36. Likewise, if a friend asks a gift from his friend, he acts against no law, neither the one by asking, nor the other by giving, nor the first again by receiving: but the law of charity and divine love is more communicative than the law of social friendship; therefore if anyone asks that something be given to him for the love of God, he offends in nothing nor does he in any way depart from perfection.
37. Likewise, it is undoubtedly lawful to ask for something in the giving of which the condition of the giver is made better; but he who gives something for God's sake lends to the Lord and exchanges the temporal for the eternal and exercises himself in the work of the noblest virtue, namely piety. Therefore if all these things come to the one who gives by reason of the one asking, the poor man who asks for alms acts most excellently according to the law of charity: therefore he departs from perfection in nothing.
CONCLUSION.
Mendicancy which is undertaken for the sake of imitating Christ, or for the sake of preaching the Gospel of Christ, or in both ways, is not to be blamed; rather, it belongs to evangelical perfection.
I respond: For the understanding of the aforesaid, it should be noted that mendicancy occurs in three ways. And the first mode is from the necessity of nature; and this mode is when someone begs not only because he is poor, but also because he has infirmity, or weakness, or both. This mode, however, is pitiable and tolerable, but through good patience it becomes meritorious and praiseworthy: as is read in Luke chapter sixteen concerning Lazarus, that there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at the gate of the rich man, full of sores: and afterward it is added that the beggar died and was carried by the Angels into the bosom of Abraham. But of the rich man it is said that he was buried in hell. From which it is gathered that mendicancy, even when arising from necessity, is an occasion leading into the way of eternal salvation: according to what Gregory says, that the evils which press upon us here compel us to go to God.
The second mode of mendicancy is from the viciousness of fault; and this is when someone begs either for fostering idleness, or for accumulating profit, or in both ways. And this mode, I say, is blameworthy in all who beg in such a manner. Concerning whom Ambrose says in the book On Duties: "The able-bodied come for the sake of begging, those come who have no reason except wandering, and they wish to exhaust the resources of the poor, to drain the funds: nor content with little, they seek more, by the display of their garments capturing the favor of petition, and by the pretense of noble birth bidding up the increase of their gains." Although this ought rightly to be reproved in all, it must nevertheless be reproved most especially in those who bear the appearance of holiness. Concerning whom Augustine says in the book On the Work of Monks: "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 abandoned their luxuries, there rustics should become pampered." And afterward, to reprove their idleness and profit-seeking, he adds: "The most cunning enemy has nevertheless scattered many hypocrites everywhere under the habit of monks, going about the provinces, nowhere sent, nowhere settled, nowhere standing, nowhere sitting: some hawk the relics of martyrs — if indeed of martyrs; others enlarge their fringes and phylacteries; others lie that they have heard their parents or kinsmen are living in this or that region and that they are journeying to them; and all beg, all demand either the expenses of a profitable destitution, or the price of a feigned holiness." — Against such persons blessed Augustine inveighs greatly in the book On the Work of Monks, because they not only fostered laziness in themselves by begging, but also by preaching persuaded others to it, badly understanding the Gospel where it seems to suggest that men, like the birds, should not labor; and worse still expounding the Apostle, where he persuades the brethren to work, saying that this should be understood of spiritual labor, not bodily. And because in this they deceived both themselves and others, Augustine therefore reproves them and shows the contrary in manifold ways throughout the entire book On the Work of Monks, which is entirely directed against those who approve this second mode of mendicancy. Whence concerning such persons he says: "Who were preaching laziness as though it were the guardian of the Gospel, accusing mercy as though it were its transgressor. Would that those who wish to be idle in their hands were altogether idle in their tongues! For they would not invite so many to imitation if they set before them not only lazy examples but also silent ones. But now they recite the Gospel of Christ against the Apostle of Christ. For so marvelous are the works of the lazy that they wish to impede by the Gospel what the Apostle therefore commanded and did, lest the Gospel be impeded."
The third mode of begging, however, is from the supererogation of justice; and this is when someone begs for the sake of imitating Christ, or for the sake of preaching Christ, or in both ways. - For the sake of Christ, I say, imitating Him with respect to contempt of self, love of neighbor, and worship of God. For in these three things above all we ought to imitate Christ. Which indeed he does who voluntarily begs for the name of Christ, so that he may abase and humble himself, so that he may edify his neighbor and provoke him to piety, and so that he may attend to God with a free mind,
having laid aside all worldly care. And concerning such persons, Augustine, in a certain Lenten sermon: "In this time, inasmuch as God commends works of mercy, He has caused His own Saints to be in need, so that, when they have been made friends of God, they may receive from the mammon of iniquity and they themselves may receive their friends into eternal tabernacles, that is, so that when the pious servants of God, while they continuously attend to God, are sometimes in need, those who possess the riches of the world may bestow alms; and just as they make them partakers in earthly substance, so they will merit to have a share with them in eternal life." - From which it is apparent that such begging is praiseworthy, which is done for the sake of imitating Christ .
Likewise also that which is done for the sake of preaching Christ, because it opens the way for the Gospel, by reason of what is preached, by whom it is preached, and to whom it is preached. - By reason of what is preached, because we preach contempt of the world: which is more efficaciously urged by word and example than by word alone. - By more persons also is it preached, if the preachers live from the Gospel, than if they were compelled to live from their own means or their own labor. - By more persons also is it more efficaciously received, while those receiving the teachings bestow benefits upon the one who sustains them. This is what John Chrysostom says on Matthew in the thirty-second homily: "It is manifest that the disciples needed to be fed by those to whom they preached, so that they themselves would not think highly against those who were being taught, as though providing everything and receiving nothing from them; nor would those in turn be cut off, being despised by them. Then, lest they say: 'You therefore command us to live by begging,' and be ashamed of this, he shows that this is a debt, and calls them workers, and names what is given a wage. For do not, because the work is in words, esteem the benefit that comes from you as small. For indeed this work has many labors, and whatever those who are taught give, they do not give as ones bestowing a gift, but as ones rendering a recompense ."
Therefore, when someone begs for the sake of Christ by imitating him and evangelizing according to the prescribed form, he not only does not sin, but indeed fulfills perfect justice: first, because sustenance is much owed to the just poor man imitating Christ: second, because it is more owed to him as an evangelical poor man, evangelizing Christ; third, because it is most especially owed to the grateful poor man, humbly accepting what is owed in return for grace and humbly entreating, since indeed, though he is free from all, he makes himself the servant of all. - And this is what Augustine says on that verse of the Psalm: Producing hay for beasts of burden, etc.: " Producing, he says, hay, that is, temporal things; for beasts of burden, that is, for preachers, so that those who announce the Gospel may live from the Gospel: and grass, that is, temporal things: for the service of men, that is, for preachers, servants of men for Christ. Whence the Apostle: Though I was free from all, I made myself the servant of all. Which servitude is from charity, which makes humble those who become servants of men for Christ, attending to the benefit of the brethren. These are the beasts of burden, to whom grass is owed as wages, because they serve. Of whom it is said: You shall not muzzle the ox that treads out the grain; and: The laborer is worthy of his wages. For temporal things are owed to preachers, because they bestow spiritual things. Whence the Apostle: If we have sown spiritual things for you, it is no great thing if we reap your carnal things: concerning whom it is said: Blessed is he who anticipates the voice of one about to ask, that is, who understands concerning the needy and the poor. For you ought not to act toward the ox that treads out the grain as toward a beggar passing by. For to that one, that is, the beggar, you give, because it is read: Give to everyone who asks ; but to this one you ought to give even when he does not ask. See therefore, lest, if the soldier of Christ should be so in need that he must ask, he judge you, that is, show you to be worthy of condemnation. For just as it is said of him who seeks from you: Give to everyone who asks: so of that preacher, whom you ought to seek out, it is said: Let the alms sweat in your hand, until you find a just man to whom you may give. Therefore give to everyone who asks, whoever he may be, recognizing in him to whom you give, but much more give to the servant of God, the soldier of Christ, even when he does not ask." - From these things, therefore, it manifestly appears that in a preacher of Christ, both to evangelize and to beg is not a matter of vice nor of fault, but rather of evangelical perfection. Whence the arguments, authorities, and examples that are adduced for this position are to be granted.
For if anyone should wish to attack and condemn every mode of mendicancy among the servants of Christ, he would appear to attack not only the order of the poor, but also the Supreme Pontiff himself, who approved this manner of living: nor even him alone, but also this great assembly of Saints, who begged, namely Francis, Dominic, Alexius, Benedict, and the very company of the Apostles and Prophets; and moreover the Lord Jesus Christ himself, whom Scripture does not hesitate to call poor and a beggar: since our faith says and holds greater things of him, namely that for our sake he was not only poor and a beggar for our example, but also stripped and made vile even to the most extreme kind of abjection, so that he might give an example of perfectly contemning the world. - Finally, beyond all these evils, the status of the universal Church appears to be overturned. For if it is unlawful for the poor of Christ to receive the sustenance of life through the acceptance of alms, much more is it unlawful to receive the amplitude and multitude of possessions and great revenues. For who is so absurd as to say that it is lawful for someone to receive a talent of gold, but not a morsel of bread? But if this is true, since the possessions of all churches, both among religious who hold property and among secular clerics, are held through the acceptance of alms voluntarily and freely given, it would appear from this that the status of all churches is overturned, if receiving alms or living from alms, whether in small quantity or in great, is judged unlawful: unless perhaps someone should say that it is lawful to accept, but not lawful to ask. But this seems remarkable, that someone should be able to do that which is greater, but not that which is lesser; and that some monastery should be able to receive a hundred thousand marks in revenues from some prince, and one poor little man should not be able humbly to implore the relief of his need; and that someone should be able to ask of a friend out of friendship, and a Christian should not be able to ask of a Christian out of charity; and that someone should be able to ask for things conducive to the security and abundance of some wealthy monastery, and a voluntary poor man should not be able to ask for the sustenance of life; and that some scholar should be able lawfully to beg for the love of advancing in the knowledge of science, which puffs up, so that he might at length arrive at temporal riches: and a poor religious should not be able to ask for the love of advancing in charity and humility, which builds up, so that he might at length arrive at eternal life, and other similar things, which seem exceedingly absurd. If therefore all these are not small but great absurdities, it must be held that it is lawful for the poor to be sustained from the alms of others, at least according to the third mode of mendicancy explained above.
1. To that which is first objected to the contrary, that there is no want to those who fear God — it must be said that want is twofold, namely bodily and spiritual: but that word is understood not of any want whatsoever, but of spiritual want. — And that this is true appears from what immediately follows: The rich have wanted and have hungered: it is clear that this is not understood of a lack of material riches; it remains therefore that it is understood of a want of spiritual goods, which although it exists in the rich, nevertheless does not exist in those who fear God, because fear is the beginning of wisdom, of which it is said in Wisdom 7: All good things came to me together with her, etc.
2. To that which is objected from the Psalm: I have not seen the just man forsaken, etc.; it must be said that bread is twofold, namely bodily and spiritual; but that word is not understood of bodily bread, but of spiritual bread. And that this is true appears from the Gloss on the same passage: Nor his seed seeking bread, the Gloss says: "spiritual bread, that is, to lack the bread of the word of God, because the word of God is always with him." — The text can also be construed so that it is understood: I have not seen the just man forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread have I seen forsaken: because, according to what is said in the last chapter of Hebrews on that text: I will not leave you nor forsake you, the Gloss says: "He would be forsaken who perished from hunger." The Prophet therefore means to say that he saw neither the just man nor the seed of the just man dead from hunger, and this does not call one back from poverty, but rather invites to it.
3. To that which is objected, that begging is an evil which the Psalmist imprecates, speaking in the Spirit of God: it must be said that there is voluntary begging and compelled begging, which is accompanied by murmuring and impatience. The first is meritorious, the second is demeritorious and afflictive; and the Psalm is understood of the second, not of the first. And that this is true appears from the text, because it says: Let them be carried about wandering and be cast out, and all these things seem to connote compulsion and violence.
4. To that which is objected from Sirach: Son, in your life do not be in want: it must be said that, according to the distinction given above, that word is to be understood of spiritual want with respect to grace, not of bodily want with respect to the sustenance of nature. And that this is true appears from the Gloss: " Do not be in want, " says the Gloss, "of virtues or good morals."
5. To the objection that it is more blessed to give than to receive: it must be said that this is true when the acceptance of alms comes from the necessity of nature; but not when it comes from the supererogation of justice, according to the distinction made in the principal solution. — And that this is true appears from what is said in the book On Ecclesiastical Dogmas: "It is good to distribute one's resources to the poor with careful dispensation, but it is better, for the intention of following the Lord, to give all at once and, freed from anxiety, to be in want with Christ." Augustine himself says this in the book On the Good of Marriage, as was cited in the preceding question.
6. To the objection from the Gloss on Luke 12, that those who have despised all things for God ought to work with the labor of their hands: it must be said that this is a counsel with respect to the first part, which says: Sell what you possess; but with respect to the second part, it pertains only to the well-being of the counsel, which does not bind even perfect men, especially those who can be occupied with greater goods. — And that this is true appears from the same Gloss, when it adds: "Whence you may live, or give alms." For it is certain that those who have given all things at once for God are in no way bound to give further alms; and therefore that Gloss does not express what pertains to the essence and substance of the counsel, but rather according to the well-being, according to the state and condition of certain persons who are more suited to working manually than to doing something more arduous. For if it were said otherwise, that this pertained to the essence of the perfection of the counsel, then none would have fulfilled that counsel except those who worked manually; and consequently we would not judge the other Apostles besides Paul and Barnabas, and very many other most perfect Saints whom we do not read to have worked manually, to have been perfect. It is indeed true that manual labor accords with evangelical perfection, provided however that it does not impede greater goods. Whence the Gloss on that passage: I go fishing: "It should be known that they were not prohibited from seeking sustenance by their lawful trade, with the integrity of the apostolate preserved, when they did not have the means to live, and thus to them as they labored God supplied the necessities which He had promised." — But that this labor is fitting for those not occupied with greater things is manifest, because at that time the Apostles were not at all devoted to preaching. Whence Chrysostom: "Simon came to fish, because neither was Christ continually with them, nor had the Spirit been given, nor had anything been entrusted to them at that time; nor having anything to do, they took up their trade." And therefore from this it is not established that the perfect are bound to work manually, except perhaps when they do not have a spiritual and better occupation. — Moreover, even granting that a perfect man were bound to work with his own hands, nevertheless it cannot be inferred from this that he could not, for his own humiliation and the edification of others, humbly seek alms according to place and time.
7. To that which is objected from the Gloss on 1 Thessalonians 4, that one should desire nothing of anyone nor ask for anything: it must be said that someone can ask something from another in two ways: either out of desire for another's property, or out of desire for another's salvation. The first the Apostle prohibits as evil and as prohibited in the Law, where it is said: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods. But the second he does not prohibit, because the law of charity grants this, which is to be nourished by mutual benefits and causes the burden of one to be borne by another. For what is so absurd as to believe that the Apostle denied that anyone should ask from another either benefit or aid or the solace of mercy and fraternal piety? — And that this is true appears from what the Apostle says at the end of Philippians about himself, thanking them for the benefit conferred: I do not seek the gift, but I seek the fruit that abounds to your account. For according to what Augustine expounds in the thirteenth book of the Confessions, he seeks the gift who delights principally in the thing received; he seeks the fruit who delights in the salvation of another. This is the meaning of Augustine's words, although the words have been changed.
8. To that which is objected from the Gloss on 1 Thessalonians 5, that want causes one to turn aside from justice: it must be said that just as riches are not at fault, but the cupidity of riches, so want is not at fault, but the impatience of want; and whoever has this turns aside from justice, since in fleeing want he goes after money; and whoever pursues it easily turns aside from justice: for they that will be rich fall into temptations and into the snare of the devil and many hurtful desires. And just as such want is evil, so also begging arising from such want is blameworthy. — But when penury pleases more than abundance, and a man out of love of poverty despises the abundance of earthly things, such a one has no occasion of turning aside from justice on account of such want; and such is the poverty and begging that pertains to evangelical perfection. — And that this response is correct is clear from the Gloss itself, in which it is said that "want, when it desires to be satisfied, turns aside from justice." For the needy person who desires to be satisfied is the needy person who does not love poverty but satiety, not penury but abundance. And such a one is not the evangelical and heavenly poor man, who begs out of the supererogation of justice; but rather the covetous and earthly man, who begs out of the viciousness of fault, according to the response given above.
9. To the objection drawn from the Gloss on 2 Thessalonians 3, that the Apostle wills the servants of God to labor bodily, etc.: it must be said that that *willing* is either not a *willing of precept* but *of admonition;* or if it is a *willing of precept,* it does not extend to all, but to those who wish to be in want; or if it extends to those who wish to be in want for Christ's sake, it extends only to those who cannot engage in greater works. And from this it is not concluded that the life of the poor who eat and do not labor with their own hands is evil, if they are occupied with better and more salutary exercises. — And that this is true is manifest. For if that word, *He who will not work, let him not eat,* were *simply* a precept, then all would be in an evil state who do not seek their sustenance with their own hands when they are able; and this would be to condemn the whole world. — That again it does not extend to *voluntary and perfect poor;* this is apparent from the Gloss itself, which says, "lest they be compelled by want to beg for necessities." For such persons do not beg as those *compelled by necessity,* but as those *led by love of perfection.* — Lastly, that it does not extend except to those who are not occupied with greater things is apparent from the text itself of 2 Thessalonians 3: *We have heard that certain among you walk disorderly, working nothing, but being busybodies: now*
*them that are such we command, that with quietness they work and eat their own bread.*
And that this is true is evident through Ambrose, who, commenting on that passage in Luke 9: Let the dead bury their dead, says thus: "The Lord teaches that lesser goods are to be set aside for the benefit of greater ones. For it is a greater thing to raise the souls of the dead by preaching than to hide a dead body in the earth." Whence also the Apostles said in Acts 6: It is not right for us to abandon the word of God and serve tables. - This is also evident through Jerome, who in his prologue on Job says thus: "If I were weaving a basket from rushes, or plaiting palm leaves, so that I might eat my bread in the sweat of my brow and anxiously attend to the work of my belly, no one would bite, no one would reproach me. But now, because according to the saying of the Savior I wish to work for the food that does not perish , and to clear the ancient path of the divine books from thorns and brambles, a twofold charge of error is fixed upon me: I, the corrector of the Scriptures, am called a falsifier, and am accused not of removing errors but of sowing them." - This is also evident through blessed Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks, where he says that those who "had in this world something by which they could easily sustain this life without a trade, which upon their conversion to the Lord they distributed to the needy, that such men are not bound or compelled to manual labor, nor to seeking their own sustenance." And he afterwards gives the reason below, because those who sustained the poor ought to be and can be sustained from the alms of the poor. For he says thus: "There is one commonwealth of all Christians; and therefore whoever has distributed necessities to Christians anywhere, from wherever he himself receives what is necessary for him, he receives from the goods of Christ; because wherever he gave to such persons, who but Christ received it?" - If therefore, according to Ambrose, greater goods are not to be set aside on account of lesser ones; and according to Jerome, the goods of preaching and instruction are greater than those of manual labor; and according to Augustine, those who were wealthy and of delicate upbringing are not bound to works of this kind: it is manifestly evident that those devoted to preaching and to works of spiritual mercy are not bound to works of this kind, but ought to be and can be sustained from alms. And this is what Augustine in the same book sets forth before these words, namely that they have this power, if they are evangelists, if ministers of the altar, if dispensers of the Sacraments. For if by performing bodily works one merits his sustenance, much more so by bestowing spiritual works, which are rightly preferred to bodily works.
I acknowledge therefore that it is true that if anyone were so powerful in both spirit and body that he could labor corporally, and nonetheless devote himself to spiritual exercises and ecclesiastical utility according to place and time, he would act more perfectly in doing so. But who is fully capable of this, since one must toil with much labor so that the truth may be known, so that once known it may be loved, and once known and loved it may be set forth to others? For this requires continuity of reading, prayer, and meditation: and he who wishes to attend diligently to these can occupy himself but little with corporal labor. Corporal labor is therefore to be praised and encouraged, yet in such a way that the fervor of prayer, the fruit of preaching, and regular observance are not impeded.
10. To that which is objected from the Gloss, that he who approaches another's table must needs flatter, it must be said that the Gloss explains itself in what it says: "given to idleness"; by which it intimates that he who frequents another's table and begs in order to foster idleness is prone to flattering and fawning. And what wonder, if he who loves idleness and pampers his belly bursts forth into the words of flatterers? But from this the evangelical poor man is not condemned, who comes to another's table for the sake of preaching the Gospel and imitating Christ. For if such men, by the very fact that they are poor and approach another's table, were flatterers: then, since Christ sent the Apostles to preach the Gospel and to live from the provisions of another's table, He would rather have made His Apostles flatterers than true preachers. Christ Himself also would have been the greatest flatterer, who was frequently invited and ate in the houses of the Pharisees. — Whence if we understand rightly, the vice of flattery is rather attached to the worldly rich than to the evangelical and voluntary poor. Whence Chrysostom, in the ninetieth homily on Matthew, speaking of the rich, says thus: "It is necessary to flatter many, both rulers and subjects, and to be in need of many things, and to serve shamefully, and to dread, and to be suspicious, and to fear the eyes of those who are suspicious, and to fear the mouths of slanderers and the desires of others and of the avaricious. But poverty is nothing of the sort, but the complete opposite: it is a region not subject to thieves, but fortified, a tranquil harbor and a training ground and school of philosophy. Hear, all you who are poor in these things, and even more all you who desire to become rich: it is not being poor that is evil, but not wishing to be poor; and do not consider poverty to be an evil, and it will not be an evil for you." And a little later: "For do not bring before me those who accuse poverty, but those who have shone through it. With this poverty Elijah was raised and caught up in that blessed rapture; with this Elisha shone forth, with this John, with this all the Apostles. But with avarice Ahab, Jezebel, Gehazi, Judas, Nero, Caiaphas were condemned."
11. To that which is objected from the decree of Urban, it must be said that there is a threefold defect in the citation of that decree. The first, because that decree is directed to bishops, who ought to feed the mendicants, not to those who are in need. Whence, just as that law, Deuteronomy 15: There shall be no needy person or beggar among you, was not given against the mendicancy of the poor, but against the tightfistedness of the rich — which is clear from the fact that in the same chapter it is added: The poor shall not be wanting in the land of your habitation; therefore I command you to open your hand to your needy and poor brother — so also this law is given to bishops who have abundance for the sustenance of poor clerics, especially those who are not in want voluntarily but by compulsion, lest on account of their indigence they become slack in divine service. — The second defect is that that decree is adduced to prove that clerics ought not to have property, as appears at the end of the chapter, where it is said: "From all these things it is clear that it is in no way permitted for clerics to have property; and if they should have it, they shall not be clerics." Whence by that decree the way is not closed to the poor who wish to have nothing of their own, but rather it is opened. — The third defect is this: because, just as having property in common has been confirmed and approved by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, namely Urban, as appears here, so the manner of living in the highest poverty has been approved by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as is clear from De Excessibus praelatorum : Nimis prava, etc. Whence the decree of Pope Urban could not prejudice the authority of Innocent, Honorius, and Gregory, who approved this manner of life both in common law and in private privileges, because "an equal has no authority over an equal"; and a prior constitution does not prejudice a posterior one, nor does common law prejudice private law, nor a general law a privilege, but rather the reverse. — Nor from this can instability or contradiction among the rulers of the Church be argued, because statutes can and ought to be changed according to place and time, as is clear in the statute concerning the degrees of kinship and in many others, which were justly established from the beginning, and nonetheless others were no less justly introduced.