Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	act_n	power_n	will_n	1,439	5	6.6180	4	false

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

people vnited to the Bishop which England could not be when it had no Bishop It is true the Pope is Bishop of the whole Church and so of England as it was a member of the whole but he hauing neuer done there the office of a Bishop by himselfe or his delegate nor euer taking vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England he was not Englands particular Bishop and so England by him could be no particular Church 24. To M. Nicholas his similitude which he mamaketh betwixt God the first and vniuersall cause of all effectes and the Pope the vniuersall Bishop I answere that as God can supplie the externall actions of second causes called Actiones transeuntes therefore can produce heate without fire a man without a man a tree without a tree as he did in the first creation of things Yet he cannot as some hould produce immanent actiōs without their particular causes and powers so cannot produce the act of seing without the eye of hearing without the eare of loue without the will of vnderstading without the power of vnderstanding But how soeuer as God can produce the former externall actions without their particular causes and so supplie the second cause So the Pope if he be not onelie elected Pope but also consecrated can do all the actions by himselfe which Patriarches Archbishops Bishops Priests and other inferiour Ministers can do For he can ordaine Ministers and confirme the baptized with the Bishop he can consecrace absolue and minister other Sacraments and preach with the Priest Yea he can do other inferiour offices with the Deacon Subdeacon and therest though it be not so conuenient he should And soe as God cā be not onely an vniuersall but also a particular cause supplying the particular cause so the Pope can be a particular Bishop but then he must do the office of a particular Bishop by himselfe or his delegate or take the Title of that particular Church vnto him 25. That the Pope hath founded Seminaries of Priests for our countrie that he hath sent thether first Priests and then Religious men as M. Nicholas telleth vs n 8. and we all gratefullie acknowledge to preach and minister Sacramentes in our Countrie as this argueth his greate care of England and his no lesse charitie so it arguerh not as M. Nicholas would make his reader beleiue that he was our particular Bishop he neither by himselfe nor by his delegate doing the office of a Bishop in England nor euer hauing taken vnto him the Title of the Bishop of England And so since the decease of our ould Bishops to these late yeares in which his Holines sent vs twoe most worthie Bishops England was no particular Church because it had no particular Bishop to make it a particular Church 26. And by this M. Nicholas may gather an answere to all that he sayeth n. 8.9.10.12.13 In his 11. nūber he obiecteth against this that many places and persons are exempt from the Iurisdiction of a Bishop be fides the Pope neither did any man euer dreame that for that cause they ceased to be particular Churches I here pitie M. Nicholas his arguing and the necessitie he is driuen to which Cogit ad turpia For although monasteries be exempt from the Bishop and immediatlie subiect to the Pope yet no particular cōgregation or multitude that is a particular Church can be exempt from a particular Bishop as we haue proued out of S. Cyprians definition of a Church vnlesse the Pope make himselfe particular Bishop of it And therefore monasteries subiect onely to the Pope and exēpt from particular Bishops are indeed members of the Church but not a particular Church vnlesse M. Nicholas will make euerie nunnerie of woemen a particular Church 27. But here I cannot but meruayle that M. Nicholas thinketh it so strange that M. Doctour sayeth that there cannot be a particular Church without a Bishop and it should seeme thereby that he hath not much considered S. Thomas his doctrine in this pointe For that this learned Doctour sayeth D. Th. libr. 4. gent. c. 76. n. 4.1 p. q. 108. art 1.2.3 that the Church militant is deriued by similitude from the Triumphant and he sayeth also that euerie Order of the Angels consisteth of diuers Angels subordinate to one Prince who in this Doctours opinion is higher and perfecter in nature thē the rest and is the particular Prince of that Order and all the orders with their particular Princes are subiect to one supreme Angel who is Prince of the three Hierarchies and nine Orders of Angels And therefore in the Church militant in euerie notable parte of it there must be and most commonlie is a Bishop a spirituall Prince of that Church and all the particular Churches with their particular Hierarches and Bishops are subordinate to one supreme Bishop the Pope as M. Doctour hath proued in the 3. and 4. Chapter of his Hierarchie And therefore in his 2. Chapter he sayeth that the Church is compared to a Kingdome in which besides the King are Dukes Earles Marquises Barons c. who are princes in their kinde of their particular dominions and all are with their Dominions Lordships subordinate to the King and if any of these particular dominions be quite depriued of their Duke or Earle they are no more Dutchies or Earledomes though still they be members of the Kingdome and so that particular Prouince depriued of its Duke or Earle giueth not that lustre to the Kingdome which it hath by other particular Lordships and bodyes of the Kingdome 28. In like manner the Church being a Hierarchie is cōposed of diuers particular Churches of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop who is not the Popes delegate but an ordinarie and a Prince in his kind and the Church receiueth by this varietie of particular Bishops particular Churches a greate lustre And when any notable parte of it wanteth its particular Bishop and spirituall prince although the Church remaine still a Hierarchie in respect of other particular Churches which haue their particular Hierarche and Bishop yet in respect of that parte of the Church which hath no Bishop and which therefore is not a particular Church or body it is not perfectlie Hierarchicall nor hath it by that parte of the Church that varietie and lustre which it hath by other parts of which euerie one hath its particular Bishop 29. Wherefore when the Pope giueth to a countrie a delegated Bishop though many times he giueth to the delegate more power then the ordinarie hath although that countrie then be in its kinde a particular Church yet it wanteth some perfection it being not gouerned by an ordinarie Bishop and Pastour as other Churches are it being more perfect and more honorable to haue an ordinarie then a delegate And likewise if the Pope should send a simple Priest into Englād with power to confirme England should be in its kinde a particular Church but not in that degree of

instruments by which grace is produced And therefore Caietan sayth Vhitunque haec repereris esse perfectiones fatere verum idesse sed cum grauo selis scilicet instrumentaliter non essentialiter whersoeuer thou findest that Counselles Are perfections grant it but with a graine of salte to wit instrumentallie not essen●iallie Caiet in 2. 2. q. 184. art 7. But M Nicholas obiecteth againe that S. Thomas sayth that Perfection secundarilie and instrumentallie consisteth in the Counsels which is more then instrumentallie because sayth he S. Thomas sayth also that the perfection of Christian life consisteth principallie in the loue of God secondarilie in the Loue of our neighbour and yet sayth M. Nicholas we see that secundarilie and instrumentallie are termes much different for who will saye that the loue of our neighbour is only an instrument of Christian perfection 65. I answer that S. Thomas in the same article cleareth this difficultie For he sayth that Perfectio dicitur in aliquo consistere dupliciter vno modo perse essentialiter alio modo secunda riò accidentaliter Perfection is sayd to be in one two manner of wayes one way essentiallie another way secondarilie and accidentallie And so when S. Thomas sayth that perfection consisteth Secundarilie and instrumentallie in the Counsells his meaining is that as the essentiall perfectiō of a man consisteth in his Essentiall partes which taken metaphysicallie are animal and Rationale physicallie are the body and the soule but yet his accidentall perfection which also may be called secondarie consisteth in the powers faculties and other perfectiōs of the soule as science and vertue so the essentiall perfection of a Christian consisteth in charitie but in the Counsels his perfection consisteth instrumentallie because they are instruments to get perfection and meanes also to conserue it in that they remoue the occasions of sinne and the impediments of charitie in which consisteth the essentiall perfection and in these Connsels perfection also consisteth yet but secondarilie and accidentallie as a mans perfection also secondarilie and accidentallie consisteth in Science and morall vertues And this is S. Thomas his meaning when in the first article of that question in his answer to the second argument he sayth 2. 2. qi 184. art 1. ad 2. that as a liuing creature is sayd simplie and absolutelie to be perfect when it hath all the members and dispositiōs required to life but then is sayd to be perfect Secundum quid when it hath accidentall perfection so the perfection of a Christian life simplie and absolutely consisteth in charitie but Secundum quid in other vertues which are accidentall perfections 2. 2. q. 184. art 3. But when S. Thomas in the same q. and 3. article saith that the perfection of Christiā life consisteth principallie in the loue of God Secondarilie in the loud of our neighbour he addeth not and instrumentallie or accidentallie as he doth when he speaketh of the Counselles but only sayth that perfection consisteth Secondariō Secundarilie in the loue of our neighbour by which diuersitie of speech he insinuateth a differēce betwixt the Counselles and the loue of our neighbour for that in the Counsels perfection so consisteth Secundarilie that it consisteth also in them instrumentallie and accidentallie as I haue explicated but in the loue of our neighbour perfection so consisteth Secondarilie that it consisteth also in it essentiallie not accidentallie or instrumentallie because the loue of our neighbour for God is a true acte of Charitie though secondarie and in all actes of charitie essentiall perfection consisteth though principallie in the loue of God for himselfe which is the first and Principall act of Charitie secondarilie in the loue of our neighbour for God which is the secōdarie act of the same vertue 66. And so let M. Nicholas endeuour all he can he shall neuer be able to proue that perfection consisteth formallie in the three Euangelicall Counselles which are pouertie charstitie and obedience nor that they of them selues are more then instrumentes and meanes whereby to attaine to Charitie which is our perfection and he shall haue S. Thomas Caietan Suarez and all Diuines that treate of this matter against him 67. I Deny not but that the actes of the Counsels as also of the precepts yea and of all vertues if they be done in sanctifying grace and especially if they proceede from charitie doe augment grace and perfectiō and in this sense are causes of charitie and encrease of grace but then they are not taken by themselues but with grace and Charitie Suar. 20.3 l. 1. c. ● 1. n. 16. And I graunte with Suarez that although the general Counsels of pouertie chastitie and obedience be onlie instruments of perfection yet there are particular Counsels to wit the frequent loue of God or the intense loue of God which are Counselled but not commāded which are formall perfection because they are formall actes of charitie in which consisteth perfection M. NICHOLAS In his 11. chapter n. 12. he writeth thus There is only this difference betwixt religious and other Christians that the Religious leaue all things actuallie other Christians must leaue them in prepation of mynde n. 24. THE REPLY This distinction is defended as good 68. This distinction of leauing all actualie or in facte and in preparation of mynde is vsed by S. Thomas and all deuines who also graunte that to leaue all actuallie is proper to religious men to leaue all in preparation of mynde is common to all Christians who ought to be soe disposed as they are if they bee in grace and charitie to leaue all 2.2 q 184. art 7. ad to wit goods libertie life rather then offend God mortallie These be S. Thomas his words Ad Primum ergo dicendum quod abrenuntiatio propriarum facultatum dupliciter considerari potest Vno modo secundum quod est in actu Et sic in ea non consistit essentialiter perfectio sed est quoddam perfectionis instrumentum c. Alio modo potest considerari secundum praeparationem vt scilicet homo sit paratus si suerit opus omnia dimittere vel distribuere Et haec pertinet directe ad perfectionem To the first therefore it is to be sayed that the abrenūciation of our owne goods may be considered in two manners First in acte and so in that abrenumciation Perfection consisteth not essentiallie but it is a certaine instrument of perfection c. Secondlie it may be considered in preparation of mynd that forsoothe a man be prepared if it shal be needfull to leaue all or distribute all And this directlie pertaineth to perfection Where M. Nicholas may see the distinction which he misliked in M. Doctour and howe in actual leauing all perfection consisteth not but in preparation of mynd which as S. Thomas sayth Directlie pertaineth to perfection And therefore in the same place S. Thomas sayth that the bishop though he leaueth not all actuallie is in a greater state of