Human solicitude busies itself about the common measure of human life in three chief particulars. First, about one's own person, what one is to do or where to live; secondly, about persons related to oneself, especially wife and children; thirdly, about the procurement of exterior things, needful for the support of life. For cutting off solicitude about exterior things there is given in the divine law the counsel of poverty, which prompts to the casting away of the things of this world. Hence the Lord says: If tbou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou bast and give to the poor, and come, follow me (Matt, xix, 21). For cutting off solicitude about wife and children there is given man the counsel of virginity, or continence. Hence it is said: About virgins I bate no commandment of the Lord, but I give a counsel; and, adding the reason of this counsel, he continues: He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things of the Lord, how he may please God; but he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and is divided (1 Cor. vii, 25- 33). For cutting off man's solicitude even about himself there is given the the particular act, whereby a man, once poor, bat to go about in a Master's gown. A civilian would not now making money fast and eagerly, " exceeds his be received in society, who persisted in wearing the proper measure," as St Thomas puts it. Like every- uniform of a field-marshal. St Thomas would apthing else in the Middle Ages, differences of class, parently take such uppishness and assumption for a marked by differences of dress, were more fixed and venial sin. immutable than with us. Sumptuary laws restrained the * E.g., in the miser.
low-born from donning the habiliments proper to the t The ruin of a lower happiness may be sheer nobility. Sumptuary laws are not yet quite dead. A ruin and waste. Or it may be the building up of a University would take it in ill part for a Commoner higher.
counsel of obedience, whereby a man commits the}disposal|of his a<5ts to his superior. Therefore it is said: Obey your superiors and be subjeSt to them, for they Watch as having to render an account of your souls (Heb. xiii, 17).
Because the highest perfection of human life consists in the mind of man being detached from other things and fixed on God, and the three counsels aforesaid seem singularly to dispose the mind to this detachment, we may sec in them proper adjuncts of a state of perfection, not that they themselves constitute perfection, but inasmuch as they are dispositions to perfection, which consists in the union of the detached soul with God. This is expressly shown in the words of our Lord counselling poverty: If thou wilt be perfeB, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and follow me, — where He places the perfection of life in the following of Him.
They may also be called effeCts and signs of perfection. For when the mind is strongly possessed with love and desire of anything, it thereupon counts other things as quite secondary: so from man's mind being carried with fervent love and desire to divine things, wherein its perfection consists, the consequence is a casting off of all that might retard its movement to God, —care of property, affection for wife and children, and even love of one's own self. This is signified by the words of Scripture: If a man shall giloe the whole substance of his house in exchange for love, he will account it nothing (Cant, viii, 7): Hating found one precious pearl, he Went and sold all that he had, and acquired it (Matt, xiii, 46): The advantages that I had I considered as dirt, that I might gain Christ (Philip, iii, 8).
Since then the three counsels aforesaid are dispositions to perfection, and effeCts of perfection, and signs of the same, they who make the three corre- sponding vows to God are properly said to be in a state of perfection. The perfection to which they dispose the mind consists in the free converse of the soul with God. Hence they who make profession of the aforesaid vows are called 'religious,' as dedicating themselves and all that is theirs to God by a manner of sacrifice, extending to property by poverty, to the body by con- tinence, and to the will by obedience: for religion consists in the worship of God (Chap. CXIX).
CHAPTERS CXXXII, CXXXV- Arguments against Voluntary Poverty, with Replies THERE have been found persons to condemn voluntary poverty, thereby going against the teaching of the gospel. Of these Vigilan- tius was the first. He has had imitators, men making themselves out to be doctors of the law, not understanding either what they say or about what they affirm (1 Tim. i, 7).* They have been led by these and the like reasons.
*Arg. 1. Animals that cannot find the necessaries of life at any time of the year, have a natural instinct for gathering such necessaries at a time when * A reference to William de Saint Amour, the was little questioned. But the Friar Preachers and the great opponent of the religious Orders in the Uni- Friar Minors, coming into towns and universities, soon versity of Paris, against whom St Thomas, about the provoked jealousy and set men's minds questioning same time that he penned these chapters, wrote also the whole notion of religious life. Saint Amour's invechis two Opuscula, Against the assailants of the worship of tive against the Friars was entitled, Perils of the latter (jod and religion9 Of the perfection of religious life. As days. Vigilantius was a contemporary of St Jerome, long as religious lived apart in monasteries and lonely who one night in the year 406 sat up and finished places, they encountered no rivalry and their institute a Liber contra Vigilantium at a sitting.
they can be found, and laying them up, as we see in bees and ants. But men need many things for the preservation of their life, which cannot be found any time. Therefore man has a natural tendency to gather together and lay up such things, and it is against the law of nature to scatter them again.
Reply. Still it is not necessary for every one to be busy with this task of gathering: as even among bees not all have the same duty, some gather honey, others make cells out of wax, — to say nothing of the queen-bees being exempt from all such occupations. And so it must be with men: for many things being necessary to human life, for which one man by himself cannot suffice, different functions have to be undertaken by different men, — some have to labour in the fields, some to tend cattle, and some to build. And be- cause human life needs not only corporal but also spiritual aids, some have to devote themselves to spiritual things for the benefit of the rest; and these persons should be set free from the care of temporals.
Arg. 2. As every one is bound by natural law to preserve his life, so also his exterior substance, as being the means whereby life is preserved.
Reply. For them who relinquish temporal things there still remains every likelihood and hope of finding the sustenance necessary for life, either through their own labour, or the benefaflions of others, whether in the shape of possessions held in common or of food daily given: for what we can do through our friends, in a manner we can do of ourselves, as the Philosopher says [Eth. Nic. VIII, xi).
Arg. 3. Man is by nature a social animal. But society cannot be main- tained among men except on a system of mutual aid. To take their part in this system of aid they render themselves incapable, who fling away their exterior substance.
Reply. It is a greater thing to aid another in spirituals than in temporals, spiritual things being the more necessary to the end of final happiness. Hence he who by voluntary poverty strips himself of the ability to aid others in temporals, in order to the acquirement of spiritual good, whereby he may aid others to better advantage, does nothing against the good of human society.
Arg. 4. If it is an evil thing to have worldly substance, a good thing to rid neighbours of evil, and an evil thing to lead them into evil, it follows that to give any of the substance of this world to a needy person is evil, and to take away such substance from him who has it is good: which is absurd. It is therefore a good thing to have worldly substance, and to fling it entirely away by voluntary poverty is evil.
Reply. Wealth is a good thing for man, so far as it is dircfted to rational good, but not in itself:* hence poverty may very well be better than wealth, if by poverty man finds his way to a more perfefl good.
Arg. 5. Occasions of evil are to be shunned. But poverty is an occasion of evil, leading men on to thefts, flatteries, perjuries, and the like.
Reply. Neither riches, nor poverty, nor any other exterior condition is of itself the good of man. Such things are good only as leading to the good of # " As the various organs of the body have no otherwise attractive to mere sense...Novc in man, function, and therefore no real existence apart from like <pwm in the plant and animal worlds, recognises the living body, so particular good things (virtue, andimposes definite limits. Particular deuils are valued health, beauty, wealth) have no existence, except as by it, not for themselves (for if they were, no limit elements of the noble life...The Idea of the Good could be assigned to their desirable multiplication) is the unity of good things, and that by reason of but for the sake of the beautiful Life which transwhich they are good, — that definite system of order, forms them." — Professor J. A. Stewart, Notes on tht by belonging to, and subserving which, particular Niconuuhean Ethics, Vol. I, p. 96, ed. 1892. things are said to be good, rather than pleasant, or reason. Hence vice may arise out of any of them, when they are not turned to man's use according to the rule of reason. Still not for that are they to be accounted simply evil, but only the abuse of them is evil.
*Arg. 6. Virtue, lying in the mean, is spoilt by either extreme. There is a virtue called liberality, which consists in giving where one should give, and holding one's hand where one should hold it. On the side of defe6t is the vice of stinginess, which holds its hand in all cases indiscriminately. On the side of excess is the vice of lavish giving away of everything, as is done by those who embrace voluntary poverty, a vice akin to prodigality.
Reply. The golden mean is not determined according to quantity of ex- terior goods, but according to the rule of reason. Hence sometimes it happens that what is extreme in quantity of some exterior commodity is the mean according to the rule of reason. There is none who tends to great things more than the magnanimous man, or who in expenditure surpasses the munificent, or princely man.* The rule of reason does not measure the mere quantity of commodity employed, but the condition of the person and his intention, fit- ness of place, time, and the like, also many conditions of virtue. Therefore one does not run counter to virtue by voluntary poverty, even though one abandon all things. Nor is this an aft of prodigality, seeing that it is done with a due end and other due conditions. To expose oneself to death, under due conditions, is an a6t of fortitude and a virtue: yet that is going far be- yond the abandonment of one's possessions.
CHAPTERS CXXXIII, CXXXVl-Of various Modes of Living adopted by the V itaries of Voluntary Poverty FIRST MODE. The first mode is for the possessions of all to be sold, and all to live in common on [the capital fund accumulated by] the price, as was done under the Apostles at Jerusalem: As many as had possessions in lands or houses sold them> and laid the price at the feet of the Apostles^ and division was made to each according to the need of each (Acts iv, Criticism. It is not easy to induce many men with great possessions to take up this mode of life; and if the amount realised out of the possessions of a few rich is divided among many recipients, it will not last long.
Reply. This mode will do, but not for a long time. And therefore we do not read of the Apostles instituting this mode of living when they passed to the nations among whom the Church was to take root and endure.
Second Mode. To have possessions in common, sufficient to provide for all members of the community out of what the property brings in, as is done in most monasteries.
Criticism. Earthly possessions breed solicitude, as well for the gathering in of the returns as also for the defence of them against a6ts of fraud and violence; and this solicitude is all the greater as greater possessions are re- quired for the support of many. In this way then the end of voluntary poverty is defeated, at least in the case of many, who have the procuratorship of these possessions. Besides, common possession is wont to be a source of discord.
Reply. The administration of these common possessions may be left to * St Thomas deals with the Aristotelian virtues of magnanimity and munificence in Sum. TbeoL 2a-2ac, qq. 119, *34 (Aquinas Etbictu, II, 261, 278).
the care of one or a few persons, and the rest remain without solicitude for temporals, free to attend to spiritual things. Nor do they who undertake this solicitude for others lose any of the perfe6tion of their life: for what they seem to lose by defe6t of quiet they recover in the service of charity, in which perfe6tion consists. Nor is there any loss of concord by occasion of this mode of common possessions. For they who adopt voluntary poverty ought to be persons who despise temporal things; and such persons are not the men to quarrel over temporals.
Third mode. To live by the labour of one's hands, as St Paul did and ad- vised others to do. We bate not eaten bread of any one for nothing, but in labour and fatigue, night and day Wording, not to be a burden to any of you: not that we bad not authority to aft otherwise, but to present ourselves to you as a model for you to imitate: for TPben we were with you, TPe laid doTPn to you the rule, if any man Kill not *toor\, neither let him eat (2 Thess. iii, 8-10).
Criticism. It seems folly for one to abandon what is necessary, and after- wards try to get it back again by labour. Moreover, whereas the end of the counsel of voluntary poverty is the readier following of Christ in freedom from worldly solicitudes, earning one's livelihood by one's own labour is a matter of more anxiety than living on the possessions which one had before, especially if they were a modest competency. And the Lord seems to forbid manual labour to His disciples in the text: Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap: consider the lilies of the field how they grow, they labour not, neither do they spin (Matt, vi, 26, 28). Moreover this mode of living is inadequate. Many desire a perfedt life, who have not the capacity for earning their livelihood by labour, not having been brought up thereto: also there is the possibility of sickness. And no little time must be spent in labour to suffice for earning a livelihood: many spend their whole time in labour, and yet can scarcely live. Thus the votaries of voluntary poverty will be hindered from study and spiritual exercises; and their poverty will be more of a hindrance than a help to the perfe6tion of their life.
'Reply* In the case of rich men, their possessions involve solicitude in getting them or keeping them; and the heart of the owner is drawn to them; inconve- niences which do not happen to one whose sole obje6t is to gain his daily bread by the labour of his hands. Little time is sufficient, and little solicitude is ne- cessary, for gaining by the labour of one's hands enough to support nature: but for gathering riches and superfluities, as craftsmen in the world propose, much time has to be spent and much solicitude shown. Our Lord in the Gospel has not forbidden labour of the hands, but anxiety of mind about the necessaries of life. He did not say, Do not labour, but, <Be not solicitous. And this precept He enforces by an argument from less to greater. For if divine providence sustains birds and lilies, which are of inferior condition, and can- not labour at those works whereby men get their livelihood, much more will it provide for men, who are of worthier condition, and to whom it has given ability to win their livelihood by their own labours. It is the exception for a man not to be able to win enough to live upon by the labour of his hands; and an institution is not to be rejedted for exceptional cases. The remedy is, for him whose labour is not enough to keep him, to be helped out either by others of the same society, who can make more by their labour than is necessary for them, or by others who are well off. Nor need those who are content with little spend much time in seeking a livelihood by the labour of their hands: so they are not much hindered from spiritual works, espe- GOD & HIS CREATURES BOOK III cially as in working with their hands they can think of God and praise Him.
Fourth mode. To live on the alms contributed by others, who retain their wealth. This seems to have been the method observed by our Lord: for it is said that sundry women followed Christ, and ministered to bim out of their means (Luke viii, 2, 3).
Criticism. It seems irrational for one to abandon his own and live on an- other's property, — or for one to receive of another and pay him back nothing in return. There is no impropriety in ministers of the altar and preachers, to whom the people are indebted for do&rine and other divine gifts, receiving support at their hands: for the labourer is worthy of his hire, as the Lord says (Matt, x, 10); and the Apostle, the Lord hath ordained that they who preach the gospel should live by the gospel (1 Cor. ix, 14). But it is an apparent absur- dity for these persons who minister to the people in no office to receive the necessaries of life from the people. Others moreover, who through sickness and poverty cannot help themselves, must lose their alms through these pro- fessors of voluntary poverty, since men neither can nor will succour a great multitude of poor. Moreover independence of spirit is particularly requisite for perfeft virtue: otherwise men easily become partakers in other people's sins, either by expressly consenting to them, or by palliating or dissembling them. But this method of life is a great drawback to such independence, for a man cannot but shrink from offending one by whose patronage he lives.
Moreover the necessity of exposing one's necessities to others, and begging relief, renders mendicants obje6ts of contempt and dislike, whereas persons who* take up a perfeft life ought to be reverenced and loved. But if any one will praise the pradlice of begging as conducive to humility, he seems to talk altogether unreasonably. For the praise of humility consists in despising earthly exaltation, such as comes of riches, honours, fame, but not in despising lofti- ness of virtue, for in that respeft we ought to be magnanimous. That then would be a blameworthy humility, for the sake of which any one should do anything derogatory to loftiness of virtue. But the pra6tice of begging is so derogatory, as well because it is more virtuous to give than to receive, as also because there is a look of filthy lucre about it.
Reply. There is no impropriety in him being supported by the alms of others, who has abandoned his own possessions for the sake of something that turns to the profit of others. Were this not so, human society could not go on. If every one busied himself only about his own affairs, there would be no one to minister to the general advantage. The best thing then for human society (hominum societati) is that they who negleft the care of their own interests to serve the general advantage, should be supported by those whose advantage they serve. Therefore do soldiers live on pay provided by others, and civil rulers are provided for out of the common fund. But they who embrace voluntary poverty to follow Christ, certainly abandon what they have to serve the common advantage, enlightening the people by wisdom, learning and example, or sustaining them by their prayer and intercession. Hence there is nothing base in their living on what they get from others, seeing that they make a greater return, receiving temporals and helping others in spirituals. Hence the Apostle says: Let your abundance in temporals supply their want, that their abundance in spirituals also may supply your Want (2 Cor. viii, 14: cf. Rom. xv, 27). For he who abets another becomes a partner in his work, whether for good or evil. By their example other men become less attached to riches, seeing them abandon riches altogether for the sake of perfedlion. And the less one loves riches, the more ready will he be to make distribution of his riches in other's need: hence they who embrace voluntary poverty are useful to other poor people, provoking the rich to works of mercy by word and example. Nor do they lose their liberty of spirit for the little they receive from others for their sustenance, A man does not lose his independence except for things that become predominant in his affe&ions: for things that a man despises, if they are given to him, he does not lose his liberty. Nor is there any unseemliness in their exposing their necessities, and asking what they need either for themselves or others. The Apostles are read to have done so (2 Cor. viii, ix). Such begging does not render men contemptible, if it is done moderately, for necessaries, not for superfluities, without importunity, and with due regard to the conditions of the persons asked, and place and time. There is no shadow of disgrace about such begging, though there would be, if it were done with importunity or without discretion.
There is, no doubt, a certain humiliation in begging, as having a thing done to you is less honourable than doing it, and receiving than giving, and obeying royal power than governing and reigning. The spontaneous embrac- ing of humiliations is a practice of humility, not in any and every case, but when it is done for a needful purpose: for humility, being a virtue, does nothing indiscreetly. It is then not humility but folly to embrace any and every humiliation: but where virtue calls for a thing to be done, it belongs to humility not to shrink from doing it for the humiliation that goes with it, for instance, not to refuse some mean service where charity calls upon you so to help your neighbour. Thus then where begging is requisite for the perfection of a life of poverty, it is a point of humility to bear this humiliation. Sometimes too, even where our own duty does not require us to embrace humiliations, it is an a6t of virtue to take them up in order to encourage others by our example more easily to bear what is incumbent on them: for a general sometimes will do the office of a common soldier to encourage the rest. Sometimes again we may make a virtuous use of humilia- tions as a medicine. Thus if any one's mind is prone to undue self-exaltation, he may with advantage make a moderate use of humiliations, either self- imposed or imposed by others, so to check the elation of his spirit by putting himself on a level with the lowest class of the community in the doing of mean offices.
Fifth mode. There have also been some who said that the votaries of a perfe6t life should take no thought either for begging or labouring or laying up anything for themselves, but should expe6t their sustenance from God alone, according to the texts, Be not solicitous, and, Take no thought Jor the morrow (Matt, vi, 25, 34).
Criticism. This seems quite an irrational proceeding. For it is foolish to wish an end and omit the means ordained to that end. Now to the end of eating there is ordained some human care of providing oneself with food. They then who cannot live without eating ought to have some solicitude about seeking their food. There follows also a strange absurdity: for by parity of reasoning one might say that he will not walk, or open his mouth to eat, or avoid a stone falling, or a sword striking him, but expe6t God to do all, which is tantamount to tempting God.* * See Sum. Tbeol. 2a-2se, q. 97, Of Tempting God, having a safe line of adtion open to him, unreasonably where the gloss is quoted: " He tempts God, who, puts himself in danger by way of making trial of the Reply. It is quite an irrational error to suppose that all solicitude about making a livelihood is forbidden by the Lord. Every aftion requires care: if then a man ought to have no solicitude about temporal things, it follows that he should do nothing temporal, which is neither a possible nor a reason- able course. For God has prescribed to every being aftions according to the peculiarity of its nature, Man, being made up of a nature at once spiritual and corporeal, must by divine ordinance exercise bodily actions; and at the same time have spiritual aims; and he is the more perfect, the more spiritual his aims are. But it is not a mode of perfe6tion proper to man to omit bodily aftion: bodily a6tions serve necessary purposes in the preservation of life; and whoever omits them negle6ts his life, which he is bound to preserve. To look for aid from God in matters in which one can help oneself by one's own a6tion, and so to leave that a6tion out, is a piece of folly and a tempting of God: for it is proper to the divine goodness to provide for things, not immediately by doing everything itself, but by moving other things to their own proper a&ion (Chap. LXXVII). We must not then omit the means of helping ourselves, and expect God to help us in defe£t of all a<5tion of our own: that is inconsistent with the divine ordinance and with His goodness.
But because, though it rests with us to a6t, still that our actions shall attain their due end does not rest with us, owing to obstacles that may arise, the success that each one shall have in his aftion comes under divine arrange- ment. The Lord then lays it down that we ought not to be solicitous for what does not belong to us, that is, for the success of our aftions: but He has not forbidden us to be solicitous about what does belong to us, that is, for the work which we ourselves do. It is not then to aft against the precept of the Lord, to feel solicitude for the things which have to be done; but he goes against the precept, who is solicitous for what may turn out even when (etiam si) he does all that is in his power to do, and takes due precautions beforehand (praemittat) to meet the contingency of such untoward events.