Selected quad for the lemma: heaven_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A20517
|
A reply to M. Nicholas Smith, his discussion, of some pointes of M. Doctour Kellison his treatise of the hierarchie. By a divine
|
Divine.; Lechmere, Edmund, d. 1640?; Kellison, Matthew.
|
1630
(1630)
|
STC 6929; ESTC S109712
|
163,687
|
351
|
Kingdome 41. And by this M. Nicholas is answered to all that he bringeth in the 8. number for that all he there alleageth in commendation of Religious orders proueth only that Regulars are worthie and eminent members of the Church for their sanctitie and perfection of life but not that they are of the Hierarchie in that sense as S. Denys taketh the Hierarchie because as Regulars they are not to gouerne the Church nor to preache and minister SacrameÌ„ts but only as Bishops or Priests if they be so And M. Nicholas should know that oue may be a Saynt yea and a designed and resolued martyr and yet not be of the Hierarchie in this sense as if he be a lay man or a lay brother And so it is not grace nor merit nor mortification nor perfection which maketh a man of the Hierarchie but order and office by which he exerciseth Hierarchicall actions M. NICHOLAS In the sayd question art 8. he S. Thomas demands vvhether men be assumed to the orders of Angels And his resolution is that by grace men may merit so great glorie that they may be made equall to Angels according to euerie degree of Angels c. n 9. THE REPLY That men may be assumed to all orders of Angels in heauen in respect of glorie doth not argue that in this life they vvere of the Hierarchie in the sense aforesayd 42. I grante that men by grace and merit may be assumed to the orders of Angels and to the lower or higher orders according as their grace and merit is greater or lesser But what then If gratia consummata sayth he grace in his full perfection can place men in the same orders vvith Angels in the celestiall Hierarchie vve haue no reason to doubt but that a profession and state of life most povverfull for attaining perfection or grace and charity of this life may suffice to place the Professours therof amoÌ„gst the cheefest orders of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie vvhich is framed to the similitude of that other in heauen Thus M. Nicholas And if you admit of his argument you must admitte all Regulars euen lay brothers so they be perfect to be in the Hierarchie of the Church as high in ranke as Bishops for Bishops are the cheefest orders But first I answer that if his argumeÌ„t were good it would conclude against S. Denys who as we haue alleaged aboue excludeth all Regulars as such from the Hierarchie though their states of life be neuer so povverfull for attaining of perfection or grace and charitie Secondly I answere that this argument is so poore an one that I mernell M. Nicholas a diuine should propose it For that deuines know that by grace men cannot merite to be indeed Angels or ArchaÌ„gels or Cherubins or Seraphins but only can merit as greate glorie as they haue and because some saintes haue merited as great glorie as Angels others as Archangels others as Cherubins or Seraphins haue therfore they are sayd to be assumed to the order of Angels Archangels or other orders And because it is not grace but the order state and office of purging illuminating and perfecting which maketh one of the Hierarchie a Christian in this life may merite as great glorie and attaine at length vnto as greate glorie as Cherubins and Seraphins haue though he was not of any order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie And so it doth not follow as M. Nicholas thoght that because men by grace and merit doe attaine to the glorie of the orders of Angels that therfore in this life they were of any order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie for that S. Benedict and S. Frauncis may by the greate charitie and grace they had heere be assumpted to the glorie of the Seraphins and yet heere they were not Priests And a laye brother or sister yea a poore shepheard who was in noe order of the Ecclesiasticall Hierarchie but only was of the Hierarchie as the common people is of the Kingdome that it was a member of the Church which is a Hierarchie but did beare noe office in it may be assumpted in glorie to higher orders then many are who here were Bishops Patriarches yea Popes Otherwise according to M. Nicholas his doctrine because S. FrauÌ„cis in this life was in a state powerfull for attaining of grace and perfection here by which be merited greater glorie then a Pope doth and for which peraduenture he is assumpted to the glorie of Seraphins he must in this life haue had an higher ranke in the Hierarchie then the Pope had But as I haue â—ould M. Nicholas it is not grace merit or perfection that maketh a man of the perfecting Hierarchie but Ecclesiasticall order office or dignitie M. NICHOLAS What we haue laboured in prouing that Religious as such truly and properly are of the Hierarchie hath not been so much in regard of our selues as out of dutie and gratitude to those pillars of Gods Church those Counsellers and sole electours of Christs Vicar c. THE REPLY M. Nicholas hath in this laboured in vayne and he vvrongeth M. Doctour as though he excluded Cardinalles from the Hierarchie n. 10. 43. M. Nicholas hath indeed laboured to proue that Regulars as such are of the Hierarchie but as it is euident by what I haue sayd out of S. Denys and other Authours he hath not been able to proue it and so he hath laboured in vaine And wheras he sayth that he hath taken these paynes rather out of respect to those most emineÌ„t Prelates the Cardinals theÌ„ for respect to the state of Regulars as he currieth fauour with the Cardinalles so he wrongeth M. Doctour in that he insinuateth that he excludeth them from the Hierarchie wheras he in his tenth chapter of his Hierarchie hath a great and long commendation of them their office and dignitie And in his eight chapter mouing the question who in particuler are of the Hierarchie he sayth n. 2. that to the deciding of this controuersie vve must distinguith tvvo vvayes by vvhich Christians may be of the Hierarchie First then sayth he if we speak of the Hierarchie as it importeth distinction of degrees in power of order then onlie Bishops Priests Deacons c. are of the Hierarchie And Cardinalls Patriarches Archbishops c. vnles they haue some order are not in this sense of the Hierarchie because their dignities are not orders but dignities and iurisdictions Bur if we speake sayth he n. 6. of a Hierarchie as it importeth a distinction of degrees in povver of iurisdiction and dignitie c. in this respect there are diuers orders and degrees amongest Bishops vvhich make also a kind of Hierarchie c. to vvit Patriarches or Primates Archbishops and Bishops And heretofore Patriarches vvere of the highest ranke of Bishops and amongest them the Patriarches of Rome Alexandria and Antioche and after wards of Constantinople had the precedence after vvhom followed Archbishops and Bishops but novv Cardinalles and euer since they vvere Counsellers to the Pope and his
splendour as now it is in England and especiallie if it be ioyned with the contrarie incommodities to which it was ioyned in the primatiue Church and as it is now in Iaponia and China yea and in England I speake sayeth he of a vow of accepting a Bishops office for theÌ„ the iudgement of the fitesse and worthinesse of the person is left to the Superiour and so the danger of presumption is taken awaye and other dangers are supposed not to be Wherefore to procure a Bishop office though the sayed conditioÌ„s be supposed can hardlie be approued much lesse counselled or vowed yet he also addeth that if there were greate necessitie of the Church to haue a Bishop and yet such discommodities annexed to the Bishopricke or daÌ„ger of death c. and none could be fouÌ„d fit and willing then to offer ones selfe to be a Bishop would be a worke of perfection and matter of vow By this it is euident that the state of a Bishop farre passeth in perfectioÌ„ of state the state of religious and that which M. Nicholas bringeth to exalte the religious proues onelie that in it is lesse danger and some good meanes to attaine to prefection and that therefore religioÌ„ may more frequeÌ„tlie securelie be vowed 31. But M. Nicholas sayeth n. 6. p. 99. that to desire a Bishopricke eueÌ„ for that is best in it namely for the good of soules according to S. Thomas 2.2 q. 185. ar 1. seemes presumption and there wants not who sayeth that coÌ„monly it is a deadly sinne and he citeth in the margeÌ„t Valentia to 3. disp 10.9.3 puncto 228. 32. I answere that this spoken so rawlie as it is by M. Nicholas may derogate to the most perfect and most necessarie state in God his Church yea and to S. Thomas also and therefore needeth examination S. Thomas in that place sayeth that in the office of a Bishop three thinges are to be considered The first principall is the good worke of a Bishop by which he attendeth to the profit if his flocke in gouerning them fieeding theÌ„ by the word of God and Sacraments c. The 2. is the height of his degree ouer others The 3. is that which followeth these twoe to wit riches honour reuerence c. Wherefore sayeth he to desire a Bishopricke for the third is auarice or ambition for the second it seemeth to be presumption but for the first it is of it selfe laudable and vertuous But because the first which is the worke of a Bishop hath annexed vnto it the height of degree praesumptuosum videtur quod aliquis praeesse appetat ad boc quod subditis prosit nisi manifesta necessitate imminete it seemeth presumptuous that one should desire to beare rule to profit others vnlesse in an euident and imminent necessitie So that M. Nicholas left out his answere in the last wordes vnlesse in an euident and imminent necessitie For theÌ„ it is lawfull to desire a Bishopricke so to exercise the function and to profit others else S. Paul would not haue sayed he that desireth a Bishops office desireth a good worke He alleadgeth ValeÌ„tia also as though he sayed absolutely that it is a mortall sinne to desire a Bishopricke to profit others but he also serueth him in the same maÌ„ner Tom 3 disp 10. q. 3. puncto 2. CoÌ„clus 3. V. Epis Tolet. l 5. c. 3. Nau. tom 3. Miscel 36. 37. Hour l. 10. c. 32. § 3. Valentia sup Concl. 2. for he also sayeth In casu necessitatis laudabile potest esse vt qui dignus est appetat Episcopatum In case of necessitie it may be laudable for him that is worthie to desire a Bishopricke And this he sayeth is the common opinioÌ„ as in deed it is Emanuel Sa sayeth that for the necessitie or vtilite of the Church a Bishopricke may be desired The same do also Nauarre and Tolet auerre So doth Henriquez And Nauarre against Valentia saieth that to desire a Bishopricke with the honour and reuenewes annexed is no sinne but merite if it be principallie desired for the honour of God and the good of our neighbour And although ValeÌ„tia thinketh that ofteÌ„times it is a mortall sinne to desire a Bishopricke though he that desireth it be worthie and doe also desire it for the end to doe his office and to doe good to others yet Nauarre holdeth against him and indeed if for the danger of sinne in the discharging of the office as Valentia saieth one that is worthie and intendeth God his honour and the good of others may not desire a Bishopricke he may not accept of a pastorship or seeke for it though in many places pastorships be giuen by concurse because though the danger be not so great yet if it be a great Parish it is sometymes not much lesse and if for danger one might not desire a Bishopricke in this case we could not accept of our mission to England where there is more danger But as this danger in England is not immineÌ„t nor morall so we prepare our selues well and demaund God his grace so neither is the danger of a Bishop immineÌ„t or morall if otherwise he be fit and haue a good intention And Vasquez a learned Iesuite sayeth In op dub 1. de Episcopatu that as to desire vertue or to doe an act of vertue for honour or prayse is but a veniall sinne of vaine glorie so to desire a Bishopricke for the honour and dignitie so that one intend withall God his honour and the good of others and be also fit is but a veniall sinne and that therefore S. Thomas sayeth 2. 2. q. 185. ar 1. onely that it is vnlawfull and seemeth presumption but sayeth not that it is a mortall sinne as Valentia doth MAISTER NICHOLAS If you demaund wherein this particular perfection of a religious life consisteth c. I say it may seeme to consist in multitude facilitie continuation of perpetuall actes of vertue and effectuall meanes speedilie to get it c. n. 7. THE REPLIE How M. Nicholas herein contradicteth S. Thomas and Suarez and how religious perfection according to Suarez consisteth not in actes but in habit 33. S. Tho. 2 2. q. 184. ar 3. ad 1. in â—orp M. Nicholas herein flatlie contradicteth S. Thomas who in his answere to the first argument which obiected those words Math. 19. Si visperfectus esse vade vende omnia c. If thou wilt be perfect goe fell the thinges that thou bast and giue to the poore and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen and come fellow mee sayeth that in those words of our Lord something is put as the way to perfection to wit that which is saied goe sell all the things that thou hast and giue to the poore But another thing is added in which perfection consisteth to wit follow me VVhereupon S. Hierom saieth that because it is not sufficient onely to leaue what he hath Peter addeth what is perfect and we haue fellowed