Question 2
QUESTION II.
On poverty.
The question concerns poverty, and two things are inquired about. First, the question concerns poverty with respect to renunciation.
Second, with respect to mendicancy.
ARTICLE I.
On poverty with respect to renunciation.
Regarding the first, the procedure is as follows, and it is asked whether it belongs to Christian perfection to renounce all things, both in common and in private. And that it does, is shown as follows:
1. Matthew 19, where it is said: If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and come follow me;
The Gloss: "Behold, the contemplative life, which pertains to the Gospel." It is certain that the Lord was not calling him to riches, and yet was counseling him to renounce all things: nor to manual labor, but rather to the contemplative life, as the Gloss says: therefore etc.
2. Again, Matthew 19: Behold, we have left all things
etc.; Gregory, treating that word, says: "As much was left behind by those who followed as could have been desired by those who did not follow": therefore perfect imitation totally extinguishes the appetite for riches; but this extinction is most fully realized in one who renounces all things: therefore etc.
3. Again, Mark 10: Go, sell whatever you have and give to the poor:
The Gloss: "Not a part, as Ananias did"; but he who gives everything, reserving nothing for himself, most fully does what the Lord counsels, reserving nothing for himself, neither in common nor in particular; and he who does this acts most perfectly: therefore etc.
4. Again, in Mark 12 the Lord says of the widow: Amen I say to you, that this poor widow has put in more than all. For all cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all that she had, her whole living:
but in this the poor widow is praised: therefore those who do this, the more perfectly they act, the more praiseworthy they are: therefore etc.
5. Again, Luke 12: Consider the ravens
etc.; The Gloss: "The saints are rightly compared to birds, who, doing nothing in the world nor laboring, desire only eternal things, already like the angels"; but the more one relinquishes these things, the more one is made like the angels: therefore etc.
6. Again, Luke 14 it is said: Unless one renounces all that he possesses, he cannot
etc.; The Gloss: "This is the difference between renouncing all things
and leaving all things:
because renouncing
belongs to all who use worldly things that they possess licitly, yet in mind tend toward eternal things; but leaving
belongs only to the perfect, who set aside all temporal things and long for eternal things alone." But he who utterly renounces all things both in common and in private most fully sets all things aside: therefore etc.
Again, this same thing is shown by the example of Christ:
Concerning whom, Matthew 8: The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests,
on which Chrysostom says: "Why do you expect to gather riches following me? Do you not see that I do not have so much as a lodging, as much as the birds have?" Therefore Christ had absolutely nothing: therefore etc.
8. Likewise, on that passage of Matthew 17: Go to the sea;
the Gloss says: "The Lord was of such great poverty that He did not have the means to pay the tribute: Judas indeed had the common funds in the purse, but He deemed it wrong to use the goods of the poor for His own purposes, giving us this very example." If therefore Christ was of such great poverty that He could not pay a single coin, it is manifest that He was in the highest poverty.
9. Likewise, Luke 9: Foxes have dens,
the Gloss says: "I am of such great poverty that I have not even a lodging nor use my own roof": therefore etc.
10. Likewise, John 14: The prince of this world comes, and in me he has nothing;
the Gloss says: "The Lord did not wish to have anything He might lose; He came poor, lest the devil have anything to take away"; therefore if all temporal things can be lost, He had nothing temporal.
11. Likewise, 2 Corinthians 8: You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sake He became poor, though He was rich, so that by His poverty
etc.: therefore whoever so renounces that he becomes destitute conforms himself more to Christ.
12. Likewise, on what follows in the same place: In this I give counsel;
Augustine in the original: "He was made poor
to such an extent that He did not have what foxes have; and in this I give counsel,
that is to say, that you imitate His poverty"; but whoever renounces all things imitates His poverty: therefore etc.
13. Likewise, on that passage of James: Has not God chosen the poor;
the Gloss says: "He chose poor parents, by whose service He would be raised"; but the destitution of Christ's parents was very great, according to that passage of Luke 2: She wrapped Him in swaddling clothes and laid Him in a manger: therefore Christ loved poverty not only in Himself, but also in others.
14. Likewise, Christ was most imitable according to the state He had on the cross, according to that passage of 1 Peter 2: Christ suffered for us, leaving an example, that you should follow His steps;
but on the cross He was entirely naked; whence Jerome to Hedibia: "Do you wish to be perfect and to stand at the highest summit of dignity? Do what the Apostles did: sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and follow
the Savior, and follow the naked and solitary cross with naked and solitary virtue": therefore etc.
Likewise, this same thing is shown by the testimonies of the Saints.
15. Ambrose on Luke: "What kind of person he who preaches the kingdom of God ought to be is set forth by the evangelical precepts: that without staff, without bag, without sandals, without bread, without money—that is, not seeking the supports of secular aid, and protected by faith, he should think that the less he seeks such things, the more they can be supplied to him." If therefore this bears witness to the perfection of the preacher of evangelical perfection, that he should seek no secular support whatsoever; and this is to be in the highest poverty: the conclusion is clear etc.
16. Likewise, in the book On Duties: "Riches furnish no assistance toward the blessed life; which the Lord clearly demonstrated in the Gospel, saying: Blessed are the poor in spirit, etc. And so it has been most clearly proven that poverty, hunger, and pain, which are thought to be evils, are not only no hindrance to the blessed life, but are even an assistance to it. Thus, therefore, the external goods of the body are not only no assistance to the blessed life, but are even a detriment." But it is perfect to relinquish those things which are no assistance but a detriment: therefore, etc.
17. Likewise, Jerome, to the monk Heliodorus: "I do not want you to remember your former needs; the desert loves the naked. I do not want the difficulty of your former pilgrimage to terrify you. You who believe in Christ, believe also His words: Seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you. You need not take up a wallet, nor a staff; he is abundantly rich who is poor with Christ": therefore all things can be relinquished, with hope placed in Christ alone.
18. Likewise, Jerome, on that passage of Matthew six: Is not the soul more than food? "Let no one doubt the promises of the Truth; let man be what he ought to be, and soon all things shall be added to him, for whose sake all things were made." Therefore he who relinquishes all things for the sake of Christ, trusting in the promise of Christ, acts according to perfect faith in Him; but he does this most perfectly who reserves absolutely nothing for himself, neither in common nor in particular: therefore, etc.
19. Likewise, Augustine, treating that passage of Matthew six: Behold the birds of the air: "The saints are rightly compared to birds, because they seek heaven, and because they are already so removed from the world that they no longer do anything on earth, no longer labor, but already dwell in heaven through contemplation alone." If therefore this life is the highest, then to have spurned all things and to place the whole hope of one's life in God belongs to perfect virtue.
20. Likewise, Augustine, On the Good of Marriage: "Those who ministered necessities to Christ and His disciples from their own substance did well; but better were those who gave up all their substance, so that, more unencumbered, they might follow the same Lord"; but the more one gives up, the more unencumbered one is: therefore the more praiseworthy.
21. Likewise, in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas: "It is good to distribute one's resources to the poor with discretion; better, with the intention of following the Lord, to give them away at once and, freed from anxiety, to be in want with Christ." Therefore he who is more in want and is freed from the anxieties of the world follows Christ more perfectly: therefore, etc.
22. Likewise, Gregory, in the eighth homily on the second part of Ezekiel: "When someone vows something of his own to God and does not vow something else, it is a sacrifice; but when one has vowed everything that he has, everything that he lives, everything that he knows to almighty God, it is a holocaust. For those who reserve nothing for themselves, but immolate their sense, life, tongue, and substance which they have received to almighty God—what do they offer but a holocaust?" Whence shortly before he said that he offers a holocaust who "has resolved to bestow upon the needy all that he possesses, to reserve nothing for himself, to commit his life to the sole governance of heaven"; but this is done most especially by one who so distributes that he reserves nothing for himself, neither in common nor in particular: therefore, etc.
23. Likewise, John Chrysostom, in the book That No One Is Harmed Except by Himself: "How did want of bodily things harm the Apostles? Did they not live in hunger and thirst and nakedness, and on account of these things were held to be more illustrious and magnificent, and through this acquired great confidence before God?" Therefore that poverty is more praiseworthy in which there is greater want of things.
24. Likewise, Bernard, to Henry, Archbishop of Sens: "Happy is he who retains nothing for himself from all things: he has no den, like the foxes; no nest, like the birds; no money-bag, like Judas; no houses, just as Mary had no place in the inn—imitating indeed Him who had not where to lay His head"; but he who relinquishes all things entirely, retaining nothing whatsoever for himself, neither in common nor in particular, does this most especially: therefore, etc.
25. Likewise, Prosper praises Paulinus and Hilary for this, that they had distributed all their possessions to the poor, although by reason of their episcopal office they afterward administered ecclesiastical goods, as is found in Causa 12, question 1: Expedit, where he says thus: "Finally, Saint Paulinus distributed to the poor the vast estates that were his own." And below: "What of Saint Hilary? Did not he too either leave all his possessions to the poor, or sell everything and distribute it to the poor?" These are praised and are praiseworthy, because they despised all their possessions for Christ's sake and distributed them to the poor; but those do this most especially who retain nothing for themselves, neither in common nor in particular: therefore such persons approach most closely to the summit of evangelical perfection.
Likewise, the same is shown by reason.
26. There is a twofold city, namely of God and of the devil, Jerusalem and Babylon, which have opposition both in themselves and in their foundations; but the foundation of the city of Babylon, as Augustine says, is cupidity: therefore the more one withdraws from cupidity, the more one withdraws from the city of the devil. But poverty, in which one renounces utterly all things both in common and in particular, both in effect and in affection, is itself that which distances one most from avarice: therefore, etc.
27. Furthermore, riches are an incentive to cupidity, because it is difficult to have them and not love them; but the more one distances oneself from the incentive to sin, the more perfectly one acts; and this is what one does who renounces all things both in common and in particular: therefore etc.
28. Furthermore, the counsel is threefold: of poverty, obedience, and chastity: but the more generally and universally one obeys, the more perfectly one acts, and similarly with the counsel of chastity: therefore by equal reasoning it will also be true of the counsel of poverty.
If you say
that it is not similar, because riches are necessary for life; this amounts to nothing, since countless people who have absolutely no property whatsoever are able to live.
29. Furthermore, that poverty is more perfect which is accompanied by more perfect obedience; but those who have property in common cannot be excluded from it through obedience except by reason of sin; whereas those who have absolutely nothing are bound to obey everywhere on earth: if therefore evangelical perfection consists especially in the perfection of obedience, to renounce all things universally, reserving absolutely nothing, pertains to the summit of evangelical perfection.
30. Furthermore, contempt for the present world is praiseworthy; this is true per se: therefore greater contempt is more praiseworthy, and the greatest contempt is most praiseworthy; but he contemns the present world most greatly who renounces all things both in common and in particular: therefore such a one acts most perfectly.
31. Furthermore, lofty poverty is praiseworthy: this is true per se: therefore loftier poverty is more praiseworthy, and the loftiest most praiseworthy; but such is that which reserves to itself no property either in common or in particular: therefore etc.
32. Furthermore, a way is the straighter as its middle is more conformed to its extremes: but the highest poverty exists both at the beginning of life and at its end: therefore if in the middle all things are taken away, one proceeds by the straightest way. But the straighter the way, the more perfect it is: therefore the poorest way and life is the most perfect.
But to the contrary: 1. Ecclesiasticus twenty-seven: On account of want, many have sinned;
but nothing that is a way of leading into fault pertains to evangelical perfection: therefore etc.
Furthermore, Ecclesiastes seven: Wisdom is more useful with riches: Gloss: "than alone"; but riches do not make a man perfect: therefore much less do poverty and want.
Furthermore, Proverbs thirty: Give me neither riches nor beggary;
and afterward: Lest compelled by want I steal and perjure the name of my God;
but nothing pertains to evangelical perfection which the Wise Man wisely refuses: therefore etc.
2. Furthermore, Luke six: Everyone will be perfect if he is as his master;
but Christ had a purse, as is evident from John twelve, where it is said that
Judas carried the money bags: therefore, to be unwilling to have property in common does not seem to be perfection, but rather superstition, in which the disciple seems to wish to set himself above the master. If you say
that he had the money bags for others; to the contrary:
Augustine says, and it is found in Causa twelve, question one: "The Lord had money bags, preserving the offerings of the faithful, and he distributed to the needs of his own and to other indigent persons."
3. Likewise, on that passage of First Timothy six: Having food
etc.; the Gloss says: "Even though we brought nothing into this world,
nevertheless these temporal things are not to be entirely cast away": therefore he who casts away everything acts wrongly.
4. Likewise, Second Corinthians eight: If the willing mind is ready according to what one has:
the Gloss says: "Let him retain what is necessary, not giving beyond his means": therefore he acts wrongly who so distributes that he reserves absolutely nothing for himself.
5. Likewise, he who tempts God sins mortally; but he who has a human refuge, and passing that over, seeks a divine one, tempts God; but this is what he does who has the means to sustain himself, and abandoning them, expects to be sustained divinely: therefore such a person acts against the Gospel.
6. Likewise, virtue consists in the mean: but to relinquish absolutely everything is to decline to the extreme: therefore this is more a matter of vice than of virtue or evangelical perfection.
Likewise, just as always to hold all things is avarice, so always to give all things is prodigality; but always to hold all things is a vice: therefore likewise also always to give all things.
8. Likewise, he who takes away necessities from another sins mortally; but one is bound to provide for oneself as much as for another: therefore he who relinquishes everything and reserves nothing for himself sins mortally, because he acts against evangelical perfection.
9. Likewise, he who exposes himself to the danger of being killed sins mortally: therefore likewise he who exposes himself to the danger of starvation; but such is he who relinquishes everything and reserves nothing for himself: therefore etc.
10. Likewise, no one ought to entirely reject that which he daily asks of God; but every day we ask in the Lord's Prayer for our daily bread:
therefore he acts wrongly who abandons everything.
CONCLUSION.
To renounce all things both in private and in common is a matter of Christian perfection, not only of sufficient perfection, but also of superabundant perfection.
I respond: It must be said that to renounce all things both in private and in common is a matter of Christian perfection, not only of sufficient perfection, but also of superabundant perfection, as the principal counsel
of evangelical perfection, and its fundamental principle,
and its sublime foundation.
The first is urged by nature, the second by Scripture, the third by grace.
First, I say, it is the principal counsel,
because it provides the way to the others. For abundant poverty disposes one to the mortification of the flesh and to the perfect abnegation of one's own will, since one retains nothing for oneself, neither house nor place nor any thing. Moreover, nature itself
especially makes the way to this, whether instituted
or fallen.
For man was formed naked, and if he had remained in that state, he would have appropriated absolutely nothing to himself; but fallen man is born naked and dies naked. And therefore this is the most direct way: that, not turning aside from these extremes, one should walk poor and naked, as far as nature can endure. And this is what is said in 1 Timothy 6: We brought nothing into this world, and without doubt we can carry nothing out.
And from this he concludes: Having food and covering, let us be content with these.
Now this is nothing stricter or poorer than to be content with simple food and covering; which the Apostle urges from the teaching of nature as good and perfect.
It is also a fundamental principle.
For the old Law differs from the new in this, that the former induces fear, the latter love: the former promises temporal things, the latter teaches to despise temporal things. If therefore the foundation of the perfection of the city of God consists principally in charity, and that charity is most especially perfect when all cupidity is excluded, because the poison of charity is cupidity, and he who entirely relinquishes all things in deed and in will entirely casts out this cupidity: just as the root of all evils is cupidity,
so the root and principle of perfection is the highest poverty. Whence Augustine, in the book of Eighty-Three Questions: "The poison of charity is the hope of acquiring or retaining temporal things; its nourishment is the diminishing of cupidity, its perfection is no cupidity. The sign of its progress is the diminishing of fear, the sign of its perfection is no fear: because the root of all evils is cupidity,
and perfect charity casts out fear
." That poverty therefore is most perfect which entirely exterminates cupidity.
It is nonetheless a sublime foundation:
because, since the grace that disposes us leads to a twofold life, namely the active
and the contemplative: the active
directs downward, but the contemplative
raises upward to heaven. Moreover, no spirit is more suited to this than the one who is entirely unburdened from the weight of temporal things, and who has his whole treasure
in heaven
, and whose kingdom is not of this world,
who does not have here a lasting city, but seeks the one to come.
Such a one, however, is he who has perfectly renounced all earthly things; and therefore such a one already has the foundation
of his edifice set on high.
Whence Augustine, in the book On the Christian Combat: "Since knowledge and action make a man blessed: just as in knowledge error must be guarded against, so in action wickedness must be guarded against. For he errs who thinks he can know the truth while he still lives wickedly; moreover, wickedness is to love this world, and to esteem as great the things that are born and pass away, and to desire them, and to labor for them so that they may be acquired, and to rejoice when they have abounded, and to fear lest they perish, and to be saddened when they do perish." Therefore, he is most supremely suited for the contemplation of sublime things and is sublimely grounded therein, who is the most perfect despiser of all such things: such is he who casts
his whole care upon the Lord
and all solicitude, who possesses absolutely nothing.
It is therefore a matter of Christian perfection to possess nothing in the world for Christ, neither in common nor in private. For this reason the Lord most expressly counseled this: for this reason He showed the example in Himself: for this reason the Holy Spirit persuaded the Saints of this in manifold ways. For poverty of this most arduous kind, as has been shown, is commended by nature, Scripture, and grace: Christ the Lord commends it by teaching, by His manner of life, and by inspiration. For what spirit other than God's makes a man despise present things and love heavenly things? For this is not done by the diabolical spirit, nor the worldly, nor one's own, since they always incline toward private good; therefore the Holy Spirit does this.
And hence it is that, by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, the Supreme Pontiff approved this mode of living, as the decretal on the Excesses of Prelates, Nimis prava,
states, that "the Apostolic See is known to have approved the order and rule of the Friars Preachers and Minors." Whence it is permitted to no one whatsoever to hold the contrary to this, as if such men were seen to act foolishly, to expose themselves to dangers, and to tempt God. For against such persons it is said in the Rule of blessed Francis, in which poverty of this kind is confirmed: "Let it therefore be permitted to no man whatsoever to infringe this document of our confirmation or to oppose it with rash audacity." Against such persons Augustine also says in his Treatise on Almsgiving: "Elijah in the wilderness is fed by the ministry of ravens, and to Daniel, shut up in the den at the king's command as prey for the lions, a meal is divinely brought; and do you fear that sustenance will be lacking to one who labors and merits favor with the Lord? When He Himself in the Gospel, for the reproach of those whose mind is doubtful and faith small, solemnly declares and says: Behold the birds of the heavens, for they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
God feeds the birds, and daily sustenance is provided to the birds, and to those which have no sense of any divine thing, neither food nor drink is lacking; and do you think that something will be wanting to a Christian, to a servant of God, to one devoted to good works, to one dear to his Lord? Or do you think that he who feeds Christ will not himself be fed by Christ? Or will earthly things be lacking to those to whom heavenly and divine things are granted? Whence comes this unbelieving thought? Whence this impious and sacrilegious reflection? What does a faithless heart do in the house of God? Why is one who does not believe in Christ at all called and named a Christian?
The name of Pharisee
better suits you. For when He was discoursing in the Gospel about almsgiving, and was faithfully and salutarily admonishing us that by provident action we should make for ourselves friends from earthly gains, who would afterward receive us into eternal tabernacles, the Scripture adds after this, saying: The Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided Him.
Such as we now see certain men in the Church to be, whose closed ears and blinded hearts admit no light from spiritual and salutary admonitions. Concerning whom we ought not marvel that they despise the servants in such matters, when we see that the Lord Himself was despised by such men."
From these things it is evident that to renounce absolutely all things universally for Christ is not to be blamed, but rather to be praised as the summit of evangelical perfection. Whence the arguments, examples, and authorities are to be granted in favor of this position; for establishing which most sufficiently, a single authority expressed from the mouth of Christ, who counsels the leaving of all things, would be most sufficient, even if many sayings of the Glosses and expositors and doctors seemed to be contrary. For Augustine says to Paulina, in On Seeing God, thus: "Attend to what you believe, and in those very things to which, though unseen, you accommodate faith, weigh carefully the authority of the witnesses to be discerned. For you do not believe me in the same way as Ambrose; or if you think both of us are to be believed with equal measure, will you in any way compare us to the Gospel? Or will you make our writings equal to the canonical Scriptures? Assuredly, if you judge rightly, you see that we stand far below that authority, and I indeed even further. But however much you may believe either of us, you by no means compare either to that excellence." Therefore, since the divine authority so expressly says that all things are to be relinquished by him who wishes to ascend to evangelical perfection, it is manifest that this truth ought to be held with such certitude that it cannot be opposed without peril to the faith.
1. To that, therefore, which is first objected to the contrary concerning want, that it draws one to sin, and concerning destitution, which causes one to commit perjury, it must be said that want is twofold: one kind is voluntary, and another involuntary. Involuntary want induces a defect of mind and a proneness and occasion to sin. But voluntary want or poverty has sufficiency joined to it, according to that passage of Second Corinthians six: As having nothing, etc. And this disposes one to perfect justice, because it makes the mind fit for every good, just as conversely the root of all evils is avarice. And this is what Chrysostom says, in the forty-seventh homily on Matthew: "If you wish to see the soul of one who loves gold, just as a garment consumed by ten thousand worms and having nothing sound, so will you find it pierced on every side by anxieties and putrefied by sins and full of rust. But the soul of one voluntarily poor is not such, but it shines indeed like gold, and gleams like a pearl, and blooms like a rose. There is no moth there, there is no thief there, there is no anxiety of the affairs of this life, but like an Angel, so does he live. He is not subject to demons, he does not attend upon kings, but attends upon God; he does not wage war with men, but with Angels; he does not have the earth as his treasure, but heaven; he has no need of servants, but rather he has as servants the passions and thoughts that lord over kings. What then is better than this poor man? For his pavement is heaven. But if the pavement is such, imagine the roof. But he does not have horses and a chariot? Yet what need has he of these, who is to be carried upon a cloud and to be with Christ"?
From these things it is apparent that in voluntary poverty there is great sufficiency, great nobility, which makes one transcend all earthly things.
Or it can be said otherwise, that those things were said in the time of the written law, which promised temporal things, not eternal, in which poverty was despised. Whence Chrysostom, in the eighteenth homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, treating the aforesaid word: Riches and beggary
etc., says: "These things were said in the Old Testament, where much account was made of riches, where there was very great contempt for poverty, where this indeed was a curse, namely poverty, but that was a blessing, namely riches. But now it is by no means so. But if you wish to hear the praise of poverty, Christ Himself professed it and said: But the Son of man has not where to lay His head;
and again He said to the disciples: Do not possess gold
." From which it is apparent that the authority is not contrary to those who assume voluntary poverty, since that was said in the time of the written law, but this in the time of the law of grace. Nor was that said in the person of a perfect man, but rather of a weak one, as is clear from the word of Chrysostom.
And through this the response to the first three authorities is clear.
2. To that which is objected, that Christ had a money-bag: it must be said that Christ had a money-bag for three reasons. For He had a money-bag for other poor persons,
according to what Jerome says in the authority cited above: "Christ was of such great poverty" etc.: and this does not take away supreme poverty.
He also had a money-bag in condescension to the weak,
as is said in the Gloss on that verse of the Psalm: Producing hay for beasts of burden:
"The Lord had a money-bag for the use of those who were with Him, His own and the devout women in His company, who ministered to Him from their substance, in these things taking on rather the person of the weak. For He foresaw that many weak persons would come and would seek these things, just as He also took on the person of the same where He said: My soul is sorrowful even unto death
." And concerning these two, on that passage of John twelve: The things that were contributed
etc.; the Gloss says: "He whom Angels serve has a money-bag for the expenses of the poor, condescending to the weak."
He also had a money-bag in a time of necessity,
as for instance when He was passing through the Samaritans. In which time of necessity He also permitted the disciples to have money-bags, according to that passage of Luke twenty-two: When I sent you without purse and scrip
etc.; the Gloss says: "He does not instruct the disciples with the same rule of living in a time of persecution as in a time of peace. When He sent the disciples to preach, He gave the ordered precept that they should take nothing for the journey, namely, that he who proclaims the Gospel should live by the Gospel. But when the moment of death was at hand, and that entire nation was persecuting both shepherd and flock together, He decreed a rule fitting for that time, permitting them to take the necessities of sustenance, until, the madness of the persecutors being calmed, the time for evangelizing should return."
From these Glosses it manifestly appears that the manner of having money bags in the Lord in no way diminished poverty. For the Lord so condescended to weakness and necessity that nevertheless the form of poverty and the example which He had come principally to show to men were preserved. In accordance with what the Apostle says: He became poor for our sakes, that by His poverty we might be rich,
namely by voluntarily imitating the highest poverty.
3. To that which is objected from the Gloss on First Timothy six: Having food
etc., where it is said that temporal things are not to be entirely cast away: it must be said that it understands the casting away of temporal things with respect to use,
not with respect to ownership.
For the use of temporal things is necessary for human life, which nevertheless can be had without ownership and property, as is evident in the poor, who have nothing of property.
And that this is the meaning is evident from what follows immediately in the Gloss, where it adds that "having food and that with which we may be covered, let us be content with these things;
he who reaches beyond finds evil." To be content, therefore, with the use of covering and food is the mode of perfect virtue. And thus the Gloss ought to be understood, nor does this conflict with the highest poverty. But whoever would so wish to cast away temporal things that he would neither wish to receive food nor have covering would not act perfectly, but foolishly. And this is what that Gloss intends to suggest.
4. To that which is objected from the Gloss on Second Corinthians eight: If the will is ready
etc.; Gloss: "that he may retain what is necessary"; it must be said that that Gloss is truncated, because immediately it follows: "This is not said as though it would not be better, namely to give all: but he fears for the weak, whom he so advises to give that they may not suffer want." From which it appears that that Gloss rather makes for the contrary than for the proposition, if it be examined with a sound and right eye.
To that which is objected, that he who thus universally renounces all things tempts God: it must be said that this is false, both on account of the divine promises, and on account of the very many remedies which can be had, and on account of the examples by which we manifestly see that such poor are sustained. From which it is manifestly gathered, if we are not hardened, that such a manner of renouncing, divinely inspired, does not cause one to tempt God, but the one so renouncing securely relies upon the divine promises; nay rather, he tempts God who doubts the divine promises. On account of which Jerome, on that passage: Is not the soul more than food?
"Let no one doubt the promises of Truth; let a man be what he ought to be, and forthwith all things are added to him, for whose sake all things were made."
Whoever therefore doubts about this, like the children of Israel, tempts God, who said: Can God prepare a table in the desert?
But perfect men ought not to conform themselves to these, but rather to the Apostles, of whom it is said in Second Corinthians chapter four: We are in want, but not forsaken:
Gloss: We are in want,
that is, we are so poor that necessities are lacking; but we are not forsaken
by God entirely, because God feeds us." And that this extends not only to the Apostles, but also to their imitators, is apparent from what is said in Hebrews, the last chapter: Let your ways be without avarice, content with what is at hand. For he himself said: I will not desert you nor forsake you;
there the Gloss says: "The Lord Almighty himself said to Joshua: I will not desert you,
that is, I will not fail to give necessities; nor will I forsake you,
forsaken would be he who perished from hunger; but because this does not happen, the greedy man should not say so. This he said to Joshua after the death of Moses; this he also says to everyone hoping in him, as Joshua did. For these things he promises to us, if we place our hope in him — not to the grasping, not to the greedy, but to those hoping in him. And because it could seem to them that this promise was made only to Joshua, the Apostle responds to this saying that he will help us just as he helped him, as if to say: there is no reason to doubt the promise, because Jesus Christ, who yesterday,
that is in the past, helped Joshua, he himself today,
that is in the present, helps us and other faithful, and will help in the future forever,
that is without end."
6. To the objection that virtue consists in a mean: it must be said that this is true with respect to those things that are of necessity,
such as liberality; but it fails in those things that are of supererogation,
such as the counsel of poverty and chastity. For the perfection of such things is assessed more according to perfect configuration to Christ and the mode of divine love, which is that God be loved above all things, than according to excess and deficiency regarding an external object.
And that this is true is evident from Ambrose, in the book On Duties, near the beginning, where he says thus: "Every duty is either ordinary
or perfect;
which we can prove by the authority of the Scriptures. For we have in the Gospel: If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. You shall not kill,
etc. These are ordinary duties,
in which something is lacking. If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor,
and where he says that enemies are to be loved and prayer is to be made for those who slander and persecute us, if we wish to be perfect. This is the perfect duty,
which the Greeks called catorthoma,
by which all things that could have had any failings are corrected."
Generosity,
therefore, which is considered according to the middle
duty, preserves moderation in giving. Poverty
of spirit,
however, which is considered according to the perfect
duty, bestows all. Whence in the same book, in the treatise on liberality: "It is clear that there ought to be a measure of liberality, lest generosity become useless, whose sobriety must be maintained." Concerning which measure he adds: "The measure of liberality must be maintained, so that what you do well, you may be able to do daily, lest you withdraw from necessity what you have yielded to profusion. For Joseph could have given away all the wealth of Egypt, poured out the royal treasures, yet he did not wish to appear lavish with what belonged to another. He preferred to sell grain rather than give it to the hungry, because if he had given to a few, he would have been lacking to many." But this pertains to the middle duty,
according to what he himself says elsewhere, treating in the same book that word of the Apostle: Not that there be refreshment for others, but distress for you:
"We observe how he comprehends both benevolence and liberality and measure and fruit and persons, therefore measure,
because he was giving counsel to the imperfect: for none suffer distress except the imperfect."
But because it is not repugnant to perfection to maintain measure, if someone dispenses the goods of the Church, therefore he adds: "But if someone, not wishing to burden the Church, established in some priesthood or ministry, does not bestow all that he has, but works with propriety, as much as suffices for his office: he does not seem to me imperfect."
From what has been said, therefore, it is gathered that although it belongs to virtue according to the common state
and middle duty
to maintain the mean, yet it belongs to evangelical perfection
to relinquish all. If nevertheless something is held in common,
so that it may be dispensed, this does not make one imperfect: nor does relinquishing all universally
constitute excess, because this pertains to the perfect duty,
as is clear from what has been said, and from what Ambrose states beforehand in the preceding chapter, where he says thus: "Moreover, the Lord does not wish wealth to be poured out all at once, but to be dispensed, unless perchance, as Elisha killed his oxen and fed the poor from what he had, so that he might be held by no domestic care, but leaving all things, might give himself to prophetic discipline." If therefore all things are to be relinquished for prophetic discipline, much more so for evangelical perfection.
7. To that which is objected, that to scatter all things is prodigality, it must be said that it is prodigality when all things are scattered for vanity, but not when they are given for utility: and so it is with evangelical poverty, because, as is said in Mark 10, the Lord will restore a hundredfold
in the present with tribulations, and in the future life eternal.
But it is otherwise with the universal retention of all things. For that is not done for spiritual utility, but rather for earthly cupidity: therefore it is not similar on this side and on that.
8. To that which is objected concerning him who takes away necessities from another, etc., it must be said that the case is not similar, because he who takes away necessities from another
does violence and leads him into involuntary poverty. But he who takes away from himself
does so voluntarily and leads himself into voluntary poverty; and therefore, just as that argument does not hold—involuntary poverty is not praiseworthy, therefore neither is voluntary poverty—so the aforesaid reasoning does not compel.
There is also another defect in the aforesaid argument. For it proceeds by supposing what is false, inasmuch as one who universally renounces all things does not entirely take away necessities from himself, because he commits himself to the governance of divine providence and leaves himself many ways of living and of seeking necessities.
9. To that which is objected, that he exposes himself to the danger of famine, it must be said that this is false, as is entirely apparent from what has been said and is manifestly gathered from all times past. For nowhere and never is it read that anyone wishing to serve God in poverty perished from famine for lack of food. And this is what Augustine says in a certain treatise on the Lord's Prayer: "For daily food cannot be lacking to the just man, since it is written: The Lord will not slay the soul of the just with famine;
and again: I have been young, and now am old, and I have not seen the just forsaken;
and again: To those seeking the kingdom of God and His justice, He promises that all things shall be added.
And since all things are God's, to him who has God nothing shall be lacking, if he himself be not lacking to God. Thus for Daniel, shut up in the lions' den by the king's command, a meal is divinely provided, and among hungry beasts the man of God is fed. Thus also Elijah in flight is nourished, with ravens ministering and birds bringing food. O detestable cruelty of human malice! Beasts spare, birds feed, and men plot and rage." From these things it is manifestly gathered that it is not a danger but a refuge to dedicate oneself entirely to the worship of God, having spurned all things.
10. To that which is lastly objected, that we ask for our daily bread in the Lord's Prayer, it must be said that this rather makes for the opposite than for the proposition. For from the fact that we daily ask for our daily bread, and do not ask for what we already have, it is manifest that it belongs to evangelical perfection to be content with daily sustenance. Because this cannot appear as perfection in the hearts of the avaricious, the Lord to this end brought not only the counsels of wisdom,
but also the examples of nature
and the oracles of grace,
so that at least through that threefold testimony the counsel of poverty might be firmly confirmed as the most lofty and stable foundation of all evangelical perfection.
ARTICLE II.
On poverty with respect to mendicancy
.
Consequently there is a question concerning mendicancy, and it is asked whether to beg for Christ is of Christian perfection; and by begging
I mean seeking alms or living from daily alms. And that it is not, is shown as follows:
1. First, by the authority of the Psalm: Fear the Lord, all you his saints, for there is no want to those who fear him:
therefore being in want and fearing God do not stand together.
2. Likewise, the Psalm: I have not seen the just man forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread:
therefore he who seeks bread is neither just nor the seed of the just.
3. Likewise, the Psalm: Let his children be carried about vagabonds and beg:
but nothing that the Psalmist, speaking in the Spirit of God, imprecates as a punishment pertains to evangelical perfection or perfect justice; begging is of this kind: therefore, etc.
4. Likewise, Sirach 40: My son, in your life do not be in need: for it is better to die than to be in need
: therefore it is better to be dead than a beggar.
5. Likewise, Acts 20: It is more blessed to give than to receive:
but giving alms does not make a man attain evangelical perfection: therefore much less does receiving.
6. Likewise, Luke 12: Sell what you possess;
the Gloss says: "so that, having once despised all things for God, you may afterward work by the labor of your hands, from which you may live or give alms": therefore to live by one's own labor and to give alms pertains to evangelical perfection: therefore its opposite, namely to beg and to live by another's labor, is contrary to evangelical perfection.
7. Likewise, First Thessalonians 4: That you desire nothing of anyone:
the Gloss says: "That you desire nothing of anyone,
much less ask for or take anything." If therefore it is more to ask
or petition
than to desire,
and the first is prohibited as unlawful by the Apostle, namely to desire
or covet what belongs to another: therefore much more so to petition.
8. Likewise, First Thessalonians 5: " We beseech you that you acknowledge those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord;
the Gloss says: "Just as riches beget negligence of salvation, so want, while it desires to be satisfied, turns aside from justice"; but what makes one turn aside from justice does not pertain to evangelical perfection: therefore, etc.
9. Likewise, Second Thessalonians 3: If anyone does not wish to work, let him not eat:
the Gloss says: "The Apostle wills that servants of God work bodily, so that they may have the means to live and not be compelled by want to beg for necessities"; but this is the way of mendicants: therefore it is not for servants of God to beg, according to the Apostle.
10. Likewise, on the same chapter, on the text: That we might give you an example to follow;
the Gloss says: "He who frequently comes to another's table, given over to idleness, must needs flatter the one who feeds him"; but to flatter is contrary to truth and perfection: therefore, etc.
11. Likewise, in Causa twelve, question one, Videntes, Pope Urban says that "bishops ought to minister all necessities to all who wish to live the common life, as best they can, so that no one among them may be found in need." And afterwards: "If anyone in present or future times shall strive to tear this away, let him be struck with the aforementioned condemnation": therefore it is against canonical sanctions that any should live the common life in the Church while being in need and begging in it.
12. Likewise, in On Consecration, distinction one, it is prohibited that a church be consecrated unless it is first endowed: therefore if a church ought not to be consecrated unless those who minister in it have the means of sustenance, much more strongly neither should any religious order be instituted without a sustaining possession.
13. Likewise, in civil law it is prohibited that the able-bodied beg, by the law On Able-Bodied Beggars; but the Church ought to be more well-ordered than the commonwealth: if therefore that the able-bodied beg is against the right governance of the commonwealth, much more is it against the sublimity of evangelical perfection.
14. Likewise, this same thing is shown by reason. To beg is an indifferent act; but an indifferent act does not become a work of perfection by the addition of an end, as is manifestly apparent in other works, such as going to church and giving alms: therefore etc.
15. Likewise, it belongs to perfection to serve freely and generously and to flee from obligations for the sins of others: but he who receives alms obligates himself to intercede for the sins of others: if therefore an obligation of this kind does not accord with perfection, therefore etc.
16. Likewise, those of this kind who beg by profession either do this because they are poor, or because they are preachers. If because they are poor: therefore all the poor who beg are perfect, which is against Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks, who reproves monks who beg and wish to do no work. If because they are preachers: therefore no one among them who does not preach ought to beg: the contrary of which we see every day.
17. Likewise, to preach is something spiritual: but he who gives what is spiritual and receives what is temporal is like Gehazi, who received money from Naaman on account of the spiritual benefit previously shown to him; but this is damnable: therefore it is damnable for a preacher to beg: therefore it does not belong to evangelical perfection.
18. Likewise, it belongs to the perfect to abstain from every appearance of evil ; but it is an evil appearance that preachers seek temporal things, because in this they are like false preachers: therefore etc.
19. Likewise, such men either have authority in preaching or they do not. If they do not: therefore they do wrong in preaching, therefore they merit nothing; if they do: but those who have authority can demand by right of power: therefore such men by begging do injury to the authority of preaching the Gospel: therefore in this they are not perfect, but impious.
20. Likewise, it is safer and more perfect to follow men who are more proven and wiser: but the most proven and wisest men in religious life were Basil, Benedict, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, Hilary, and Paulinus: but such men so relinquished their own possessions that they possessed things in common, nor are they read to have begged: therefore this manner of begging, newly introduced by Dominic and Francis, seems to be superstitious and vain, since it would seem foolish to prefer the sense and spirit of two poor men to so great a wisdom and sublimity of the preceding Saints and doctors.
But to the contrary: 1. Matthew 10: Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your belts, nor a wallet for the journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals:
Gloss: "Let them carry with them neither necessities themselves nor a storehouse: nothing beyond the clothing with which one can be content." But in this the form of perfection is handed down to the Apostles themselves, and what belongs to perfection is perfect to imitate: therefore to go through the world in such a manner pertains to evangelical perfection. But this is to beg and to live on alms: therefore this pertains to evangelical perfection.
2. Likewise, Mark 6: He commanded them to take nothing for the journey, neither bread nor money in their belt;
therefore either He commanded this to them as prelates,
or as perfect ones.
If as prelates:
then prelates would still be bound to this: which is manifestly false. Therefore He commanded this to them as perfect men: but perfection is proposed commonly to all for imitation, because it is said: Let him who can grasp it, grasp it:
therefore to live in this way pertains to evangelical perfection.
3. Likewise, Luke 9: Take nothing for the journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money:
Gloss: " Not to carry a staff
is not to be anxious about those things which are necessary for human sustenance, because these things are owed to preachers"; if therefore
the Lord urged the Apostles, whom He also sent to preach among the unbelievers,
to exclude anxiety about necessary sustenance: much more strongly, when the Gospel is preached to the faithful,
it belongs to perfection not to be anxious about such things, but to be content with the food and clothing given to oneself.
4. Likewise, Luke 9: Whoever shall receive a child in my name;
Interlinear gloss: "a poor one"; and the other Gloss: "He who receives an imitator of Christ receives Christ": therefore when a poor man imitating Christ is received, Christ is received. If therefore it belongs to evangelical perfection to be poor and an imitator of Christ: it belongs to evangelical perfection to wish to be received in such poverty for Christ's sake. If therefore such a one seeks by begging, he does not depart from evangelical perfection.
5. Again, Luke 10: Do not carry a purse or a bag.
The Gloss: "So great ought the preacher's trust in God to be that, even if he does not foresee the expenses of the present life, he nonetheless knows most certainly that they will not fail him, lest, while the mind is occupied with temporal things, he preach eternal things less effectively." Therefore, it contributes to a more unhindered preaching of the truth that one not make provision of temporal things for oneself, but expect them to be given by others when one is in need: therefore such a mode of living is consonant with truth and evangelical perfection.
6. Again, Luke 16: Make for yourselves friends from the mammon of iniquity, so that when you fail, they may receive you into eternal tabernacles.
The Gloss: "Not any poor whatsoever, but those who can receive into eternal tabernacles"; but such are the poor in spirit, whose is the kingdom of heaven:
therefore it is according to divine counsel that alms be given to such poor and that they be received by them. But what is consonant with divine counsel does not conflict with evangelical perfection: therefore, etc.
7. Again, Jerome, in Against Vigilantius, treating the aforementioned word, says: "Can those poor, among whose filth and bodily squalor burning lust holds sway, possess eternal tabernacles—they who possess neither present nor future things? For not simply the poor, but the poor in spirit are called blessed, of whom it is written: Blessed is he who understands concerning the needy and the poor; in the evil day the Lord will deliver him.
In sustaining the poor of the common people, there is need not at all of understanding, but of almsgiving; in the holy poor, there is blessedness in understanding, that you give to him who blushes to receive, and when he has received, grieves—reaping carnal things and sowing spiritual things."
8. Again, 2 Corinthians 8: Let your abundance supply their want, so that their abundance also may be a supplement to your want.
The Gloss: "Let your abundance
of earthly things supply their want, so that
conversely the abundance
of their spiritual merits, who are devoted to divine things, may be a supplement to your want."
If, therefore, it pertains to the perfection of the Lord's body that its members share with one another in the manner of giving and receiving:
it contributes to the perfection of the Church and of the Gospel that the just poor seek and receive sustenance from the worldly and imperfect rich.
If you say
that they can receive
but not ask:
this amounts to nothing, because the worldly rich can ask for the prayers of spiritual men to relieve the want of their merits: therefore conversely the spiritual poor can ask for corporal alms for the sustenance of their bodies.
9. Likewise, this same thing is shown by the example of Christ.
Psalm: But I am a beggar and poor:
Gloss: "Christ says this of Himself: I am a beggar in the form of a servant. A beggar
is one who asks from another, a pauper
is one who does not suffice for himself." But it is certain that this is not understood of Christ with respect to spiritual gifts or goods, because He was a comprehensor and full of all grace: therefore it is understood with respect to temporal goods, and thus with respect to those He was a beggar and asked from another.
10. Likewise, Psalm: He persecuted the needy and begging man:
Gloss: "namely Christ. To persecute the poor is sheer cruelty. Others indeed sometimes suffer such things on account of riches and honors." Either, therefore, Christ is called a beggar
because He begged from the Father,
or because He begged from man.
If because He begged from the Father:
then all men are beggars, the rich as well as the poor: therefore to persecute Christ in this way would not have been the height of cruelty; if because He begged from men,
we have what was proposed: therefore etc.
11. Likewise, Mark 11: Having looked around at all things, He went out to Bethany:
Gloss: "to see if anyone would receive Him as a guest; for He was of such great poverty and flattered no one, so that in so great a city He could find no lodging"; but it is certain that if He had wished to hire lodging, He would have found a place to hire: therefore He was looking around as a poor man and beggar.
12. Likewise, Luke 19: Zacchaeus, make haste and come down,
for today I must stay in your house:
Gloss: "Uninvited, He invites Himself"; but to invite another to receive one as a guest is nothing other than to beg and to ask: therefore etc.
13. Likewise, John 4: Give me to drink:
Augustine in the original, Homily 15 on John: "In everything that Christ did as man, He was providing an example for those who would believe in Him"; and afterwards: "He asks
to drink and promises
to give drink, He is in need as one about to receive and promises as one about to satisfy." But it is certain that He was not in need of spiritual
drink, because He was promising that: therefore He was in need of bodily
drink and was requesting it. — But you may object with the Gloss as though it were contrary, which says: "Although Jesus could thirst after His weariness, nevertheless He does not demand this drink"; but this is understood to mean that He was not principally seeking this drink, lest the Gloss contradict the deed.
14. Likewise, Jerome to Rusticus: "What is lowlier than the Samaritan woman? Yet she not only believes in the Messiah, whom she recognizes at the well, but also, while the Apostles were buying food, she refreshes the hungry one and sustains the weary one": therefore it appears that Christ was bodily sustained by her.
15. Likewise, as the Gospel narrative relates, Christ when invited by the Pharisees ate with them: either therefore as a lord,
or as a pauper.
If as a lord:
then He did not give an example of poverty; if as a pauper: but this is to beg: therefore etc.
16. Likewise, to this point is the example of the Saints.
In Hebrews 11 it is said in praise of the Saints: They wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, destitute,
etc.; but to wander about in such a manner is to beg: therefore etc.
17. Likewise, there is the example of Elijah, in 3 Kings 17, about whom Augustine says in a certain sermon: "Had God been unable to feed His servant Elijah? Did not birds minister to him for whom men were lacking? God therefore showed that He can feed His servants from wherever He wills and whenever He wills: and yet, so that the devout widow might be able to feed him, He made him to be in want."
18. Likewise, to this point is the example of the disciples of John the Evangelist, about whom it is said in his legend that, selling all things which they were able to possess, they gave to the poor: and afterwards it is added that they were tempted, because "they had seen themselves destitute in a single cloak, while their servants were rich and splendid."
19. Likewise, the example of the disciples of Paul; whence Chrysostom, On the Praises of Paul: "Paul did not possess money; for he himself testifies to this: Up to this,
he says, hour we both hunger and thirst, we are naked and are buffeted and are unsettled;
why do I speak of money, when he indeed often did not have the necessary food nor a garment to put on?" And it follows: "Very many of his disciples also were poor, unlearned and strangers to all erudition, living in hunger and want, ignoble," etc.: therefore the disciples of Paul were beggars.
20. Likewise, to this point is the example of blessed Benedict, about whom it is read in the second book of the Dialogues that for three years he was in a cave, doing no work at all, but a certain monk named Romanus supplied him with bread; and it is evident that Benedict was not sinning in this.
21. Likewise, the example of Saint Alexius, who was a man of wondrous holiness, in whose legend it is read that, although he was the son of a most wealthy Roman, having despised his patrimony, he went begging through the world.
22. Likewise, the example of Saint Dominic, who at his death invoked a curse upon all who would attempt to introduce possessions into his order: therefore he willed that they should live on alms, according to the manner in which he himself lived.
23. Likewise, to this point is the example of blessed Francis, who not only begged and counseled begging, but also confirmed his begging with miracles: as was evident in the case of the sailors, whom he satisfied with the remnants of his food and, having satisfied them, delivered them: and he caused it to be confirmed through the Rule approved by the Supreme Pontiff, in which he says that the brothers, serving the Lord in poverty and humility, should go for alms confidently, etc.
24. Likewise, Gregory, in the Moralia, on that passage of Job: I have numbered for myself laborious nights:
"The elect serve the Creator of all things and are often straitened by want of things; they cling to God through love, and yet they lack the supports of the present life." To lack the supports of the present life, therefore, is fitting to the perfection of the Saints.
25. Likewise, Jerome, in his forty-first letter to a certain hospitable man: "A great number of Saints is sustained by you throughout the islands of Dalmatia; but you would do better if you yourself lived as a saint among the Saints." Therefore it is better to live on alms than to give alms.
Likewise, this same thing is shown by reason.
26. As the habit is, so also is the act; but the act of one who is utterly poor, insofar as he is poor, is to be in need and to beg: therefore if to be poor is good, to beg for Christ is praiseworthy and perfect.
27. Likewise, begging is not prohibited by the law of nature, nor by the law of Scripture, nor by the law of grace; but what is not prohibited, when imposed through obedience, becomes praiseworthy and meritorious, especially if it is difficult and burdensome: therefore if some are bound by their profession to beg, since they do this out of obedience, it will be praiseworthy and perfect for them.
28. Likewise, the Church imposes as a penitential satisfaction begging for a time, or even perpetually: but she would not impose this unless it were satisfactory; but he who voluntarily binds himself to a work of satisfaction acts perfectly: therefore he who has vowed to beg always for Christ acts in this perfectly and laudably.
29. Likewise, contempt of self belongs to perfection, and greater contempt to greater perfection: but he who begs for Christ most greatly despises and abases himself: therefore such a one acts most perfectly.
30. Likewise, voluntary poverty pleases God more than involuntary poverty: therefore also the begging that proceeds from that poverty is more pleasing to God: but the first can be praiseworthy and meritorious: therefore much more so the second.
31. Likewise, he who serves any lord deserves to be sustained by him: but he who renounces all things and fulfills the counsels serves the greatest Lord: therefore such a one most greatly deserves to be sustained by the Lord, and therefore also by the servants of the Lord. If therefore he is a voluntary poor man, by the very fact that he is such, if he asks for alms, he asks justly.
32. Likewise, he who gives greater things can receive lesser things: but the poor man who prays bestows spiritual mercy: therefore much more strongly can he receive corporal alms.
33. Likewise, one who preaches by authority can receive expenses by right of power: therefore one who preaches by delegated authority and by commission or mandate can ask by way of supplication.
34. Likewise, he who serves another is justly sustained by him; therefore those who serve the universal Church are justly sustained by the whole world: therefore if there are any who by word and example, traveling throughout the world, serve the Christian people, they can deservedly ask sustenance from them.
35. Likewise, if it is permitted to receive what is greater, much more is it permitted to receive what is lesser: but it is permitted for poor religious, who have renounced their own goods, to receive the most ample possessions: therefore much more is it permitted to receive daily sustenance. Otherwise it seems monstrous to say that it is permitted to receive a hundred marks of gold, but not permitted to receive a hundred crusts of bread.
If you say
that it is lawful to receive,
but not lawful to ask:
this is entirely nothing, because asking
is ordered toward receiving
and exists for its sake: and just as giving
is more than promising,
so receiving
is more than asking.
But it is established that whatever it is lawful to give it is lawful to promise: therefore whatever it is lawful to receive it is lawful to ask for.
36. Likewise, if a friend asks a gift from his friend, he acts against no law, neither the one by asking, nor the other by giving, nor the first again by receiving: but the law of charity and divine love is more communicative than the law of social friendship; therefore if anyone asks that something be given to him for the love of God, he offends in nothing nor does he in any way depart from perfection.
37. Likewise, it is undoubtedly lawful to ask for something in the giving of which the condition of the giver is made better; but he who gives something for God's sake lends to the Lord
and exchanges the temporal for the eternal and exercises himself in the work of the noblest virtue, namely piety. Therefore if all these things come to the one who gives by reason of the one asking, the poor man who asks for alms acts most excellently according to the law of charity: therefore he departs from perfection in nothing.
CONCLUSION.
Mendicancy which is undertaken for the sake of imitating Christ, or for the sake of preaching the Gospel of Christ, or in both ways, is not to be blamed; rather, it belongs to evangelical perfection.
I respond: For the understanding of the aforesaid, it should be noted that mendicancy occurs in three ways. And the first mode is from the necessity of nature;
and this mode is when someone begs not only because he is poor, but also because he has infirmity,
or weakness,
or both.
This mode, however, is pitiable and tolerable, but through good patience it becomes meritorious and praiseworthy: as is read in Luke chapter sixteen concerning Lazarus, that there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at the gate of the rich man, full of sores:
and afterward it is added that the beggar died and was carried by the Angels into the bosom of Abraham.
But of the rich man it is said that he was buried in hell.
From which it is gathered that mendicancy, even when arising from necessity, is an occasion leading into the way of eternal salvation: according to what Gregory says, that the evils which press upon us here compel us to go to God.
The second mode of mendicancy is from the viciousness of fault;
and this is when someone begs either for fostering idleness,
or for accumulating profit,
or in both ways.
And this mode, I say, is blameworthy in all who beg in such a manner. Concerning whom Ambrose says in the book On Duties: "The able-bodied come for the sake of begging, those come who have no reason except wandering, and they wish to exhaust the resources of the poor, to drain the funds: nor content with little, they seek more, by the display of their garments capturing the favor of petition, and by the pretense of noble birth bidding up the increase of their gains." Although this ought rightly to be reproved in all, it must nevertheless be reproved most especially in those who bear the appearance of holiness. Concerning whom Augustine says in the book On the Work of Monks: "In no way is it fitting that in that life where senators become laborious, there artisans should become idle; and where those who were lords of estates come, having abandoned their luxuries, there rustics should become pampered." And afterward, to reprove their idleness and profit-seeking, he adds: "The most cunning enemy has nevertheless scattered many hypocrites everywhere under the habit of monks, going about the provinces, nowhere sent, nowhere settled, nowhere standing, nowhere sitting: some hawk the relics of martyrs — if indeed of martyrs; others enlarge their fringes and phylacteries;
others lie that they have heard their parents or kinsmen are living in this or that region and that they are journeying to them; and all beg, all demand either the expenses of a profitable destitution, or the price of a feigned holiness." — Against such persons blessed Augustine inveighs greatly in the book On the Work of Monks, because they not only fostered laziness in themselves by begging, but also by preaching persuaded others to it, badly understanding the Gospel where it seems to suggest that men, like the birds, should not labor; and worse still expounding the Apostle, where he persuades the brethren to work, saying that this should be understood of spiritual labor, not bodily. And because in this they deceived both themselves and others, Augustine therefore reproves them and shows the contrary in manifold ways throughout the entire book On the Work of Monks, which is entirely directed against those who approve this second mode of mendicancy. Whence concerning such persons he says: "Who were preaching laziness as though it were the guardian of the Gospel, accusing mercy as though it were its transgressor. Would that those who wish to be idle in their hands were altogether idle in their tongues! For they would not invite so many to imitation if they set before them not only lazy examples but also silent ones. But now they recite the Gospel of Christ against the Apostle of Christ. For so marvelous are the works of the lazy that they wish to impede by the Gospel what the Apostle therefore commanded and did, lest the Gospel be impeded."
The third mode of begging, however, is from the supererogation of justice;
and this is when someone begs for the sake of imitating Christ,
or for the sake of preaching Christ,
or in both ways.
- For the sake of Christ,
I say, imitating
Him with respect to contempt of self, love of neighbor,
and worship of God.
For in these three things above all we ought to imitate Christ. Which indeed he does who voluntarily begs for the name of Christ, so that he may abase and humble himself, so that he may edify his neighbor and provoke him to piety, and so that he may attend to God with a free mind,
having laid aside all worldly care. And concerning such persons, Augustine, in a certain Lenten sermon: "In this time, inasmuch as God commends works of mercy, He has caused His own Saints to be in need, so that, when they have been made friends of God, they may receive from the mammon of iniquity
and they themselves may receive their friends into eternal tabernacles,
that is, so that when the pious servants of God, while they continuously attend to God, are sometimes in need, those who possess the riches of the world may bestow alms; and just as they make them partakers in earthly substance, so they will merit to have a share with them in eternal life." - From which it is apparent that such begging is praiseworthy, which is done for the sake of imitating Christ
.
Likewise also that which is done for the sake of preaching Christ,
because it opens the way for the Gospel, by reason of what
is preached, by whom
it is preached, and to whom
it is preached. - By reason of what is preached,
because we preach contempt of the world: which is more efficaciously urged by word and example than by word alone. - By more persons
also is it preached,
if the preachers live from the Gospel, than if they were compelled to live from their own means or their own labor. - By more persons
also is it more efficaciously received,
while those receiving the teachings bestow benefits upon the one who sustains them. This is what John Chrysostom says on Matthew in the thirty-second homily: "It is manifest that the disciples needed to be fed by those to whom they preached, so that they themselves would not think highly against those who were being taught, as though providing everything and receiving nothing from them; nor would those in turn be cut off, being despised by them. Then, lest they say: 'You therefore command us to live by begging,' and be ashamed of this, he shows that this is a debt,
and calls them workers,
and names what is given a wage.
For do not, because the work is in words,
esteem the benefit that comes from you as small.
For indeed this work has many labors, and whatever those who are taught give, they do not give as ones bestowing a gift,
but as ones rendering a recompense
."
Therefore, when someone begs for the sake of Christ by imitating him and evangelizing according to the prescribed form, he not only does not sin, but indeed fulfills perfect justice: first, because sustenance is much
owed to the just poor man imitating Christ:
second, because it is more
owed to him as an evangelical poor man, evangelizing Christ;
third, because it is most especially owed to the grateful poor man, humbly accepting what is owed in return for grace and humbly entreating, since indeed, though he is free from all, he makes himself the servant of all.
- And this is what Augustine says on that verse of the Psalm: Producing hay for beasts of burden,
etc.: "Producing,
he says, hay,
that is, temporal things; for beasts of burden,
that is, for preachers, so that those who announce the Gospel may live from the Gospel:
and grass,
that is, temporal things: for the service of men,
that is, for preachers, servants of men for Christ. Whence the Apostle: Though I was free from all, I made myself the servant of all.
Which servitude is from charity, which makes humble those who become servants of men for Christ, attending to the benefit of the brethren. These are the beasts of burden,
to whom grass
is owed as wages, because they serve. Of whom it is said: You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain;
and: The laborer is worthy of his wages.
For temporal things are owed to preachers, because they bestow spiritual things. Whence the Apostle: If we have sown spiritual things for you, it is no great thing if we reap your carnal things:
concerning whom it is said: Blessed is he who anticipates the voice of one about to ask, that is, who understands concerning the needy and the poor.
For you ought not to act toward the ox that treads out the grain as toward a beggar passing by. For to that one, that is, the beggar, you give, because it is read: Give to everyone who asks;
but to this one you ought to give even when he does not ask.
See therefore, lest, if the soldier of Christ should be so in need that he must ask, he judge you, that is, show you to be worthy of condemnation. For just as it is said of him who seeks from you: Give to everyone who asks:
so of that preacher, whom you ought to seek out, it is said: Let the alms sweat in your hand, until you find a just man to whom you may give.
Therefore give to everyone who asks, whoever he may be, recognizing in him to whom you give, but much more give to the servant of God, the soldier of Christ, even when he does not ask." - From these things, therefore, it manifestly appears that in a preacher of Christ, both to evangelize and to beg is not a matter of vice nor of fault, but rather of evangelical perfection. Whence the arguments, authorities, and examples that are adduced for this position are to be granted.
For if anyone should wish to attack and condemn every mode of mendicancy among the servants of Christ, he would appear to attack not only the order of the poor, but also the Supreme Pontiff himself,
who approved this manner of living: nor even him alone, but also this great assembly of Saints,
who begged, namely Francis, Dominic, Alexius, Benedict, and the very company of the Apostles and Prophets; and moreover the Lord Jesus Christ himself,
whom Scripture does not hesitate to call poor and a beggar:
since our faith says and holds greater things of him, namely that for our sake he was not only poor and a beggar
for our example, but also stripped and made vile even
to the most extreme kind of abjection, so that he might give an example of perfectly contemning the world. - Finally, beyond all these evils, the status of the universal Church appears to be overturned.
For if it is unlawful for the poor of Christ to receive the sustenance of life through the acceptance of alms, much more is it unlawful to receive the amplitude and multitude of possessions and great revenues. For who is so absurd as to say that it is lawful for someone to receive a talent of gold, but not a morsel of bread? But if this is true, since the possessions of all churches, both among religious who hold property and among secular clerics, are held through the acceptance of alms voluntarily and freely given, it would appear from this that the status of all churches is overturned, if receiving alms or living from alms, whether in small quantity or in great, is judged unlawful: unless perhaps someone should say that it is lawful to accept,
but not lawful to ask.
But this seems remarkable, that someone should be able to do that which is greater, but not that which is lesser; and that some monastery should be able to receive a hundred thousand marks in revenues from some prince, and one poor little man should not be able humbly to implore the relief of his need; and that someone should be able to ask of a friend out of friendship, and a Christian should not be able to ask of a Christian out of charity; and that someone should be able to ask for things conducive to the security and abundance of some wealthy monastery, and a voluntary poor man should not be able to ask for the sustenance of life; and that some scholar should be able lawfully to beg for the love of advancing in the knowledge of science, which puffs up, so that he might at length arrive at temporal riches: and a poor religious should not be able to ask for the love of advancing in charity and humility, which builds up, so that he might at length arrive at eternal life, and other similar things, which seem exceedingly absurd. If therefore all these are not small but great absurdities, it must be held that it is lawful for the poor to be sustained from the alms of others, at least according to the third mode of mendicancy explained above.
1. To that which is first objected to the contrary, that there is no want to those who fear God — it must be said that want is twofold, namely bodily and spiritual: but that word is understood not of any want whatsoever, but of spiritual want. — And that this is true appears from what immediately follows: The rich have wanted and have hungered: it is clear that this is not understood of a lack of material riches; it remains therefore that it is understood of a want of spiritual goods, which although it exists in the rich, nevertheless does not exist in those who fear God, because fear is the beginning of wisdom, of which it is said in Wisdom 7: All good things came to me together with her, etc.
2. To that which is objected from the Psalm: I have not seen the just man forsaken, etc.; it must be said that bread is twofold, namely bodily and spiritual; but that word is not understood of bodily bread, but of spiritual bread. And that this is true appears from the Gloss on the same passage: Nor his seed seeking bread, the Gloss says: "spiritual bread, that is, to lack the bread of the word of God, because the word of God is always with him." — The text can also be construed so that it is understood: I have not seen the just man forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread have I seen forsaken: because, according to what is said in the last chapter of Hebrews on that text: I will not leave you nor forsake you, the Gloss says: "He would be forsaken who perished from hunger." The Prophet therefore means to say that he saw neither the just man nor the seed of the just man dead from hunger, and this does not call one back from poverty, but rather invites to it.
3. To that which is objected, that begging is an evil which the Psalmist imprecates, speaking in the Spirit of God: it must be said that there is voluntary begging and compelled begging, which is accompanied by murmuring and impatience. The first is meritorious, the second is demeritorious and afflictive; and the Psalm is understood of the second, not of the first. And that this is true appears from the text, because it says: Let them be carried about wandering and be cast out, and all these things seem to connote compulsion and violence.
4. To that which is objected from Sirach: Son, in your life do not be in want: it must be said that, according to the distinction given above, that word is to be understood of spiritual want with respect to grace, not of bodily want with respect to the sustenance of nature. And that this is true appears from the Gloss: "Do not be in want, " says the Gloss, "of virtues or good morals."
5. To the objection that it is more blessed to give than to receive: it must be said that this is true when the acceptance of alms comes from the necessity of nature;
but not when it comes from the supererogation of justice,
according to the distinction made in the principal solution. — And that this is true appears from what is said in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas: "It is good to distribute one's resources to the poor with careful dispensation, but it is better, for the intention of following the Lord, to give all at once and, freed from anxiety, to be in want with Christ." Augustine himself says this in the book On the Good of Marriage, as was cited in the preceding question.
6. To the objection from the Gloss on Luke 12, that those who have despised all things for God ought to work with the labor of their hands: it must be said that this is a counsel with respect to the first part,
which says: Sell what you possess;
but with respect to the second part,
it pertains only to the well-being
of the counsel, which does not bind even perfect men, especially those who can be occupied with greater goods. — And that this is true appears from the same Gloss, when it adds: "Whence you may live, or give alms." For it is certain that those who have given all things at once for God are in no way bound to give further alms; and therefore that Gloss does not express what pertains to the essence
and substance of the counsel, but rather according to the well-being,
according to the state and condition of certain persons who are more suited to working manually than to doing something more arduous. For if it were said otherwise, that this pertained to the essence
of the perfection of the counsel, then none would have fulfilled that counsel except those who worked manually; and consequently we would not judge the other Apostles besides Paul and Barnabas, and very many other most perfect Saints whom we do not read to have worked manually, to have been perfect. It is indeed true that manual labor accords with evangelical perfection, provided however that it does not impede greater goods. Whence the Gloss on that passage: I go fishing:
"It should be known that they were not prohibited from seeking sustenance by their lawful trade, with the integrity of the apostolate preserved, when they did not have the means to live, and thus to them as they labored God supplied the necessities which He had promised." — But that this labor is fitting for those not occupied with greater things is manifest, because at that time the Apostles were not at all devoted to preaching. Whence Chrysostom: "Simon came to fish, because neither was Christ continually with them, nor had the Spirit been given, nor had anything been entrusted to them at that time; nor having anything to do, they took up their trade." And therefore from this it is not established that the perfect are bound to work manually, except perhaps when they do not have a spiritual and better occupation. — Moreover, even granting that a perfect man were bound to work with his own hands, nevertheless it cannot be inferred from this that he could not, for his own humiliation and the edification of others, humbly seek alms according to place and time.
7. To that which is objected from the Gloss on 1 Thessalonians 4, that one should desire nothing of anyone nor ask for anything: it must be said that someone can ask something from another in two ways: either out of desire for another's property, or out of desire for another's salvation. The first the Apostle prohibits as evil and as prohibited in the Law, where it is said: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. But the second he does not prohibit, because the law of charity grants this, which is to be nourished by mutual benefits and causes the burden of one to be borne by another. For what is so absurd as to believe that the Apostle denied that anyone should ask from another either benefit or aid or the solace of mercy and fraternal piety? — And that this is true appears from what the Apostle says at the end of Philippians about himself, thanking them for the benefit conferred: I do not seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. For according to what Augustine expounds in the thirteenth book of the Confessions, he seeks the gift who delights principally in the thing received; he seeks the fruit who delights in the salvation of another. This is the meaning of Augustine's words, although the words have been changed.
8. To that which is objected from the Gloss on 1 Thessalonians 5, that want causes one to turn aside from justice: it must be said that just as riches are not at fault, but the cupidity of riches, so want is not at fault, but the impatience of want; and whoever has this turns aside from justice, since in fleeing want he goes after money; and whoever pursues it easily turns aside from justice: for they that will be rich fall into temptations and into the snare of the devil and many hurtful desires. And just as such want is evil, so also begging arising from such want is blameworthy. — But when penury pleases more than abundance, and a man out of love of poverty despises the abundance of earthly things, such a one has no occasion of turning aside from justice on account of such want; and such is the poverty and begging that pertains to evangelical perfection. — And that this response is correct is clear from the Gloss itself, in which it is said that "want, when it desires to be satisfied, turns aside from justice." For the needy person who desires to be satisfied is the needy person who does not love poverty but satiety, not penury but abundance. And such a one is not the evangelical and heavenly poor man, who begs out of the supererogation of justice; but rather the covetous and earthly man, who begs out of the viciousness of fault, according to the response given above.
9. To the objection drawn from the Gloss on 2 Thessalonians 3, that the Apostle wills the servants of God to labor bodily, etc.: it must be said that that *willing* is either not a *willing of precept* but *of admonition;* or if it is a *willing of precept,* it does not extend to all, but to those who wish to be in want; or if it extends to those who wish to be in want for Christ's sake, it extends only to those who cannot engage in greater works. And from this it is not concluded that the life of the poor who eat and do not labor with their own hands is evil, if they are occupied with better and more salutary exercises. — And that this is true is manifest. For if that word, *He who will not work, let him not eat,* were *simply* a precept, then all would be in an evil state who do not seek their sustenance with their own hands when they are able; and this would be to condemn the whole world. — That again it does not extend to *voluntary and perfect poor;* this is apparent from the Gloss itself, which says, "lest they be compelled by want to beg for necessities." For such persons do not beg as those *compelled by necessity,* but as those *led by love of perfection.* — Lastly, that it does not extend except to those who are not occupied with greater things is apparent from the text itself of 2 Thessalonians 3: *We have heard that certain among you walk disorderly, working nothing, but being busybodies: now*
*them that are such we command, that with quietness they work and eat their own bread.*
And that this is true is evident through Ambrose, who, commenting on that passage in Luke 9:Let the dead bury their dead,
says thus: "The Lord teaches that lesser goods are to be set aside for the benefit of greater ones. For it is a greater thing to raise the souls of the dead by preaching than to hide a dead body in the earth." Whence also the Apostles said in Acts 6: It is not right for us to abandon the word of God and serve tables.
- This is also evident through Jerome, who in his prologue on Job says thus: "If I were weaving a basket from rushes, or plaiting palm leaves, so that I might eat my bread in the sweat of my brow and anxiously attend to the work of my belly, no one would bite, no one would reproach me. But now, because according to the saying of the Savior I wish to work for the food that does not perish
, and to clear the ancient path of the divine books from thorns and brambles, a twofold charge of error is fixed upon me: I, the corrector of the Scriptures, am called a falsifier,
and am accused not of removing errors but of sowing them." - This is also evident through blessed Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks, where he says that those who "had in this world something by which they could easily sustain this life without a trade, which upon their conversion to the Lord they distributed to the needy, that such men are not bound or compelled to manual labor, nor to seeking their own sustenance." And he afterwards gives the reason below, because those who sustained the poor ought to be and can be sustained from the alms of the poor. For he says thus: "There is one commonwealth of all Christians; and therefore whoever has distributed necessities to Christians anywhere, from wherever he himself receives what is necessary for him, he receives from the goods of Christ; because wherever he gave to such persons, who but Christ received it?" - If therefore, according to Ambrose, greater goods are not to be set aside on account of lesser ones; and according to Jerome, the goods of preaching and instruction are greater than those of manual labor; and according to Augustine, those who were wealthy and of delicate upbringing are not bound to works of this kind: it is manifestly evident that those devoted to preaching and to works of spiritual mercy are not bound to works of this kind, but ought to be and can be sustained from alms. And this is what Augustine in the same book sets forth before these words, namely that they have this power, if they are evangelists, if ministers of the altar, if dispensers of the Sacraments.
For if by performing bodily works one merits his sustenance, much more so by bestowing spiritual works, which are rightly preferred to bodily works.
I acknowledge therefore that it is true that if anyone were so powerful in both spirit and body that he could labor corporally, and nonetheless devote himself to spiritual exercises and ecclesiastical utility according to place and time, he would act more perfectly in doing so. But who is fully capable of this, since one must toil with much labor so that the truth may be known, so that once known it may be loved, and once known and loved it may be set forth to others? For this requires continuity of reading, prayer, and meditation: and he who wishes to attend diligently to these can occupy himself but little with corporal labor. Corporal labor is therefore to be praised and encouraged, yet in such a way that the fervor of prayer, the fruit of preaching, and regular observance are not impeded.
10. To that which is objected from the Gloss, that he who approaches another's table must needs flatter, it must be said that the Gloss explains itself in what it says: "given to idleness"; by which it intimates that he who frequents another's table and begs in order to foster idleness is prone to flattering and fawning. And what wonder, if he who loves idleness and pampers his belly bursts forth into the words of flatterers? But from this the evangelical poor man is not condemned, who comes to another's table for the sake of preaching the Gospel and imitating Christ. For if such men, by the very fact that they are poor and approach another's table, were flatterers:
then, since Christ sent the Apostles to preach the Gospel and to live from the provisions of another's table, He would rather have made His Apostles flatterers
than true preachers.
Christ Himself also would have been the greatest flatterer, who was frequently invited and ate in the houses of the Pharisees. — Whence if we understand rightly, the vice of flattery is rather attached to the worldly rich than to the evangelical and voluntary poor. Whence Chrysostom, in the ninetieth homily on Matthew, speaking of the rich, says thus: "It is necessary to flatter many, both rulers and subjects, and to be in need of many things, and to serve shamefully, and to dread, and to be suspicious, and to fear the eyes of those who are suspicious, and to fear the mouths of slanderers and the desires of others and of the avaricious. But poverty is nothing of the sort, but the complete opposite: it is a region not subject to thieves, but fortified, a tranquil harbor and a training ground and school of philosophy. Hear, all you who are poor in these things, and even more all you who desire to become rich: it is not being poor
that is evil, but not wishing to be poor;
and do not consider poverty to be an evil, and it will not be an evil for you." And a little later: "For do not bring before me those who accuse poverty, but those who have shone through it. With this poverty Elijah was raised and caught up in that blessed rapture; with this Elisha shone forth, with this John, with this all the Apostles. But with avarice Ahab, Jezebel, Gehazi, Judas, Nero, Caiaphas were condemned."
11. To that which is objected from the decree of Urban, it must be said that there is a threefold defect in the citation of that decree. The first, because that decree is directed to bishops, who ought to feed the mendicants, not to those who are in need. Whence, just as that law, Deuteronomy 15:There shall be no needy person or beggar among you,
was not given against the mendicancy of the poor, but against the tightfistedness of the rich — which is clear from the fact that in the same chapter it is added: The poor shall not be wanting in the land of your habitation; therefore I command you to open your hand to your needy and poor brother
— so also this law is given to bishops who have abundance for the sustenance of poor clerics, especially those who are not in want voluntarily but by compulsion, lest on account of their indigence they become slack in divine service. — The second defect is that that decree is adduced to prove that clerics ought not to have property, as appears at the end of the chapter, where it is said: "From all these things it is clear that it is in no way permitted for clerics to have property; and if they should have it, they shall not be clerics." Whence by that decree the way is not closed to the poor who wish to have nothing of their own, but rather it is opened. — The third defect is this: because, just as having property in common has been confirmed and approved by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, namely Urban, as appears here, so the manner of living in the highest poverty has been approved by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as is clear from De Excessibus praelatorum: Nimis prava,
etc. Whence the decree of Pope Urban could not prejudice the authority of Innocent, Honorius, and Gregory, who approved this manner of life both in common law and in private privileges, because "an equal has no authority over an equal"; and a prior constitution does not prejudice a posterior one, nor does common law prejudice private law, nor a general law a privilege, but rather the reverse. — Nor from this can instability or contradiction among the rulers of the Church be argued, because statutes can and ought to be changed according to place and time, as is clear in the statute concerning the degrees of kinship and in many others, which were justly established from the beginning, and nonetheless others were no less justly introduced.
12. To that which is objected concerning the consecration of a church, it must be said that in the citation of that decree there is a threefold defect: first, because that statute concerning the consecration of an unendowed church was made for the relief of bishops; second, for the expansion of divine worship; and third, for the consolation of clerics who minister, who do not wish to bind themselves voluntarily to a vow of poverty. But the contrary of these is found in the matter at hand. For both bishops and the Church are less burdened by religious living on alms than if provision were made for them in benefices and prebends; second, because the worship of God would not be increased but rather diminished if this manner of living were removed from our midst; third, because such voluntary poor serve God more willingly by begging than they would serve God even for a great benefice, and they are more content with small alms than they would be with great benefices and prebends.
13. To that which is objected concerning the law about able-bodied beggars, it must be said that there is likewise a threefold defect in the citation of that law: the first, because that law was introduced against certain persons who in time of famine usurped the alms of the poor, feigning incapacity; the second, because such persons were idle and brought no benefit to the commonwealth; the third, because such persons, who were able to work and were at that time occupied with nothing and wished to live in abundance, were prone to crimes and robberies. And therefore by just judgment the ruler of the commonwealth barred such persons from begging and punished them with a most severe penalty. But it is entirely otherwise with the poor religious, in whom there is found neither pretense of incapacity, nor love of idleness, nor danger of robbery, and consequently no harm to the Church, but rather a love of perfect virtue; therefore they are not barred by human law, but rather are proclaimed and commended by divine law.
14. To that which is objected, that to beg is indifferent: it must be said that to beg, in itself, is not a matter of perfection unless a universal renunciation of all things is presupposed; which indeed is according to divine counsel, in which the Lord expressed to the young man that if he fulfilled that counsel, by that very fact he would arrive at the summit of perfection. For He said:
If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all things:
nor did He add: hand them over to me, that I may put them in my purse, and let all things be held in common; but rather: give to the poor;
nor did He subjoin: go to earn your sustenance by the labor of your hands; but rather: come, follow me.
In which, according to what the Gloss expounds, is understood a calling to contemplation, or to imitating Christ and preaching the Gospel.
15. To the objection that it belongs to perfection to serve freely and to flee obligations: it must be said that there is an obligation arising from the guilt of fault
and from the affection of perfect charity.
The first obligation is to be avoided, but the second is to be embraced, according to what is said in Romans 13: Owe no man anything, except to love one another.
For the Lord praises the friendship of spiritual men, which is made from the mammon of iniquity;
and it pertains to the perfection of the mystical body of Christ that the members share with one another according to the principle of giving and receiving,
so that mutual need may be supplied in turn.
16. To the objection that those who beg by profession do this either because they are poor or because they are preachers: it must be said that they do this because they are poor imitators
of Christ and evangelizers.
For because they imitate
Christ through the observance of regular discipline, in which they devote themselves to divine praises, prayers, vigils, and other regular disciplines, they both worship God and fight against the enemy and protect and defend those things which are weak and unfortified in the camp of the Church. — Again, because they announce the word of truth,
they likewise praise God and fight against the enemy and edify and instruct their hearers. And therefore, since these works of theirs are very useful and most necessary to the Church, there is no doubt that they merit their sustenance; and therefore they do not act unlawfully if they humbly and suppliantly seek it. For just as the eye by seeing performs an operation most necessary to the hand, such that the hand cannot reproach the eye nor say: I have no need of your works;
but rather its operation is useful to the whole body, and thus it merits to be sustained, just as the hand and the foot and other members which are exposed to labor: so also concerning these members of the Church it ought and can without absurdity be understood, if anyone with a devout eye should wish to behold the work and vigilance of these eyes.
17. To that which is objected, that such men are imitators of Gehazi, who minister spiritual things for temporal ones: to this the Gloss responds sufficiently enough on that passage of 1 Corinthians 9: A dispensation is entrusted to me:
"We ought not to preach the Gospel in order that we may eat, but rather to eat in order that we may preach the Gospel, so that food is not a good which is sought after, but a necessity which is added; so that that saying may be fulfilled: Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you
." Hence if someone were to make a temporal thing the end in preaching the word of God, without doubt he would be perverse, because he would make the means into the end, and he would be like Gehazi and Balaam, who loved the reward of iniquity, and other false prophets, who taught for hire and divined for gifts.
But if they seek sustenance as a means ordered to the preaching of the Gospel, then they proceed rightly and imitate the Apostles, nor do they depart from the path of truth in any respect. Hence on that passage of Luke 10: Eating and drinking such things as they have: for the laborer is worthy of his hire:
the Gloss says: "Note that for the one work of preachers, two rewards are owed: one on the way, which sustains us in our labor; another in the homeland, which rewards us in the resurrection."
18. To that which is objected, that it belongs to the perfect to abstain from every appearance of evil: it must be said that an appearance is evil when a person can reasonably suspect evil, all the circumstances that present themselves having been weighed; but if one rightly considers such men, those who preach in this way do not have the appearance of false preachers. For false preachers
are so called in opposition to true preachers.
Now true preachers
are those whose preaching has authority, truth,
and utility; false
preachers,
therefore, are those who have the contraries of these, either absolutely or in part. — But if we rightly wish to consider the preachers of the modern orders, they have these three things in themselves: authority
indeed, because they are sent by the Supreme Pontiff and other prelates, who are the lords of the harvest; truth,
as is evident, because they have preached faith and morals according to the law of the Gospel; utility,
because they have called many from the state of sin to the state of grace or of penance; and therefore they have an incomparably greater appearance and likeness, if one considers with a devout eye, to true preachers than to false ones — although in so great a number it can scarcely be that some do not, with Judas, love the money-bag and stray from the right path. For if the Lord did not grant this to the twelve Apostles, whom he personally chose — that they should all be good — what wonder if he does not grant this to other congregations? Nor however on this account should the good be condemned with the wicked, just as neither are the wicked righteous, even though they are mixed in with the good.
19. To that which is objected, that they either have authority or do not have it: it must be said that to have authority is twofold: either from primary institution,
or from commission
or delegation; or in other words: either from an enjoined office,
or from a granted privilege.
The first is principal
and authoritative authority and pertains to the Apostles and to the seventy and their successors, who are bishops and other curates, as the Gloss says on Luke 10. The second is a less principal
authority and can not absurdly be called a sub-authority,
and it belongs to those who are sent by the Apostles as disciples, just as Paul sent his disciples to various places: and it belongs most especially to him who stands in the place of Peter, the prince of the Apostles, indeed in the place of Christ, who is the universal Lord of the harvest, on account of which he is also said to have the fullness of power. Just as, therefore, it belongs to those first having principal
authority to receive support authoritatively,
as the Gloss says on Second Timothy 2: The laboring farmer ought to be the first to partake of the fruits:
there the Gloss says: "To take for himself what is necessary from those among whom he serves God and whom he tends as a cultivator of the vineyard, or feeds as a flock, is not begging but authority": so to those to whom sub-principal
authority belongs, it belongs to them to receive by way of supplication.
This the Holy Spirit disposed for the benefit of the Church, so that they might build up not only by the word of preaching, but also equally by the word and the example of humility. He, therefore, who has learned from Christ to be meek and humble of heart,
I wonder if he dares to condemn this humility and humiliation as something reprobate.
20. To that which is objected, that it is safer and more perfect to follow men who are more proven and wiser: it must be said that according to the disposition of divine wisdom, God disposes and orders all things in their proper times. Whence, just as in the first age of the Church He introduced men powerful in miracles and signs, as the Apostles and their disciples were; and in the middle age, men learned in the Scriptures and in living arguments: so in the last age He introduced men voluntarily mendicant and poor in worldly goods. And this indeed was fittingly congruent, so that through the first, idolatry and the monstrous portents of idols would be destroyed; through the second, heresy; through the third, avarice, which reigns most greatly at the end of the age. — Nevertheless, because poverty is the foundation of evangelical perfection, and it is as it were the complement of the same: therefore it flourished at the beginning of the Church, and it is fitting that it flourish around the final state of the Church. Whence, just as Jerome resolves that question concerning the eating of flesh, in distinction thirty-five, Ab exordio,
saying that in the first age before the flood the eating of flesh was not customary, and afterward, after the flood, it was commonly granted to all, and later at the coming of Christ abstinence from the eating of flesh was praiseworthy — whence he says in the same place that "omega revolves back to alpha," that is, the final state was in harmony with the first — so it can be understood fittingly enough in the matter at hand as well. Yet just as Jerome does not understand this of abstinence from the eating of flesh with respect to all, but only with respect to monks: so neither do I think poverty is to be understood except with respect to the voluntarily poor,
who have voluntarily renounced the world. — I do not wish, however, that anyone should argue from this as though I were saying that the day of the Lord is now at hand
, nor that they should magnify and broaden their own fringes,
wishing to be justified before men; nor that I prefer those of the present day to the ancient Saints, because in a great and lofty state many can be found who are weak and imperfect; nor did this spirit of poverty fail in times past. In accordance with what Gregory says in the third book of the Dialogues concerning a certain most holy man named Isaac, who was a preeminent lover of poverty. Whence he also says of him: "When his disciples frequently urged him to accept for the use of the monastery the possessions that were offered, he, a careful guardian of his poverty, held fast to his firm conviction, saying: a monk who seeks possessions on earth is no monk. For he feared to lose the security of his poverty just as the avaricious are accustomed to guard their perishable riches. And so his life shone forth there through the spirit of prophecy and great miracles to all dwelling far and wide." From which it is apparent that his teaching was not to be despised.
This was also shown above by manifold examples, and could still be shown by many more. And even if there were no examples, the state of most excellent poverty is sufficiently praiseworthy in itself, not only according to Sacred Scripture, but also according to the teachings of the Saints, which commend the state of voluntary poverty as preeminent and perfect. Therefore, just as it is greatly absurd to condemn the state of married persons who are wealthy, and more absurd to condemn the state of clerics and religious who hold possessions, so it seems most absurd of all if anyone should be found who wishes to condemn the state of the poor who serve Christ the Lord in the highest poverty and most humble mendicancy, according to the counsel proposed through the mouth of Jesus Christ and promulgated beyond reproach. Jerome defends the cause of these in the epistle which he wrote against Vigilantius: "It has been reported to me," he says, "that contrary to the authority of the Apostle Paul — nay rather, of Peter, John, and James, who gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, and commanded them that they should be mindful of the poor — you forbid that any consolation of provisions be sent to Jerusalem for the use of the Saints. No doubt, if I respond to these things, you will immediately bark that I am pleading my own cause — you who have endowed all with such great generosity that, had you not come to Jerusalem and spent or poured out your money or that of your patrons, we would all be in danger of starvation. I speak that which blessed Paul speaks and commands in nearly all his epistles: that in the churches of the Gentiles, on the first day of the week, that is, on the Lord's day, all should contribute what may be sent to Jerusalem for the consolation of the Saints. Could he not have distributed in other parts of the world and in those churches which, as they were being born, he was instructing in his faith, what he had received from others? But he desired to give to the holy poor, who, leaving behind their meager possessions for Christ, had turned with their whole mind to the service of the Lord. For it would take long now if I wished to review all the testimonies from his other epistles, in which he pursues this matter and strives with his whole mind that money be sent by believers to Jerusalem and to the holy places — not for avarice, but for relief; not for the accumulation of riches, but for sustaining the weakness of the frail body and for warding off cold and hunger; this custom persevering in Judea even to this day, not only among us but also among the Hebrews, so that those who meditate on the law of the Lord day and night and have no portion in the land except God alone may be sustained by the ministrations of the synagogues and of the whole world — from equality, at least, not that for others there be relief and for others tribulation, but that the abundance of some may sustain the want of others." Having seen these things, the response to the aforesaid is sufficiently clear.
REPLICATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS MADE AFTERWARDS.
Against these things which have been stated above, however, someone has endeavored to raise objections in many ways, wishing to refute some of them as irrelevant,
some as false,
some as non-sequiturs,
some as doubtful,
but most of them as hostile to apostolic doctrine.
He does this, however, by responding to a certain question collected afterward in the schools rather insufficiently, with all due respect to the one who collected it, as can better appear in the aforementioned question.
I. First, therefore, he considers as irrelevant
whatever we adduce concerning the disciples of Christ sent to preach, because to them was given the authority
necessary for receiving, not from mendicancy,
but from power.
But those who preach without authority are false prophets, and therefore they ought to seek in neither way, neither from authority
nor from mendicancy.
- And if it be said
that such persons have been sent by the Pope and by bishops: he says that they are to be supported by the bishops, according to what is said in the Decretals, On the Office of the Ordinary Judge, Inter cetera.
Therefore the pattern was given to those preaching from office and authority, but for a time,
so that impediments might be removed. And therefore the authorities, both of the text and of the Glosses, in this case seem irrelevant to the proposition, according to him who seems to oppose the aforementioned question.
It is easy to detect the sophistical appearance of this objection, if one understands the root of the power that resides in the Apostles, the prelates, and the messengers sent by the Apostles. For it is certain that this power was radically in Christ, according to what the Apostle says in Galatians 1, that he was an Apostle through Jesus Christ;
and John 20: As the Father has sent me,
etc. Now Christ, by sending the Apostles, gave them a twofold power, namely of preaching and of exacting their sustenance.
And it is established that these powers are distinct: for although a bishop can exact his procurations once
a year in one place, he can nevertheless preach whenever he wishes; therefore the Supreme Pontiff, who holds the place of Christ on earth, can give both together, and can also separate one from the other. Since, therefore, the Supreme Pontiff and the prelates cannot exercise personally by themselves all things that pertain to them, on account of the peoples subject to them being spread far and wide, the Holy Spirit ordained in the governance of the Church that he should sometimes send legates who would possess both powers. And again,
lest particular Churches be burdened, he ordained that bishops should send suitable persons for preaching and hearing confessions, for whom they themselves would also provide, Decretals, On the Office of the Ordinary Judge, Inter cetera
. He also ordained that he together with the prelates should send voluntary poor men who are learned, to whom neither would bishops be bound to furnish support, lest they be burdened by the multitude of expenses, nor would they have the power to exact procurations, in order to remove the burden from subjects; and thus they would go about humbly as poor men, content with little, receiving only what is necessary, and humbly making known their need, when occasion required, to those who both could and would voluntarily and without burden and with cheerfulness support and assist them. Whence, just as the decretal On the Office of the Ordinary Judge emanated from the Apostolic See, so also did the confirmation of the order and rule of such poor men preaching the truth, Decretals, On the Excesses of Prelates, Nimis prava,
as was treated above. — Nor was this done to the prejudice, but rather to the aid, of parochial priests; nor is the Church thereby prostituted if God provides assistance to pastors, so that they may more perfectly guard uncorrupted from all corruption of sin the souls committed to them, of which they have the care, with spiritual men assisting them, not as lords or as those having the care of souls, but rather as servants through the charity of Christ.
Such men therefore, because, having been sent, they preach in humility and poverty, are like apostolic men, not false prophets. But because they do not have that fullness of authority which prelates have, and which the Apostles had, they are therefore to be numbered among the helps,
according to First Corinthians twelve'': God placed in the Church first Apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then powers, after that helps etc. The Gloss: "
Helps, that is, those who bring assistance to their superiors, as Titus to the Apostle, and archdeacons to bishops." Among these also can be numbered those whom the Pastor of the Church of God has appointed to bring aid to others. And therefore I said, according to the custom of theological discourse — which says that
sub-authority exists in the one who is sent — that they have sub-authority, not to excuse excuses in sins, as is imputed to me, but rather for the understanding of truth. The form therefore prescribed to the Apostles both ought to and can befit these men. For what is said, namely that it was
temporal: since it has no authority from the Scriptures, it is dismissed with the same ease with which it is asserted. -
Again, if this form was fitting in the primitive Church, why not likewise in the final Church, especially with regard to those who wish to imitate the Apostles in this form? For I do not say that the universal Church must be reduced to poverty in all things - as is imputed to me by them - as is apparent from my words above; but those who wish can imitate the perfection and the loftiness of poverty of the Apostles. - Whence blessed Francis was incited by the example of the Apostles, from the words of the Gospel recited in the Church, to undertake this manner of living, as is more clearly evident from his legend. - Because therefore upon those words this order was founded, they are not
irrelevant, but in every way pertinent as the most stable foundations of this manner of living. Such men therefore are to be received, because they go forth as poor men for the name of Christ, as is said in the Canonical Epistle of John, that those who receive such men are
fellow workers of the truth. ''Therefore those who oppose such men and do not receive them, or say they should not be received, are like Diotrephes, of whom the Gloss says that he was even a heresiarch of that time: whose doctrine and sect may be far from all Christians.
11. He attempts to refute certain things as false.
- For he asserts it to be false that Christ asked for anything as a beggar. For even if He is called a beggar
in the Psalms, this is said insofar as He asked from the Father, or insofar as He assumed our infirmities. - If it be said that He asked water from the Samaritan woman and lodging from Zacchaeus, this was not from begging,
but from authority,
or courtesy. -
And again,
even if He had begged, it should not be drawn into a precedent
. - He says it is likewise false that any begging is voluntary,
rather, all begging must be unwilling and compelled.
Moreover, this objection, which imputes falsehood to truth, is easy to convict of falsehood if one is willing to hear the truth devoutly. - For that Christ was a beggar,
both the prophetic text and the Glosses attest; and that he begged as a beggar,
as was alleged in the objections from two Glosses; and similarly in that Psalm: O God, come to
my aid,
on that verse: But I am needy and poor:
the Gloss says: "He takes upon himself the words of God, who in the preceding Psalm said these same things about himself, as if saying: Those who seek my life
are rich; but I am needy,
that is, one who begs, and poor,
that is, insufficient to myself: because he both lacks worldly abundance, and inwardly, where he is rich, he always seeks, desires, and receives". According to this, it is clear that Christ was needy and poor
and begging as one in need,
not from the Father alone; for then all would in this way be beggars, and none rich, even those having abundance: which is against the Gloss. Moreover,
Christ still asks of the Father, the Angels ask, and the holy comprehensors ask: but yet they are not called beggars.
Since therefore by so express a testimony the text says this, and the Gloss agrees, and no authority contradicts it: why shall we not confess that Christ begged as a beggar? For we confess that he was a virgin and lacked a wife, although Scripture makes no mention of this. - The Gospel
also expressly states that he asked for both drink and lodging: and it is clear that it was not from command and dominion and authority,
because then he would not have given an example of poverty. - He would also have spoken falsely in saying that he had nowhere to lay his head, since he would have had subjects from whom he could exact provisions: and he would have acted less justly in this, that he preached in Jerusalem and was fed in Bethany, bearing fruit and preaching in one place and receiving sustenance in another.
But you will say that he asked out of courtesy.
But did Christ embrace poverty to teach courtesy? Did he wish to become needy and poor for the sake of teaching human courtesies? Does he call himself a master of courtesy and not rather of humility? Learn from me,
he says in the eleventh chapter of Matthew, for I am meek and humble of heart.
He therefore asked out of humility
for what was fitting to relieve his need, and thereby as a poor beggar.
And it is clear that he did not have this need except because he willed it: nor did he ask except because he willed it: for he could have turned stones into gold whenever he wished: just as his disciple John the Evangelist cast them to those who, while evangelizing, were unwilling to beg and be in want, who had turned back, who afterward preferred begging and poverty to precious gems. - And from this it is clear that it belongs to Christ and his followers to voluntarily
beg; otherwise they would in no way merit in this begging and poverty. For it is absurd to say that poverty and want are voluntary, while the begging that proceeds from them is coerced.
If therefore mendicancy in Christ arose from poverty and humility and was voluntary: why should it not be drawn as a precedent?
since he himself says: Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart:
since he also invites others wishing to come to the highest summit of perfection to follow him through this kind of poverty: Go,
he says, and sell,
etc.; and the Apostle says in Second Corinthians, chapter eight: You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and further: I give counsel,
the Gloss says: "that you may imitate his poverty"; since this is also a perfection which is proposed to all in common, and it is said: He who can receive it, let him receive it:
since Augustine says in his fifteenth homily on John: "In all things which Christ did as man, he was providing an example for those who would believe in him"; since Jerome says that even if in his miracles he is not to be imitated by us, in those things which he did humbly he is to be imitated by us: since he was also the universal form of the virtues in his actions. Whence Augustine in On True Religion: "No sin can be committed except when those things are desired which he despised, or those things are fled which he endured. His entire life on earth, therefore, through the man whom he deigned to assume, was a discipline of morals". - Who therefore would dare to say that it should not be drawn as a precedent,
unless one who dares to say that imitation is not owed to Christ in those things which he did humbly? But if we say this, whatever there is of holiness, virtue, and perfection, and the Christian religion itself, is confounded and overturned, and also weakened, because by the same reasoning by which this is said, the same could also be said of other examples of the virtues. But far be this from all Christian hearts.
III. He strives nonetheless to refute certain things as "non-sequiturs.
- For he says that it does not follow that, although want
is befitting the perfection of the Saints, that on this account also mendicancy,
which sometimes accompanies want, is likewise befitting; that similarly one could argue regarding the eating of children and regarding thefts and robberies, which frequently follow from want and poverty. - He also says it is a non-sequitur that, although blessed Benedict was perfect, that on this account, in receiving daily alms from that Roman, he was performing a work pertaining to perfection, because a perfect person does many things that do not pertain to perfection, such as eating, excreting, and other similar things. - He also says it is a non-sequitur that, although to abase and humble
oneself for Christ is good, that on this account to humble oneself by begging
is good, because to beg
is not to humble oneself,
but to take care of oneself. And again,
a harlot abases herself by prostituting herself, and yet in this she does not please the Lord; in like manner, neither does the abasement by which someone abases himself by begging.
These foul objections, however — because he proposes foul examples and strives to defile mendicancy — it is easy for a spiritual man to reject as foul, false, and fictitious. For we find that Christian and perfect men are not praised in their legends for cruelties in eating human beings, or for greed in carrying out plunder, or for acts of excretion, fornications, and other similar things of this kind; but they are found to be praised and commended for this: that they chose to live in such great poverty that they had neither food nor clothing, nor did they wish to have them as the rich do, but rather to beg humbly as the poor and despised, as is evident in the examples introduced above. - For that the eating of children should follow from destitution — this is against the order of nature;
that theft and robbery should follow — this is against the order of morals and justice.
- But that there should follow the making known of one's need to one's neighbor and the requesting of assistance for the love of God — this is according to the order of charity and piety,
both natural as well as gratuitous and spiritual. For every law commands that neighbor be supported and relieved by neighbor. How then is that which perverts order and follows a perverted order similar to that which is done according to a right, just, and good order, one that is charitable and pious? - Therefore the monk Romanus is praised, because according to the law of charity he provided for blessed Benedict, and Benedict, who most humbly received. But nowhere will you find him praised because he defecated and excreted; for it is utterly abominable to introduce such things into the midst of discussion when the praises of the Saints are being treated.
Moreover, the mendicant is praised, although he takes care of himself,
not because he does this in just any manner,
but because he does it most humbly:
whence, just as to eat soberly
is an act of virtue, although to eat
is to take care of oneself, so also it is to be understood in the matter at hand. Whence Chrysostom, in Homily Four on Matthew, speaking of the holy youths who were in the palace of the king of Babylon, says thus: "Being therefore holy and just, they would have chosen ten thousand times over to beg at home and to enjoy the goods that were in the temple. For I have chosen,
he says, to be cast aside in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners.
Ten thousand times, therefore, they would have chosen to be cast aside at home rather than to reign in Babylon." There is therefore in mendicancy a humiliation and self-abasement acceptable to God; otherwise it would not be chosen by the holy youths; but it is chosen
because it is care of oneself joined with its own humility. But those who take care of their flesh
in desires and concupiscences,
they are without doubt not praised, even if they seem to humble and abase themselves, like the harlot who prostitutes herself for love of money or the fervor of lust. But far be it from the hearts of the faithful that the humiliation of spiritual men in mendicancy should be similar to the abasement of a harlot in her prostitution. For the members of Christ are not to be taken away so that they become members of a harlot.
But Christ says of himself in the form of a servant and also on behalf of his members: I am a beggar and poor, but the Lord is solicitous for me.
Which he would by no means say unless being a beggar
for Christ so pleased God that it makes God exercise a most special care for us, as a father exercises care for his children — to think this of harlots and those who play the harlot, let it be far from Christian ears and minds.
IV. He nevertheless attempts to refute certain other things as doubtful.
— For to that which is said of blessed Alexius, that he begged, and of blessed Francis, how many miracles confirmed this, he responds: Prove it,
as though to things doubtful and uncertain; adding that even if miracles had been performed, it would not yet be certain, because many wicked people perform miracles, and that miracles could be performed even with loaves of bread stolen secretly; nor yet would it be established from this that it was good to steal. — He also says it is doubtful that the Roman Church has approved mendicancy, because if it did this, it would be convicted of error; likewise also, if it imposed it as a penance of satisfaction, it would err — and he says this is in no way to be believed.
But this objection, which protects itself through doubt, must without doubt be resisted. For if what is read in the legend of Saint Alexis and the legend of Blessed Francis is called into doubt, by equal reasoning whatever is read in the legends of other Saints comes into doubt: therefore all examples of virtues and deeds of the Saints are now called into doubt. But to imitate or believe doubtful things is dangerous; and through this, faith, devotion, and reverence, which is held toward the Saints, perishes, if the other things that are narrated about them are called into doubt. - Again,
if the miracles which they performed are not efficacious testimonies for establishing their sanctity, the Church today is acting foolishly, which canonizes Saints and inscribes them in the catalogue of Saints on account of the testimony of miracles. - Finally,
who has ever heard that God would multiply through a thief bread taken by stealth for the salvation of others? Yet we have heard that through a poor beggar He multiplied in manifold ways the bread which he had acquired by begging. - But if you say
that this was a special privilege and was done by the intimate counsel of the Holy Spirit: how did he hand this down to others as a law and rule, in which he invites them to mendicancy, if it was inspired to him alone for himself alone? - If you say
that it was from his own mind, not through inspiration: how can he not be condemned who rashly invited others to a reprehensible act as though to an act of moral life and perfection? How also did the Roman See with the consent of the cardinals approve this?
But if you say
that it is not to be believed that it imposes mendicancy upon anyone as a penalty,
or that it approves it as a rule
and holy life; but that it imposes the mendicancy of pilgrimage, this is found in the section on Penance, where it is said concerning a priest who reveals confessions, that he should be deposed and should go as a pilgrim in disgrace for the whole time of his life. But if he were to live by honest labor or from his own similar resources, he would not go as a lowly person, but rather as an honorable one. It remains therefore that it imposes that he should go as a beggar.
That he approves it as a rule
is clear from that writing cited above, concerning the Excesses of Prelates, Nimis prava,
where it is said that "the Apostolic See is known to have approved the order and rule of the Friars Preachers and Minors." It is also clear from the rule of blessed Francis, approved and confirmed by Lord Honorius, where it is said that the brothers "should go for alms confidently." But if he erred in approving this — and it is established that he approved and confirmed this; it is also established that the universal Church throughout the whole world accepts orders and states of life of this kind — then it must be concluded, according to the statement of that one man, that the entire universal Church erred and was deceived: and that those who established and approved such an erroneous state are all damned; which is most terrible and most incredible — that God would permit his holy people to err so universally, and so great a multitude of wise men who preceded these times. But who here is so wise
and so just
that he would dare to judge all others besides himself to have been deceived and reprobate? Wondrous is this wisdom,
which demonstrates the foolishness of all; and wondrous this justice,
which condemns all others. But if this is not wisdom, but rather temerity — to wish to judge the Apostolic See, which is judged by God alone, and to reject its judgment and sentence, and to thrust so many holy men into hell and into the abyss of damnation — far, therefore, be these things from faithful and Christian hearts.
V. He also attempts to refute very many things, indeed nearly all, as hostile to apostolic doctrine,
on the grounds that he says mendicancy was prohibited by the Apostle as evil and was permitted only in a particular case. — He also says that I lied and defended and continue to defend what is false against Scripture and the Apostle, in that he says I said that to labor with manual work is not a precept. He says, therefore, that to beg
is not indifferent but evil; and therefore by the addition of circumstances it can in no way become good: indeed, what is more, he asserts that in those who preach it is simoniacal.
Now this foundation of his position, most frequently repeated, is easy to see as ruinous together with everything that is built upon it. For if to beg
is prohibited, and to beg
is to sin: therefore to be a beggar
is to be a sinner.
Since therefore Christ calls Himself a beggar,
or rather the Prophet in the person of Christ: Christ therefore confesses Himself to be a sinner: which to say or believe is no small disgrace or sin. - Again,
if to beg
is to sin, beggary or begging is a sin. But on 2 Corinthians 8, on the verse: That by His poverty you might be made rich:
the Gloss says: "Let no one despise himself: the poor man in his cell, rich in conscience, sleeps more securely on the ground than the man rich in gold upon purple. Therefore do not be afraid to approach with your beggary Him who was clothed with our poverty: where He made Himself poor, He enriched us." Therefore beggary disposes one toward, and does not withdraw one from, divine approach: it is established therefore that it is not a sin.
Furthermore, Chrysostom on Matthew in Homily 69 at the end says that "to beg offends God in nothing: but to steal or to seize offends God and man." This is also evident from the authority of Chrysostom cited above from Homily 4 on Matthew. Therefore it is not prohibited by the Apostle, nor is it found anywhere that the Apostle prohibited this, but rather that he commended it together with his fellow Apostles. For in 1 Corinthians 16 he both preached and arranged that collections be made for the poor among the Saints who were in Jerusalem, as alms freely bestowed upon them. And in Galatians 2 he says that Peter and James gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision, only that we should be mindful of the poor:
the Gloss: "Of the poor,
who had laid the price of their goods sold at the feet of the Apostles, we should be mindful,
by making collections for their support." If therefore the Apostle was not simoniacal in this, that he sought collections and sent disciples for this purpose, that they might seek alms from those among whom he had sown spiritual things, for the poor who were in Jerusalem: if the Supreme Pontiff establishes Orders of poor men who sow spiritual things and live from the freely given alms, whether sought or spontaneously offered, of those whom they edify by word and example: he in no way whatsoever disagrees with the Apostle, but rather agrees, since he has as great, and indeed greater, power as the Apostle himself in governing and disposing the members of the Church.
But he insists that the Apostle commanded bodily labor in the text, and the Glosses seem to say that he does this against mendicancy.
But to this there is a plain response: granted that the Apostle commands manual labor of this kind — which I have never denied, as is apparent from my words — yet he does not command this universally
to the servants of Christ, except perhaps in a moment of necessity in which no lawful way of obtaining sustenance is available except through the labor of the hands — but he commands it to determinate
persons, as is apparent from the text: We have heard that certain ones among you are walking disorderly, doing no work, but acting as busybodies. Now to those who are of this sort, we command and beseech in the Lord Jesus Christ that they work in silence and eat their own bread.
And a little before: We command that you withdraw yourselves
etc.; the Gloss: "He begins here concerning the busybodies and the idle, admonishing that they be corrected." It is therefore evident from the sequence of the text and from the Gloss that that command extends to the busybodies and the idle. — Similarly, First Thessalonians chapter four: We beseech you, brethren, that you endeavor to be quiet and that you work with your hands, as we have commanded you:
the Gloss: "Work,
which helps you to be quiet. For that evil comes from idleness." From this also it is evident that he says this in order to avoid idleness and to remove sloth, which is the bilge of desires and the fuel of sins. Whence, Ephesians chapter four: He who was stealing, let him steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands
etc. — From this, therefore, it is evident that labor is not commanded to all;
and thereby mendicancy is not prohibited, except that which comes from idleness and cupidity, as the texts and Glosses indicate.
But one will object
concerning Augustine, in On the Work of Monks, who was speaking to monks who were occupied with and intent upon spiritual exercises, not idle; and to them he says that they are bound to works of this kind.
To this a manifest response appears, if one attends to the conclusion near the end, by which he refutes the position of those who repudiated bodily work — in which they held wrongly — there: "Wherefore those who, having left behind either ample or whatever wealth, wished to live among the poor of Christ, if they are sound in body and free from ecclesiastical occupations: nevertheless, if they also work with their hands, they act more mercifully than when they distributed all their goods to the needy. But if they are unwilling, who would dare to compel them? Those, however, who apart from this holy society were passing their life in bodily labor, if they do not work, let them not eat."
It is therefore apparent who are bound to labor, namely the strong and robust, and those who are free from ecclesiastical occupations, and those who were passing their life in the world by bodily labor—and many such were among those monks, and more were at the beginning of the Order of Friars Minor—and therefore they were to be constrained to labors; but now in comparison with others, very few are of this kind: and therefore it is not against the Apostle if such persons are simply permitted to beg, especially since such an act is not very desirable nor delightful nor honorable, but rather filled with many indignities and miseries, to which the heart of no capable man could be inclined except in hope of eternal reward and love of Christ and desire of advancing with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, without which I scarcely believe a rich man could be inclined to the hardship of such great abjection. Nor do such persons burden the people of the Lord and the Church, especially if they seek nothing beyond necessities, because they would spend and consume far more from the alms of the poor if they had remained as clerics in the world in prebendal benefices: nor then, when they would attend but little to spiritual works, would the way of salvation be closed off even in their riches. Far be it therefore that it should now be closed off in such great strictness of poverty.
From what has already been said in this question concerning poverty, to gather the rest together in summary, it is apparent that just as to beg
among the weak and infirm poor is a necessity of nature,
among the strong who are idle and covetous it is the viciousness of fault;
so among the voluntarily poor, despisers of self and imitators of Christ and preachers of the Gospel, it is an act consonant with,
not repugnant to, evangelical perfection,
inasmuch as to renounce
all things universally, appropriating nothing to oneself, has been counseled
by the Lord as perfect: to receive
alms has been granted
to the righteous poor as licit and in no way inimical to evangelical perfection; also humbly to seek
alms for the voluntarily poor has not been prohibited
as evil; to pass one's life from the earnings of one's own labor
has not been enjoined upon all able-bodied poor as a precept necessarily binding.
If anyone therefore attacks the universal renunciation
of temporal things, he attacks Christ who is poor and crucified: he attacks the evangelical counsel; he attacks the company of the Apostles who say: Behold, we have left all things:
he attacks also the Holy Spirit, who inspires and suggests this to the hearts of the perfect: he attacks also God the Father of all things, who is the refuge of the poor;
he attacks finally the kingdom of heaven, the whole universe, dominion over which has been granted to the poor, as the Lord says: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven:
and therefore against such a fool
it is necessary that the whole world should fight.
But he who attacks the acceptance of alms,
attacks both Christ, who received support from women serving him and providing for him, Luke 7; and the company of the Apostles, who themselves also received alms, which were laid at their feet,
Acts, from the fourth chapter; and the state of monks, who are founded upon alms; and the entire clergy — for they too live from alms which have been freely bestowed upon the churches of Christ — and consequently the common state of the poor, which nevertheless the divine Scriptures indicate is most acceptable to God.
But he who attacks the humble petition for alms
among those who are in need and may lawfully receive, attacks Christ,
who humbly sought hospitality, who also professes himself to be a beggar: attacks also Paul,
who asked that collections be made for the poor Saints, and this by the will of Peter; attacks the bond of charity,
which brings about sharing in the manner of giving and receiving:
attacks the office of kindness,
by which one in need sets forth his necessity, lest he be inhuman to himself, and stirs up another, who is able and willing, to be humane and compassionate to his neighbor; and in this no one is offended, no one is prejudiced, nothing is inordinately desired, nothing is unlawfully taken away, especially in those who do not seek the gift,
but the fruit
.
But he who attacks idleness, cupidity, carnality, and superfluity
in other Christians and especially in religious, does well and rightly, provided however that he proceeds according to right order.
But he who universally imposes upon all the able-bodied the burden of gainful labor,
from which they must sustain themselves, extends the precept of the Apostle too far, and excessively aggravates the yoke of servitude upon the servants of Christ, and delays spiritual men from spiritual occupations and labors to the peril of the salvation of souls, while he makes them more solicitous about feeding their own mortal bodies than about winning the souls of their neighbors for the Lord. If this be done, mint and cumin are tithed, and the weightier matters of the Law are neglected, judgment and mercy
, corporal mercy is preferred to spiritual; and through this the body is preferred to the spirit, private advantage to common utility, which consists especially in the edification of the people of Christ, in almsgiving, in instruction and counsel for souls, to which God has sent these latter orders through the Supreme Pontiff and prelates. If anyone should say that they were not sent
for these purposes, he manifestly opposes the truth,
since express testimonies to this effect are found both in the rule and in the privilege and institution and approbation of this twofold order. — But if he should say they ought not to be sent:
he detracts from evangelical perfection.
For who is more suitable for this than he who has vowed evangelical perfection? — If anyone should say that they cannot be sent by the Pope and bishops:
he derogates from apostolic authority
and the power of the keys
in prelates and the fullness of power
in the Supreme Pontiff, who on earth, as Scripture asserts, faith perceives, laws testify, and irrefragable reasons prove, as the one and supreme head and sole bridegroom and chief hierarch, in whom resides the state of the entire Church militant, holds the place of Christ. And therefore every knee must be bent to him, of princes and prelates and clerics and laypeople and religious on earth, after the likeness of Christ in heaven, to whom every knee bends of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth
. Amen.
ARTICLE III.
Whether the able-bodied poor, and especially religious, are universally bound to manual labor.
Third, for greater clarity concerning what has been said about mendicancy, it is asked whether the able-bodied poor, and especially religious, are universally bound to manual labor? And that they are is shown in a threefold way, both by reason of the obligation of nature
and of the Christian religion
and also of monastic profession
. First it is shown from the bond of the law of nature
.
1. Genesis 2: God placed man in paradise, that he might work:
likewise, in chapter 3 of the same it was said to man sinning: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread,
etc. Therefore the precept concerning labor regards man according to nature as instituted
and according to nature as fallen,
therefore according to all times; but it especially regards the man who is able by himself and cannot supply through another; but such is the able-bodied poor man: therefore such a one is bound to labor manually.
2. Again, in Zechariah thirteen it is said: I am a husbandman, for Adam has been my example from my youth;
Gloss: "That I may eat my bread in the sweat of my face,
while he showed himself born for this, that in the sweat of his face
he might eat bread"; but this most befits one who needs bread and can bear labor and sweat; and such is the able-bodied poor person: therefore he is bound to labor bodily.
3. Again, we are naturally obligated to those things without which nature cannot be sustained or preserved; but without bodily or manual labor the human race cannot be preserved in being:
therefore some are necessarily obligated to this. But none except those who are fit: and such are the able-bodied poor, because they are in need and are able: therefore such persons are especially obligated.
4. Again, just as the mouth was given to man for eating, so also the hands for working; but whoever neglects to eat, when he is in need, if he is able, acts against the dictate of natural law: therefore by equal reasoning, whoever neglects to work manually, if he is in need and is able. But such is the able-bodied poor person: therefore, etc.
Again, this same thing is shown by reason of the Christian religion.
5. First, through the apostolic precept,
Ephesians four: He who was stealing, let him steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands,
etc. — If you say
this is a counsel: against this:
First Thessalonians four: Work with your hands, as we commanded you, and that you may walk honestly toward those who are outside, and that you may desire nothing of anyone's:
Gloss: "Much less ask for it, or take it." But this especially regards the poor: therefore, etc.
6. Again, this same thing is apparent through the apostolic example,
Second Thessalonians three: You yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, for we were not disorderly among you, nor did we eat bread from anyone without paying, but in labor and toil,
etc.; Gloss: "The Apostle was a model for those who were of slender means among the people, that they might learn not to lose their freedom. For he who frequently comes to another's table, given to idleness, must necessarily flatter the one who feeds him, since our religion calls man to freedom": therefore this is against the Christian religion.
7. Again, this same thing is apparent through the apostolic edict,
Second Thessalonians three: When we were with you, we declared this to you: that if anyone does not wish to work, let him not eat:
but it is established that he speaks only of those who need sustenance: therefore, etc.
If you say
that this is not understood of bodily labor: against
this is what the Gloss says in the same place: "Some say that the Apostle commanded this concerning spiritual
works; but they vainly strive to cast a fog over both themselves and others, so that what charity usefully admonishes they not only refuse to do, but even refuse to understand."
8. Likewise, the same is seen through the apostolic judgment,
2 Thessalonians 3: If anyone does not obey the word, mark that person and do not associate with him:
but he who has the opportunity and ability to fulfill the commandment is called disobedient
if he does not fulfill it; but the able-bodied poor person is of this kind: therefore if he is unwilling to work, he is disobedient to the apostolic precepts, therefore by the judgment of the Apostle he ought to be avoided as one excommunicated. — But perhaps you will say
that these words of the Apostle and the foregoing are understood to be spoken to the curious, the idle wanderers, and the lazy, not to the servants of Christ occupied with spiritual matters: on the contrary:
on that passage: He who does not work shall not eat:
the Gloss says: "The Apostle wills that the servants of God work with their bodies, so that they may have the means to live, so that they are not compelled by want to beg for necessities"; but servants of God
are called good and just men, and he commands such men to work, so that they are not compelled to beg: therefore the able-bodied poor, etc.
9. Likewise, Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks: "Let those hear to whom the Apostle gives this command, namely to work with their hands, that is, those who do not have this power which he had, so that working only spiritually they might eat bread free from bodily labor. And as he says: We command and beseech that working in silence they eat their own bread:
let them not dispute against the most manifest words of the Apostle, because this too pertains to the silence
with which they ought, while working, to eat their own bread."
10. Likewise, the same author a little later: "What do those do who are unwilling to work with their bodies? I desire to know what occupation they devote themselves to. To prayers, they say, and to psalms and readings and the word of God. A holy life indeed and praiseworthy for its Christian sweetness: but if we are not to be called away from these things, then neither should we eat, nor should food be prepared so that it can be set before us and consumed. But if the necessity of our very weakness compels the servants of God to attend to such things at certain intervals of time, why should we not also devote some portions of time to observing the apostolic precepts? For one prayer of an obedient person is heard more quickly than ten thousand prayers of one who is contemptuous." And consequently he shows that these spiritual works do not excuse, neither reading nor psalmody nor prayer nor exhortation.
11. Likewise, the same from the Council of Carthage: "Let a cleric provide food and clothing by a craft or by agriculture, provided it is without detriment to his office." — If you say
that this is understood of the unlearned: against this
it immediately follows: "Let any cleric instructed in the word of God seek his livelihood by a craft." — If you say
that this is not understood of all: against this
it follows: "All clerics who are able-bodied for working shall learn both crafts and letters." — From these opinions of the Fathers, therefore, it is manifestly seen to follow that the apostolic precepts
extend to all the able-bodied poor, whether clerics or laity, whether idle or intent upon spiritual occupations: therefore most especially to the poor religious.
This same thing is shown by reason of the monastic profession.
12. First, through blessed Augustine, who throughout his entire book On the Work of Monks intends as his final and principal conclusion to show that monks are bound to manual or bodily labors.
13. Likewise, the Gloss on that passage of Luke twelve: Sell what you possess, and give alms,
etc.; "so that, having once despised all things for God, you may afterward work by the labor of your hands, whence you may live or give alms"; but all religious are bound by vow to the counsel of poverty: therefore according to the Gloss, manual labor ought to follow renunciation: therefore all are bound to bodily work.
14. Likewise, Jerome to Rusticus, and it is found in De Consecratione, final distinction: "Always be doing something good, so that the devil may find you occupied. If the Apostles, having the power to live from the Gospel, labored with their own hands, lest they burden anyone, why do you not prepare things that will serve for your own use? Either weave a basket from rushes, or plait a hamper from pliant osiers." And afterward: "Let books be copied, so that the hands may work for food and the soul may be filled with reading."
13. Likewise, blessed Benedict in his rule: "Then they are truly monks, if they live by the work of their own hands, just as our fathers the Apostles": therefore if this makes us imitators of the Apostles, and all religious ought to be such, therefore they ought also to work manually, since works of supererogation do not diminish but ought to fulfill the works of the precepts.
16. Likewise, blessed Francis in his rule: "The brothers," he says, "to whom the Lord has given the grace of working, let them work faithfully and devoutly." And that he means bodily labor is clear from what follows: "From the wages of their labor, let them receive bodily necessities for themselves and their brothers, except money."
On the contrary, that not all able-bodied poor are bound to manual labor is shown both by reason of contemplation, and by reason of preaching,
and by reason of spiritual occupation.
First, it is shown by reason of contemplation:
1. Through that passage of Luke ten: Martha, you are anxious,
etc., up to has chosen:
therefore Mary did better by attending to contemplation than Martha to bodily occupation; but she would not have done better if she had omitted that to which she was bound: therefore one attending to contemplation is absolved from bodily work.
2. Likewise, Luke twelve: Consider the birds of the sky;
the Gloss: "The saints are rightly compared to birds, who, having nothing in this world and not laboring, seek eternal things by contemplation alone, already like the Angels." But if those having nothing were bound to labor universally, such persons would already be transgressors: therefore if this is false, not all able-bodied poor are bound.
3. Likewise, on that passage in Genesis 23: The field was confirmed;
the Gloss says: "The contemplative life fundamentally separates from all actions"; but it does not separate from spiritual actions: therefore from corporeal ones. Nor does it separate contrary to the law of God: therefore those who contemplate are not bound to this.
Likewise, manual labor is not an act pertaining universally to all members of Christ, otherwise no one could be saved without it; therefore it pertains to the office of some particular member; but a member having a more worthy office is not bound to the office of a less worthy member: therefore if the members that have the grace of contemplating are more worthy, they are not bound to the office or exercise of action or labor, especially when necessity does not compel them to supply the deficiency of a lower member.
Likewise, that not all are bound is shown by reason of preaching.
5. Luke 10: He sent them two by two,
etc.; the Gloss of Ambrose says: "So great ought the preacher's confidence to be that he knows most certainly that necessities will not fail him, lest, while he provides earthly things for himself, he less provides eternal things for others." Therefore the pursuit of preaching and teaching ought not to be interrupted on account of bodily work, since a man does not perfectly suffice for both.
6. Likewise, on that passage in Luke 9: Let the dead bury their dead;
the Gloss says: "The Lord teaches that lesser goods are to be passed over for the advantage of greater ones; for it is greater to raise the souls of the dead by preaching than to lay a dead body in the earth." If therefore to bury the dead, and especially one's father, is a work of the greatest natural and corporeal piety, and the Lord teaches that this is to be set aside, and those devoted to preaching are not bound to this: therefore such persons are not bound to manual works, however needy they may be.
7. Likewise, on that passage in Luke 10: The laborer is worthy of his hire:
the Gloss says: "Two rewards are owed to the preacher: one on the way, which sustains him in labor; the other in the homeland, which recompenses him in the resurrection"; but what is owed to someone, he is not bound to acquire by bodily labor: therefore a poor preacher is not bound to work manually for the sustenance of the body.
8. Likewise, on that passage in 1 Corinthians 9: Who serves as a soldier,
etc.; the Gloss says: "As the Lord ordained, those living from the Gospel ate bread freely given,
received from those to whom they preached grace freely given"; but it is called bread freely given
because it was not acquired through bodily labor: therefore those exercising the work of preaching are not bound to bodily labor.
9. Likewise, Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks, says: "If they are evangelists, if ministers of the altar, if dispensers of the Sacraments, they plainly claim this power for themselves," namely of living without bodily work, because he is speaking about this: therefore such persons are not bound.
10. Likewise, Jerome, Against Vigilantius: "This custom persists in Judea to this day, not only among us but also among the Hebrews, that those who meditate on the law of the Lord day and night
are sustained by the ministries of the synagogues and of the whole world"; but the custom would be blameworthy if such persons were bound to live from their own labors: therefore those who are devoted to divine things, namely the teaching of preaching and reading, are not bound to works of this kind.
Likewise, that not all are bound is shown by reason of spiritual occupation.
11. First Corinthians nine: Do you not know that those who work in the sanctuary eat what belongs to the sanctuary, and those who serve at the altar share with the altar?
The Gloss: "Natural reason dictates that one should live from where he labors." If therefore the faithful person who is intent upon spiritual occupations is worthy of being sustained, and such a person is not idle: therefore neither for the sake of avoiding idleness nor even for acquiring sustenance is he bound to work manually.
12. Likewise, Anselm, On Similitudes: "There are indeed three orders of men: those who pray, farmers,
and defenders,
whom God has disposed to diverse offices in this world: monks,
that they may pray for others and imbue them with the milk of preaching; farmers,
that from their labor both they and others may live; soldiers,
that they may defend those who pray and the farmers"; but soldiers are worthy of being sustained when they exercise their office without bodily labor: therefore by equal reason monks also are worthy.
13. Likewise, Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks: "If they had something in the world by which they might easily support this life, which upon converting to God they distributed, their weakness is to be believed and borne": therefore those who have distributed their goods to the poor deserve to be sustained in the Church without bodily labor, if they once distributed their temporal goods: therefore much more strongly does one deserve this if he himself has dispensed spiritual goods by praying, counseling, and conferring good examples upon others.
14. Likewise, if spiritual occupation does not excuse from bodily labor, then much less does scholarly occupation: therefore all able-bodied poor who study in any science are in a bad state, because they do not live from the labor of their hands: but this is very absurd: therefore so also is the first claim.
15. Likewise, Christ fulfilled the Law most perfectly, because it was fitting for him to fulfill all justice
; but Christ was most poor and able-bodied: therefore if such persons are universally bound to work, Christ did not perfectly fulfill the Law nor did he give a perfect example. But this is unfitting: therefore so also is the first claim.
16. Likewise, blessed Benedict, when he was in the cave, was poor and able-bodied, and yet he did not live from the labor of his hands, but from what Romanus brought to him, as is said in the second book of the Dialogues: therefore either he was in a bad state, which is absurd, or he was not bound to labor or to work.
17. Furthermore, either the able-bodied poor can live
on alms without manual labor, or they cannot.
If so,
I have the proposition that they are not bound. If they cannot:
then since all the goods of churches and monasteries are nothing other than alms of the poor, as the Saints say and is manifest, therefore all those who are able-bodied—both clerics and monks—who live on such goods without manual labor are in a state of perdition. If therefore this is most absurd, it is clear that so too is that from which it follows. — If you say
that from large and great alms it is permitted, but from small ones it is not permitted: this is not only absurd, but indeed so ridiculous that manifestly one who says this strains out a gnat and swallows a camel.
It remains therefore that not all able-bodied poor are bound to manual works of this kind.
CONCLUSION.
The middle way must be held, namely that among the able-bodied poor some are bound to labor, while others are absolved from it: and that for some labor is enjoined under precept, for some as counsel, and for some in neither the one way nor the other.
I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing, it must be noted that, just as concerning the faith of the most blessed Trinity there is a threefold way of thinking, such that the two which decline toward the extremes are erroneous, like the Sabellian and Arian heresies, while the middle way is true and catholic: so in this question likewise there is a twofold way declining toward the extremes, and therefore erroneous and to be rejected, while the middle way is right and to be accepted.
One way of speaking is that no
voluntary poor, however able-bodied, are bound to manual works, but only to spiritual ones. And these grounded themselves upon that passage of Matthew 6: Look at the birds of the sky.
Now this manner of speaking is erroneous, because it is corrupting of the Church
and depraving of Scripture. It corrupts the Church,
since, by simulating a false righteousness, it fosters laziness; while it pretends to wish to fulfill the Gospel, it wishes to nourish the leisure of the flesh. Whence Augustine says of such persons in the book On the Work of Monks: "Who would bear obstinate men resisting the most salutary admonitions of the Apostle, not to be tolerated as weaker but even to be proclaimed as holier, so that monasteries founded on sounder doctrine might be corrupted by a twofold enticement: both the dissolute license of idleness and the false name of sanctity?" — It also depraves
Scripture, because it too broadly extends
the evangelical words and too narrowly restricts
the apostolic words. For it wishes that the Gospel prohibit to the perfect every bodily work, and it wishes that the Apostle counsel nothing but spiritual work: both of which are false. And against this falsity Augustine composed the entire book On the Work of Monks, showing that the Apostle speaks of bodily work,
and that the Gospel does not forbid bodily
works, but only that the heart should not be anxiously preoccupied with temporal things. Whence at the beginning of the book On the Work of Monks he says: "First we must show that the blessed Apostle wished servants of God to perform bodily works; then we must show that those evangelical precepts, by which some foster not only their laziness but also their arrogance, are not contrary to apostolic precept and example." Whence Augustine proves that this position is to be rejected.
The second manner of those who speak is that all
able-bodied poor who do not have the means to live are bound to manual or bodily works. And these rely upon the words of the Apostle, Second Thessalonians chapter three: He who does not labor shall not eat.
Nor can they be excused, as they say, by spiritual works.
And this manner of speaking is indeed erroneous, just as the first. For by deviating too much to the other extreme, it depraves Scripture
and corrupts the Church. It depraves Scripture,
because it too broadly extends the words of the Apostle, when it says: He who does not labor
shall not eat,
wishing those words concerning manual labor to be extended not only to the idle, but to those however usefully occupied in spiritual matters, who do not have the cure of souls. It also too narrowly restricts
the evangelical words, while it extends those words: The laborer is worthy of his hire,
to those alone who have the cure of souls; when rather a man is made worthy of his hire from his work than from his rank. Far be it entirely from faithful minds that the co-workers of those having the cure of souls should not be worthy laborers
nor worthy of their hire
and sustenance, especially those who
faithfully labor together in the word and in doctrine.
It also corrupts the Church,
while it simulates the strictness of justice and persecutes the spirit of life. For what else is this than what was signified by the taskmasters of Pharaoh, of whom it is said in Exodus 1, that they hated the children of Israel and brought them to bitterness, afflicting them with hard labors of clay and brick, and with every kind of servitude?
And lest perhaps I seem to be moved by my own spirit, hear what the Gloss says on that passage of Exodus 5: Why, Moses and Aaron, do you disturb the people from their works? Go to your burdens:
"Today if Moses and Aaron, that is, the prophetic and priestly word, should urge a soul to the service of God, to go out from the world, to renounce all that one possesses, to attend to the law and the word of God; immediately you will hear the unanimous friends of Pharaoh saying: See how men are seduced, and young people are perverted, so that they neither labor, nor serve in the military, nor do anything profitable, and having abandoned necessary affairs, they pursue idleness and leisure! What is it to serve God? They do not wish to labor and they seek occasions for idleness. These were then the words of Pharaoh, these also his friends now speak, and they persecute not only with words, but also with blows." Thus far the Gloss.
Since therefore each of these opinions or positions inclines to extremes and by inclining distorts Scripture and corrupts the Church, therefore each is to be rejected: the first, because it gives encouragement to laziness; the second, because it strives to extinguish the spirit of life under the burden of Egyptian servitude; the first, because it fosters carnal idleness; the second, because it persecutes the spiritual life. On this account the second is far more perverse than the first, although each is evil. And therefore, with each rejected, the middle way must be held: that among the able-bodied poor, some are bound, some indeed are free; for some it is imposed under precept, for some as counsel, and for some in neither the one way nor the other.
For the fuller clarification of this, it should be noted that the governance of the commonwealth in the Church is directed toward three things, namely: with respect to the lower good, which is corporeal; with respect to the exterior good, which is civil; and with respect to the interior good, which is spiritual. And accordingly, a threefold kind of work is necessary for the governance of the commonwealth and of the Church Militant, namely: artificial work, which is also called manual, because "the hand is the instrument of instruments"; civil work; and spiritual work. By manual or corporeal work, I mean that which is necessary for preparing food, clothing, dwellings, and the instruments of various crafts and arts. By civil work, I mean that which belongs to the rulers who govern, the soldiers who defend, the merchants who trade, and the servants who minister. By spiritual work, I mean that which consists in disseminating the divine words, in chanting the divine canticles, in dispensing the Sacraments, and in distributing the goods divinely given to oneself, whether earthly or spiritual. For to distribute one's goods for Christ is a spiritual work, not a civil one, nor one belonging to the earthly city.
Just as, therefore, those who are engaged in the civil works of the commonwealth are not understood to be bound to manual labor by the apostolic precept, so neither are those who are engaged in spiritual works, especially if these redound to the salvation, benefit, and advancement of others. And therefore Augustine, in his book On the Work of Monks, exempts those occupied in the four aforesaid kinds of spiritual works from the obligation of the apostolic precept, when he says: "If they are evangelists, if ministers of the altar, if dispensers of the Sacraments, they plainly claim this right for themselves; if at least they had something in the world by which they might easily sustain this life without a trade, which, having turned to God, they distributed to the needy." Now evangelists disseminate the divine words; ministers of the altar chant the divine praises and divine canticles; dispensers of the Sacraments dispense the divine Sacraments, and especially those of the Eucharist and of Penance; those who divided their possessions distributed their goods. Therefore they are worthy to be sustained for a single distribution of temporal goods, and much more so for a continual distribution of spiritual goods, even if they perform no corporeal work whatsoever. And if he who teaches someone's son grammar deserves to be sustained by him, why not he who teaches the way of the heavenly kingdom, who obtains grace by praying, who also by the examples of a good life rouses and directs others toward eternal salvation?
Since, therefore, the universal commonwealth of the Church, or of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, requires for its preservation the threefold work described above, neither God, nor an Angel, nor a pastor of the Church or ruler, such as the Apostle, binds to works of this kind except insofar as the salvation, necessity, and utility of the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself demands, of which the servants of Christ are members.
And since among the members of Christ some are most suited to bodily operations and least suited to spiritual ones, some conversely, and some in a middle way: hence it is that those able-bodied poor who are most suited to bodily works and least suited to spiritual ones, who do not know how to suitably avoid idleness and do work worthy of their sustenance in any other way, such persons are bound to manual labor, and for them manual work is a matter of precept.
But for those who can at the same time attend sufficiently to spiritual matters and acquire their sustenance by the labor of their hands, either wholly or in large part—such as the Apostle Paul was—manual work is a matter of counsel.
But for those who are most suited to the aforesaid spiritual works, or even to civil ones, and least suited to these manual ones, such gainful and artisanal works are neither a matter of precept
nor even of counsel:
because it would be foolish that the common good should suffer great detriment for the sake of a thing of slight utility; nor did God ordain this, nor His Apostle, as will be clearly shown in what follows.
That judgment concerning such works and persons ought to be differentiated according to the diversity of gifts, offices, and graces divinely bestowed upon them is shown by the Gloss on that passage of Deuteronomy twenty-eight: Blessed shall be the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, and the fruit of thy cattle,
saying thus: "He designates the diverse orders of subjects. For some provide bodily nourishment to teachers; others can labor at what has been commanded to them; others, content with simplicity, strive to please God through innocence of life: each one has his own gift from God."
It must be conceded, therefore, that not all able-bodied poor, even those without pastoral charge, are bound to such manual labors; and the authorities and arguments showing this must also be conceded.
2. To the first objection raised to the contrary concerning the obligation of the law of nature, it must be said that nature
does not bind one to this except by reason of avoiding danger. For if this obligation flowed from the law of nature, all would be universally and equally obligated; which is most absurd. Therefore, if anyone is bound by nature, this is only for the purpose of avoiding danger:
and this can be in three ways: either because one cannot live without labor,
or because one cannot live honorably,
or because one cannot live fruitfully:
in the first, being is endangered,
in the second, honorableness,
in the third, usefulness.
Moreover, there is naturally implanted in man a love of his continued being,
a love of the honorable,
and a love of the advantageous:
and through this, man is bound by the law of nature to avoid this threefold danger. Thus therefore the able-bodied poor person is necessarily bound to work with his hands, if he is placed in such a situation that he cannot otherwise live,
or cannot live honorably,
or also cannot otherwise live fruitfully.
But if he can avoid this danger otherwise, equally or more usefully, he is not bound to this by the law of nature.
As to the objection that man from his original condition was ordained to this work, it must be said that no man ought to be without labor in this life, lest perhaps what is said of the reprobate in the Psalm be said of him: They are not in the labor of men, and with men they shall not be scourged:
but from this it does not follow that one must be occupied with manual labor, and especially that which is lucrative. - And through this the response to the following objection about the example of Adam is clear, because it is certain that not all are obligated to the work of agriculture. Nor was that which is said: In the sweat of your face, etc.,
said then as a precept of life, but as a punishment for sin committed, as is clear from the following text.
3. To the objection that without work of this kind the human race cannot be sustained, it must be said that there is a twofold commandment: one which regards the preservation of the individual, another which regards the preservation of the species,
such as the commandment about eating and the commandment about procreating. That therefore which regards the preservation of the species
does not oblige except in common, because when one fulfills it, another is released, as is clear regarding procreation; and because manual labor is of this kind, except in one who is placed in a state of danger, therefore only such a person is bound.
4. To the objection that just as the mouth is for eating, so also the hands are for working, it must be said that the comparison does not hold, because if man could live without eating, as he can live without manual labor, he would not be obligated to eat.
Furthermore,
one man can work for another, but cannot eat for another; and therefore it is not necessary that all be universally bound to manual work as they are to eating.
8. 6. 7. 8. To that which is objected concerning the precept, example, edict and apostolic word; it must be noted that concerning the apostolic precept one must consider the person, to whom the precept is given, the cause, for which it is given, and the form, under which it is given. If the person is considered, he does not command this to all generally, but determinately to certain ones. For he speaks thus in Second Thessalonians, chapter three: And we have heard that certain ones among you walk restlessly, doing no work, but busying themselves as meddlers. Now those who are of this sort, we command that, working in silence, they eat their own bread. He commands, therefore, the restless, the meddlesome, and the idle.
But if the cause is considered, there is no doubt that it is for the removal of these three vices. For since bodily labor avails for taming the body, for removing idleness, for seeking sustenance honorably; therefore the Apostle imposed labor upon them as a remedy, as it were, for these vices. For the restless need labor that tames, the idle need labor that rouses, and the meddlesome, "who seek sustenance by shameful solicitude," as the Gloss says, need labor that earns sustenance. Therefore the Apostle speaks, as it were, per se and properly and most sufficiently in the aforesaid command, if the cause is attended to.
- But if the form, under which he commands, is attended to, it is established that it must agree with the cause. For this is an apostolic precept; and to the three aforesaid things that person is bound, who cannot obtain those three things by another lawful and fitting way; but he who can is not bound determinately to this way, as far as concerns the efficacy of the precept itself, which the Apostle gave for ordering and building up the Church, not for destroying it, according to the power which he says was divinely given to him for edification.
It must be said, therefore, that the apostolic precept, example, edict, and judgment binds most especially those who are restless, idle, and meddlesome, so that they may turn back from these vices; or those who cannot otherwise fittingly avoid the aforesaid vices except through bodily labor, as has been manifestly shown.
To that which is objected from the Gloss, that the Apostle wills the servants of God to labor bodily, it must be said that if this is the will of a precept, it must be understood indefinitely concerning the servants of God, that is, concerning those who have been converted to the Lord's service, who are not excused from manual labor by greater and more useful works, as Augustine exemplifies concerning those who passed their life in the world by bodily labor; and thus that must be understood indefinitely and not universally, because it would be absurd to say that all servants of God are bound to this.
This is also evident, because Augustine, from whom the words of that Gloss were taken, but altered, excepts four classes of men, whom he says are not bound to seek their livelihood by their own labor, as was shown above: whence one should not rely upon the aforesaid Gloss; both because it alters
the words of Augustine. For he says in the original: "First we must show that the Apostle willed
that the servants of God perform bodily works, so that they might need no one for food and clothing," nor did he make any mention of begging:
because those against whom he was writing did not live from what was begged,
but from what was offered,
as he says in the second book of the Retractations. Emphasis must therefore be placed on this, that he says willed,
which is not always a precept; and on this, that he says servants of God,
which is said indefinitely; and on this, that he says lest they be compelled,
which does not pertain to the voluntarily poor, but rather to the unwilling.
9. To that text of Augustine: "Let those hear to whom this is commanded," etc.; it must be said that to have the power of living from what belongs to another is threefold: either according to the law of justice,
or according to the law of clemency,
or in a mixed manner according to both.
According to the law of justice,
those have it who possess the authority of office and the burden of work:
and such persons can demand authoritatively
and bring to judgment.
According to the law of clemency,
those have the power of living from what belongs to another who can allege sufficient misery, through which they are worthy of mercy, such as the poor who are infirm.
According to both,
however, those have it who perform apostolic works, yet do not proceed with the dignity of authority,
but with the humility of poverty:
and therefore they are worthy to be sustained both as workers and as the needy. Those therefore who in no way
have this power are without doubt obligated by the apostolic precept; but not all are such, as has been seen.
10. To the objection that spiritual works do not excuse: it must be said that "words must be investigated according to their subject matter." Augustine, however, is speaking there of monks who by their profession were bound to manual labor, who out of pride were contentious, and although they feigned spirituality, they were nevertheless carnal as idle men: and to such he says that they cannot be excused by works of this kind, because in truth these were not spiritual in them, but tainted.
Moreover,
those spiritual works did not redound to the manifest benefit of the commonwealth, because they neither preached nor taught nor heard confessions nor procured the salvation of souls by their counsels, but rather by devoting themselves to leisure they hindered it, and their leisure generated strife in the Church and dissension among the monks, and served as a cloak for those wandering monks, as will be better seen in what follows.
11. To that which is objected concerning clerics, it must be said that neither are poor clerics universally bound by the canons to manual labor except for the sake of avoiding idleness or acquiring sustenance, if they cannot honestly acquire it otherwise; otherwise it would be very harsh for so many men to be condemned; and it seems very impious to say that clerics of good disposition who are continually devoted to the study of letters, if they are poor and strong, are bound to manual labor.
12. To that which is objected concerning monks, it must be said that some regular monks have manual labor in their profession and vow, while others do not at all. Now the reason for this is the diversity of professions on the part of times, persons, and intentions. — On the part of times: because around the times of the primitive Church there were four kinds of monks, as blessed Benedict distinguishes at the beginning of his rule, namely cenobites, anchorites, sarabaites, and gyrovagues. The first were good, the second the best, the third bad, and the fourth the worst. For the third and fourth were not led by any yoke, but walked according to their own desires: the sarabaites devoted to the flesh, the gyrovagues changeable and vagabond and prepared for every evil. The second, namely the anchorites, did not need a rule, because as the most perfect they were governed by grace. A rule ought to have been given to the first, so that they might be distinguished from the gyrovagues and sarabaites; and it was fitting, lest they be compelled to go outside, that they be bound to bodily labor. Whence Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks says: "The most cunning enemy has scattered so many hypocrites under the habit of monks everywhere, going about the provinces, nowhere sent, nowhere settled, nowhere standing, nowhere sitting." And afterwards: "Does not your heart grow warm within you, and in your meditation does not fire burn, so that you may pursue their evil works with good works, so that you may cut off from them the occasion of shameful trafficking, by which your reputation is harmed and a stumbling block is placed before the weak? Have mercy therefore and show compassion, and show men that you do not seek an easy livelihood in idleness, but seek the kingdom of God through the narrow and strait way of this purpose. The same reason applies to you as applied to the Apostle, that you may cut off occasion from those who seek occasion, so that those who are choked by the stench of those men may be refreshed by your good odor." Thus far Augustine.
Also on the part of the persons
vowing: because monks at that time were for the greatest part laymen and commoners, and therefore it was fitting for them to be occupied with customary labors. Whence Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks: "Those who apart from this holy community were passing their life in bodily labor, from whose number many come to monasteries: if they do not wish to work, let them not eat. For neither in the Christian warfare are the rich humbled to poverty so that the poor may be exalted to pride; and in no way is it fitting that in that life where senators become laborious, there artisans should become idle; and where those who were lords of estates come, having left behind their pleasures, there rustics should become pampered."
On the part of intentions:
because the early monasteries were established for leading the solitary life, so that each one might have care of himself and dwell within himself, and therefore he was called a monachus.
And because it belongs to very few to be able always to attend to divine things, therefore, lest they be idle, it was congruent with their profession to be exercised in manual labor. Whence Jerome to Rusticus: "The monasteries of the larger sort maintain this custom, that they receive no one without labor, not so much on account of the necessities of sustenance as for the salvation of the soul, lest they wander in pernicious thoughts and, after the manner of fornicating Jerusalem, spread their legs to every passerby."
It was therefore fitting for monasteries of the first period to be bound by profession to manual labor, by reason of the time, the persons,
and the intentions.
But afterwards in these present modern times, when those wanderers had been done away with, and the Church had become wealthy both in clerics and in monks, more effort had to be given to spiritual exercise; and hence it is that monks rightly and fittingly exchanged manual or bodily labor for spiritual exercise and psalmody. And because the Churches, now expanded, had greater need of spiritual laborers than of vinedressers and farmers, hence it is that the Holy Spirit raised up poor religious orders, whose entire solicitude and care would be to sign the servants of God on their foreheads with the sign of the living God,
calling them to penance and to the grace of the Holy Spirit. Whence both from their primary institution have the office of preaching; and therefore, since such men are intent upon spiritual works—on account of which some deserve to be sustained by others—they are neither
idle nor meddlesome in living thus, nor in danger, since the Lord has fed them until now; nor do they have this from a vow. Therefore neither they nor all the voluntary poor, even though they be able-bodied, are bound to bodily labor, because neither by reason of danger,
nor by reason of the apostolic precept,
nor by reason of a vow taken,
as is manifestly clear from what has been set forth above.
To that which is objected from Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks, it must be said that blessed Augustine in that book does not speak to these latter, but to the former, who despised the bodily works which they had from their profession under the pretext of spirituality: because neither on account of spiritual works ought they to omit bodily works, nor conversely. Hence Bernard, speaking to such persons, says in the Apologia: "Now indeed, why do you glory in the labor of hands, when Martha laboring was rebuked, and Mary resting was praised, and Paul openly says: Bodily labor is profitable for a little, but piety for all things?
The best labor is that of which the Prophet said: I have labored in my groaning;
and of which elsewhere: I was mindful of God, and was delighted and was exercised;
and lest you understand a bodily exercise, he says, and my spirit failed.
Whence where not the body but the spirit is wearied, spiritual labor is without doubt understood. What then, you say? Do you so commend those spiritual things as even to condemn these bodily things which we have from the rule? By no means. But those things ought to be done and these not omitted;
otherwise, when either these must be omitted or those, these are rather to be omitted than those. For by as much as the spirit is better than the body, by so much is spiritual exercise more fruitful than bodily. But you, when puffed up by the observance of these things, you disparage others who do not observe the same, do you not show yourself rather to be a transgressor of the rule, of which, although keeping certain least things, you avoid the better?" — Therefore those are bound to manual labor who have this from the obligation of their profession, unless perchance they exchange manual labor for spiritual work, provided that this also be by the will and permission of their superior.
13. To that which is objected from the Gloss on Luke twelve, it must be said that the whole of that is a counsel, just as that text upon which the Gloss is founded. Nor does anyone bind himself to the whole of it nor to a part, except insofar as he promises from his profession. Hence just as to give alms is not a precept for him who has given all things, nor is it simply commanded that all things be given; so neither does that intermediate thing, namely to work,
hold there the character of a necessary obligation, but only of monitory persuasion, or even of counsel.
14.15. To that which is objected from Jerome and Benedict, the response is already manifest from what has been said above.
16. To that which is objected concerning blessed Francis, it must be said that in the rule of blessed Francis certain things are said preceptorily, certain things monitorily, certain things informatively, just as the rule itself expressly distinguishes through clear words. But this which was said concerning labor was not said preceptorily, because he would not command that they should work devoutly, since this is not in our power, but it was said informatively. For it informs whose it is to work manually and in what manner: because it belongs to those who have the grace, that is, the faculty of strength and the skill of a craft and the opportunity of place and time: in what manner, because faithfully toward neighbor, devoutly toward God, and modestly toward themselves. Whence the holy Father, understanding through the Holy Spirit his vocation and the gathering of his brothers, in which there were laymen together with clerics, neither gave a mandate concerning working manually, lest clerics should omit spiritual things on account of less useful ones: nor however was he entirely silent, lest laymen and those who are not suited for spiritual things nor occupied with the necessities of the brothers nor yet elevated to the untiring leisure of contemplation should eat their bread in idleness. For since idleness is to be guarded against by all as the bilge of all vices, it must be guarded against most especially by those who have bound themselves to evangelical perfection.
Thus therefore it is clear that not all able-bodied poor, even those without the care of souls, are bound to manual works.