CHAPTER VII

IS IT LAWFUL FOR RELIGIOUS TO LIVE ON ALMS?

THE adversaries of Christian poverty strive to prevent its practice, not only by raising objections against it, but by trying, indirectly, to abolish it entirely. They endeavour to deprive the poor of Christ of the means of subsistence, by teaching, that it is not lawful for them to live on alms. They thus come under the category of those of whom the Preacher speaks, (Eccles. xxxiv. 25), "The bread of the needy is the life of the poor: he that defraudeth them thereof, is a man of blood." They try to uphold their opinion by various arguments.

             1. They quote the words of Deuteronomy (xvi. 19), "Thou shalt not accept person nor gifts: for gifts blind the eyes of the wise, and change the words of the just." Now, alms are a species of gifts; and as religious, above all other men, ought to have the eyes of the soul enlightened, they are not justified in living on alms.

             2. "The borrower is servant to him that lendeth" (Prov. xxii. 7). Much more, then, is he that accepts a gift, the servant of him that gives it. Now, it behoves religious to be free from the bondage of the world; for they are called unto liberty of spirit. The Gloss, on the words (2 Thess. iii.), "That we might give ourselves a pattern unto you," observes: "Our religion calls men to freedom." Therefore, religious ought not to live on alms.

             3. Religious make profession of a state of perfection. Now, it is a more perfect thing to give than to receive alms. Hence, in the Acts of the Apostles (xx. 35) it is said: "It is a more blessed thing to give than to receive." Therefore, religious ought, rather, to work with their hands, so that they may be able to give to the needy, instead of receiving from others alms, upon which they are to live.

             4. St. Paul, writing to Timothy, (1 Ep. v.), ordains, that widows who have other means of subsistence, are not to live on the charity of the Church, lest they become a burthen to her, and so make it difficult for her to support such as are widows indeed. Therefore, strong, able-bodied men ought to work for their living, and not to deprive the poor of the alms, on which they depend for support. St. Jerome says (I. Q. II. CAP. Clericos), "They who are able to live, either on their patrimony, or by means of their work, and yet accept alms, commit a sacrilege; and by their abuse of charity, they eat and drink judgment to themselves." Hence, anyone who has other means of subsistence, and chooses to live on alms, must be reputed as guilty of sacrilege.

             5. The Gloss commenting on the text of Thess., "that we might give ourselves a pattern," etc., says: "He that, in his indolence, constantly eats at the table of another, must, of necessity, flatter his host." Now, they who live on charity, often eat at the expense of their neighbour; they are, therefore, sure to become flatterers. It is sinful in them, therefore, to reduce themselves to a condition, which obliges them to live on alms.

             6. The acceptance of gifts cannot be an act of any virtue save of liberality, which is the medium between giving and receiving. But a liberal man only accepts, in order to give, as Aristotle says (V. Ethic). Hence, they who spend their lives in accepting, live in a reprehensible manner. St. Augustine in his book De opere monach., thus rebukes certain monks, who wished to live on alms, instead of by work: "These brethren, rashly, in my opinion, assume that they have the right to live by the Gospel, instead of by the labour of their hands." Yet, those whom he thus reproaches, as we know by St. Augustine's own testimony, had renounced all things for the love of Christ, and devoted themselves to spiritual exercises, such as prayer, psalmody, reading, and the Word of God. Hence, they who leave all things for Christ, even if they be entirely occupied in spiritual concerns, ought not to live on alms.

             7. We are told in St. Mark's Gospel, that, "He commanded them that they should take nothing for the way but a staff only" (vi. 8). The Gloss remarks, "by a staff is signified the power of accepting necessary things from inferiors. But none but prelates have inferiors." Hence, those religious who are not prelates, have no right to accept alms from the faithful.

             8. Only they that labour, have a right to the privileges of labour. Now, the privilege granted by Our Lord to those that preach the Gospel, is that they shall live by the Gospel. This is confirmed by St. Paul (1 Cor. ix. and 2 Tim. ii.), "The husbandman that laboureth ought first to partake of the fruits." Therefore, those that do not preach the Gospel, ought not to live on the charity of the faithful.

             9. St. Paul refused to accept alms from the Corinthians, in order to take away occasion from false prophets (2 Cor. ii.). But there are still certain men, who shamefully choose to live on charity; therefore, if only to set them a better example, religious ought not to accept alms. Hence, St. Augustine in his book, De opere monach., says, "you have the same grounds as had the Apostles, to remove the occasion from them that seek occasion."

             10. St. Paul refused to accept charity from the Gentiles, in order to avoid giving them any scandal. Hence, the Gloss says, on the words in St. Luke viii., "And many other women ministered unto them": "It was, anciently, customary among the Jews, and was not esteemed any fault, for women, of their own substance, to supply teachers with food and raiment. But, as the Gentiles might have taken scandal at this custom, St. Paul notes, that for this reason, he had abstained from accepting alms from them (1 Cor. ix.)." But many seculars nowadays are scandalized at the sight of religious, who wish to live without manual labour. On this account, it is the duty of religious to refrain from receiving charity. St. Augustine, in his book, De opere monach., says: "In your meditation let your fire flame forth, that you may pursue their evil works by your own good deeds; that, so, you may take from them the occasion of riotous merrymaking, wherein your reputation suffers, and scandal is given to those weak in the faith. Have pity, therefore, and compassion, on other men; and show them, that you do not eat the bread of idleness; but that you seek the Kingdom of God, by a narrow and toilsome road."

             11. If religious who are well and strong, may lawfully live on alms, without manual labour, other men are justified in doing the same. But, if everyone pursue the same course, the human race will come to an end; for no one will be found to prepare what is necessary for the support of life. Hence, it can, by no means, be counted lawful, for strong and healthy religious to live on alms.

             Our adversaries seek, likewise, to prove, that although religious may live on the alms offered to them, they have no right to beg.

             1. We read in Deut. xv. 4, "There shall be no poor nor beggar among you." Hence, it is forbidden for anyone to beg, who can get his living by other means.

             2. In Psalm xxxvi. 25, it is written: "I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread." Therefore, beggars are not the seed of the just man, i.e., of Christ.

             3. A curse is not uttered in Holy Scripture against the just. But in Psalm cviii. 10 mendicity is accounted a curse: "Let his children be carried about vagabonds, and beg." Hence, mendicity is not a state befitting perfect men.

             4. St. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians (1 Ep. iv. 11), in the following terms: "Work with your own hands, as we commanded you: . . . walk honestly towards them that are without; . . . want nothing of any man's." The Gloss adds: "Therefore should you work, and not live in idleness. This is honourable, and is as a light to unbelievers. You should not desire another man's goods, you should neither ask for them, nor take them." Hence, it is plain, that manual labour is preferable to begging.

             5. St. Augustine thus comments on the words: "if any man will not work," etc.: "The servants of God ought to do some work, whereby they may earn a livelihood; that, so, they may not be compelled by necessity to beg." Thus, we see that they are bound to manual labour rather than to mendicancy.

             6. St. Jerome writes to Nepotian: "Let us never ask; and but rarely accept, when we are pressed to do so. For it is more blessed to give than to receive." The servants of God ought, then, neither to beg for, nor to accept, the necessaries of life.

             7. The more severe the penalty inflicted, the more heinous, evidently, is the offence committed. This is laid down XXIV. q. I., "Let us not use unequal scales." According to civil law, a sturdy beggar, if discovered, is severely punished. For if he be of a servile condition, he is given over to be the slave of his accuser; if he be a freedman, he is condemned to be his perpetual servant (De mendicant: valid, lib. unica). Religious in robust health, do, therefore, sin by begging.

             8. St. Augustine, in his book De opere monach., thus speaks of mendicant religious: "Our crafty enemy sends out hypocrites, who, in the monastic habit, roam from province to province. They bear no commission. They settle nowhere, and are never at rest. They beg for everything. They exact all things, either as the requirements of their lucrative poverty, or as the reward of their pretended sanctity."

             9. That which naturally causes shame in man, is intrinsically disgraceful. For, as St. John Damascene says, we only blush for what is shameful. Now, men are instinctively ashamed of begging; and the nobler a man's nature, the more acutely he feels the disgrace of mendicancy. Thus, St. Ambrose says, (lib. De Offic.), that shame at begging, proves the nobility of a man. And Aristotle (Ethics V.) says, that a freedman is "not prone to beg." Mendicity, then, is, in itself, disgraceful; and none ought to resort to it, who can live by any other means.

             10. The Gloss, on the words: "God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. ix.), runs as follows: "He who gives in order to rid himself of the importunity of a beggar rather than to relieve the need of a poor man loses the merit of his alms. But, charity is often thus bestowed on beggars; for they weary men by their persistence."

             Our opponents likewise try to prove, that even religious who preach, ought not to beg, nor to live on alms.

             1. St. Paul says (1 Thess. ii.), "Neither have we used at any time, the speech of flattery, as you know." Now, preachers who beg, and live on alms, are obliged to flatter those whose charity they receive. The Gloss on the words, "and leaving them, he went out" (Matt. xxi.), says: "For as He was poor and flattered none, He received hospitality from no one in the city, save from Lazarus." And yet, for this very cause, the preaching of Our Lord was all the more powerful. For, as St. Luke tells us (xxi. 38), "the people came early in the morning to him in the temple, to hear him."

             2. Again, St. Paul says (1 Cor. iv. 11), "Even unto this hour, we both hunger and thirst and are naked." On these words the Gloss makes the following comment: "Those who preach the truth, with sincerity and without flattery, and who reprove the vices of mankind, are not favourably heard." Therefore, preachers ought not to ask for alms.

             3. St. Paul says, (1 Thess. ii. 5), "Neither have we taken an occasion of covetousness: God knoweth." The Gloss observes hereon, "The Apostle does not say: 'I have not been covetous,' but 'I have neither said nor done anything that can be an occasion of covetousness."' Preachers ought to be able to speak in like manner. Those, however, who beg, become, on the contrary, an occasion of covetousness to others.

             4. Again, (2 Cor. xii. 14), St. Paul says, "I will not be burthensome unto you. I seek not the things that are yours, but you." Likewise (Philipp. iv. 17) he writes: "Not that I seek the gift, but I seek the fruit." The Gloss says: "By the gift is meant the things given, such as money, food and the like; the fruit signifies the good works, and the upright intention of the giver." True preachers, then, ought not to seek temporal gifts from their hearers. For this reason, they ought not to live by begging.

             5. On the words: "the husbandman that laboureth," etc. (2 Tim. ii.), the Gloss says: "The Apostle desires the evangelist to understand, that he may accept that which is needful, from them for whom he labours in God, whom he cultivates as a vinedresser tends his vine, and whom he feeds as a shepherd feeds his flock. For, to act thus, is a right; it is not beggary." Hence, we see that those who preach the Gospel have a claim to live by it; and that they are not mendicants when they do so. But this right belongs only to prelates; and, therefore, other preachers ought not to live by the Gospel.

             6. St. Paul (1 Cor. ix.), wishing to show that it was lawful for him to accept alms from the faithful, first proves that he is an Apostle. Those who are not Apostles, have no right to live by the charity of the faithful. Preaching religious, not being prelates, are not Apostles; therefore they have not this right.

             7. The Gloss, commenting on the words of 1 Thess. ii., "whereas we might have been burthensome to you, as the Apostles of Christ," says: "St. Paul points out the hypocrisy of the false prophets, by refusing to ask for the support which he might justly have claimed; in order to rebuke those, who, although they had no right to ask for assistance, blushed not to do so. He speaks of this Apostolic claim to the alms of the faithful, as "a burthen," in allusion to the false prophets, who, unlawfully, usurped the right of asking for charity, and, importunately, urged their pretended claims." It, thus, becomes plain, that, they who require the faithful to support them, must, as they are not Apostles, be accounted to be false prophets. Therefore, preachers who are not prelates, ought not to beg.

             8. Preachers who are not prelates, either have, or have not, a right to be maintained by those to whom they preach. If they possess this right, they can enforce it by coercion. This idea is, of course, absurd. If they have no right to such support, they are begging unlawfully and unjustly; and they ought, as we have just shown from the Gloss, to be counted as false prophets.

             9. Prelates who receive from the laity tithes and offerings, are bound to provide for their spiritual needs. Hence, if others be commissioned by bishops to minister to the faithful, and to receive alms from them, it is unfair to the people. For it is the bishops, and not the people, who ought to provide for the wants of those whom they send.

             10. Prelates who commission others to preach, are bound to supply their necessities (see Extra De offic. ord. INTER CAETERA). If, then, these preachers demand offerings from their hearers, they are doing them an injustice; for they ought not to accept remuneration from them.

             11. Our Lord says to the Pharisees (Matt. xxiii. 14), "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, who devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers." Those are equally reprehensible who beg for alms, under the pretext of praying, or preaching, or of any other act of the like nature.

             12. Christ, when He sent forth His disciples to preach, said to them: "Into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy" (Matt. x. 11). The Gloss says, on this verse, "We must choose our host by the testimony of his neighbours, lest his bad life should cause our preaching to be neglected." Again, "He is worthy to entertain us, who understands, that thereby, he receives, rather than confers, a favour." Hence, it is highly reprehensible for preachers to condescend to wealthy sinners, and to those who do not esteem their abode with them to be a favour.

             13. He who barters a spiritual for a temporal good commits the sin of simony, whether, like Giezi, he asks for a gift, or whether a gift be offered to him like to that which Elisaeus refused to accept from Naaman (4 Kings v.). The sin is equal, whether it be before or after the work that the gift is accepted (I Q. I. CAP. Eos). Now, he who preaches to the people, exercises a spiritual ministry towards them. Hence, a preacher should not accept their temporal gifts, whether he ask for them, or whether they offer them without being asked.

             14. St. Paul says: "From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves" (1 Thess. v. 22). The Gloss adds: "If something appear to be wrong, although it be not actually wrong, do not do it impulsively." Now it has a bad appearance, for a preacher to seek material assistance from those to whom he preaches. Hence St. Paul said: "I seek not those things which are yours, but you" (2 Cor. xii.). For, as the Gloss observes, "the Apostle, lest he might seem to sell the Gospel, desired, not gifts, but fruit." In like manner, preachers ought not to beg for a livelihood, from those to whom they preach.

             Our opponents, also, attempt to prove, that alms ought not to be given to religious.

             1. They quote the words from St. Luke (xiv. 13), "When thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind." "From whom," as the Gloss says, "there is nothing to be expected." But you might gain something from strong and healthy beggars, who are often the parasites of rich men. Therefore, we ought not to give to the latter class of mendicant.

             2. St. Augustine writes to Vincent the Donatist, that, "it is better to deprive a hungry man of food, than to give bread to one, who, being sure of a livelihood, will forsake justice. For, by succouring such an one, we connive at his evildoing." Now, he who will not, when he is able, work for his living; or he who can get food in a lawful manner without begging, and yet prefers to beg, acts unjustly. Hence, alms should not be bestowed upon him.

             3. The Gloss on the words, "Give to every one that asketh of thee," (Luke vi.) says, "Give him what he wants or a reproof." Again, on the words, "Give to him that asketh thee," (Matt. v.), the Gloss says: "Give in such a way as to injure, neither thyself, nor another. For justice should be balanced. Thus, thou shouldst give to every one that asketh thee, if not that for which he ask, then some better thing, to wit, a rebuke for asking wrongfully." Now, as we have shown, he that prefers begging to manual labour, begs unjustly; and he deserves reproof rather than alms.

             4. St. Augustine, in his letter to the Donatist Vincent, says: "The evil have often persecuted the good, and the good have persecuted the evil. The evil persecuted the good by injustice; and the good persecute the bad by correction." Hence, for the sake of correction, the good may persecute the bad; and to deprive them of food is a species of correction. Now, sturdy beggars sin, even though they preach; and, therefore, ought they to be deprived of food.

             5. St. Ambrose, in Book I., de offic., says: "In giving charity, we must take into consideration, the age of him who asks of us, his health, and the boldness wherewith he begs. For, shame in asking for alms often betrays the nobility of him who asks. We must give more abundantly to the aged, who cannot gain a living by the labour of their hands. The sick, likewise, should be promptly relieved; and, those who have fallen from wealth into poverty, not by their own fault, but through robbery, or proscription, or calumny." Now, robust beggars are neither infirm in health, nor shamefaced; neither have they lost their property through robbery nor proscription. Therefore, they should not be succoured by charity.

             6. Alms should be given for the purpose of relieving indigence; and the greater the distress, the greater should be our liberality. But those who cannot work for their living, and cannot get support by any other means, are in much greater straits than are they who are able to obtain a livelihood. As long, therefore, as we find indigent persons belonging to the first category, we should not give to those belonging to the second.

             7. Alms-giving is a work of mercy. Therefore, it is to be performed only in behalf of those in need. Now, they that voluntarily reduce themselves to beggary, are not in need. It is only those that are compelled to suffer penury, who can be said to be in want. Aristotle says (3 Ethics): "That which is involuntary, deserves mercy and forgiveness." Hence, alms are not to be bestowed on voluntary mendicants.

             8. St. Augustine says (1 De doctr. Christ.): "As thou canst not assist all, thou shouldst succour those who are most closely bound to thee, by time, or place, or by some other circumstance." Now our closest ties are to our neighbours and our kinsfolk. Therefore, as long as any of our friends are in need, we must not give alms to strangers.

             The errors which we have noted, are no novelty. They appeared in the very early days of the Church. In 3 Ep. John iii., we read: "Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, doth not receive us." Again: "and as if these things were not enough for him, neither doth he himself receive the brethren," i.e., "the needy," as the Gloss explains. "And them that do receive them he forbiddeth, and casteth out of the church," i.e., "for fear lest they should succour the needy he suffers them not to go to their wonted place of meeting" (Gloss). Another commentary on the same text, says: "Thou oughtest to persevere in almsgiving; for it is a work so profitable, that I would have written in its praise, not only to thee, but to the whole Church. But this desire I was constrained to leave unfulfilled; for Diotrephes cares not for our authority."

             Diotrephes, a heresiarch of the primitive times of the Church, taught, as we see from the text and the Gloss, that humanity has no claim on our care; and that we should not assist pilgrims who have left their own possessions. Vigilantius revived this heresy, as we learn from the Epistle of St. Jerome to Riparius and Desiderius against Vigilantius. In this Epistle he writes: "Further, I am informed, by the same epistles, that, contrary to the authority of the Apostle Paul, also of Peter, and of John and James, who held out to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of communication, and commanded them to be mindful of the poor, that thou dost forbid any sums to be sent to Jerusalem, for the benefit of the needy."

             In combating these errors we shall proceed in the following manner:

             1. We shall prove, that those who are poor, because they have given up everything for God, may live on alms.

             2. We shall show, that preachers, even though they be not prelates, may, when commissioned by bishops to preach, accept the charity of the faithful to whom they preach.

             3. That, even though they be in robust health, they may beg.

             4. That they have a special right to the alms of the faithful.

             5. We shall confute the arguments brought in support of the contrary propositions.

             1. The fact, that those who are poor because they have renounced all things for Christ, have a right to live on alms, is proved by the example of St. Benedict. He, as St. Gregory tells us, (2 lib. Diolog.), lived for three years in a cave, after he left his parents' house, dependent on the ministry of the monk Romanus. He was in sound health; but we do not read that he worked for his living.

             2. In I. q. II. Cap. Sacerdos, it is laid down, that "he who has either renounced all his property in favour of his kinsfolk, or has distributed it to the poor, or given it to the Church, and has thus, for love of poverty, made himself poor, is not only free from the guilt of covetousness if he accept assistance from the faithful; but that he may laudably do so, in order thereby to assist the poor, while he himself lives in voluntary poverty." It is thus evident that a man who has renounced all things for Christ, may live on the charity of the faithful.

             3. A man is bound rather to sacrifice some good, which he may relinquish without sin, than to commit sin. If, then, they who are in robust health sin by taking alms, they ought to relinquish every other occupation, how good soever, rather than accept charity. This proposition is false, as we see by the words of St. Augustine in lib. De opere monach. The Saint says, that "those servants of God who work with their hands, ought to have some time set apart, in which to rest from labour, and to commit to memory that which they ought to know. They ought, he says, to be assisted by the good offices of the faithful, in order that, at the times devoted to learning, they may not be depressed by want." St. Augustine thus shows, that, in his opinion, monks ought not to be entirely dependent on manual labour for their daily bread; otherwise no opportunity would be afforded them for spiritual exercises.

             4. In the same work, St. Augustine, referring to a certain rich man who had given all his wealth to a monastery, says, that "he performed a good work by labouring with his hands, in order to give an example; although, by the benefit which he had conferred on the community, he had a right to be supported by it. For, had he been unwilling to work, who would have dared to urge him to do so?" Hence, we see, that he who bestowes his substance on a monastery, has a right to live in that monastery, without manual labour. But, the Saint further remarks, that as all Christians form one republic, it is of no consequence to which section of the commonwealth each one gives his money, nor from whom he derives support. Hence, they who have left all things for Christ, may accept the necessaries of life from anyone.

             5. The intention of refraining from a deed, bad in itself, does not diminish the intrinsic evil of the deed; though, it may lessen the sin committed. If, therefore, it be in itself sinful, for a man who is able to work, to live on alms, those who, although in good health, intend to live for a time on charity, intending at other times to live by other means, cannot be excused from sin. Pilgrims, therefore, who beg on their pilgrimages, commit sin. Sin is, likewise, committed by those who enjoin pilgrimages. This supposition is of course absurd.

             6. It is more meritorious in a man to devote himself to divine contemplation, than to the study of philosophy. Some men, however, do, without sin, live for a time on charity, in order to pursue such study. Therefore, it is permissible for others to live for a time on alms, in order to devote themselves to divine contemplation. But, it is more praiseworthy in a man to consecrate himself perpetually to contemplation, than temporarily to study. Consequently it is lawful for men to set aside manual labour, and to live, absorbed in contemplation, on the alms of the faithful.

             7. Christian charity forms a closer bond, than does political friendship. Now if anyone make me a present, I am justified in making any use of it that I choose. It is, then, even more permissible for me to live by the things that are given me, for the love of Christ.

             8. If it be lawful to accept what is greater, it is still more allowable to receive that which is less. But religious are permitted to receive a certain income (mille marcharum), and to live on it, without manual labour. Were such not the case, many communities that are in possession of large properties, would be in a state of damnation. For the same reason, many of the secular clergy who have no cure of souls, live on ecclesiastical possessions, which are the gifts of the faithful. Hence, it is absurd to say, that poor religious may not accept small alms, and live thereby, without manual labour.

             9. The poor who are unable to work, are more grossly defrauded, if that which is their due be given to others, than if those others receive that to which they have a claim. Now the income of ecclesiastical property is intended to be given to the poor (SEE XII. QUAEST. I. CAP. Videntes). Hence, it is laid down, (I. QUAEST. II. CAP. Clericus ET CAP. Si quis), that, "clerics who can live on their own patrimony, cannot, without sin, live on the goods of the Church, which are destined for the support of the poor." Hence, a greater injustice is committed against the poor, if those who, although in good health, do no manual labour, and yet live on ecclesiastical property, than if the poor of Christ live by the private offerings of the faithful, which are not the right of the poor. If those in the first category do not defraud the poor, those who are in the second, most certainly, do not do so. In our treatise on manual labour will be found many other arguments in proof of the same point.

             Our next task will be to show that preachers, although they be not prelates, may accept for their maintenance alms, from those to whom they preach.

             1. St. Paul writes to the Corinthians (1 Ep. ix. 7), "who serveth as a soldier at any time, at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Who feedeth the flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?" St. Paul alleges these examples, (as the Gloss remarks), in order to prove, that the Apostles did not claim more than was their due, if, according to the precept of Our Lord, they who preached the Gospel lived by it, and likewise freely accepted the charity of those to whom they freely ministered. Now, it is quite certain, that a soldier, and a vinedresser, and a herdsman, ought to live by the fruit of their toil. Therefore, as not only prelates, but all preachers, labour to announce the Gospel, they have a right to accept the means of subsistence from those among whom they labour.

             2. St. Paul, likewise, maintains that the Apostles had a right to accept temporal assistance from them, to whom they ministered spiritual good. For, it is not wonderful if he who gives great things, should receive small things in exchange. To quote St. Paul's own words: "If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things (1 Cor. ix. 2)?" Now the spiritual truths taught by prelates, are proclaimed equally by all preachers bearing an episcopal commission. There is, therefore, no reason why they, as well as prelates, should not accept material means of support.

             3. In the first Chapter of the Epistle just quoted, St. Paul, likewise, says: "The Lord hath ordained that they who preach the Gospel, should, also, live by the Gospel." The Gloss observes: "The reason why this command was given, was, to render preachers more diligent in their office." Now, all, (not only prelates), whose duty it is to preach, ought to be zealous in so doing. Therefore, the rule laid down by Our Lord, applies, not only to prelates, but to all who preach the word of God. This is plain by the very words of St. Paul. He does not say, "all who have ordinary authority to preach," but, "they that preach the Gospel."

             4. When Our Lord sent forth His disciples to preach, He said: "In the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they have. For the labourer is worthy of his hire." This passage proves that preachers earn their living, as payment due to them from those to whom they preach. The following observation from the Gloss renders this proposition still more clear. "A preacher is entitled to two rewards for his one work. One reward he receives on earth, in the support afforded to him in his labour; the other reward awaits him in heaven, in a glorious resurrection." Now, reward is due not to power, nor to authority, nor to habit, but to deed; for deeds alone, are meritorious. Aristotle says (I. Ethic): "As in the Olympian games, the crown was given, not to the strongest nor to the noblest, but to those who fought most strenuously, and who, therefore, were victorious; so they are rightly deemed the most illustrious, who in life have done the best and bravest deeds." St. Paul again says: "he . . . is not crowned, except he strive lawfully." They, therefore, whether prelates or not, who legitimately preach the Gospel, may lawfully live by it (2 Tim. ii. 5).

             5. They who are sent by bishops to preach, labour more than do the others of the order from which they are sent, or than they who, at the bidding of a bishop, send them. But it is lawful for the rest of an order to live on the alms given to its preachers, even though those preachers be not prelates. This is proved by the following words: "It hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a contribution for the poor of the saints, that are in Jerusalem. For it hath pleased them; and they are their debtors. For, if the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual things," (i.e., according to the Gloss, "partakers of the spiritual advantages of the Jews who had sent them preachers from Jerusalem"), "they ought also, in carnal things to minister unto them" (Rom. xv. 26). Now by the "poor" of whom St. Paul here speaks, we cannot understand the Apostles. For, as they were only twelve in number, and were content with little, they did not need a collection to be made for them in all the Churches; especially as we know that they were supported by those to whom they preached (1 Cor. ix.). Hence, all preachers, even though they be not bishops, but are sent by bishops, have a right to live by the Gospel.

             6. They, who, by episcopal commission, are employed in preaching, are of far greater use to bishops in spreading the word of God, than are they who are engaged in other functions of the ministry. Now, prelates who preach may accept alms, not only for themselves, but for their households. More justly, then, may they who preach by episcopal commission, accept from the faithful the means of subsistence.

             7. He who gives to another, gratis, that which he is not obliged to give, has as good a right to take a reward, as he who does merely what he is obliged to do. Now it is a bounden duty for bishops to minister to their flocks in spiritual matters. For, as St. Paul says: "If I preach the Gospel, it is no glory to me; for a necessity lieth upon me; for woe is unto me if I preach not the Gospel" (1 Cor. ix. 16). They, therefore, who are not prelates, and have not the responsibility of a flock, are justified in accepting material assistance from those to whom they preach.

             8. St. Augustine says in LIB. de. op. monach: "If they (i.e., religious) be preachers of the Gospel, I admit their right," i.e. to live on the alms of the faithful. But these words apply, not only to prelates, but to all such as can preach, even to deacons. Hence St. Paul says (Eph. iv. 11): "He gave some Apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors." The Apostle thus draws a distinction between Evangelists and pastors, and Apostles, by which term we are to understand prelates. Hence, all preachers, be they prelates or not, may live by the Gospel.

             9. Preaching is the noblest of all ecclesiastical functions. Our Lord declared that this was the purpose of His advent into the world. "For this was I sent" (Luke iv. 43). Isaias, also speaking in the person of Christ, says: "He hath sent me to preach to the meek" (Isa. lxi. 1). St. Paul, likewise, says: "Christ sent me, not to baptise, but to preach the Gospel" (1 Cor. i. 17). Now, they who are engaged in the business of the Church, ought not to work with their hands, but to live on the property of the Church, as St. Augustine says, (in lib. de Opere Monach.), speaking of himself. This rule applies, much more forcibly, to those engaged in preaching, who have every right to live by the Gospel, instead of by manual labour.

             10. The office of a preacher is more useful to the community, than is that of an advocate. But advocates may, from the legitimate exercise of their profession, earn a livelihood. Therefore, preachers, may, if their preaching be authorised, live by means of it, whether they be prelates or no.

             11. Although alms cannot be given out of money made by usury, preachers may, nevertheless, accept alms from money thus gained, provided they cannot, without so doing, remain in a place inhabited by usurers. The reason for this concession is, that preachers, by inducing usurers to restore their ill-gotten gains, are directing the affairs of those, to whom this money is due. This is distinctly established in the decretal Extra DE SENT. EXCOM. CAP. Cum voluntate. But, preachers are, in like manner, occupied with the affairs of all men, both rich and poor, when they urge the rich to give alms to the poor, and to perform other salutary works. Hence, they are justified, in accepting alms from those to whom they preach.

             12. We see that in mechanical trades, it is not they only who work with their hands who live by the trade, but the architect who directs their labour, profits by it likewise. Now, the man who teaches morals, is, so to speak, the architect of all human duties (see I. Ethics). Therefore, preachers have a right to live by their preaching, even though they do not work with their hands.

             13. Health of soul is to be preferred before health of body. Physicians live without manual labour, by giving advice to their patients. Therefore, those who are engaged about the spiritual welfare of others, have a right to accept alms for their maintenance, even though they do not labour with their hands.

             Our next task will be to show that preachers may not only live by alms freely offered to them, but that they may likewise beg for charity.

             1. This is proved by the example of Christ, speaking in whose person, the Psalmist says: "But I am a beggar and poor" (Ps. xxxix. 18). The Gloss remarks on this text: "Christ speaks thus of Himself in the form of a servant." Again: "a beggar is one who asks from another; a poor man one who has not enough for himself."

             2. In Ps. lxix. 6, we find the words: "But I am needy and poor." On which the Gloss says: "'I am needy'; i.e., begging, and poor, i.e., 'I have not wherewith to support myself.'" He who speaks thus, owns no material wealth; and, having spiritual riches, he ever desires more, craves for it, and receives it.

             3. In Ps. cviii. 17, we read: "He persecuted the poor man, and the beggar," i.e. "Christ," as the Gloss expounds it. Another commentary says: "It is pure malice to persecute the poor. Rich men may sometimes suffer persecution on account of their position or wealth." Both these commentaries show, that these words of the Psalm, are understood as being an allusion to material poverty.

             4. St. Paul says (2 Cor. viii. 9): "You know the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that being rich, He became poor for your sakes," i.e., "in the world" (Gloss). That the poverty of Christ ought to be imitated, is proved by the Gloss in the following words: "Let no one despise himself. He that inhabits a poor dwelling is rich in conscience; and he sleeps more peacefully on the ground, than the wealthy man can rest amidst his gold and purple. Fear not, then, in thy misery, to approach Him who has put on our poverty."

             5. Our Lord asked for hospitality. We know this by His words to Zacchaeus: "Come down quickly; for to-day I must abide in thy house" (Luke xix. 5). The Gloss says: "He offers Himself, although He has not been invited. For He knows the disposition of Zacchaeus' heart, although he has uttered no word of invitation."

             6. We read in St. Mark xi. 11: "Having viewed all things round about, when now the eventide was come." The Gloss understands these words to mean: "having looked all round about Him, to see if any would offer Him hospitality. For, He was so poor and so carefully avoided flattering any man, that He found none to shelter Him in all that large city." Hence, we see, that the poverty of Our Lord was so extreme, that He possessed not wherewith to hire a lodging, but sought and hoped for hospitality from others. It is, therefore, blasphemous to say, that it is unlawful to beg.

             7. The same lesson is taught by the example of the Apostles. They were instructed by Our Lord not to take with them on their way, the necessaries for their journey (Matt. x., Mark vi., Luke ix. and x.). They could not have taken what they needed, as a right; they must, therefore, have begged it.

             8. Again, the same fact is made evident by the conduct of the Apostles, after the resurrection of Christ. St. John says (3 Ep. v. 7.): "For his name, they went out," ("away," as the Gloss expresses it), "taking nothing of the Gentiles." Hence, they went forth, without the necessaries of life. These they must, therefore, have gained by begging.

             9. A man is more strictly bound to provide for himself, than for others. Now, the Apostles asked for alms for "the poor of the saints who were in Jerusalem." If, then, it be lawful to beg for our brethren, it is equally right to do so for ourselves.

             10. The example of St. Alexis shows that mendicancy is permissible. This Saint, having renounced all things for the love of Christ, lived, not by work, but by begging. He asked for alms even from the servants whom his father sent to seek him; and he thanked God that he received charity from them. His sanctity was made known by a voice from Heaven. This voice was heard by the Pope, by the Emperors Arcadius and Honorius, and by the people of Rome assembled in the basilica of St. Peter. The voice announced that the preservation of Rome was due to the merits of Alexis. After the death of the Saint, his fame was spread by means of many miracles; and he was canonised. His feast is solemnly observed by the whole Roman Church.

             11. St. Jerome writing to Oceanus in praise of Fabiola, says of her, that "she desired to sacrifice her riches and to live on charity." Had this wish been sinful on her part, she could not have been commended for it.

             12. That which is unlawful, cannot be imposed by the Church as a penance. But, for certain grave offences, a sinner may be enjoined to make a pilgrimage, and to beg his way. Hence, mendicancy is not sinful, but may be a penitential exercise. It may, therefore, be practised, together with other works of penance, for the love of God, and as a means to perfection.

             13. As Vigils, fasting, and such-like macerations of the flesh, are employed as means, whereby to combat concupiscence, so everything that tends towards humiliation diminishes pride, which is as much to be avoided as lust; since, as St. Gregory says, spiritual sins are the more heinous. Now, no penitential exercise can be more humiliating than mendicancy: for man is naturally ashamed of begging Hence, as fasting and watching, regarded in the light of bridles to concupiscence, pertain to the state of perfection; mendicancy, likewise, embraced for the love of Christ and for the sake of humility, pertains to the same state.

             14. Again, the charity of Christ is more liberal, than is the friendship of the world. Now, even in human friendship, friends make no difficulty about asking each other for what they need, particularly in cases where some return can be made for what is given. The form in which such return is made, is of no consequence, as the philosopher says (V. Ethic). Hence it is permissible, for a man, even though he be in good health, to ask for the love of God, for what he needs; especially as he can make a return to the donor, by prayers and spiritual works.

             15. It is lawful to ask another for a favour, if, by so doing, we give him a chance of improving his condition. Now, by giving alms, a man betters his condition, by meriting eternal life. Hence, it cannot be unlawful to ask for charity.

             16. The needs of the poor cannot be relieved, unless they be known; and they cannot be known unless they be revealed. Hence, if it be right that any should be in a state of destitution, it is right that they should beg for what they need. But, as we have already proved, it is lawful for men to reduce themselves to such poverty, for the love of God, that even, (as St. Augustine says in LIB. De opere monach.), their manual labour does not suffice to support them. It is, therefore, justifiable in them to beg.

             We shall now prove that it is right to give alms to mendicant religious.

             1. St. John says (3rd Ep.), "Dearly beloved, thou dost faithfully whatever thou dost for the brethren, and that for strangers." He immediately points out to whom he refers by saying: "for his name they went out" (i.e., "leaving their own possessions," Gloss). And again, "We, therefore, ought to receive such." The Gloss here remarks: "John had renounced all things; but he speaks of himself as belonging to the number of the rich, in order to make those whom he addresses, more prompt, and more ready, in succouring the needy." Hence, it is praiseworthy to give alms to those, who, for the love of Christ, live without possessions of their own.

             2. We read in Matt. x. 41, "He that receiveth a just man in the name of a just man" shall receive the reward of a just man. The Gloss remarks, that "on this account he is called just." The Gloss also adds: "Someone may therefore say: 'We shall thus receive false prophets, and the traitor Judas.' But the Lord, foreseeing this objection, says not, that persons are to be received but their names; and, that, he who receives another, shall not be deprived of a reward on account of the unworthiness of the object of his charity." Hence, we must conclude, that alms are to be given to them that bear, even though unjustly, the name of sanctity.

             3. St. Paul (Rom. xv.) praises the faithful of Macedonia and Achaia, for their resolution to make a collection for the poor among the Saints. The Gloss remarks hereon: "These men devoted themselves wholly to the Divine service, heeding no worldly matters, and caring only to set an example of holy living to them that believed." The Achaians and Macedonians had made a collection for these good men; and St. Paul invites the Romans to do the same. Hence, we see, that alms may be given to the poor of Christ.

             4. The Gloss says, commenting on the words: 2 Cor. viii., "let your abundance supply their want," i.e., "the want of those who have renounced all earthly things." These words are a further confirmation of the opinion which we have already expressed.

             5. Again, on the words, "But you, brethren, be not weary of well doing" (2 Thess. iii. 14), the Gloss observes, that "'well doing' here signifies doing good to the poor." Another commentary says: "Because, although they work, they are still in need of certain things. Thus, St. Paul warns the faithful, that, if they have the means of supplying the necessities of the servants of God, they should not be remiss in so doing." A man cannot be blamed for generosity: he, only, deserves rebuke who, while able to work, prefers to lead an idle life. Hence, it is praiseworthy to give alms to the servants of God, whether they work or not, even though they may be to blame for not working.

             6. St. Jerome says, when writing against Vigilantius: "We do not deny, that, if anyone is able to do so and is generously minded, he may give alms to all poor men, even to Samaritans and Jews. The Apostle teaches that charity is to be given to all men, but chiefly to them that are of the household of the Faith. It is of such that Our Lord says: 'Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity, who will receive you into everlasting dwellings.' But can these poor persons, whose physical degradation corresponds with their mental depravity, receive us into everlasting dwellings, when they possess no home at the present time, and have no hope of any habitation in the future? It is not simply the poor, but the poor in spirit that are called 'blessed.' And it is of such that the Psalmist writes: 'Blessed is the man that understandeth concerning the needy and the poor' (Ps. xl.). In order to succour the ordinary poor, alms are necessary, not understanding. In order to assist the holy poor mentioned in the beatitude, there must be intelligence, in order that alms may be given to him who is grieved and ashamed to accept them, and who, reaping material advantage, sows spiritual good." Hence, we see that it is better to give alms to the poor who are holy, than to any others.

             7. On the words, "he hath dispersed abroad, he hath given to the poor," (2 Cor. ix.), the Gloss thus comments: "If the reward of him that giveth to the poor, be great, how much greater shall be the prize awarded to him that ministers to the saints? For anyone may be poor, even though he be wicked." This is a further argument, in favour of the opinion that we have just expressed.

             8. St. Jerome thus comments on the words: "Let him that is instructed in the word communicate to him that instructeth him" (Gal. vi. 6): "St. Paul commands those that were infirm disciples and carnal men, to contribute to the material needs of the masters, from whom they have received spiritual instruction, and who, being entirely devoted to study, lack the necessaries of life." Hence, we see that alms are to be given, not to such as work with their hands, but to those that are engaged in the study of the Scripture.

             9. St. Jerome, likewise, writes thus to Paulinus: "He is rather to be considered a courtier than a monk, who always, or often, talks of money, and who takes no heed of the alms which belong to all." From which words it is evident, that alms are to be given to monks, and to all others; and that monks have a right to speak of asking for charity.

             10. We read in decret. dist. xlii.: "If any man contemn those who faithfully prepare the agapes, or banquet of the poor, and call the brethren together for the glory of God, and despises the work they do, let such an one be anathema." It is, therefore, a crime worthy of excommunication, to condemn the practice of almsgiving.

             11. We read in Prov. xxi. 13: "He that stoppeth his ear against the cry of the poor, shall also cry himself; and he shall not be heard." The Gloss observes: "These words refer to the poor considered generally, not only to the sick or destitute. For, he who prefers to judge his neighbour, rather than to pity his sinfulness, shows that he himself is not free from guilt, nor worthy to be heard by the Divine mercy." Alms, then, are to be given to all who are poor, even though they be in robust health.

             12. On the words of Ps. ciii.: "Bringing forth grass for cattle, and herbs for the service of men," the Gloss says: "The earth being fertile, was able to produce grass, (i.e., material subsistence) for cattle, (i.e., for preachers), in order that they who preach the Gospel may live by the Gospel. If the earth bring not forth this temporal support for preachers it is barren. If it produce these material good things it is bearing fruit." And again: "Preachers have a right to material assistance, since they impart spiritual gifts. It is of them that it is written: 'blessed is he that anticipates the voice of him that asks.' Thou oughtest not to act towards the ox that treadeth out the grain, as thou dost act towards the beggar who passes by. Thou dost give to him that asketh, for thou hast read 'Give to him that asketh of thee.' But thou shouldst likewise give to him that asketh not." Again, the Gloss says: "give to every one that asketh, whoever he may be, recognising in his person Him to Whom thou givest. But, much more, give to the servant of God, the soldier of Christ, who asketh not." Hence, we see, that, if we are to bestow alms on all the poor, even on those who do not beg for them, preachers ought in an especial manner to be assisted by those who hear them.

             13. In St. Luke xvi. 9, we read: "Make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity." Here, the Gloss remarks: "this text does not refer to the poor indiscriminately, but to those who can receive us unto everlasting dwellings." Now the poor of Christ, beyond all others, can receive us into everlasting dwellings; for they, together with Christ, will be our judges. Therefore, it is, especially, to them that we should give alms.

             We must now reply to the objections of our opponents.

             1. To the argument that "temporal possessions blind the eyes of the wise," we reply, that temporal possessions may be understood in a twofold sense. First they may be considered as hoarded up. Now to accept them in order thus to treasure them, is an act of covetousness which blinds the eyes of the soul, and causes it to decline from justice. But temporal things may also be accepted, in order to supply necessary food, and raiment; and to accept them for this reason, is not cupidity, and does not blind the eyes of the soul.

             This distinction is grounded on the words of St. Paul, (1 Tim. vi. 8): "Having food and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content." The Gloss remarks: "He who goes beyond that, finds that which is evil." Hence it is added: "For they that will become rich, fall into temptation, and into the snare of the devil."

             2. There are two kinds of slavery, to wit the slavery of fear, and the slavery of love. He who accepts gifts from cupidity, is enslaved by fear; for the things acquired by cupidity are possessed in fear. Now, we ought to be free from this servitude and we ought to be the servants of Christ. For, as St. Paul says (Rom. viii. 15), "you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear." They who accept gifts in charity, are the bondsmen of love; and the servants of Christ are not free from this bondage. Hence St. Paul says, (2 Cor. iv. 5), "We preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ Our Lord, and ourselves your servants, through Jesus." Hence, he, who, in order to fulfil the duties of charity, accepts alms for his bodily sustenance, incurs, not a bondage unworthy of the servants of Christ, but only such as befits the servants of the Lord.

             3. The act of giving, is, in itself, more meritorious than that of receiving. Hence Aristotle says (IV. Ethic), "the act of liberality is greater in giving than in receiving, although a liberal man may both give and receive. There is nothing, however, to prevent the act of receiving, from being, at times, from some special circumstance, the more commendable. It would, then, although exceptionally, be more praiseworthy than that of giving." If, then, nothing be considered in a poor man, save the fact that he accepts charity, the rich man who gives the alms, is more blessed, than the poor man who receives it. But, circumstances may render the recipient of charity more meritorious, than the giver. Thus, a man, who, for the love of Christ, has made himself voluntarily poor, and accepts alms, is more blessed than the rich man who bestows the gift. Hence, the Gloss remarks: "The Lord does not prefer rich men who give alms, to the poor who have renounced all for His sake; but He gives the greatest glory to them, who, after forsaking all their possessions, labour with their hands, in order to have something to give to those in need." Now, this conduct is, certainly, very commendable in such as are not engaged in more important occupations. And, it would be most perfect, if religious, without detriment to such occupation, could, as we have before said, perform some manual labour, and give their earnings in charity. But, religious are not bound to do everything that is perfect; they are only bound to accomplish that to which their vows oblige them.

             4. It is no burthen to the Church, if religious live on alms, seeing that, although they produce great fruits in the Church, their wants are very small. In fact, such religious, do, in reality, lighten the expenses of the Church; for they perform at very small cost, labours for which others, who are not satisfied with so little, would require much larger sums. Neither do mendicant orders deprive the poor of their rights; for, by their counsel and influence, much larger sums are given to the poor, than they themselves receive. And further, these religious before entering their monastery, gave away all their goods to the poor, who have thus received far more than the alms bestowed on mendicant orders.

             5. The decree cited in this objection, is misquoted. This is evident, by the words of Gratian, given in the next chapter. These authorities forbid the Church to receive, not such as were originally rich, but left all things, as did Peter, Matthew, and Paul, or who, like Zacchaeus, distributed their goods to the poor, or presented them to the Church, as did the early Christians who sold all that they had, and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles. What is forbidden to the Church is to receive those who, while living in the house of their parents, or refusing to sacrifice their patrimony, desire at the same time to enjoy ecclesiastical benefices.

             6. St. Augustine speaks of those religious who live idle lives, and, being of no use to those who maintain them, are forced to gain their bread by flattery. For, no one will support a useless person, unless his favour be secured by adulation. But, those religious, to whom charity is extended for the love of Christ, and who, in exchange for material assistance, confer spiritual benefits, have no need to flatter their benefactors. For, they that relieve them, do so for the love of Christ, who has said, "he that receiveth you, receiveth Me" (Matt. x. 40). Now, as the Gloss says, "nothing is received in the Apostles, save what is in Christ." Hence, they, who, for the love of God, become poor, and beg, and live on alms, need not resort to flattery. Those, who are really driven to servility and adulation, are wealthy sycophants, who, in order to preserve and increase their riches, are obliged to flatter the sovereigns, on whom they depend. Thus St. Chrysostom writes, (super Matth.): "Princes, and soldiers, and subjects, are obliged to flatter, and to stand in need of many things. They are reduced to ignominious servility; they live in fear; hence they are exposed to the suspicion and calumny of those that envy them. Far other is the lot of the poor."

             7. It is true, that, to receive is not an act of liberality, (excepting in so far as receiving stands in relation to giving). But, in those who, for the love of Christ, have made themselves poor, it is an act of humility to accept as alms the necessaries of life; and humility is a greater virtue than liberality.

             8. St. Augustine, in the place quoted in the objection, had two reasons for rebuking monks who desired to live on alms. First, he reproved them for falling into the error of believing manual labour to be contrary to the evangelical precept: "Be not solicitous for your body" (St. Matt. vi. 25). Secondly, he reproached them for the sloth which caused them to desire to escape from the laborious lives, which they had led in the world. He says, that it, by no means, beseems artisans to be idle in a life, wherein senators work hard. He does not, however, forbid those, who, in the world lived on their own income, or those occupied in ecclesiastical offices, to live on alms after the example of the early Christians of the Church of Jerusalem. This is plain to anyone who will read his words with care. Religious are not forbidden to live, like poor men, on alms; even though they cannot, by preaching, claim a right to do so. For, charity is given with a different intention to the preacher, and to the mendicant, as the Gloss observes on the words in Ps. cxiii., "bringing forth grass for cattle."

             9. Prelates who preach the Gospel have, as we have said, a right to accept the necessaries of life from their subjects. For, recompense is due, not to power, or authority, but to labour. Likewise, when religious preach, by episcopal authority, it stands to reason, that they must be assisted by those to whom they minister. But there are other reasons, which make it fitting, that religious should have their wants supplied by the charity of the faithful. They have left all things for Christ. They minister at the altar, and the Holy sacrifice profits all men. They also devote themselves to the study of Holy Scripture, to prayer, to contemplation, and to other spiritual exercises, which are all beneficial to the whole Church.

             10. There is nothing inconsistent in the fact, that one man accepts assistance as his due, and that another receives it as a favour and charity. The alms given to a preacher, are but the just return for his labour; but assistance may be rendered to all poor men, not as their due recompense, but out of a spirit of charity.

             11. More harm was done in the Church by the teaching of the false prophets, from whom St. Paul, by labouring with his hands, took away the occasion of living on the charity of the faithful, than was done by the Apostle's supporting himself by his own labour. Now, on the contrary, the Church derives profit from the example of humility set by the mendicant orders, who live on alms, and devote themselves to the salvation of souls, instead of to manual labour. This advantage outweighs the harm done by a few men, who live on charity as an excuse for their sloth. There is, therefore, no reason why the poor of the Church should cease to receive alms, in order to take away the occasion of those who make bad use of them.

             12. It was the custom amongst the Jews, that their teachers should be maintained by the people. At the preaching of the Gospel, this custom became general among the faithful. When the Gentiles were first converted, the Apostles refused to ask or accept assistance from them, fearing lest they might take scandal. There is now, however, no reason to fear such scandal. Indeed, the example of moderation in food and raiment set by religious, is a subject rather of edification than of scandal. They who profess to be scandalized at the sight of religious accepting alms, are like the Pharisees, who, as we are told in St. Matt. xv., took scandal at Our Lord, and whom He bade His disciples to ignore. The case would be very different, were religious to accept alms, not in order to provide for themselves the necessities of life, but for the sake of amassing wealth, or of indulging in riotous living.

             13. To the thirteenth objection, we may reply, as St. Jerome replied to Vigilantius, that according to the same reasoning virginity is not a good thing; "for, if all were virgins, the human race would cease." Again, "virtue is rare, and desired by few; would that all men resembled those few of whom it is said: 'many indeed are called but few are chosen.'" This is the answer to the thirteenth objection. The works of perfection are so difficult, that, but very few attempt to accomplish them. There is, therefore, no grounds for fearing that the world will cease to exist, on account of the perfection of its inhabitants.

             We must now proceed to answer the arguments of those who maintain, that it is not lawful to seek alms by begging.

             1. The words: "There shall be no poor man and no beggar amongst you," do not forbid persons to embrace the condition of poverty and mendicity. These words prohibit men to leave their neighbours in a condition of misery, which forces them to beg. This is proved by the words occurring in the same chapter of Deuteronomy: "of thy countrymen and neighbour thou shalt not have power to demand it again." On these words, the Gloss observes: "Although all men be our neighbours, we are chiefly bound to show mercy to those, who, together with ourselves, are the members of Christ." Hence, although charity is enjoined, mendicity is not forbidden.

             2. The Gloss interprets the words, "I have not seen the just man forsaken by God," to mean: "I have not seen the seed of the just man perishing for want of spiritual food, i.e. the Word of God; for the Word of God is always with him." But, if this text be understood to refer to material bread, it means that the just are not reduced to beggary by necessity, or because God has deserted them; since it is said: "I will not leave thee nor forsake thee" (Hebr. xvi. 5). The words do not mean, that just men may not, for love of God, embrace poverty; although they did not do so in the days of the Psalmist. For such works of perfection were reserved for the time of Grace.

             3. It is not unfitting, that that which is inflicted on one man as a penalty, may be, in another, a self-imposed work of justice. Criminals have their goods confiscated as a legal punishment; but this is no reason why other men may not despoil themselves of their possessions for the love of God. Again, beggary may fall upon sinners as a Divine chastisement; but this is no reason why mendicity, voluntarily embraced for Christ, should not be a work of justice.

             4. The Gloss understands the text quoted in the fourth objection, to mean, that men are not to beg avariciously. Otherwise the commentary would not be in harmony with the text. The text says: "that you want nothing of any man's." Now they beg avariciously, who seek, not merely necessary food and raiment, but who further desire to amass riches. This, as has been already pointed out, is made clear by the words in 1 Tim. vi. quoted above.

             5. There are two kinds of mendicity, to wit, voluntary and compulsory. Those reduced to beggary against their will, are liable to be tempted to impatience. Voluntary mendicity, which does not proceed from avarice, has the merit of humility. Hence, St. Augustine does not forbid voluntary mendicity. He simply teaches, that the occasion of compulsory beggary should be avoided by the poor of Christ, by means of manual labour. This is evident by his words: "that they may not be compelled by need," etc.

             6. The sixth objection is quite irrelevant to the matter in hand. For, the words of St. Jerome refer to the habit of asking for, and accepting, superfluities. This is evident by what he says in his letter to the priest Nepotian.

             7. The law referred to, applies to sturdy beggars who were useless to the state, and who, living idle lives, defrauded other poor people of their rights. The law in question speaks of them as slothful men. Of this class are gluttons who beg for food which they may eat in idleness. Religious cannot, except in malice, be held to belong to this class. It need not, always, be a heinous sin which is punished severely; for, chastisement is inflicted, not merely as a penalty for guilt, but also as a warning to the offender, or to others. Hence, at times, a heavy penalty is awarded to an offence, which, though not heinous in itself, is habitual. This is done, in order that it may act as a deterrent to the criminal. The chapter quoted in the objection, refers only to punishment inflicted to avenge sin.

             8. Those of whom St. Augustine speaks, begged not merely for necessaries, but for superfluities. Their holiness, therefore, was not true, but hypocritical. This is made clear by the fact, that he speaks of their "desiring luxurious poverty," or "the recompense of feigned sanctity." In thus acting, they were, of course, reprehensible.

             9. Shame results from a base action: baseness is opposed to beauty. Hence, baseness, and the shame consequent upon it, must be distinguished, according to the kind of beauty to which it is opposed. Beauty may be either spiritual, or physical. Spiritual beauty consists in a well ordered soul, and in abundance of spiritual gifts. Hence, all that arises from deficiency of spiritual good, or which points to spiritual disorder, is base. Physical beauty consists in symmetry of body, and in the due proportion of such things as pertain to corporeal perfection. Bodily deformity, or deficiency, is, in a certain sense, base. And as both spiritual and physical beauty are loved and desired, spiritual and physical deformity cause a certain shame. Thus, a man is ashamed of being poor, or unsightly, or ignorant, or awkward. Since spiritual deformity is always reprehensible, all that produces the shame of such deformity ought to be avoided. We speak not of the confession of sins; for the sinner is ashamed, not of his confession, but of the guilt which he acknowledges. But, holy men think little of physical defect or deformity. In fact, they embrace it, willingly, for the love of Christ, and for the sake of perfection. Hence, the ignominy that accompanies such physical deformity, is not always an object of contempt. Sometimes, indeed, it is worthy of high praise, as when it is assumed for the sake of humility. Now, beggary is shameful, inasmuch as it is a disgrace attached to a material deficiency. For a beggar acknowledges that he is poor, and is often subject to him, to whom he appeals for the relief of his needs. But beggary undertaken for the sake of Christ, deserves honour, rather than contempt.

             10. A man who is asked for charity ought not to be wearied, if the petition be properly made. And if he be wearied, the fault lies in him for giving alms in order to free himself from importunity, rather than with him who asks, in a becoming manner, for the relief of his needs. But, if the petition be not rightly made, the fault lies with the petitioner.

             We shall next undertake to answer, in their proper order, the arguments of those who hold that religious who preach may not live on charity, or beg for alms.

             1. It by no means follows that because preachers live on alms, they must, necessarily, be flatterers. When they preach without flattery, they often find but small favour among wicked and carnal-minded men, although they are approved of by the good; nay sometimes they have to suffer, at the hands of those, whose favour they could not win without adulation. At other times, they are well received by good men, who do not wish to be flattered. They thus resemble Our Lord who, at times, had no roof to shelter Him, and, at other times, was entertained by many, and who received the ministry of women who followed Him, as we read in St. Luke (viii.). Thus, likewise, the Apostles sometimes endured great distress; and at other times they were well supplied, behaving with discretion under both circumstances. "I know," says St. Paul (Phil. iv. 12), "how to abound, and how to suffer want." Vicissitudes of this description are the common experience of poor preachers in our own days.

             2. Preachers, by asking for charity, do nothing that can be an occasion of avarice. Avarice is an inordinate love of possessing. It is not inordinate to wish to have necessary food and clothing. "Having what to eat, and wherewith to be clothed, with these we are content" (1 Tim. vi. 8). Hence, poor men are not, by begging for the necessities of life, exposed to any danger of avarice.

             3. Preachers ought not to desire material assistance as their primary end or object. They may, however seek such temporal goods as a secondary end, or as the means, whereby they may be enabled to achieve their primary end, which is the preaching of the Gospel. Commenting on the words, "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice" (Matt. vi. 36), the Gloss says: "By these words, Our Lord shows us that we are not to desire temporal things as our chief, and most necessary good. We are to seek the Kingdom of Heaven, and to set it before us as our end, and to do all things for the attainment of that end. Let us, then, eat, in order to preach; but not preach, in order to eat."

             4. The stipend which preachers receive is due to them for their work. They have a twofold right to the alms which they accept. A debt may be due by a double right. Some have a right to payment as a debt of legal justice due to them. Such a debt is the one resulting from the compact made between a workman and his employer, whereby the labourer can sue his employer for his wages. Others can, likewise, claim a reward, as a debt of friendly justice. For, when one man does a service to another, it is only fair, that that other should make the best return within his power; although his friend cannot, legally, compel him to make any return. Aristotle speaks of this twofold sort of justice in VIII. Ethics. I maintain, therefore, that when a prelate is set over the people, they have a right to demand spiritual ministrations from him; and he has a right to claim material assistance from them. But the people cannot claim spiritual service from any, save prelates. Neither on the other hand, (even though they preach by the permission of prelates), can any of the clergy, who are not prelates, claim material assistance from the laity. They can only do so, if they be appointed to be, in all things, the vicars of prelates. Hence, we see, that the poor, who render no service whatsoever, stand on a different footing in the matter of accepting alms, to religious who preach by permission of prelates, and are not themselves prelates, and to prelates themselves. For the poor accept everything gratis; and thus are mere mendicants. But preachers, who are not prelates, accept charity as a recompense due to them, although they cannot enforce its payment. Bishops, however, have compulsory power and can exact payment as a right. Nevertheless, if he who has the right to demand some thing, does not assert this right, but begs for what he needs, as if it were a free gift, he does no harm to anyone; but by his example, he shows the beauty of humility.

             5. The fifth objection is answered by saying that St. Paul wished to show that he had as good a right as the other Apostles, to receive the donations of the faithful. And, in order to make good this point, he began by proving that he was an Apostle, even as were the other Apostles.

             6. The false apostles were unjust usurpers when they accepted the contributions of the faithful. Three reasons prove this. First, they taught a doctrine that was false, and contrary to the Gospel. For, as the Gloss observes, on the words "we likewise beseech you, brethren," (Rom. xvi.), "they forced believers to follow Jewish rites." Secondly, they preached without any commission from the true Apostles. Therefore St. Paul says that they "came in privately." Thirdly, they behaved as if they possessed the authority of Apostles. Now, as the objection ignores these three points, the reasoning contained in it, is worthless.

             7. Preaching religious beg for what is, according to the second mode of justice, due to them; for a debt is a matter of justice. But they are the more to be commended, in as much as they ask for that which is their due, as though it were a free gift.

             8. Prelates who receive tithes and offerings from their people, and who duly minister to them, may elect certain coadjutors to assist them more efficiently in so doing. Such conduct is not unfair to the faithful. For, if the laity give more temporal alms than is agreed upon, they receive, in return, more spiritual assistance than the prelates are obliged to give. Furthermore, their alms are not taken as a right, but are accepted thankfully and humbly.

             9. Everyone may renounce what is owing to him. Thus, although bishops are bound to support those whom they send to preach, the preachers may renounce their claim to such support. They do not, for this reason, become a burthen on the people to whom they are sent. For, they ask nothing from them save necessary food; and this they do not claim as a right, but beg as an alms, according as each one of their hearers may have determined in his heart. They, thus, imitate the example of St. Paul (2 Cor. chapters viii. and ix.).

             10. Hypocrites were rebuked by Our Lord for seeking gain by means of prayer and of superstitious practices. The Gloss says: "Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees; for by your superstitions, you aim at nothing, save at despoiling those who listen to, you." But it is rash to pass this judgment on anyone; for his private motive is the secret of each man's own heart.

             11. Preachers have no right to consort with persons of bad character, if there is danger that the vices of such persons may be attributed to them likewise, and if their preaching may, for this reason, fall into discredit. St. Gregory says: "If a man's conduct be despised, his preaching will be contemned." The Gloss speaks in like manner. If, however, preachers, without losing their own reputation, make friends with men of bad character, in order to reform them, it is a praiseworthy act. It is done in imitation of Our Lord. For, we read in Matt. ix. 11, "The scribes and Pharisees said to his disciples: why doth your Master eat with publicans and sinners?" The Gloss observes, that Christ, by so doing, "gave to His disciples an example of mercy." But, if sinners do not esteem it a favour, that the preachers of the Gospel should consort with them, the fault lies with them, not with the preachers.

             12. If they who preach the Word, accept from their hearers the necessaries of life, they do not sell the Gospel. For, as we have already said, material gain is not their primary motive in preaching. The Gloss on the words: "let the priests that rule well" (1 Tim. v.), remarks: "Good and faithful dispensers of the Word ought not to attain to heavenly glory only, but likewise to earthly honour, that so, they may not have cause for sadness." Again, "Alms are given from charity, and accepted through necessity. Nevertheless the Gospel is not venal. It is not preached in exchange for earthly goods. They who proclaim it, do so for the sake of eternal happiness. For, were they to sell so great a treasure, they would show that they held it in contempt. Let preachers then, accept from the people as a necessity the means of existence, and let them receive from the Lord the reward of their labours. For they do not regard the alms of the faithful as a recompense or a motive for their work. Their ministry is one of love. They accept what is given them as a stipend, whereby they may procure the supplies which are necessary to enable them to continue their labours."

             13. Although there might have been some appearance of evil in the conduct of the Apostles, if they had taken alms from the Gentiles, to whom they preached the Faith, and if they had thereby introduced a new custom; it cannot now be considered disedifying, if preachers accept alms from the faithful. For this custom is sanctioned by the Gospel; and they to whom charity is given, need it, not for superfluities, but for the necessaries of life. It is evident, also, that religious do not preach for the sake of gain: for the alms that they receive, are far inferior in amount, to the worldly possessions which they renounced for the love of Christ.

             We will next reply, one by one, to the arguments brought to show, that alms ought not to be given to religious.

             1. The words: "call the poor, from whom you have at present nothing to expect," mean only, that in giving alms the intention of receiving reward must not be present to the mind, though they may receive it in the future. For there is no one so poor, that he may not, in some case of emergency, be of use to us. This is made clear by the following words of the Gloss: "If thou dost invite others, in order, thyself, to be invited, thou mayest deceive thyself." Neither are we to understand, that there will be no eternal reward for such as call together rich men, or their own kinsfolk; for such an invitation may proceed from charity, and may be given for the love of God. Hence, the Gloss says: "They who invite the poor expect a future recompense; they who call together their friends and brethren, or wealthy people, have their reward now. But, if, like the sons of Job, they entertain rich persons, for the love of God, then He who commands us to practise brotherly love, will reward such hospitality, equally with other works of charity." But we are not to conclude, that it is a sin to entertain our kinsfolk, even from mere natural affection; but only that such hospitality does not deserve an everlasting recompense. The Gloss remarks: "Our Lord does not forbid us to call together our wealthy friends, and our kinsmen, as if it were criminal to do so. He only tells us, that such an invitation, will not be rewarded with eternal life."

             2. The saying of St. Augustine, adduced in the second objection, is to be understood in the same sense as that of Ecclesiast. (xii. 4), "Give to the merciful and uphold not the sinners." The Gloss observes on this text: "Do not encourage sinners in their sinful ways; do not hold communication with such; as they do who entertain actors, and suffer the poor of Christ to hunger." But, he who gives to a sinner who is in want, not in order to encourage him in sin, but because he beholds in him a man, assists not a sinner, but a just man; because he loves, not the sinner, but human nature. It is better, however, to withhold an alms, than to give it to a man, because he is a sinner, or in order to cause him to sin. But it does not follow, that we may not bestow charity on the poor of Christ who do no manual work. For, as we have already shown, they commit no sin by omitting to perform such labour. And, even were their omission criminal, we should not be assisting them because they were sinners, but because they were in distress.

             3. He who asks in an unbecoming manner, should not obtain that which he demands; he should, rather, be corrected. But, he who begs befittingly, should, if possible, receive that for which he asks. Hence St. Gregory, XXI. Moral., says, on the words of Job: "If I have denied to the poor what they desired," that "the holy man, in this saying, bears testimony to himself, that he not only assisted the poor in their needs, but condescended to their desires. But what is to be done, when the poor ask for things that are not expedient for them to have? Or, since in Holy Scripture, the poor are spoken of as being humble, are we to consider, that they ought to have only those things, for which they ask with humility? It is certain, that we ought to give them those things that they beg humbly for, i.e., that they ask for out of necessity, not out of covetousness. For, it would be great pride, if they were to beg for what is unsuited to their condition of poverty." We should, therefore, unhesitatingly, assist the poor in their necessities; and we should rebuke those who ask for superfluities.

             4. As it is said in the fourth objection we must refuse alms, when, by giving them, we should encourage the recipients to commit injustice; but we should not refuse such assistance in cases of extreme necessity. But, as mendicant religious ask for alms, not for criminal purposes, but for the furtherance of their sacred labours, this proposition does not apply to them.

             5. St. Ambrose does not say, in the words referred to, that infirmity of health, or the shame experienced by those who beg, are to be considered as reasons for giving alms. We give alms, on account of the need of those who ask for them. What St. Ambrose says, is, that we should give more abundantly, to those who are sick, and to those who are ashamed of begging. He does not say that we are not to give to those who are in good health, and to those who are not ashamed to beg; but that, other things being equal, the sick and retiring are, especially, deserving of our charity. But, sickness and reluctance to beg, are not the only conditions which should excite our charity. We must also consider the reputation of him that asks us, his claims upon us, his needs, etc. It is not only those who have lost their fortune by accident, who feel ashamed to beg. Religious, who have voluntarily renounced all things for the love of God, experience the same reluctance. For, they often belong to noble families; and shame at begging, is, therefore, natural to them. But, in religious, this natural shame, like other passions, is perhaps more fully subject to reason, than is the case with laymen.

             6. Although there may be many reasons for giving more abundant alms to one man than to another, we cannot conclude, for any one reason, that one man always deserves more assistance than others. Thus, the fact that a man is in greater need than are others, is not, always, a reason why he should be helped more than others. For, a man in less distressed circumstances, might be able to show cause, why he should receive more assistance from us, than a neighbour poorer than he. Aristotle teaches (Ethics IX.), that the preponderating reason for relieving another, is his claim upon us. For, except under very peculiar circumstances, we are more strictly bound to pay a debt, than to give a favour. Now, as we owe to preachers the necessaries of life as a stipend for their labours, we are bound, in a special manner, to bestow our alms upon them, especially when they are in distress. This is a debt of justice. This we ought, therefore, to pay, unless there be many grave reasons to prevent our so doing.

             7. In reply to the seventh difficulty we must say that there are two sorts of happiness, spiritual and material. There are, likewise, two kinds of misery, spiritual and material. Religious, who have made themselves voluntarily poor, have not to suffer spiritual misery, which is absolute misery. Nay, Our Lord calls them "blessed" (Matt. v. and Luke vi.). They are, however, subject to physical distress; and are, therefore, worthy objects of material relief.

             8. Kinship is one reason for giving alms more abundantly in some cases than in others. It is not, however, the only standard whereby our charity is to be proportioned. Therefore, it does not follow, as we have already said, that we are always to give most assistance to those most nearly related to us.