Bellarmine · De Controversiis · On the Members of the Church · On Monks (Book II)
Chapter 46: The Objections Answered
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).
But on the contrary they object very many arguments, but all are reduced to six. The first is that mendicancy is forbidden by divine and human law; for that it is forbidden by divine law appears (Deuteronomy 15): There shall be no one in want and beggar among you. By human law it appears from the Code, On Sturdy Beggars (Book 11, chapter 25).
I answer that, as to the divine law, without doubt begging or mendicancy is not forbidden by that law, since in the same chapter it is had: The poor shall not be wanting in thy land, etc. Nor does Lyra’s answer avail, who says that in the former words public beggars are forbidden, but in the latter it treats of the poor who, though they need the help of others, yet ought not to beg, but ought to be provided for by the rich. This solution does not avail; for in both places is the word which properly signifies a beggar, and it could be rendered word for word, There shall not be wanting beggars in thy land, as above it had said, There shall be no beggar among you. And besides, among the Jews there were many beggars, as appears (Luke 16) of Lazarus, (Luke 18) of the blind man begging by the wayside, (John 9) of another blind man begging, (Acts 3) of the lame man begging at the beautiful gate of the temple.
To those words, then, There shall be no beggar among you, I answer in two ways. First, that by those words mendicancy is not forbidden, but so great an abundance of things is promised that there will be no beggar; which sense most fits the Hebrew text, for there immediately follows: Because the Lord thy God will bless thee. Nor does this promise fight with those words, The beggar shall not be wanting in thy land, etc.; for the promise was conditional. For thus there follows after that promise: Yet so if thou hear the voice of the Lord thy God, and keep all things which he commanded. And because God knew that this condition would not be kept, He foretells that beggars will never be wanting, and admonishes that they do them good.
Secondly, it could be said with Blessed Thomas (in the opusculum against the assailants of the religious state) that by this law begging is forbidden, not on the part of the beggars, but on the part of the rich. For God does not forbid the poor to beg, since below He says, Beggars will not be wanting, but commands the rich that, as far as in them lies, they so provide for the necessities of the poor that none be compelled to beg. Yet the former solution is better; for if the Lord had commanded the rich not to suffer beggars, the rich would have sinned among the people of the Jews, who in fact permitted beggars in the time of Christ, and yet are never read to have been reprehended for this by Christ or by the Apostles. Besides, if the Lord there forbade the rich to permit beggars, how in the same place does He command the rich to give alms to beggars? Further, the civil law speaks of those who beg that they may live idly, or that they may gain, etc., when they bring no utility to the people. Whence in the same place they are called sluggards.
The second argument. Scripture throughout detests mendicancy as the cause of many evils. Proverbs 30: he with whom God is said, Give me neither beggary nor riches; give me only the necessaries of my sustenance, lest perhaps being filled I be tempted to deny and say, Who is the Lord? or, being compelled by want, I steal, and forswear the name of my God. Ecclesiasticus 27: Through want many have sinned. Psalm 36: I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread. Psalm 108: Let his children be carried about vagabonds and beg.
I answer that these passages speak of involuntary mendicancy; for he who begs compelled, and has his mind on wealth, easily steals and forswears, etc. Although to the first passage two other solutions can be given. The first is that the Wise Man speaks in the person of the weak, of whom there are very many in the Church. For to these both too great wealth and likewise too great want are harmful. But to perfect men, who know with Paul both to abound and to suffer want, both very great wealth and also the greatest want are instruments of the virtues, as is evident of Job, who experienced both. Whence Chrysostom (homily 18 on the epistle to the Hebrews) and Ambrose (sermon 8 on Psalm 108) say that these words of Solomon suit the men of the Old Testament, because they were imperfect.
The second solution is that by the Wise Man in this place not any mendicancy is refused, but only that which is exposed to danger, such as is not that of the mendicant religious; for they know for certain that necessaries will not be wanting to them, both on account of Christ’s promise (Matthew 19), He shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess eternal life, and (Mark 10), A hundred times as much now in this time, and on account of the devotion of the people, from whom they doubt not that they will receive temporal things, since they minister to it spiritual things. Nay, the religious seem to the letter to ask what the Wise Man asks; for they do not wish riches, and therefore leave them, nor yet do they wish dangerous mendicancy, by which they would die of hunger, and therefore they say, Give me only the necessaries of my sustenance.
But that of Psalm 36, I have not seen the just, etc., is difficult; for Elijah was just, and yet sought bread, when he said to the widow: Bring me, I beseech thee, a morsel in thy hand (3 Kings 17); and David sought bread from Ahimelech (1 Kings 21); and Lazarus sought the crumbs of bread (Luke 16). Jerome and Augustine expound it of spiritual bread. Cajetan and Lyra say the Psalm speaks of what happens for the most part. Titelmann very well says that that forsaken ought to be referred also to his seed seeking bread, so that the sense is: I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread forsaken. Or certainly there to seek does not signify to seek in any manner, but to seek with anxiety and labor, as those do who long seek and scarcely find. Whence in the Hebrew is a verb in Piel which signifies to seek diligently.
The third argument. Moderate wealth is necessary, or at least very useful, to lead a blessed and perfect life in this life; for (Ecclesiastes 7) it is said: Wisdom with riches is more profitable, and bringeth more advantage to them that see the sun; for as wisdom protecteth, so money protecteth. Acts 20: It is a more blessed thing to give than to receive. And Aristotle (Book 1 of the Ethics, chapter 8) says that wealth is necessary to happiness.
I answer that wealth and want have their advantages and disadvantages; for wealth profits, because it provides matter for liberality, and because it frees from the solicitude of seeking a living; yet it harms inasmuch as it brings great solicitude of preserving and dispensing it. On the contrary, poverty profits inasmuch as it provides matter for patience, and frees from the solicitude of preserving and distributing monies; but it harms inasmuch as it brings the solicitude of seeking a living. But, all things considered, that good which voluntary poverty brings seems to be greater than that which riches bring; and the evil which accompanies poverty less than that which accompanies riches, and especially for those who by office ought to evangelize and minister the sacraments. And therefore the Lord counseled the Apostles a life of this kind (Matthew 10); and the Apostles themselves too (Acts 6) testify that they are not a little impeded from the word of God and prayer if they must dispense the wealth of the Christians.
But to that of Ecclesiastes I answer that he did not mean to say that wisdom with riches is better than without riches, but that wisdom with riches is better than riches without wisdom. So Titelmann, and rightly; for in the Hebrew it is not better, but, Wisdom with riches is good; which cannot be said because it is evil without riches, but because without it riches are evil; and this he proves when he says: For as wisdom protecteth, so money protecteth. But in this they differ, that wisdom gives life to its possessor — as if to say, although money protects in this world from many afflictions, yet wisdom alone gives life, and therefore without wisdom riches profit little or nothing.
To that of Acts 20 I say: other things being equal, it is more blessed to give all one’s goods at once for Christ’s sake, and to receive afterward something small, than to give little and receive nothing; and similarly it is more blessed to receive temporal things, that one may expeditiously and conveniently give spiritual things, than by receiving nothing to be impeded from giving spiritual things.
To the passage of Aristotle I answer. First, that he speaks of human happiness, which needs many things; for Christian happiness neither in itself needs any earthly wealth, since it consists wholly in the vision of God, nor is wealth very necessary to attain it, since one comes to the eternal kingdom better by humility and patience than by wealth. Then I add that Aristotle speaks of the political man, who wishes to live in a city, and to have wife and children, and to administer the commonwealth together with others. But to men of this kind it cannot be denied that wealth is necessary. But if one wish to live for himself alone, and to be free for contemplation, to this man certainly Aristotle will by no means judge wealth necessary, provided he have whereof to live without loss of contemplation.
The fourth argument. To reduce oneself to extreme want is a vice; for virtue consists in the mean, vices in the extremes; but to give something is a mean, to give nothing is an extreme. Besides, it is confirmed from Paul (2 Corinthians 8): If the will be prompt, it is accepted according to that which it hath, not according to that which it hath not. For not that others should be eased, and you burdened, but by an equality.
I answer that the mean in the virtues, except justice, is not considered in respect of the things themselves absolutely, but with an order to reason and all the circumstances. For example, it is not the mean in temperance to eat one loaf, and the extremes to eat two or none; but the mean is to take as much bread as reason dictates befits thee at this time; whence what is a mean to thee will be an extreme to another. So, then, to give all is an extreme and vicious for a father of a family, who by office ought to feed wife, children, servants, etc. But for him who has determined to renounce the world and to attend to prayer and preaching alone, to give all is plainly a mean; and the extremes will be to give something only and to give nothing; and by this the confirmation is solved, for Paul addresses secular married men, etc.
Thou wilt say: To give all is either a mean for him who wishes to renounce the world before the vow, or only after the vow. If before the vow, then he will sin if he do not give all, even though he have no vow of poverty; for to the mean of virtue are opposed the extremes of vices. If only after the vow, then mendicancy cannot be vowed; for nothing is rightly vowed but what of itself is already an act of virtue. I answer that the evangelical counsels before the vow are not acts of special virtues, but are perfect acts of the common virtues, as of liberality, chastity, obedience. Further, to perfect acts are opposed not vicious acts, but less perfect acts; and the mean of a perfect act has not vicious extremes, but less perfect extremes; but after the vow those same acts are now necessary acts of special virtues, to which are opposed true special vices.
The fifth argument. He who of his own accord reduces himself to mendicancy exposes himself to the danger of dying of hunger, and tempts God, since he takes away from himself the ordinary means of preserving life, nor can he say, Give us this day our daily bread. For the Lord would answer him, Why dost thou ask bread of me, when I gave it thee before, and thou didst cast it away?
I answer that he would be said to expose himself to such danger who gave all his goods when he probably knew that he would afterward find nothing; but the religious place a sure hope in God that nothing will be wanting to them, since Christ promised this, and long experience testifies the same. Nor do they tempt God; for the ordinary means to life is food and drink, whether it be one’s own or given by another; therefore he rejects the ordinary means who either will not eat, or will not take bread, except by a miracle, as happened to those of whom Cassian speaks (Conference 2, chapter 6). Nor are they forbidden to say, Our bread, etc.; nay, they most of all can say this, since they have retained nothing for themselves, that they might follow Christ. For if some king should say to a wealthy citizen, Leave here thy possessions and come with me to war, certainly he could by right ask daily bread of the king.
The sixth argument. The mendicant religious do injury to the true poor; for (Luke 14) it is said: When thou makest a dinner, call the poor, the feeble, the lame, the blind, who have not to make thee recompense, and thou shalt be blessed. “In this passage,” says the Armagh man, “the Lord does not command any poor whatever to be called, but the poor feeble, lame, or blind; nor even any feeble whatever, but the feeble poor; for the poor who are not feeble can make recompense by laboring; the feeble who are not poor can make recompense by giving money.” Besides, the order of charity demands that alms always be given to the more needy; but the feeble poor are more needy than the strong, such as the religious are; therefore it is not lawful for the religious to seek alms, unless perchance they be sick.
I answer that if the argument concluded anything, not only the mendicant religious, but also all clerics and monks who live from possessions, and are not feeble, lame, or blind, would sin; for the possessions given to monasteries and churches, what else are they than alms? But it is ridiculous that the poor are not defrauded by clerics and monks who receive in alms the revenues of many thousands of gold pieces, and are defrauded by the mendicants who receive one loaf.
To the passage of the Gospel, then, I say that the Lord wishes the poor to be called, whether they be feeble or not; for it is to be read with a distinction: Call the poor, the feeble, etc. For the Apostle (Acts 24) says that he brought alms to the poor Christians who were at Jerusalem, who certainly were not all blind or lame. And when the Lord says, Call those who have not to make thee recompense, He does not mean those who can in no way make recompense, for such are almost none; for even the lame poor can make recompense by some service; but He means those who cannot invite in turn to a like feast, or conveniently give anything, and accordingly from whom nothing is wont to be hoped. For thus He says: “Call not,” He says, “thy friends and rich neighbors, lest perhaps they invite thee in turn, and a recompense be made thee.” Further, all the poor, even those who are sturdy and seek their living by their labors, are such that they cannot make recompense; for since they scarcely suffice for themselves, how will they be able to receive the rich at a feast, or bestow gifts on them?
To that reason I say: other things being equal, alms are always to be given to the more needy; otherwise they are rather to be given to the nearer, and the better, and to whom they are due in justice, etc. Further, for three causes it can happen that alms are to be given rather to a less needy religious than to a more needy non-religious — from Jerome at the end of the book against Vigilantius.
First, if he have truly given all his goods to the poor; for his living is due to him from the goods of the poor, not only from charity, but also in some way from justice.
Secondly, if he labor for the people by remitting sins, offering sacrifice, etc.; for to this man too something is due in some way from justice, though he seek it only from charity.
Thirdly, by reason of monastic perfection; for alms are always to be given rather to the better. But because we cannot judge of internal things, they are to be given rather to one professing greater sanctity than to one professing less, when nothing is established of the evil life of the religious. Yet the extreme necessity of any poor person is always excepted; for that is always preferred to a lesser necessity.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XLYI. Solvuntur objectiones. At in contrarium objiciunt plurima argu¬ menta, sed omnia reducuntur ad sex. Pri¬ mum est, quia mendicitas jure divino, et humano prohibita est ; nam de jure divino pa¬ tet Deuteron. XV : Omnino indigens , et mendicus non erit inter vos (1). De humano patet ex C. de mendicantibus validis, lib. XI. cap. 25. Respondeo, quantum ad legem divinam, sine dubio non prohiberi ea lege mendi¬ cationem vel mendicitatem, cum in eodem capite habeatur : Non deerunt pauperes in terra tuaetc. Nec valet responsio Lyrani, qui dicit, in prioribus verbis prohiberi publicos mendicantes, in posterioribus vero agi de pauperibus, qui etsi indigent aliorum auxi¬ lio, tamen non debent mendicare, sed debet eis a divitibus provideri. Non valet ista so¬ lutio ; nam utrobique est piaK' quod proprie significat mendicum, et ad verbum verti po¬ terant, non deerunt mendici in terra tua, sicut supra dixerat : Mendicus non erit inter vos. Et praeterea apud Judaeos multi erant mendici, ut patet Lucse XVI. de Lazaro, Lu¬ cae XVIII. de caeco secus viam mendicante, Joan. IX. de alio caeco mendicante, Actor. III. de claudo mendicante ad portam templi speciosam. Ad illa igitur verba : Non erit mendicus inter vos, respondeo dupliciter. Primo, illis verbis non prohiberi mendicitatem, sed pro¬ mitti tantam ubertatem rerum, ut nullus sit futurus mendicus ; qui sensus maxime con¬ venit Hebraeo textui, sequitur enim imme¬ diate : Quia benedicet tibi Dominus Deus tuus. Neque repugnat haec promissio illis verbis: Non deerit mendicus in terra tua etc. Nam promissio erat conditionata. Sic enim se¬ quitur post illam promissionem : Si tamen audieris vocem Domini Dei tui , et custodieris universa , quce jussit. Et quoniam sciebat Deus istam conditionem non servandam, praedicit, nunquam defuturos mendicos, et monet, ut illis benefaciant. Secundo dici posset cum B. Thoma in opusculo contra impugnantes religionem, hac lege prohiberi mendicationem, non ex parte mendicantium, sed ex parte divitum. Non enim Deus prohibet pauperibus mendi¬ cationem, cum infra dicat, non deerunt mendici, sed praecipit divitibus, ut quantum est in se, provideant ita pauperum necessi¬ tatibus, ut nulli cogantur mendicare. Melior est tamen prior solutio ; nam si Dominus jussisset divitibus ut non paterentur mendi¬ cos, peccassent divites in populo Judaeo¬ rum, qui revera permittebant mendicos tempore Christi, et tamen nunquam de hoc reprehensi leguntur a Christo, neque ab Apostolis. Praeterea, si Dominus ibi prohi¬ buit divitibus, ne permitterent mendicos, quomodo ibidem praecipit divitibus, ut men¬ dicis eleemosynam faciant? Porro lex civi¬ lis loquitur de illis, qui mendicant, ut otiose vivant, vel ut lucrentur etc. cum nullam ad- ferant populo utilitatem. Unde ibidem iner¬ tes dicuntur. Argumentum Secundum. Scriptura pas- sim detestatur mendicitatem, ut causam multorum malorum. Proverb.* XXX. dixit ille cum quo est Deus : Mendicitatem et divi¬ tias ne dederis mihi , tribue tantum victui meo necessaria ne forte satiatus illiciar ad negan¬ dum et dicam, quis est Dominus ? aut egestate compulsus furer , et per jurem nomen Dei mei. Eccles. XXVII. Propter inopiam multi deli¬ querunt. Psalm. XXXVI. Non vidi justum derelictum nec semen ejus quaerens panem. (1) Deut. XV, 4. CAPUT XLVI. 631 Psalm. CVIII. Nutantes transferantur filii ejus, et mendicent (1). Respondeo, loquuntur hsec loca de invo¬ luntaria mendicitate ; qui enim mendicat coactus, et animum habet ad opes, ille faci¬ le furatur, et pejerat etc. Quamquam ad primum locum possunt dari duae aliae solu¬ tiones. Prima est, sapientem loqui in per¬ sona infirmorum, quales sunt plurimi in Ecclesia. Illis enim nocent nimiae opes, et similiter nimia egestas. Yiris autem perfec¬ tis qui sciunt cum Paulo abundare, et penu¬ riam pati, tam opes- plurimse, quam etiam summa egestas sunt instrumenta virtutum, ut patet de Job, qui utrumque expertus est. Unde Chrysostomus homib 18. in epist. ad Hebraeos, et Ambrosius, serm. 8. in Psalm. CVIII. dicunt, haec verba Salomonis conve¬ nire hominibus Testamenti veteris, quia im¬ perfecti erant. Secunda solutio est, a sapiente hoc loco recusari non quamlibet mendicitatem, sed illam solum, quse est exposita periculo, qua¬ lis non est religiosorum mendicantium; illi enim certo sciunt sibi non defutura neces¬ saria, tum ob Christi promissionem, Mat¬ thaei XIX : Centuplum accipiet , et vitam ceter- nam possidebit ; et Marci X : Centies tantum nunc in tempore hoc (2) ; tum ob populi devo¬ tionem, a quo non dubitant se recepturos temporalia, cum ei ministrent spiritualia. Imo videntur religiosi ad litteram petere, quod sapiens petit ; nec enim volunt divi¬ tias, et ideo eas relinquunt, nec tamen vo¬ lunt mendicitatem periculosam, qua mo¬ riantur fame, et ideo dicunt, tribue tantum victui meo necessaria. Illud autem Psalm. XXXVI : Non vidi Jus¬ tum etc. difficile est; nam Elias justus erat, et tamen quaerebat panem, cum diceret vi¬ duae : Ad fer mihi , obsecro , buccellam in manu tua , III. Regum XVII. et David quaesivit panem ab Achimelech. I. Reg. XXI. et La- zarus quaerebat micas panis, Lucae XVI. Hieronymus'et August. exponunt de pane spirituali. Cajetanus et Lyranus dicunt lo¬ qui Psalmum de eo quod fit ut plurimum. Titelmannus optime dicit debere referri il¬ lud derelictum etiam ad Semen qucerens pa¬ nem, ut sit sensus : non vidi justum derelic¬ tum, neque semen ejus quaerens panem, de¬ relictum. Vel certe ibi quaerere, non signi¬ ficat quaerere quomodocumque, sed quaere¬ re cum anxietate et labore, ut illi faciunt, qui diu quaerunt, et vix inveniunt. Unde in Hebraeo est verbum in Piel t&pSD quod si¬ gnificat quaerere diligenter. Argumentum Tertium. Opes moderatae necessariae sunt, vel saltem valde utiles ad vitam beatam et perfectam in hac vita du¬ cendam; namEcclesiastae VII. dicitur; Melior est sapientia cum divitiis , et utilior videntibus solem : sicut enim protegit sapientia, sic protegit et pecunia. Actor. XX. Beatius est dare quam accipere (3), Et Arist. lib. I. Ethic. cap. 8. dicit opes esse necessarias ad felicitatem. Respondeo, opes et egestatem habere sua commoda et incommoda, nam opes prosunt, quia materiam praebent liberalitatis, et quia liberant a sollicitudine quaerendi victum, tamen obsunt quatenus adferunt magnam sollicitudinem eas conservandi, et dispen¬ sandi: Contra, paupertas prodest, quatenus praebet materiam patientiae, et liberat a sol¬ licitudine conservandi, et distribuendi pecu¬ nias ; sed obest, quatenus affert sollicitudi¬ nem quaerendi victum. Verum omnibus consideratis, videtur esse majus bonum, quod adfert voluntaria paupertas , quam id, quod adferunt divitiae ; et minus ma¬ lum, quod paupertatem comitatur, quam id, quod comitatur divitias, et praesertim iis, qui ex officio evangelizare, et Sacramenta mi¬ nistrare debent.Etpropterea Dominus Apos¬ tolis ejusmodi vitam consuluit, Matth. X. et ipsi etiam Apostoli, Actor. VI. testantur, se non parum impediri a verbo Hei, et oratio¬ ne, si opes Christianorum dispensare de¬ beant. Ad illud autem Ecclesiastae respondeo, non voluisse eum dicere, meliorem esse sa¬ pientiam cum divitiis, quam sine divitiis, sed meliorem esse sapientiam cum divitiis, quam sine sapientia divitias. Ita Titelman¬ nus, et recte ; nam in Hebrseo non habetur melior, sed bona est sapientia cum divitiis : quod non potest dici, quia sit mala sine di¬ vitiis, sed quia sine ipsa malas sunt divitiae, et hoc probat, cum ait : Sicut enim protegit sapientia, sic protegit pecunia. Sed in hoc dif¬ ferunt, quod sapientia vitam tribuit posses¬ sori suo, quasi dicat, etsi pecunia protegit in hoc mundo a multis afflictionibus : tamen sola sapientia vitam praebet, et ideo sine sa- (2) Matth. XIX, (1) Prov. XX, 8 et 9; Eccl. XXVII, 1 ; Psal. XXXVI, 25; Psal. CVIII, 10. - 29; Mare. X, 30. — (3) Eccl. VII, 12 et 13; Act. XX, 35. f 632 LIBER II. pientia parum aut nihil prosunt divitia?. Ad illud Actor. XX. dico : cseteris paribus, beatius esse dare omnia sua simul propter Christum, et accipere postea aliquid modi¬ cum, quam parum dare, et nihil accipere ; et similiter beatius esse accipere temporalia, ut possit expedite, et commode dare spiri¬ tualia, quam nihil accipiendo impediri a spiritualibus dandis. Ad locum Aristotelis respondeo. Primum, loqui eum de humana felicitate, qua? multis rebus indiget ; nam felicitas Christiana, nec ipsa in se eget ullis terrenis opibus, cum to¬ ta in Dei visione consistat, nec ad eam adi¬ piscendam valde necessariae sunt opes, cum melius humilitate et patientia, quam opibus ad regnum perveniatur aeternum. Deinde addo, loqui Aristotelem de homine politico, qui in civitate vivere, et uxorem ac liberos habere, et Rempublicam una cum aliis ge¬ rere velit. Ejusmodi autem hominibus ne¬ gari non potest, quin opes necessariae sint. Si quis autem velit sibi soli vivere, et con¬ templationi vacare, huic certe Aristoteles opes necessarias esse minime judicabit, mo¬ do is habeat unde vivat sine dispendio con¬ templationis. , Argumentum Quartum. Redigere se ad extremam inopiam est vitium ; nam virtus consistit in medio, vitia in extremis, sed da¬ re aliquid est medium, nihil dare est extre¬ mum. Praeterea confirmatur ex Paulo : II. Cor. VIII: Si voluntas prompta est , secun¬ dum id quod habet , accepta est , non secundum id , quod non habet. Non enim ut aliis sit re¬ missio , vobis autem tribulatio , sed ex aequali¬ tate (I). Respondeo, medium in virtutibus, excep¬ ta justitia, non considerari penes ipsas res absolute, sed cum ordine ad rationem, et omnes circumstantias. Yerbi gratia, non est, medium in temperantia, comedere unum panem, et extrema comedere duos, aut nul¬ lum ; sed medium est tantum panis accipe¬ re, quantum ratio dictat tibi hoc tempore convenire ; unde quod tibi est medium, al¬ teri erit extremum. Sic ergo dare omnia, extremum est et vitiosum homini patrifa- milias, qui ex officio alere debet uxorem, filios, servos etc. At ei, qui statuit mundo renuntiare, et soli orationi et prsedicationi instare, plane medium est omnia dare : et extrema erunt dare aliquid solum, et nihil dare, et per hoc solvitur confirmatio; nam Paulus alloquitur homines saeculares uxora¬ tos etc. Dices : dare omnia vel est medium ei, qui vult mundo renuntiare, ante votum ; vel solum post votum : si ante votum, ergo pec¬ cabit ille, si non det omnia, etiamsi nullum habeat votum paupertatis; nam medio virtu¬ tis opponuntur extrema vitiorum : si solum post votum, ergo mendicitas non potest vo¬ veri; nam nihil recte vovetur, nisi quod ex se jam est virtutis actus. Respondeo, consilia Evangelica ante votum, non esse actus spe¬ cialium virtutum, sed esse actus perfectos vir¬ tutum communium, ut liberalitatis, castita¬ tis, obedientise. Porro actibus perfectis non opponuntur actus vitiosi, sed actus minus perfecti; et medium actusperfecti, non habet extrema vitiosa, sed extrema minus perfecta, at post votum iidem actus jam sunt actus necessarii specialium virtutum, quibus op¬ ponuntur vera vitia specialia. Argumentum Quintum. Qui se sponte re¬ digit ad mendicitatem, exponit se periculo fame moriendi, tentatque Deum, cum sibi ipsi auferat media ordinaria ad vitam con¬ servandam, nec potest dicere, panem nos¬ trum quotidianum da nobis hodie. Nam ei responderet Dominus, quid a me petis pa¬ nem, cum tibi dederim antea, et tu illum abjeceris? Respondeo, ille diceretur exponere se tali periculo, qui omnia sua daret, quando pro¬ babiliter sciret, nihil se postea inventurum : at religiosi certam spem in Deo ponunt sibi nihil defuturum, quandoquidem Christus id promisit, et experientia longa idem testa¬ tur. Neque tentant Deum : nam medium or¬ dinarium ad vitam est cibus et potus, sive sit proprius, sive donatus ab alio : ille ergo re¬ jicit media ordinaria, qui non aut vult come¬ dere, aut non vult panem accipere, nisi per miraculum, ut illis accidit, de quibus Cas¬ sianus coli. II. cap. 6. Nec prohibetur dice¬ re, panem nostrum etc. Imo. ipsi maxime hoc dicere possunt, quandoquidem sibi nihil retinuerunt, ut Christum sequerentur. Si enim dicat aliquis Rex civi opulento, relin¬ que hic tuas possessiones et veni mecum ad bellum : certe ille jure poterit a Rege petere panem quotidianum. Argumentum Sextum. Religiosi mendi¬ cantes, injuriam faciunt veris pauperibus: (1) II. Cor. VIII, 12 et 13. CAPUT XLYI. 633 nam Lu ese XIV. dicitur: Cum facis 'pran¬ dium, voca pauperes, debiles, claudos, caecos, qui non habent retribuere tibi , et beatus eris (1). « Hoc loco, inquit Armacanus, Dominus non jubet vocari pauperes quoscumque, sed pau¬ peres debiles, claudos, vel csecos, neque etiam debiles quoscumque, sed debiles pau¬ peres: nam pauperes non debiles, possunt retribuere laborando: debiles non paupe¬ res, possunt retribuere pecunias dando. » Praeterea, ordo charitatis postulat, ut sem- per detur eleemosyna magis egenti, magis autem egent pauperes debiles, quam fortes, quales sunt religiosi, non igitur licet religio¬ sis eleemosynas petere nisi forte aegrotent. Respondeo, si argumentum aliquid con¬ cluderet, non soli religiosi mendicantes, sed etiam omnes Clerici et Monachi, qui ex pos¬ sessionibus vivunt, et non sunt debiles, claudi, vel cseci peccarent : nam possessio¬ nes donatse monasteriis, et Ecclesiis, quid sunt aliud quam eleemosynae? Ridiculum au¬ tem est, non fraudari pauperes a Clericis et Monachis, qui accipiunt in eleemosynam redditus multorum millium aureorum, et fraudari a mendicantibus, qui accipiunt unum panem. Ad locum ergo Evangelii dico, Dominum velle vocari pauperes, sive sint debiles, sive non : legendum est enim cum distinctione, \mca pauperes, debiles etc. Nam Apostolus Actor. XXIV. dicit, se attulisse eleemosynam pauperibus Christianis, qui erant in Hieru¬ salem, quos certum est non fuisse omnes csecos, vel claudos. Et cum Dominus ait : Voca eos qui non habent retribuere tibi, non intelligit eos, qui nullo modo possunt retribuere, tales enim nulli fere sunt: nam etiam pauperes claudi possunt retribuere aliquod obsequium, sed intelligit eos, qui non possunt reinvitare ad simile convivium, vel commode aliquid donare, et proinde a quibus nihil sperari solet. Sic enim ait : « Noli, inquit, vocare amicos et vicinos di¬ vites, ne forte ipsi te reinvitent, et fiat tibi retributio. » Porro, pauperes omnes, etiam qui validi sunt, et suis laboribus victum quae¬ runt, tales sunt, ut non possint retribuere : nam cum vix sufficiant sibi, quomodo pote¬ runt convivio divites excipere, aut eis mune¬ ra largiri ? Ad illam rationem dico, CEeteris paribus dandam esse eleemosynam semper magis in¬ digenti, alioqui magis danda est propin¬ quiori, et meliori, et cui debetur ex justitia etc. Porro, tribus de causis potest fieri, ut sit danda eleemosyna potius religioso minus indigenti, quam non religioso magis indi¬ genti : ex Hieronymo in fine libri contra Vi¬ gilantium. Primo, si is dederit vere omnia sua pau¬ peribus : debetur enim illi victus ex bonis pauperum, non solum ex charitate , sed etiam aliquo modo ex justitia. Secundo, si laboret pro populo condo¬ nando, sacra faciendo etc. nam et huic de¬ betur aliquo modo ex justitia, licet is non petat, nisi ex charitate. Tertio, ratione perfectionis monasticae : nam danda est semper eleemosyna potius meliori. Quia vero non possumus judicare de internis, danda est potius profitenti majo¬ rem sanctitatem, quam profitenti minorem, quando non constat de mala vita religiosi. Excipitur tamen semper extrema necessitas cujuscumque pauperis : illa enim semper praeponitur minori necessitati (2).