That judgment concerning such works and persons ought to be differentiated according to the diversity of gifts, offices, and graces divinely bestowed upon them is shown by the Gloss on that passage of Deuteronomy twenty-eight: Blessed shall be the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, and the fruit of thy cattle, saying thus: "He designates the diverse orders of subjects. For some provide bodily nourishment to teachers; others can labor at what has been commanded to them; others, content with simplicity, strive to please God through innocence of life: each one has his own gift from God." It must be conceded, therefore, that not all able-bodied poor, even those without pastoral charge, are bound to such manual labors; and the authorities and arguments showing this must also be conceded.
2. To the first objection raised to the contrary concerning the obligation of the law of nature, it must be said that nature does not bind one to this except by reason of avoiding danger. For if this obligation flowed from the law of nature, all would be universally and equally obligated; which is most absurd. Therefore, if anyone is bound by nature, this is only for the purpose of avoiding danger: and this can be in three ways: either because one cannot live without labor, or because one cannot live honorably, or because one cannot live fruitfully: in the first, being is endangered, in the second, honorableness, in the third, usefulness. Moreover, there is naturally implanted in man a love of his continued being, a love of the honorable, and a love of the advantageous: and through this, man is bound by the law of nature to avoid this threefold danger. Thus therefore the able-bodied poor person is necessarily bound to work with his hands, if he is placed in such a situation that he cannot otherwise live, or cannot live honorably, or also cannot otherwise live fruitfully. But if he can avoid this danger otherwise, equally or more usefully, he is not bound to this by the law of nature.
As to the objection that man from his original condition was ordained to this work, it must be said that no man ought to be without labor in this life, lest perhaps what is said of the reprobate in the Psalm be said of him: They are not in the labor of men, and with men they shall not be scourged: but from this it does not follow that one must be occupied with manual labor, and especially that which is lucrative. - And through this the response to the following objection about the example of Adam is clear, because it is certain that not all are obligated to the work of agriculture. Nor was that which is said: In the sweat of your face, etc., said then as a precept of life, but as a punishment for sin committed, as is clear from the following text.
3. To the objection that without work of this kind the human race cannot be sustained, it must be said that there is a twofold commandment: one which regards the preservation of the individual, another which regards the preservation of the species, such as the commandment about eating and the commandment about procreating. That therefore which regards the preservation of the species does not oblige except in common, because when one fulfills it, another is released, as is clear regarding procreation; and because manual labor is of this kind, except in one who is placed in a state of danger, therefore only such a person is bound.
4. To the objection that just as the mouth is for eating, so also the hands are for working, it must be said that the comparison does not hold, because if man could live without eating, as he can live without manual labor, he would not be obligated to eat.
Furthermore, one man can work for another, but cannot eat for another; and therefore it is not necessary that all be universally bound to manual work as they are to eating.
8. 6. 7. 8. To that which is objected concerning the precept, example, edict and apostolic word; it must be noted that concerning the apostolic precept one must consider the person, to whom the precept is given, the cause, for which it is given, and the form, under which it is given. If the person is considered, he does not command this to all generally, but determinately to certain ones. For he speaks thus in Second Thessalonians, chapter three: And we have heard that certain ones among you walk restlessly, doing no work, but busying themselves as meddlers. Now those who are of this sort, we command that, working in silence, they eat their own bread. He commands, therefore, the restless, the meddlesome, and the idle.
But if the cause is considered, there is no doubt that it is for the removal of these three vices. For since bodily labor avails for taming the body, for removing idleness, for seeking sustenance h onorably; therefore the Apostle imposed labor upon them as a remedy, as it were, for these vices. For the restless need labor that tames, the idle need labor that rouses, and the meddlesome, "who seek sustenance by shameful solicitude," as the Gloss says, need labor that earns sustenance. Therefore the Apostle speaks, as it were, per se and properly and most sufficiently in the aforesaid command, if the cause is attended to.
- But if the form, under which he commands, is attended to, it is established that it must agree with the cause. For this is an apostolic precept; and to the three aforesaid things that person is bound, who cannot obtain those three things by another lawful and fitting way; but he who can is not bound determinately to this way, as far as concerns the efficacy of the precept itself, which the Apostle gave for ordering and building up the Church, not for destroying it, according to the power which he says was divinely given to him for edification.
It must be said, therefore, that the apostolic precept, example, edict, and judgment binds most especially those who are restless, idle, and meddlesome, so that they may turn back from these vices; or those who cannot otherwise fittingly avoid the aforesaid vices except through bodily labor, as has been manifestly shown.
To that which is objected from the Gloss, that the Apostle wills the servants of God to labor bodily, it must be said that if this is the will of a precept, it must be understood indefinitely concerning the servants of God, that is, concerning those who have been converted to the Lord's service, who are not excused from manual labor by greater and more useful works, as Augustine exemplifies concerning those who passed their life in the world by bodily labor; and thus that must be understood indefinitely and not universally, because it would be absurd to say that all servants of God are bound to this.
This is also evident, because Augustine, from whom the words of that Gloss were taken, but altered, excepts four classes of men, whom he says are not bound to seek their livelihood by their own labor, as was shown above: whence one should not rely upon the aforesaid Gloss; both because it alters the words of Augustine. For he says in the original: "First we must show that the Apostle willed that the servants of God perform bodily works, so that they might need no one for food and clothing," nor did he make any mention of begging: because those against whom he was writing did not live from what was begged, but from what was offered, as he says in the second book of the Retractations. Emphasis must therefore be placed on this, that he says willed, which is not always a precept; and on this, that he says servants of God, which is said indefinitely; and on this, that he says lest they be compelled, which does not pertain to the voluntarily poor, but rather to the unwilling.
9. To that text of Augustine: "Let those hear to whom this is commanded," etc.; it must be said that to have the power of living from what belongs to another is threefold: either according to the law of justice, or according to the law of clemency, or in a mixed manner according to both. According to the law of justice, those have it who possess the authority of office and the burden of work: and such persons can demand authoritatively and bring to judgment.
According to the law of clemency, those have the power of living from what belongs to another who can allege sufficient misery, through which they are worthy of mercy, such as the poor who are infirm.
According to both, however, those have it who perform apostolic works, yet do not proceed with the dignity of authority, but with the humility of poverty: and therefore they are worthy to be sustained both as workers and as the needy. Those therefore who in no way have this power are without doubt obligated by the apostolic precept; but not all are such, as has been seen.
10. To the objection that spiritual works do not excuse: it must be said that "words must be investigated according to their subject matter." Augustine, however, is speaking there of monks who by their profession were bound to manual labor, who out of pride were contentious, and although they feigned spirituality, they were nevertheless carnal as idle men: and to such he says that they cannot be excused by works of this kind, because in truth these were not spiritual in them, but tainted.
Moreover, those spiritual works did not redound to the manifest benefit of the commonwealth, because they neither preached nor taught nor heard confessions nor procured the salvation of souls by their counsels, but rather by devoting themselves to leisure they hindered it, and their leisure generated strife in the Church and dissension among the monks, and served as a cloak for those wandering monks, as will be better seen in what follows.
11. To that which is objected concerning clerics, it must be said that neither are poor clerics universally bound by the canons to manual labor except for the sake of avoiding idleness or acquiring sustenance, if they cannot honestly acquire it otherwise; otherwise it would be very harsh for so many men to be condemned; and it seems very impious to say that clerics of good disposition who are continually devoted to the study of letters, if they are poor and strong, are bound to manual labor.
12. To that which is objected concerning monks, it must be said that some regular monks have manual labor in their profession and vow, while others do not at all. Now the reason for this is the diversity of professions on the part of times, persons, and intentions. — On the part of times: because around the times of the primitive Church there were four kinds of monks, as blessed Benedict distinguishes at the beginning of his rule, namely cenobites, anchorites, sarabaites, and gyrovagues. The first were good, the second the best, the third bad, and the fourth the worst. For the third and fourth were not led by any yoke, but walked according to their own desires: the sarabaites devoted to the flesh, the gyrovagues changeable and vagabond and prepared for every evil. The second, namely the anchorites, did not need a rule, because as the most perfect they were governed by grace. A rule ought to have been given to the first, so that they might be distinguished from the gyrovagues and sarabaites; and it was fitting, lest they be compelled to go outside, that they be bound to bodily labor. Whence Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks says: "The most cunning enemy has scattered so many hypocrites under the habit of monks everywhere, going about the provinces, nowhere sent, nowhere settled, nowhere standing, nowhere sitting." And afterwards: "Does not your heart grow warm within you, and in your meditation does not fire burn, so that you may pursue their evil works with good works, so that you may cut off from them the occasion of shameful trafficking, by which your reputation is harmed and a stumbling block is placed before the weak? Have mercy therefore and show compassion, and show men that you do not seek an easy livelihood in idleness, but seek the kingdom of God through the narrow and strait way of this purpose. The same reason applies to you as applied to the Apostle, that you may cut off occasion from those who seek occasion, so that those who are choked by the stench of those men may be refreshed by your good odor." Thus far Augustine.
Also on the part of the persons vowing: because monks at that time were for the greatest part laymen and commoners, and therefore it was fitting for them to be occupied with customary labors. Whence Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks: "Those who apart from this holy community were passing their life in bodily labor, from whose number many come to monasteries: if they do not wish to work, let them not eat. For neither in the Christian warfare are the rich humbled to poverty so that the poor may be exalted to pride; and in no way is it fitting that in that life where senators become laborious, there artisans should become idle; and where those who were lords of estates come, having left behind their pleasures, there rustics should become pampered."
On the part of intentions: because the early monasteries were established for leading the solitary life, so that each one might have care of himself and dwell within himself, and therefore he was called a monachus. And because it belongs to very few to be able always to attend to divine things, therefore, lest they be idle, it was congruent with their profession to be exercised in manual labor. Whence Jerome to Rusticus: "The monasteries of the larger sort maintain this custom, that they receive no one without labor, not so much on account of the necessities of sustenance as for the salvation of the soul, lest they wander in pernicious thoughts and, after the manner of fornicating Jerusalem, spread their legs to every passerby."
It was therefore fitting for monasteries of the first period to be bound by profession to manual labor, by reason of the time, the persons, and the intentions. But afterwards in these present modern times, when those wanderers had been done away with, and the Church had become wealthy both in clerics and in monks, more effort had to be given to spiritual exercise; and hence it is that monks rightly and fittingly exchanged manual or bodily labor for spiritual exercise and psalmody. And because the Churches, now expanded, had greater need of spiritual laborers than of vinedressers and farmers, hence it is that the Holy Spirit raised up poor religious orders, whose entire solicitude and care would be to sign the servants of God on their foreheads with the sign of the living God, calling them to penance and to the grace of the Holy Spirit. Whence both from their primary institution have the office of preaching; and therefore, since such men are intent upon spiritual works—on account of which some deserve to be sustained by others—they are neither idle nor meddlesome in living thus, nor in danger, since the Lord has fed them until now; nor do they have this from a vow. Therefore neither they nor all the voluntary poor, even though they be able-bodied, are bound to bodily labor, because neither by reason of danger, nor by reason of the apostolic precept, nor by reason of a vow taken, as is manifestly clear from what has been set forth above.
To that which is objected from Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks, it must be said that blessed Augustine in that book does not speak to these latter, but to the former, who despised the bodily works which they had from their profession under the pretext of spirituality: because neither on account of spiritual works ought they to omit bodily works, nor conversely. Hence Bernard, speaking to such persons, says in the Apologia: "Now indeed, why do you glory in the labor of hands, when Martha laboring was rebuked, and Mary resting was praised, and Paul openly says: Bodily labor is profitable for a little, but piety for all things? The best labor is that of which the Prophet said: I have labored in my groaning; and of which elsewhere: I was mindful of God, and was delighted and was exercised; and lest you understand a bodily exercise, he says, and my spirit failed. Whence where not the body but the spirit is wearied, spiritual labor is without doubt understood. What then, you say? Do you so commend those spiritual things as even to condemn these bodily things which we have from the rule? By no means. But those things ought to be done and these not omitted; otherwise, when either these must be omitted or those, these are rather to be omitted than those. For by as much as the spirit is better than the body, by so much is spiritual exercise more fruitful than bodily. But you, when puffed up by the observance of these things, you disparage others who do not observe the same, do you not show yourself rather to be a transgressor of the rule, of which, although keeping certain least things, you avoid the better?" — Therefore those are bound to manual labor who have this from the obligation of their profession, unless perchance they exchange manual labor for spiritual work, provided that this also be by the will and permission of their superior.
13. To that which is objected from the Gloss on Luke twelve, it must be said that the whole of that is a counsel, just as that text upon which the Gloss is founded. Nor does anyone bind himself to the whole of it nor to a part, except insofar as he promises from his profession. Hence just as to give alms is not a precept for him who has given all things, nor is it simply commanded that all things be given; so neither does that intermediate thing, namely to work, hold there the character of a necessary obligation, but only of monitory persuasion, or even of counsel.
14.15. To that which is objected from Jerome and Benedict, the response is already manifest from what has been said above.