CHAPTER V

ARE RELIGIOUS BOUND TO MANUAL LABOUR?

As no sufficient reasons can be found for excluding religious from apostolic labours, their enemies try to impede their work by representing, that they are bound to labour with their hands; and that they are, thus, unable to prosecute the studies, which would fit them for preaching or hearing confessions. The malice which inspires these efforts against the labours of religious, is typified by the words of the enemies of Nehemias, who said, "Come and let us make a league together" (2 Esdras vii.). The Gloss has the following commentary on this passage: "As the enemies of the holy City begged Nehemias to come down to the plain, and there to form a league with them; so do heretics, and bad Catholics, desire to make friends with the faithful, not, in order that they themselves may ascend to the heights of the Catholic faith and of good works, but in order to induce those that they know to be living virtuously, to descend to sin, and to false doctrine."

             Those who desire to see religious obliged to labour with their hands, adduce several arguments in support of their wishes. First they quote the words of St. Paul (1 Thess. iv. 11), "Work with your own hands, as we commanded you," alleging that, as religious are, above all men, bound to obey the apostolic precepts, they ought to consider manual labour as a duty. And again we read (2 Thess. iii. 10), "If any man will not work, neither shall he eat." The Gloss contains the following commentary on this passage: "Some persons pretend, that the Apostle, in thus speaking, was alluding, not to physical labour, such as that of agriculture or handicraft, but to spiritual works." It adds later on, "Thus they blind, both themselves and others, to the true meaning of this charitable admonition; and they not only refuse to obey it, but even to understand its meaning." Again the Gloss continues, "St. Paul would have the faithful to earn their living by bodily labour, although certain religious are specially set apart for the worship of God." Hence, according to this Apostolic precept, religious ought to work.

             St. Paul, again, says (Ephes. iv. 28), "Let him labour, working with his hands the thing that is good; that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need." "Not merely in order to gain a livelihood" (Gloss). Hence, religious, having no other means of assisting the poor, ought to labour with their hands. Again, the Gloss, commenting on the words in St. Luke xii., "Sell what you possess," observes: "Do not merely give food to the poor, but also sell your possessions, in order, that, despising all things for the love of Christ, you may work with your hands, either in order to live, or to have somewhat to give in alms." Therefore, religious, who abandon all their own possessions, should live, and bestow charity, by the work of their hands.

             Further, as Religious make profession of perfection, they are bound to imitate the Apostolic mode of life. Now we have several proofs that the Apostles worked with their hands. For instance, St. Paul writes (1 Cor. iv. 12), "We labour, working with our own hands." In the Acts of the Apostles (xx. 34), we read, "Such things as were needful for me, and for them that are with me, these hands have furnished." In this they may be imitated by others. "Neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing; but, in labour and in toil, we worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you" (2 Thess. iii. 8). Religious ought, therefore, by manual labour, to imitate the example of the Apostles.

             Religious, likewise, are more bound than are secular ecclesiastics, to the performance of lowly work. Yet, in the decretals (dist. XCIX.), we find these words: "Let a cleric, in so far as he can do so without injury to his office, maintain himself, either by handicraft or by husbandry." Again, "let every cleric, instructed in the words of God, gain his livelihood by industry." Further, "All ecclesiastics, whose health will permit it, must study, and must acquire some handicraft." How much more, then, are religious obliged to work!

             Again, in the Acts of the Apostles (xx. 34) we read: "Such things as were needful for me, or for them that are with me, these hands have furnished." Manual labour, therefore, is a mark, distinguishing the bishops of the flock, from wolves. Now, if religious, by preaching, exercise an episcopal office, they are, certainly, bound to work with their hands.

             St. Jerome, writing to Rusticus, says: "It is the custom in the Egyptian monasteries, to receive no brother who will not work. This rule is made, not so much for the sake of self-support, as for spiritual advantage, and to prevent the mind from being employed in dangerous thoughts." For this same reason, manual labour is incumbent on religious.

             Again, religious ought to be always eager to make spiritual progress. As St. Paul expresses it, they ought to be "zealous for the better gifts" (1 Cor. xii. 31). Now, St. Augustine, in his book, De opere monachorum, says, that "religious who labour with their hands are preferable to those who do not work." And, in the commentary on the words (Acts xx.): "It is more blessed to give than to receive," the Gloss observes: "They receive the greatest glory, who, having abandoned all that they possessed, labour, in order to be able to supply the necessities of those in want." Therefore, all religious ought to endeavour to work with their hands.

             St. Augustine, in the book already quoted, calls those monks who will not work, "contumacious." He adds: "Who can bear to hear those who contumaciously resist the Apostolic precept not merely excused on account of infirmity, but praised for their holiness?" Contumacy is a mortal sin; else the Church would not visit it with excommunication. Hence no religious, can, without risk of sinning mortally, exempt himself from the duty of manual labour.

             Further, if religious be dispensed from work, the dispensation ought to be granted in order to give them opportunity for sacred psalmody, for prayer, for preaching, and for reading. But, it is not for these reasons, that religious are exempted from labour. Therefore, they are bound to work. St. Augustine, in his book De opere monachorum, proves this obligation in the following words: "How do they employ themselves who will not labour with their hands? Gladly would I know what they do? They say, that they devote themselves to psalmody, to prayer, to reading and to the Word of God." The author then proceeds to examine each of these excuses. Speaking of prayer, he says: "One prayer from the lips of an obedient man, will be heard more speedily, than ten made by one that is scornful." He, thus, insinuates, that he that will not work with his hands, is proud, and unworthy of being listened to by God. Next, speaking of those who say that instead of labouring they are singing sacred canticles, he says: "It is easy to chant and to work at the same time." He then asks: "What is to prevent a servant of God, while employed in labour, from meditating on the law of the Lord, and singing to the name of the Most High?" Thirdly, referring to reading, he says: "Do not they who say that they devote their time to reading, find in the Scriptures, the Apostolic precept to work? How great is their perversity! These men wish to read, but will not heed what is written. They desire to prolong the time for reading what is virtuous, but they will not accomplish the good works of which they read. Who does not know, that he makes the most profit by his reading, who is the swiftest to put it into practice?" Fourthly, the saint remarks about preaching: "Although one monk may have to preach, and therefore may not have time for work, all the brethren in the monastery cannot preach. If, then, they cannot all preach, why, on the pretext of preaching, should they all leave their work? But, even supposing that they can all preach, they ought to do so in turn, both in order that some may be left to do the necessary work, and because one speaker suffices to many listeners."

             It is noticeable, that, on this point, those who have once forsaken the beaten track of truth, have, in their efforts to avoid one error, fallen into a contrary mistake. There was, anciently, among certain monks, an erroneous idea, that manual labour was detrimental to religious perfection, because it hindered religious from casting all their care upon God and thus from fulfilling Our Lord's behest: "Be ye not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat, nor for your body, what you shall put on" (Matt. vi. 25). But, they who hold this opinion, must, for the sake of consistency, deny that the Apostles laboured with their hands. They must interpret the words of St. Paul, "if any man will not work, neither shall he eat," as referring not to physical, but to spiritual labours. Otherwise, the Apostolic precept would be opposed to the evangelical command. St. Augustine in his book De opere Monach., which was written to confute this error, (as he tells us in his book of Retractations) clearly proves, that it is contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture. On the strength of this verdict, other captious men have disseminated an error of a precisely contrary nature, teaching that religious are, unless engaged in manual labour, living in a state of damnation. The Gloss terms the upholders of this opinion, friends and supporters of Pharao, who said: "Why do you, Moses and Aaron, draw off the people from their works?" (Exod. v. 4). It makes the following commentary on the text: "If to-day Moses and Aaron, by whom is signified the word of a prophet or a preacher, should stir up men's hearts to leave the world and to renounce all that they possess, in order to devote themselves to the service of God, and to the study of His law and word, the friends of Pharao would immediately exclaim: 'See how men are led away, and youths persuaded to forsake work and military service, and everything useful, in order to spend their time in idleness and folly. For what is their service to God? A pretext for idleness?' Such were the words of Pharao, and thus do his friends still speak."

             In order to defend the servants of God from persecution of this nature, we shall now prove that religious are not, except perhaps occasionally, bound to manual labour; nay, that those who do not work with their hands are in a state of salvation.

             In the first place, the Gloss, commenting on the words: "Behold the birds of the air" (Matt. vi. 26), says: "The saints are deservedly compared to birds; for they seek Heaven, and they are so far removed from the world, that they do no work on earth. They labour not, but, by contemplation, dwell in Heaven. Of such may it truly be said: 'Who are these that fly like clouds?'"

             St. Gregory, in the second part of his second homily (super Ezech.), speaks thus. "He that leads a contemplative life, turns his whole mind to the love of God and of his neighbour. He ceases from external work, and is engrossed by a desire for his Creator, which leaves him capable of no other activity. He forgets all other cares, and yearns only to behold God face to face." Hence, perfectly contemplative souls withdraw themselves from exterior occupations.

             Again, the Gloss thus comments on the words (Luke x.), "Lord, hast thou no care that my sister has left me alone to serve?" "Such" (says the Gloss) "are the words of those who, understanding nothing of the nature of true contemplation, consider that charity to our neighbour is the only work pleasing to God." Those who hold that religious are bound to labour with their hands, consider that this is an obligation imposed on them by brotherly love; in order, that, by their work, they may have something to bestow in alms. They quote the words of St. Paul (Ephes. iv. 28), "Let him labour with his hands, that he may have something to give to him that suffereth need." They, therefore, who desire to see religious obliged to work, join in the murmur of Martha. But the Lord made excuse for the idleness of Mary.

             We can prove our point by the following example. St. Benedict, as we are told by St. Gregory (in Book II. Dial.), lived for three years in a cave, not working with his hands, and unknown to any, save to the monk Romanus who brought him food. But, who will dare to say that he was not in a state of salvation, when the Lord spoke of him to a certain priest, saying: "My servant in such a place is dying of hunger"? Both in the Dialogue, and in the lives of the Fathers, we find many other examples of saints, who have passed their lives without working with their hands.

             Manual labour is either a precept, or a counsel. If it be a counsel, no one is bound to observe it, unless obliged thereto by vow. Hence, manual labour is no duty for religious, whose rule does not prescribe it. If, on the other hand, manual labour be a precept, it is incumbent alike on seculars and on religious; since both laymen and religious, are, equally, bound to obey the Divine and Apostolic precepts. Hence, if a layman, before his entrance into religion, were free to live in the world without work, he would, on becoming a religious, be equally exempt from the necessity of labour.

             At the time at which St. Paul said: "If any man will not work, neither shall he eat," religious were not distinguished from seculars; and the rule of labour was established for all Christians alike. All were equally called brethren as we see from the words: "Withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly" (2 Thess. iii. 10). Again: "If any brother have a wife that believeth not," etc. (1 Cor. vii. 12). On these words, the Gloss interprets the word "brother" to mean any one of the faithful. If, then, on account of the admonition of St. Paul, religious be bound to manual labour, the same duty is equally incumbent upon the laity.

             St. Augustine, in his book De opere monachorum, says: "Credit must be given to, and allowances made for, the delicate health of those, who, in the world, were able to live without working; and who, on their conversion to God, have distributed all that they had to the poor. Men of this class are not, generally, equal to physical toil." Hence we see, that those who have lived in the world without labour, are not bound when they go into religion, to work with their hands.

             This point is further proved by another passage of the same book. In this, St. Augustine, speaking in praise of a certain wealthy man who had given all his goods to a monastery, says: "He has done well to set others an example by working with his own hands. For, had he been unwilling to labour, who would have dared to constrain him to do so? Neither is it of any consequence, that he gave his possessions to a monastery instead of dividing them otherwise. For, all Christians unite in one commonwealth."

             When a precept is only given under certain conditions or circumstances, it is only binding in the event of such conditions or circumstances arising to necessitate its observance. St. Paul gave the command to labour, only in particular cases, as a safeguard against sin. When such sin can be otherwise avoided, manual labour is not a duty. The only three cases in which the Apostle enjoins it are, First in Ephes. iv. 28, "He that stole, let him now steal no more, but rather let him labour, working with his hands." Here he proposes work as a remedy against theft, to such as preferred to steal, rather than to earn their living. Secondly, he prescribes labour in 1 Thess. iv. 11, saying: "Work with your own hands, as we commanded you: and that you walk honestly towards them that are without; and that you want nothing of any man's." In this passage, labour is enjoined as a preventive against covetousness, which is theft by desire. Thirdly, St. Paul in 2 Thess. iii. 11, again enjoins labour, in these words: "For, also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that if any man will not work neither let him eat. For we have heard there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling"--i.e., "making a living by unjustifiable means" (Gloss). "Now, we charge them that are such, and beseech them, by the Lord Jesus Christ, that, working with silence, they would eat their own bread." In these verses, St. Paul enjoins labour on those, who, instead of working for a livelihood, procured it by illicit means. Hence, we see, that there is no duty of manual labour incumbent on either laymen, or religious, who can maintain themselves without either theft, covetousness, or dishonesty. Neither does St. Augustine say that work is a precept to be obeyed by all. If we examine his words, we shall see, that he only urges the fulfilment of the Apostolic precept. Hence, religious are only bound to manual labour under certain circumstances.

             Those who do not depend upon their work for subsistence, are not obliged to labour. Otherwise, all rich men, both seculars and ecclesiastics, who live without working, would be in a state of damnation; which is, of course, an absurd hypothesis. Now, there are some religious who have an assured livelihood, either from the alms of benefactors, or because the ministry of preaching is committed to them, and "the Lord hath ordained that they that preach the Gospel shall live by the Gospel" (1 Cor. ix. 14). The Gloss says that, "God has made this provision for preachers, in order that they may be the more swift to proclaim His word." Therefore, these words cannot be understood as referring only to prelates, for, though bishops have, in their own right, authority to preach; yet, it behoves, not only them, but all such as have a commission to preach, to be diligent in the exercise of this duty. Religious, as we have already proved, are included in this category. There are, likewise, certain religious, who assist in the Divine Office in the Church. They have a right to live by this means; for St. Paul says, that "they who serve the altar, partake also with the altar" (1 Cor. ix. 13). St. Augustine speaks thus, in his book De opere monachorum: "If religious be evangelists, I grant that they have a right to live on the alms of the faithful. If they minister at the altar, they can claim the same right; for it is their due, and it is not an unjust demand."

             The same remarks apply to those religious who devote themselves to the study of the Holy Scripture. St. Jerome writes, in his epistle to Vigilantius: "The custom prevailed in Judæa, and is still extant in our time, that they who possessed nothing on earth, whose only portion was the Lord, and who meditated day and night on His law, were maintained by the synagogues, and by the good offices of all mankind." Hence we see, that there is no obligation to labour incumbent on all religious.

             Spiritual profit, is always to be preferred to temporal advantage. Now, they who minister to the public welfare by the preservation of temporal peace, are justly paid a stipend which enables them to live. St. Paul says (Rom. xiii. 6), "For, therefore, also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose" ("by fighting for their country," says the Gloss). Hence, they who minister to the spiritual necessities of the state, either by preaching or expounding the Scriptures, or assisting in the public prayers of the Church, have a far better right to be supported by the contributions of the faithful. They are, therefore, not bound to manual labour.

             St. Augustine observes, again, in his book De opere monachorum, that St. Paul worked with his hands in those places, (of which one was Corinth), in which he was accustomed to preach to the Jews only on the Sabbath day. But, when he was at Athens, and preached daily, he lived, not by his labour, but by the alms brought to him by the brethren from Macedonia. Hence, we see, that the function of preaching, is not to be set aside, for the sake of manual labour. Those men, therefore, who whether by commission from a superior, or of their own right, are able to preach daily, or otherwise to minister to souls, ought to abstain from manual work.

             Further, works of mercy are preferable to physical labour. St. Paul says, (1 Tim. iv. 8), "For bodily exercise is profitable to little; but godliness is profitable to all things." But, even works of fraternal charity, must give place to the exercise of preaching. "It is not fit that we should leave the word of God, to serve at tables" (Acts vi. 2). "Leave the dead to bury their dead; but go thou, and preach the Kingdom of God" (Luke ix. 60). On this passage the Gloss observes: "The Lord teaches us to forego lesser advantages, for the sake of such as are greater. It is more profitable to raise souls, by preaching, from the death of sin, than to bury dead bodies in the earth." Hence, manual labour may, lawfully, be neglected for the sake of preaching.

             It is impossible, at the same time, both to gain a livelihood by work, and to carry on a systematic study of Holy Scripture. St. Gregory, expounding the words in Exod. xxv., "The bars shall be always in the rings," says: "It is, beyond all things, necessary, that they who are destined for preaching, should be unremitting in their studies; so that, although they be not always preaching, they may be always prepared to preach." Hence, those, whose duty it is to preach, whether by their own authority as is the case with bishops, or by the commission of prelates, ought to set aside manual labour, for the sake of study.

             There are some words in the prologue wherewith St. Jerome prefaces his commentary on the book of Job, which show, clearly, that religious are justified in neglecting bodily labour for the sake of studying Holy Writ. "Were I," says St. Jerome, "to spend my time in weaving baskets, or plaiting palm branches, in order to eat my bread in the sweat of my brow, no one would reproach me for my anxiety to supply my material wants. Now, however, that, in obedience to the admonition of Our Saviour, I labour for a meat that doth not perish, and strive to clear the sacred volume from the errors that have accumulated therein, I am reproached with having committed a double fault." Later on he adds, "Wherefore, my brethren, I pray you to accept these spiritual and durable gifts, in lieu of fans, and baskets, and other little monastic presents." Thus, we see, that the monk St. Jerome was rebuked by envious tongues, for preferring the study of Holy Scripture to manual labour. His example may, profitably, be followed by religious, in spite of the complaints uttered against them by their detractors.

             St. Augustine, further says, in his book De opere monachorum, "They who have renounced all their possessions, and distributed their fortune, whatsoever it may be, among the needy, and, with pious humility, desire to be enrolled among the poor of Christ, can perform a work of mercy, even greater than that of dividing their substance among those in want. For, if they be not hindered by ecclesiastical labours, and have sufficient strength to work, they will, by manual labour, set a good example to the idle." Hence we see, that religious are dispensed from the duty of bodily toil, either by infirm health, or by ecclesiastical business. Now, of all clerical duties, preaching is the noblest and most useful. "Let the priests who rule well be esteemed worthy of double honour: especially they who labour in the word and doctrine" (1 Tim. v. 17). Therefore, religious, who are engaged in preaching, ought not to be employed in bodily labour.

             It only, now, remains for us to answer the arguments brought forward in favour of the contrary opinion. The first argument brought against us, is, that manual labour is an Apostolic precept. To this objection we reply, that it is a precept not of positive right, but of the natural law. This is clear from the words of St. Paul (2 Thess. iii. 6), "That you would withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly," which the Gloss interprets to mean, "who walketh not according to the law of nature." The Apostle is speaking of such as will not work. Now, the very constitution of our bodies, teaches us, that nature intends us to labour. We are not provided with raiment, as other animals are furnished with hides. Neither has nature given us weapons, like the horns which she has bestowed on cattle; nor the claws wherewith lions defend themselves. Nor is any food, save milk, supplied naturally to us, as Avicenna remarks. In lieu of the gifts bestowed upon other animals, man is endowed with reason, which teaches him to supply his needs, and with hands, wherewith he can carry out the dictates of reason, as Aristotle says (XIV. de animal.). As the precepts of the natural law regard all men without distinction, the law of manual labour does not apply more to religious than to others. Nevertheless, it is not true, that all men are bound to work with their hands. There are certain laws of nature, which, in their observance, are of profit to none, save to him who obeys them. Such is the law obliging man to eat. These laws must be obeyed by every individual man. Other natural laws, e.g., that of reproduction, regard not only the man who obeys them, but are advantageous to the whole human race. It is not necessary that all these laws should be obeyed by every individual; for no single man is competent to perform all the activities which are needed for the continuation of the human race. One individual would not suffice for the different works of reproduction, of invention, of architecture, of agriculture, or for the other functions which must be exercised for the continuance of the human race. To supply the needs common to all mankind one individual must assist another; just as, in the body, one limb is subserved by another. It is in allusion to this mutual service which men are bound to render to each other, that St. Paul says: "Every one members, one of another" (Rom. xii. 5). The differences existing among men, and enabling them to devote themselves to different occupations, are to be attributed, primarily, to Divine Providence, and, secondarily, to natural causes, whereby certain men are disposed to the performance of certain functions, in preference to others.

             Hence, we see that no man is bound to any particular work, unless necessity obliges him to it, and unless no one else will accomplish it for him. For example, if a man be constrained by necessity to dwell in a house which no one will build for him, he must build it for himself. With regard, therefore, to manual labour, I maintain, that it is not incumbent upon anyone, unless he be in want of something which must be produced by such labour, and which he cannot, without sin, procure from any other man. For we are said to be able to do anything, when we can lawfully do it. This appears from the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. iv. 12). "We labour, working with our own hands," "because" (comments the Gloss) "no one will supply our necessities." Hence, the Apostle does not enjoin manual labour as a precept on any, save on those who choose to gain their living by sin, rather than by work. Nor can it be proved, that anyone, be he layman or religious, is bound to manual labour, except to save himself from death by starvation, or to avoid a sinful mode of gaining a livelihood.

             To the second objection, which is based on the commentary of the Gloss on the words, "If any man will not work, neither let him eat," we answer, that this saying must be understood as referring to physical, as distinguished from spiritual work. It was directed against those who interpreted this passage as signifying spiritual labours only, and as forbidding the servants of God to work. The Gloss corrects this interpretation. St. Augustine, likewise, finds fault with it, in his book De opere monach. But, even if the verse, "If any man will not work neither let him eat," be understood as referring to manual labour, it does not prove that everyone who desires to eat, is bound to work with his hands. Were such a precept of labour universally imposed, it would contradict the words of St. Paul, "we worked day and night; not as if we had not power," etc. As the Apostle had power to eat without working, the words: "if any man will not work, neither let him eat," cannot be understood as implying an obligation to work imposed on all mankind. The class of men to whom St. Paul refers, becomes quite evident, from some other of his words in the same chapter (2 Thess. iii.): "For we have heard there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling," or, as the Gloss says, "providing themselves with the necessaries of life by illicit means." St. Paul continues, "now we charge them that are such, and beseech them, that, working with silence, they would eat their own bread." For one accustomed to gain his living in an unlawful manner, ought not to eat, if he will not work. The words of the Gloss which follow, to wit, "that they may not be compelled, by want, to beg," show that labour is not to be imposed upon the servants of God as a necessity; but that it is proposed to them, as a means of avoiding the evil of compulsory mendicancy. For it is better for a man to work with his hands, than to be reduced, against his will, to beggary. Nor does it follow that they who profess poverty, and who, out of humility, are content to beg, are bound to work with their hands.

             To the third objection, we reply, that the Apostle has given no absolute precept concerning manual work. He speaks of it as being preferable to theft: "he that stole, let him now steal no more, but rather let him labour with his hands," etc. Hence, as religious can live without stealing, there is no reason why they should be bound to work.

             To the fourth objection, our answer is that they who, in obedience to the counsel of Our Lord, have sold all things, ought to follow Him. Therefore Peter said: "Behold we have left all things and have followed Thee," etc. (Matt. xix. 27). Now, men can follow Christ, either by a life of contemplation, or by one of action. They are equally His followers who leave all things in order to devote themselves to contemplation; or in order to give material alms; or to bestow spiritual assistance by preaching or teaching. The passage, quoted from the Gloss, while it mentions one mode whereby the counsels of Our Lord are observed, does not, thereby, intend to exclude the other way; else, it would contradict the gospel. For, St. Luke (ix. 59) tells us, how Our Lord said to a certain man, "Follow Me." But he to whom He spoke, asked for time wherein to bury his father. Christ answered him: "Let the dead bury their dead; but go thou, and preach the Kingdom of God." Thus, it was Our Lord's will, that some men, when they had left all things, should follow Him to proclaim the word of God. We can, also, say that this text, together with all that is contained about it in the Gloss, is a counsel. It is, therefore, binding, only, on such as are vowed to its observance.

             Our answer to the fifth objection, is, that the manual labour of the Apostles, was sometimes a matter of necessity, and at other times a work of supererogation. When no one would supply the Apostles with food, they were obliged to work (cf. Gloss on 1 Cor. iv.). But, we see in 1 Cor. ix., that, at other times, manual labour was, for them, a matter of supererogation. Now, there are three reasons for which the Apostles chose to do work that was not a necessity. It was, first, in order to take from those false apostles, who preached only for the sake of temporal gain, the occasion of preaching: "But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut off the occasion from them," etc. (2 Cor. xi. 12). Secondly, the Apostles, at times, resorted to manual labour, lest they to whom they preached, should, in their avarice, find it a burthen to provide for the material needs of those from whom they received spiritual benefits; and lest they should so fall away from the faith. "For what is there that you have had less than the other churches, but that I myself was not burthensome to you" (2 Cor. xii. 13). Thirdly, the Apostles laboured in order to set an example of industry. "We worked night and day, lest we should be chargeable to any of you" (2 Thess. iii. 8). But St. Paul did not work in cities, such as Athens, wherein he had facilities for preaching daily (see St. Augustine, De opere monachorum). Hence, it is not a matter of salvation for religious to imitate his manual labour; since all works of supererogation are not binding upon them. The other Apostles did not work with their hands, except when they were obliged to do so, in order to obtain food.

             To the sixth objection, we reply, that the decrees quoted by it, refer only to those clerics who are not sufficiently endowed with ecclesiastical revenues, or assisted by the alms of the faithful, to be able to live without working.

             We reply to the seventh objection, that St. Paul gives to bishops the example of manual labour in those cases in which he himself had recourse to it; e.g., when such labour would not be an obstacle to the performance of their ecclesiastical duties; or, when it would cause scandal to recent converts, were they to be asked for material assistance.

             Our answer to the eighth objection, is, that manual labour, according to the authority of St. Jerome, is performed, not only to earn a livelihood; but, likewise, to repress dangerous thoughts, arising from idleness and self-indulgence. But sloth and the desires of the flesh are overcome, not only by bodily toil, but, likewise, by spiritual exercises. Hence St. Jerome writes: "Love the knowledge of the Scripture, and thou wilt not love the vices of the flesh." There is no precept enjoining manual labour, if idleness be avoided by means of spiritual exercises, and if the body be subdued by means of other austerities such as watching, fasting and the like, among which penitential practices St. Paul mentions labour, saying "in labours, in watching, in fasting" (2 Cor. vi.). The Gloss adds, "in manual labour," the reason being, "because the Apostle worked with his hands."

             We reply to the ninth objection, that, at times, it is advisable to work with the hands, and at other times, it is better not to work in this manner. When manual labour does not call a man away from some more useful occupation, it is very praiseworthy, as a means both of self-support, and of charity to those in need. It is especially to be counselled, in cases wherein those weak in faith, or but recently converted, would be scandalised if preachers, instead of earning their own livelihood, were to live on the alms of the faithful. It was on such occasions, (as the Gloss remarks), that St. Paul had recourse to manual labour (1 Cor. ix.). When, however, such labour hinders a man from engaging in more useful occupation, it is better to set it aside. This lesson is given us by the commentary of the Gloss on the words, "Leave the dead to bury their dead" (Luke ix.); and, also, by the example of St. Paul, who ceased to work when he had an opportunity of preaching. Manual labour is, naturally, a greater hindrance to modern preachers, than to those of the Apostolic age. For, the Apostles were taught by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost; whereas in our time, preachers must prepare themselves for their office, by constant study, as is evidenced by St. Gregory in the words already given.

             To the tenth objection, we reply, that the monks whom St. Augustine condemns as contumacious, belong to the class which, according to the Apostolic precept, is bound to work, and which St. Paul says is worthy of excommunication (2 Thess. iii.). Men of this description refuse to work, because they prefer to live in sloth, and to get their living by illicit means. That St. Augustine clearly refers to this class of person, appears in the words wherein he assigns a reason why those who leave an agricultural life in order to enter religion, ought to employ themselves in physical labour. He says, that such men should work with their hands, "because it is difficult to tell whether they become religious for the purpose of serving God, or, in order to escape from a toilsome and penurious condition, to a state, wherein they may be clothed and fed, living in idleness, and honoured by those who, hitherto, have despised them and set them at nought. Such men, evidently, belong to the class denounced by the Apostle as slothful, and bidden by him to work in silence and eat their own bread." St. Augustine accuses them of contumacy; chiefly, because, perverting the words of St. Paul, they maintain that it is not lawful for the servants of God to work with their hands.

             Our answer to the eleventh objection, is that by the spiritual works to which this objection refers, may be understood either the spiritual exercises that are for the common good, or such as are profitable to individuals. A man may either join in the prayers and psalmody of the Divine Office, and thus perform a work destined for the public edification of the Church; or, he may, as do many laymen, occupy himself in private devotions. It is of the latter class, that St. Augustine is speaking, in the passage quoted in this objection. He is not alluding to those engaged in the public functions of the Church. This is clear from the words which follow. They can, he says, at the same time sing sacred canticles, and work with their hands, after the example of craftsmen, who tell each other stories, and listen with great attention, yet without ceasing to work. This conduct would not be permissible to such as are reciting the canonical hours. Again, reading may be, for some religious, a public duty; for they may have either to teach or to attend lectures in the schools as masters and scholars, either religious or secular. It may, on the other hand, be a private occupation, as is the study of the Scriptures prosecuted by monks in the cloister, for their own consolation. St. Augustine recognises this distinction; and in the passage quoted as an objection, he speaks, not of monks engaged in teaching or lecturing, but of such as "say that they devote their time to reading."

             In like manner, preaching may be a public duty; and it is so, for such as are bound to proclaim the Word of God to the people. At other times, it is a private exercise; as is the case, when, in a community, one of the religious gives a spiritual exhortation; or when the Fathers of the Desert used to address words of edification to the brethren who came to visit them. It is clear, that St. Augustine refers to this private mode of instruction. For he says: "Can all the religious of a monastery speak spiritual words to the brethren who come to them?" Hence, it is plain, that his words are to be applied not to preachers, but to such as speak unto edification. For, as the Gloss says (1 Cor. ii.), "Speaking is a private exercise; preaching a public function." They, therefore, who are employed, publicly, in the various spiritual exercises which we have mentioned, are justified in accepting the means of livelihood from the faithful to whom they minister. But those who devote themselves to such works for their private edification, to the neglect of manual labour, do certainly transgress against the Apostolic precept. They belong to the category of those whom St. Paul rebukes, and whom he bids to "work in silence," and to "eat their own bread." It is of such men that St. Augustine speaks. This is made clear by his words: "Why should we not devote a part of our time to the observance of the Apostolic precepts?"

Again he says: "One prayer from the mouth of an obedient man, will be heard more speedily, than ten that proceed from scornful lips." Once more, "how great is their perversity! They will not obey that which they read."

             All these passages prove, that St. Augustine denounces only those religious who apply themselves to spiritual exercises, in such a manner as to transgress the Apostolic precept. But those only, as we have before observed, can disobey this precept, who are bound to fulfil it. They do not transgress it who neglect manual labour for the sake of public duties. Neither do they disobey it, who, instead of working with their hands, devote themselves to the exercise of contemplation. "For, (as has already been said), they are not impelled by sloth to escape from labour, and to lead an idle life. They are, on the contrary, filled with such an abundance of divine love, as to render them oblivious of every earthly care."