Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On the Clergy (Book I)
Chapter 26: On the Possessions Held by the Gift of the Laity
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Clericis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book I), On the Clergy (On the Members of the Church, Book I). The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
On ecclesiastical possessions there was the error of John Wycliffe (in Thomas Waldensis, Book IV of the Doctrinal of the Faith, article 3), who taught that it is not lawful for clerics to have any possessions, and that both those who gave them to the Church and those who received them sinned. His foundations are these. First, because the priests of the Old Testament were forbidden to have possessions, as is plain (Numbers 18): “The Lord said to Aaron, in their land you shall possess nothing, nor shall you have a part among them; I am thy part and inheritance.” Likewise Deuteronomy 10: “Wherefore Levi has no part nor possession with his brethren, because the Lord Himself is his possession.” And Joshua 13: “But to the tribe of Levi he gave no possession, because the Lord God of Israel is Himself his possession.” Secondly, because (Matthew 10) the Lord bids the Apostles possess nothing — no money, no two coats, and so on; and in the same place He says, “The disciple is not above the master”; but Christ had no possession. Likewise Luke 14: “Unless a man renounce all that he possesses, he cannot be my disciple.” But certainly all clerics ought to be disciples of Christ.
But that this error is manifest is proved. First, of the priests and Levites of the Old Testament; for although in the partition of the land they were not to have fields and vineyards, yet they were to have and possess cities to dwell in, and suburbs to feed their cattle. They could also buy fields and vineyards, and even have them from the oblations of the people, as the Church now has. For (Numbers 35) it is said: “Command the children of Israel to give to the Levites of their possessions cities to dwell in, and their suburbs round about, which shall reach outward from the walls of the cities round about a thousand paces’ space.” And (Joshua 21) we read this fulfilled. Nor does it stand in the way that Lyra (on Numbers 35) says those cities were the priests’ as to use, but their dominion was in the hands of others; and he proves it of Hebron, which was given to the priests (Joshua 21), and yet its lord was Caleb of the tribe of Judah (Joshua 14). This does not stand in the way; for Lyra is deceived, as is plain from Leviticus 25, where we read that the cities and suburbs of the priests are their possession, and that they can sell them and redeem houses, as others did; and of Hebron we read (Joshua 21) that only the fields and vineyards which were in the territory of Hebron were Caleb’s, but the city and suburbs the priests’. Likewise (Leviticus, last chapter) it is commanded that if anyone vow a field to the Lord, the priests possess it. In 3 Kings 2 the king says to Abiathar the priest: “Go to thy field.” Likewise Jeremiah was a priest, and yet (Jeremiah 32) he himself writes that he bought and possessed a field which had been his cousin’s. And in Acts 4 we read that Barnabas was a Levite and sold a field which he had.
From these it is easy to answer to the first argument of Wycliffe. For when the Scripture says that the priests were to have nothing, but the Lord was their inheritance, it means that they were not to have anything after the manner of the others, as sons of Jacob and from paternal inheritance, but were only to have those things which were owed to God, whose ministers they were; and so it was done. For the whole land of Palestine was, as a certain inheritance, divided into twelve parts for the number of the tribes, the tribe of Levi being wholly excluded, which was the thirteenth. For although the sons of Jacob were only twelve, yet the tribes were thirteen, because Joseph made two tribes, namely Ephraim and Manasseh. Then, the land being divided and Levi disinherited, God willed that to Himself, as the proper King of the Jews, be given in place of tribute a tenth part of all the fruits, and 48 cities with their suburbs; and all these He gave to the Levites. Which portion of the Levites, as we said above, was greater than any portion of the other tribes; for they had a tenth part, when they were scarcely a sixtieth part of the whole people; and this is signified by those words, “I the Lord am the inheritance of the Levites.” Where note the wonderful providence of God toward the priests. Jacob disinherited his son Levi for his sin, as is plain (Genesis 49): “I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel.” But God ratified the sentence of Israel, yet fulfilled it with the highest honor of the Levites and the advantage of the whole people; for He Himself gave the Levites His own inheritance, and the whole people obtained the greatest advantage thence. For if the Levites had been gathered into one place, as the other tribes were, all the peoples could not easily have been taught by them; but scattered among all the tribes, they could easily be present to all and instruct them in the law of the Lord.
Now this same is proved of the priests of the New Testament. For although in the Scriptures we read nothing of the possessions of the Churches, yet we read it in the most ancient decrees of the Pontiffs and Councils, and in the books of the holy Fathers. Pope Pius I (in letter 2) says that he is guilty of sacrilege who plunders the estates and gifts of the Church. Urban I (in the letter to all bishops) says that at the beginning of the Church pious men were wont to sell their possessions and give the price to the Churches; but that afterward it was judged more convenient that the possessions themselves be given to the Church, that in that way provision might be made not only for the present but also for the future. There are also Councils of all the Churches which forbid the possessions of the Church to be alienated, and commit the care of them to the bishop. See the Council of Antioch (chapter 25) and of Ancyra (chapter 15); likewise the Fourth Council of Carthage (chapter 32) and the Fifth of Carthage (chapter 4); likewise the First Council of Seville (chapter 1), the Fourth of Toledo (canons 32 and 68); likewise the Council of Agde (chapters 49 and 51); likewise the Council of Mainz under the Emperor Arnulph (chapter 12); finally the Sixth Roman Council under Symmachus. Besides, of ecclesiastical possessions Ambrose makes mention (letter 32), Chrysostom (homily 37 to the people of Antioch), Augustine (sermons 1 and 2, On the Common Life of Clerics), Prosper (Book II On the Contemplative Life, chapter 9), Gregory (Book IV, letter 33), and the other Fathers everywhere.
To that of Matthew 10, “Take nothing for your journey,” and so on, I answer that those words are said to the Apostles for that time when they were to be on a journey in the land of promise, before Christ’s passion; for then, that they might be more unencumbered, they ought to carry nothing with them, especially since they then had care neither of the poor nor of the Churches. But when the Apostles, after Christ’s ascension, began to fix their seats in certain places and to have care of the Churches and the poor, they did not fear to receive temporal goods, as is plain (Acts 4, 5, and 6), where the Apostles received much money, that thence they might feed both themselves and others.
To that, “The disciple is not above the master,” I answer that the Lord in that place speaks of tribulations, from which the Apostles were not immune, since their Lord and master suffered many things; and to be richer is not to be greater, but rather less; for with God he is greater who is better, and he is better who is poorer, since the Lord says: “If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast,” and so on. To the last Augustine answers (letter 5 to Marcellinus) that the Lord speaks of the preparation of the mind. For in the same place, explaining what it is to renounce all, He says: “If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and moreover his own soul, he cannot be my disciple”; and yet we are not bound, nor can we, to hate parents, children, wife, and much less life, except in the preparation of the mind.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XXYI.
De possessionibus , quce dono Laicorum possi¬
dentur a Clericis.
De possessionibus Ecclesiasticis fuit error
Joannis Wiclefi, apud Thomam Waldensem
lib. IV. doctrin. fidei artic. 3. qui docebat
non licere Clericis habere ullas possessiones,
et peccasse tam qui eas donaverunt Eccle-
(1) Num. XVIII, 20; Deut. X. 9; Jos. XIII, 14
XXXV, 2.
siae quam qui eas receperunt. Fundamenta
ejus haec sunt. Primum, quia Sacerdotes
Testamenti veteris prohibebantur habere
possessiones, ut patet Numer. XVIII : Dixit
Dominus ad Aaron, in terra eorum nihil pos¬
sidebitis, nec habebitis partem inter eos , ego
pars et hcereditas tua. Item Deut. X : Quamo-
brem non habuit Levi partem, nec possessionem
cum fratribus suis, quia ipse Dominus possessio
ejus est. Et Josue XIII; Tribui autem Levi non
dedit possessionem , quoniam Dominus Deus
Israel ipse possessio ejus (1).
Secundum, quia Matth. X. Dominus jubet
Apostolis, ut nihil possideant, non pecuniam,
non duas tunicas etc. Ibidem dicit ; Non est
discipulus super magistrum. Christus autem
nullam possessionem habuit. Item Luc. XIV:
Nisi quis renuntiaverit omnibus quce possidet ,
non potest meus esse discipulus (2). At certe
Clerici omnes discipuli Christi esse debent.
At hunc errorem manifestum esse, proba¬
tur. Primo, de Sacerdotibus, et Levitis Tes¬
tamenti veteris ; Nam etsi in partitione ter¬
rae non erant habituri agros, et vineas, erant
habituri tamen et possessuri urbes ad habi¬
tandum, et suburbana ad alenda pecora. Po¬
terant etiam agros et vineas emere, et etiam
ex oblationibus populi habere, ut modo ha¬
bet Ecclesia ; NamNum. XXXV. dicitur : Prae¬
cipe filiis Israel, ut dent Levitis de possessionibus
suis urbes ad habitandum, et suburbana earum
per circuitum , quce a muris civitatum forin¬
secus per circuitum mille passuum spatio ten¬
dentur (3). Et Josue XXI. id legimus imple¬
tum.
Neque obstat quod Lyranus in Num. XXXV.
dicit eas urbes fuisse Sacerdotum , quoad
usum, dominium autem earum fuisse penes
alios. Et probat de Hebron, quae date est Sa¬
cerdotibus , Josue XXI. et tamen dominus
ejus erat Caleb de tribu Juda , Josue XIV.
Hoc non obstat : Nam Lyranus fallitur , ut
patet ex Levit. XXV, ubi legimus urbes et
suburbana Sacerdotum esse eorum posses¬
sionem , et posse illas vendere, et redimere
domos, ut alii faciebant, et de Hebron legi¬
mus Josue XXI. solos, agros et vineas, quae
erant in territorio Hebron, fuisse Caleb, ur¬
bem autem et suburbana Sacerdotum. Item
Levit, ult. praecipitur, ut si quis agrum Do¬
mino voverit , eum Sacerdotes possideant.
III. Reg. II. dicit Rex Abiathar Sacerdoti :
. — (2) Matth. X, 24; Luc. XIV, 33. — (3) Num.
LIBER I.
48 4
Vade ad agrum tuum{\). Item Hieremias Sa¬
cerdos erat, et tamen Hierem. XXXII. scri¬
bit ipsemet se emisse ac possedisse agrum,
qui fuerat patruelis sui. Et Actor. IV. legi¬
mus Barnabam fuisse Levitam, et vendidisse
agrum quem habebat.
Ex his facile est respondere ad primum
argumentum Wiclefi. Quando enim Scriptu¬
ra dicit, Sacerdotes non debuisse habere
quidquam, sed Dominum esse eorum hsere-
ditatem , vult dicere non debuisse eos ha¬
bere quidquam more aliorum, tanquam filios
Jacob, et ex paterna hsereditate : sed solum
habere debuisse ea, quae debebantur Deo,
cujus ipsi ministri erant; et sic factum est;
Nam tota terra Palaestina? quasi quaedam hae-
reditas divisa fuit in duodecim partes pro
numero tribuum, exclusa omnino tribu Levi,
quae erat decimatertia.
Nam etsi duodecim tantum fuerint filii
Jacob , tribus tamen fuerant XIII. quia Jo-
seph duas tribus faciebat, nimirum Ephraim
et Manasse. Deinde terra jam divisa, et Le¬
vi exhaeredato , Deus voluit sibi tanquam
proprio Regi Judaeorum dari loco tributi de¬
cimam partem omnium fructuum , et 48 ci¬
vitates cum suburbanis suis , et haec omnia
donavit ipse Levitis. Quae portio Levitarum,
ut supra diximus , major fuit quacumque
portione aliarum tribuum ; Nam habuerunt
decimam partem, cum ipsi vix essent sexa¬
gesima pars totius populi, et hoc significant
illa verba: Ego Dominus hcereditas Levitarum
sum. Ubi nota miram Dei providentiam er¬
ga Sacerdotes; Jacob exhaeredavit filium
Levi, propter peccatum ipsius, ut patet Ge¬
nes. XLIX : Dividam illos in Jacob , et disper¬
gam eos in Israel (2). Deus autem ratam ha¬
buit sententiam Israelis , sed eam implevit
cum summo honore Levitarum, et totius po¬
puli utilitate ; Nam dedit ipse Levitis suam
haereditatem , et totus populus maximum
commodum inde consecutus est. Si enim
fuissent Levitae collecti in unum locum , ut
erant aliae tribus, non potuissent omnes po¬
puli facile ab eis doceri : dispersi autem in
omnes tribus, facile omnibus adesse, eosquo
instituere in lege domini potuerunt.
Probatur jam hoc idem de Sacerdotibus
novi Testamenti : Nam etsi in ScVipturis ni¬
hil legimus de possessionibus Ecclesiarum,
legimus tamen in antiquissimis Pontificum,
et Conciliorum decretis , et in libris sancto¬
rum Patrum. Pius Papa I, in epist. 2. dicit,
sacrilegium esse, qui Ecclesiae praedia et do¬
naria diripit. Urbanus I. in epist. ad omnes
Episcopos dicit, initio Ecclesiae consuevisse
pios homines vendere possessiones, et pre¬
tium donare Ecclesiis. Deinde tamen judica¬
tum esse commodius , si possessiones ipsae
donarentur Ecclesiae, ut eo modo non solum
praesentibus , sed etiam futuris providere¬
tur.
Sunt etiam Concilia omnium Ecclesiarum,
quae prohibent alienari possessiones Eccle¬
siae, et earum curam Episcopo committunt.
Vide Concilium Antiochenum, cap. 25. et
Ancyranum, cap. 15. Item Concilium Car¬
thaginiense IV , cap. 32. et Carthaginiense
V, cap. 4. Item Concilium Hispalense I, cap.
1. Toletanum IV, canon. 32 et 68. ItemAga-
thense cap. 49 et 51. Item Moguntinum sub
Arnulpho Imperatore cap. 12. Denique Ro¬
manum VI. sub Symmacho. Praeterea me¬
minerunt Ecclesiasticarum possessionum
Ambrosius epist. 32. Chrysostomus hom. 37.
ad populum Antiochenum : Augustinus ser.
1 et 2. De communi vita Clericorum : Pros¬
per lib. II. De vita contemplativa cap. 9.
Gregorius lib. IV, epist. 33. et alii Patres
p assim.
Ad illud Matfch. X : Nihil tuleritis in via
. etc. (3) Respondeo, illa verba dici Apostolis
pro eo tempore , quo in itinere erant futuri
in terra promissionis , ante Christi passio¬
nem ; tunc enim ut expeditiores essent, non
debuerunt ferre secum quidquam , praeser¬
tim cum neque pauperum , neque Ecclesia¬
rum tunc curam haberent. At ubi coeperunt
Apostoli post Christi Ascensionem figere se¬
des in certis locis , et habere curam Eccle¬
siarum, et pauperum, non timuerunt recipe¬
re bona temporalia, ut patet Actor. IV, V et
VI. ubi Apostoli recipiebant multas pecu¬
nias, ut inde alerent et se, et alios.
Ad illud : Non est discipulus super magis¬
trum , Respondeo , Dominum loqui eo loco
de tribulationibus, a quibus non fuerunt im-
munes Apostoli , cum eorum Dominus , et
magister multa passus sit; Neque esse ditio¬
rem, est esse majorem, sed potius minorem;
Nam apud Deum ille est major, qui est me¬
lior ; melior autem est , qui est pauperior,
cum Dominus dicat : Si vis perfectus esse ,
vade , vende omnia quce habes etc. (4)
Ad postremum respondet Augustinus ep.
(1) III. Reg. II, 26. — (2) Gen. XLIX, 7. - (3) Matth. X, 10. — (4) Mattii. XIX, 21.
CAPUT XXVII.
485
5. ad Marcellinum, Dominum loqui de prae¬
paratione mentis. Nam ibidem explicans quid
sit renuntiare omnibus, dicit : Si quis venit
ad me , et non odit 'patrem , et matrem , et uxo¬
rem , adhuc autem et animam suam, non potest
meus esse discipulus (1). Et tamen non tene¬
mur, necpossumus, parentes, filios, uxorem,
et multo minus vitam odisse, nisi in praepa¬
ratione animi.