CHAPTER VI

IS IT LAWFUL FOR A RELIGIOUS TO LEAVE ALL THAT HE HAS, RESERVING FOR HIMSELF NO PROPERTY, EITHER PRIVATE OR COMMON?

THE enemies of truth are not satisfied with the many false assertions which we have hitherto employed ourselves in disproving. They proceed still further. They endeavour to overthrow the very basis of all religious life, to wit the practice of poverty established by Our Lord. They affirm that it is unlawful for religious to abandon all their possessions, in order to enter into a religious order, owning neither property nor income. The only reason, they say, which can justify such a step is the intention of doing manual work. They quote, as an authority for this assertion, the words of Prov. xxx. 8, "Give me neither beggary, nor riches; give me only the necessaries of life; lest perhaps being filled, I should be tempted to deny; or, being compelled by poverty, I should steal, and forswear the name of God." They who leave all things, and enter a religious order which is destitute of all possessions, abandon their means of subsistence, and expose themselves to beggary. This is particularly the case with those, who have not the intention of working with their hands. They, therefore, who act thus, are liable to be tempted to steal, and to abjure the name of God.

             In Eccl. vii. 12, we read again, "Wisdom with riches is more profitable," i.e., than wisdom alone. Hence, it is reprehensible to choose wisdom without riches, by abandoning the means of support, in order to gain wisdom. Again, we are told that, "through poverty many have sinned" (Ecclesiast. xxvii. 1). The Gloss interprets these words, as meaning poverty of heart, and of work. Now, if every occasion of sin is to be avoided, no man ought to reduce himself to poverty by parting with all his goods.

             St. Paul gives to the Corinthians the following rule concerning almsgiving: "If the will be forward, it is accepted according to that which a man hath, not according to that which he hath not. For I mean not that others should be eased, and you burthened" (2 Cor. viii. 12). The Gloss interprets this text to mean, that a man must keep for himself the necessaries of life: and that if he bring on himself poverty, he is giving beyond his means. Hence, they that abandon all their possessions are giving alms inordinately, and in a manner contrary to the Apostolic rule.

             The Gloss has the following comment on the words of St. Paul (1 Thess. v. 12), "I beseech you brethren that you know," etc.: "Riches beget carelessness about salvation. Penury, also, causes men to forsake justice, in their efforts to acquire wealth." Now, they who give up all that they possess, in order to become religious, reduce themselves to excessive poverty. They, thus, lay themselves open to a temptation to depart from justice. Again on the words of the same apostle, "but having food and wherewith to be covered" (1 Tim. vi. 8), the Gloss says: "Although we have brought nothing into the world, and shall take nothing out of it, temporal possessions are not to be entirely rejected." Therefore, he who casts aside all material wealth, in order to go into religion, acts inordinately.

             On the words of Jesus Christ, "he that hath two coats, let him give to him that hath none" (Luke iii. 11), the Gloss says: "We are commanded to divide two cloaks; for if one were divided it would clothe no one. Hence, we see, that charity must be proportioned to the capability of our human condition; and that no one should render himself entirely destitute; but that he should rather divide what he has with the poor." Hence, to give away everything in alms, and to keep nothing for ourselves, is unreasonable and inordinate conduct. It is, therefore, sinful.

             In St. Luke (xii. 29), we read, "Seek ye not what ye shall eat." The Gloss remarks hereupon, "Our Lord does not forbid us to reserve any money for our own necessities; for He Himself had a purse. But, unless such provision for ourselves were right, it would be forbidden; and Christ would have kept nothing for Himself." Hence, it must be virtuous and fitting, to retain some portion of our property, instead of renouncing the whole.

             It is an act of prodigality to give away both what ought, and what ought not to be given. He who gives away everything, gives what ought not to be given, but ought to be retained. Thus he sins by prodigality.

             In his epistle to the Romans (xii. 1), St. Paul speaks of, "your reasonable service." The Gloss says, that reasonable service consists "in the avoidance of extremes." But, to give away everything, is to give too much, and therefore it is to exceed the medium of liberality, which consists in "giving enough, and keeping enough." Hence, he who gives up everything to go into religion, does not offer a reasonable service to God.

             God has given us this commandment (Exod. xx. 13), "Thou shalt not kill," i.e., says the Gloss, "by depriving another of the means of life, which thou dost owe him." Now, as temporal possessions are "the means of life," and, as we "owe" the means of subsistence, in the first place, to ourselves, he that deprives himself of all material possessions, sins against the commandment, "thou shalt not kill," by depriving himself of the means of living.

             "It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger" (Lam. iv. 9). Hence, it is more iniquitous, to expose ourselves to death by starvation, than to destruction, by violence. "It is not lawful for a man to act thus, when he can, without sin, act otherwise," says St. Augustine. Much less, then, is it permitted to us to expose ourselves to starvation, by parting with all that we possess, and retaining nothing.

             Again, a man is more bound to preserve his own life, than to care for another. Now, it would be sinful to deprive another man of all means of subsistence, and thus to cause him to perish. "The bread of the needy is the life of the poor: he that defraudeth them thereof is a man of blood" (Eccles. xxxiv. 25). Therefore, he that gives away his all, and retires into a religious order which has no common property, sins by suicide.

             The life of Christ is the example of perfection. But, we read that Our Lord had a purse (John vii.); and again, that His disciples went into a city to buy bread (John iv.). Hence, the entire renunciation of all property cannot be perfect.

             Further, the observances of the religious orders originated in the Apostolic mode of life. For, as St. Jerome says in his book De illustribus viris, all Christians of the primitive Church resembled the most perfect religious of our day. We are informed of the same fact by the book "In collationibus Patrum," and also by the Gloss on the words (Acts iv.), "the multitude of them that believed." But this same chapter of the Acts also states, that in the Apostolic times, the faithful had all things in common, and that there was no one needy among them. They, therefore, who relinquish their possessions, and, having no common property, are bound to be destitute, lead, not a religious, but a superstitious life.

             When Our Lord sent His disciples to preach, He gave them two commands. He bade them, first, to take nothing with them on the way (Matt. x., Mark vi., Luke ix.). Secondly, He told them not to go into the way of the Gentiles (Matt. x.). When the time of His Passion was at hand, He rescinded His first command, saying, "But now he that hath a purse let him take it and also a scrip" (Luke xxii. 36). He would seem, likewise, to have revoked His second command in the words, "Going therefore, teach ye all nations" (Matt. xxviii. 19), and "going into the whole world," etc. (Mark xvi. 15). Since the second order has been rescinded, it need no longer be observed; but, on the contrary, the Gospel must be preached to the Gentiles. In the same way, the first of these two precepts is not now to be put in practice. Therefore, men need not entirely deprive themselves of the means of subsistence.

             In XII. quaest. I. we read: "It is right to possess the property belonging to the Church, and to despise our own possessions." And again: "It is manifest, that, while for the sake of perfection, men ought to renounce what belongs to them, they may, without any imperfection, possess the property of the Church, which belongs to all." Therefore, it stands to reason, that, if any man abandon his own possessions to go into religion, he ought to choose an order holding some common property. Again, in the same question, cap. Videntes, it is laid down, that "the Sovereign Pontiffs have ordained that property should be conferred on the Church, in order that there should be no destitution among those leading a common life." Hence, those who despise common property, and prefer to live in want, sin, by acting counter to the ordinances of the Holy Fathers.

             The Gloss, on the words: "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down" (Matt. iv.), has the following commentary: "No one ought to tempt God, when human reason teaches him how to act." And again, "A man, when his human reason is at a loss, ought to commend himself to God; not tempting Him, but devoutly confessing to Him." Now, he who has the means of procuring the necessaries of life, to wit food and clothing, is taught, by human reason, how to act. If, then, he refuse to make use of these means, and yet expects his life to be preserved, he sins by tempting God; as much as a man would sin, who, seeing a bear approach him, should throw down his weapon of self-defence, and yet expect God to save him.

             Again, we ought not to reject that which we daily pray for. Now, each day we beg of God to supply our bodily wants, saying, "Give us this day our daily bread." Therefore, we ought not to expose ourselves to poverty, by casting aside all our temporal possessions. We read in DECR. DE CONSECR. dist. I. cap. NEMO. that, "a church ought not to be built, before he that desires to build it, has provided a sum sufficient for the maintenance of the priest who is to take charge of such a church." They, therefore, who possess no property, live in opposition to the statutes of the Holy Fathers.

             The mode of religious life wherein common property is enjoyed, is approved by the ancient Fathers, Sts. Augustine, Basil, Benedict, and many others. It appears rash, therefore, to introduce another form of religious life.

             In the New Testament Our Lord enjoins His followers to assist the poor in their necessities. But this precept cannot be carried out by those who have neither private, nor common property. Therefore, entire renunciation of all possessions is not praiseworthy.

             As things may at times be best understood by tracing them to their source, we will now examine the origin of these propositions; and we will investigate the mode of their development. In the early days of Christianity there flourished at Rome, a heretic, confuted in the writings of St. Jerome, whose name was Jovinian. He taught, that all who preserved their baptismal innocence, would receive, in Heaven, an equal reward. He, further, taught, that virgins, married persons, and widows were, if baptised, all of equal merit in the sight of God, provided that there was no discrepancy between them with regard to their works. He said, that, as there is no difference between abstinence from food and eating with giving of thanks, so there is no inequality between virginity and marriage. By this teaching, he, of course, stultified, both the counsel given by Our Lord as to celibacy in His words, "Not all men take this word," i.e., remain single, "but they to whom it is given" (Matt. xix. 2), and the advice of St. Paul on the same subject, "concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel" (1 Cor. vii. 25). The opinions of Jovinian have, St. Augustine tells us, been condemned as heretical.

             The errors of Jovinian, were, however, revived by Vigilantius, who impugned the faith, hated continence, and, in the midst of riotous feasting, declaimed against the fasting practised by holy men (see St. Jerome's epistle Contra Vigilantium). But, Vigilantius was not contented with imitating Jovinian in rejecting the counsel of virginity; he proceeded, further, to condemn the practice of poverty. St. Jerome, speaking of the errors of Vigilantius, says: "He maintains that it is better to distribute our goods among the poor by degrees, than to sell them altogether, and give away the price. Let him accept his answer not from me, but from God, who has said, "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast," etc. (Matt. xix.). The error of Vigilantius has been handed down, by a succession of heretical teachers, to our days. It is still perpetuated by the sect of the Cathari, and is expounded in a treatise, written by a certain heresiarch of Lombardy named Desiderius, who, amongst other heretical propositions, condemns the conduct of those who sell all, that they may live in poverty with Christ.

             More recently, however, the old heresies concerning virginity and poverty, have been revived by certain men who, while pretending to defend the truth, have gone from bad to worse; and, who, not content with teaching, like Jovinian, that a condition of wealth is as meritorious as voluntary poverty, or with preferring riches to poverty, as did Vigilantius, hold, that poverty is to be absolutely condemned; and that it is not lawful for a man to leave all things for Christ, unless he enter an Order which possesses some common property, or can support itself by means of manual labour. They further assert, that the poverty commended by the Scriptures, is not that actual poverty, whereby a man strips himself of all temporal possessions, but that habitual poverty, which causes him to despise those earthly goods which he actually owns. We will now proceed to refute this mistaken opinion.

             (1st) We will prove that for evangelical perfection, not only habitual poverty is required, but, likewise, that actual poverty which consists in the renunciation of material possessions.

             (2nd) We shall show, that perfection is attained, even by those who own no common property.

             (3rd) We shall make it evident, that manual labour is not essential to perfection, even where men possess nothing.

             (4th) We shall refute the arguments whereby our adversaries seek to maintain their errors.

             1. In order to prove that evangelical poverty requires, not only habitual, but, likewise, actual poverty, we will remind our readers of the words: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all," etc. (Matt xix. 21). Now, he who sells all that he has, and distributes it to the poor, practises, not merely habitual, but, likewise, actual poverty. Hence, actual poverty is needed for evangelical perfection. Again, evangelical perfection consists in the imitation of Christ, who was poor, not only in desire, but in fact. The Gloss, on the words, "Go to the sea" (Matt. xvii.), says, "So great was the poverty of the Lord, that he had not wherewith to pay the tribute money." Again, on the words, "the foxes have holes," etc. (Luke ix.), the Gloss says: "Our Lord meant to say, that His poverty was so extreme, that He had no shelter, and no roof to call His own." We might adduce many other proofs, that actual poverty pertains to evangelical perfection.

             The Apostles were mirrors of evangelical perfection. They practised actual poverty, renouncing all that they possessed. "Behold" (said St. Peter) "we have left all things" (Matt. xix. 27). Hence, St. Jerome writes to Hebidia: "Wouldst thou be perfect, and attain to the highest dignity? Do, as did the Apostles. Sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor; and follow Our Saviour. Do thou, alone, and stripped of all things, follow only the Cross in its bare poverty." Hence, actual poverty forms part of evangelical perfection.

             The Gloss on the words "How hardly shall they that have riches," etc. (Mark x. 23), has the following comment: "It is one thing to have money; another to love it. Many possess it without loving it; many love it without possessing it." Thus, while some men own wealth and love it; others congratulate themselves on neither owning nor loving it, for this is the safer course. Such men can say with the Apostle, "the world is crucified to me, and I to the world." Hence, it is evident that habitual poverty, when in conjunction with actual poverty, is preferable to habitual poverty alone. This same remark may be made with reference to the words in Matt. xix. 23, "How hardly shall a rich man enter the Kingdom of Heaven." The Gloss here observes, "it is safest neither to possess, nor to love riches." "Hath not God chosen the poor in this world?" asks St. James (ii. 5). "Those who are poor in temporal possessions," is the interpretation of these words given by the Gloss. Hence, it is those who are actually poor, who are chosen by God.

             The Gloss on the words, "every one of you that doth not renounce everything that he possesseth," observes, that, "there is a difference between renouncing everything, and leaving everything. All who make lawful use of their material possessions renounce them, in so far as their aspirations tend towards such things as are eternal. But, they who leave all things, act with greater perfection; for they set aside that which is temporal, in order to seek only that which is eternal." Hence, abandonment of all things by actual poverty, is a point of evangelical perfection; renunciation of all things by habitual poverty, is necessary for salvation.

             St. Jerome, in his epistle against Vigilantius, says: "The Lord speaks to him who desires to be perfect, and, with the Apostle leaves father, ship, and net. He whom thou praisest is in the second, or third rank; for he desires only to give the income of his possessions to the poor. We accept such an one; though we know that the first degree of virtue is preferable to the second, or third degree" From these words, it is plain, that, they who give all that they possess to the poor, are to be preferred before such as give alms only of their income.

             St. Jerome, again, says, in his epistle to the Monk Rusticus: "If thou hast possessions, sell them and give to the poor. If thou hast them not, thou art free from a great burthen. Therefore, being stripped of all things, do thou follow Christ in His poverty. This is a hard and painful undertaking; but it is rewarded with a glorious recompense." For the sake of brevity, we omit many other passages from St. Jerome, all of which must be understood as referring to actual poverty.

             St. Augustine (Gennadius), likewise, says in his book De eccles. Dogmatibus: "Though it be a good thing to distribute our riches, by degrees, among the poor; it is a better to give all away at once, with the intention of following Our Lord and in order that, free from anxiety, we may share His poverty."

             St. Ambrose, in like manner, says in his book, De Offic.: "Riches will not give us the slightest assistance in attaining to a life of blessedness. This is clearly pointed out by Our Lord's words, "Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God." And, again, he says that, "poverty, hunger, pain, and suchlike evils, that are borne as evils, are not merely no obstacle to blessedness; but they are clearly pronounced to be aids towards attaining to it." Now, these words cannot be understood as referring to habitual poverty, whereby a man is merely detached from riches; for, riches have never been held by any to be obstacles to happiness. They must, therefore, be understood to refer to actual poverty, whereby all possessions are given up.

             St. Gregory says (in the eighth homily of the second part on Ezech.), "When a man consecrates to God one thing, but not another, he offers a sacrifice. But, when he gives to God his whole life, with all that he has, and all that he loves, he offers a holocaust, which is the most acceptable form of sacrifice." Hence, it is the most perfect work to abandon all that we have, for the love of God. St. Gregory, likewise, says, (in prolog. Moral.), "Whilst I was still constrained to serve the world in appearance, many temporal anxieties up around me, and claimed all my attention. At length, escaping from them, I sought the gate of the monastery; and, forsaking the things of this world, which I then regarded as vanities, I escaped from them, as a mariner from a shipwreck." Hence, we see, that it is dangerous to possess material goods; for they occupy the mind to a perilous degree. It is better, therefore, to relinquish the possession of earthly things by actual poverty; that, so, the mind may be freed from solicitude concerning them.

             St. Chrysostom asks in his book Quod nemo laeditur nisi a se ipso, "What harm did material poverty do to the Apostles? Did they not live in hunger, and thirst, and nakedness? and were they not, on this account, more renowned and glorious? and did not their poverty increase their trust in God?" Hence, we see, that actual poverty, which consists in privation of all things, forms part of Apostolical perfection.

             St. Bernard writes to the Archbishop of Sens: "Blessed is he that keeps for himself nothing of what he possesses. Blessed is he who has not a den like the wolves, nor a nest like the birds, nor a purse like Judas, nor a house; but who, like Mary, finds no room even in an inn, and thus imitates Him who had not whereon to lay His head." Entire destitution of all earthly possessions, pertains, therefore, to Christian perfection.

             In I. QUAEST. II. CAP. Si quis, we read: "He that strips himself of everything, or, who, possessing nothing, desires nothing, is more perfect than he, who, out of his abundance gives something to the Church." These words are another proof that actual poverty, is a point of Christian perfection.

             They who devote themselves to the contemplation of divine things, ought to be more disengaged from temporal anxiety, than they who apply themselves to the study of philosophy. But philosophers, in order to be able to give their whole attention to study, were wont to relinquish all their worldly possessions. St. Jerome says to the priest Paulinus (de instil. monach.), "Socrates, the Theban, a very wealthy man, when he went to study philosophy at Athens, cast away a large quantity of gold, judging that he could not, at the same time, possess both virtue and riches." It is far more praiseworthy, then, to relinquish all worldly goods, for the sake of divine contemplation. The interlinear Gloss on the words, "if thou wilt be perfect," etc. (Matt. xix.), says: "Behold the life of contemplation taught by the Gospel."

             A great reward is only given for great merit. Now a great reward, i.e. judicial power, is due to actual poverty. This appears from the words of Our Lord (Matt. xix.), "You who have left all things," etc. The Gloss commenting on this text says, "They who have left all things and have followed the Lord, shall be judges; but they who have lawfully retained and used their goods, shall be judged." Therefore, the higher merit is due to actual poverty.

             St. Paul (1 Cor. vii.) in counselling virginity, gives as the reason of his counsel, that they may be without solicitude. The renunciation of riches frees a man from solicitude. For riches engender many anxieties in their possessors. Hence Our Lord (Luke x.) speaks of them as "thorns" which, by their care, choke the Word of God in the hearts of the hearers. Therefore, even as virginity, so poverty belongs to evangelical perfection.

             2. We shall prove, in conclusion, that the perfection which consists in the entire sacrifice of private property, does not necessitate the possession of common property.

             The foundation of all perfection was laid by Christ, and by the Apostles. We do not, however, read that, when they left all that they had, they possessed property in common. On the contrary, we are told that they had no house wherein to dwell. Hence, common property is not an essential of perfect poverty.

             St. Augustine tells us (3 lib. De doctrina Christ.), that in the primitive church, the Jews converted to Christianity, "being constantly in close contact with spiritual things, were so receptive of the influence of the Holy Spirit, that they sold all that they had, and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles, to be distributed among the poor." He, further, observes, that, "this fact is not narrated of any Gentile church; for they who had for gods idols made by hands, were not so open to the Holy Spirit." Hence, we see, that St. Augustine considers the perfection of the early Jewish church, to have been superior to that of the Gentile churches. For, while the Gentile converts sold all that they had to give to the poor, the Jews sold their possessions so absolutely, as to reserve to themselves no common property whatsoever. Hence, poverty, without common property, is more perfect, than that which retains property in common.

             St. Jerome, writing to Heliodorus, on the death of Nepotian, says in derision: "Men are richer as monks than they were as seculars. With the poverty of Christ, they possess wealth that they had not when they were subject to the devil; and the Church mourns over the riches of those, whom the world despised as beggars." These words may often be verified in religious orders that maintain common property. They can never be true of such religious as possess nothing. Hence, it is more meritorious for religious to have nothing, than to possess property. St. Jerome, again, writes to Lucinus Beticus: "As long as we are engaged in things of the world, and our mind is occupied about our possessions and revenues, we cannot think freely of God." Hence, it is better for religious to be without property and revenues, than to possess them.

             St. Gregory (3 lib. Dialog.) says, speaking of Isaac a servant of God, "When, as frequently happened, his disciples pressed him to accept, for the use of the monastery, the things that were offered to him, Isaac, vigilant in his care for poverty, was wont to make use of these strong words: 'The monk who seeks possessions on earth, is no monk.' For he feared to lose his poverty as a miser fears to be robbed of his gold." This example proves, that it is safest, for religious not to possess common property.

             The monks of Egypt, of whom we read in the lives of the Fathers, deemed those religious to be the most perfect, who lived in the desert, possessing nothing. Hence, common property is not an essential of evangelical poverty.

             Religious can be deprived of common property by tyrants. If, then, men are not to leave all that they possess, unless they go into an Order holding property in common, tyrants would have it in their power to hinder the practice of evangelical poverty. This idea is, of course, an absurd one.

             The intention of our Lord in giving the counsel of poverty, was, to enable men to disengage their minds from anxiety about temporal things. Now, common property cannot be possessed without much solicitude concerning its preservation and improvement. Hence, they who possess no common property, practise the counsel of poverty in the most perfect manner.

             3. We shall finally show that actual poverty does not necessarily involve manual labour. St. Augustine says, (in his book De opere monach.): "They, who, in the world, possessed the means of living without work, and who, on their conversion to God, have parted with all that they had, should not be forced to labour with their hands. It is praiseworthy in them, to embrace voluntary poverty for the love of Christ, even if they possess no common property." In the primitive church of Jerusalem, there were, as we know by the testimony of St. Augustine, many men of this description. Hence, those who embrace voluntary poverty, are not bound to manual labour, even though they possess no common property.

             No one is bound, by precept, to work with his hands, unless he can by no other lawful means procure a livelihood. Manual labour is not, therefore, a duty for those who possess nothing, unless they be obliged thereto by vow. Hence, it is not true, that they are bound absolutely to manual labour. They are only obliged to perform it, when it is their only means of subsistence; and, in such a case, everyone would be obliged to work with his hands, even if no vow imposed such labour on him as a duty.

             The counsel of poverty was given by Our Lord, in order to facilitate contemplation. This is pointed out by the Gloss on the words of Matt. xix., "If thou wilt be perfect." "Behold," says the Gloss, "the contemplative life ordained by the Gospel." They, however, who are forced to gain their livelihood by the work of their hands, are greatly distracted from contemplation. If, then, those, who, for the love of Christ, choose a life of poverty, be bound to manual labour, the very purpose for which the counsel of poverty was given will be frustrated. The counsel, therefore, will have been given to no purpose. This line of argument is, of course, absurd.

             If they who leave all things for the love of Christ, be bound to have the intention of working with their hands, they must form this intention for one of the three following reasons. They must intend to perform manual labour either for its own sake; or to provide means of subsistence; or in order to procure money which can be given in alms. Now, it is absurd to say, that the spiritual perfection of poverty can consist in manual labour undertaken for its own sake. For, were such the case the work of the body, would be preferred before the perfection of the soul. Again, it is not reasonable to say that a man ought to leave all things, with the intention of going to earn his own living. For, if he had stayed in the world he could have lived by the possessions, which he has forsaken; and, further, the manual labour of the poor of Christ, who devote themselves to prayer and other spiritual exercises, barely suffices to maintain them. They must therefore, as St. Augustine says in his book De opere monach., be assisted by the faithful. Thirdly, it cannot be maintained, that manual labour ought to be undertaken in order to procure means for almsgiving. For, they who enter religion, could have given much more abundantly to the poor, of the goods which they possessed in the world. Thus, they would act unreasonably in leaving all things, in order to do manual work for the sake of giving alms. They, therefore, who, having left all things enter a religious order which has no common property, are not, as we have already shown, bound to have the intention of performing manual labour.

             4. It only remains for us now to reply to the objections of our opponents.

             (1.) With regard to the text from the Book of Proverbs concerning "beggary and riches," we answer, that, as there is no evil in riches themselves, but in the abuse of them, so beggary or poverty is not, in itself, an evil. The only evil of poverty is its abuse, when there is impatience or reluctance in bearing the suffering resulting from it, or when there arises a covetous desire of the goods of others. "They that will become rich fall into temptation and into the snare of the devil" (1 Tim. vi. 9). St. Chrysostom, likewise, says, on St. Matthew, "Hearken ye who are poor, and still more carefully ye who desire to be rich. It is not a bad thing to be poor; the real evil is to be unwilling to be poor." It is, therefore, evident that poverty which is a necessity, is accompanied by certain dangers, from which voluntary poverty is free. For, they who become poor by their own act, do not desire to be rich. Hence, the prayer of Solomon concerning beggary and riches, refers to involuntary poverty. This is clear from the context, "being compelled by poverty," etc. The Gloss, likewise, says on this text of Proverbs, "The man who walks with God, prays that he may not, either through abundance or scarcity of material goods, fall into forgetfulness of such as are eternal." Hence, we see, that Solomon teaches us, that it is not poverty or riches themselves which are to be avoided, but the misuse of either of these conditions.

             (2.) The words of Solomon, "wisdom with riches is more profitable," etc., must be explained according to the rule laid down by Aristotle (I. Ethic), viz., that "the greatest good, such as happiness, joined to a lesser good is preferable to that lesser good." Hence, wisdom, which is amongst the greatest goods, is preferable to riches, which are an inferior good. But, according to this rule, the greatest good joined to another very great good, is of more worth, than if it be joined to a lesser good, or if it be considered by itself. Hence, wisdom joined to evangelical perfection, which consists in poverty, and is one of the greatest goods, is worth more than wisdom, considered by itself, or joined to riches.

             (3.) The words, "through poverty many have sinned," refers to compulsory poverty, which is, necessarily, accompanied by a desire for riches. We see this by the context, "he that seeketh to be enriched, turneth away his eye." As the Gloss explains: "he turns away the eye of his soul from the fear of the Lord."

             (4.) The passage of the Gloss, quoted as a fourth objection, is mutilated, and misinterpreted. This becomes clear, if we subjoin its context, "He does not say that it is not better to give everything; but, out of consideration to those who are weak in virtue, he recommends them to give, in such a manner, that they shall not suffer want."

             (5.) The warning, that "poverty diminishes friendship," is to be understood of involuntary poverty, which causes covetousness. This is plain by the words that follow, "while he seeketh to be filled." Satiety implies that superabundance, which they desire who are not satisfied with a little, nor are of the number of those of whom St. Paul says (1 Tim. vi. 8), "having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content." He gives the following reason for this contentment with a little, "They that will become rich, fall into temptation and the snare of the devil"; for, the desire of great wealth often causes men to fall away from justice.

             (6.) The words of the Gloss, that, "temporal possessions are not to be entirely rejected," are to be interpreted to mean, that we are to use our temporal means to procure food and clothing. This appears clearly from St. Paul's words, "having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content." The Gloss does not mean, that man can ignore all provision for temporal needs.

             (7.) To the seventh objection, we reply, that, some temporal things, such as food and clothing, are absolutely necessary for the support of life. If I have more of such things than I need, I ought to assist the destitute; but I ought not to deprive myself of necessary food or raiment. It is of such things as are required for our present needs, that the Gloss speaks, in the passage quoted in the seventh objection. But there are temporal things, such as money and property, which, though not needed at present, may, in the future, be necessary to our support. There is no reason why perfect men should not distribute these things to the poor; for, before they are needed, God may supply the lack of them in some other way; and we are commanded in the Scriptures to trust that He will do so.

             (8.) To the eighth objection, we reply, that, although it be not a matter of precept to reserve money for our necessities, it is, nevertheless, a matter of counsel. Our Lord carried a purse, not because He was unable otherwise to supply His needs, but for the sake of His weaker members, and in order that they might understand, that it was lawful for them to do what they saw done by Christ. Hence the Gloss, on the words "having the purse" (John xii.), says: "He to whom the angels ministered, carried a purse out of condescension to our weakness, and for the assistance of the poor." Again, on the verse in Psalm ciii., "bringing forth grass for cattle," the Gloss says: "The Lord had a purse, for the use of them that were with Him; and because, in His own person, He carried the infirmity of the weak, as when He said: My soul is sorrowful." He was followed by pious women, who ministered to Him of their substance. For He foresaw that, in the future, many of His followers would be weak, and would seek material assistance. He did not fill His purse with His own property, but with alms given Him by devout and faithful men.

             (9.) Our answer to the ninth objection, is the rule laid down in II. Ethic, viz., that, "the medium in virtue does not signify the distance from extremes, but the due proportion of circumstances, ordered by well balanced reason." Hence, the medium of virtue does not consist in preserving the right balance between superfluity and scarcity, in any circumstance considered in itself, but in a circumstance considered in comparison with other circumstances. Thus, the medium of virtue may vary according to the variability of circumstances. In sobriety, for instance, the circumstance who is varied according to the variety of the circumstance what. An amount of food which would be a moderate quantity for one person, would be too much for another, and too little for a third. Thus, again, some virtue, such as magnanimity, existing in its highest degree, may be moderate, in proportion to some other circumstance. "The magnanimous man," says Aristotle (IV. Ethic), "confers the greatest dignity on himself." He who exceeds the virtue of magnanimity by superfluity, does not thereby acquire greater dignity, but oversteps the limits of virtue; and, those things which were moderation in him as a magnanimous man, are now superfluous. Hence, we see, that the medium of virtue is not destroyed, because one circumstance is in its highest degree, so long as that circumstance be proportioned to other circumstances. Thus, in a case of liberality, if we consider the quantity to be given, and if we attend only to the circumstance that in certain cases it is superfluous to give everything, we shall find the vice of prodigality. On the other hand, with a certain change of circumstances, this prodigality will become perfect liberality. For instance, if a man give all that he possesses to save his country from danger, he will be an example of perfect liberality. In the same way, he who gives away all that he has, in order to fulfil the counsel of Our Lord, acts, not with prodigality, but with perfect virtue. If, however, such a man were to spend his all upon some unfitting object, or with some unseemly circumstances, he would be prodigal. We may say the same of virginity, and of all other virtues, wherein there appears to be excess when the common mean of virtue is overstepped. Hence we see, that to give everything for the love of Christ, means, not to give both what ought and ought not to be given, but to give only that which ought to be given. For, although all things are not, in every case, to be given; yet all things are to be given up for Christ.

             (10.) Our reply to the tenth objection, is, that grace is the perfection of nature. Therefore, it cannot be its destruction. There are certain things, such as food and sleep, which pertain immediately to the preservation of nature. In connection with these things, virtue does not exceed the limits of the preservation of nature. Hence, if anyone deprive himself of that which nature demands for its support, it is a vicious and unreasonable act. It is such conduct that is rebuked, both by St. Paul, and by the Gloss. The Gloss says: "Let the service which you offer, by the maceration of the flesh, be reasonable, i.e. tempered by discretion, and not excessive. Chastise your body with moderation, so that it be not destroyed." But nature can be preserved without luxury. Hence, if a man abstain from sensual pleasure, he is not performing a superfluous act, unless, by such abstention, he should fall into sin. For this reason, virginity is praiseworthy. Again, life can be preserved without material possessions, if we trust that Divine Providence will assist us in many ways. Hence, a man does nothing superfluous, in giving up for Christ, all that he possesses, consequently, voluntary poverty, practised for the love of Christ, is no departure from the medium which ought to be observed in virtue.

             (11.) To the next objection, we reply, that, although he who leaves all things for the love of Christ, does, to a certain extent, deprive himself of the means of existence; yet, he can always count on the assistance of Divine Providence, which will never fail him; he can, also, reckon on the charity of the faithful. St. Augustine, in his book, On Almsdeeds, thus expresses himself on this subject: "Thinkest thou that anything will be lacking to a Christian, to a servant of God, to one devoted to good works, and to one precious in the sight of his Master? Shall he who feeds Christ, not likewise be fed by Him? Shall earthly things be wanting to him, on whom divine and heavenly gifts are bestowed? Whence spring such unbelief, and such impious and sacrilegious ideas? How comes it, then, any is found in the house of God with so little confidence in Him? Does he who does not trust Christ, absolutely deserve to be called a Christian? Nay, rather, should such an one be named a Pharisee. For, as we read in the Gospel, the Pharisees, hearing Our Lord teach the duty of giving alms and of making to ourselves friends of earthly goods, derided Him in their avarice. And even now, we behold in the Church, men who resemble the Pharisees; whose ears are closed, and whose eyes are blinded, so that they can perceive no ray of the light of spiritual and salutary teaching. We have no reason, then, to wonder that such men hold the servants of God in contempt, when we know, that the Lord Himself, was despised." These words point out, clearly, that it is sacrilegious to say, that they who abandon all things for the love of Christ, expose themselves to the risk of suicide.

             (12.) Our answer to the twelfth objection, is, that he who leaves all things for God, does not incur any danger of dying of hunger. For, Divine Providence will never abandon him, "I will not leave thee, neither will I forsake thee" (Hebr. xiii.). The Gloss thus comments on these words: "But in case any should say: 'what are we to do if necessary help should fail us?' the consoling words from the book of Josue are added, 'I will not fail thee nor forsake thee.' A man who should die of hunger would certainly be forsaken; but, as this will never happen, let no one be covetous. For God speaks these words to every man that trusts in Him, as well as to Josue." He makes this promise to us, on condition that we place our trust in Him. His words are spoken, not to the avaricious, nor to the covetous, but to such as trust in God. It is not true to say, that, it is not lawful for a man to expose himself to danger; for, a man may meritoriously expose himself to death for the Name of Christ, even if it be possible for him to act otherwise. Thus, we read of many martyrs, who, in the time of persecution, offered themselves to death, by confessing their faith. If it were unlawful to expose oneself to peril, soldiers would not be justified in crossing the sea, and incurring risks for the glory of God.

             (13.) To the thirteenth objection, we reply, that a man is a master of his own, not of his neighbour's property. He, therefore, injures another, if he deprives him of what belongs to him; but he does no injury to himself, by sacrificing his own possessions. Hence Aristotle says, (Ethic v.), that, "a man cannot, strictly speaking, commit an injustice against himself." Furthermore, he who deprives his neighbour of what belongs to him, reduces him to involuntary poverty, which is dangerous. He who abandons his own possessions, accepts voluntary poverty which, if it be embraced for the love of God, is meritorious.

             (14.) Our answer to the next objection is that Our Lord reserved a certain sum of money for necessary uses, out of condescension to the weak; just as, out of condescension to human infirmity, he willed to eat, and to drink wine, with the Pharisees. It must not, then, be reputed as superstition in the holy fathers in the desert, if they refuse to keep money for their own use; or, if they choose to abstain from wine, or from delicate fare. The money which Our Lord reserved, was not His own private property; it had been given Him as alms. For, we are told, (Luke viii.), that, "certain women . . . ministered unto Him of their substance."

             (15.) To the fifteenth objection, we, likewise, reply, that, although the Apostles reserved certain sums for themselves, and to distribute among those holy men who had made themselves poor for Christ, that money was not their own, but was given them by the faithful in charity. When we are told that there was none needy among them, we are not to conclude, that the Apostles and Christians of the early Church did not endure much poverty for the love of Christ. For, St. Paul says, (1 Cor. iv. 11), "Even unto this hour we both hunger and thirst." And again (2 Cor. vi. 4), "in much patience, in tribulations, in necessities," or as the Gloss says, "want of food and clothing." We must understand by these texts, that the Apostles, in so far as they were able, supplied the poorer members of the community with such things as were needful to them.

             (16.) To the sixteenth objection we reply, that, the prohibition given by Our Lord to His disciples, "not to go into the way of the Gentiles," was absolutely rescinded by Him after the resurrection; because it then became necessary for the Jews to preach the word of God to the Gentiles (Acts xiii.). But Christ did not, at the last supper, absolutely revoke His precept to the disciples to take nothing with them on the way. He only gave them a different order, which was to be obeyed during the time of persecution, when they would not have been able to procure the necessaries of life. Hence the Gloss says on the text of St. Luke, (xxii. 35), "When I sent you," etc.: "The Apostles are not bidden to observe the same rule in time of persecution, as in time of peace. For, when they were sent to preach, Our Lord bade them take nothing with them; for it was His will that they that preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel. But, when His death was imminent, and the hour drew nigh when both the pastors and the flock should be exposed to persecution, He instituted a rule befitting the circumstances; and so permitted His disciples to carry with them the means of sustenance, till such time as the fury of their persecutors should have abated, and a fitting season for preaching the Gospel should have arrived." "Thus," the Gloss continues, "does Christ teach us, that, under certain circumstances, we are justified in relaxing the rigour of our rule." We may, for example, when preaching in a hostile country, carry with us larger supplies than we should have at home. But the heretics who make the objection which it is our duty to combat, do not accept the Gloss. We shall, therefore, show by the text of the Scriptures, that when the faithful increased in number, the disciples of Christ did not carry with them the means of support. We read (John iii. 1), "Dearly beloved, thou dost faithfully whatever thou dost for the brethren, and that for strangers." Again, "Because, for His name, they went out, taking nothing of the Gentiles; we therefore ought to receive such." Now, if the Apostles had carried supplies with them, it would not have been necessary for them to have been assisted by the faithful, even though the Gentiles had refused them any succour. This is made still more clear, by the words of the Gloss, "because for His name they went forth, forsaking their own possessions."

             (17.) The seventeenth objection is answered by the fact, that the Church supports many that are sick; and that she could not do so, without the possession of some material wealth. Hence, it is right for a man to give up his own property, and to hold that of the Church; and it behoves him to act thus, chiefly on account of the poor. But, it does not follow, that it is not expedient for perfect men, who have sacrificed all that belongs to them, to lead a religious life, in an order which possesses no common property. Apostolic perfection is not wanting to those who have possessions in common; but it appears more manifestly, in those who relinquish their private property, and have no property in common.

             (18.) We reply to the eighteenth objection, that the decree quoted by it, does not forbid the choice of a life of poverty, for the love of Christ. It is simply a precept commanding bishops, and all in possession of ecclesiastical property, which belongs to the poor, to provide for the poor, as far as they can, and to assist them in their needs. This will be easily perceived by anyone who studies the context of the chapter.

             (19.) Our answer to the nineteenth objection is that they who have relinquished all things for Christ, in the trust that He will provide for them, neither sin by presumption, nor do they tempt God. For, to have due confidence in God, is not presumptuous, nor is it tempting Him. Now, the poor of Christ, especially the preachers of the truth, are bound to cherish this confidence in God. The Gloss says on the words in St. Luke (chap. x.), "Carry neither purse," etc., "A preacher ought to have such trust in God that, even though he be not supplied with means to support him in this present life, he ought to be quite certain that necessary things will not be wanting to him, lest in his anxiety about temporal things, he fail to preach eternal truths." Nay, unless he have this confidence in Providence, he is tempting God. On the words of 1 Cor. x., "neither let us tempt God as some of them tempted Him," the Gloss says: "Let us not ask: 'can God prepare a table in the desert?'" But, we must distinguish between the cases in which this implicit confidence, does, or does not, tempt God. There are certain dangers from which a man cannot be rescued save by miracle; and if he expose himself to such perils he is tempting God. A person would tempt God, who, in hopes of Divine protection, should fling himself from a wall; unless, indeed, he had been miraculously forewarned, that it was the will of God to save him from death. Such foreknowledge was vouchsafed to St. Peter, when, at the command of Jesus, he walked upon the sea; to Blessed Martin, when he said, "Under the protection, not of helmet nor of shield, but of the sign of the Cross, I shall safely make my way through the ranks of the enemy"; to St. John the Evangelist when he courageously swallowed the poisoned draught; to St. Agatha, who said, "Carnal medicine for the body I have never taken; but I possess the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by His word alone, restores all things." There are other cases, wherein a remedy is attainable by inferior means; and a man does not tempt God, who, under such circumstances, trusts entirely to Him. Thus, a soldier does not tempt God by going to battle, although he be uncertain as to the issue of the fight. Neither does he tempt God, who renounces, for His sake, all that he possesses, trusting both in Divine Providence, and in the charity of the faithful, for the supply of his necessities. Rather, does he resemble a man, who, seeing a bear approach, does, for some reasonable motive, resign his weapon of self-defence to armed men, whose duty and desire it is to defend him.

             (20.) The answer to the twentieth objection, is, that we are instructed to beg of God, to supply our temporal necessities; and, that we ought not to reject temporal assistance, until we are provided with the food and clothing that we need.

             (21.) The statute, quoted in the twenty-first objection, was drawn up in favour of the ministers of the Church. But, if any choose, as a work of supererogation, to serve the Church without stipend, they are so much the more praiseworthy in that they resemble St. Paul, who preached the Gospel without reward; he was a preacher ordained by God (1 Cor. ix.).

             (22.) We reply to the twenty-second objection, that, although the holy Fathers have commended one course, they have not blamed the other. Therefore, it is not presumptuous, to follow this other course; else, it would not be lawful to introduce into the Church any new ordinance. Nevertheless, the mode of life of which we speak, cannot be called new; as it was approved by many Saints, even in the primitive Church.

             (23.) Our answer to the twenty-third objection, is, that it is a duty for rich men to assist the needy. For, as St. John says, (1 Ep. iii.), "He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shall shut up his bowels from him: how doth the charity of God abide in him?" But it is even more praiseworthy, if a man, besides sacrificing all his possessions, consecrate himself to God. This is truly Apostolic perfection. For, as St. Jerome says, "To offer oneself to God is a truly Christian act and worthy of the Apostles, who, having renounced all they had, offered themselves to the Lord" (ad Lucinum Beticum).