Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 42: That Monks Are Not Bound to Manual Labor
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).
The second error brings three chief foundations. One from the Apostle, who (Ephesians 4, 1 Thessalonians 4, and 2 Thessalonians 3) commands Christians to seek their living by the labor of their hands; from which passages this argument can be drawn: either those words of Blessed Paul contain a precept of necessity, or a counsel of perfection. If the first, then the religious too are bound to labor; if the second, then at least the religious are bound, for it is theirs to hold the way of perfection and of the counsels.
The second foundation is from Augustine, who (in the book On the Work of Monks) says that religious are bound to fulfill this precept of the Apostle, and are not excused by spiritual occupations. For he says thus (chapter 17): “What,” he says, “those do who are unwilling to work corporally, to what they are free, I desire to know. ‘To prayers,’ they say, ‘and psalms, and reading, and the word of God.’ A holy life indeed, and praiseworthy in the sweetness of Christ; but if we are not to be called away from these, then neither must we eat, nor are the foods themselves to be prepared daily, that they may be set on and taken. But if the necessity of that very human weakness compels the servant of God at fixed intervals of time to attend to these things, why do we not also assign some portions of time to observing the Apostolic precepts? For one prayer of an obedient man is sooner heard than ten thousand of a contemner.”
The third foundation is from the custom of all the ancient religious orders; for Epiphanius (heresy 80), Jerome (epistle 4 to Rusticus), Augustine (Book 1 On the Morals of the Church, chapter 31), Cassian (Book 2, chapter 3, and Book 3, chapter 2, On the Institutes of the Cenobia) teach that all well-ordered monasteries, according to the Apostle’s law, labor with their hands.
These notwithstanding, we answer, with Blessed Thomas (in opusculum 19, and in 2a2ae, question 187, article 3) and Blessed Bonaventure (in the book On the Poverty of Christ, and in the Apology of the Poor), that monks are no more bound than seculars to seek their living by the labor of their hands. And it is proved, first: either to labor with the hands is a precept, or a counsel. If the first, it obliges all, both seculars and religious. For precepts are given to all; for to all it is said, If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. If the second, then no one is bound to labor with the hands but he who has of his own accord bound himself to the observance of this counsel; for such is the nature of all counsels. Therefore the religious who have not received that counsel are not bound to labor with the hands. For the religious are not bound to all counsels, but only to those which they voluntarily undertake.
Secondly, if the religious were bound to labor with the hands more than seculars, this would be either by a natural precept or by a positive one; but neither can be said. That it is not by a positive one appears, because no such exists; that it is not by a natural one is proved. For the precept of laboring, as it is natural, obliges in two ways: in one way absolutely, in the other way in a certain case. In the first way it obliges not individuals, but the commonwealth, as is evident; for in it some ought to be craftsmen, others husbandmen, others physicians, others judges, etc.; and on this side it does not befit religious to labor with the hands, for they have the office in the commonwealth of praying and psalm-singing and doing the like. In the second way individuals are indeed bound by this precept, but seculars no less than religious; for all the cases in which individuals are obliged to labor with the hands can happen no less to seculars than to religious. For example, one and the chief case is if one have nothing whereof to live, nor can lawfully have it except by working. Another case is if one be bound to provide food for another, and cannot lawfully find it except by working. A third is if one cannot flee idleness, or overcome carnal temptations, except by working corporally. But all, both religious and seculars, are bound to provide that they die not of hunger, and to flee idleness, and to overcome temptations. All, therefore, are bound to labor in the same way.
Thirdly, it is proved from those very arguments which are brought forward against us. For first the Apostle in those passages writes not to monks, but to seculars, as is evident, and especially according to the opinion of the adversaries, who teach that religious orders had not yet begun at that time. Then the Apostle in those passages nowhere commands to work absolutely, but only to avoid theft, or scandal, or idleness. For (Ephesians 4) he says: He that stole, let him now steal no more, but rather let him labor, working with his hands. And (1 Thessalonians 4), after he had said that they should work, he subjoins the reason: That you may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that you want nothing of any man’s. Where that, want, does not signify covet, but lack. For so it is in the Greek, that is, and that you have need of no man. For the infidels were scandalized when they saw the Christians wishing to live from others’ goods. And (2 Thessalonians 3), after he had said, He that will not work, let him not eat, he subjoins: For we have heard that there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling. Those, then, who can avoid theft and scandal and idleness in another way than by working corporally, Paul does not oblige to work corporally.
Now Blessed Augustine, in that book On the Work of Monks, obliges to labor with the hands only those who, before they became religious, lived by the labor of the hands, and now can do the same without impediment of a greater good, and yet out of idleness and laziness are unwilling; for (chapter 21) he excepts religious who exercise ecclesiastical ministries, such as at this time are all the mendicants. For he says thus: “If they are evangelists,” he says, “if ministers of the altar, if dispensers of the sacraments, they do not well arrogate this to themselves, but plainly claim the power — namely, of living from the resources of the people.”
Thou wilt say: The power of seeking a stipend from the people is not given except to ordinary pastors; otherwise the religious could take tithes, which is false, and against many canons, as is evident from the first Clementine On Tithes.
I answer: whatever be of this, which we shall afterward see, it is enough for us that Augustine says this, of whose opinion we dispute. And besides, whether religious who preach and minister the sacraments can in justice seek a stipend, or cannot, it is enough that they can lawfully seek it at least out of charity, and take corporal things, just as they themselves out of charity minister spiritual things, and the people take them. Add also that religious of this kind can rightly be said to labor with their hands. For to labor with the hands is to labor corporally, whether it be done with the hands, or with the feet, or with the tongue, or in another way; and bodily work is called the work of the hands, because the hand is the chief instrument by which we work. Whence charioteers too, and sailors, and runners, and watchmen are said to labor with their hands, because they are exercised corporally, though they use in their work no less the feet than the hands. Those, then, who sing in choir, preach publicly, teach, hear confessions, can plainly be said to labor with their hands.
And so only the contemplatives, who are free for themselves, do not labor with their hands. But among these Augustine excepts from the obligation of laboring all those who in the world were rich, and gave their goods to the poor. For to these the Church owes food and clothing, since they gave all their goods to the Church itself in its poor. For he says, speaking of these (chapter 25): “If these too,” he says, “should work something with their hands, that they may take from the slothful, who come from a humbler life and from this exercise, their excuse, they act much more mercifully than when they distributed all their goods to the needy. But if they will not, who would dare to compel them?” And (chapter 21) he says that there were many such at Jerusalem who, because they had given all their goods to the poor, when in the time of famine they were in need, were not compelled to labor with their hands, but their want was sustained by the alms of the Greeks (Acts 11). There remain, then, only those religious who in the world lived by a craft, and in the religious life are free for themselves alone, not for the people. These Augustine obliges to labor.
But neither does he oblige these absolutely, but only when, if they work, they will not be impeded from a greater good, and if they do not work, they will be perniciously idle. For if any such can perpetually pray or read, and wish to do it, and find one who will feed him gratis while so engaged, why can he not do it? For in this way Blessed Benedict lived for three years, as Gregory testifies (Book 1 of the Dialogues, chapter 1), and Blessed Alexis his whole life, as Simeon Metaphrastes writes in his life.
Whence Augustine (chapter 17 of the same book), where he says that monks ought not to be excused from the work of the hands by prayer, psalmody, reading, and the word of God, most clearly indicates that he speaks not of assiduous prayer, nor of continual and public psalmody, reading, preaching, which occupy the whole man, but of private and rare prayer, psalmody, reading, and exhortation, which leave much leisure. And (chapter 21) he says that he reprehends those monks who from a servile condition come to the monastery to flee a needy and laborious life, and, being idle, be fed and clothed, and moreover be honored by those by whom they had been wont to be contemned and worn down. Of whom too he says (chapter 25): “It in no way befits that in that life, where senators become laborious, craftsmen there become idle; and whither, their delights being left, come those who had been lords of estates, there delicate rustics dwell.” And (chapter 28) he says: “Show men,” he says, “that you seek not in idleness an easy living, but through the narrow and strait gate the kingdom of God.”
To the third argument, of the custom of the ancient monasteries, I say that those monks were bound to labor with the hands by their own rules. But why they established a rule of this kind, the cause is twofold. One, because they could not otherwise be sustained; for they neither had estates and possessions left them, as now many monks have, nor dared to seek alms from the people, since they did not serve the people, nor would that in any way have sufficed; for in one place, under one abbot, there dwelt at the least three thousand men, as Augustine reports (Book 1 On the Morals of the Church, chapter 31).
The other reason is that those monks, since they were not clerics, but all laymen except the abbot, were not sufficiently occupied, and therefore, to flee idleness, it was necessary for them to labor. Jerome (in the epistle to Rusticus): “The monasteries of the Egyptians keep this custom, that they receive no one without the labor of work, not so much on account of the necessity of living as on account of the health of the soul, lest the mind wander with pernicious thoughts,” etc. Nor yet is it absolutely true that all the ancient religious labored with their hands. For thus Sulpicius writes of the monastery of Saint Martin (in the life of Saint Martin, chapter 7): “No one there had anything of his own; all things were brought into the common stock. It was not lawful, as is the custom with most monks, to buy or sell anything. No craft was there practiced, except that of copyists. To which work, however, the younger age was assigned; the elders were free for prayer.” So he. Where thou seest that only the younger labored with their hands, and that not to seek their living (for it was lawful for them to sell nothing, but they lived from the goods which they had brought), but to flee idleness. But neither did the first monks under the Apostles at Jerusalem, or in Egypt, labor with their hands, as appears from Acts 3 and 4, and from Philo’s book On the Contemplative Life.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XLIl. Non teneri Monachos ad laborem manuum. Secundus error tria affert praecipua funda¬ menta. Unum ex Apostolo, qui Ephes. IY. I. Thessal. IY. et II. Thessalon. III. praeci¬ pit Christianis, ut ex labore manuum vic¬ tum quaerant; ex quibus locis tale argumen¬ tum duci potest: vel ista verba B. Pauli continent praeceptum necessitatis, vel con¬ silium perfectionis : si primum, ergo tenen¬ tur laborare etiam religiosi ; si secundum, ergo tenentur saltem religiosi, illorum enim est viam perfectionis et consiliorum tenere. Secundum fundamentum est ex Augusti¬ no, qui in lib. de opere Monachorum dicit, religiosos teneri ad hoc Apostoli prasceptum implendum, nec excusari per occupationes spirituales. Sic enim ait cap. 17 : « Quid, inquit, agant, qui operari corporaliter no¬ lunt, cui rei vacent, scire desidero. Oratio¬ nibus, inquiunt, et Psalmis, et lectioni, et verbo Dei. Sancta plane vita, et in Christi suavitate laudabilis : sed si ab his avocandi non sumus, nec manducandum est, nec ipsae escae quotidie praeparandae, ut possint ap¬ poni et assumi. Si autem ad ista vocare ser¬ vus Dei certis intervallis temporis ipsius in¬ firmitatis humanae necessitas cogit, cur non et Apostolicis praeceptis observandis aliquas partes temporum deputamus? Citius enim exauditur una obedientis oratio, quam de¬ cem millia contemptoris. » Tertium fundamentum est ex consuetudi¬ ne omnium antiquarum religionum : Nam Epiphanius haeres. 80 Hieronym. epist. 4. ad Rusticum, Aug. lib. I. de moribus Eccles. cap. 31. Cassian. lib. II. cap. 3. et lib. III. cap. 2. de institutis coenobiorum, docent omnia monasteria bene instituta, secundum Apostoli legem manibus laborare. His non obstantibus, respondemus cumB. Thoma in opusculo XIX. et in 2. 2. quaest. CLXXXYII. art. 3. et B. Bonaventura in lib. de paupertate Christi, et in Apologia pauperum : ad victum labore manuum quae¬ rendum non magis teneri Monachos, quam saeculares, et probatur primo, vel laborare manibus est praeceptum, vel consilium. Si primum, omnes obligat, tam saeculares, quam religiosos. Praecepta enim dantur om¬ nibus ; omnibus enim dicitur : Si vis ad vi¬ tam ingredi , serva mandata. Si secundum, ergo nemo tenetur'laborare manibus, nisi qui sponte ad hujus consilii observationem se obligaverit; talis enim est natura omnium consiliorum : Ergo Religiosi qui id consilium non receperunt, non tenentur manibus labo¬ rare. Non enim tenentur religiosi ad omnia consilia, sed solum ad illa, quae sponte sus¬ cipiunt. Secundo, si tenerentur religiosi laborare manibus magis quam saeculares, aut id es¬ set ex praecepto naturali, aut ex positivo : neutrum autem dici potest ; quod enim non ex positivo, patet, quia nullum tale exstat : quod non ex naturali, probatur. Nam prae¬ ceptum de laborando, ut est naturale, du¬ pliciter obligat, uno modo absolute, alio mo¬ do in certo casu. Primo modo non obligat singulos, sed Rempuhlicam, ut patet, debent enim in ea alii esse opifices, alii agricolae, alii medici, alii judices etc. et ex hac parte non convenit religiosis laborare manibus, illi enim officium habent in Republica oran¬ di, et psallendi, et similia faciendi. Secundo modo tenentur quidem singuli hoc praecep¬ to, sed non minus saeculares, quam religio¬ si ; nam omnes casus, in quibus obligantur singuli laborare manibus, non minus accide¬ re possunt saecularibus, quam religiosis ; ver. gr. unus, et praecipuus casus est, si quis nihil habeat unde vivat, nec possit licite ha¬ bere, nisi operando. Alius casus est, si quis teneatur providere alteri de cibo, et non possit licite eum invenire nisi operando. Ter¬ tius est, si quis non possit otium fugere, vel tentationes carnales superare, nisi operando corporaliter. At omnes tam religiosi, quam saeculares tenentur providere, ne moriantur fame, et otium fugere, ac superare tentatio¬ nes. Omnes igitur tenentur eodem modo la¬ borare. Tertio probatur ex illis ipsis argumentis, CAPUT XLII. 625 quae contra nos proferuntur. Nam in primis Apostolus, in illis locis non scribit Monachis, sed saecularibus ut patet, et praecipue juxta opinionem adversariorum, qui docent non¬ dum illo tempore ccepisse religiones. Deinde Apostolus in illis locis nunquam praecipit operari absolute, sed solum ad evitandum furtum, vel scandalum, vel otium : Nam Ephes. IY. ait : Qui furabatur, jam non fure¬ tur , magis autem laboret operando manibus suis. Et I. Thessal. IV. posteaquam dixerat, ut operarentur, subjungit rationem : Ut ho¬ neste ambuletis ad eos qui foris sunt, et nullius aliquid desideretis (1). Ubi illud, desideretis , non significat concupiscatis, sed careatis. Sic enim est in Graeco n gvjSsvos ypeixv 'lyj~z , id est, et nullius indigentiam habeatis. Scan¬ dalizabantur enim infideles, cum videbant Christianos ex alienis bonis velle vivere. Et II. Thess. III. postquam dixerat : Qui non la¬ borat, non manducet. Subdit : Audivimus enim quosdam inter vos inquietos esse, nihil operan¬ tes, sed curiose agentes (2). Qui ergo possunt furtum evitare et scandalum, et otium, alio modo quam corporaliter operando, eos Pau¬ lus non obligat corporaliter operari. Jam vero B. Augustinus in illo lib. de opere Monachorum, solum obligat ad ope¬ randum manibus illos, qui antequam reli¬ giosi fierent, ex labore manuum vivebant, et nunc idem facere possunt, sine impedimen¬ to majoris boni, et tamen ex otio, et pigri¬ tia nolunt; Nam cap. 21, excipit religiosos, qui Ecclesiastica ministeria exercent, quales hoc tempore omnes mendicantes. Sic enim ait : « Si Evangelistse, inquit, sunt, si minis¬ tri altaris, si dispensatores Sacramentorum, bene, sibi istam non arrogant, sed plane ven- dicant potestatem, nimirum vivendi ex fa¬ cultatibus populi. » Dices, potestas petendi sumptus a populo, non est data nisi ordinariis pastoribus : alio- qui possent religiosi accipere decimas, quod est falsum, et contra canones multos, ut ex Clementina prima de decimis perspicuum est. Respondeo, quidquid de hoc sit, quod postea videbimus, satis nobis est, quod Au¬ gustinus hoc dicat, de cujus sententia dis¬ putamus. Et prseterea sive religiosi praedi¬ cantes et Sacramenta ministrantes, possint, ex justitia sumptus pet?re, sive non possint, satis est quod licite possint petere saltem ex charitate, et accipere corporalia ; sicut ipsi ex charitate ministrant spiritualia, et popu¬ lus accipit. Adde etiam, quod religiosi hujus¬ modi recte dici possunt operari manibus suis. Operari enim manibus est operari corporali¬ ter, sive id fiat manibus, sive pedibus, sive lingua, sive alio modo : Appellatur autem opus corporale, opus manuum, quia manus est instrumentum prj£cipuum,quo operamur. Unde etiam aurigae, et nautae, et cursores et vigiles dicuntur operari manibus, quia corpo¬ raliter exercentur, licet non minus pedibus quam manibus in suo opere utantur. Qui ergo canunt in choro, publice concionantur, docent, confessiones audiunt, plane mani¬ bus laborare dici possunt. Itaque soli contemplativi, qui sibiipsis va¬ cant, manibus non laborant. Inter illos au¬ tem excipit Augustinus ab obligatione labo¬ randi illos omnes, qui in saeculo divites fue¬ runt, et bona sua pauperibus dederunt. Illis enim debet Ecclesia victum, et vestitum, quandoquidem omnia sua ipsi Ecclesiae in ejus pauperibus dederunt. Sis enim ait de istis loquens cap. 25 : « Si et ipsi, inquit, ali¬ quid manibus operentur, ut pigris ex vita hu¬ miliore, et ab hac exercitatione venientibus auferant excusationem, multo misericordius agunt, quam cum omnia sua indigentibus diviserunt. Quod quidem si nolunt, quis au¬ deat cogere? » Et c. 21, tales multos fuisse dicit in Hierusalem, qui quoniam omnia sua pauperibus dederant, quando tempore fa¬ mis egebant, non sunt coacti operari mani¬ bus, sed eorum inopia eleemosynis Graeco¬ rum sustentata est Act. XI. Soli ergo rema¬ nent illi religiosi, qui in saeculo vivebant ex opificio, et in religione sibi solis vacant, non populo. Hos August. obligatad laboran¬ dum. Sed nec istos obligat absolute, sed solum quando, si operentur, non impedientur a majori bono, et si non operentur perniciose otiosi erunt. Nam si aliquis talis possit per¬ petuo orare, aut legere, et velit id facere ? et inveniat qui eum in tali versantem gra¬ tis alat, cur non poterit id facere ? Nam hoc modo vixit per triennium B. Bene¬ dictus, ut Gregorius testatur lib.I. dialog.c.I et tota vita sua B. Alexius, ut in ejus vita scribit Simeon Metaphrastes. Unde Augustinus cap. 17. ejusdem libri, ubi dicit Monachos non debere excusari ab (1) Epii. IV, '28; I. Thessal. IV, 11. — (2) II. Thessal. III, 10 et 11. Tom. II. 40 626 LIBER II. opere manuum per orationem, psalmodiam, lectionem, et verbum Dei, clarissime indi¬ cat se loqui non de oratione assidua, nec de continua, et publica psalmodia, lectione, concione, quae totum hominem occupant, sed oratione, psalmodia, lectione, et exhor¬ tatione privata, et rara, quse multum otii relinquant. Et c. 21. dicit se reprehendere illos Monachos, qui ex conditione servili ad monasterium veniunt, ut vitam inopem, et laboriosam fugiant, et vacui pascantur ac vestiantur, et insuper honorentur, ab iis, a quibus contemni conterique consupverant. De quibus etiam dicit cap. 25 : « Nullo mo¬ do decet, ut in ea vita, ubi fiunt senatores laboriosi, ibi fiant opifices otiosi, et quo ve¬ niunt relictis deliciis suis, qui fuerant prae¬ diorum Domini, ibi sint rustici delicati. » Et cap. 28. ait: « Ostendite, inquit, homi¬ nibus non vos in otio facilem victum, sed per angustam et arctam portam regnum Dei quaerere. » Ad argumentum tertium de consuetudine antiquorum monasteriorum dico, Monachos illos fuisse obligatos operari manibus ex propriis regulis suis. Cur autem ejusmodi regulam constituerint, causa est duplex. Una, quia non poterant aliter sustentari, nam nec habebant praedia, et possessiones sibi relictas, ut nunc habent multi Monachi, et eleemosynas a populo petere, nec aude¬ bant, cum populo non servirent, nec ullo modo id suffecisset : Nam uno in loco, sub uno Abbate degebant terna ut minimum ho¬ minum millia, ut Augustinus refert lib. I. de moribus Ecclesiae cap. 31. Altera ratio est, quia illi Monachi cum non essent Clerici, sed Laici omnes, excepto Abbate, non erant satis occupati, et ideo ad fugiendum otium necessarium erat illis la¬ borare. Hieronymus in epistol. ad Rusticum : « yEgyptiorum monasteria hunc morem te¬ nent, ut nullum absque operis labore susci¬ piant, non tam propter victus necessitatem, quam propter animae salutem, ne vagetur perniciosis cogitationibus mens etc. » Nec tamen absolute est verum omnes antiquos religiosos manibus laborasse. Sic enim scri¬ bit de monasterio S. Martini Sulpitius in vita S. Martini cap. 7 : v Nemo ibi quidquam proprium habebat; omnia in medio confere¬ bantur. Non emere, aut vendere, ut pleris- que Monachis moris est, quidquam licebat. Ars ibi, exceptis scriptoribus, nulla habe¬ batur. Cui tamen operi minor aetas deputa¬ batur: majores orationi vacabant.» Haec ille. Ubi vides §olos juniores laborasse ma¬ nibus, eosque non ad victum quaerendum (nam nihil eis vendere licebat, sed vivebant ex bonis, quae attulerant) sed ad otium fu¬ giendum. Sed nec primi Monachi sub Apos¬ tolis in Hierusalem, aut in ^Egypto opera¬ bantur manibus, ut patet Actor 111. et IV. et ex lib. Philonis de vita contemplativa.