Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 41: That It Is Lawful for Monks to Labor with Their Hands
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 lastly the disputation on the manner of living, or on the bodily work of monks. Now there are four modes of living among religious men. For either they live by their own labor, selling something and buying another; or they live from their common goods — that is, from the goods which the religious themselves bring to the monastery and set in common; or from goods left and given by pious men; or from begging.
Of each we must speak. And first, of the first there were two extreme errors. One of those who said that it is not lawful for religious to work and labor for their living, but that they ought to trust in the providence of God and live from the labors of others; of this error were the Messalians, or Euchites, in Epiphanius (heresy 80), and again certain men at Carthage, as Augustine testifies (Book 2 of the Retractations, chapter 24).
The other error was that of William of Saint-Amour, and afterward of John Wycliffe (in Thomas Waldensis, Book 4 On the Ancient Doctrine of the Faith, article 2, chapter 22) and of John Calvin (Book 4 of the Institutes, chapter 13, §10), who teach that monks are bound to live by their own labor; although William did not oblige all religious to labor with their hands, but only those who have not stable goods in common. The first error arose from two passages of Scripture ill understood — namely, Matthew 6: Be not solicitous for your life, saying, What shall we eat? etc. And John 6: Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting. This error Augustine refutes (in the book On the Work of Monks) from the words of the Apostle (2 Thessalonians 3), where he says that he both labored and worked, that he might not burden anyone, and admonishes others that they work and labor.
But because those heretics answered that Blessed Paul spoke of spiritual work — that is, of prayer and exhortation — other passages are to be noted where the labor of the hands is expressly set down. Acts 20: For such things as were needful for me, and for them that are with me, these hands have ministered. To the Ephesians 4: He that stole, let him now steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands. 1 Thessalonians 4: Work with your own hands. To this, as Augustine acutely noted, the same Apostle (1 Corinthians 9) says that he worked, whereas it was lawful for him, according to the Lord’s ordinance, not to work. But certainly it was not lawful for him, according to the Lord’s ordinance, not to preach and not to pray. For he says, If I preach not the Gospel, woe is me, etc. He speaks, then, of bodily labor, when he says that he labored, whereas he was not bound to.
To those words of the Lord cited on the contrary, I answer that by those words is forbidden not a moderate solicitude of seeking food by one’s own labor, but an immoderate and superfluous one. And solicitude can be immoderate in three ways. First, by reason of the end, as if one seek food with a chief intention, as though it were the last end, as those do who evangelize that they may eat, when they ought to eat that they may evangelize. And this the Lord reprehends (Matthew 6) when He says, Seek first the kingdom of God, etc. And John 6: Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto life everlasting — that is, with a primary intention seek spiritual food, with a secondary the corporeal.
Secondly, solicitude is immoderate by reason of distrust, as when one is so solicitous about temporal things that he can scarcely believe that God will be present to him in acquiring them, even though he himself also apply his own labor. And this the Lord reprehends when He says (Matthew 6), Be not solicitous, etc.; for He wishes to persuade the faithful confidence in God. And indeed He persuades it by most efficacious arguments; for if God, He says, feeds the birds and clothes the lilies, which know Him not, nay even provides for the Gentiles who blaspheme Him, how can He be lacking to you, His worshipers? And if He gave you body and soul, which are greater, how is it credible that He will not give food and garments, which are lesser?
Thirdly, solicitude is immoderate by reason of time, as when one is today solicitous for that thing for which he could seasonably enough begin to be solicitous tomorrow; and this the Lord reprehends when He says in the same place, Be not solicitous for the morrow. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. Where it is to be noted that provision for preparing necessaries for a future time is not reprehended; otherwise Joseph would have sinned (Genesis 41), who stored up grain for the future famine; and the Lord Himself too had a purse to buy food (John 14). And so solicitude for the morrow is called, and that is evil, which does not befit the present time according to right reason.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XLI. Licere Monachis inanibus laborare. Restat postremo Disputatio de ratione vi¬ vendi, sive de opere corporali Monachorum. Sunt autem quatuor modi vivendi apud ho¬ mines religiosos. Yel enim vivunt ex labore proprio, vendentes aliquid , et ementes aliud : vel vivunt ex bonis suis communi¬ bus, id est, ex bonis quae religiosi ipsi ad monasterium adferunt, et in commune con¬ stituunt : vel ex bonis relictis ac donatis a piis viris, vel ex mendicatione. De singulis dicendum est. Ac primum, de primo duo fuerunt extremi errores. Unus eo¬ rum, qui dicebant non licere religiosis ope¬ rari, et laborare pro victu, sed debere eos confidere in Dei providentia, et vivere ex alienis laboribus ; hujus erroris fuerunt Messaliani, sive Euchitae, apud Epiphanium haeres. 80. et rursus quidam apud Cartha¬ ginem, teste August. lib.II. retract. eap.24. Alter error fuit Gulielmide sancto Amore, et postea Joann. Wiclefi apud Thomain Waldensem lib. IV. doctr. fidei antiquae art.2.cap.22. etJoan. Calvini lib. IV. instit. cap. 13. ’§. 10. qui docent teneri Monachos ex proprio labore vivere, quamquam Guliel- mus non omnes religiosos obligabat ad la¬ borandum manibus, sed eos solum qui non habent bona stabilia in communi. Primus error natus est ex duobus locis Scripturae male intellectis, nimirum Matth. VI : Nolite solliciti esse animes vestrae, dicentes , quid manducabimus etc. Et Joan. VI : Operamini non cibum qui perit , sed qui permanet in vitam csternam (1). Refellit hunc errorem August. in lib. de opere Monachorum, ex verbis Apostoli II. Thessalonic; II. ubi et se labo¬ rasse, et operatum dicit, ne quemquam gra¬ varet, et alios monet, ut operentur, et labo¬ rent. Quia vero respondebant haeretici illi, B. Paulum loqui de opere spirituali, id est, de oratione et exhortatione; notanda sunt alia loca, ubi expresse ponitur labor manuum, Actor. XX : Ad ea , quae mihi opus erant , et (1) Matth. VI, 31 j Joan. VI, 37. (3) Matth. VI, 33; Jean VI, 27. his , qui mecum sunt , ministraverunt manus istes. Ad Ephes. IV. Qui furabatur , jam non fure¬ tur, magis autem laboret operando manibus suis. I. Thessal. IV : Operamini manibus vestris (2). Ad hoec, ut acute notavit Augus- tin. idem Apostolus I. Cor. IX. dicit se ope¬ ratum, cum tamen liceret sibi secundum Domini ordinationem non operari. At certe non licebat ei secundum Domini ordinatio¬ nem non concionari, et non orare. Ait enim : Si non evangelizavero , vce mihi, etc. Loquitur igitur de corporali labore, cum dicit se la¬ borasse, cum tamen non teneretur. Ad verba illa Domini contra citata, res¬ pondeo, non prohiberi illis verbis modera¬ tam sollicitudinem quaerendi cibum proprio labore, sed immoderatam et superfluam. Potest autem tribus modis esse immoderata sollicitudo. Primo, ratione finis, ut si quis quaerat cibum praecipua intentione, quasi sit ille ultimus finis, ut faciunt qui evangeli- zant, ut comedant ; cum deberent comede¬ re, ut evangelizent. Atque hoc reprehendit Dominus Matth. VI. cum ait : Primum quae¬ rite regnum Dei etc. Et Joan. VI ; Operamini non cibum , qui perit, sed qui permanet in vi¬ tam aeternam (3) ; id est, primaria intentione quaerite cibum spiritualem, secundaria cor¬ poralem. Secundo, ratione diffidentiae immoderata est sollicitudo, ut cum quis adeo sollicitus est de rebus temporalibus, ut vix possit cre¬ dere sibi Deum adfuturum in illis acquiren¬ dis, etiamsi adhibeat ipse quoque suum la¬ borem. Et hoc reprehendit Dominus cum ait Matth. VI : Nollite solliciti esse etc. vult eniin persuadere fidelibus confidentiam in Deum; Et sane persuadet efficacissimis argu¬ mentis ; Nam si Deus, inquit, pascit aves, et vestit lilia, quae eum non norunt, imo etiam providet Gentilibus, qui eum blasphemant, quomodo vobis cultoribus suis poterit dc- esse? Etsi vobis corpus et animam dona¬ vit, quae majora sunt; quomodo credibile est non daturum cibum et vestes quae sunt minora ? Tertio, immoderata est sollicitudo ratione temporis, ut cum quis hodie sollicitus est pro ea re, pro qua satis tempestive cras in¬ cipere sollicitus esse, et hoc reprehendit Dominus cum ait ibidem : Nollite solliciti es¬ se de crastino. Sufficit diei malitia sua. Ubi — (2) Aet. XX, 34; Eph. IV, 28. I. Thessal. IV, 11. — 624 LIBER II. notandum, non reprehendi providentiam parandi necessaria pro tempore futuro, alio- qui peccasset Joseph Genes. XLI. qui re¬ condidit frumenta pro futura sterilitate : etiam Dominus ipse habebat loculos, ut emeret cibos, Joan. XIV. Itaque vocatur sollicitudo de crastino, et mala est illa, quae non convenit preesenti tempori secundum rectam rationem.