12. To that which is objected concerning the consecration of a church, it must be said that in the citation of that decree there is a threefold defect: first, because that statute concerning the consecration of an unendowed church was made for the relief of bishops; second, for the expansion of divine worship; and third, for the consolation of clerics who minister, who do not wish to bind themselves voluntarily to a vow of poverty. But the contrary of these is found in the matter at hand. For both bishops and the Church are less burdened by religious living on alms than if provision were made for them in benefices and prebends; second, because the worship of God would not be increased but rather diminished if this manner of living were removed from our midst; third, because such voluntary poor serve God more willingly by begging than they would serve God even for a great benefice, and they are more content with small alms than they would be with great benefices and prebends.
13. To that which is objected concerning the law about able-bodied beggars, it must be said that there is likewise a threefold defect in the citation of that law: the first, because that law was introduced against certain persons who in time of famine usurped the alms of the poor, feigning incapacity; the second, because such persons were idle and brought no benefit to the commonwealth; the third, because such persons, who were able to work and were at that time occupied with nothing and wished to live in abundance, were prone to crimes and robberies. And therefore by just judgment the ruler of the commonwealth barred such persons from begging and punished them with a most severe penalty. But it is entirely otherwise with the poor religious, in whom there is found neither pretense of incapacity, nor love of idleness, nor danger of robbery, and consequently no harm to the Church, but rather a love of perfect virtue; therefore they are not barred by human law, but rather are proclaimed and commended by divine law.
14. To that which is objected, that to beg is indifferent: it must be said that to beg, in itself, is not a matter of perfection unless a universal renunciation of all things is presupposed; which indeed is according to divine counsel, in which the Lord expressed to the young man that if he fulfilled that counsel, by that very fact he would arrive at the summit of perfection. For He said:
If you wish to be perfect, go and sell all things: nor did He add: hand them over to me, that I may put them in my purse, and let all things be held in common; but rather: give to the poor; nor did He subjoin: go to earn your sustenance by the labor of your hands; but rather: come, follow me. In which, according to what the Gloss expounds, is understood a calling to contemplation, or to imitating Christ and preaching the Gospel.
15. To the objection that it belongs to perfection to serve freely and to flee obligations: it must be said that there is an obligation arising from the guilt of fault and from the affection of perfect charity. The first obligation is to be avoided, but the second is to be embraced, according to what is said in Romans 13: Owe no man anything, except to love one another. For the Lord praises the friendship of spiritual men, which is made from the mammon of iniquity; and it pertains to the perfection of the mystical body of Christ that the members share with one another according to the principle of giving and receiving, so that mutual need may be supplied in turn.
16. To the objection that those who beg by profession do this either because they are poor or because they are preachers: it must be said that they do this because they are poor imitators of Christ and evangelizers. For because they imitate Christ through the observance of regular discipline, in which they devote themselves to divine praises, prayers, vigils, and other regular disciplines, they both worship God and fight against the enemy and protect and defend those things which are weak and unfortified in the camp of the Church. — Again, because they announce the word of truth, they likewise praise God and fight against the enemy and edify and instruct their hearers. And therefore, since these works of theirs are very useful and most necessary to the Church, there is no doubt that they merit their sustenance; and therefore they do not act unlawfully if they humbly and suppliantly seek it. For just as the eye by seeing performs an operation most necessary to the hand, such that the hand cannot reproach the eye nor say: I have no need of your works; but rather its operation is useful to the whole body, and thus it merits to be sustained, just as the hand and the foot and other members which are exposed to labor: so also concerning these members of the Church it ought and can without absurdity be understood, if anyone with a devout eye should wish to behold the work and vigilance of these eyes.
17. To that which is objected, that such men are imitators of Gehazi, who minister spiritual things for temporal ones: to this the Gloss responds sufficiently enough on that passage of 1 Corinthians 9: A dispensation is entrusted to me: "We ought not to preach the Gospel in order that we may eat, but rather to eat in order that we may preach the Gospel, so that food is not a good which is sought after, but a necessity which is added; so that that saying may be fulfilled: Seek first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you ." Hence if someone were to make a temporal thing the end in preaching the word of God, without doubt he would be perverse, because he would make the means into the end, and he would be like Gehazi and Balaam, who loved the reward of iniquity, and other false prophets, who taught for hire and divined for gifts. But if they seek sustenance as a means ordered to the preaching of the Gospel, then they proceed rightly and imitate the Apostles, nor do they depart from the path of truth in any respect. Hence on that passage of Luke 10: Eating and drinking such things as they have: for the laborer is worthy of his hire: the Gloss says: "Note that for the one work of preachers, two rewards are owed: one on the way, which sustains us in our labor; another in the homeland, which rewards us in the resurrection."
18. To that which is objected, that it belongs to the perfect to abstain from every appearance of evil: it must be said that an appearance is evil when a person can reasonably suspect evil, all the circumstances that present themselves having been weighed; but if one rightly considers such men, those who preach in this way do not have the appearance of false preachers. For false preachers are so called in opposition to true preachers. Now true preachers are those whose preaching has authority, truth, and utility; false preachers, therefore, are those who have the contraries of these, either absolutely or in part. — But if we rightly wish to consider the preachers of the modern orders, they have these three things in themselves: authority indeed, because they are sent by the Supreme Pontiff and other prelates, who are the lords of the harvest; truth, as is evident, because they have preached faith and morals according to the law of the Gospel; utility, because they have called many from the state of sin to the state of grace or of penance; and therefore they have an incomparably greater appearance and likeness, if one considers with a devout eye, to true preachers than to false ones — although in so great a number it can scarcely be that some do not, with Judas, love the money-bag and stray from the right path. For if the Lord did not grant this to the twelve Apostles, whom he personally chose — that they should all be good — what wonder if he does not grant this to other congregations? Nor however on this account should the good be condemned with the wicked, just as neither are the wicked righteous, even though they are mixed in with the good.
19. To that which is objected, that they either have authority or do not have it: it must be said that to have authority is twofold: either from primary institution, or from commission or delegation; or in other words: either from an enjoined office, or from a granted privilege. The first is principal and authoritative authority and pertains to the Apostles and to the seventy and their successors, who are bishops and other curates, as the Gloss says on Luke 10. The second is a less principal authority and can not absurdly be called a sub-authority, and it belongs to those who are sent by the Apostles as disciples, just as Paul sent his disciples to various places: and it belongs most especially to him who stands in the place of Peter, the prince of the Apostles, indeed in the place of Christ, who is the universal Lord of the harvest, on account of which he is also said to have the fullness of power. Just as, therefore, it belongs to those first having principal authority to receive support authoritatively, as the Gloss says on Second Timothy 2: The laboring farmer ought to be the first to partake of the fruits: there the Gloss says: "To take for himself what is necessary from those among whom he serves God and whom he tends as a cultivator of the vineyard, or feeds as a flock, is not begging but authority": so to those to whom sub-principal authority belongs, it belongs to them to receive by way of supplication. This the Holy Spirit disposed for the benefit of the Church, so that they might build up not only by the word of preaching, but also equally by the word and the example of humility. He, therefore, who has learned from Christ to be meek and humble of heart, I wonder if he dares to condemn this humility and humiliation as something reprobate.
20. To that which is objected, that it is safer and more perfect to follow men who are more proven and wiser: it must be said that according to the disposition of divine wisdom, God disposes and orders all things in their proper times. Whence, just as in the first age of the Church He introduced men powerful in miracles and signs, as the Apostles and their disciples were; and in the middle age, men learned in the Scriptures and in living arguments: so in the last age He introduced men voluntarily mendicant and poor in worldly goods. And this indeed was fittingly congruent, so that through the first, idolatry and the monstrous portents of idols would be destroyed; through the second, heresy; through the third, avarice, which reigns most greatly at the end of the age. — Nevertheless, because poverty is the foundation of evangelical perfection, and it is as it were the complement of the same: therefore it flourished at the beginning of the Church, and it is fitting that it flourish around the final state of the Church. Whence, just as Jerome resolves that question concerning the eating of flesh, in distinction thirty-five, Ab exordio, saying that in the first age before the flood the eating of flesh was not customary, and afterward, after the flood, it was commonly granted to all, and later at the coming of Christ abstinence from the eating of flesh was praiseworthy — whence he says in the same place that "omega revolves back to alpha," that is, the final state was in harmony with the first — so it can be understood fittingly enough in the matter at hand as well. Yet just as Jerome does not understand this of abstinence from the eating of flesh with respect to all, but only with respect to monks: so neither do I think poverty is to be understood except with respect to the voluntarily poor, who have voluntarily renounced the world. — I do not wish, however, that anyone should argue from this as though I were saying that the day of the Lord is now at hand , nor that they should magnify and broaden their own fringes, wishing to be justified before men; nor that I prefer those of the present day to the ancient Saints, because in a great and lofty state many can be found who are weak and imperfect; nor did this spirit of poverty fail in times past. In accordance with what Gregory says in the third book of the Dialogues concerning a certain most holy man named Isaac, who was a preeminent lover of poverty. Whence he also says of him: "When his disciples frequently urged him to accept for the use of the monastery the possessions that were offered, he, a careful guardian of his poverty, held fast to his firm conviction, saying: a monk who seeks possessions on earth is no monk. For he feared to lose the security of his poverty just as the avaricious are accustomed to guard their perishable riches. And so his life shone forth there through the spirit of prophecy and great miracles to all dwelling far and wide." From which it is apparent that his teaching was not to be despised.
This was also shown above by manifold examples, and could still be shown by many more. And even if there were no examples, the state of most excellent poverty is sufficiently praiseworthy in itself, not only according to Sacred Scripture, but also according to the teachings of the Saints, which commend the state of voluntary poverty as preeminent and perfect. Therefore, just as it is greatly absurd to condemn the state of married persons who are wealthy, and more absurd to condemn the state of clerics and religious who hold possessions, so it seems most absurd of all if anyone should be found who wishes to condemn the state of the poor who serve Christ the Lord in the highest poverty and most humble mendicancy, according to the counsel proposed through the mouth of Jesus Christ and promulgated beyond reproach. Jerome defends the cause of these in the epistle which he wrote against Vigilantius: "It has been reported to me," he says, "that contrary to the authority of the Apostle Paul — nay rather, of Peter, John, and James, who gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, and commanded them that they should be mindful of the poor — you forbid that any consolation of provisions be sent to Jerusalem for the use of the Saints. No doubt, if I respond to these things, you will immediately bark that I am pleading my own cause — you who have endowed all with such great generosity that, had you not come to Jerusalem and spent or poured out your money or that of your patrons, we would all be in danger of starvation. I speak that which blessed Paul speaks and commands in nearly all his epistles: that in the churches of the Gentiles, on the first day of the week, that is, on the Lord's day, all should contribute what may be sent to Jerusalem for the consolation of the Saints. Could he not have distributed in other parts of the world and in those churches which, as they were being born, he was instructing in his faith, what he had received from others? But he desired to give to the holy poor, who, leaving behind their meager possessions for Christ, had turned with their whole mind to the service of the Lord. For it would take long now if I wished to review all the testimonies from his other epistles, in which he pursues this matter and strives with his whole mind that money be sent by believers to Jerusalem and to the holy places — not for avarice, but for relief; not for the accumulation of riches, but for sustaining the weakness of the frail body and for warding off cold and hunger; this custom persevering in Judea even to this day, not only among us but also among the Hebrews, so that those who meditate on the law of the Lord day and night and have no portion in the land except God alone may be sustained by the ministrations of the synagogues and of the whole world — from equality, at least, not that for others there be relief and for others tribulation, but that the abundance of some may sustain the want of others." Having seen these things, the response to the aforesaid is sufficiently clear.
REPLICATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS MADE AFTERWARDS.
Against these things which have been stated above, however, someone has endeavored to raise objections in many ways, wishing to refute some of them as irrelevant, some as false, some as non-sequiturs, some as doubtful, but most of them as hostile to apostolic doctrine. He does this, however, by responding to a certain question collected afterward in the schools rather insufficiently, with all due respect to the one who collected it, as can better appear in the aforementioned question.
I. First, therefore, he considers as irrelevant whatever we adduce concerning the disciples of Christ sent to preach, because to them was given the authority necessary for receiving, not from mendicancy, but from power. But those who preach without authority are false prophets, and therefore they ought to seek in neither way, neither from authority nor from mendicancy. - And if it be said that such persons have been sent by the Pope and by bishops: he says that they are to be supported by the bishops, according to what is said in the Decretals, On the Office of the Ordinary Judge, Inter cetera. Therefore the pattern was given to those preaching from office and authority, but for a time, so that impediments might be removed. And therefore the authorities, both of the text and of the Glosses, in this case seem irrelevant to the proposition, according to him who seems to oppose the aforementioned question.
It is easy to detect the sophistical appearance of this objection, if one understands the root of the power that resides in the Apostles, the prelates, and the messengers sent by the Apostles. For it is certain that this power was radically in Christ, according to what the Apostle says in Galatians 1, that he was an Apostle through Jesus Christ; and John 20: As the Father has sent me, etc. Now Christ, by sending the Apostles, gave them a twofold power, namely of preaching and of exacting their sustenance. And it is established that these powers are distinct: for although a bishop can exact his procurations once a year in one place, he can nevertheless preach whenever he wishes; therefore the Supreme Pontiff, who holds the place of Christ on earth, can give both together, and can also separate one from the other. Since, therefore, the Supreme Pontiff and the prelates cannot exercise personally by themselves all things that pertain to them, on account of the peoples subject to them being spread far and wide, the Holy Spirit ordained in the governance of the Church that he should sometimes send legates who would possess both powers. And again, lest particular Churches be burdened, he ordained that bishops should send suitable persons for preaching and hearing confessions, for whom they themselves would also provide, Decretals, On the Office of the Ordinary Judge, Inter cetera . He also ordained that he together with the prelates should send voluntary poor men who are learned, to whom neither would bishops be bound to furnish support, lest they be burdened by the multitude of expenses, nor would they have the power to exact procurations, in order to remove the burden from subjects; and thus they would go about humbly as poor men, content with little, receiving only what is necessary, and humbly making known their need, when occasion required, to those who both could and would voluntarily and without burden and with cheerfulness support and assist them. Whence, just as the decretal On the Office of the Ordinary Judge emanated from the Apostolic See, so also did the confirmation of the order and rule of such poor men preaching the truth, Decretals, On the Excesses of Prelates, Nimis prava, as was treated above. — Nor was this done to the prejudice, but rather to the aid, of parochial priests; nor is the Church thereby prostituted if God provides assistance to pastors, so that they may more perfectly guard uncorrupted from all corruption of sin the souls committed to them, of which they have the care, with spiritual men assisting them, not as lords or as those having the care of souls, but rather as servants through the charity of Christ.
Such men therefore, because, having been sent, they preach in humility and poverty, are like apostolic men, not false prophets. But because they do not have that fullness of authority which prelates have, and which the Apostles had, they are therefore to be numbered among the helps, according to First Corinthians twelve'': God placed in the Church first Apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then powers, after that helps etc. The Gloss: " Helps, that is, those who bring assistance to their superiors, as Titus to the Apostle, and archdeacons to bishops." Among these also can be numbered those whom the Pastor of the Church of God has appointed to bring aid to others. And therefore I said, according to the custom of theological discourse — which says that sub-authority exists in the one who is sent — that they have sub-authority, not to excuse excuses in sins, as is imputed to me, but rather for the understanding of truth. The form therefore prescribed to the Apostles both ought to and can befit these men. For what is said, namely that it was temporal: since it has no authority from the Scriptures, it is dismissed with the same ease with which it is asserted. - Again, if this form was fitting in the primitive Church, why not likewise in the final Church, especially with regard to those who wish to imitate the Apostles in this form? For I do not say that the universal Church must be reduced to poverty in all things - as is imputed to me by them - as is apparent from my words above; but those who wish can imitate the perfection and the loftiness of poverty of the Apostles. - Whence blessed Francis was incited by the example of the Apostles, from the words of the Gospel recited in the Church, to undertake this manner of living, as is more clearly evident from his legend. - Because therefore upon those words this order was founded, they are not irrelevant, but in every way pertinent as the most stable foundations of this manner of living. Such men therefore are to be received, because they go forth as poor men for the name of Christ, as is said in the Canonical Epistle of John, that those who receive such men are fellow workers of the truth. ''Therefore those who oppose such men and do not receive them, or say they should not be received, are like Diotrephes, of whom the Gloss says that he was even a heresiarch of that time: whose doctrine and sect may be far from all Christians.
11. He attempts to refute certain things as false. - For he asserts it to be false that Christ asked for anything as a beggar. For even if He is called a beggar in the Psalms, this is said insofar as He asked from the Father, or insofar as He assumed our infirmities. - If it be said that He asked water from the Samaritan woman and lodging from Zacchaeus, this was not from begging, but from authority, or courtesy. - And again, even if He had begged, it should not be drawn into a precedent . - He says it is likewise false that any begging is voluntary, rather, all begging must be unwilling and compelled.
Moreover, this objection, which imputes falsehood to truth, is easy to convict of falsehood if one is willing to hear the truth devoutly. - For that Christ was a beggar, both the prophetic text and the Glosses attest; and that he begged as a beggar, as was alleged in the objections from two Glosses; and similarly in that Psalm: O God, come to my aid, on that verse: But I am needy and poor: the Gloss says: "He takes upon himself the words of God, who in the preceding Psalm said these same things about himself, as if saying: Those who seek my life are rich; but I am needy, that is, one who begs, and poor, that is, insufficient to myself: because he both lacks worldly abundance, and inwardly, where he is rich, he always seeks, desires, and receives". According to this, it is clear that Christ was needy and poor and begging as one in need, not from the Father alone; for then all would in this way be beggars, and none rich, even those having abundance: which is against the Gloss. Moreover, Christ still asks of the Father, the Angels ask, and the holy comprehensors ask: but yet they are not called beggars.
Since therefore by so express a testimony the text says this, and the Gloss agrees, and no authority contradicts it: why shall we not confess that Christ begged as a beggar? For we confess that he was a virgin and lacked a wife, although Scripture makes no mention of this. - The Gospel also expressly states that he asked for both drink and lodging: and it is clear that it was not from command and dominion and authority, because then he would not have given an example of poverty. - He would also have spoken falsely in saying that he had nowhere to lay his head, since he would have had subjects from whom he could exact provisions: and he would have acted less justly in this, that he preached in Jerusalem and was fed in Bethany, bearing fruit and preaching in one place and receiving sustenance in another.
But you will say that he asked out of courtesy. But did Christ embrace poverty to teach courtesy? Did he wish to become needy and poor for the sake of teaching human courtesies? Does he call himself a master of courtesy and not rather of humility? Learn from me, he says in the eleventh chapter of Matthew, for I am meek and humble of heart. He therefore asked out of humility for what was fitting to relieve his need, and thereby as a poor beggar.
And it is clear that he did not have this need except because he willed it: nor did he ask except because he willed it: for he could have turned stones into gold whenever he wished: just as his disciple John the Evangelist cast them to those who, while evangelizing, were unwilling to beg and be in want, who had turned back, who afterward preferred begging and poverty to precious gems. - And from this it is clear that it belongs to Christ and his followers to voluntarily beg; otherwise they would in no way merit in this begging and poverty. For it is absurd to say that poverty and want are voluntary, while the begging that proceeds from them is coerced.
If therefore mendicancy in Christ arose from poverty and humility and was voluntary: why should it not be drawn as a precedent? since he himself says: Learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart: since he also invites others wishing to come to the highest summit of perfection to follow him through this kind of poverty: Go, he says, and sell, etc.; and the Apostle says in Second Corinthians, chapter eight: You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and further: I give counsel, the Gloss says: "that you may imitate his poverty"; since this is also a perfection which is proposed to all in common, and it is said: He who can receive it, let him receive it: since Augustine says in his fifteenth homily on John: "In all things which Christ did as man, he was providing an example for those who would believe in him"; since Jerome says that even if in his miracles he is not to be imitated by us, in those things which he did humbly he is to be imitated by us: since he was also the universal form of the virtues in his actions. Whence Augustine in On True Religion: "No sin can be committed except when those things are desired which he despised, or those things are fled which he endured. His entire life on earth, therefore, through the man whom he deigned to assume, was a discipline of morals". - Who therefore would dare to say that it should not be drawn as a precedent, unless one who dares to say that imitation is not owed to Christ in those things which he did humbly? But if we say this, whatever there is of holiness, virtue, and perfection, and the Christian religion itself, is confounded and overturned, and also weakened, because by the same reasoning by which this is said, the same could also be said of other examples of the virtues. But far be this from all Christian hearts.
III. He strives nonetheless to refute certain things as " non-sequiturs. - For he says that it does not follow that, although want is befitting the perfection of the Saints, that on this account also mendicancy, which sometimes accompanies want, is likewise befitting; that similarly one could argue regarding the eating of children and regarding thefts and robberies, which frequently follow from want and poverty. - He also says it is a non-sequitur that, although blessed Benedict was perfect, that on this account, in receiving daily alms from that Roman, he was performing a work pertaining to perfection, because a perfect person does many things that do not pertain to perfection, such as eating, excreting, and other similar things. - He also says it is a non-sequitur that, although to abase and humble oneself for Christ is good, that on this account to humble oneself by begging is good, because to beg is not to humble oneself, but to take care of oneself. And again, a harlot abases herself by prostituting herself, and yet in this she does not please the Lord; in like manner, neither does the abasement by which someone abases himself by begging.
These foul objections, however — because he proposes foul examples and strives to defile mendicancy — it is easy for a spiritual man to reject as foul, false, and fictitious. For we find that Christian and perfect men are not praised in their legends for cruelties in eating human beings, or for greed in carrying out plunder, or for acts of excretion, fornications, and other similar things of this kind; but they are found to be praised and commended for this: that they chose to live in such great poverty that they had neither food nor clothing, nor did they wish to have them as the rich do, but rather to beg humbly as the poor and despised, as is evident in the examples introduced above. - For that the eating of children should follow from destitution — this is against the order of nature; that theft and robbery should follow — this is against the order of morals and justice. - But that there should follow the making known of one's need to one's neighbor and the requesting of assistance for the love of God — this is according to the order of charity and piety, both natural as well as gratuitous and spiritual. For every law commands that neighbor be supported and relieved by neighbor. How then is that which perverts order and follows a perverted order similar to that which is done according to a right, just, and good order, one that is charitable and pious? - Therefore the monk Romanus is praised, because according to the law of charity he provided for blessed Benedict, and Benedict, who most humbly received. But nowhere will you find him praised because he defecated and excreted; for it is utterly abominable to introduce such things into the midst of discussion when the praises of the Saints are being treated.
Moreover, the mendicant is praised, although he takes care of himself, not because he does this in just any manner, but because he does it most humbly: whence, just as to eat soberly is an act of virtue, although to eat is to take care of oneself, so also it is to be understood in the matter at hand. Whence Chrysostom, in Homily Four on Matthew, speaking of the holy youths who were in the palace of the king of Babylon, says thus: "Being therefore holy and just, they would have chosen ten thousand times over to beg at home and to enjoy the goods that were in the temple. For I have chosen, he says, to be cast aside in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners. Ten thousand times, therefore, they would have chosen to be cast aside at home rather than to reign in Babylon." There is therefore in mendicancy a humiliation and self-abasement acceptable to God; otherwise it would not be chosen by the holy youths; but it is chosen because it is care of oneself joined with its own humility. But those who take care of their flesh in desires and concupiscences, they are without doubt not praised, even if they seem to humble and abase themselves, like the harlot who prostitutes herself for love of money or the fervor of lust. But far be it from the hearts of the faithful that the humiliation of spiritual men in mendicancy should be similar to the abasement of a harlot in her prostitution. For the members of Christ are not to be taken away so that they become members of a harlot. But Christ says of himself in the form of a servant and also on behalf of his members: I am a beggar and poor, but the Lord is solicitous for me. Which he would by no means say unless being a beggar for Christ so pleased God that it makes God exercise a most special care for us, as a father exercises care for his children — to think this of harlots and those who play the harlot, let it be far from Christian ears and minds.