And that this is the meaning is evident from what follows immediately in the Gloss, where it adds that " having food and that with which we may be covered, let us be content with these things; he who reaches beyond finds evil." To be content, therefore, with the use of covering and food is the mode of perfect virtue. And thus the Gloss ought to be understood, nor does this conflict with the highest poverty. But whoever would so wish to cast away temporal things that he would neither wish to receive food nor have covering would not act perfectly, but foolishly. And this is what that Gloss intends to suggest.
4. To that which is objected from the Gloss on Second Corinthians eight: If the will is ready etc.; Gloss: "that he may retain what is necessary"; it must be said that that Gloss is truncated, because immediately it follows: "This is not said as though it would not be better, namely to give all: but he fears for the weak, whom he so advises to give that they may not suffer want." From which it appears that that Gloss rather makes for the contrary than for the proposition, if it be examined with a sound and right eye.
To that which is objected, that he who thus universally renounces all things tempts God: it must be said that this is false, both on account of the divine promises, and on account of the very many remedies which can be had, and on account of the examples by which we manifestly see that such poor are sustained. From which it is manifestly gathered, if we are not hardened, that such a manner of renouncing, divinely inspired, does not cause one to tempt God, but the one so renouncing securely relies upon the divine promises; nay rather, he tempts God who doubts the divine promises. On account of which Jerome, on that passage: Is not the soul more than food? "Let no one doubt the promises of Truth; let a man be what he ought to be, and forthwith all things are added to him, for whose sake all things were made."
Whoever therefore doubts about this, like the children of Israel, tempts God, who said: Can God prepare a table in the desert? But perfect men ought not to conform themselves to these, but rather to the Apostles, of whom it is said in Second Corinthians chapter four: We are in want, but not forsaken: Gloss: We are in want, that is, we are so poor that necessities are lacking; but we are not forsaken by God entirely, because God feeds us." And that this extends not only to the Apostles, but also to their imitators, is apparent from what is said in Hebrews, the last chapter: Let your ways be without avarice, content with what is at hand. For he himself said: I will not desert you nor forsake you; there the Gloss says: "The Lord Almighty himself said to Joshua: I will not desert you, that is, I will not fail to give necessities; nor will I forsake you, forsaken would be he who perished from hunger; but because this does not happen, the greedy man should not say so. This he said to Joshua after the death of Moses; this he also says to everyone hoping in him, as Joshua did. For these things he promises to us, if we place our hope in him — not to the grasping, not to the greedy, but to those hoping in him. And because it could seem to them that this promise was made only to Joshua, the Apostle responds to this saying that he will help us just as he helped him, as if to say: there is no reason to doubt the promise, because Jesus Christ, who yesterday, that is in the past, helped Joshua, he himself today, that is in the present, helps us and other faithful, and will help in the future forever, that is without end."
6. To the objection that virtue consists in a mean: it must be said that this is true with respect to those things that are of necessity, such as liberality; but it fails in those things that are of supererogation, such as the counsel of poverty and chastity. For the perfection of such things is assessed more according to perfect configuration to Christ and the mode of divine love, which is that God be loved above all things, than according to excess and deficiency regarding an external object.
And that this is true is evident from Ambrose, in the book On Duties, near the beginning, where he says thus: "Every duty is either ordinary or perfect; which we can prove by the authority of the Scriptures. For we have in the Gospel: If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments. You shall not kill, etc. These are ordinary duties, in which something is lacking. If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and where he says that enemies are to be loved and prayer is to be made for those who slander and persecute us, if we wish to be perfect. This is the perfect duty, which the Greeks called catorthoma, by which all things that could have had any failings are corrected."
Generosity, therefore, which is considered according to the middle duty, preserves moderation in giving. Poverty of spirit, however, which is considered according to the perfect duty, bestows all. Whence in the same book, in the treatise on liberality: "It is clear that there ought to be a measure of liberality, lest generosity become useless, whose sobriety must be maintained." Concerning which measure he adds: "The measure of liberality must be maintained, so that what you do well, you may be able to do daily, lest you withdraw from necessity what you have yielded to profusion. For Joseph could have given away all the wealth of Egypt, poured out the royal treasures, yet he did not wish to appear lavish with what belonged to another. He preferred to sell grain rather than give it to the hungry, because if he had given to a few, he would have been lacking to many." But this pertains to the middle duty, according to what he himself says elsewhere, treating in the same book that word of the Apostle: Not that there be refreshment for others, but distress for you: "We observe how he comprehends both benevolence and liberality and measure and fruit and persons, therefore measure, because he was giving counsel to the imperfect: for none suffer distress except the imperfect."
But because it is not repugnant to perfection to maintain measure, if someone dispenses the goods of the Church, therefore he adds: "But if someone, not wishing to burden the Church, established in some priesthood or ministry, does not bestow all that he has, but works with propriety, as much as suffices for his office: he does not seem to me imperfect."
From what has been said, therefore, it is gathered that although it belongs to virtue according to the common state and middle duty to maintain the mean, yet it belongs to evangelical perfection to relinquish all. If nevertheless something is held in common, so that it may be dispensed, this does not make one imperfect: nor does relinquishing all universally constitute excess, because this pertains to the perfect duty, as is clear from what has been said, and from what Ambrose states beforehand in the preceding chapter, where he says thus: "Moreover, the Lord does not wish wealth to be poured out all at once, but to be dispensed, unless perchance, as Elisha killed his oxen and fed the poor from what he had, so that he might be held by no domestic care, but leaving all things, might give himself to prophetic discipline." If therefore all things are to be relinquished for prophetic discipline, much more so for evangelical perfection.
7. To that which is objected, that to scatter all things is prodigality, it must be said that it is prodigality when all things are scattered for vanity, but not when they are given for utility: and so it is with evangelical poverty, because, as is said in Mark 10, the Lord will restore a hundredfold in the present with tribulations, and in the future life eternal. But it is otherwise with the universal retention of all things. For that is not done for spiritual utility, but rather for earthly cupidity: therefore it is not similar on this side and on that.
8. To that which is objected concerning him who takes away necessities from another, etc., it must be said that the case is not similar, because he who takes away necessities from another does violence and leads him into involuntary poverty. But he who takes away from himself does so voluntarily and leads himself into voluntary poverty; and therefore, just as that argument does not hold—involuntary poverty is not praiseworthy, therefore neither is voluntary poverty—so the aforesaid reasoning does not compel.
There is also another defect in the aforesaid argument. For it proceeds by supposing what is false, inasmuch as one who universally renounces all things does not entirely take away necessities from himself, because he commits himself to the governance of divine providence and leaves himself many ways of living and of seeking necessities.
9. To that which is objected, that he exposes himself to the danger of famine, it must be said that this is false, as is entirely apparent from what has been said and is manifestly gathered from all times past. For nowhere and never is it read that anyone wishing to serve God in poverty perished from famine for lack of food. And this is what Augustine says in a certain treatise on the Lord's Prayer: "For daily food cannot be lacking to the just man, since it is written: The Lord will not slay the soul of the just with famine; and again: I have been young, and now am old, and I have not seen the just forsaken; and again: To those seeking the kingdom of God and His justice, He promises that all things shall be added. And since all things are God's, to him who has God nothing shall be lacking, if he himself be not lacking to God. Thus for Daniel, shut up in the lions' den by the king's command, a meal is divinely provided, and among hungry beasts the man of God is fed. Thus also Elijah in flight is nourished, with ravens ministering and birds bringing food. O detestable cruelty of human malice! Beasts spare, birds feed, and men plot and rage." From these things it is manifestly gathered that it is not a danger but a refuge to dedicate oneself entirely to the worship of God, having spurned all things.
10. To that which is lastly objected, that we ask for our daily bread in the Lord's Prayer, it must be said that this rather makes for the opposite than for the proposition. For from the fact that we daily ask for our daily bread, and do not ask for what we already have, it is manifest that it belongs to evangelical perfection to be content with daily sustenance. Because this cannot appear as perfection in the hearts of the avaricious, the Lord to this end brought not only the counsels of wisdom, but also the examples of nature and the oracles of grace, so that at least through that threefold testimony the counsel of poverty might be firmly confirmed as the most lofty and stable foundation of all evangelical perfection.
ARTICLE II.
On poverty with respect to mendicancy .
Consequently there is a question concerning mendicancy, and it is asked whether to beg for Christ is of Christian perfection; and by begging I mean seeking alms or living from daily alms. And that it is not, is shown as follows:
1. First, by the authority of the Psalm: Fear the Lord, all you his saints, for there is no want to those who fear him: therefore being in want and fearing God do not stand together.
2. Likewise, the Psalm: I have not seen the just man forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread: therefore he who seeks bread is neither just nor the seed of the just.
3. Likewise, the Psalm: Let his children be carried about vagabonds and beg: but nothing that the Psalmist, speaking in the Spirit of God, imprecates as a punishment pertains to evangelical perfection or perfect justice; begging is of this kind: therefore, etc.
4. Likewise, Sirach 40: My son, in your life do not be in need: for it is better to die than to be in need : therefore it is better to be dead than a beggar.
5. Likewise, Acts 20: It is more blessed to give than to receive: but giving alms does not make a man attain evangelical perfection: therefore much less does receiving.
6. Likewise, Luke 12: Sell what you possess; the Gloss says: "so that, having once despised all things for God, you may afterward work by the labor of your hands, from which you may live or give alms": therefore to live by one's own labor and to give alms pertains to evangelical perfection: therefore its opposite, namely to beg and to live by another's labor, is contrary to evangelical perfection.
7. Likewise, First Thessalonians 4: That you desire nothing of anyone: the Gloss says: "That you desire nothing of anyone, much less ask for or take anything." If therefore it is more to ask or petition than to desire, and the first is prohibited as unlawful by the Apostle, namely to desire or covet what belongs to another: therefore much more so to petition.
8. Likewise, First Thessalonians 5: " We beseech you that you acknowledge those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord; the Gloss says: "Just as riches beget negligence of salvation, so want, while it desires to be satisfied, turns aside from justice"; but what makes one turn aside from justice does not pertain to evangelical perfection: therefore, etc.