready for the printe, but after his death printed out of certaine confused and imperfecte papers, hee speaketh obscu∣rely.

8. In the workes which Vasques made perfecte, and set forth beeing yet aliue, hee teacheth absolutely and constantly the Apostles made the three vowes of Religion, and proweth the same largly. Hanc vitam caelestem & spiritualem initium habuisse ab Apo∣stolis per tria vota ab ipsis emissa, atque ab ipsis fuisse stabilitam & propagatam: that this spiritual & heauenly life had beginning in the Blessed Apostles by three vowes by them made, and that by them the same was established and propagated in the world. This (sai h hee) is taught bya S. Thomasb Pallad.c Waldens.d Castro,e Catharinus,f Tarrian:g Sotus.h Nauarr: Amongst the Fa∣thers this is deliuered by Epiphanius heresi 58. saying expressely, that generosi Apostoli huius cer∣taminis gloriam abstulerunt, the generous and noble Apostles carried away the prise of

this combatt. S. Basill de Monastic. constit. c. 19. saith that Monkes consecrated vnto God, are followers of our Sauiour, for as hee gathe∣red together a Colledge of Apostles amōgst whō all things were common and he a com∣mō father, and maister vnto all, the same for∣me is kept in Monasteries. S. Chrysost. hom. 27. in Math: maketh Christ speake to a Monke inuitinge him to perfection in this manner. Wilt thou (o monke) bee my disciple? doe what Iames and Iohn did. S. August. li. 17. de Ciuit. c. 4. shewing in what manner the Apo∣stles left all, and followed Christ saith. Hoc votum illi potentissimi vouerant, sed vnde hoc illis nisi ab eo de quo dictum, dans votum vouenti: these most powerfull princes of the Church had made that vow (of Religious perfection) but where had they this but from him, of whom it is said, hee gi∣ueth the vow to him that voweth? and it seemeth very Consonant to reason, that the Apostles who were to bee the Forme and Rule of perfection to the whole Church, should themselues first imbrace the state of perfection. Certes that from the Apostles, the state of Religion was propagated about the world, it is manifest by S. Dionysius Areopagita. Ecclesiast Hierarch. c. 10. Euseb. lib. 2. Hist. c. 16. Chrysost. lib. 3. aduersus vituperatores vita mona∣sticae. Cassian. Collat. 18. c. 5. S. Bernard in apolog. ad Gulielmum, and Pius 4. in a Bull about the precedency of the Canon Regulars.

9. Thus much Vasquez, which I would relate so largely, because it containeth the

first profe of our assertion, to wit, the con∣sent of Catholique Doctours, and sheweth that in Vasques M^r. Doctour hath no shel∣ter for his doubting. Secondly that the A∣postles vowed pouerty and Religion is prooued by scripture. The first text which the Fathers and Doctours insiste vpon, is Matth. 19. ecce nos reliquimus omnia, & secuti sumus te. For in these words S. Peter did pro∣fesse (nor did hee lye) that hee and his fellow Apostles had left all to follow Christ, and to cleaue and adheare to him; so they were by state followers of Christ, not hauinge liber∣ty to leaue him and turne to the world agai∣ne. But this could not bee without they had vowed pouerty and a perpetuall cleauing vnto Christ. For (as M^r. Doctour saith p. 324. lin. 16.) none are in the state of perfection, but such as are by vow obliged to actes of perfe∣ction, which obligation that the Apostles had S. Cyprian teacheth. Apostoli & sub Apostolis multi, rebus suis & parentibus dere∣lictis, indiuiduis Christo nexibus adhaeserunt. The Apostles and vnder them many leauing their goods and parentes, cleaued vnto Christ with insoluble bandes, for what were these insoluble bandes but the obligation of vowes. To this S. Leo agreeth. Huius nobis magnanimae▪ paupertatis exemplum primi post Deum Apostoli tribuerunt, & multos sibi similes fidei imitatione fecerunt: of this magnanimous pouerty an example first after Christ, the Apostles graue vs, and made many like to themselues by imitation of their faith. And that

hee meaneth they did this by vow, is most cleare by the words following, per deuotam Christo paupertatem bonis ditabantur aeternis. Through pouerty deuoted or vowed vnto Christ, they were enriched with eternall welth.

10. This is Confirmed by the actes of the Apostles, wherein the first Christians are sayd to haue liued in common, neyther had any one of them any thing that was his owne. If these liued in the state of vowed pouerty, much more the Apostles, as noe man can with reason denie. But these first Christians vowed pouerty. This is manifest by the punishment layd vpon Ananias and Saphira his wife, for retaining part of their money, for which they sould their lands. For in so doing they lyed vnto the holy Ghost, that is, broke their promise and vow of pouerty as the Fathers expound. M^r. Do∣ctour would not haue it thought this to bee the doctrine of the Fathers, but a new conceite. Although, (saith hee) Lessius and some others thincke that the first Christians vowed pouerty, and proue it also by the example of Ana∣nias and Saphira, who could not haue sinned so greiuously, had they not vowed pouerty: others say that this prooueth not, for that they hauing giuen all to the Apostles and the Community, their goods were no more their owne, but the Commu∣nityes, and so reseruing some goods to themsel∣ues, they sinned and did iniurye to the Communi∣ty, and so are said to haue defrauded of the price,

so that out of the facte of the Apostles nothing can be gathered of any certainety saith Vasques. Thus M. Doctour, to which I reply that this is not Lessius his doctrine, that is. Les∣sius is not the first nor chiefest author the∣reof. Neither can I beleiue M^r. Doctours learning did so thinke, though hee was content to put it vpon Lessius, that the Readers inight not imagine it had the war∣rant of greater authority, as one lately vpon the like motiue would needs force the said Lessius to father the doctrine of Aequiuo∣cation. The Auncient Fathers I say, will acknowledge this pious doctrine of Lessius to be theirs, & that Lessius in his vttering thereof was but their scholler. In proofe whereof omittinge others, I produce eight famous Authours to witt, the foure Do∣ctours of the Graecian Church & the foure of the Latine.

11. Amongst the Grecians S.a Athanasius is first, who saith Ananias and Sapphira (as wee read in the actes) hauing made vowes vn∣to God subtracted part of their vowes without being noted of others, but Peter the Minister of truth brought them to light saying, thou hast not lyed to men but God.

S. Basilb Ananias might haue chosen, and not haue promised and vowed his possession vnto God, yet mooued with vaine glorie he did conse∣crate all the goods hee had, vnto him, afterwards fraudulently reseruing vnto himselfe parte of the

price, hee prouo••ed against himselfe gods indi∣gnation. S. Nazianzenusc who wil not feare to breake his vowes, that readeth the terri∣ble punishment of Ananias and Sapphira, who were strucken suddenly deade, For reser∣uing a portion of money? S. Chrysostomed why didest thou this? didest thou desire to haue mo∣ney: thou mighst haue kept it for thy selfe from the beginning and not haue promised it, but now seeing thou hast consecrated it, thou hast committed a great sacriledge.

12. Let vs add the four of the Latine. S. Hierome Ananias and Sapphira distrust∣full and timid distributers of their goods, are worthely condemned, because after their vow they offered their goods as their owne, & not as his to whom they had vowed them, retaining to themselues parte of the goods that were an others, to witt gods. S. Augustinef if God was so displeased at them that tooke backe againe parte of the money they had vowed; how is hee offen∣ded when chastity is vowed and not after∣wards kept. S. Gregoryg Ananias vowed his goods vnto God, whereof afterwards ouer∣come by diabolicall persuasion hee subtracted part. S. Ambroseh Ananias lost both his money and his life for substracting part of the wealth, hee had vowed vnto God, hee was condemned both of sacriledge and fraude. I and the decision of the counsel ofi Aquisgrane the third, vnder Pepine where

this truth seemeth to bee deliuered as a mat∣ter of faith, saying indubitanter crede &c. beleeue firmely and without any doubt, that in the very beginning of the Primitiue Church, the said Church began to admitt of the vowes of the faithfull, which they prooue by the example of Ananias and Sapphira, and conclude in these wordes. For if they for subtracting part of their owne goods after they had entyrely vowed them vnto God, were chastised with so horrible a death, what is to bee thought of them that presume to take away from God things of∣fered by others?

13. Wee see how constantly the Fathers hould, that the first Christians who liued in common, vowed pouerty. To whom I might ioyne the consent of later authours, before Lessius, and of greater credit. I will be content with onely one which may see∣me in stead of many, to witt, the Colledge of the Doctours of Rhemes in their anno∣tations vpon the fifth of the actes which is this, in that (saith S. Augustine) Ananias withdrew a part of that which hee promised, hee was guylty at once both of sacriledge and fraude, of sacriledge in that hee robbed God of that which was his promise: of fraude in that hee withheld of the whole gifte a peece. And pre∣sently vpon this doctrine of S. Augustine they giue their censure of the contrary. Now let the Heretikes come and say it was for

lying and Hypocrisy onely that this sact was condemned, because they bee looth to haue sacri∣ledge counted any such sinne. Thus the Rhe∣mists supposing as certaine, that no Catho∣lique would denie the facte of Ananias to haue beene sacriledge and breach of his promise to God. That in my poore iudge∣ment M^r. Doctour might better let the A∣postles goe to Religion, then keepe them in the world against their will, for which violence his owne freinds do so deepely blame him.

14. His two reasons of doubt proposed in the beginning of this Chapter, bee too weake to mooue any learning deuoid of partiality to doubt. The first is, the vow of pouerty pertaineth to Religious, they beeing in state of perfection to be gotten, not to the Apostles who were Bishops, and so were in the state of perfection already at∣tained. I answere, this maketh against M^r. Doctour. The vow of pouerty (hee saith) pertaineth to them that be in state of perfe∣ction to be gotten, or in a state binding men to get perfection. But the Apostles when they were talled by our Sauiour, we∣re in the state of perfection to bee gotten, or in a state binding them to get perfection, for they were not then Bishops nor Pa∣stours, but onely Schollers and disciples of Christ in the schoole of perfection, to lear∣ne of him particularly the lesson of pouer∣ty,

as beeing most fit and necessary for them. To this purpose Gulielmus Bishop of Paris doth fitly accomodate the speech of Iob 26. Extendit Aquilonem super vacuum & & appendit terram super nihilum, hee streatcheth the Northen Cost vpon a vacuity and the earth hee maketh stand vpon nothing. This vacuity and nothing (saith hee) is the state of po∣uerty, the foundation of Christian perfe∣ction layd by our Sauiour, saying to his Apostles. Blessed be the poore of spirit, non aliter in eis fundaturus Ecclesiā, hoc est, in Apostolis, nisi prius eos ad istud nihilum deduxisset, & in eo stabilisset atque firmasset. Hee would neuer haue founded his Church on them, that is, on the Apostles, had hee not first brought them vnto this nothing (of pouerty) and made them firme and stable therein by the obligation of vow.

15. This Sarmiento saw and therefore did not so much denie that the Apostles once vowed pouerty before they were Bishops, as hee affirmed that by their beeinge made Bishops, their vow ceased; as also now (saith hee) when Religious men become Bishops, they are released of their vow of pouerty. To whom Nauarr replyeth. sunt haec neganda & perneganda. These are things to be denied and denyed againe, as beeing dangerous Noueltyes in these dayes. Also what Sarmi∣ento said that Peter beeinge made Bishop and Pope was loosed of the vow of pouerty hee made, beeing but a disciple; est falsum

& periculosum (saith Nauar.) verè enim di∣cimus nunc S. D. N. Pium S. Petri successorem, quae gloria eius est, non esse dominum bonorum vllorum Ecclesiasticorum, nec suarum vestium quidem, obstante iam voto solemni quod pridem emisit: for wee say that our holy Father Pius, now the successour of Peeter, not to be (which is his glorie) owner of any Ecclesiasticall liuings, no not of the gar∣ments he weareth, by reason of the solemne vow of pouerty he made in religion, but he is the souueraigne Steward and Protectour of all Ecclesiasticall Goods. And this is that which S. Leo sayth, the humility of Christ no wealthines may scorne, nor to imbrace it may any nobility blush, for neuer can humane happines mount so high as that state may bee thought to him disgracefull, which God in the forme of man did not disdaine. In the same place Nauar reie∣cteth M^r. Doctour•• conceite, that pouerty standeth not so well with Bishops, who, must bee (as S. Paul sayth) hospitall, for saith Nauarr, to this end it is enough that Bishops haue the administration of the goods of the Church though they be not owners of them, and the contrary conceite, doth cōfound the necessity of hauing admi∣nistration with the necessity of hauing pro∣priety against all lawes, both canon and ciuill and namely against diuerse lawes hee there citeth.

16. M^r. Doctours second doubt hath far

lesse ground, it is, that we do not know that the Apostles vowes were admitted by the Church, or that their community was ap∣prooued as a Religious order. This is stra∣unge, for what is it to be approoued by the Church, but by the supreme visible Pastour and gouernour of the Church which was Christ Iesus so long as hee liued on earth amongst men? Hee gathered together a cō∣pagny of disciples to liue together in com∣mon in the obseruance of three counsells, vnder him the proper Father and maister of them all. And can any m••n thinke this com∣pany was not Religious for want of suffi∣cient Church approbation? doth not the approbation of Christ suffice? As for other Religions, how they were aunciently ap∣prooued by the Church, is a long disputa∣tion and not to our purpose: wherein the more probable opinion is, that of Bellar∣mine: that aunciently there was no neede of further new approbation, then that of Christ Ies{us}. Hee gaue men liberty and facul∣ty to follow his counsells, and cōsequently to meet together in companies to this end, and to chuse a Superiour and to make their vow of obedience vnto h••m. For no doubt hee did institute what soeuer was of the sub∣stance of a Religious state. But the vowing obe••ience to a person in power and autho∣rity to directe them in the obseruance of the vowed counsels, is of the substance of a Re∣ligious

state. Therefore Christ instituting the state of Religion, did allow this faculty vnto men. But this faculty was giuen with subordination and dependance on the Church to be recalled, restrained, or or∣dered by the Pastours thereof. Soe now, since the Church hath forbidden the inuen∣ting of new Religious without the Popes approbation, this faculty is ceased. But this question requireth more exacte discussion. Howsoeuer, it is certaine that Christ Iesus had power and faculty supreme to gather to¦gether a family or Colledge of Disciples to liue in Religious discipline vnder him, and to accept of their vowes: And so, to doubt whether the Apostles vowes were sufficien∣tly admitted, or approoued, there is no cause.

Whether the Gouernment of the Church, or Prea∣ching vnto Infidels, belong by deuine insti∣tution to Secular priestes, rather then to Regulars? CAPVT VIII.

1. THe proposed question hath no difficulty in it selfe, but only in regard of sundry obscure asser∣tions which M^r. Doctour is plea••ed to vtter, to preferre his secular Cleargy before the Regular, euen about preaching vnto Infidels. These compara∣tiue assertions be three, which wee will breifly discusse, to see what true sence may bee found in them. The first is this, I contend, (sayth hee) that by the deuine law and in∣stitution the gouernmēt of the Church was not gi∣uen to Regulars, but to Bishops and Priestes; this proposition may haue different senses. First that the deuine law, and institution re∣quiers that the gouernment of the Church be giuen to Bishops, and Priestes, though Seculars rather then vnto Regulars that bee not Priests. This may seeme M^r. Doctours sence, for hee saves not giuen to Regulars, but to Bishops, and Priestes, which shewes hee

meaneth Regulars that bee neither Bp. nor Priests. In this sence his saying is true, but little to our purpose. The second sence may bee that the deuine law and institutiō about the gouernmēt of the Church by Bishops, and Priestes was not first exercised, and or∣dained by the Institutour himselfe in Regu∣lar Bishops, and Priests. This sence is false seeing the first Bishops and Priests were the Apostles, who were Regulars, as hath been proued. The third sence that though Christ did giue the gouerment of the Church, at the first to Regulars, yet not with a law, or institution that the Bishops and Priests gouerning the Church should afterwards still bee Regulars. This sence is also true, because Christ gaue not any command that Priests should vow pouerty, or chastity, as the Apostles did, so that without breach of the deuine law they may haue possessions, or wyues.

2. But wee may note, that the deuine in∣stitution is of two Kinds, the one is institutio praecipiens, a deuine institution comman∣ding and binding to do a thinge; the other is institutio consulen••, a deuine institution counseiling to do a thing. In the first sence Christ did not institute that Priests should bee Regulars or voue pouerty and chastity. Hence in the Grecian Church P••iests are married, and in the Latin they may bee, without breach of the deuine law. And in

this the state of Religious may seeme to haue much honour aboue the state of Bi∣shops and Priests, because their state nei∣ther essentially, nor by the deuine positiue law requiers speciall chastity aboue that of vulgar Christians, where as the state of Re∣ligious not only by deuine positiue law, but euen essentially includs the profession of Angelicall purity. In the second sence Bishops and Priests bee Regulars by deuine institutiō, that is, Christ by way of counsell, and exhortation requiers that Bishops, and Priests should liue in chastity, and abandon the allurements of temporall wealth, for these counseills giuen vnto all, are pecu∣liarly conuenient for the cleargy, which is the cause that in the Apostles tyme, and afterwards some ages, Priests were com∣monly Regulars, as might bee proued, and is proued by M^r. I. C. in the place I noted in the last chapter.

3. More difficill is it to find true sence in the second comparatiue proposition M^r. Doctour vseth, that Secular Priests are by the deuine institution gouernours of the Church (dedi∣catory n. 12.) but Regulars indeed may bee assumed to the cleargy, yet their assumption is ex∣traordinary. c. 9. n. 16. what M^r. Doctour meaneth by extraordinary in this compa∣rison, hee declareth not, but in other parts of his treatise hee taketh extraordinary to bee that, which is not cōforme to the deuine

institution. So hee sayth c. 14. n. 2. if the Church that formerly had a Bishop bee for a tyme in persecution gouerned by Priests, or by an Arch∣priest, it is a thing accidentall, and not ordinary, nor according to Christs institution, who will haue his Church bee gouerned by diuerse particular Bi∣shops. In the same manner. c. 5. n. 7. hee sayth that the vniuersall authority of the Apo∣stles was extraordinary, because it was giuen immediatly by Christ, when by deuine institution Peeter being the cheese Pastour it should haue been giuen by him. So that Extraordinary is that which is not conforme to deuine institu∣tion, but done by dispensation therin. Ac∣cording to this acception of the word, Extra∣ordinary M^r. Doctours Assertion, the assum∣ption of Regulars to the cleargy extraordinary, hath this sence: that the assūption of Regu∣lars to the cleargy is not according to the deuine institution, by which not Regulars, but Se∣culars are to bee Bishops, and Priests, and so gouernours of the Church. I doubt whether M^r. Doctour will defend his as∣sertion in this sence, because it makes Re∣gulars irregular, and not capable of order by ••he deuine law, where as by the com∣mon practise of the church they are assu∣m••d to the cleargy. For either hee must say this is done against the deuine insti∣tution, by continuall contempt, and ne∣glect therof (which were very hard to affirme) or els say that the Church doth

dispence in this deuine ordination, which yet hee cannot say, without crossing him∣selfe. For c. 13. n. 2. hee sayth that the Po∣pe cannot abrogate, nor alter, nor dispence in the things by Christ establisshed, or instituted, for this were to dispence in the deuine law, which hee cannot do. If then Christ hath insti••u∣ted, ordained, estab••ished that the gouer∣nours of the Church, to witt Priests, bee secular, and not regulars, how can regu∣lars bee assumed to the cleargy extraordi∣nary, or by dispensation?

4. That other part of the comparison, se∣cular priests are by deuine institution go∣uernours of the Church, much rubbish must bee taken a way that we find a little probable truth buried vnder it. First the word secular priests is to loosse, and large comprehending all priests of that order, not only such as are in dignity of Curats, but also those who are tearmed simplices Sacerdotes, that haue not charge of Soules. For M^r. Doctour speaketh particularly of the reuerend priests of the English cleargy, who bee not curats, nor haue parishes but only bee delegated by priuilege as re∣gulars are. How can it bee true of these, that they bee by the deuine institution gouer∣nours of the Church, who by the deuine institution are gouernours of nothing. Wherefore wee must restraine the word Secular priests to the number of only

parish priests, where by all our English bee cast out of the number of gouernours. This done, yet much difficulty will t••ere bee to make a curate to bee by deuine in∣stitution gouernour of the Church, for the word Church is very ample, and com∣prehends the whole Catholique world. Gouernour also doth imply all manner of power, necessary for the gouernment of the thing committed to his charge; so that following the amplitud of M^r. Doctours phrase, wee must make them all, and euery one to haue plenitude of power ouer the Catholique Church; which were too too much. Wherefore first wee must bring the Church in this place to bee content to stand within a parish. Secondly wee must intreate, Gouernour, of the Church for this tyme to resigne all power of externall iuris¦diction, for parish Priests haue no power in that kind, so much as by the common law of the Church, much lesse by deuine institution; whence they are not compri∣sed vnder the name of prelats parochi non habent iurisdictionem ordinariam externam, & ideo non comprehenduntur nomine praelatorum, for they haue only an inferiour care of soules in the inward court only without power to make lawes, or to lay the cen¦sure of excommunication on any. That M^r. Doctours mighty proposition, Secular priests by the deuine institution be•• gouernours of

of the Church hath only this little sence of truth. Some priests, to witt, a curate hath vnder Bishops a secondary kind of care in the Church ouer a parish. If one should say that by the law of England a constable is a gouernour of the realme, this saying were as true as M^r. Doctours, yea more confor∣me to truth, because constables haue by the law a kind of inferiour power of iurisdi∣ction in the external court, whereas secular priests by deuine institution haue none.

5. Finally, when to be gouernour of the church, is brought to import no more, but some kind of secondary care without ex∣ternal iurisdiction ouer the soules of a pa∣rish, yet M^r. Doctour will haue much a do to shew so much as this little to bee a cura∣tes due by deuine institution. True it is Ger∣son and Maior hould Curats to haue their power immediatly of Christ, but the com∣mon, and receaued tenēt of deuins is against them. Yea also the very ordinary practise of Bishops in some countryes as Henriques noteth. M^r. Doctour promised in his de∣dicatory wee should see in this treatise this proposition proued. I haue perused euery line thereof and cannot meete with any proofe, that parish priests are by deuine in∣stitution in the church, much lesse that a curate is gouernour of the church. As for o••her secular priests, as vicars, Archideacōs, Rurall, Deanes, they cannot bee by the de∣uine

institution gouernours of the Church, it beeing certaine that these offices are not by the deuine institution in the church.

6. M^r. Doctours third comparison, whe∣rein hee preferrs seculars, is: that Bishops and priests (hee meaneth secular) haue authority and right by the diuine ordonance to preach to Gentills, and propagate the faith, yet with depen∣dance of the cheefe Pastour, but regulars though afterwards they were admitted and sent to preach to the Gentills, yet that doth not appertaine to them iure ordinario, by ordinary law, but by priuiledge, and extraordinarily. In this compa∣rison the second part is willingly acknow∣ledged by Regulars, that by deuine ordinan∣ce they haue no authority, and right to go preach to Gētills, but haue their missiōs, and commissions from the supreame Pastour. As for secular Bishops, and priests, that they ha∣ue power and authority by the deuine orde∣nance to go to preach out of their diocesses, and parishes, I neuer remember to haue read it, but only in M^r. Antonius de Dominis that Apostata Bp. Hee is perēptorie in this poynte that euery Bp. or priest hath vniuersall au∣thority, and may go preach vnto Infidells, re∣prehēding Baronius with much bitternes for his makning the Apostolicall charge of prea∣ching vnto Gentills, and of sending preachers vnto them proper of the Roman Bp. In con∣formity of this, Boronius noteth that S. Adelbertus Bishop of Prage would not go

to preach to the Hungarians and Prussians without delegation and power of priuiledge from Rome. Sciens Apostolatus munus non spē∣te sua à quopiam, Sed Dei nutu ab eo qui prima∣riam in Ecclesia Christi authoritatem retinet à Deo concessam, suscipiendum. Knowing that the office of Apostle, or of preaching vnto infi∣dells is not to bee vndertaken by selfe choyce, but by the will of God, from him who hath supreame authority of the Church. See him lik∣wise 12. anno 1124.

7. The reason of this truth is giuen by the deuines, namely, Gabriel and Scotus and Vasq: quia is solum verè & rectè admittere po∣test in corpus Ecclesiae qui corpori ipsi tanquam caput praeest. By right and according to law, hee only can admitt into the body of the church, who is Superiour of that whole body as head. So that to baptise, though it bee not an act of iurisdiction, yet it is an act of one hauing iurisdiction ouer the rest of Christians, vn∣to which number by baptisme one is ad∣mitted. Euen as none by right and office can admitt into the body of a common wealth, but hee only that hath supreame iurisdiction ouer that whole body. Others if they haue such power it is by delegation from him. Hence Bishops beeing heads of particular churches can admitt, and com∣mitt vnto others, power to admitt by Ba∣ptisme into that particular church, and consequently into the vniuersall, where, of

the particular is allready admitted as mem∣ber. But hee that doth plant a new Christia∣nity, doth not admitt the Baptised into any particular church, but directly into the vni∣uersall. Therefore if hee doe this by the right, and authority of his office giuen him by the deuine law, hee must bee by diuine law and institution head, and gouernour of the vniuersall church. If M. Doctour will not grant this (as sure hee will not) hee must grant that noe man hath by office and by diuine ordenance, authority to con∣uert and baptise infidells but only the su∣preame pastoure. The Bishop out of his Dio∣cesse, the priest out of his parish cannot preach to Infidells, nor baptise except in ca∣se of necessity, in which case the supreame pastour giueth them licence by an interpre∣tatiue consent.

8. Moreouer, if a secular priest haue by deuine ordinance right and authority to preach, conuert, and Baptise, then also by deuines ordinance hee hath right and au∣thority to rule and gouerne them after they bee conuerted by giuinge them Bishops, and pastours. This is proued, because Christ would neuer giue right and authority to be∣gett children, without also giuing power to nurse them, and bring them vp. Hence in the 28. of S. Mathew, where hee giueth power to conuert and baptise nations, hee giueth togeather power to rule and gouer∣ne

them being now christned. Going teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and the sunne, and of the H. Ghost; tea∣ching them to keepe all things that I haue com∣manded you. Vpon which words S. Hiero∣me maketh this obseruation. Ordo praecipuus iussit Apostolis vt primum docerent omnes Gen∣tes, deinde fidei intingerent sacramento, & post fidem, & baptisma quae essent obseruanda praeci∣pe••ent. The order heere is notab••e. First that they teach all nations, then that they Baptise them, and after faith, and Bapti••me, that they com∣mand what they are to doe. So that togea∣ther with power to baptise and conuert, hee giueth power and authority to command, rule, and gouerne. Hence I thus argue. They who by these words receaue power to tea••h and to baptise Gentills, receaue power to command and gouerne them after ba∣ptisme, as is manifest. But as M••. Doctour sayth these words were spoken to priests, and Bishops, and they by vertue of this speach receaue power to teach, and con∣uert nations, because they bee the succes∣sours of the Apostles, and disciples to whom this speach was directed. Therefore a Bis∣hop and a priest by these words haue by diuine ordinance authority, and right to gouerne all christian nations, and Chur∣ches, whereof one part is to prouide them pastours. Hence the foresayde M^r. Anto∣nius doth consequently grant that euery

Bishop can erect new christianities, and Bishopricks, and giue them Bishops by the right and authority they haue by the deui∣ne ordinance.

9. I know not whether M^r. Doctour will proceede so farre, yet hee hath certaine words that may seeme somewhat to insi∣nuate such a conceipt. For c. 9. n. 4. or pag. 245. li. 6. hee sayth, by the diuine institution Bishops and priests are to gouerne the Hierar∣chie of the church, to preach, to minister Sacra∣ments, and therefore at first Bishops, and prists only preached the Gospell, conuerted countries, and amongst the conuerted placed Bishops, and Priests to gouerne them, and administer Sacra∣ments. By these words it may bee conclu∣ded, that a Bishop, or a priest hath authori∣ty and right by the deuine ordinance to preach, and baptise infidells, and afterward to gouerne them by supreame power, gi∣uing them Bishops, and pastours. For now a Dayes a Bishop and a priest hath by suc∣cession that power, and authority of deuine ordinance, which the Bishops and priests had at the first, as M^r. Doctour affirmeth: But as hee sayth, Bishops and priests at first did by Christs institution and by their authority of deuine ordināce preach to Infidells, con∣uert them, gouerne them being conuerted, and amongst them place Bishops and pa∣stours. Therefore now a Dayes a secular Bishop or priest by his ordinary authority

of diuine right may goe to preach to Infi∣dells, conuert them, gouerne them being cōuerted, and amongst them place Bishops, and pastours. If this bee true, then our se∣cular priests in England may amongst Ca∣tholiques conuerted exercise this their power of deuine ordinance in gouerning them, and in placing Bishops, and pastours as they shall thinke fit. If any say that secu∣lar priests may gouerne, and place Bishops amongst Catholiques conuerted by them∣selues. But the Catholiques of England ha∣ue not been conuerted, and made by them only, but a greate part by the plantation of regulars. I answere this will not hinder M^r. Doctours conceipt, because hee will haue regulars in England to bee but helpes of secular priests, and their instruments, and consequently the conuersion of Catholi∣ques done by regulars is to bee attributed vnto the body of secular priests, as vnto the principall agents. So that by M••. Doctours Theologie the Catholiques of England are the creatures of the secular priests, conuer∣ted principally by them. And therfore if se∣cular priests haue power of diuine right to gouerne the Country by them conuerted, and place Bishops amongst them, then may by themselues only and by their authority of diuine ordinance make as many Bishops, and pastours for England as they shall thi••∣ke expedient. If M^r. Doctour be thus per∣suaded,

and did intend this in saying that priests haue right, and authority by deuine ordinance to conuert Infidells, to gouerne them after their conuersion, and that the first Bishops and priests amongst the con∣uerted place Bishops and pastours. I referre this conceipt to the supreame censure, a••su∣ring him without better proofe then hee hath brought, no learned man will beleeue this his nouell opinion, that seculars haue soe greate power of gouernment by deuine ordinance, in countries by them conuerted, or more then regulars haue, ouer countries they haue made christian, or catholique.

10. About the proofes hee hath brought I note two things, by which their weaknes and the falshood of his doctrine is discoue∣red: the first is in alledging scriptures, hee doth cunningly helpe his cause by adding somthing which is not in the text. Christ (sayth hee, pag. 243. c. 9. n. 12.) to the Apostles, Disciples, and their successours said. Goeing therefore teach yee all nations, and agai∣ne the same hee inculcateth by S. Marke. Goeing, into the whole world preach the Gospell to all creatures, that is to men. Heere M••. Do∣ctour saith Christ spake these words, to the Apostles, ād Disciples, whereas the Ghospel hath no more, but that they were spoken to the Apostles. In the first place of S. Mathew the text is this. And the eleuen Disciples went into Galilee vnto the montaine which Iesus had

appoynted, and seeing him, they adored him, but some doubted, and hee sayd to them all. Power, is giuen mee in heauen and in earth, goeing there∣fore teach yee all nations. S. Marke sayth. No∣uissimè recumbentibus illis vndecim apparuit, Last of all hee appeared to these eleuen sitting at table, and sayd vnto them, goeing into the whole world preach the Ghospell to euery creature. Where you see the Euangelists make men∣tion only of the Apostles that Christ spoke to them, sending them to preach to the world, and gouerne the world conuerted. why then doth M^r. Doctour add Disciples? The reason is because hee sayth that Bis∣hops succeeded the Apostles, the secular Priests succeeded 72. Disciples. Hence if the words giuing power to preach to na∣tions, and gouerne the church had been spoken to the Apostles only, that deuine ordinance would haue come by succession to Bishops only, and not to secular Priests. wherefore that secular priests might bee partakers with Bishops in the power of diui∣ne ordinance to conuert nations, and go∣uerne them being conuerted, hee addeth to the text Disciples, ioyning them in this com∣mission with the Apostles; which certainly is not true; for howsoeuer some other Disciples besides the Apostles not only men, but also woemen might bee present, (which yet is more then is in those places expresly affirmed) yet without question

the words, goeing therefore teach yee all na∣tions, were spoken only to the Apostles. Nei∣ther can any by vertue of this ordinance doe it but they, and such as haue commission from them.

11. The second thing I note, is, that M^•. Doctour doth contradict himselfe, in saying that this deuine ordinance of autho∣rity to preach to all nations and gouerne them being cōuerted giuen to the Apostles, is deriued vnto their successours, to witt, vnto Bishops; for elswere c. 5. n. 7. hee wry∣teth, The authority of the Apostles in respect of extent, and largnes was extraordinary, which should haue been limited to particular places, as the iurisdiction of Bishops is. And againe in the same place. Because the vniuersall authority as the Apostles was extraordinary, and delegate, therefore Bishops who are their successours doe not succeed them in that ample iurisdiction. Thus hee, which is contrary to what heere hee sayth, that Christ sayd to his Apostles, and their successours who are Bishops, goeing the∣refore teach yee all nations. For if Christ spake these words, not only to the Apostles but to their successours, then Bishops succeede the Apostles in the authority giuen by these words, which is authority ouer all nations to conuert them, and gouerne them being conuerted. If the iurisdiction of Bishops bee limited by deuine ordinance to particu∣lar places, how can they haue authority of

deuine ordinance to go to the Gentills to conuert them? If as in an other place hee sayth, Bishop•• can exercise no iurisdiction except the pope apply subiects to him, and assigne him his diocesse, on whome hee may exercise this his iu∣risdiction how is it true that the deuine ordi∣nance doth assigne him subiects, to witt, all infidells to conuert them and gouerne them being conuerted?

12. This I am sure Catholiques in their disputing with heretiques suppose as a principle of faith most certaine, that the Apostles as they were Bishops with autho∣rity to preach to the whole world, and go∣uerne all nations conuerted, had noe succes∣sours. Thus Bellarmin wryteth. Apostoli summi erant, non vno in loco, sed toto orbe terra∣rum; poterant enim vbique praedicare, baptizare, ordinare, leges ferre &c. Sed hoc in solo Petro fuit ordinarium munus, in coeteris extraordina∣rium, & quasi delegatum, & ideo soli Petro vi∣demus, non vlli alteri Apostolo quo ad hanc in toto orbe potestatem. The Apostles were primes, not only in one place or Diocesse, but in the w••ole world, for they could euery where preach, baptise, giue orders, make lawes &c. But this office was ordinary in Peeter only, in the rest it was extraordinary, and as it where of delegation; and therefore in respect of power ouer the whole world, wee see Peeter only hath a successour, not any other Apostle. Thus Bellarmin deliuering the

doctrine of the Catholique faith. How then can M^r, Doctours saying be suffered that Bishops, yea Priests bee successours vnto the Apostles in this vniuersall power, and commission, goe teach, baptize, com∣maund all nations?

That M^r. Doct••urs vrging the Catholiques of England to receaue my Lord of Chalcedon as their Bishop and spiritual Prince, is very importune and vnreasonable. CAPVT IX.

MR. Doctours whole discourse and treatise aymeth at this marke, that our Catholiques of England admit my Lord of Chalcedon, as their Bishop, that is, to gouerne them as his owne flocke, and as their Lord and Prince. For as he saith, p. 342. c. 12. n. 3. A Bishop though he be sub∣ordinate to the Pope, yet is he in his Kind a spiri∣tual Prince, and not the Popes delegate: Hence he is ful of eloquent exhortations vrging Ca∣tholiques importunely in this point; in his dedicatory n. 15. thus he writeth; The Bi∣shop is your spiritual Prince, yea Princep•• Pa∣storum, P••ince of Pastours, as S. Ignatius sti∣leth

him, honour and respect him; he is your spiri∣tual father, yea as S. Epiphanius calleth him, he is Patrum generator, the father of fathers, because the Priest by Baptisme as by a spiritual ge∣neration begetteth Children, so the Bishop by the Sacrament of Order, which he only can minister, begetteth and ordaineth Priests, who are the spiri∣tual fathers of the people. Loue him as children should do their father; He is your Pastour, you his flocke, wherin the holy Ghost hath placed him to rule; He is your Prelate who hath such a charge of your soules, that if any of you miscarry through his default, he must answere soule for soule, not one for one, but one for euery one, obserue him and be ye subiect vnto him; for as S. Barnard saith, it was neuer heard that an Angel should say I wil not be subiect to the Archangel, nor that the Archangel should say, I wil not obey the thrones: Then (as he sayth) that voyce cannot be from heauen nor of God, I wil not be subiect to the Bishop.

I wil in this chapter shew three thinges. first that this suggestion of M^r. Doctour is not secure; secondly that the ground therof is an errour, to witt, that obedience is due to Bishops in respect of their order: thirdly that M^r. Doctours vrginge Catholiques in this pointe doth not so sute with Charity.

M^r. Doctours suggestion implyeth danger of sinne. §. 1.

2. TO shew this, we must suppose three thinges, first that Catholiques being the sheepe of Christ as they are, readily to obey their lawfull Pastours that are gi∣uen them by Order, so they are bound to refuse such as come of themselues not being sent for that charge and office; our Sauiour in the 10. of S. Iohn doth distin∣guish a lawful Pastour from an vsurper, that the one doth enter by the doore into the sold, the other stealeth in by some other way, Qui non intrat per ostium in ouile ouium, sed ascendit aliunde, fur est & latro, qui intrat per ostium pastor est ouium; They enter in at the doore qui non sumunt sibi honorem, sed vocan∣tur à Deo tanquam Aaron, as saith S. Paul, they vsurpe not the office nor take the dignity vpon them, but are called of God as was Aaron. They steale in through a by way, qui missi non sunt (saith S. Augustine) sed sponte veniunt, who not being sent come of themselues pretending to be Pastours: hence our Sauiour shewinge the duty of good Catholiques saith, that his sheepe re∣ceaue the Pastour. Illum sequuntur, & vocem eius audiunt, they follow his direction and heare his voyce. But the Vsurper they do not ad∣mitt nor obey him, but fly from him, alie∣num

non sequuntur, sed fugiunt ab eo. Finally he giueth this vniuersal instruction, Omnes quotquot venerunt fures sunt, sed non audierunt eos oues; Al•• that haue come (to witt, of them¦selues, pretending to be Pastours and Bi∣shops not being sent by lawful authority) are theeues, but the sheepe heare them not; When you see our Sauiour amongst the markes, of his sheepe, that is of his elect, num∣breth the not admitting and flying from such, as intrude themselues into the office of Pastours, as S.a Augustine, S. b Hierom, S.c Bede and other fathers ex∣pound; In the Apocalipse in like manner our Lord doth highly commend the An∣gel of Ephesus, that is not only the Bi∣shop but also the people of that Church as Peretius noteth, that they would not admitt of them that said they were Apo∣stles, and consequently their Pastours and Bishops, but examined them resisting their pretence til they were disclosed. Tentasti eos, qui dicun•• se Apostolos esse, & non sunt, & inuenisti eos mendaces.

3. Contrarywise the Corinthians when some came to them transfigurantes se in Apo∣stolos Christi, transforming themselues into Apostles of Christ pretending they were their Pastours, and consequently that the Corynthians were bound to maintaine them. and giue them allowance in recom∣pence of their charge and office repre∣hending

with much bitternes S. Paul, that he contrary to the practise of others, did gratis euangelizare, preach the Ghospel freely, without exacting or admittinge of any stipend as the requital of his labours. The Corynthians, I say, did willingly without more a doe or further examina∣tion admitte of them as their Pastours, gi∣ui••g them large maintenāce, enduring their arrogant commaunding and seuere exa∣cting vpon them, with great humility and patience. But was this their humility com∣mendable, did they by this patient suf∣fring win the deuine fauour? Certs S. Paul reprehends them sharply in this res∣pect, saying, Libenter suffertis insipentes cum sitis ipsi sapientes: sustinetis enim si quis in seruitu∣tem vos redigit, si quis deu••rat, si quis accipit, si quis extollitur, si quis in faciem vos caedit. You willingly endure the vnwise, though you your sel∣ues be wise, for you suffer if a man bring you into bondage, if a man deuoure you, if a man take of you, if a man extoll himselfe, if a man smite you on the face, that is, doe you open wrong, vsurping iurisdiction ouer you without any colour or title.

4. The thinge standing thus, M^r. Doctour can haue no iust cause to be greeted at our English Catholiques, though they do not presently yeeld to his suggestion, and elo∣quent vrging of them to receaue my Lord of Chalcedon, not as a Delegate from the

Pope, but as the Pastour whose flocke they are, placed in that office not by delegation from man, but by deuine ordinance, and by the holy Ghost. Will M^r. Doctour exact or expect to be in this point credited without any proofe vpon his bare auerring of a thing so strange neuer before heard of, that my Lord of Chalcedon is to gouerne the Catholiques of England, not as the Po∣pes delegate, but as head Pastour, as Prince, as their owne Bishop: If Catholiques should yeeld vnto t••is motion, how could they be excused from being worthy of the reprehension the Corynthians had of S. Paul; to wit, of hasty and indiscret putting themselues into subiection, of giuing away their temporal goods for which they may expect no reward of God, and as exerci∣sing humility, obedience, patience, vnto which no crowne of righteousnes is pre∣pared? yea they may by blind acceptance, expose themselues vnto manifest danger of falling into greeuous sinne and diuision from the successour of Peeter, by accepting of Pastours and gouernours against his order.

5. For secondly we must suppose as cer∣taine, that my Lord of Chalcedon by his Breue and commission from his Holinesse, is a delegate in respect of England, and consequently not Bishop being as M^r. Do∣ctour saith, p. 342. not the Popes delegate,

but a spiritual Prince. Hence M^r. Doctour in his exhortations to receaue his Lord∣ship as Bishop, producing al reasons he could deuise, yet doth he neuer so much as once vrge Catholiques vpon this pointe, that the sea Apostolique hath so ordained: wherof no doubt the cause is, that he knoweth very wel his Lordship by his Breue not to be Bishop in iurisdiction and office ouer English Catholiques; other∣wise why should he so perpetually preter∣mitte and neglect this reason of the Popes institution, in truth the only reason which alone might suffice, though other were wanting, without which to make Bishops is to run into danger of schisme. It is true that M^r. Doctour as I haue noted, doth much insinuat that Secular Priests in coun∣tryes by them cōuerted may place Bishops, as hauing authority so to doe immediatly of God. For he saith that they are by the deuine institution, Gouernours of the Church, of which gouernment, one part is to place Pa∣stours and Bishops where there are wan∣tinge. He doth defend that by deuine Or∣dinance they haue authority and right to conuert countryes, and consequently to go∣uerne countryes conuerted, prouiding them such Pastours as the deuine law requires they should haue. Finally his saying that Bishops and Priests at first preached the Ghospel, conuerted countryes, and

amongst the conuerted, placed Bishops to gouerne them, doth more then insinuate that he thinkes Secular Priests in coun∣tryes by them conuerted may place Bishops to gouerne. To this doctrine his practise is sutable, in that he vrgeth Catholiques to admitte my Lord of Chalcedon as their Bishop and head Pastour. For either they are to receaue him cominge to be Bishop of himselfe, which were a thing no wayes iusticeable, or els as being sent and ordained by Secular Priests, who are by the deuine institution gouernours of the Church, for he doth neuer so much as once affirme his holines appointed him to be head Pastour, and not delegate.

6. If this be M^r. Doctours opinion, although I will not preuent the holy sea by my censure therof, yet to preuent the deception of others, I wil affirme that it is most certaine Catholique doctrine, that no person vpon earth, besides the Pope, hath by deuine Ordinance the office to plant new Christianityes, erect new Bi∣shoprickes, and place Bishops in them. This is taught expresly by Bellarmine, and proued by these formal wordes. The ere∣cting of new Bishoprikes and Bishops cannot per∣taine to any, whose power is contained within compasse▪ such as the power of particular Bishops is; but only to him, who is gouernour of the whole Church, and to whom properly the charge

of propagating the Church doth belong, such as all the Apostles were. Peeter indeed by office, the rest by delegation, and whosoeuer doth other∣wise enter, he is not of the Apostolical Church, seing he cannot deduce his origen from the Apo∣stles. Notwithstanding we doe not deny also Pa∣triarches and Metropolitans may somtymes erect new Bishoprickes, as S. Athanasius did in the East, and S. Boniface in Germanie, so they haue faculty from the sea Apostolique so to doe. Thus Bellarmine, which doctrine no doubt is Catholique, now if it be Catholique do∣ctrine, that the charge of propagating the Church and religion doth by deuine Ordi∣nance and by office belong only to Peter and his successour, how dangerous a thinge it is to follow M^r. Doctour, affirminga that Secular Bishops and Priests by deuine or¦dinance, haue authority and right to preach to Gentiles and to propagate the faith? and that not only Bishops but also priests did at first erect Bishoprickes and place Bishops?

7. To shew further the danger of sinne implyed in M^r. Doctours motiues, thirdly we must know that not only Bishops are to be appointed and confirmed by the holy sea, but also that a church is not to admitte nor obey any man as Bishop, without he sh••w in writinge the Popes letters of his ordina∣tion for such a Church. This is ordained by the Church in one of her Canonical insti∣tutions. Let not Bishops promoted by the holy sea

presume to goe to the Churches committed to their charge without the letters of the said sea, contai∣ning their graunt of their promotion, consecration, confirmation, and benediction, and let none with∣out the shewing of such letters either receaue, or obey or regard them. This constitution wil ha∣ue no man of what grauity or authority soeuer to be credited vpon his word, and on the testimony of his friends without letters patents that he is Bishop. The reason of this strictnes is deliuered in that constitution to be, propter grauia scandala & pericula quae pa∣rere posset eorum communicatio indiscussa, for feare of greeuous scandals and dangers that the admitting of them without discussion may breede. For on the one syde, if a man without being by the Pope ordained, should intrude himselfe into the office of Bishop, al the acts of Iurisdiction by him exercised should be voyde and of no force, Priests au∣thorized by him, should haue no power to absolue, absolutions giuen by them, should be of no effect, Confessions made to them were to be repeated vnder paine of damna∣tion, in a word, a world of confusion would therupon arise, to the losse of innumerable soules. On the other syde most insatiable is the cupidity of humane hart to be Bishop, and prone to entertaine the suggestion of any f••rgery and fraude that giue them fur∣therance therin. Not without cause doth S. Bernard tearme Ambition, subtile malum,

secretum virus, pestis occulta, doli artifex, mater Hypocrisis. A close mischeefe, a lurking poyson, a conceiled infection, the mistres∣se of fraud, the mother of Hypocrisy, against which no learning or sanctitie is sufficient armour of proofe, for it cree∣peth insensibly into the brests of men, that otherwise are of pure and irreprehen∣sible life, as S. Ambrose saith, Hoc pernicio∣sior Ambitio quod blanda quadam est concilia∣tricula dignitatum, vt saepe quos vitia nulla de∣flectunt, quos nulla potuit mouere luxuria, nulla auaritia subruere, faciat Ambitio criminosos. Ambition is the more pernicious in that it is a sweet winner of mans hart to seeke dignities, that oftentymes whom no vice could diuert, whom no pleasure could moue, whom no coue∣tousnes could ouercome, those Ambition maketh criminous. Wherfore seing good life by the secret enchauntments of Ambition to be Bishop, is so easily drawne into the crimes of fraud, great reason had the Church to ordaine that in a matter wheron so much doth depend, no seeming grauity or sanctity of men be credited on their word.

8. These thinges being proued, I need not add any word more to shew how bould an vndertaking M^r. Doctours may seeme, about my Lord of Chalcedon of a dele∣gate, to make him Bishop, and spiritual Prince, and how dangerous a thinge it we∣re for Catholiques to yeeld to his sug∣gestion,

to ioyne with him therin. Should one vndergoe to make the Deputy of Ire∣land Prince and King therof, though with subordination to his Maiesty, were not this a desperate venture? could he be excused from the crime of leze Maiesty, specially should he exhort the subiects of Ireland to receaue him, and lay on them the reproch of disloyal to their Prince, should they refuse?

M^r. Doctours errour that obedience is due to a Bishop in respect of his power of order, descouered and re∣futed. §. 2.

IT is not so easy for those of the vulgar sort to conceaue the difference of the power of consecration, from the power of Iurisdiction in a Bishop, whom they find to be Bishop by order, they presently con∣ceaue he is Bishop by office. Of this their weaknes M^r Doctour is content to make his aduantage, and because my Lord of Chalcedon is Bishop by order and name, because also he is theirs, as being their countryman, being applyed to helpe them, and hauing the faculty to giue them Con∣firmation, hence tacitly arguing à diuisis ad coniuncta, he supposeth as cleere that he is their Bishop, which supposed, he doth fur∣ther conclude, that whatsoeuer of reue∣rence and obedience is due from a Church

to their Bishop, the Catholiques of England owe the same to his Lordship, to this pur∣pose accommodating the sayings of fathers, requiring ful subiection of Christians to their Priests and Bishop, and their repre∣hensions of people disobedient. His dedi∣catory is ful of this, but most of al his se∣uenth Chapter, the drift and cōclusion whe∣reof, is contained in these the last wordes therof. Let vs then obey our Bishop as our lawful Superiour, reuerence him as Lord and spirituall Prince, loue him as our father. But how doth M^r. Doctour proue he is our Superiour, whom we must obey, and our Lord and spiritual Prince, to whom we must be subiect? Because he is in degree of order coequal to the Pope, in this respect we are his subiects and must obey him. Be∣cause I thinke the learned Reader wil not beleeue M^r. Doctour would vtter a para∣doxe so strange, I wil set downe his wor∣des, wherin he doth not only so affirme, but vndertakes solemnly the proofe therof. Thus he beginneth that Chapter. Out of that which hath bene said in the precedent Chapters, it followeth euidently, that the Bishop in power and dignity of Order, taketh the highest Roome and dignity in the Church of God. For though the Archbishop and Primate be aboue him in power of iurisdiction and Ecclesiastical dignity, yet in the order and power of Bishop, he is as high as any of them euen as the Pope himselfe,

True it is the Pope is head of the Church, and Pastor Pastorum, the Pastour of Bishops them∣selues, yet this superiority is in Iurisdiction, by which he can prescribe lawes to the whole Church, but in power of Order the Bishop can validly doe as much as the Pope himselfe, &c. Therfore in degree of Order the poorest Bishop is as great as the richest and greatest Patriarcke, yea as the Pope himselfe, and Superiour to Priests, much more to the laity be the Princes of Monarckes. When∣ce I may deduce two conclusions, the one, that the Bishop is to be honoured of all, euen of Mo∣narckes and Emperours, the second, that he is also to be humbly obeyd of al his subiects. Thus M^r. Doctour. These wordes shew that M••. Doctour holdes obedience to be due to a Bishop in regard of his Superiority ouer others in the degree of order, which do∣ctrine were it true, it would in deed thence follow, that my Lord of Chalcedon is to be humbly obeyed of al in England. But how much M^•. Doctour is herein deceaued may be cleerly demonstrated. First because if a Bishop were to be obeyed in regard of his superiority of Order, he were no lesse to be obeyed then the Pope, for they that be equal in the superiority to which obedien∣ce is due, are equally to be obeyed. The poo∣rest Bishop in the world is equall to the Po∣pe in Superiority of order, vnto which obe∣dience is due as M^r. Doctour saith, therfore the poorest Bishop is no lesse humbly to be

obeyed then the Pope. Secondly if a Bishops Superiority in order did require obedience of his inferiours, then subiection or infe∣riority to the Bishop in order did owe him obedience, and consequently whosoeuer be inferiour to the Bishop in order, owe him obedience, and be bound to obey him. But all men vnder heauen that be not Bishops are vnder Bishops in respect of dignity and power of order, yea saith M^r. Doctour c. 7. n. 7. none in heauen be he Angel or Archangel, nay a Cherubin or a Seraphin, is aboue a Bishop. Therfore all creatures in heauen and earth (only Bishops excepted) are bound hum∣bly to obey the poorest Bishop, or my Lord of Chalcedon. If this be absurd then M^r. Doctour must retract his proposition, that because the Bishop is equal to the Pope in order, thence it is deduced that he is to be obeyed of all his subiects.

10. Wherfore most certaine it is, that Obedience is due to the Bishop in respect of his power of Iurisdiction, not in res∣pect of his power of order. Hence if he haue no power of Iurisdiction, he is not to be humbly obeyed, but rather he is humbly to obey such as haue iurisdiction and com∣maund ouer him, though they be not Bi∣shops. A Bishop that leauing his Bishop∣ricke retyreth to religion stil retaineth his power of order, and is therin equal to the Pope and superiour to al Priests, and yet he

is not to be obeyed, but to obey his Gene∣ral, who for order is vnder him, and but a Priest. Do we not see titular Bishops, such as my Lord of Chalcedon is, and suffra∣gans who for order are equal to the Pope, to be vnder Bishops, and at their com∣maund and obedience, that be not so much as Priests? false then is M^r. Doctours asser∣tion, that from the Bishops Superiority in order aboue Priests, and his equality therin vnto the Pope, is deduced that he must be obeyed of his subiects. True it is, that if he haue subiects committed to his charge, they be humbly to obey him, but this is not because he is for power of order equal to the Pope, but because he hath power of commaund and iurisdiction ouer them.

11. Hence M^r. Doctour doth not alle∣adge any sufficient cause why Catholiques should be subiect to my Lord of Chalcedō, when he saith, c. 7. n. 14. of him and his pre∣decessour, though they had not that worldly splendour, honour, and riches, which our antient Bishops had, yet they are not inferiour to them in degree of order, no not in learning, life or labour, and therfore are to be honoured as much as they were and to be prouided for according as these times wil permitte, because as S. Paul saith, Priests that rule wel, that is Bishops, let them be esteemed worthy of double honour, not only of the honour of capp and knee, but of honourable maintenance also. This inference M^r. Do∣ctour

maketh, is greater then his premises wil afford, for though my Lord of Chal∣cedon were inferiour to none of our antient Bishops in the degree of order, or in lear∣ning, life and labour, yet this doth not proue him to be ruler of our Church or worthy of double honour, if he be not also our proper Bishop, for also some Bishops that be Religious are equal to my Lord of Chalcedon in the degree of order, and in learning, life, and labour, and yet cannot they claime maintenance of any Church, because they haue no iurisdiction ouer any Church. Had M^r. Doctour said that my Lord of Chalcedon is not inferiour to our antient Bishops, either in the degree of or∣der or in power of iurisdiction, or in lear∣ning, life, and labour, he had strooken ho∣me, but this is so false as he durst not affirme it. And yet except he affirme it, yea proue it, he wil neuer get his Lord∣ship one penny of maintenance as due to him in iustice. For Delegats are to receaue their stipend and maintenance from the Prince by whom they are sent, and not from the people vnto whom they be sent. M^r. Doctours comparison that his Lord∣ship is equal to our antient Bishops in lear∣ninge, life, and labour, to me seemeth ouer slender and ouer lashinge. For if his mea∣ning be that my Lord is not inferiour in le∣arning, life and labour to some of our an∣cient

Bishops, the commendation is but smal; In so mighty a number of Bishops some haue bene for learning life and labour of so litle esteeme, as they were scarce wor∣tly of the bread they did eate, much lesse of double honour or honourable mainte∣nance. But if the prayse be that my Lord is for learning, life and labour inferiour to none of our antient Bishops, the prayse may seeme greater then M^r. Doctour in∣tended; for wil M^r. Doctour say he meant to equal his Lordship in learning life and labour to S. Augustine our Apostle, or to S. Wilfride, or S. Cuthbert, or S. Dun∣stan, or S. Thomas our glorious martyr? Howsoeuer; obedience is not due to lear∣ning, nor to sanctity, nor to industry, no nor vnto the dignity of order, but only to iurisdiction, and to him that is Bishop by office, such an one though he neither haue the order of Bishop nor the learning nor the sanctity, is to be humbly obeyed of al his subiects how learned and holy, and for dignity of order eminent soeuer they be. Wil M^r. Doctour euer make this infe∣rence good, a Bishop in degree of order is equal to the Pope, ergo, he is to be obeyed.

12. His arguments shew rather the con∣trary, to witt, that the height of iurisdiction is that vnto which the subiection of humble obedience is due, which being found in a person, obedience must bow vnto him,

though he be no Bishop for order, nor emi∣nent for learning or sanctity. Let vs heare one or two of his arguments: first saith he, The Apostle commaundeth that euery soule be subiect to higher powers, for there is no po∣wer but of God, But the Bishop hath an higher power, for he hath power of order and iurisdiction, Ergo his flocke is subiect to it and must obey it. I answere S. Paul doth not say that euery one that hath any kind of higher power is to be obeyed, but that euery one is to obey higher powers, that is, them who be placed in office with power and authority to com∣maund and gouerne. The power of order to consecrate the body of Christ, to ordaine Priests, to hallow holy Chrisme and the like, be not powers, to which obedience is due, more then to the power of working mira∣cles, or the power of giuing much Almes, or the power and faculty to teach Theologie. M^r. Doctour proueth the Bishop is to be obeyed of his subiects, because he hath iu∣risdiction and is gouernour, which no man denyes or can doubt of, being in his right witts, and not because he is in degree of or∣der aboue all and equal to the Pope, which was his premise. And if he proue not this he cometh short of his intent, which is to haue my Lord of Chalcedon to be obeyed, because though he want the office of Bishop ouer England, yet in the degree of order he is equall euen to the Pope. This M^r. Do∣ctour

intended and promised to proue, and therfore al is impertinent that is brought to shew that Bishops that haue iurisdiction ouer a Diocesse and Church are to be obey∣ed of their subiects.

13. Wherfore no lesse from the matter is his second argument, S. Paul expresly com∣maundeth vs to be obediēt to our Prelates, because melior est obedientia quàm victima;† I ans∣were, S. Paul doth commaund that subiects obey their Prelates whether they be Bishops or no. And so he sheweth what is due to Pre∣lates that be in office in respect of their iu∣risdiction, not that they are humbly to be obeyed in respect that they can doe by the power of order validly as much as the Pope, howsoeuer in iurisdiction they be inferiour to him; from this roote M^r. Doctour promi∣sed to deduce the obligation subiects haue to obey a Bishop, which he doth not perfor∣me, but only proueth that superiours are to be obeyed, wherof there is no question. In like manner in his third argument he shoo∣teth wide of his marke bringing diuers sen∣tences of the fathers that Bishops are to be obeyed. Who doubts therof? That which M^r. Doctour vndertooke to shew, is, that a Bishop must be obeyed in respect of the su∣periority of his degree of order, because therin he is equal to the Pope. This is the thinge denyed, which could M^r. Doctour proue, he might do my Lord of Chalcedon

in deed Doctours seruice; otherwise to heap together sentences of scripture and antiqui∣ty, to proue in general that Superiours in re∣gard of their iurisdiction and office of go∣uernment are to be obeyed, cui bono? who denyes this? or what is this to my Lord of Chalcedon, that he may therupon exact obedience of Catholiques, he not being their Bishop by iurisdiction and office?

That M^r. Doctours vrging of Catholiques doth not so wel agree with Charity.

I Wish M^r. Doctour to consider in the sight of the eternal Iudge, before whom shortly we are to appeare, to giue an account of our writing, how his proceeding with poore persecuted English Catholiques can stand with Charity. For he layeth vpon thē a necessity either to doe a thing offensiue vnto God, or els to fal out with him and to be reproched by him. For to his suggestion about my Lord of Chalcedon of the Popes Deputy, to change him into their Pastour and spiritual Prince, placed of God to rule them, either Catholiques yeeld or they yeeld not? If they yeeld, they transgresse the holy Canons, they vsurpe the office of the supre∣me Pastour, making themselues the flocke of another without his order, they doe against the duty of the sheep of Christ, which is to obey none as their Pastour that doth not

enter by the doore, that is, not by the com∣maund of his Vicar imposed vpon them. If they yeeld not, al the hard sentences of the fathers against people disobedient to their Bishops are loden vpon them, particularly out of S. Ignatius. It becometh vs to obey the Bishops and to contradict him in nothing, for it is terrible to contradict such an one, for he that so doth, doth not deceaue him that is seen, but him who his inuisible that cannot be deceaued of any. For God saith by Samuel, they deceaued not him but me. And againe, it behoueth you then to obey your Superiours, that you may not only be called, but truly be Christians: If any cal him Bishop but yet doe al without him, to such an one, he that is the true first and only Pastour by nature wil say, what doe you cal me Lord, Lord, and doe not the thinges I say: for such seeme to me not to be men of a good conscience, but dis∣semblers, and personati, such as take vpon them the person they are not. These and many other bitter sentences of the fathers are by M^r. Doctour applyed to such as wil not con∣curre with him in the behalfe of my Lord of Chalcedon, of a delegate to make him their Bishop and Prince. What shal poore Catholiques doe? If they receaue him they trāsgresse the deuine law, they disobey their Soueraigne Pastour, who sendeth him as Delegate, and not as Bishop. If they doe not, they must endure bitter reproches, that they be not truly Christians, that they de∣ceaue

God, that they be men of no good conscience, dissemblers, and counterfetts. what can be more harsh?

But M••. Doctour saith: I haue proued at large that the lay Catholiques of England can not in conscience refuse a Bishop for feare of persecution, partly because the gouernment of the Church is committed vnto Bishops by Christ insti∣tution, who therfore haue bene gouernours of it in the greatest rage and fury of persecution. Thus he speaking very confidently of his prouing, how truly the reader may be able to iudge by the perusing of the third and fourth Cha∣pter of this treatise. But leauing this; to our purpose, to witt, in the behalfe of charity, I say when M^r. D. saith lay Catholiques cannot in conscience refuse a Bishop for feare of persecution, if he meane a Bishop of∣fred them and imposed vpon them by the sea Apostolique, it is true they cannot in conscience refuse him, nor doe they nor wil they. They know the charity of that mother Church, that laborem & dolorem con••iderat, and wil not put a Bishop vpon them to the encrease of their vexation without the ne∣cessity of their good so require. They be sure that Pillar of truth and sanctuarie of the holy Ghost, knowes what the deuine law and institution requires better then doth M^r. Doctour, let him therfore shew any order, or commaund from this holy sea, that my Lord of Chalcedon is made Bishop

with princely iurisdictiō to gouerne the En∣glish Catholiques as his owne flocke, and the controuersie is ended. But this M^r. Do∣ctour doth not so much as pretend, Kno∣wing the Popes institution to be of a Dele∣gate with voluntary iurisdiction for the so∣lace of soules, not of a spiritual Prince with a Bishops iurisdiction and office. What then would he haue of Catholiques? that they re∣fuse not a Bishop put vpon them by the or∣dinance of secular Priests, who be (as he saith) by the deuine institution gouernours of the Church, and by the ordinary right of their office haue authority to preach to Infi∣dels, to propagate the Church and gouerne countreyes conuerted. Alas this doctrine to our Catholiques seemeth new, harsh, vn∣couth, and more to be shunned then they will (out of reuerence to M••. Doctour) ex∣presse. Let him bringe the sentence of the holy sea that this doctrine is current, that Priests haue such ample au∣thority by diuine right, to erect new Chri∣stianityes, Churches, and Bishoprickes, and then to gouerne them: This done there wil∣be no further difficulty but they shal erect as many Bishoprickes as they desire. But if this doctrine be such as M••. Doctour wil hardly dare to stand to it, why doth he con∣tend? or what would he haue? wil he not be content except Catholiques do more then he dareth cleerly say is lawful? That is,

change a Delegate into a Bishop without the Popes order, make themselues a flocke of one pretended to be Prince and Pastour by deuine ordinance, without the leaue of their soueraigne Pastour? I thinke M^r. Do∣ctour must needes see his pressing is vnrea∣sonable.

The Conclusion to the Catholiques of England.

To conclude, to you the euer honoured Catholiques of England, I turne my speech in a few words, giuing you my aduise how to proceede in this dissention. Be wise as serpents and simple as doues, wise as serpents, to defend your head, the power and authority of the sea Apostolique, simple as doues, conseruing a charitable opinion of such persons, who in their zeale to Bishops, doe teach and practise what you neuer hitherto heard, nor doe wel vnderstand. For the first let the learning of no Doctour howsoeuer eminent for his for∣mer writinges induce you to beleeue, that the sea Apostolique hath so long a tyme together transgressed the deuine law, in their ruling you without other Bishops immediatly as their proper flocke, that against charity they haue depriued you of the being a Christian Church, leauinge you to be stil weake and only litle ones in spiritual life, wanting that Sacrament without which you cānot be per∣fect Christiās, that is, haue courage to professe

your faith in persecution. Do not harken vn∣to the pretence of deuine institution for go∣uernment of the Church, doe not venture to make to your selues, or to receaue from such pretended deuinely ordained gouernours, Bishops and Pastours. Yeeld them no more power then they bring you graunted them in writing by the soueraigne Pastour. Be per∣swaded that no new opinions be more dan∣gerous then such as dislike of the sea Apo∣stoliques proceeding occasioneth, and desire to haue authority immediatly of God and not from it. Let them that would trouble you know that you are the sheep of Peter, that you cleaue to the rocke, and are im∣mouable, that al writing in vulgar langua∣ge is in vaine to moue you to beleeue or pra∣ctise for your gouernment more then the Vi∣car of Christ shal expresly warrant.

Notes

• Cyprian ep. 69.
• pag. 388. lin. 11.
• Mathew 16.20.
• Baronius an. 1267.
• Baronius an: 253.
• Abanno 1378. ad annum 1418
• Ioan. 22.
• Serm: 4. de aniver: suc electi.
• Bernar. de consi lera. ad Eugenium.
• Dedicatory n 17. &c. 14 n. 9. pag. 389
• a

  Medina. c. de confess. q. de confess. fratribus priuil••giatis facta.
• b

  Vasquez. in 3. p tom. 4. in quaes. 93 a 2. dub. 1. & 4.
• pag. 411. lin 14.
• pag. 412. lin. 17.
• a

  Episcopus extra suam d••a ••sim est priuata per∣sona vt pro∣bat Rodri∣gu zqq reg: tom: 1. q 6. a 3. & ha∣betur Cap: notandum 2 q 3. Cap: Ep••scopum. 9. q. 3.
• Dedi••atory n. 18. c. 14. n. 6. 7. 8.
• Eccles. Hi¦er. c. 5.
• Epist. 4.
• 6.
• Estius. m. 4. d. d. 7. 5. 18.
• Eusel. lib. 6. c. 33. alias. 34.
• in. 3. p. q. 65. a 1. in commenta∣ri••.
• pag. 382. lin. 13.
• l. 1. le Baptis. c 14.
• 1. Ioan. 3.1.
• Ad Titum 3. ••. 5.
• 1. Pet. 1.20.
• ad Rom. 4.5.
• S. Them. 3. p. q 59 a. 5. ad 3.
• lib. aduer∣sus Iudaeos c. 9.
• 1. Ioan. 3 9.
• 1. Ioan. 5.4.
• 3. p. q. 6 9. a. 9. in corp.
• E••clesiast. H••••rar. 1. p c. 2.
• pag. 382.
• 3. p. q. 65. a. 1. in corp & q. 72. a 1.
• 3. p. q. 74. a. 1.
• r

  Commē∣dat fidelibus r••natis in Christo vt infantium innocentiam imitentur. Cornelius à lapide 1. epis. Petri.
• 3. p. q. 72. a 5. ad 1.
• Clement ep. 4.
• Scotus in 4. d. 7.
• lib. 2. de con∣firm. c. 1.
• a

  99. q. 137.
• b

  epist. 44.
• c

  de Spū. Sto. cap. 17.
• d

  fid. l. 4. c. 44.
• can. Nullus deconse••r. d. 4.
• Damasus in vita Sy••u. Cia••••on••u•• in Syl. Ra∣ban vbi su∣pra.
• a

  nisi mor∣••e interue∣mente sepe∣rari non pos¦sunt▪ nec vnum sine altero rite perfi••••i ita scribit. Melciades ••p ad Episc. Hisp. habe∣tur de con secr d. 5. c. de his.
• Sot. in 4. d. 7. q. 8. Caies 3. p. 9. 71. a. 3
• 3. p. disp. 36. sect. 2.
• g

  Sotus in 4 dist. •• a 11. led••sm•• in 3 a q. 72. a. 11.
• commen•• l 3 p q 2. dub. 1. on••il. 2.
• Apul E••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 l. 3. ••••stor. c. 13. & 17.
• pag. 381. lin. 21.
• dedicatory ••. 18.
• pag. 385. lin. 6.
• g

  Vide fo∣tu•• in 4. d. 7 q. 2 & Snares. in 3. p q. 71. a. 6. ad 1 in ex∣positione lit∣terae. Estius in 4. d. 7. 5. 18.
• h

  De Sa∣cramentis disp. 3. q. v∣nica. punc. 2.
• Tom. 3. in 3. p disp. 38. sect. 1.
• b

  la. ••p. 2.
• c 14. ••. 8. pag. 387. 〈◊〉〈◊〉. 13.
• r

  Euseb. l. 6. cap. 33. aliàs 34.
• Theodor l 3•• h••ret Sa∣lut. de No∣uato.
• Theolog. Moral. l. 5. tract. 3. C. 55
• p

  Dialog. adu••rsus lu¦cifer, cap. 4. Spiritum Sanctum as∣serimus in vero Baptis¦mate tribus, n••qu•• a•• Epis••opi tā cùm d••preca¦tionem Sp••∣ritus Sāctus defluit.
• q

  ad Titū 3. 5.
• s

  Si ta••e•• hominem Ba∣ptismum ac∣••p••sse cre∣den••um sit: apud Euse∣bium.
• r

  in 3. p. d. ••15. cap. 2.
• o

  Snares. Bellarm nus de Euchari∣stia l. 4. c. 23. & 23.
• Lib 1. ep 21
• Bellarminus vbi supra. Suarez, Vasquez, & alij omnes.
• Hierar ••••∣c••es. p. 2. c. 2. Petrus Ar∣cadiu•• l. 1. de Bapt ••. 14.
• Homil. 25. in Io••an••m.
• a

  c. 13 n. q. Victor. l. 2. de perse∣cut. wandal.
• ibidem n. 11.
• Baron. anno. 504.
• pag. 385.
• Vbi supra. pag. 387.
• Pag. 380. l. 12.
• pag. 375. lin. 18 & p 376. De iustitia & Inre lib. 10. q. 1. a. 4. Post 2. con∣clusionem.
• Bannes 2.2.
• q. 1 a. 10. co•• l••sime 6. ad vlti∣mu••
• pag. 376. l. 10
• pag. 341. lin. 13.
• c. 14. n. 3
• c. 15. n. 6.
• c. 13. n. 3. 4. &c.
• c. 13. n. ••.
• pag. 37. & lin. 8.
• Matt. 10.
• Athan. A∣polog. profu∣ga August. Episc 180. Iulius Epis. a ••••rient. Pelag. Papa Epis a•• Be∣nignum.
• a

  Cap. Post trans∣l••t on••m. De renunt.
• C••prian ••p. s. 15.
• Cyprian Epis. 36.
• Pontius in vita Cypria∣ni.
• pag. 380. li••. 14.
• Cap. 14. n. 5. & 6.
• Baron. An∣no 283.
• a

  Peli∣gianus & Caual. in scolum. in 4. d. 7 q. 2. in scholio.
• Cap. 13. n. 3.
• Vasquez in 3 p. to 3. Disp. 241. c 1 n. 5 & 6. & Suar••z to. 3 De Re¦lig. lib. c. 8. n Episcopus titularis Ec∣cl••siam occu∣patam s••m∣per r••spi••t quamuis ei ins••ruire non possit.

  Ibidem n. 4
• ibid••m n. 4.
• Baron. anno 253.
• Epis. 31. in∣t r Ep s. Cypriani.
• vbi sup. a n. 5.
• ibidem n. 5.
• Suar. de leg. l. 6. c. 6.
• a

  Cap. Frater no∣st••r 16. q 1. Cap. lumi noso 18 q. 1 Glossa cap 1 de priuil. in 6 vid. Eras mum a ••ho Iurisdic. Ordin in exemptor p. 1. q 3. n. 14.
• Sor. l. 10 de iusti••. & iu∣re q. 1. a. 4. post 2. ••ō••lus.
• Bann. 504.
• pag. 376. lin. 10.
• Epist 4••. ••l 〈…〉〈…〉 A••ri ae.
• dialog a••uer¦sus Lucifer. cap. 4.
• Suares in 3. p. d. 8. & alij commu∣niter.
• Cap. 13.
• ibid. n. 6.
• a

  in 4. d. 7. •• 1
• b

  in 3. p. 1. 3. disp. 16. s••••. 2 s••••••t antiqua on s••••••tu••o vt om••••••s er∣d••••••s conse∣crar••ntur Epis••opi. comm. in 3. p. de Sacra∣mēto ordinis ••
• a

  Ignat. ••p. 6 Cipriā c. 1. ep 3. & 4. de diuina lege descēde∣re vt sa••er∣dos plebe prae s••nte sub om∣n••••us oculis deligatur.
• August. in psal.
• Dodicatori n. 18. in sine pag. 371. l. 9.
• l 4. c. 13. & 14.
• Victor de persecutione Vandali••a.
• Sintellus in vita 5. Ful.
• 1. Ioan. 1. Baron. 504.
• o

  miscolla l. 13.
• p

  Marian s••ot{us}. An••st. Bi••liot•• sin∣gulis annis episcopis e••∣••l••••us vestes ••••pe••uniam v••••••st••auit.
• Victor in persecutione vandal••a l. 2 initio
• p. 362. liu 1.
• c. 13. n. 7. p. 363.
• pag. 362. lin. 1.
• Serm. 4. de Natiuit.
• Scam. 2. de altitud. & bassitud. cor∣pis.
• Ibid. n. 6.
• c. 8. n. 1.
• ibid. n. 4. pag. 225. l. 8
• 2. 2. q. 183. a. 3.
• 5 6. aetimol. c. 12.
• c. 11. n. 14. pag. 238. & 329.
• 2. 2. q. 88. a 4 ad ••ls.
• Greg. Consti. Quantof••••∣ct••••••sius. & Ascen••ent•• D min••.
• in. 2. d. 45. a. 3. in fine.
• 6. 13. n. 14. pag. 328.
• Constitut. Ascendente Domino.
• 4. 2. q. 184. a. 8.
• Christi.
• c. 8 n. 8. pag. 225.
• 16. q. 5. c.
• li. 19. de ci∣uit. c. 29.
• Hom. 35. in op••re imper.
• Epist. 29. a. 4.
• Hem l. 3. in Acta A∣post.
• Chrysost. vbi ••upra.
• 24. moral. cap. vlt.
• L. 10. epist. ep. 46.
• S. Laur. Iu∣stin. de Mo∣nastica con∣uersat. c. 18.
• De Consti∣tus. Monast. c. 18.
• De moribus eccl. cap. 27.
• Pag. 334. lin. 10.
• pag. 321. lin. 5.
• a

  22. q. 284. a. 7. ad 1.
• b

  in Ma∣theum c. 5. in fine Perfe∣ctio ••st du∣plex vel me∣riti vel sta∣tus.
• 2.2. q 181, a. 4. ad 3.
• pag. 322. lin. 12.
• c. in 17.
• Hom. 10 in Euang.
• Aug. Ench. 73.
• p. 317. l. 14.
• Epist. 34.
• Epist. 150.
• c 11. n. 15. pag. 330. lin. 19.
• tom. 3. de Rel. l. 6. c. 8. n 1.
• ibid. n. 4.
• Suar. ibid. n. 7.
• 1. 2. q. 185. ar. 4.
• tom 3 de R••l l. 10. c. 11 n. 1.
• Tom 2. in de••a•• l. 6. c.
• Henricus a Gandauo quod. 12. 1. 29.
• pag. 326. lin. 14.
• m. 2 q. 45. ••. 3. in tiue.
• 1. q. 7. c. s••or ne quaquam.
• Epist. 14.
• 16. de Sa∣cerdotio.
• 2. 2 q 185. a. 8. ad 2.
• Vide Corne∣lium a lapide in Apocalip∣sim pag 60. c. 3. v. 20.
• Ep. 6. ad Ni¦colaum Pon∣tificem.
• c. 9. n. 19. pag. 258.
• •• 2. q. 88. a. 4 ad 3. te••••a Sarm. 1. p. Apol. c. 2.
• pag. 267. lin. 3.
• Vasq 1. 2. q. di••p. 165.
• pag. 246. lin. 2.
• pag. 249. lin. 18.
• Maldon. in c. 8. Matth. v. 14.
• Alanus Co∣pus dial 2. per totum.
• loco. cit. ••
• Vasq. tract. de r••dit. dub. 2.
• Vasques 1. 2. disp. 165. c. 5.
• a

  2. 2. q. 82. a 4 ad 3.
• b

  in 4. d. 38 q 1.
• c

  to. 3. t. q. c. 38.
• d

  contra haeretic••s verbo. vo∣tum.
• e

  li. 2. contra caie∣tan:
• f

  li 5. pro Ep. c. 2.
• g

  l. 5. de iustitia. q 5. a. 1.
• h

  apol. pro Redit. mon 9.
• S. Th••. 2.2. q 184 a. 4. 5
• Sermone de lapsis.
• Leo de f••sto omnium san∣ctorum.
• Act. Apo∣stol. c. 5.
• c. 9. n. 19. p. 285.
• a

  Athan serm. de pas∣sione & cru∣ce cum deo vo•••• fecis∣sent, ex votis subtraxe∣runt.
• b

  S. B••sil. de institut Monach. ser 2. licebat non polliceri at{que} vouere quic∣quid enim boni habebat per professio∣nem deo con∣secrauit.
• c

  carmen de virginit.
• d

  hom. 12. in acta post∣quam conse∣crasti munus sacrilegium commisisti.
• e

  ad De∣metriad. epist 8. c. 7. posi votum obtu∣lerunt quasi sua & non illius ••ui cae vouerant.
• f

  serm. 10. alias 12. de diuersit. de∣trahere de pe••unia quā rouersis deo.
• g

  li. 1. epist 33 ad venā∣tium Ana∣nias d••o pe∣cunias voue∣rat.
• h

  ser. 24 e•• eo quod pro∣miserat, par∣tem subtra∣hens sacrile∣gij dānatur.
• i

  A quis{que} sub Pipino. li. 3. definit ec∣clesiam vota fidelium sus∣cipere. li. 3. c. 21.
• Gulielm. Pa∣risiensis li. de moribus cap. 9.
• Nauar apo∣log. pro redi¦ribus q. 1. monito. 2.
• ibidem moni∣to 12.
• ibidem mone∣to 1••. viden∣t•••• prae••pu••o e••pe li•• 12 q. 1. & ca quis∣que Episcop.
• pag. 249. lin. 21.
• Suar. to. 3. de relig. lib. 3. c 2 n 3. Diuinumius non praeci∣piens sed consulens.
• pag. 252. lin. 10.
• pag. 349. lin. 19.
• Suar. de re∣lig. to. 3. l. 1. c 17. n. 23. Syl. v. prela∣tus S. Tho. 2. 2 q. 84. ar. 8. ad 5. Curati, & archidiaconi curam ani∣marum se∣cundario ha∣bent & ibi∣dē in corpore non eis com∣peti•• iura principalis, sed quaedam particularia circa curam animarum ipsis com∣mittuntur.
• Hen in sum∣ma l. 3. de pe∣nis. c 58. cō∣munis & re∣cepta senten∣tia est paro∣chorum offi¦cium esse ab Ecclesia in∣stitutum at{que} ita parochus sine licentia Papae potest relictis oui∣bus transire ad religionē, & in diaecesi H••spalensi & cordub. gubernat E∣piscopus abs∣que parochis per rectore, temporales quod si idem fi••ret in toto orbe nō esset c••nora insti∣tutionem Christi.
• lib. 2. de re∣pa Eccles. c. 7. & 8.
• Baron. anno Domini 989
• Vasq. tom. 2. in. 3. p. dis∣put. 147. n. 21.
• Math. 28.
• c. 5. n. 8. pag. 124.
• c. 6. n. 14. pag. 180.
• lib. 2. de con∣fir c. 12 8. Respondeo.
• Ignat. epist. al Smyrnen. Epiphan 57.
• Act. 20.28. Heb. 13.7.
• l. 16. contr. faust. c. 12.
• a

  August. l. 2. cont ad∣uers. legis c. 4
• b

  Hierom. l. 2. aduers. Pelag. c. 23.
• c

  Beda in Ioannem. Apoc. c. 2. v. 4.
• Cor. 11.
• dedicatory. n. 12,
• c. 9. n. 13. pag. 245.
• p. 249. l. 8.
• l. 4. de Eccles c. 8.
• a

  c. 9 n 14. pag. 249.
• l. 1. Extra∣uag. commun cap. iniun∣ctae. de elect. c. 1. Nulli eos aebsque dictarum lit∣terarum ostentione recipiāt aut ••is pareant vel intendāt
• serm. 10. in qui habitat.
• l. 4. in l. c. 4.
• pag. 188.
• p. 206. lin. 13.
• c. 7 n. 15. p. 208.
• c 7. n. 16. pag. 209.
• †

  Obediēce to Bishops obay your Prelates and be su∣biect to them, for they watch as being to giue an ac¦count to God for your sou∣les. Where S. Thomas of Aquin noteth, that the Apostle comman∣deth † 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• l. 7 n. 17. pag. 211.
• Ignat. Epist. ad Smyrn. & epist. ad Magnes.
• pag. 213.
• c. 15. n. 12. pag. 414.