Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 45: That It Is Lawful for Monks to Live from Begging
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).
Of the fourth is the chief difficulty. For they have most sharply assailed the mendicant orders. First, William of Saint-Amour (in Antoninus, part 4, title 11, chapter 7, §5, of the Theological Summa). Secondly, Desiderius the Lombard (in Blessed Thomas, in opusculum 19). Thirdly, Giraldus of Abbeville (in Bonaventure, at the beginning of the Apology of the Poor). Fourthly, John Wycliffe (in Waldensis, Book 4, article 2, of the Doctrinal of the Faith). Fifthly, Richard, archbishop of Armagh (sermon 4). Lastly, Luther (in the last article) and Brentius (in the Wurttemberg Confession, chapter on monastic vows), who all teach that those are outside the state of salvation who of their own accord reduce themselves to mendicancy; both because they expose themselves to an evident danger of dying of hunger, and because it is not lawful for them, unless perchance they be sick, to seek alms, which are due only to those who cannot help themselves, and finally because the divine and human law reprehends and forbids voluntary mendicancy.
But nonetheless the life of the mendicant religious, as holy and perfect, many supreme Pontiffs approved: as Innocent III (Bonaventure being witness), Honorius III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV, Alexander IV, and Nicholas IV, as John XXII reports (in the Extravagant Quia quorumdam, De Verborum Significatione); and also the general Council of Lyons, as Nicholas IV reports (chapter Exiit, De Verborum Significatione, in the Sixth), and that of Constance (session 8).
And that this life was rightly approved we show by the following reasons. First, by the example of the Lord; for the Lord had no possessions, neither proper nor common, as appears from that of Luke 9: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. And that He did not labor with His hands, but lived from the alms of the faithful, appears from that of Luke 8: Certain women ministered to him of their substance. Likewise from His whole life, since He was born in another’s house, lived in others’ houses and from others’ goods; for now He dined with Martha, now with Simon the leper, now with Zacchaeus, now in Peter’s house, now in Matthew’s house; He rode on another’s beast; He held the Last Supper in another’s house; He was buried in another’s tomb. Whence (Psalm 39) He says: But I am a beggar and poor. And (Psalm 108): Because he persecuted the poor man and the beggar. In which places is the word which is had also in Deuteronomy 15, where it is said: There shall be no beggar among you. Which passage they bring forward for themselves who say that mendicancy is unlawful. And it is certain that each Psalm is understood of Christ; for the former Paul alleges of Christ (Hebrews 9? nay Hebrews 10): In the head of the book it is written of me, etc. And the latter Peter alleges (Acts 1): For it is written in the book of Psalms: His bishopric let another take, etc. Likewise 2 Corinthians 8: For your sakes he became needy, whereas he was rich. In Greek eptocheusen; for ptocheuein signifies to beg; whence in Homer (Odyssey 17), daita ptocheuein, to beg a dinner.
To this the Armagh man answers that Christ was poor, but not a beggar, and poor not from love of poverty, but because the restriction of His dominion required it. For he says that Christ succeeded Adam in the original dominion, to which it was repugnant both to have anything of one’s own and to beg; for Adam in the state of innocence was lord of all earthly goods, but yet so that he could take into his use only necessaries, nor appropriate anything to himself; for division arose after sin. And so in the state of innocence there would have been no private riches, nor yet any needy or beggars. Since, then, Christ was born with original justice, He had also such a dominion as Adam, and therefore it was repugnant to Him to have anything of His own, and at the same time repugnant to beg; since all things were His as to use, yet His dominion was restricted, who had to be under the law; and so He was poor, because He could not use His natural dominion, the civil law standing in the way.
All these things are against the plain Scriptures. And first, that Christ was truly a beggar, and lacked not only the use, but also the temporal dominion, of earthly things, appears, because that original dominion over common goods perished by the division of things justly introduced. Nor did the Lord receive political dominion after the human manner, though He always had the divine dominion. And so He was truly a beggar, as we have shown from the Psalms and from the Apostle. He was also truly lord, at least in common with His disciples, of those goods which were given Him as a beggar. For that Christ received civil dominion and property, at least in common with the Apostles, of those monies which were given Him, appears from John 12, where Judas is called a thief, because he usurped to himself the monies of Christ’s purse. But if Christ had not property nor civil dominion, that of Judas was not theft; for by natural dominion alone those monies belonged to Christ no more than all other things.
Finally, that Christ was a beggar from love of poverty, and not from the restriction of dominion, is plain; for who compelled Him to be made under the law? Did He not Himself choose this of His own accord? Which certainly He could have not chosen, if He had hated poverty. Besides, even being under the law, could He not easily have grown rich if He had willed? Did not the crowds wish to make Him king? Why then had He not where to lay His head, and had it not of His own accord, if He loved not poverty? Finally, why does Paul (2 Corinthians 8) call this a grace of the Lord, if He was needy not from love, but from necessity?
The Armagh man says, secondly, that if Christ begged, it does not therefore follow that it is lawful for us to beg. For this would have to be placed among the works to be admired, not imitated, as that He fasted 40 days without any food. But to beg can be done without any miracle, as experience teaches; but to fast without any food cannot be done without a miracle. To this, Christ did not counsel that we imitate Him by fasting without any food, but He counseled that we imitate Him by begging, when He said (Matthew 19): If thou wilt be perfect, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow me.
Secondly, it is proved by the example of the Apostles; for they left all things (Matthew 19): Behold, we have left all things. Nor had they possessions in common, as appears (Matthew 10): Do not possess gold, nor silver in your purses, nor two coats, etc. Nor did they labor with their hands, but lived by the liberality of those to whom they preached, as appears from the same chapter 10 of Matthew, and 1 Corinthians 9. And such is the life of the mendicants. Whence Saint Francis, who with Saint Dominic was the first author of this institute, took for his rule the tenth chapter of Matthew.
To this they answer, first, that that life of the Apostles was instituted by Christ only for a time — namely, while He preached in Judea before His passion; for (Luke 22) the Lord revoked those precepts, saying: When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything? But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip. Whence He too had a purse with monies at the last time, as appears (John 12 and 13); from which it appears that He had then already abrogated what He had said (Matthew 10), Do not possess gold, etc. Secondly, they object that this was a precept, not an evangelical counsel, and accordingly does not pertain to the mendicants, who say they follow a counsel. Thirdly, the Apostles, by the Lord’s ordinance, sought their living from the people in justice, as appears from that of Matthew 10: The laborer is worthy of his hire. And from 1 Corinthians 9: Who serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charges? Therefore they did not beg. But our mendicants do not seek, nor can seek, their living in justice.
To the first I answer that, whether Christ instituted that life for a time or not for a time, it is most rightly gathered thence that that life is lawful and holy and most worthy of imitation, unless perchance Christ instituted an unlawful life for a time. Besides, it is not true that Christ ever revoked that institution as to the manner of living; He revoked indeed what He had said, Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles. But those lessons of not possessing monies in the purse, etc., He never revoked, as appears from 1 Corinthians 9. And when He says (Luke 22), Now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip, etc., He does not command that they do this, but foretells them that at the time of His passion they will be in such fear and perturbation as those are in who trust no friend, and therefore provide for themselves and sell a tunic to buy a sword. Nor do the Lord’s purses fight with those words, Do not possess gold, etc. For, as Nicholas expounds (in the chapter Exiit, De Verborum Significatione, in the Sixth), the Lord wished by His example to approve each life — namely, that which has nothing, neither in particular nor in common, except the simple use of things given; and again that which has something at least in common; but by instituting the one, He did not destroy the other.
To the second I say that those words are not precepts, but counsels and instruction on the part of the Apostles and other preachers, and at the same time are an ordinance and precept on the part of the peoples, as appears from Paul’s declaration (1 Corinthians 9), where he says that the Lord ordained that those who announce the Gospel should live of the Gospel. From which he gathers that the people is bound to feed the evangelists, and at the same time says that he himself did not use this power; from which it appears that it was no precept to preachers to live from the people’s stipends.
To the third I say that the Apostles, by the Lord’s ordinance, could sometimes seek a stipend from the people in justice, sometimes in equity, sometimes from charity alone. For which note, from Aristotle (Book 8 of the Ethics, chapter 13), that there is a twofold justice: one legal, the other moral. It is called legal when by law or compact one is compelled to pay something to another. It is called moral when without compact or law one labors for another, so that there arises a certain obligation of compensating the labor, but yet one cannot compel him to such compensation. Now the Lord ordained that those who announce the Gospel should live of the Gospel.
This ordinance, in respect of the faithful people and the ordinary pastors, is a precept of justice in strictness; for when someone is appointed pastor, the people can compel him to minister spiritual things, and the pastor can compel the people to give temporal things; and in this way the Apostles, as bishops, could compel the Christians to provide a stipend. But in respect of an infidel people, or of a non-ordinary pastor, that ordinance does not induce the strictness of justice, but a certain equity, or moral justice; and in this way the Apostles, when they preached to the Jews, Christ Himself living, could not compel the people to provide a stipend; for neither had the people received the Gospel, and the Apostles were not yet ordinary pastors; for the Jews were still bound to acknowledge the Aaronic priests and to pay them tithes. And so the Apostles received a stipend from moral justice, or sought it from charity.
Now the mendicant religious, who are sent by the Supreme Pontiff to preach and minister the sacraments, could make a compact with the Pontiff himself, or with the people, about receiving a stipend, and then they would have sought it in the strictness of justice. They could also be sent by the Pontiff in the way in which Christ sent the Apostles to the Jews, before the Old Law had ceased — namely, that they should seek a stipend out of a certain equity; for the laborer is worthy of his hire, and he who announces the Gospel ought to live of the Gospel. For Christ did not say, He who is an ordinary evangelist is worthy of his hire, but, The laborer is worthy of his hire — that is, whoever lawfully works it is worthy of his hire; and this was the express opinion of Augustine (On the Work of Monks, chapter 21). Yet it seemed better both to the Pontiff sending and to those who are sent that they should not seek in any way from justice or equity, but only from charity, just as they themselves minister spiritual things not from debt, but from charity.
Thirdly and lastly it is proved by the event; for this kind of life has been confirmed by innumerable signs and prodigies which God wrought through Saints Francis and Dominic, the authors of this life; and then, from that time, the conversion of the Gentiles, the confutation of the heretics, the piety of the Christian people, the preservation of theology, and innumerable other goods are for the greatest part to be attributed to the mendicant orders.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XLV. Licere Monachis ex mendicatione vivere. De quarto praecipua est difficultas. Oppu¬ gnaverunt enim acerrime ordines mendican¬ tium. Primo, Gulielmus de sancto Amore apud Antoninum part. IY, tit. XI, cap. 7, §5. summae Theologicae.* Secundo , Desiderius Longobardus apud Beatum Thomam in opus¬ culo 19. Tertio, Gyraldus de Abbatis villa apud Bonavent. initio Apologiae pauperum, Quarto, Joannes Wiclef apud Waldensem lib. IV. art. 2. doctrinalis fidei. Quinto, Ri- chardus Episcopus Armacanus serm. 4. Ul¬ timo, Lutherus artic. ult. et Brentius in Gonfess. Wirtemberg. cap, de votis monas¬ ticis, qui omnes docent, esse extra statum salutis eos, qui redigunt seipsos sponte ad mendicitatem, tum quod exponunt se evi¬ denti periculo moriendi fame, tum quod non liceat eis, nisi forte aegrotent, eleemosynas petere, quae debentur solum iis, qui seipsos juvare nequeunt, tum denique quod lex di¬ vina et humana reprehendat, et prohibeat voluntariam mendicitatem. At nihilominus vitam religiosorum mendi¬ cantium tamquam sanctam, et perfectam approbarunt multi summi Pontifices ; ut In¬ nocentius III, teste Bonavent. Honorius III, Gregorius IX, Innocentius IY, Alexander IV, et Nicolaus IY, ut refert Joannes XXII, in Extravaganti Quia quorumdam, de verbo¬ rum significatione, necnon Concilium Lug¬ dunense generale, ut refert Nicolaus IY, c. Exiit, de verborum significatione in VI et Constantiense, sessione VIII. Recte autem fuisse hanc vitam approba¬ tam, ostendimus sequentibus rationibus. Primo, exemplo Domini, nam Dominus non habuit possessiones, neque proprias, neque communes, ut patet ex illo Luc. IX : Vulpes foveas habent, et voluci es coeli nidos ; Filius autem hominis non habet ubi caput suum recli¬ net. Et quod non operaretur manibus, sed ex eleemosynis fidelium vixerit, patet ex illo Lucse VIII : Mulieres aliquce ministrabant ei de facultatibus suis (2). Item ex tota ejus vita, siquidem natus est in domo aliena, vixit in domibus et ex rebus alienis ; nunc enim prandebat apud Martham, nunc apud Simo¬ nem leprosum, nunc apud Zachaeum, nunc in domo Petri, nunc in domo Matthaei; equi¬ tavit in jumento alieno ; fecit ultimam cce- nam in domo aliena ; sepultus est in sepul- chro alieno. Unde Psalm. XXXIX dicit : Ergo autem mendicus sum et pauper , Et Psalm. G VIII : Quia persecutus est hominem inopem et mendicum (3). Quibus in locis est vox T»53N quae habetur etiam Deuteuron. XV. ubi dicitur : Non erit in te mendicus (4). Quem — (2) Luc. IX, 58; VIII, 3. — (3) Psal. XXXIX, 18; CVIII, 17.— (1) Psal. GUI, 16 et 17. (4) Deut. XV, 4. 628 LIBER II. locum pro se adferunt, qui dicunt, illicitam esse mendicitatem. Et certum est utrumque Psalmum de Christo intelligi ; nam priorem allegat Paulus ad Hebreeos IX de Christo : ln capite libri scriptum est cie me etc. Et pos¬ teriorem allegat Petrus, Actor. I : Scriptum est enim in libro Psalmorum , E piscopatum ejus accipiat alter etc. Item. II. Corinth. VIII : Propter vos egenus factus est, cum esset dives (1). Graece in-Tw^euo-s , significat enim nrwyjuM, mendicare; unde apud Homerum Odyss. 17. SatVa TTTMyJvecj, prandium mendicare. Ad hoc respondet Armacanus, Christum fuisse pauperem, sed non mendicum, et pauperem non amore paupertatis, sed quia restrictio dominii ejus id exigebat. Dicit enim Christum successisse Adamo in dominio ori¬ ginali, cui repugnabat tam habere proprium, quam mendicare ; Adamus enim in statu in¬ nocentiae fuit Dominus omnium bonorum terrenorum, sed ita tamen, ut non posset accipere in usum suum, nisi necessaria, nec sibi aliquid appropriare ; divisio enim nata est post peccatum. Itaque in statu innocen¬ tiae non fuissent propriae divitiae, nec tamen fuissent ulli egeni, vel mendici. Quoniam . ergo Christus natus est cum justitia originali, habuit etiam tale dominium, quale Adam, et ideo repugnabat illi habere proprium, et simul repugnabat mendicare : cum omnia essent sua, quantum ad usum, tamen fuit restrictum dominium ejus, qui debuit esse sub lege ; et sic fuit pauper, quia non potuit uti suo naturali dominio, obstante lege ci¬ vili. Haec omnia sunt contra apertas Scripturas. Et primum quod Christus vere fuerit men¬ dicus, et caruerit non solum usu, sed etiam dominio temporali rerum terrenarum, patet, quia dominium illud originale in bona com¬ munia, periit per divisionem rerum juste introductam. Nec Dominus accepit dominium politicum more humano, licet dominium di¬ vinum semper habuerit. Itaque fuit vere mendicus, ut ex Psalmis, et ex Apostolo os¬ tendimus. Fuit etiam vere Dominus, saltem in communi cum suis discipulis, eorum bo¬ norum, quae illi ut mendico donabantur. Quod enim Christus acceperit dominium ci¬ vile, et proprietatem, saltem in communi cum Apostolis, earum pecuniarum, quae sibi donabantur, patet ex Joan. XII, ubi dici¬ tur Judas fur, quia usurpabat sibi pecunias loculorum Christi. At si Christus non habebat proprietatem, nec dominium civile, non erat furtum illud Judae ; nam per solum dominium naturale non magis pertinebant ad Christum illae pecuniae, quam aliae res omnes. Denique, quod Christus amore pauperta¬ tis, et non ex restrictione dominii fuerit mendicus, planum est ; Nam quis illum coegit fieri sub lege? Nonne sponte id ipse elegit? Quod certe poterat non eligere, si odisset paupertatem. Praeterea etiam exis- tens sub lege, nonne poterat facile ditescere si voluisset? Nonne turbae illum Regem fa¬ cere voluerunt ? Cur ergo non habuit, ubi' caput reclinaret, et sponte non habuit, si non amabat paupertatem? Denique cur Paulus II Cor. VIII. vocat istam gratiam Domini, si non ex amore, sed ex necessitate fuit ege¬ nus? Dicit Secundo Armacanus, Si Christus mendicasset, non propterea licere nobis mendicare. Esset enim hoc ponendum inter opera admiranda, non imitanda, sicut quod jejunaverit 40 diebus sine ullo cibo. At men¬ dicare, sine ullo miraculo fieri potest, ut experientia docet; jejunare autem sine omni cibo, non potest sine miraculo. Ad haec, non consuluit Christus, ut se imitaremur jeju¬ nando sine omni cibo, consuluit autem ut se imitaremur mendicando , cum ait Mat¬ thaei XIX : Si vis perfectus esse, vende omnia quce habes , et da pauperibus , et sequere me (2). Secundo probatur, exemplo Apostolorum ; nam illi omnia dimiserunt, Matth. XIX : Ecce nos reliquimus omnia. Nec habuerunt possessiones in communi, ut patet Matthaei X : Nolite possidere aurum, neque argentum in zonis, nec duas tunicas , etc. (3). Nec opera¬ bantur manibus, sed vivebant fixliberalitate eorum, quibus praedicabant, ut patet ex eo¬ dem capite X. Matthaei, et I. Corinth. IX. Talis autem est vita mendicantium. Unde Sanctus Franciscus, qui cum Sancto Domi¬ nico primus auctor fuit hujus instituti, pro regula suscepit decimum caput Matthaei. Ad hoc respondent, Primo, vitam illam Apostolorum fuisse a Christo institutam ad tempus tantum, nimirum dum in Judaea praedicabat ante suam passionem ; nam Lu¬ cae XXII, Dominus revocavit ista praecepta, dicens : Quando misi vos sine sacculo , et pera, et calceamentis , numquid aliquid defuit vobis ? sed nunc qui habet sacculum tollat similiter et (1) Hebr. IX, 7; Act. I, 20; II. Cor. VIII, 9.— (2) Matth. XIX, 21. — (3) Matth. XIX, 27; X, 9. CAPUT XLY. 629 peram (1). Unde et loculos cum pecuniis ha¬ buit extremo tempore, ut patet Joan. XII et XIII ; ex quo apparet, jam tunc abrogasse quae dixerat Matth. X : Nolite possidere au¬ rum, etc. (2). Secundo objiciunt, hoc fuisse praeceptum , non consilium Evangelicum , proinde non pertinere ad mendicantes, qui se dicunt consilium sequi. Tertio, Apostoli ex Domini ordinatione ex justitia petebant a populo victum, ut patet ex illo Matth. X : Dignus est operarius mercede sua. Et ex I. Co- rinth. IX : Quis militat suis stipendiis un- quaml (3) ergo non mendicabant. At nostri mendicantes non petunt, nec petere possunt victum ex justitia. Ad Primum respondeo, sive ad tempus sive non ad tempus vitam illam Christus instituerit, inde rectissime colligi, esse lici¬ tam, et sanctam, et imitatione dignissimam eam vitam, nisi forte Christus ad tempus vitam illicitam instituerit. *Praeterea non est verum, Christum revocasse unquam illam institutionem quoad modum vivendi : revo¬ cavit quidem quod dixerat : ln viam Gentium ne abieritis. At illa documenta de non possi¬ dendis pecuniis in zona etc. numquam revo¬ cavit, ut patet ex I. Cor. IX. Quando autem ait Lucse XXII : Nunc qui habet sacculum, tollat similiter ei peram , etc. non jubet ut hoc faciant, sed praedicit illis, tempore passio¬ nis suae futuros eos in tali timore, et pertur¬ batione, in quali sunt ii, qui non fidunt ulli amico, et ideo sibiipsis prospiciunt, et tuni¬ cam vendunt, ut gladium emant. Neque lo¬ culi Dominici repugnant illis verbis : Nolite possidere aurum, ete. Nam, ut Nicolaus expo¬ nit in cap. Exiit, de verborum significatione, in Sexto, Dominus utramque vitam exemplo suo approbare voluit, nimirum illam quae nihil habet, neque in particulari, neque in communi, excepto simplici usu rerum dona¬ tarum : et rursum illam, quse aliquid habet saltem in communi ; sed unam instituendo, non destruxit alteram. Ad Secunrdum dico, illa verba non esse praecepta, sed consilia et instructionem ex parte Apostolorum, et aliorum praedicato¬ rum, et simul esse ordinationem, et praecep¬ tum, ex parte populorum, ut patet ex decla¬ ratione Pauli I. Corinth. IX. ubi dicit, Domi¬ num ordinasse, ut qui Evangelium annun¬ tiant, de Evangelio vivant. Ex quo colligit, teneri populum ad alendos Evangelistas, et simul dicit, se non usum fuisse hac potestate : ex quo patet, non fuisse praeceptum praedi¬ catoribus, ut viverent ex populi sumptibus. Ad Tertium dico, Apostolos ex Domini or¬ dinatione potuisse aliquando ex justitia petere a populo sumptus, aliquando ex aequitate, aliquando ex sola charitate. Pro quo nota ex Aristot. lib. VIII Ethicor. cap. 13. dupli¬ cem esse justitiam ; unam legitimam, alte¬ ram moralem. Legitima dicitur, quando ex lege, aut pacto unus cogitur alteri aliquid solvere. Moralis dicitur, quando sine pacto, aut lege unus laborat pro alio, ita ut con¬ surgat obligatio quaedam compensandi labo¬ rem, sed tamen non possit eum compellere ad ejusmodi compensationem. Jam Dominus ordinavit eos qui Evangelium annuntiant, de Evangelio vivere. Haec ordinatio respectu fidelis populi et ordinariorum pastorum, est praeceptum jus¬ titiae in rigore; quando enim constituitur ali¬ quis pastor, potest populus eum cogere ad spiritualia ministranda, et Pastor potest co¬ gere populum ad temporalia danda, et hoc modo poterant Apostoli tamquam Episcopi cogere Christianos ad sumptus faciendos ; At respectu populi infidelis, vel pastoris non ordinarii, illa ordinatio non inducit rigorem justitiae, sed quamdam aequitatem, seu mo¬ ralem justitiam, et hoc modo Apostoli quando praedicabant Judaeis, ipso Christo vivente, non poterant cogere populum ad sumptus faciendos ; nam nec populus susceperat Evangelium, et Apostoli nondum erant Pas¬ tores ordinarii ; nam adhuc tenebantur Judaei agnoscere Sacerdo'tes Aaronicos, et eis deci¬ mas solvere. Itaque Apostoli accipiebant sumptus ex morali justitia, vel petebant ex charitate. Jam religiosi mendicantes, qui mittuntur a summo Pontifice ad praedicandum et Sa¬ cramenta ministranda poterant facere pac¬ tum cum ipso Pontifice, vel cum populo de sumptibus accipiendis , et tunc ex rigore justitiae illos petiissent. Poterant etiam mitti a Pontifice eo modo, quo Christus misit Apostolos ad Judaeos, antequam lex vetus cessasset, nimirum ut ex quadam aequitate peterent sumptus ; nam dignus est operarius mercede sua, et qui Evangelium annuntiat, de Evangelio vivere debet. Non enim Christus dixit, qui est ordinarius Evangelista dignus est mercede sua, sed dignus est operarius , id (1) Luc. XXII, 35. — (2) Matth, X. 9. — (3) Matth. X, 10 ; I. Cor. IX, 7. LIBER II. 630 est, quicuraque id operatur licite, dignus est mercede sua : et haec fuit expressa senten¬ tia Augustini de opere Monachorum, capite 21. Visum tamen est melius tam Pontifici mittenti, quam ipsis qui mittuntur, ut non peterent ullo modo ex justitia, vel aequitate, sed solum ex charitate, sicut ipsi non ex debito, sed ex charitate ministrant spiritua¬ lia. Tertio et Ultimo probatur ex eventu, nam hoc genus vitae innumeris signis, et prodi¬ giis confirmatum est, quae Deus edidit per Sanctos Franciscum, et Dominicum, aucto¬ res hujus vitae, deinde ab eo tempore con¬ versio gentilium, confutatio haereticorum, pietas populi Christiani, conservatio Theo¬ logiae, et innumera alia bona ordinibus men¬ dicantium maxima ex parte accepta refe¬ renda sunt.