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 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?

Notes

• 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.