CHAPTER XV

REFUTATION OF THE ERRORS QUOTED IN THE LAST CHAPTER

WE must remember that the enemies of poverty impugn, not only the teaching, but the life of Our Lord. Christ has taught us both by word and example to observe poverty in all things. St. Paul tells us (2 Cor. viii. 9), "that being rich He became poor for our sakes." The Gloss, commenting on these words, says, that, "He took poverty upon Himself, although He did not lose His riches. Interiorly He was rich, exteriorly He was poor. He concealed the treasure of His Godhead, and revealed the poverty of His Manhood." Hence, those who follow Christ in poverty, acquire great dignity, as we shall presently show. "Therefore (the Gloss concludes), let no one despise Him, who, though poor in His dwelling, was rich in conscience. If we consider His life, from His first entry into the world, we shall see that He chose a poor maiden for His Mother, and willed to be needy and in want, and to have for His birthplace the poorest of poor cities. The stable is a monument of His poverty, as we are reminded in a certain address delivered at one of the synods of the Council of Ephesus." "Behold" (we quote part of this address) "the most humble dwelling of Him who enriches Heaven. A crib suffices to Him that sitteth above the Cherubim; and He who has joined the sea to the dry land is Himself swathed in swaddling bands. Mark His poverty here below; consider the abundance of His riches above." But if Christ, as St. Paul says, had not become poor for our sakes, not for His own, could He not have chosen a wealthy mother, and might He not have been born in His own house? If the abnegation of earthly possessions is of no account in Christian perfection, why should Our Lord have deprived Himself even of a home? Therefore, let the enemies of poverty blush and be silent, while the glory of this virtue radiates from the crib of Christ.

             But, lest we may imagine, that, in His more mature years, Our Lord abandoned the poverty which He bore in childhood, let us consider His own words. "The Son of man," He said, "hath not whereon to lay His Head" (Matt. viii. 20). St. Jerome makes the following comment on this text, "Christ spoke thus, as if to say: 'Why should you desire to follow me for the sake of gaining worldly pomp and riches, since my poverty is so extreme that I have no dwelling of mine own, and since the roof under which I sleep belongs not to me?" And St. Chrysostom, writing on the same subject, says, "Observe how Our Lord exemplifies in His deeds, the poverty which He taught by His words. He had neither table nor lanthorn, nor house, nor any such thing." And this poverty, which He preached, both by word and deed, belongs to perfection. Thus we see that the entire abnegation of all earthly possessions forms part of the perfection of the Christian life.

             We find a further proof of the poverty practised by Our Lord, in the words which He spoke to St. Peter, concerning the tribute money, "Go to the sea, and cast in a hook and that fish which shall first come up, take; and when thou hast opened its mouth, thou shalt find a stater; take that, and give it to them for me and for thee" (Matt xvii. 26). In his exposition of this text, St. Jerome says, "These words, understood simply, edify the hearer, showing as they do that the Lord was so poor, that He had not wherewith to pay tribute for Himself and His Apostle."

             But, someone may object, how then could Judas carry money in his purse? We answer, that Our Lord considered it criminal to use the money intended for the poor for His own purposes, and that, in this, He has left us an example. But it is clear, and cannot be called in question by any Christian, that Christ practised the most sublime perfection in the tenor of His life, and therefore, He taught the perfection of poverty. "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor and come, follow me." These words, according to St. Jerome, contain the highest rule of perfection. Therefore it is the perfection of poverty for men, after the example of Christ, to be destitute of all possessions, and only to reserve something for the poor, especially for those dependent upon them. Thus, Our Lord took care of His disciples who had made themselves poor for His sake, reserving for their sustenance something from the things which were given Him.

             But, amongst all that Christ did and suffered during His mortal life, the example of His most holy Cross is, above all other things, proposed to Christians for their imitation. He Himself says, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (Matt. xvi. 24). St. Paul also, speaking as though crucified with Christ, and exulting only in His Cross, says (Gal. vi. 17), "I bear the marks of the Lord Jesus in my body," being a diligent follower of the example of the Cross. Now, amongst all that is conspicuous in the Cross, poverty is everywhere apparent. So utter, indeed, was the destitution of Our Lord upon the Cross, that He suffered even bodily nakedness and exclaims in the person of the Psalmist (xxi. 19), "They parted my garments amongst them, and upon my vesture they cast lots." Now, men imitate this nakedness of the Cross, by voluntary poverty, especially when they renounce the revenues of their possessions. Thus, St. Jerome, writing to the priest Paulinus, says, "Now that thou hast heard the counsel of Our Saviour: 'If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast and give to the poor and come follow Me,' do thou put His words into practice, and, stripped of all things, follow the nakedness of the Cross. So shalt thou more easily and more speedily scale Jacob's ladder." A little further on, he adds, "It is no great thing for a man to wear a sad and pallid countenance, to make a display of fasting, and to wear a beggarly cloak, if, at the same time, he draw a princely income from his property." Hence, we see, how truly those are enemies of the Cross of Christ, who impugn poverty, and, savouring earthly things, deem that material possessions tend to Christian perfection, and that the abnegation of such possessions detracts from such perfection.

             Now, that we have considered certain points in the life of Christ, in His birth, in His manhood, and in His death upon the Cross, let us proceed to reflect upon His teaching. In the instruction which He gave both to His disciples and to the multitudes, He began with poverty as a foundation, "Blessed are the poor in spirit" (Matt. v. 3). St. Jerome thus explains these words, "By the poor in spirit, are to be understood they, who, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, have the will to be poor." As St. Ambrose says, on the Gospel of St. Luke: "Both the Evangelists mention the beatitude of poverty in the first place. And, indeed, poverty is the first in order of virtues, and the mother and producer of all others. For, he that spurns earthly riches shall merit such as are eternal, neither can he deserve to receive the reward of the Kingdom of Heaven, who is possessed by the spirit of covetousness."

             St. Basil further shows us in these words, what is specially meant by poverty of spirit. "Blessed," he says, "is he who is poor as a true disciple of Christ, who bore poverty for us. For the Lord Himself accomplished every work that leads to perfection, giving Himself as an example to them that will learn of Him." Now, we never read that Christ owned any possessions. Therefore poverty is no hindrance to the perfection of such as desire to renounce what they possess, for the love of Christ; on the contrary such poverty greatly increases their perfection. Hence, when our Lord was sending forth His twelve chosen Apostles to preach, and when He had given them the power to perform miracles, He impressed upon them, as their first rule of life, the exercise of poverty, saying, "Do not possess gold nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor scrip for your journey" (Matt. x. 9). Thus, as Eusebius of Caesaraea says, "He forbade them the present use of gold, silver, or brass, and also solicitude for their future needs. For he knew that they who were to be healed by the Apostles, and delivered by them from the violence of their passions, would share their goods with them." Eusebius further adds, that "Our Lord judged it meet, that they who were attracted by heavenly riches, should despise earthly pelf, and should possess neither gold, nor silver, nor any other of the property valued by men, but should esteem the heavenly treasures, wherewith they were endowed, as worth more than all such things. Therefore, He made them soldiers of the Kingdom of Heaven, and bade them cherish poverty."

             "No soldier of God, who desires to please Him, entangles himself in the affairs of this life." Hence, St. Jerome, commenting on the Gospel of St. Matthew, says, "He, who, in the foregoing words, had forbidden the Apostles to possess riches, now almost prohibits them from providing themselves with the necessaries of life, in order that they, the teachers of true religion, who were trained to believe that all things were ordered by the Providence of God, should show that they themselves took no thought for the morrow." Again, St. Chrysostom, writing on the Gospel of St. Matthew, observes, "Our Lord, by this precept, first frees his disciples from bondage to riches; secondly, He delivers them from all solicitude, in order that they may give their entire attention to the word of God; thirdly, He teaches them His virtue. Thus, then, the precepts of the Gospel point out to us what manner of man he ought to be who preaches the Kingdom of God. He ought to be one who seeks not the support of material assistance, but, relying entirely on his Faith, reflects that the less he strives after these material things, the more God can supply him with them." St. Ambrose speaks thus, in his commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke, "It is evident, that, if the Apostles had accepted property, they would have been not less, but far more, open to suspicion, than if they had owned gold and silver; for, it would have been thought, that they preached for the sake of what they could gain. They would, likewise, have been far more occupied with anxiety about the cultivation of their fields. For land or vineyards are a far greater source of material profit than are moveable chattels."

             It is evident, then, from these expositions, that the Apostles were forbidden to possess lands, vineyards, or any other fixed property. But who, save a heretic, would say that the first instruction of the disciples given them by Christ Himself, was contrary to the principles of evangelical perfection? They, therefore, who say that it is less perfect for religious orders to be destitute of common property, are falsifying the doctrine of the Faith.

             But we must, finally, consider in what manner these precepts of Our Lord were observed by the Apostles. For, as St. Augustine says in his book Contra mendacium: "Holy Scripture contains not only the divine precepts, but also the life and conduct of the just; in order that, if, by any chance we may be uncertain how some commandment is to be understood, we may be enlightened by studying the example of holy men." Now we know, that before the Passion, the Apostles possessed nothing and carried no provision on their journeys. St. Luke (xxii. 35) reports that Our Lord said to them, "when I sent you without purse, or scrip, or shoes, did you want anything? But they said, 'nothing.'" Immediately afterwards, however, "Then said He unto them, But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip." It might appear as if Christ, in these words, entirely rescinded His former precept; but the dispensation was only a temporary one, granted on account of impending persecution. Venerable Bede says, "He does not govern His disciples by the same rule in the time of persecution, as in the time of peace. When He sent them to preach, He forbade them to take anything with them on the way; for it was His ordinance that they that preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel. When, however, the danger of death was imminent, and the whole nation was persecuting the Shepherd and the flock, He gave to His disciples a rule befitting the time, allowing them to provide themselves with the necessaries of life, until such time as the fury of their persecutors should be appeased, and a convenient season for preaching the Gospel should return. Hereby He also teaches us that, for certain just causes, we may, without sin, somewhat relax the severity of our customary exercises." We also see, that absolute renunciation of earthly possessions forms part of the rigour of evangelical discipline.

             If we enquire as to the manner in which, after the Passion, the Apostles observed this precept, and how they taught their successors to keep it, we shall find information in the fourth Chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where we read, "And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul: neither did any one say that aught of the things he possessed was his own; but all things were common unto them." It cannot be held that they possessed common property, such as lands or vineyards or anything of the kind, for in the same chapter of the Acts we read, "For as many as were owners of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the price of the things they sold, and laid it down before the feet of the Apostles." It is thus made clear, that the rule of the evangelical life was that the necessaries of life were possessed in common, and that property was absolutely resigned by its owners. St. Augustine points out, in his book De doctrina christiana, that this practice is conducive to the highest perfection. "The believers among the Jewish nation," he says, "who formed the first Church, to wit that of Jerusalem, proved most abundantly, how advantageous it was for them to have grown up under the schoolmaster, viz., the Law. For they were so evidently under the influence of the Holy Spirit, that they sold all their possessions, and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles, to be distributed among the poor. We do not" (he continues) "find the same fact noted of any Church of the Gentiles; for they who had worshipped false gods, made by hands, were not found so open to the Holy Ghost."

             Pope Melchiades, however, assigns a different reason for the same fact. In XII., quaest. I. he says, "The Apostles, foreseeing that the future Church would be founded among the Gentiles, did not acquire much property from the Jews, but only money for the sustenance of the needy. Now, however, amidst much storm and stress, the Church gradually acquired a footing in the world, and it came to pass that, not only entire nations, but even the Roman emperors, the rulers of the whole earth, flocked to profess the Faith of Christ and to receive Baptism. Constantine, that most religious prince, was the first to give permission, not only for his subjects to become Christians, but also for Churches to be erected; and he ordained that certain land should be given up to this purpose." In the following chapter, Pope Urban says, "The High Priests and Levites, and others, and the rest of the faithful, saw that it would be more profitable, if the bishops were to make over to the churches which they governed the lands and other property which was customarily sold. By means of the charges on these estates, the Bishops would be able, both at the present time, and in the future, to provide, more abundantly and conveniently, for the needs of the faithful, living a common life, than they could have done by the sums realised from the sale of the property. Therefore, they began to assign to the mother churches the landed property which they had hitherto sold; and they lived on the income derived from it."

             Hence, we see that it is better to have land in common, rather than chattels which can be sold, to procure the necessaries of life. Land was sold in the primitive Church, not because the Apostles esteemed that to be the best course, but because they foresaw, that the Church would have no permanence among the Jews, partly on account of their infidelity, and partly because of the ruin which was to overwhelm their nation. The apparent inconsistency of these arrangements disappears, when we attentively consider the state of the case. For, in the early days of the Church, all her members were as holy as the most perfect of her children in later days. Therefore, the Church had, in the order both of nature and of grace, to lay her foundations among the perfect; and consequently the Apostles ordained a mode of life consonant with perfection. St. Jerome, in his book DE ILLUSTRIBUS VIRIS, says, "It seems as if the Church had been such a Chrysostom of believers, as monks now endeavour and strive to be. Nothing was the private property of anyone; amongst them were neither rich nor poor; patrimonies were divided amongst the needy; and men devoted themselves to prayer, to perfect doctrine, and to continence." This perfect mode of life was practised among the primitive believers, not only in Judaea under the Apostle, but also in Egypt, under St. Mark the Evangelist. This we learn from St. Jerome, and also from Book II. of the Ecclesiastical History.

             In process of time, however, many were to enter the Church who would not live up to this standard of perfection. This was not to be the case before the dispersion of the Jews, but afterwards, when the Church was disseminated among the Gentiles. When this state of things came to pass, the prelates of the Churches judged that landed property might advantageously be bestowed upon the churches, and this not, as before, for the sake of the perfect, but on account of the weaker brethren who could not attain to the perfection of the earlier Christians. But there were, nevertheless, both at that time, and later, certain men who were zealous for primitive perfection, and who, like the monks of Egypt, gathered themselves into congregations and renounced all possessions. St. Gregory (Dial. III.) mentions a certain holy Isaac, who, coming from Syria into Italy, practised in the West the perfection which he had learned in the East. His disciples would frequently humbly beseech him to accept, for the use of the monastery, the property offered to him; but, anxious to preserve his property inviolate, he made the decisive reply that a monk seeking earthly possessions is no monk. This saying cannot be understood to refer to private property, since we are told that what was offered to Isaac, was pressed on him for the use of his monastery. Neither is it to be inferred that all monks who hold possessions in common are deficient in religious perfection. The words of Isaac were instigated by his fear of his failing in the virtue of poverty, a danger which threatens many religious who own property in common. For, as St. Jerome says in his epitaph on Nepotian to the Bishop Heliodorus, "Some men are richer as religious, than they were as laymen. Now that they belong to Christ the Poor, they own wealth which they never possessed when they belonged to Satan the opulent; and the Church mourns over the riches of those, whom the world formerly regarded as beggars." Hence, St. Gregory speaking of St. Isaac, says, "He feared to lose the treasure of his poverty, just as a miser fears to lose his hoard of perishable wealth, and the Lord, to manifest his holiness, has glorified him." For, as St. Gregory tells us further on, "he became known far and wide for his spirit of prophecy and his great gift of miracles." Hence it is evident, that the absence of any possessions either common or private, is for some men the path to sublime perfection.

             We shall understand this more clearly, if we examine the motive underlying the counsels pertaining to evangelical perfection. These counsels are given in order that, by their means, men may be delivered from earthly solicitude, and thus be more free to serve God. St. Paul tells us as much, when he gives the counsel concerning virginity, "He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided" (1 Cor. vii. 32). Hence we see that the more any course of action delivers us from worldly anxiety, so much the more does it pertain to evangelical perfection. Now, it is clear that the possession of wealth and property distracts the soul from divine things, for, to use Our Lord's simile, "He that received the seed among thorns is he that heareth the word, and the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choketh up the word, and he becometh fruitless" (Matt. xiii. 18). St. Jerome's commentary on these words runs as follows: "Riches are flatterers, promising one thing and doing another. Their possession is most uncertain: for when they are carried hither and thither and seem likely to endure, they desert their owners, or rejoice those who previously possessed them not."

             The same thing is taught us in the parable of the supper (Luke xiv. 18), where one of the invited guests is represented as excusing himself from attendance by the words, "I have bought a farm, and I must needs go out and see it." "What," asks St. Gregory, "are we to understand by this farm except material possessions? That man, then, goes out to see his farm, who thinks of nought but exterior things." At the end of the parable the master of the supper says to his servants, "Bring in hither the poor and the feeble." Commenting on which, St. Ambrose observes that, "he who lacks the enjoyments of sin, sins more rarely; and he who has no worldly pleasures is more easily converted to God." Thus we see, that the entire absence of property and wealth of any kind, leads to evangelical perfection. St. Augustine, likewise, says in his book De verbis Domini, "The little ones of Christ are they that have renounced all things, and have followed Him. All that they had, they have given to the poor, in order to serve God, free from any earthly tie. Being thus delivered from the burdens of the world, they soar upwards, as if on wings. They are little because they are humble; but weigh them, and thou wilt find them very heavy." Now, no sane person can say that the care of common property is not a worldly care. Therefore, it adds to their perfection, when men serve God freed from such shackles.

             Hence we see, that those who teach that the renunciation of common property for the love of Christ, does not pertain to perfection, are inculcating a most dangerous error, and spreading an opinion completely at variance with Christian doctrine. The Gloss on the verse of Psalm vi., "Let them be turned back, and ashamed very speedily," says, "This fate does not befall the sinner in this world, where, on the contrary, the workers of iniquity mock and put to the blush the little ones of Christ who have renounced all things for His sake." Rather do the following words of Psalm xiii. 6, seem to apply to them, "You have confounded the counsel of the poor man, but the Lord is his hope." The Gloss thus comments on this verse, "The needy is any member of Christ; and you have acted thus towards him, because the Lord is his hope." That very reason which ought to make you revere him, only causes you so much the more to despise him. For what else do these men do, save endeavour to contemn those who follow, in its perfection, the counsel of Christian poverty? And why do they despise them, except because their hope is established, not in earthly possessions, but in God?