Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 20: That Voluntary Poverty Is Rightly Vowed to God
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. II, De Monachis (De Membris Ecclesiae, Book II), On Monks (On the Members of the Church, Book II). 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).
There remains the last part of the question, in which, as we promised, the three monastic vows are to be defended. We will begin with the vow of poverty, then pass to the vow of obedience, and last come to the vow of continence, on which is the chief question.
That voluntary poverty, then, is rightly undertaken and vowed to God is first proved from those words (Matthew 5): Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Where it is to be noted that in Scripture the poor are wont to be taken in three ways. First, those are called poor who are afflicted, as (Psalm 24): I am alone and poor; the troubles of my heart are multiplied. Secondly, those are called poor who are humble, as (Isaiah, last chapter): To whom shall I have respect but to the poor little one, and contrite, and trembling at my words? Thirdly, those are properly called poor who are not rich, and that in three ways: either in act but not in affection, or in affection but not in act, or in act and affection together.
There are, then, five expositions of this passage. The first is Calvin’s on this passage, who by the poor understands the afflicted. But this exposition is not genuine; for then this first beatitude would coincide with the third, Blessed are they that mourn, or with the last, Blessed are they that suffer persecution. And besides, it is not the exposition of the Fathers; and finally (Luke 6) the Lord opposes the rich to the poor.
The second exposition is that of Chrysostom (in his commentary on this passage) and Augustine (Book 1 On the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount), who by the poor understand the humble; which exposition is indeed true, but not primarily intended, as we shall show a little later.
A third could be that those are called blessed who are poor in act, not in affection; but this is a false exposition, and is reprehended by the Fathers; for these poor are not blessed, but wretched. On which account the Lord added, in spirit — that is, by will and choice, and not by any will whatever, but a spiritual one, as Saint Bernard notes (sermon 1 on the feast of All Saints). For there were also certain philosophers poor by will, but not poor in spirit, because they loved poverty not for God’s sake, but out of curiosity.
A fourth exposition could be that those are called blessed who are poor in affection, though not in act. This is true, but is not chiefly intended, as I shall soon show.
There is, then, a fifth: that those are called blessed who for God’s sake voluntarily choose poverty, and accordingly also humility; and that by “poor in spirit” in this passage are named those who are voluntarily poor, and accordingly also humble; for for the most part riches beget elation, poverty humility. So expound Blessed Ambrose (on Luke 6), Blessed Gregory of Nyssa, Blessed Jerome, and the venerable Bede (on Matthew 5), and also Saint Leo I (in the sermon on those words of the Lord in Matthew 5), who mention voluntary poverty and humility together. Likewise Chromatius and Anselm on this passage, Basil (question 205), Bernard (sermon 1 on the feast of All Saints), and the more recent, as the Abulensis, Lyra, Cajetan, Jansenius, and others, who expound of voluntary and actual poverty, and rightly; for first the Greek word ptochos properly signifies a beggar, as also the Latin word pauper is wont to signify properly not the humble, but the needy.
Then that reward (for theirs is the kingdom of heaven) most properly answers to true poverty. Besides (Luke 6) the poor who are said to be blessed are opposed not to the proud but to the rich; for so a little after the Lord subjoins: Woe to you that are rich. Finally, Christ was poor in act and affection, and taught without doubt what He Himself did. Besides, He often said that riches are dangerous; for (Matthew 13) He compared them to thorns which choke the seed, and (Mark 10): How hardly, He says, shall they that have money enter into the kingdom of heaven. And: It is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man into the kingdom of heaven.
Hence, then, we can thus argue for the vow of poverty. Everything is rightly vowed to God which by His testimony we know to be good and pleasing to Him; but voluntary poverty by the testimony of Christ is good and pleasing to God, since such poor are called blessed, and to them is promised the kingdom of heaven as a reward; therefore poverty of this kind is most rightly vowed to God.
The second testimony is Matthew 19, where the Lord says: If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven. And in the same place: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee; what therefore shall we have? etc. That here is given a counsel of the true renunciation of goods we demonstrated above in the disputation on the Evangelical Counsels. And that hence it follows that poverty can be vowed is evident from the argument made a little before. And besides, from each testimony it is gathered not only that poverty can rightly be vowed — which suffices for our purpose — but also that the Lord exhorted to the vowing of this poverty; for it would profit little to give all to the poor and become poor in spirit, if one a little after should again return to gains and to acquiring wealth. On which account the holy Fathers understood that by these testimonies is commended a perfect poverty, which is undertaken with the purpose and vow of always so remaining.
And so Saint Augustine (in epistle 89, question 4, and on Psalm 103, sermon 3) refers this whole passage to the monastic profession; and Saint Bernard (in the declamation on this passage of the Gospel): “These,” he says, “are the words which persuaded contempt of the world in the whole world, and voluntary poverty. These are they which fill the cloisters with monks, the deserts with anchorites.”
The third testimony is Acts 4, where we read thus: And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul; neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but all things were common unto them. And that those first Christians in Jerusalem lived so by vow, Saint Augustine teaches (sermon 1 on the common life of clerics), where he says that he wished to do with his own the very thing which the Acts of the Apostles already cited testify the first Christians did; and yet in the same place he often repeats that no one is allowed in such a life to have anything of his own, and that from a profession made to God. For he speaks thus of a certain priest of his who against his profession had retained something and thence had made a will when he died: “O the grief,” he says, “of that society! O the fruit born not of the tree which the Lord planted! But he wrote the Church his heir. I will not count these things; I love not the fruit of bitterness; I sought him for God; to God he had professed the society; let him hold this, let him show this, let him have nothing, let him make no will.”
The fourth testimony is Acts 5, where Ananias and Sapphira his wife, when they seemed to wish to profess the common life, and yet had secretly retained something of their own, being at once detected and rebuked by the Apostle Peter, and invisibly struck by God, perished. Here Peter Martyr (in the book On Vows) says that he sees no vow; for the sin of Ananias and Sapphira was lying, ambition, avarice, and hypocrisy, but not the violation of a vow, or sacrilege. But we can easily show, first from the circumstances of this passage, then from the testimonies of the Fathers, that Ananias and Sapphira vowed, and were punished as guilty of sacrilege.
That Ananias and Sapphira, then, vowed that common life is gathered from those words, He defrauded of the price of the field, his wife being privy to it. For he would not be said to have defrauded unless he had withdrawn a thing already bound by promise. And that they vowed a thing not commanded appears from those words, Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? And finally that that vow was made to God, and accordingly its violation was sacrilege, is testified by those words: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Spirit, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? For what is it to lie to the Holy Spirit, but to break faith given to the Holy Spirit?
He could indeed in some way be said to have lied to the Holy Spirit if he had told a lie only to Saint Peter, in whom without doubt was the Holy Spirit; yet no one can deny that he is more properly said to lie to the Holy Spirit who promises something to God and does not keep it, than he who lies to some holy man. Besides, that most severe punishment which God Himself at once took of Ananias and Sapphira altogether cries out that that sin was greater than that of a simple lie, and of avarice, and ambition, and hypocrisy; for how could any fault have been punished more atrociously? And so without doubt it was sacrilege, which merited to be so punished.
Let there now come in the common exposition of the Fathers. Saint John Chrysostom (homily 12 on the Acts of the Apostles): “Why,” he says, “didst thou do this? didst thou wish to have it? thou oughtest to have had it from the beginning, and not to have promised. But now, after thou hast consecrated it, thou hast committed the greater sacrilege; for he who seizes another’s goods, seizes perhaps from desire of others’ things. But thee it was lawful to retain thine own; why then didst thou make them sacred, and afterward take them?”
Saint Jerome (in the epistle to Demetrias, which is the eighth of the first tome): “Ananias,” he says, “and Sapphira, timid dispensers, nay of a double heart, and therefore condemned, because after a vow they offered as their own, and not His to whom they had once vowed them, and reserved for themselves part of a substance already another’s.”
Saint Augustine (sermon 27 on the words of the Apostle): “While,” he says, “from that which he had promised he withdrew a part, he is condemned at once of sacrilege and of fraud.” And (sermon 10, elsewhere 12, On Divers Matters, in the Louvain edition): “If it displeased God,” he says, “to withdraw of the money which they had vowed to God, how is He angered when chastity is vowed and not shown?” And below: “It can, then, be said to a consecrated virgin who marries what Peter said of the money: Did not thy virginity, whilst it remained, remain to thee? and before thou didst vow it, was it not in thy power?”
Saint Fulgentius (in the epistle on the conjugal debt, chapter 8): “How great an evil it is,” he says, “and how carefully to be fled, if anyone attempt by a deadly transgression either to retain or to seize anything of that which he has vowed to God, Ananias and Sapphira are the example.”
Saint Gregory (Book 1, epistle 33, to Venantius): “Ananias,” he says, “had vowed monies to God, which afterward, overcome by the persuasion of the devil, he withdrew; but by what death he was punished thou knowest.”
Arator (Book 1 on the Acts of the Apostles), narrating this passage, says thus: “But that a changed will has the crime of the false; and since now there is the caution of a vow, it is fitting to stand, and not to wish to violate later what was first,” etc.
Oecumenius in his commentary on this passage several times calls the sin of Ananias sacrilege. Bede on the same passage says that from the example of Ananias was born that worst kind of monks which is called of the Sarabaites, who under a monastic life and profession wish to retain something of their own. And so much from the Scriptures for the vow of poverty.
This same can be confirmed from the tradition of the Fathers. Saint Urban I, Pope, in his decretal epistle: “Whoever of you,” he says, “has undertaken the common life and vowed to have nothing of his own, let him see that he make not his promise void.” Saint Basil (in the monastic constitutions, last chapter) says that a monk loses the salvation of his soul, and is a thief and a second Judas, if he possess anything private. But why so, I ask, if there is no promise, no vow?
Saint Jerome (in epistle 22 to Eustochium, on virginity) writes that the profession of poverty was so strict among the monks of his time that no one was allowed even to ask for necessaries, though the diligence of the superiors watched lest anyone should lack anything necessary: “Because,” he says, “it is not lawful for anyone to say, I have not a tunic, and a cloak, and a mat woven of rushes. He so moderates all things that no one asks for anything, no one lacks anything.” In the same place he writes that once in a certain monastery of Nitria there was found a monk about to die who had retained for himself I know not how many gold pieces; on which account it pleased Macarius, Isidore, and other saints gathered together that the monies be buried with the dead man, all crying out, Thy money be with thee unto perdition. Which same thing Saint Gregory afterward did in a like case, John the Deacon writes (Book 1, chapter 15, of the Life of Blessed Gregory), and Gregory himself also (Book 4 of the Dialogues, chapter 55).
Saint Augustine (on Psalm 25): “Another,” he says, “vows to leave all things and go into the common life, into the society of the saints; he vows a great vow.” And (Book 17 On the City of God, chapter 4): “Those powerful men said,” he says, “Behold, we have left all things and have followed thee. This vow the most powerful had vowed; but whence this to them, but from Him of whom it is here at once said, giving a vow to the one that vows?”
John Cassian (Book 4 On the Institutes of the Renouncers, chapter 13): “That virtue,” he says, “among their other institutions I think it superfluous even to mention: that, namely, no one is allowed to possess a chest, no one a private little basket, nor anything of the kind which, retaining as his own, he ought to secure with his own seal.” And chapter 33, speaking of this very perfect renunciation: “As,” he says, “immense glory is promised for the future to those faithfully serving God and cleaving to Him according to the institution of the rule, so most grievous punishments are prepared for those who have executed it tepidly and negligently, and who, according to what they professed, or what they are believed by men to be, have neglected to show also the congruous fruits of sanctity; for it is better, according to the sentence of Scripture, that one not vow, than vow and not render.”
Add also the First Council of Orleans (canon 21), where the monks are commanded to be gravely punished who against their profession wish to possess anything of their own.
Against the vow of poverty there is one objection of John Brentius (in the Wurttemberg Confession, chapter on monastic vows). Either he who vows is poor by condition, or rich. If he is poor, he has nothing which he can vow to leave or give, but ought to bear patiently the cross imposed on him by the Lord; which if besides he vow, he does the same as if in sickness he vowed that he would be ill — which is madness, not piety. But if he is rich, either he vows to put all in common, or to give all to the poor for greater merit and thenceforth to live on alms. If the first, he does nothing else than provide himself with a more certain and more copious sustenance, which is to flee, not to love, poverty. If the second, he sins against faith and charity: against faith, because there is one mediator of God and men, who merited all things for us, to whom he does injury who thinks that he merits by his own works; but against charity, because charity commands that we be not troublesome to our neighbor without necessity by our begging.
I answer to the first member that even the poor rightly vow, and give much; for they give all that they could acquire. Augustine (epistle 89, question 4): “Neither,” he says, “shall it be less imputed to me because I was not rich. For neither were the Apostles, who first did this, rich; but he leaves the whole world who leaves both what he has and what he desires to have.” Nor is a vow of sickness like a vow of poverty; for Christ said, Blessed are the poor, not, Blessed are the sick (Matthew 5). And, If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou possessest, and give to the poor (Matthew 19); but not, If thou wilt be perfect, cast away health, take care that thou be sick. Finally, we are bound, if we can, to heal sickness, lest we seem to have been the cause of our own death; but no one is bound to grow rich.
To the second member I say that to put all in common is truly to love poverty; for he is truly poor who is lord of nothing, who has nothing which he can sell, give, exchange, or destroy; and what other poverty did the first Christians choose but that in which no one said anything was his own, but all things were common unto them (Acts 4)?
To the third: I deny that it is against faith to give all one’s goods to the poor for greater merit; otherwise Christ would have counseled something against faith, when He said: Sell all that thou possessest, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven (Matthew 19). For our merits do not fight with the merits of Christ, but rather flow from them as an effect from a cause; for without the merits of Christ our merits are nothing. For He, besides other things, also acquired for us the power of meriting, by the merit of His death. I deny also that it is against the charity of the neighbor to beg; since beggars compel no one to give alms, but rather offer the rich an occasion of procuring for themselves the kingdom of heaven. But of this more fully below.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XX. Paupertatem voluntariam recte Deo voveri. Restat pars quaestionis postrema, in qua, ut promisimus, tria vota monastica defen¬ denda sunt. Incipiemus a voto paupertatis, inde ad votum obedientiae, postremo ad vo¬ tum continentiae, de quo potissima quaestio est, veniemus. Igitur paupertatem voluntariam recte suscipi, ac Deo voveri, primo probatur ex illis verbis Matth. V : Beati pauperes spiritu , quoniam ipsorum, est regnum coelorum (d). Ubi notandum est, pauperes in Scriptura tribus modis accipi solere. Primo dicuntur paupe¬ res, qui sunt afflicti, ut Psalm. XXIV : Uni¬ cus, et pauper sum ego , tribulationes cordis mei muHiplicatce sunt. Secundo dicuntur paupe¬ res, qui sunt humiles, ut Isaiae ultimo : Ad quem respiciam nisi ad pauperculum , et contri¬ tum, et trementem sermones meos? (2) Tertio di¬ cuntur pauperes proprie, qui non sunt divi¬ tes, idque tribus modis, aut actu, sed non affectu, aut affectu, sed non actu, aut actu simul, et affectu. Quinque igitur existunt hujus loci exposi¬ tiones. Prima est Calvini in hunc locum, qui per pauperes intelligit afflictos. Sed haec expositio non est germana ; nam coincideret tunc haec prima beatitudo cum tertia : Beati qui lugent ; aut cum ultima : Beati qui perse¬ cutionem patiuntur (3). Et praeterea non est expositio Patrum, ac demum Lucae VI, Do¬ minus pauperibus divites opponit. Secunda expositio est Chrvsostomi in commentario hujus*loci, et Augustini lib. I. de sermone Domini in monte, qui per pau¬ peres intelligunt humiles ; quae expositio vera quidem est, sed non primario intenta, ut paulo post ostendemus. Tertia esse posset, ut beati dicantur illi, qui sunt pauperes actu, non affectu, sed haec falsa expositio est, et a Patribus reprehendi¬ tur; non enim beati, sed miseri sunt isti pauperes. Quocirca Dominus addidit, spiritu, id est, voluntate, et electione, nec qualicum¬ que voluntate, sed spirituali, ut notat S. Ber- nardus serm. I. de festo omnium Sanctorum. Fuerunt enim etiam Philosophi quidam vo¬ luntate pauperes, sed non spiritu pauperes, quia non propter Deum, sed propter curio¬ sitatem amarunt paupertateib. Quarta expositio esse posset, quod beati dicantur pauperes affectu, licet non actu. Haec vera est, sed non est praecipue intenta, ut mox ostendam. Est igitur quinta, ut beati dicantur, qui propter Deum sponte eligunt paupertatem, et proinde etiam humilitatem; et pauperes spiritu hoc loco nominari eos, qui sunt vo¬ luntarie pauperes, et proinde etiam humiles; nam ut plurimum divitiae elationem, pau¬ pertas humilitatem gignit. Ita exponunt B. Ambrosius in cap. VI Lucae, B. Gregorius Nyssenus. B. Hieronymus, et venerabilis Beda in cap. V Matthaei, necnon S. Leo I. in sermone de illis verbis Domini Matth. V. qui paupertatis voluntariae, et humilitatis simul meminerunt. Item Chromatii, et An- selmi in hunc locum, Basilii quaest. 205. Ber- nardi serm. I. de festo omnium Sanctorum, 'et recentiorum, ut Abulensis, Lyrani, Caje- tani, Jansenii, et aliorum, qui de paupertate voluntaria, et actuali exponunt, et recte ; nam in primis verbum Graecum 7rrw-/o?, men¬ dicum proprie significat ; ut etiam Latina vox pauper, non humilem proprie, sed ege¬ num significare solet. Deinde praemium illud ( Quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum) propriissime respondet verae paupertati. Praeterea Luc. VI, Paupe¬ res, qui beati esse dicuntur, non superbis, sed divitibus opponuntur; sic enim paulo post subjungit Dominus : Vce vobis divitibus. Denique Christus actu et affectu pauper fuit, et docuit sine dubio id quod ipse fecit. Prae¬ terea saepius divitias periculosas esse dixit ; nam Matth. XIII. comparavit spinis, quae suffocant sementem, et Marci X: Quam diffi¬ cile , inquit, qui pecunias habent , intrabunt in regnum coelorum. Et : Facilius est camelum in¬ trare per foramen acus, quam divitem in re¬ gnum coelorum (4). Hinc ergo sic argumentari possumus pro voto paupertatis. Id omne Deo recte vove¬ tur, quod ex ejus testimonio scimus esse bo¬ num, et illi gratum, sed paupertas volunta¬ ria testimonio Christi bona est et Deo grata, cum beati dicantur ejusmodi pauperes, et (1) Math. V, 3. — (2) Psal. XXIV, 16 et 17; Isai LXVI, 2. — (3) Math. V, 5 et 10. — (4) Luc. VI, 24; Math. XIII, 22 et 24 ; Mare. X, 25. CAPUT XX. 553 illi promittatur regnum coelorum in prae¬ mium, igitur ejusmodi paupertas Deo rec¬ tissime vovetur. Secundum testimonium est Mattii. XIX. ubi Dominus ait : Si vis perfectus esse, vade , vende omnia quce habes, et da pauperibus , et habebis thesaurum in coelo. Et ibidem : Ecce , nos reliquimus omnia , et secuti sumus te, quid ergo erit nobis ? etc. (1) Quod enim hic detur consilium verae abdicationis facultatum, su¬ pra demonstravimus in disputatione de Con¬ siliis Evangelicis. Quod autem hinc sequa¬ tur, posse voveri, paupertatem patet ex ar¬ gumento paulo ante facto. Et praeterea ex utroque testimonio non solum colligitur pau¬ pertatem recte voveri posse, quod tamen ad rem nostram sufficit, sed etiam colligitur hortatam esse Dominum ad vovendam hanc paupertatem ; parum enim prodesset dare omnia pauperibus, et fieri pauperem spiritu, si quis paulo post iterum rediret ad lucra, et opes comparandas. Quocirca sancti Pa¬ tres intellexerunt his testimoniis commen¬ dari paupertatem perfectam, quse suscipitur cum proposito, et voto semper ita perma¬ nendi. Itaque S. Augustinus in epist. 89. quaest. 4. et in Psalm. CITI, concione 3. totum hunc locum refert ad professionem monasticam ; et S. Bernardus in declamatione super hunc locum Evangelii : «Haec, inquit, sunt verba, quae contemptum mundi in universo mundo, et voluntariam persuasere paupertatem. Haec sunt quae Monachis claustra replent, deserta Anachoretis. » Tertio testimonium est Actor. IV. ubi sic legimus : Multitudinis autem credentium erat cor unum, et anima una, nec quisquam eorum quce possidebat aliquid suum esse dicebat, sed erant illis omnia communia (2). Quod autem ex voto ita viverent primi illi Christiani in Hierusalem, docet S. Augustinus serm. 1. de communi vita Clericorum, ubi dicit, id- ipsum se cum suis facere voluisse, quod pri¬ mos Christianos fecisse testantur Acta Apos¬ tolorum jam citata, et tamen ibidem saepius repetit, nemini licere in tali vita habere pio- prium, idque ex professione facta Deo. Sic enim loquitur de quodam Presbytero suo, qui contra professionem aliquid retinuerat, et inde testamentum cum moreretur fece¬ rat : « 0 dolor, inquit, illius societatis, o fructus natus non de arbore, quam planta- (1) Math. XIX, 21 et 27. — (2) Act. IV, 32. — vit Dominus ! Sed Ecclesiam scripsit haere¬ dem. Nolo numerare ista ; non amo amari¬ tudinis fructum, ego illum Deo quaerebam ; Deo societatem professus erat, hanc teneret, hanc exhiberet, nihil haberet, testamentum non faceret. » Quartum testimonium est Actor. V. ubi Ananias et Saphira uxor ejus, cum vitam communem profiteri velle viderentur, et ta¬ men aliquid proprii sibi clam retinuissent, continuo ab Apostolo Petro detecti et incre- pati, atque a Deo invisibiliter percussi inte¬ rierunt. Hic Petrus Martyr in lib. de Votis dicit, se nullum votum videre; peccatum enim Ananiae et Saphirae fuisse mendacium, ambitionem, avaritiam, et hypocrisim, non autem voti violationem, seu sacrilegium. Sed facile possumus ostendere, primo ex circumstantiis loci hujus, deinde ex testimo¬ niis Patrum, Ananiam et Saphiram vovisse, et tanquam sacrilegii reos esse punitos. Quod igitur Ananias et Saphira vove¬ rint vitam illam communem, colligitur ex illis verbis : Fraudavit de pretio agri, conscia uxore sua. Non enim fraudasse diceretur, nisi rem jam obligatam promissione, subri¬ puisset. Quod autem rem non prseceptara voverint, patet ex illis verbis : Nonne manens tibi manebat, et venumdatum in tua erat po¬ testate ? Quod denique votum illud Deo fac¬ tum esset, et proinde ejus violatio sacrile¬ gium fuerit, testantur verba illa : Anania, cur tentavit Satanas cor tuum mentiri te Spi¬ ritui sancto , et fraudare de pretio agrii (3) Quid enim est mentiri Spiritui sancto , nisi fallere fidem datam Spiritui sancto ? Posset quidem utcumque dici mentitus Spiritui sancto, si mendacium tantum san¬ cto Petro dixisset, in quo sine dubio erat Spiritus sanctus : tamen nemo negare po¬ test* quin magis proprie dicatur mentiri Spiritui sancto, qui promittit aliquid Deo, et non servat, quam qui mentitur homini alicui sancto. Praeterea severissima illa poena, quam Deus ipse continuo sumpsit de Anania et Saphira, omnino clamat majus illud peccatum fuisse, quam simplicis men¬ dacii, et avaritiae, et ambitionis, atque hy¬ pocrisis; quomodo enim potuit puniri culpa ulla atrocuius ? Itaque, sine dubio, sacrile¬ gium fuit, quod eo modo puniri meruit. Accedat jam communis expositio Patrum. S. Joannes Chrysostomus , homil. 12. in (3) Act. V, 2 et seq. 554 LIBER II. Acta Apostolorum : « Quare, inquit, hoc fe¬ cisti ? voluisti habere? oportebat initio ha¬ bere, et non promittere. Nunc autem post¬ quam consecrasti, majus sacrilegium com¬ misisti; qui enim aliena rapit, forsan alie¬ narum rerum desiderio rapit. Tibi autem licebat tua retinere, cur igitur sacra fecisti ea, et postea accepisti ? » S. Hieronymus in epistola ad Demetria¬ dem, quae est octava primi Tomi : « Ana- nias, inquit, et Saphira dispensatores ti¬ midi, imo corde duplici, et ideo condem¬ nati, quia post votum obtulerunt quasi sua, et non ejus, cui semel ea voverant, partem¬ que sibi jam alienae substantiae reservave¬ runt. » S. Augustinus serm. 27. de verbis Apos¬ toli : «Dum, inquit, ex eo quod promiserat, partem subtraxit, sacrilegii simul condem¬ natur, et fraudis. » Et serm. 10. alias 12. de diversis, in editione Lovaniensi : « Si Deo, inquit, displicuit detrahere de pecunia quam voverant Deo, quomodo irascitur quando vovetur castitas, et non exhibetur ? » Et in¬ fra : « Potest igitur virgini sanctimoniali nubenti dici quod ait Petrus de pecunia : Virginitas tua numquid non manens tibi ma¬ nebat, et antequam eam voveres in tua fue¬ rat potestate? » S. Fulgentius in epistola de debito conju¬ gali, c. 8: « Quam, inquit, sit malum, quam¬ que sollicite fugiendum, si quis de hoc quod Deo voverit, aut retinere, aut rapere aliquid mortifera prevaricatione pertentet ; exem¬ plo sunt Ananias et Saphira. >; S. Gregorius lib. I. epist. 33. ad Venan¬ tium : « Ananias, inquit, Deo pecunias vo¬ verat, quas postea victus persuasione Dia¬ boli subtraxit, sed qua morte mulctatus est scis. 3 Arator lib. I. in Acta Apostolorum hunc locum enarrans, sic ait : . Sed quod mutata voluntas Falsi crimen habet : cumque est jam cautio voti. Stare decet, nec velle prius violare sequenti, etc. QEcumenius in commentario hujus loci aliquoties sacrilegium vocat Ananiae pecca¬ tum. Beda in eumdem locum dicit, ab Ana- niee exemplo natum esse deterrimum illud Monachorum genus, quftd Sarabaitarum di¬ citur, qui sub vita, et professione monas¬ tica, aliquid proprii retinere volunt. Atque hsec de Scripturis pro voto paupertatis. Confirmari potest hoc idem ex traditione Patrum. S. Urbanus Papa I. in epistola sua decretali : « Quicumque vestrum, inquit, vitam communem suscepit, et vovit se nihil proprium habere, videat ne pollicitationem suam irritam faciat. » S. Basilius in consti¬ tutionibus monasticis, cap. ult. dicit, Mona¬ chum salutem animae perdere, et furem esse, atque alterum Judam, si quid privati possi¬ deat. At cur ita, quaeso, si nulla est promis¬ sio, nullum votum ? S. Hieronymus in epist. 22. ad Eusto- chium de virginitate, scribit adeo arctam fuisse in Monachis sui temporis professio¬ nem paupertatis, ut nemini liceret vel ne¬ cessaria petere ; tametsi vigilabat praeposi¬ torum diligentia, ne cui aliquod necessarium deesset : « Quia, inquit, non licet ^dicere cuiquam, tunicam, et sagum, textaque jun¬ cis strata non habeo. Ille ita universa mo¬ deratur, ut nemo quid postulet, nemo non habeat. » Ibidem scribii, aliquando in mo¬ nasterio quodam Nitriae repertum fuisse Monachum jam moriturum, qui nescio quot solidos sibi retinuerat. Quocirca placuisse Macario , Isidoro , aliisque sanctis congre¬ gatis in unum, ut cum mortuo pecuniae in¬ foderentur, clamantibus omnibus, pecunia tua tecum sit in perditionem. Quod idem postea in simili casu fecisse S. Gregorium, scribit Joan. Diaconus, lib. I. cap. 15. Vita B. Gregorii, et ipse etiam Gregorius, lib. IV. Dialogorum, cap. 55. S. Augustinus in Psal. XXV : « Alius, in¬ quit, vovet relinquere omnia, et ire in com¬ munem .vitam, in societatem Sanctorum; magnum votum vovit. » Et lib. XVII. de civit. Dei, cap. 4: «Dixerunt, inquit, poten¬ tes illi, ecce nos reliquimus omnia, et se¬ cuti sumus te. Hoc votum potentissimi vo¬ verant, sed unde hoc eis, nisi ab illo, de quo hic continuo dictum est, dans votum voventi ? » Joan nes Cassianus lib. IV. de institutis renuntiantium, cap. 13: «Illam, inquit, vir¬ tutem inter caeteras eorum institutiones vel commemorare superfluum puto, quod scili¬ cet nulli' cistellam, nulli peculiarem spor¬ tellam liceat possidere , nec tale aliquid, quod velut proprium retinens suo debeat communire signaculo. » Et c. 33. de hac ipsa renuntiatione perfecta loquens : « Si¬ cut, inquit, immensa gloria fideliter servien¬ tibus Deo, ac secundum regulae institutio¬ nem ei adhaerentibus repromittitur in futu- CAPUT XXI. 555 rum, ita poena? gravissimae praeparantur his, qui tepide eam, negligenterque fuerint exe- cuti, et secundum hoc quod professi sunt, vel quod ab hominibus esse creduntur, fru¬ ctus etiam congruos sanctitatis eidem exhi¬ bere neglexerint; melius est enim secun¬ dum Scripturae sententiam non vovere quem¬ quam, quam vovere, et non reddere. » Adde etiam Concilium Aurelianense I. can. 21. ubi graviter Monachi puniri juben¬ tur, qui contra professionem suam aliquid proprii possidere voluerint. Contra paupertatis votum una est objectio Joannis Brentii in Confessione Wirtember- gica, cap. de votis monasticis. Aut is, qui vovet, est pauper conditione, aut dives : si pauper est, nihil habet quod possit vovere se relicturum aut daturum, sed debet ferre patienter crucem sibi a Domino impositam; Quam si praeterea vovet, idem facit ac si in morbo Voveret se aegrotaturum ; qui est fu¬ ror, non pietas : si autem dives est, aut vo¬ vet ponere omnia in commune, aut dare omnia pauperibus propter majus meritum, et vivere deinceps ex eleemosynis : si pri¬ mum, nihil aliud agit, quam providere sibi de certiore, et copiosiore victu, quod est fugere, ffbn amare paupertatem : si secun¬ dum, peccat contra fidem, et charitatem ; contra fidem, quia unus est mediator Dei et hominum, qui nobis omnia meruit ; cui fa¬ cit injuriam, qui suis propriis operibus me¬ reri se arbitratur; contra charitatem autem, quia charitas praecipit ne sine necessitate molesti simus proximo nostra mendicatione. Respondeo ad primum membrum, etiam pauperes recte vovere, et multum dare, dant enim id omne quod acquirere possent. Au¬ gustinus epist. 89. qusest. 4: «Neque, inquit, mihi minus imputabitur, quia dives non fui. Nam nec Apostoli, qui primi hoc fecerunt, divites fuerunt : sed totum mundum dimit¬ tit, qui, et quod habet, et quod optat ha¬ bere, dimittit. » Neque est simile votum aegritudinis voto paupertatis ; nam Christus dixit ; Beati pauperes , non beati aegroti, Matth. Y. Et : Si vis perfectus esse, vende omnia quce possides, et da pauperibus , Matth. XIX. non autem si vis perfectus esse, pro¬ jice sanitatem, cura ut aegrotes. Denique te¬ nemur, si possumus, sanare aegritudinem, ne nostrae mortis causa fuisse videamus : at ditescere nemo tenetur. Ad secundum membrum dico , ponere omnia in commune, esse vere amare pau¬ pertatem ; nam ille vere est pauper, qui nullius rei est Dominus, qui nihil habet quod vendere, donare, permutare, destruere possit, et quam aliam paupertatem elege¬ runt primi Christiani, nisi istam qua nemo aliquid diceret suum, sed essent illis omnia communia? Actor. IV. Ad tertium ; Nego esse contra fidem, dare omnia sua pauperibus propter majus meritum, alioqui Christus aliquid contra fi¬ dem consuluisset, cum ait : Vende omnia quce possides , et da pauperibus , et habebis the¬ saurum in coelo , Matth. XIX. Non enim pu¬ gnant merita nostra cum Christi meritis, sed ex illis potius ut effectus ex causa proma- nant ; nam sine Christi meritis nulla sunt nostra merita. Ille enim , praeter alia , etiam potentiam merendi nobis acquisivit merito mortis suae. Nego etiam esse contra charitatem proximi mendicare ; quandoqui¬ dem neminem cogunt dare eleemosynam mendicantes, sed potius occasionem diviti¬ bus praebent comparandi sibi regnum coelo¬ rum. Sed de hoc infra latius.