site: bonaventure

collection: Quaestiones disputatae de perfectione evangelica

title: Quaest. 2, Art. 2

title_alt:
De paupertate quoad mendicitatem
On poverty as to mendicancy

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 134 -->

### Articulus II. *De paupertate quoad mendicitatem*[^p134-1].

Consequenter est quaestio de mendicitate, et quaeritur, utrum mendicare pro Christo sit christianae perfectionis; et voco *mendicare* eleemosynam quaerere seu de quotidianis eleemosynis vivere. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Primo auctoritate Psalmi[^p134-2]: *Timete Dominum omnes Sancti eius, quoniam non est inopia timentibus eum:* ergo non stant simul esse inopem et timere Deum.

2. Item, Psalmus[^p134-3]: *Non vidi iustum derelictum nec semen eius quaerens panem:* ergo qui panem quaerit non est iustus nec semen iusti.

3. Item, Psalmus[^p134-4]: *Nutantes transferantur filii eius et mendicent;* sed nihil, quod Psalmista in Dei spiritu loquens imprecatur in poenam, spectat ad perfectionem evangelicam seu perfectam iustitiam; mendicare est huiusmodi: ergo etc.

4. Item, Ecclesiastici quadragesimo[^p134-5]: *Fili mi, in vita tua ne indigeas; melius est enim mori quam indigere:* ergo melius est esse mortuum quam mendicum.

5. Item, Actuum vigesimo[^p134-6]: *Beatius est magis dare quam accipere;* sed dare eleemosynam non facit hominem pervenire ad perfectionem evangelicam: ergo multo minus nec accipere.

6. Item, Lucae duodecimo[^p134-7]: *Vendite quae possidetis;* Glossa: «ut, omnibus pro Deo semel spretis, postea labore manuum operemini unde vivatis, vel eleemosynam faciatis»: vivere igitur de proprio labore et eleemosynam facere spectat ad evangelicam perfectionem: ergo oppositum eius, scilicet mendicare et de alieno labore vivere, est contrarium perfectioni evangelicae.

7. Item, primae ad Thessalonicenses quarto[^p134-8]: *Nullius aliquid desideretis;* Glossa: «*Nullius*

<!-- page 135 -->

*aliquid desideretis,* nedum rogetis, vel tollatis». Si ergo plus est *rogare* vel *petere* quam *appetere,* et primum tanquam illicitum ab Apostolo prohibetur, scilicet *desiderare* vel appetere quod est alterius: ergo multo fortius *petere.*

8. Item, primae ad Thessalonicenses quinto[^p135-1]: «*Rogamus vos, ut noveritis eos qui laborant inter vos et praesunt vobis in Domino;* Glossa: «Sicut divitiae negligentiam pariunt salutis, sic egestas, dum saturari cupit, a iustitia declinat»; sed quod facit declinare a iustitia non pertinet ad perfectionem evangelicam: ergo etc.

9. Item, secundae ad Thessalonicenses tertio[^p135-2]: *Si quis non vult operari, non manducet;* Glossa: «Vult Apostolus, servos Dei corporaliter operari, ut habeant unde vivant, et non compellantur egestate necessaria petere»; sed hoc est mendicantium: ergo servorum Dei non est mendicare, secundum Apostolum.

10. Item, eodem capitulo super illud[^p135-3]: *Ut formam daremus vobis;* Glossa: «Qui frequenter ad alienam mensam convenit, otio deditus, necesse est, ut aduletur pascenti se»; sed adulari est contrarium veritati et perfectioni: ergo etc.

11. Item, Causa duodecima, quaestione prima, *Videntes*[^p135-4], dicit Urbanus Papa, quod «episcopi omnibus communi vita vivere volentibus ministrare cuncta necessaria debent, prout melius poterunt, ut nemo in eis egens inveniatur». Et post: «Si aliquis exstiterit modernis aut futuris temporibus, qui hoc avellere nitatur, iam dicta damnatione feriatur»: ergo contra canonicas sanctiones est, quod aliqui vivant vita communi in Ecclesia, egendo et mendicando in ea.

12. Item, de Consecratione, distinctione prima[^p135-5] inhibetur, ne ecclesia consecretur, nisi prius dotetur: ergo si ecclesia non debet consecrari, nisi habeant unde sustententur qui in ea ministrant, multo fortius nec aliqua religio institui debet sine possessione sustentativa.

13. Item, in iure civili inhibetur, quod validi non mendicent, lege de Mendicantibus validis[^p135-6]; sed magis debet esse ordinata Ecclesia quam respublica: si ergo, quod validi mendicent, est contra rectam gubernationem reipublicae, multo magis est contra sublimitatem perfectionis evangelicae.

14. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *ratione.* Mendicare est opus indifferens; sed indifferens non fit opus perfectionis per additionem finis, sicut apparet manifeste in aliis operibus, ut ire ad ecclesiam et facere eleemosynam: ergo etc.

15. Item, perfectionis est gratis et liberaliter servire et obligationes peccatorum refugere; sed qui eleemosynam recipit obligat se ad interveniendum[^p135-7] pro peccatis alienis: si ergo obligatio huiusmodi perfectioni non consonat, ergo etc.

16. Item, huiusmodi qui mendicant ex professione aut hoc faciunt, quia *pauperes,* aut quia *praedicatores.* Si quia *pauperes:* ergo omnes pauperes, qui mendicant, perfecti sunt, quod est contra Augustinum in libro de Opere monachorum[^p135-8], qui reprehendit monachos mendicantes et nihil operari volentes. Si quia *praedicatores:* ergo nullus inter eos mendicare debet, qui non praedicat; cuius contrarium videmus tota die.

17. Item, praedicare est quid spirituale; sed qui spirituale dat et temporale accipit similis est Giezi, qui pecuniam accepit a Naaman obtentu beneficii spiritualis prius sibi exhibiti[^p135-9]; hoc autem est damnabile: ergo damnabile est praedicatori mendicare: ergo non est perfectionis evangelicae.

18. Item, perfectorum est abstinere *ab omni mala specie*[^p135-10]; sed hoc est mala species, quod praedicatores temporalia petant, quia in hoc sunt similes pseudo-praedicatoribus: ergo etc.

<!-- page 136 -->

19. Item, huiusmodi aut habent auctoritatem in praedicando, aut non habent. Si non habent: ergo male faciunt praedicando, ergo nil merentur; si habent; sed qui habent auctoritatem possunt petere potestative: ergo tales mendicando[^p136-1] iniuriantur auctoritati praedicationis Evangelii: ergo in hoc non sunt perfecti, sed impii.

20. Item, tutius et perfectius est sequi viros probatiores et sapientiores; sed viri probatissimi et sapientissimi in religionibus fuerunt Basilius, Benedictus, Augustinus, Hieronymus, Gregorius, Hilarius et Paulinus; sed tales sic sua reliquerunt, quod communia possederunt, nec mendicasse leguntur: ergo modus iste mendicandi de novo introductus per Dominicum et Franciscum videtur esse superstitiosus et vanus, cum stultum videatur sensum et spiritum duorum pauperum hominum praeponere tantae sapientiae et sublimitati Sanctorum praecedentium et doctorum[^p136-2].

Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Matthaei decimo[^p136-3]: *Nolite possidere aurum neque argentum neque pecuniam in zonis vestris neque peram in via neque duas tunicas nec calceamenta;* Glossa: «Nec ipsa necessaria nec cellarium secum vehant; nihil praeter indumentum, quo quis contentus esse potest». Sed in hoc traditur forma perfectionis ipsis Apostolis, et quod perfectionis est perfectum est imitari: ergo taliter per mundum ire spectat ad perfectionem evangelicam. Sed hoc est mendicare et vivere de eleemosyna: igitur hoc spectat ad evangelicam perfectionem.

2. Item, Marci sexto[^p136-4]: *Praecepit eis, ne quid tollerent in via, neque panem neque in zona aes;* aut igitur praecepit hoc eis tanquam *praelatis,* aut tanquam *perfectis.* Si tanquam *praelatis:* ergo ad illud adhuc praelati essent astricti; quod manifeste falsum est. Praecepit igitur hoc eis tanquam viris perfectis; sed perfectio proponitur communiter omnibus imitanda, quia dicitur: *Qui potest capere capiat:* ergo sic vivere spectat ad perfectionem evangelicam.

3. Item, Lucae nono[^p136-5]: *Nihil tuleritis in via neque virgam neque peram neque panem neque pecuniam;* Glossa: «*Virgam non ferre* est non esse sollicitum de his quae necessaria sunt humanae sustentationi, quia haec debentur praedicatoribus»; si *ergo* excludere sollicitudinem de necessaria sustentatione, hoc Dominus persuasit Apostolis, quos etiam ad praedicandum inter *infideles* misit; multo fortius, cum praedicatur Evangelium *fidelibus,* perfectionis est de huiusmodi non esse sollicitum, sed victu et vestitu sibi dato esse contentum.

4. Item, Lucae nono[^p136-6]: *Quicumque susceperit puerum in nomine meo;* Interlinearis: «pauperem»; et alia Glossa: «Qui imitatorem Christi recipit Christum recipit»: ergo cum suscipitur pauper imitans Christum, suscipitur Christus. Si ergo perfectionis evangelicae est esse pauperem et Christi imitatorem; perfectionis evangelicae est in tali paupere pro Christo suscipi velle. Si igitur hic mendicando petit, a perfectione evangelica non recedit.

5. Item, Lucae decimo[^p136-7]: *Nolite portare sacculum neque peram;* Glossa: «Tanta debet praedicatori esse fiducia in Deo, ut praesentis vitae sumtus, etsi non praevideat, sibi tamen non defecturos certissime sciat, ne, dum occupatur mens ad temporalia, minus praedicet aeterna». Ad expeditiorem igitur praedicationem veritatis facit, quod quis temporalia non praevideat sibi, sed exspectet sibi ab aliis dari, cum necesse habuerit: ergo talis modus vivendi consonat veritati et evangelicae perfectioni.

6. Item, Lucae decimo sexto[^p136-8]: *Facite vobis amicos de mammona iniquitatis, ut, cum defeceritis, recipiant vos in aeterna tabernacula;* Glossa: «Non quoslibet pauperes, sed eos qui possunt in aeterna tabernacula recipere»; sed tales sunt *pauperes*

<!-- page 137 -->

*spiritu, quorum est regnum caelorum:* ergo secundum divinum consilium est, quod eleemosynae talibus pauperibus dentur et quod ab eis suscipiantur. Sed quod divino consilio consonat perfectioni evangelicae non repugnat: ergo etc.

7. Item, Hieronymus adversus Vigilantium[^p137-1], tractans praemissum verbum, dicit: «Num isti pauperes, inter quorum sordes et illuviem corporis flagrans libido dominatur, possunt habere aeterna tabernacula, qui nec praesentia possident nec futura? Non enim simpliciter pauperes, sed pauperes spiritu beati appellantur, de quibus scriptum est: *Beatus qui intelligit super egenum et pauperem, in die mala liberabit eum Dominus.* In vulgi pauperibus sustentandis nequaquam intellectu, sed eleemosyna opus est; in sanctis pauperibus beatitudo est intelligentiae, ut ei tribuas, qui erubescit accipere, et dum acceperit, dolet, metens carnalia et seminans spiritualia».

8. Item, secundae ad Corinthios octavo[^p137-2]: *Vestra abundantia illorum inopiam suppleat, ut et illorum abundantia vestrae inopiae sit supplementum;* Glossa: «*Vestra abundantia* terrenorum *suppleat illorum inopiam, ut* e converso *abundantia* meritorum *illorum* spiritualium, qui divinis vacant, *vestrae sit inopiae supplementum*». Si ergo hoc spectat ad perfectionem dominici corporis, quod membra sibi communicent *in ratione dati et accepti;* ad perfectionem Ecclesiae et Evangelli facit, quod pauperes iusti, sustentationem petant et accipiant a divitibus mundanis et imperfectis. — *Si dicas,* quod possunt *accipere,* sed non *petere;* hoc nihil est, quia divites mundani possunt petere orationes virorum spiritualium ad relevandum inopiam meritorum suorum: ergo versa vice possunt pauperes spirituales petere eleemosynam corporalem ad sustentationem corporum.

9. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *exemplo Christi.* Psalmus[^p137-3]: *Ego autem mendicus sum et pauper;* Glossa: «Hoc dicit Christus de se: Ego mendicus sum in forma servi. *Mendicus* est qui ab alio petit, *pauper* est qui sibi non sufficit». Sed constat, quod hoc non intelligitur de Christo quantum ad dona sive bona spiritualia, quia comprehensor et omnis gratiae plenus erat: ergo intelligitur quantum ad bona temporalia, igitur quantum ad illa mendicus erat et ab alio petebat.

10. Item, Psalmus[^p137-4]: *Persecutus est hominem inopem et mendicum;* Glossa: «scilicet Christum. Pauperes persequi sola saevitia est, alii vero pro divitiis et honoribus interdum huiusmodi patiuntur».. Aut ergo dicitur Christus *mendicus,* quia mendicabat a *Patre,* aut quia mendicabat ab *homine.* Si quia mendicabat a *Patre;* ergo omnes homines sunt mendici, tam divites quam pauperes: ergo sic Christum persequi non fuisset summa saevitia; si quia mendicabat ab *hominibus,* habemus propositum: ergo etc.

11. Item, Marci undecimo[^p137-5]: *Circumspectis omnibus, exiit in Bethaniam;* Glossa: «Si quis eum hospitio susciperet; tantae enim paupertatis fuit et ita nulli adulatus, ut in tanta urbe nullum hospitium inveniret»; sed constat, quodsi voluisset hospitium conducere, quod invenisset ad conducendum: ergo circumspiciebat tanquam pauperculus et mendicus.

12. Item, Lucae decimo nono[^p137-6]: *Zachaee, festinans descende, quia hodie in domo tua oportet me manere;* Glossa: «Non invitatus invitat»; sed invitare alium ad hoc, quod eum recipiat hospitio, nihil aliud est quam mendicare et petere: ergo etc.

13. Item, Ioannis quarto[^p137-7]: *Da mihi bibere;* Augustinus in originali, homilia decima quinta super Ioannem: «In omni re, quam Christus gessit ut homo, hominibus in se credituris praebebat

<!-- page 138 -->

exemplum»; et post: «*Petit* bibere et *promittit* bibere, eget quasi accepturus et promittit tanquam satiaturus». Sed constat, quod potu *spirituali* non egebat, quia illum promittebat: ergo *corporali* potu egebat et illum postulabat. — Sed obiicies Glossam quasi contrariam, quae dicit: «Licet Iesus post fatigationem sitire posset, tamen hunc potum non exigit»; sed hoc intelligitur, quod principaliter hunc potum non petebat, ne Glossa facto contradicat.

14. Item, Hieronymus ad Rusticum[^p138-1]: «Quid Samaritana vilius? Ipsa tamen non solum credit Messiam, quem cognoscit ad fontem, sed et, Apostolis ementibus cibos, esurientem reficit lassumque sustentat»: ergo videtur, quod Christus ab illa fuerit sustentatus corporaliter.

15. Item, sicut evangelica narrat historia[^p138-2], Christus invitatus a Pharisaeis comedebat cum eis: aut ergo sicut *dominus,* aut sicut *pauper.* Si tanquam *dominus:* ergo non dedit exemplum paupertatis; si tanquam pauper; sed hoc est mendicare: ergo etc.

16. Item, ad hoc est *exemplum Sanctorum.* Ad Hebraeos undecimo[^p138-3] dicitur in laude Sanctorum: *Circumierunt in melotis, in pellibus caprinis, egentes* etc.; sed taliter circumire est mendicare: ergo etc.

17. Item, est exemplum de Elia, tertii Regum decimo septimo[^p138-4], de quo Augustinus in quodam sermone: «Numquid Deus defecerat pascere servum suum Eliam? Nonne illi cui deerant homines ministrabant alites? Ostendit ergo Deus, quia, unde voluerit et quando voluerit, pascere servos suos potest; et tamen, ut posset eum religiosa vidua pascere, fecit eum egere».

18. Item, ad hoc est exemplum discipulorum Ioannis Evangelistae, de quibus in eius legenda[^p138-5] dicitur, quod vendentes omnia, quae habere potuerunt, dederunt egenis; et post subditur, quod tentati sunt, quia se in uno pallio viderant egentes, servos autem suos divites atque fulgentes».

19. Item, exemplum discipulorum Pauli; unde Chrysostomus de laudibus Pauli[^p138-6]: «Paulus pecunias non possedit; nam et ipse hoc testatur: *Usque ad hanc,* inquit, *horam et esurimus et sitimus, nudi sumus et colaphis caedimur et instabiles sumus;* et quid dico pecuniam, cum ille quidem necessarium saepe non haberet cibum nec quod circumdaret indumentum»? Et sequitur: «Discipulorum quoque illius plurimi pauperes, imperiti ac totius eruditionis extranei, in fame et egestate viventes, ignobiles» etc.: ergo discipuli Pauli fuerunt mendici.

20. Item, ad hoc est exemplum de beato Benedicto, de quo legitur in secundo Dialogorum[^p138-7], quod per triennium fuit in specu, nihil omnino operans, sed Romanus quidam monachus sibi panem ministrabat; et constat, quod Benedictus in hoc non peccabat.

21. Item, exemplum de sancto Alexio, qui fuit vir mirae sanctitatis, in cuius legenda[^p138-8] legitur, quod cum esset filius ditissimi Romani, contempto patrimonio, ivit mendicando per mundum.

22. Item, exemplum de sancto Dominico[^p138-9], qui in morte sua imprecatus est maledictionem omnibus, qui in ordinem suum possessiones conarentur inducere: ergo volebat, quod de eleemosynis viverent, iuxta quod ipse vixit.

23. Item, ad hoc est exemplum de beato Francisco, qui non solum mendicavit et mendicare consuluit, sed etiam mendicationem suam miraculis confirmavit; sicut patuit in nautis, quos ciborum suorum reliquiis satiavit et satiatos liberavit; et per regulam a summo Pontifice approbatam confirmari fecit, in qua dicit[^p138-10], quod «fratres, in paupertate et

<!-- page 139 -->

humilitate Domino famulantes, vadant pro eleemosyna confidenter» etc.

24. Item, Gregorius, in Moralibus, super illud Iob[^p139-1]: *Noctes laboriosas enumeravi mihi:* «Electi Conditori rerum serviunt et saepe rerum inopia coangustantur; per amorem Deo inhaerent, et tamen subsidiis praesentis vitae egent». Egere igitur subsidiis praesentis vitae competit Sanctorum perfectioni.

25. Item, Hieronymus, in epistola quadragesima prima[^p139-2] ad quendam virum hospitalem: «Multus a te per insulas Dalmatiae Sanctorum numerus sustentatur; sed melius faceres, si et ipse sanctus inter Sanctos viveres». Ergo melius est de eleemosynis vivere quam eleemosynas dare.

Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *ratione.*

26. Qualis est habitus, talis est et actus[^p139-3]; sed omnino pauperis, secundum quod pauper, actus est egere et mendicare: ergo si esse pauperem bonum est, mendicare pro Christo laudabile est et perfectum.

27. Item, mendicare non prohibetur lege naturae nec lege Scripturae nec lege gratiae; sed quod non est prohibitum, per obedientiam impositum, efficitur laudabile et meritorium, maxime si sit difficile et onerosum[^p139-4]: ergo si aliqui ex professione habeant mendicare, cum hoc ex obedientia faciant, erit eis laudabile et perfectum.

28. Item, Ecclesia imponit in poenam satisfactionis mendicationem temporalem, vel etiam perpetuam; sed hoc non imponeret, nisi esset satisfactorium[^p139-5]; sed qui ad opus satisfactorium voluntarie se astringit perfecte agit: ergo qui pro Christo semper devovit mendicare in hoc agit perfecte et laudabiliter.

29. Item, contemptus sui est perfectionis, et maior contemptus maioris perfectionis; sed qui pro Christo mendicat maxime se ipsum contemnit et abiicit: ergo talis perfectissime agit.

30. Item, plus placet Deo paupertas voluntaria quam involuntaria: ergo et mendicatio ex illa paupertate procedens magis est Deo placita; sed prima potest esse laudabilis et meritoria: ergo multo magis secunda.

31. Item, qui servit alicui domino meretur sustentari ab illo; sed qui omnibus abrenuntiat et consilia implet maximo[^p139-6] Domino servit: ergo talis maxime meretur a Domino sustentari, ergo et a servis Domini. Si ergo pauper voluntarius est, hoc ipso quod talis, si eleemosynam petit, iuste petit.

32. Item, qui dat maiora potest recipere minora; sed pauper orans impendit misericordiam spiritualem: ergo multo fortius potest recipere eleemosynam corporalem.

33. Item, praedicans ex auctoritate potest recipere sumtus potestative: ergo praedicans ex subauctoritate et commissione seu demandatione petere potest supplicative.

34. Item, qui servit alteri[^p139-7] iuste sustentatur ab illo; ergo qui universali Ecclesiae deserviunt iuste sustentantur ab universo mundo: ergo si qui sunt, qui verbo et exemplo per mundum discurrendo deserviunt populo christiano, merito sustentationem petere possunt ab ipso.

35. Item, si licet recipere maius, multo fortius licet recipere minus; sed pauperibus religiosis, qui propriis renuntiaverunt, licet recipere amplissimas possessiones; ergo multo fortius licet recipere diurnas sustentationes. Alioquin monstruosum videtur dicere, quod liceat recipere centum marcas auri, et non liceat recipere centum frusta panis. — *Si dicas,* quod licet *accipere,* sed non licet *petere;* hoc nihil prorsus est, quia *petere* ordinatur ad *accipere* et propter illud est; et sicut plus est *dare* quam *promittere,* sic plus est *recipere* quam *petere.* Sed constans est, quod quidquid licet dare licet promittere: ergo quidquid licet accipere licet petere[^p139-8].

36. Item, si amicus petit ab amico suo donum, contra nullam legem agit, nec iste petendo, nec ille dando, nec iste rursus accipiendo; sed lex caritatis et amoris divini est magis communicativa quam lex socialis; ergo si quis petat sibi aliquid dari amore Dei, in nullo offendit nec in aliquo a perfectione recedit.

37. Item, indubitanter licet petere aliquid, in cuius donatione potior fit conditio dantis; sed qui dat aliquid pro Deo *feneratur Domino*[^p139-9] et temporale commutat pro aeterno et ad opus virtutis nobilissimae se exercet, scilicet pietatis. Ergo si haec omnia eveniunt ei qui donat ratione postulantis, pauper, qui eleemosynam petit, potissime facit secundum legem caritatis; ergo a perfectione in nullo recedit.

<!-- page 140 -->

> **Conclusio.** *Mendicatio, quae fit pro Christo imitando, vel pro Christo evangelizando, vel utroque modo, non est culpanda, immo est perfectionis evangelicae.*

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam notandum, quod tripliciter contingit mendicare. Et primus modus est ex *necessitate naturae;* et hic modus est, cum quis mendicat non solum, quia pauper, verum etiam quia habet *infirmitatem,* vel *debilitatem,* vel *utrumque.* Hic autem modus miserabilis est et tolerabilis, sed per patientiam bonam fit meritorius et laudabilis; sicut legitur Lucae decimo sexto[^p140-1] de Lazaro, quod *erat quidam mendicus nomine Lazarus, qui iacebat ad ianuam divitis ulceribus plenus;* et post subditur, quod *mortuus est mendicus et portatus est ab Angelis in sinum Abrahae.* De divite autem dicitur, quod *sepultus est in inferno.* Ex quo colligitur, quod mendicitas, etiam ex necessitate veniens, occasio ductiva est in viam salutis aeternae; iuxta quod dicit Gregorius[^p140-2], quod mala, quae nos hic premunt, ad Deum ire compellunt.

Secundus modus mendicandi est ex *vitiositate culpae;* et hic est, cum quis mendicat vel pro *otio fovendo,* vel pro *lucro cumulando,* vel *utroque modo.* Et hic, inquam, modus vituperabilis est in omnibus taliter mendicantibus. De quibus dicit Ambrosius in libro de Officiis[^p140-3]: «Petitionis causa veniunt validi, veniunt nullam causam nisi vagandi habentes, et volunt subsidia evacuare pauperum, exinanire sumtum; nec exiguo contenti, maiora quaerunt, ambitu vestium captantes petitionis suffragium, et natalium simulatione licitantes incrementa quaestuum». Licet autem in omnibus merito debeat reprehendi, reprehendendus est tamen potissime in eis qui habent speciem sanctitatis. De quibus dicit Augustinus in libro de Opere monachorum[^p140-4]: «Nullo modo decet, ut in ea vita, ubi senatores fiunt laboriosi, ibi fiant opifices otiosi; et quo veniunt, derelictis deliciis suis, qui fuerunt praediorum domini, ibi fiant rustici delicati». Et post ad reprehendendum eorum otium et quaestum subiungit[^p140-5]: «Callidissimus hostis tamen multos hypocritas sub habitu monachorum usquequaque dispersit, circumeuntes provincias, nusquam missos, nusquam fixos, nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes; alii membra martyrum, si tamen martyrum, venditant; alii *fimbrias et phylacteria sua magnificant;* alii parentes vel consanguineos suos in illa vel in illa regione se audisse vivere et ad eos pergere mentiuntur; et omnes petunt, omnes exigunt aut sumtus lucrosae egestatis, aut simulatae pretium sanctitatis». — Contra tales multum invehitur beatus Augustinus in libro de Opere monachorum, pro eo quod pigritiam non tantum in se ipsis mendicando fovebant, verum etiam praedicando aliis suadebant, male intelligentes Evangelium[^p140-6], ubi videtur insinuare, quod non sit ab hominibus, sicut nec ab avibus, laborandum; et peius exponentes Apostolum, ubi persuadet fratribus operari, dicentes, esse intelligendum illud de labore spirituali, non corporali. Et quia in hoc se ipsos decipiebant et alios, ideo reprehendit eos Augustinus et multipliciter ostendit contrarium per totum librum de Opere monachorum, qui totus est contra illos qui approbant hunc secundum mendicandi modum. Unde de talibus dicit[^p140-7]: «Qui tanquam conservatricem Evangelii praedicantes erant pigritiam, tanquam praevaricatricem accusantes misericordiam. Utinam isti, qui vacare volunt manibus, omnino vacarent et linguis! Neque enim tam multos ad imitationem invitarent, si eis etiam non tantum exempla pigra, verum etiam muta proponerent. Nunc autem contra Apostolum Christi recitant Evangelium Christi. Ita enim mirabilia sunt opera pigrorum, ut impedire velint Evangelio quod Apostolus ideo praecepit et fecit, ne impediretur Evangelium».

Tertius autem modus mendicandi est ex *supererogatione iustitiae;* et hic est, cum quis mendicat pro *Christo imitando,* vel pro *Christo evangelizando,* vel *utroque modo.* — Pro *Christo,* inquam, *imitando* quantum ad *contemptum sui, affectum proximi* et *cultum Dei.* Nam in his tribus potissime debemus Christum imitari. Quod quidem facit qui voluntarie mendicat pro nomine Christi, ut se ipsum vilificet et humiliet, ut proximum suum aedificet et provocet ad pietatem, et ut vacet Deo libera mente,

<!-- page 141 -->

deposita omni saeculi sollicitudine. Et de talibus Augustinus, in quodam sermone quadragesimali[^p141-1]: «In isto tempore, quantum commendat Deus opera misericordiae, ipsos Sanctos suos egere fecit, ut, cum fuerint facti amici Dei, *de mammona iniquitatis recipiant* et ipsi amicos suos *in aeterna tabernacula,* id est, ut, cum servi Dei pii, dum iugiter Deo vacant, aliquoties indigent, illi qui habent mundi divitias eleemosynas largiantur; et quomodo illos participes faciunt in terrena substantia, sic cum illis partem habere merebuntur in vita aeterna». — Ex quo apparet, quod talis mendicatio laudabilis est, quae fit pro *Christo imitando*[^p141-2].

Similiter et ea, quae fit pro *Christo evangelizando,* quia viam praebet Evangelio, ratione eius *quod* praedicatur, *a quo* praedicatur et *cui* praedicatur. — Ratione eius *quod praedicatur,* quia praedicamus mundi contemptum; quod efficacius suadetur verbo et exemplo quam solo verbo. — *A pluribus* etiam *praedioatur,* si praedicantes vivunt de Evangelio, quam si compellerentur vivere de sumtu aut labore proprio. — *A pluribus* etiam *efficacius suscipitur,* dum suscipientes documenta largiuntur beneficia sustentantia. Hoc est quod dicit Ioannes Chrysostomus super Matthaeum homilia[^p141-3] trigesima secunda: «Manifestum est, quoniam discipulos ab eis quibus praedicabant cibari oportebat, ut neque ipsi magna sapiant adversus eos qui docebantur, ut omnia praebentes et nihil accipientes ab ipsis; nec illi rursus abscindantur despecti ab eis. Deinde, ut non dicant: mendicantes igitur iubes nos vivere, et verecundentur in hoc, monstrat hoc *debitum* existens, et *operatores* eos vocans, et quod datur *mercedem* nominans. Ne enim, quia in *sermonibus* est operatio, existimetis *parvum* beneficium, quod est a vobis. Etenim labores habet hic multos, et quidquid dederint qui docentur, non *largientes* praebent, sed *retributionem reddentes*».

Quando igitur quis mendicat pro Christo imitando et evangelizando secundum formam praescriptam, non solum non peccat, verum etiam implet perfectam iustitiam: primum, quia *multum* debetur sustentatio pauperi iusto *Christum imitanti;* secundo, quia *magis* debetur tanquam pauperi evangelico, *Christum evangelizanti;* tertio, quia *maxime* debetur pauperi grato, debitum pro gratia humiliter accipienti et humiliter supplicanti, quippe cum sit *liber ex omnibus, facit se omnium servum.* — Et hoc est quod dicit Augustinus super illud Psalmi[^p141-4]: *Producens foenum iumentis* etc.: «*Producens,* inquit, *foenum,* id est temporalia; *iumentis,* id est praedicatoribus, ut *de Evangelio vivant qui Evangelium annuntiant;* et *herbam,* id est temporalia; *servituti hominum,* id est praedicatoribus, servis hominum pro Christo. Unde Apostolus: *Cum essem liber ex omnibus, omnium me servum feci.* Quae servitus est ex caritate, quae facit humiles, qui pro Christo servi hominum fiunt, utilitati fratrum intendentes. Haec sunt *iumenta,* quibus debetur *herba* ut merces, quia serviunt. De quibus dicitur: *Non alligabis os bovi trituranti;* et: *Dignus est operarius mercede sua.* Debentur enim praedicatoribus temporalia, quia largiuntur spiritualia. Unde Apostolus: *Si seminavimus vobis spiritualia, non magnum est, si carnalia vestra metamus;* pro quibus dicitur: *Beatus,* qui praeoccupat vocem petituri, id est, *qui intelligit super egenum et pauperem.* Non enim ita debes agere bovi trituranti, ut mendico transeunti. Illi enim, id est mendico, das, quia legitur: *Omni petenti da;* huic etiam *non petenti* dare debes. Vide ergo, ne, si sic indigeat miles Christi, ut petat, te iudicet, id est damnabilem ostendat. Sicut enim dicitur de illo qui te quaerit: *Da omni petenti;* sic de eo praedicatore, quem tu quaerere debes, dicitur: *Desudet eleemosyna in manu tua, donec invenias iustum, cui des.* Omni petenti ergo, quicumque sit, da, agnoscens in eo cui des, sed multo magis da servo Dei, militi Christi, etiam non petenti». — Ex his igitur manifeste apparet, quod in Christi praedicatore et evangelizatore mendicare non est vitii nec culpae, sed magis perfectionis evangelicae. Unde rationes et auctoritates et exempla concedenda sunt, quae ad hanc partem inducuntur[^p141-5].

Nam si quis impugnare et improbare velit omnem mendicandi modum in servis Christi, impugnare videbitur non tantum ordinem pauperum, verum etiam ipsum *summum Pontificem,* qui approbavit hunc vivendi modum; nec etiam tantum ipsum, verum etiam hunc *magnum coetum Sanctorum,* qui mendicaverunt, videlicet Franciscum, Dominicum, Ale-

<!-- page 142 -->

xium, Benedictum et ipsum cuneum Apostolorum et Prophetarum; nec non et ipsum *Dominum Iesum Christum,* quem Scriptura non veretur dicere *pauperem* et *mendicum;* cum maiora de ipso dicat et sentiat fides nostra, scilicet quod pro nobis non tantum *pauper* et *mendicus* fuit propter nostrum exemplum, sed etiam *nudatus* et *vilificatus* usque ad abiectionis genus extremum, ut exemplum daret perfecte contemnendi mundum. — Postremo, super haec omnia mala subverti videtur *universalis Ecclesiae status.* Si enim illicitum est per eleemosynarum acceptionem pauperibus Christi accipere vitae sustentamentum, multo fortius illicitum est accipere amplitudinem et multitudinem possessionum et magnorum redituum. Quis enim ita absurdus est, qui dicat, licere alicui accipere talentum auri, et non frustum panis? Quodsi hoc verum est; cum universarum ecclesiarum possessiones, tam in religiosis proprietatem habentibus quam in clericis saecularibus, habeantur per acceptionem eleemosynarum voluntarie et gratis datarum: videbitur ex hoc subverti status universarum ecclesiarum, si eleemosynas accipere vel de eleemosynis vivere, seu in parva quantitate seu in magna, illicitum iudicetur; nisi forte quis dicat, quod licitum est *accipere,* sed non est licitum *petere.* Sed hoc mirum videtur, quod aliquis possit in illud quod maius est, et non in illud quod minus est[^p142-1]; et quod aliquod monasterium possit recipere centum millia marcarum in reditibus ab aliquo principe, et unus pauperculus non possit suae indigentiae relevationem suppliciter implorare; et quod aliquis possit ex amicitia petere ab amico, et Christianus non possit ex caritate petere a Christiano; et quod aliquis possit petere aliqua expedientia ad alicuius divitis monasterii securitatem et abundantiam, et pauper voluntarius non possit petere vitae sustentamentum; et quod aliquis scholaris possit licite mendicare pro amore proficiendi in cognitione scientiae, quae inflat, ut tandem perveniat ad temporales divitias; et pauper religiosus non possit petere pro amore proficiendi in caritate et humilitate, quae aedificat[^p142-2], ut tandem perveniat ad vitam aeternam, et cetera consimilia, quae valde videntur absurda. Si ergo haec omnia non parva, sed magna inconvenientia sunt; tenendum est, quod liceat pauperibus sustentari de eleemosynis aliorum, saltem secundum tertium mendicandi modum superius explicatum.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in contrarium, quod *non est inopia timentibus Deum;* dicendum, quod duplex est inopia, scilicet *corporalis* et *spiritualis;* verbum autem illud intelligitur de inopia non quacumque, sed *spirituali.* — Et quod illud sit verum, apparet per illud quod immediate sequitur[^p142-3]: *Divites eguerunt et esurierunt;* constat, quod illud non intelligitur de egestate divitiarum materialium; restat igitur, quod intelligatur de inopia spiritualium, quae licet sit in divitibus, non tamen est in timentibus Deum; quia *timor est initium sapientiae,* de qua dicitur Sapientiae septimo: *Venerunt mihi omnia bona pariter cum illa* etc.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Psalmo: *Non vidi iustum derelictum* etc.; dicendum, quod duplex est panis, scilicet *corporalis* et *spiritualis;* verbum autem illud non intelligitur de pane *corporali,* sed de pane *spirituali.* Et quod illud sit verum, apparet per Glossam ibidem[^p142-4]: *Nec semen eius quaerens panem,* Glossa: «spiritualem, id est indigere pane verbi Dei, quia verbum Dei semper cum eo est». — Potest etiam littera sic construi, ut intelligatur: *Non vidi iustum derelictum, nec semen eius quaerens panem vidi derelictum;* quia, secundum quod dicitur ad Hebraeos ultimo super illud: *Non te deseram neque derelinquam;* Glossa: «Derelinqueretur ille qui fame periret». Vult ergo dicere Propheta, quod nec iustum nec semen iusti vidit fame mortuum; et hoc a paupertate non revocat, sed potius invitat.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mendicatio est malum, quod imprecatur Psalmista in spiritu Dei loquens; dicendum, quod est mendicatio *voluntaria* et mendicatio *coacta,* quae est cum murmure et impatientia. Prima est meritoria, secunda est demeritoria et afflictiva; et Psalmus intelligitur de secunda, non de prima. Et quod illud sit verum, apparet per textum, quia dicitur[^p142-5]: *Nutantes transferantur et eiiciantur;* et haec omnia in coactionem et violentiam sonare videntur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Ecclesiastico: *Fili, in vita tua ne indigeas;* dicendum est, quod iuxta distinctionem praehabitam verbum illud intelligendum est de indigentia *spirituali* respectu gratiae, non de *corporali* respectu sustentationis naturae. Et quod illud sit verum, apparet per Glossam[^p142-6]: «*Ne indigeas,* inquit Glossa, virtutibus vel bonis moribus».

<!-- page 143 -->

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod beatius est magis dare quam accipere; dicendum, quod illud est verum, quando acceptio eleemosynae venit ex *necessitate naturae;* non autem, quando venit ex *supererogatione iustitiae,* iuxta distinctionem factam in principali solutione. — Et quod illud sit verum, apparet per illud quod dicitur in libro de Ecclesiasticis Dogmatibus[^p143-1]: «Bonum est facultates cum dispensatione pauperibus erogare, sed melius, pro intentione sequendi Dominum semel donare et absolutum a sollicitudine cum Christo egere». Hoc ipsum dicit Augustinus in libro de Bono coniugali, sicut in praecedenti quaestione allegatum fuit.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, Lucae duodecimo[^p143-2], quod omnibus pro Deo spretis, debent labore manuum operari; dicendum, quod illud est consilium quantum ad *primum,* quod dicitur: *Vendite quae possidetis;* quantum *ad secundum* autem est solum de *bene esse* consilii, quod non astringit etiam viros perfectos, illos potissime, qui possunt circa maiora bona occupari. — Et quod illud sit verum, apparet per eandem Glossam, cum subditur: «Unde vivatis, vel eleemosynas faciatis». Certum est enim, quod illi, qui omnia semel pro Deo dederunt, ad ulteriores eleemosynas faciendas minime astringantur; et ideo illa Glossa non exprimit quod est de *essentia* et substantia consilii, sed magis secundum *bene esse,* secundum statum et conditionem aliquarum personarum, quae magis sunt idoneae ad manualiter operandum quam ad aliquid magis arduum faciendum. Nam si aliter diceretur, quod illud esset de *essentia* perfectionis consilii; tunc nulli illud consilium implevissent, nisi qui operati fuerunt manualiter; ac per hoc Apostolos alios a Paulo et Barnaba[^p143-3] et alios plurimos Sanctorum perfectissimorum, quos non legimus fuisse manualiter operatos, non iudicaremus fuisse perfectos. Verum est utique, quod perfectioni evangelicae consonat operatio manualis, si tamen non impediat maiora bona. Unde Glossa super illud[^p143-4]: *Vado piscari:* «Sciendum est, non fuisse prohibitos arte sua licita victum quaerere, apostolatus integritate servata, cum unde viverent non haberent, et sic illis laborantibus adiicit Deus necessaria, quae promisit». — Sed quod hic labor competat non occupatis circa maiora, manifestum est, quia tunc Apostoli praedicationi minime vacabant. Unde Chrysostomus[^p143-5]: «Venit Simon piscari, quia neque Christus continue cum eis erat, neque Spiritus datus erat, neque quid eis commissum erat tunc, neque quid habentes agere, artem tractarunt». Et ideo ex hoc non habetur, quod perfecti teneantur operari manualiter, nisi forte, cum non habent spiritualem et meliorem exercitationem. — Praeterea esto, quod vir perfectus teneretur manibus suis operari, ex hoc tamen non potest inferri, quin pro sui humiliatione et aliorum aedificatione possit eleemosynas humiliter petere pro loco et tempore.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, primae ad Thessalonicenses quarto, quod nullius est aliquid desiderandum nec petendum; dicendum, quod dupliciter potest aliquis aliquid petere ab aliquo: vel propter desiderium *alienae rei,* vel propter desiderium *alienae salutis.* Primum prohibet Apostolus tanquam malum et in Lege prohibitum, qua dicitur[^p143-6]: *Non concupisces rem proximi tui;* secundum autem non prohibet, quia lex caritatis hoc concedit, quae mutuis habet beneficiis confoveri et onus alterius facit ab altero supportari. Quid enim tam absurdum est, quam ut credamus, Apostolum denegasse, quod nullus ab altero petat nec beneficium nec auxilium nec solatium misericordiae et pietatis fraternae? — Et quod illud sit verum, apparet per illud quod dicit Apostolus ad Philippenses ultimo[^p143-7] de se ipso, regratians eis de beneficio collato: *Non quaero datum, sed requiro fructum abundantem in ratione vestra.* Secundum enim quod exponit Augustinus decimo tertio Confessionum, *datum* quaerit qui delectatur praecipue in re accepta; *fructum* requirit qui delectatur in salute aliena. Haec est verborum Augustini sententia, licet verba sint mutata.

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, primae ad Thessalonicenses quinto, quod *egestas facit a iustitia declinare;* dicendum, quod sicut divitiae non sunt in culpa, sed cupiditas divitiarum; sic egestas in culpa non est, sed impatientia egestatis; quam qui habet a iustitia declinat, dum fugiendo egestatem,

<!-- page 144 -->

vadit post pecuniam; quam qui sequitur de facili declinat a iustitia; *qui enim volunt divites fieri incidunt in tentationes et in laqueum diaboli et desideria multa et nociva*[^p144-1]. Et sicut talis egestas est mala, sic et mendicatio ex tali egestate proveniens est culpanda. — Cum autem plus placet penuria quam abundantia, et homo propter amorem paupertatis contemnit abundantiam terrenorum; talis non habet occasionem declinandi pro tali egestate a iustitia; et talis est paupertas et mendicatio, quae spectat ad perfectionem evangelicam. — Et quod ista responsio sit recta, patet per ipsam Glossam, in qua dicitur, quod «egestas, dum *saturari cupit,* declinat a iustitia». Egenus enim, qui *cupit saturari,* est[^p144-2] egenus, qui non amat paupertatem, sed saturitatem, non penuriam, sed abundantiam. Et talis non est pauper evangelicus et caelestis, qui mendicat ex supererogatione iustitiae; sed potius cupidus et terrestris, qui mendicat ex vitiositate culpae, secundum prius habitam responsionem.

9. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, secundae ad Thessalonicenses tertio, quod vult Apostolus, servos Dei corporaliter operari etc.; dicendum, quod illud *velle* aut non est *velle praecepti,* sed *admonitionis;* aut si est *velle praecepti,* non se extendit ad omnes, sed ad eos qui volunt egere; aut si extenditur ad eos qui volunt pro Christo egere[^p144-3], ad illos tantum se extendit, qui non possunt maiora agere. Et ex hoc non colligitur, quod pauperum vita sit mala, qui manducant et manibus suis non operantur, si melioribus et salubrioribus exercitiis occupantur. — Et quod illud sit verum, manifestum est. Nam si verbum illud: *Qui non vult operari non manducet, simpliciter* esset praeceptum; tunc omnes essent in malo statu, qui manibus propriis victum suum non quaerunt, cum possunt; et hoc esset damnare totum mundum. — Quod iterum non se extendat ad *pauperes voluntarios et perfectos;* hoc apparet ex ipsa Glossa, quae dicit, «ut non compellantur egestate necessaria petere». Tales enim non mendicant sicut *necessitate compulsi,* sed sicut *amore perfectionis inducti.* — Postremo, quod non se extendat nisi ad eos qui non sunt circa maiora occupati, apparet ex ipso textu secundae ad Thessalonicenses tertio[^p144-4]: *Audivimus, quosdam inter vos ambulare inquiete, nihil operantes, sed curiose agentes; his autem, qui eiusmodi sunt, denuntiamus, ut cum silentio operantes panem suum manducent.*

Et quod istud sit verum, patet per Ambrosium, qui super illud Lucae nono[^p144-5]: *Dimitte mortuos sepelire mortuos suos,* dicit sic: «Docet Dominus, minora bona pro utilitate maiorum esse praetermittenda. Maius est enim animas mortuorum praedicando suscitare quam corpus mortuum in terra abscondere». Unde et Apostoli dicebant Actuum sexto: *Non est aequum, nos derelinquere verbum Dei et ministrare mensis.* — Apparet etiam per Hieronymum in prologo super Iob dicentem sic: «Si fiscellam iunco texerem, aut palmarum folia complicarem, ut in sudore vultus mei comederem panem meum et ventris opus sollicita mente pertractarem; nullus morderet, nullus reprehenderet. Nunc autem, quia iuxta sententiam Salvatoris volo *operari cibum, qui non perit*[^p144-6], et antiquam divinorum voluminum viam sentibus virgultisque purgare; error mihi geminus infigitur: corrector scriptorum *falsarius* vocor et errores non auferre, sed serere». — Hoc etiam apparet per beatum Augustinum in libro de Opere monachorum[^p144-7], ubi dicit, quod illi qui «habebant in hoc saeculo aliquid, quo facile sine opificio sustentarent vitam istam, quod conversi ad Dominum indigentibus dispertiti sunt, quod tales ad opera manualia non tenentur vel coguntur, nec ad quaerendum victum proprium». Et rationem postea reddit inferius, quia illi qui pauperes sustentaverunt de eleemosynis pauperum sustentari debent et possunt. Ait enim sic[^p144-8]: «Omnium Christianorum una respublica est; et ideo quisquis Christianis ubilibet necessaria erogaverit, undecumque etiam ipse quod sibi necessarium est accipit, de Christi bonis accipit; quia et ubicumque ipse talibus dedit, quis nisi Christus accepit»? — Si ergo secundum Ambrosium maiora bona propter minora non sunt praetermittenda; et secundum Hieronymum maiora sunt bona praedicationis et instructionis quam manualis operationis; et secundum Augustinum ad huiusmodi opera non astringuntur qui fuerunt divites delicati, manifeste apparet, quod intenti praedicationi et operibus misericordiae spiritualis ad huiusmodi opera non sunt astricti, sed debent et possunt de eleemosynis sustentari. Et hoc est, quod Augustinus in eodem libro[^p144-9] ante haec verba prae-

<!-- page 145 -->

mittit, quod huiusmodi potestatem habent, si *evangelistae sunt, si ministri altaris, si dispensatores Sacramentorum.* Si enim corporalia opera faciendo meretur quis suum sustentamentum, multo fortius spiritualia opera impendendo, quae corporalibus operibus merito praeferuntur.

Fateor igitur quod verum est, quod si quis adeo esset potens et spiritu et corpore[^p145-1], quod posset corporaliter operari, et nihilominus pro loco et tempore spiritualibus vacare exercitiis et ecclesiasticae utilitati, hoc agendo perfectius faceret. Sed quis ad hoc plene idoneus, cum multo labore sudandum sit, ut veritas cognoscatur, ut cognita diligatur, et cognita et dilecta aliis proponatur? Ad hoc enim necessaria est continuitas lectionis et orationis et meditationis; quibus qui vult sollicite intendere parum potest occupari circa corporalem laborem. Laudandus est igitur et suadendus labor corporalis, sic tamen, ut non impediatur fervor orationis nec fructus praedicationis nec observantia regularis.

10. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, quod ad alienam mensam accedens necesse habet adulari; dicendum, quod Glossa semetipsam exponit in hoc quod dicit: «otio deditus»; in quo insinuat, quod ille qui alienam mensam frequentat et mendicat pro otiositate fovenda, pronus est ad blandiendum et adulandum. Et quid mirum, si ille qui diligit otium et fovet ventrem suum, in verbum prorumpit adulatorium? Sed ex hoc non damnatur pauper evangelicus, qui ad alienam mensam convenit propter evangelizandum et imitandum Christum. Nam si tales, hoc ipso quod pauperes et alienam mensam accedentes, essent *adulatores;* tunc, cum Christus Apostolos miserit ad Evangelium praedicandum et ad vivendum de sumtibus alienae mensae, potius fecisset tunc Apostolos suos *adulatores* quam veros *praedicatores.* Ipse etiam Christus fuisset adulator permaximus, qui frequenter invitabatur et comedebat in domibus Pharisaeorum[^p145-2]. — Unde si recte intelligimus, adulationis vitium potius est annexum divitibus mundanis quam pauperibus evangelicis et voluntariis. Unde Chrysostomus in homilia nonagesima[^p145-3] super Matthaeum, loquens de divitibus, dicit sic: «Adulari necesse est multos et principes et subiectos et multis indigere et turpiter servire et formidare et suspicari et timere eorum qui suspicantur oculos et timere calumniatorum ora et aliorum et avarorum concupiscentias. Sed non paupertas est aliquid tale, sed contrarium universum; regio est non furibus subiecta, sed munita, portus tranquillus et palaestra et gymnasium philosophiae. Audite, quicumque horum pauperes estis, magis autem et quicumque ditari concupiscitis: non *pauperem esse* malum est, sed *non velle pauperem esse;* et neque malum existima esse paupertatem, et non erit tibi malum». Et paulo post: «Non enim mihi eos qui accusant paupertatem in medium afferas, sed eos qui per eam fulserunt. Cum hac Elias educatus raptus est beata illa rapina; cum hac Elisaeus claruit, cum hac Ioannes, cum hac Apostoli omnes. Cum avaritia vero Achab, Iezabel, Giezi, Iudas, Nero, Caiphas condemnati sunt».

11. Ad illud quod obiicitur de decreto Urbani, dicendum, quod triplex est defectus in allegatione illius decreti. Primus, quia decretum illud est ad episcopos, qui debent pascere mendicantes, non ad illos qui egent. Unde sicut illa lex, Deuteronomii decimo quinto[^p145-4]: *Non erit omnino indigens et mendicus inter vos,* non est data contra mendicitatem pauperum, sed contra tenacitatem divitum — quod patet per hoc quod in eodem capitulo subiungitur: *Non deerunt pauperes in terra habitationis tuae; idcirco praecipio tibi, ut aperias manum tuam fratri tuo egeno et pauperi* — sic et haec lex datur episcopis abundantibus ad sustentationem pauperum clericorum, eorum potissime, qui non egent voluntarie, sed compulsi, ne propter indigentiam efficiantur circa divinum obsequium indevoti. — Secundus defectus est, quod decretum illud inducitur ad probandum, quod clerici non debent habere proprium, sicut apparet in fine capituli[^p145-5], ubi dicitur: «His omnibus claret, quod clericis nullo modo licet proprium habere; quod si habuerint, non clerici erunt». Unde per illud decretum non praecluditur via pauperibus, qui nihil volunt habere proprium, sed potius aperitur. — Tertius defectus est: quia, sicut habere proprietatem in communi comprobatum et approbatum est auctoritate summi Pontificis, scilicet Urbani, sicut apparet hic; sic modus vivendi in altissima paupertate auctoritate summi Pontificis approbatus est, sicut patet de Excessibus praelatorum: *Nimis prava*[^p145-6] etc. Unde decretum Urbani Papae praeiudicare non potuit auctoritati Innocentii, Honorii et Gregorii, qui istum modum approbaverunt tam in iure communi quam in privatis privilegiis, quia «non habet imperium par in parem[^p145-7]»; et consti-

<!-- page 146 -->

tutius e converso. — Nec ex hoc potest argui instabilitas seu contradictio inter rectores Ecclesiae, quia statuta mutari possunt et debent pro loco et tempore; sicut patet in statuto de gradibus parentelae et aliis plurimis, quae iuste a principio statuta fuerunt, et nihilominus alia non minus iuste introducta[^p146-1] sunt.

12. Ad illud quod obiicitur de consecratione ecclesiae, dicendum, quod et in illius decreti allegatione triplex est defectus: primo, quia statutum illud de consecratione ecclesiae non dotatae factum est in alleviationem episcoporum; secundo, in dilatationem divini cultus; et tertio, in solatium clericorum ministrantium, qui nolunt se astringere voluntarie ad paupertatis votum. Horum autem contrarium in proposito invenitur. Nam minus gravantur et episcopi et Ecclesia de religiosis viventibus de eleemosynis, quam si eis provideretur[^p146-2] in beneficiis et praebendis; secundo, quia cultus Dei non augmentaretur, sed potius diminueretur, si hic modus vivendi de medio tolleretur; tertio, quia tales pauperes voluntarii libentius Deo serviunt mendicando, quam etiam Deo servirent pro magno beneficio, et magis sunt contenti parvulis eleemosynis, quam essent magnis beneficiis et praebendis.

13. Ad illud quod obiicitur de lege de mendicantibus validis, dicendum, quod similiter triplex defectus est in illius legis allegatione: primus, quia lex illa introducta fuit contra quosdam, qui tempore famis pauperum eleemosynas usurpabant, simulantes inertiam; secundus, quia illi tales otiosi erant et nullam utilitatem reipublicae afferebant; tertius, quia tales, qui laborare poterant et tunc circa nihil[^p146-3] occupati erant et abundare volebant, proni erant ad maleficia et rapinas. Et ideo iusto iudicio rector reipublicae tales a mendicatione arcebat et poena gravissima puniebat. Secus autem est omnino in pauperculis religiosis, in quibus nec simulatio inertiae nec amor otii nec periculum rapinae, ac per hoc nec damnum Ecclesiae, sed potius amor virtutis perfectae reperitur; ideo non arcentur lege humana, sed potius praedicantur et commendantur lege divina.

14. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mendicare est indifferens; dicendum, quod mendicare, quantum est de se, non est perfectionis, nisi praesupposita universali abrenuntiatione omnium; quae quidem est secundum divinum consilium, in quo Dominus expressit adolescenti, quod si illud consilium impleret, hoc ipso ad perfectionis culmen perveniret. Ait enim[^p146-4]: *Si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia;* nec addidit: tradas mihi, ut in loculos meos ponam, et sint omnia communia; sed potius: *da pauperibus;* nec subiunxit: vade ad lucrandum victum tuum per laborem manuum; sed potius: *veni sequere me.* In quo, secundum quod Glossa exponit, intelligitur vocatio ad contemplandum seu ad Christum imitandum et evangelizandum.

15. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod perfectionis est liberaliter servire et obligationes refugere; dicendum, quod est obligatio veniens ex *reatu culpae* et ex *affectu caritatis perfectae.* Prima obligatio est vitanda, sed secunda est acceptanda, iuxta quod dicitur ad Romanos decimo tertio[^p146-5]: *Nemini quidquam debeatis, nisi ut invicem diligatis.* Laudat enim Dominus amicitiam spiritualium virorum, quae fit *de mammona iniquitatis;* et ad corporis Christi mystici perfectionem spectat, quod membra sibi invicem communicent *secundum rationem dati et accepti,* ut mutua indigentia vicissim possit suppleri.

16. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod qui mendicant ex professione aut hoc faciunt, quia pauperes, aut quia praedicantes; dicendum, quod hoc faciunt, quia pauperes Christi *imitatores* et *evangelizatores.* Quia enim Christum *imitantur* per observantiam disciplinae regularis, in qua vacant divinis laudibus, orationibus, vigiliis et aliis regularibus disciplinis; et Deum colunt et hostem impugnant et ea quae sunt infirma et immunita in castris Ecclesiae protegunt et defensant. — Rursus, quia *verbum veritatis annuntiant;* similiter Deum laudant et hostem impugnant et audientes aedificant et informant. Et ideo, cum haec opera eorum sint Ecclesiae valde utilia et pernecessaria, nulli dubium est, quin mereantur sustentationem suam; et ideo non illicite faciunt, si hanc humiliter et suppliciter petunt. Sicut enim oculus videndo operationem facit manui pernecessariam, ita quod manus oculo non potest improperare nec dicere: *opera tua non indigeo*[^p146-6]; quin immo utilis est toti corpori eius operatio, et sic meretur sustentari, sicut manus et pes et membra alia, quae sunt exposita labori: sic et de istis membris Ecclesiae non absurde debet et potest intelligi, si quis pio oculo velit istorum oculorum operam et vigilantiam intueri.

17. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tales sunt Giezi imitatores, qui spiritualia pro temporalibus ministrant; ad hoc satis sufficienter respondet Glossa

<!-- page 147 -->

super illud primae ad Corinthios nono[^p147-1]: *Dispensatio mihi credita est:* «Non debemus ideo evangelizare, ut manducemus, sed ideo manducare, ut evangelizemus, ut cibus non sit bonum, quod appetitur, sed necessarium, quod adiicitur; ut illud impleatur: *Primum quaerite regnum Dei et iustitiam eius, et haec omnia adiicientur vobis*». Unde si finem constitueret quis in re temporali praedicando verbum Dei, absque dubio hic perversus esset, quia de via faceret finem, et esset similis Giezi et Balaam, qui mercedem iniquitatis amavit, et aliis pseudoprophetis, qui *in mercede docebant et in muneribus divinabant*[^p147-2]. Si autem sustentationem quaerunt sicut viam ordinatam ad Evangelium praedicandum; tunc recte incedunt et Apostolos imitantur nec a veritatis tramite in quoquam recedunt. Unde super illud Lucae decimo[^p147-3]: *Edentes et bibentes quae apud illos sunt; dignus est enim operarius mercede sua;* Glossa: «Nota, quod uni operi praedicatorum duae mercedes debentur: una in via, quae nos in labore sustentat, alia in patria, quae nos in resurrectione remunerat».

18. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod perfectorum est abstinere a specie mala; dicendum, quod illa species est mala, dum[^p147-4] homo rationabiliter potest suspicari malum, circumstantiis omnibus pensatis, quae occurrunt; sed si quis recte attendat huiusmodi, sic praedicantes non habent speciem pseudopraedicatorum. Nam *pseudopraedicatores* dicuntur per oppositum ad *veros praedicatores. Veri* autem *praedicatores* dicuntur quorum praedicatio habet *auctoritatem, veritatem* et *utilitatem; falsi* ergo *praedicatores* sunt qui habent horum contraria, vel simpliciter, vel in parte. — Sed si recte velimus attendere modernorum ordinum[^p147-5] praedicatores, haec tria habent in se: *auctoritatem* quidem, quia missi sunt a summo Pontifice et aliis praelatis, qui sunt domini messis; *veritatem,* sicut patet, quia fidem et mores praedicaverunt secundum legem Evangelii; *utilitatem,* quia multos de statu culpae vocaverunt ad statum gratiae vel poenitentiae: et ideo speciem habent et similitudinem maiorem incomparabiliter, si quis pio attendat oculo, ad praedicatores veros quam ad pseudo; licet in tanto numero vix possit esse, quin aliqui cum Iuda diligant loculos[^p147-6] et exorbitent ab itinere recto. Si enim Dominus hoc non concessit duodecim Apostolis, quos personaliter elegit, quod universaliter essent boni; quid mirum, si hoc non concedit congregationibus aliis? Nec tamen propter hoc sunt boni damnandi cum malis, sicut nec mali iusti sunt, licet sint permixti cum bonis.

19. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aut habent auctoritatem, aut non habent; dicendum, quod habere auctoritatem, hoc est dupliciter: aut ex *prima institutione,* aut ex *commissione* seu demandatione; vel per alia verba: aut ex *iniuncto officio,* aut ex *concesso privilegio.* Prima est auctoritas *principalis* et potestativa et spectat ad Apostolos et ad septuaginta et eorum successores, qui sunt episcopi et alii curati, sicut Glossa dicit Lucae decimo[^p147-7]. Secunda est auctoritas *minus principalis* et potest *subauctoritas* non absurde dici et competit his qui ab Apostolis mittuntur tanquam discipuli, sicut Paulus suos discipulos mittebat ad loca diversa; et potissime ei competit, qui est loco Petri, principis Apostolorum, immo loco Christi, qui est Dominus universalis messis, propter quod et habere dicitur plenitudinem potestatis[^p147-8]. Sicut ergo primis habentibus auctoritatem *principalem* competit sumtus accipere *potestative,* sicut dicit Glossa secundae ad Timotheum secundo[^p147-9]: *Laborantem agricolam oportet primum de fructibus percipere;* ibi Glossa: «Necessaria sibi sumere ab his, in quibus Deo militat et quos tanquam cultor vineae exercet, vel tanquam gregem pascit, non est mendicitas, sed potestas»: sic illis quibus competit auctoritas *subprincipalis,* competit accipere *supplicative.* Quod disposuit Spiritus sanctus ad Ecclesiae utilitatem, ut non tantum aedificent verbo praedicationis, verum etiam verbo pariter et humilitatis exemplo. Qui ergo didicit a Christo *mitis esse et humilis corde,* miror, si hanc humilitatem et humiliationem audet tanquam reprobam condemnare.

20. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tutius et perfectius est sequi viros probatiores et sapientiores; dicendum, quod secundum dispositionem divinae sapientiae Deus universa disponit et ordinat temporibus suis. Unde sicut in primo tempore Ecclesiae introduxit viros potentes et miraculis et signis, sicut

<!-- page 148 -->

fuerunt Apostoli et eorum discipuli; et medio tempore viros intelligentes in Scripturis et rationibus vivis[^p148-1]: sic ultimo tempore introduxit viros voluntarie mendicantes et pauperes rebus mundanis. Et hoc quidem recte congruebat, ut per primos destrueretur idololatria et idolorum portenta, per secundos haeresis, per tertios avaritia, quae in fine saeculi maxime regnat. — Nihilominus tamen, quia paupertas fundamentum est evangelicae perfectionis, et ipsa est quasi complementum eiusdem; ideo viguit in Ecclesiae primordio, et congruum est, ut vigeat circa Ecclesiae statum finalem. Unde, sicut Hieronymus dissolvit quaestionem illam de esu carnium, distinctione trigesima quinta, *Ab exordio*[^p148-2], dicens, quod in primo tempore ante diluvium non erat in consuetudine esus carnium, et postea post diluvium communiter fuit omnibus concessus, et post in adventu Christi laudabilis fuit abstinentia ab esu carnium — unde dicit ibidem, quod «omega revolvit ad alpha», id est, finalis status concordavit cum primo — sic satis convenienter intelligi potest et in proposito. Sicut tamen Hieronymus non intelligit de abstinentia ab esu carnium quantum ad omnes, sed quantum ad monachos solum; sic nec de paupertate intelligendum puto nisi quantum ad pauperes *voluntarios,* qui voluntarie renuntiaverunt mundo. — Nolo tamen, quod aliquis ex hoc arguat, quasi ego dicam, quod iam *instet dies Domini*[^p148-3], nec quod proprias *fimbrias magnificem et dilatem,* volens coram hominibus iustificari; nec quod praeferam modernos Sanctis antiquis, quia in magno et alto statu inveniri possunt multi infirmi et imperfecti; nec iste spiritus paupertatis defuit temporibus retroactis. Iuxta quod dicit Gregorius tertio Dialogorum[^p148-4] de quodam sanctissimo viro, Isaac nomine, qui fuit amator praecipuus paupertatis. Unde et de eo dicit: «Cum ei crebro discipuli innuerent, ut pro usu monasterii possessiones, quae offerebantur, acciperet; ille sollicitus suae paupertatis custos fortem sententiam tenebat dicens: monachus, qui in terra possessionem quaerit, monachus non est. Sic quippe metuebat paupertatis suae securitatem perdere, sicut avari solent perituras divitias custodire. Ibi itaque prophetiae spiritu et magnis miraculis cunctis longe lateque habitantibus vita eius claruit». Ex quo apparet, quod doctrina ipsius contemnenda non fuit.

Hoc etiam supra ostensum fuit multiplicibus exemplis et adhuc multo pluribus posset ostendi. Et si nulla exempla essent, satis per se ipsum laudabilis est status excellentissimae paupertatis, non solum secundum Scripturam sacram, verum etiam secundum documenta Sanctorum, quae paupertatis statum voluntarium commendant tanquam praecipuum et perfectum. Sicut ergo absurdum est valde reprobare statum coniugatorum divitum, absurdius, statum clericorum et religiosorum possessiones habentium; sic et absurdissimum videtur, si quis inveniatur, qui reprobare velit statum pauperum in paupertate altissima et mendicatione humillima Christo Domino famulantium iuxta consilium per os Iesu Christi propositum et irreprehensibiliter promulgatum. Horum causam defendit Hieronymus in epistola, quam scripsit adversus Vigilantium[^p148-5]: «Ad me relatum est, inquit, quod contra auctoritatem Apostoli Pauli, immo Petri, Ioannis et Iacobi, qui *dexteras dederunt Paulo et Barnabae communicationis,* et praeceperant eis, *ut pauperum memores* essent, tu prohibeas, Ierosolymam in usus Sanctorum aliqua sumtuum solatia dirigi. Videlicet, si ad haec respondero, statim latrabis, meam me causam agere, qui tanta cunctos largitate donasti, ut, nisi venisses Ierosolymam et tuas vel patronorum tuorum pecunias expendisses vel effudisses, omnes periclitaremur fame. Ego hoc loquor, quod beatus Paulus pene in cunctis epistolis suis loquitur et praecipit, in ecclesiis gentium *per unam sabbati,* hoc est die dominico, omnes conferre debere quae Ierosolymam in Sanctorum solatia dirigantur. Nunquid in alia parte terrarum et in his ecclesiis, quas nascentes fide sua erudiebat, quae ab aliis acceperat dividere non poterat? Sed sanctis pauperibus dare cupiebat, qui suas pro Christo facultatulas relinquentes, ad Domini servitutem tota mente conversi sunt. Longum est enim nunc, si de ceteris epistolis eius omnia testimonia revolvere voluero, in quibus hoc agit et tota mente festinat, ut Ierosolymam et ad sancta loca credentibus pecuniae dirigantur, non in avaritiam, sed in refrigerium, non

<!-- page 149 -->

ad divitias congregandas, sed ad imbecillitatem corpusculi sustentandam et frigus atque inediam declinandam; hac in Iudaea usque hodie perseverante consuetudine, non solum apud nos, sed etiam apud Hebraeos, ut illi, qui in *lege Domini meditantur die ac nocte* et partem non habent in terra nisi solum Deum, synagogarum et totius orbis foveantur ministeriis, ex aequalitate dumtaxat, *non ut aliis sit* refrigerium *et aliis tribulatio,* sed ut aliorum *abundantia* aliorum *sustentet inopiam*». His visis, satis plana est responsio ad praedicta.

### Rᴇᴘʟɪᴄᴀᴛɪᴏ ᴀᴅᴠᴇʀsᴜs ᴏʙɪᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴᴇs ᴘᴏsᴛᴇᴀ ꜰᴀᴄᴛᴀs.

His autem[^p149-1], quae praedicta sunt, conatus est aliquis multipliciter adversari, quaedam ex eis refellere volens tanquam *impertinentia,* quaedam ut *falsa,* quaedam ut *inconsequentia,* quaedam ut *dubia,* plurima autem ex eis tanquam *doctrinae apostolicae inimica.* Hoc autem facit respondendo cuidam quaestioni minus sufficienter post collectae in scholis, salva gratia colligentis, sicut melius potest apparere in praenominata quaestione.

I. Primum igitur *impertinentia* reputat quaecumque inducimus de discipulis Christi ad praedicandum missis, quia illis data erat *auctoritas* necessaria accipiendi non ex *mendicitate,* sed ex *potestate.* Qui autem praedicant absque auctoritate pseudoprophetae sunt, et ideo neutro modo, nec ex *auctoritate* nec ex *mendicitate,* petere debent. — Et *si dicatur,* quod tales a Papa et ab episcopis missi sunt; dicit, quod ab episcopis sunt pascendi, secundum quod dicitur Extra de Officio iudicis ordinarii, *Inter cetera*[^p149-2]. Fuit igitur data forma praedicantibus ex officio et auctoritate, sed *ad tempus,* ut impedimenta amoverentur. Et ideo auctoritates tam textus quam Glossarum in hoc casu impertinentes videntur ad propositum, secundum eum qui quaestioni praedictae videtur adversari.

Huius autem obviationis apparentiam sophisticam facile est detegere, si quis intelligat radicem potestatis, quae est in Apostolis et praelatis et nuntiis destinatis ab Apostolis. Certum est enim, quod haec radicaliter fuit in Christo, secundum quod dicit Apostolus ad Galatas primo[^p149-3], quod erat *Apostolus per Iesum Christum;* et Ioannis vigesimo: *Sicut misit me Pater* etc. Dedit autem Christus Apostolis eos mittendo duplicem potestatem, scilicet *praedicandi* et *exigendi sustentationem* suam. Et has potestates constat esse distinctas; quia, cum episcopus possit *semel* in anno procurationes suas in uno loco exigere, potest tamen, cum voluerit, praedicare: igitur summus Pontifex, qui Christi locum tenet in terris, potest utramque simul dare, potest et unam ab alia separare. Quoniam ergo summus Pontifex et praelati non possunt omnia, quae ad eos spectant, exercere personaliter per se ipsos propter diffusos populos sibi subiectos; ordinavit Spiritus sanctus in regimine Ecclesiae, ut ipse mitteret aliquando legatos, qui utramque haberent potestatem. Et *rursus,* ne particulares Ecclesiae gravarentur, ordinavit, ut episcopi mitterent personas idoneas ad praedicandum et confessiones audiendum, quibus etiam ipsi providerent, Extra de Officio iudicis ordinarii, *Inter cetera*[^p149-4]. Ordinavit etiam, ut ipse cum praelatis mitteret pauperes voluntarios et peritos, quibus nec episcopi essent astricti ad exhibendum, ne gravarentur multitudine sumtuum, nec potestatem haberent ad exactionem procurationum, propter tollendum gravamen subditorum; et ita qui humiliter incederent tanquam pauperes et contenti modicis et sola necessaria suscipientes et necessitatem suam, cum opus esset, humiliter insinuantes his qui voluntarie et sine gravamine et cum hilaritate supportare et relevare et possent et vellent. Unde sicut decretalis de Officio iudicis ordinarii a Sede apostolica emanavit, sic et confirmatio ordinis et regulae huiusmodi pauperum praedicantium veritatem, Extra de Excessibus praelatorum, *Nimis prava,* ut habitum est supra[^p149-5]. — Nec hoc factum est in praeiudicium, sed potius in adiutorium parochialium sacerdotum; nec ex hoc Ecclesia prostituitur, si curatis Deus providet adiutorium, ut animas sibi commissas, quarum habent curam, ab omni corruptione peccati perfectius custodiant incorruptas, adminiculantibus sibi viris spiritualibus, non ut dominis, vel curam habentibus, sed potius velut servis per caritatem Christi.

Tales igitur, quia missi praedicant in humilitate et paupertate, similes sunt viris apostolicis, non pseudoprophetis. Quia vero non habent illam plenitudinem auctoritatis, quam habent praelati, et habuerunt Apostoli; ideo inter *opitulationes* numerandi sunt, primae ad Corinthios duodecimo[^p149-6]: *Posuit Deus in Ecclesia primum Apostolos, secundo prophetas, tertio doctores, deinde virtutes, exinde opitulationes* etc.; Glossa: «*Opitulationes,* id est, eos qui

<!-- page 150 -->

maioribus ferunt opes, ut Titus Apostolo, et archidiaconi episcopis». Inter eos etiam numerari possunt quos Pastor Ecclesiae Dei statuit opem aliis ferre. Et ideo ego dixi iuxta morem sermonis theologici — qui dicit, *subauctoritatem* esse in eo qui mittitur — quod subauctoritatem habent, non *ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis*[^p150-1], ut mihi imponitur, sed potius ad intelligentiam veritatis. Forma igitur praescripta Apostolis debet et potest competere istis.

Quod enim dicitur, quod fuit *temporalis;* cum ex Scripturis auctoritatem non habeat, eadem facilitate contemnitur, qua probatur. — *Rursus,* si conveniens fuit forma in Ecclesia primitiva, quare non similiter in finali, potissime quantum ad eos qui Apostolos in hac forma imitari volunt? Non enim dico, quod universalis Ecclesia in omnibus ad paupertatem reducenda sit — sicut ab eis mihi imponitur — sicut ex verbis meis superius[^p150-2] apparet; sed qui volunt possunt Apostolorum imitari perfectionem et paupertatis altitudinem. — Unde exemplo Apostolorum ex verbis Evangelii in Ecclesia recitatis incitatus fuit beatus Franciscus ad aggrediendum huiusmodi modum vivendi, sicut ex legenda sua[^p150-3] clarius elucescit. — Quia igitur super illa verba ordo huiusmodi fundatus est, non sunt illa *impertinentia,* sed per omnem modum pertinentia tanquam huiusmodi vivendi stabilissima fundamenta. Sunt igitur tales suscipiendi, quia proficiscuntur ut pauperes pro nomine Christi, sicut in Canonica Ioannis[^p150-4] dicitur, quod qui tales recipiunt sunt *cooperatores veritatis.* Igitur qui talibus adversantur et eos non recipiunt, vel non suscipiendos dicunt, similes sunt Diotrephi, de quo dicit Glossa, quod haeresiarcha etiam fuit illius temporis; cuius doctrina et secta procul sit ab omnibus Christianis.

II. Refellere conatur aliqua sicut *falsa.* — Nam falsum esse asserit, quod Christus aliquid petierit ut mendicus. Nam etsi *mendicus* dicatur in Psalmis, hoc dicitur, in quantum petiit a Patre, vel in quantum assumsit nostras infirmitates. — Si dicatur a Samaritana petiisse aquam et a Zachaeo hospitium[^p150-5], hoc non fuit ex *mendicitate,* sed ex *auctoritate,* vel *urbanitate.* — Et *rursus,* si etiam mendicasset, ad *consequentiam trahendum* non esset. — Falsum esse nihilominus dicit, quod aliqua mendicatio sit *voluntaria,* immo omnis debet esse invita et coacta.

Hanc autem obviationem, quae falsitatem veritati impingit, facile est de falsitate convincere, si quis veritatem pie velit audire. — Nam quod Christus *fuerit mendicus,* et textus propheticus et Glossae testantur; et quod *petierit ut mendicus,* sicut allegatum fuit in opponendo[^p150-6] in duabus Glossis; et similiter in Psalmo illo: *Deus in adiutorium meum intende,* super illud: *Ego vero egenus et pauper sum;* dicit Glossa: «Assumit iste sibi verba Dei, qui in praecedenti Psalmo haec eadem de se dixit, quasi diceret: Illi *qui quaerunt animam meam* sunt divites; sed ego sum *egenus,* id est petens, et *pauper,* id est insufficiens mihi: quia et mundanas copias non habet, et intus, ubi est dives, semper ambit, desiderat et accipit». Secundum hanc constat, quod Christus *fuit egenus et pauper* et *petens ut egenus,* non a Patre tantum; tunc enim omnes hoc modo essent mendici, et nulli divites, etiam habentes copias; quod est contra Glossam. *Praeterea,* Christus adhuc petit a Patre[^p150-7], Angeli petunt et sancti comprehensores; sed tamen non dicuntur *mendici.*

Ex quo igitur testimonio tam expresso textus hoc dicit, et Glossa consentit, et nulla auctoritas contradicit; quare non fatebimur, quod Christus ut mendicus petierit? Fatemur enim, eum fuisse virginem et uxore caruisse, licet Scriptura de hoc non faciat mentionem. — *Evangelium* etiam exprimit, quod petiit et potum et hospitium; et constat, quod non ex imperio et dominio et *auctoritate,* quia tunc exemplum paupertatis non dedisset. — Falsum etiam dixisset, quod non haberet, ubi caput suum reclinaret[^p150-8], cum haberet subditos, a quibus posset procurationes exigere; et minus iuste egisset in hoc, quod praedicabat in Ierusalem et pascebatur in Bethania, alibi faciens fructus et praedicans, et alibi accipiens emolumentum.

Sed dices, quod petiit ex *urbanitate.* Sed nunquid Christus accepit paupertatem ad docendam urbanitatem? Nunquid propter curialitates humanas docendas fieri voluit egenus et pauper? Nunquid se

<!-- page 151 -->

magistrum vocat curialitatis et non magis humilitatis? *Discite a me,* inquit Matthaei undecimo[^p151-1], *quia mitis sum et humilis corde.* Petiit igitur ex *humilitate* quod opportunum erat ad relevandum suam indigentiam, ac per hoc ut mendicus pauper.

Et constat, quod hanc indigentiam non habuit, nisi quia voluit; nec petiit, nisi quia voluit: quia lapides in aurum, cum voluit, convertere potuit; sicut discipulus eius fecit Ioannes evangelista[^p151-2] illis mendicare et egere nolentibus et evangelizantibus, qui conversi fuerant retro, qui postmodum mendicitatem et paupertatem gemmis pretiosis praetulerunt. — Ac per hoc constat, quod Christi et eius sequacium est *voluntarie* mendicare; alioquin minime mererentur in hac mendicatione et paupertate. Nam absurdum est dicere, quod paupertas et egestas sint voluntariae, et mendicatio ex ipsa procedens sit coacta.

Si igitur mendicatio in Christo fuit ex paupertate et humilitate et voluntaria; quare non est *trahenda ad consequentiam?* cum ipse dicat: *Discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde;* cum etiam ceteros volentes ad summum apicem perfectionis venire invitet ad sequendum se per huiusmodi paupertatem: *Vade,* inquit[^p151-3], *et vende* etc.; et Apostolus dicat secundae ad Corinthios octavo: *Scitis gratiam Domini nostri Iesu Christi,* et post: *Consilium do,* Glossa: «ut eius paupertatem imitemini»; cum etiam ista sit perfectio, quae omnibus communiter proponitur et dicitur[^p151-4]: *Qui potest capere capiat;* cum Augustinus super Ioannem dicat homilia decima quinta: «In omnibus, quae Christus gessit ut homo, hominibus in se credituris praebebat exemplum»; cum Hieronymus dicat, quod etiam si in miraculis non sit a nobis imitandus, in his quae humiliter gessit imitandus est a nobis; cum etiam ipse fuerit universalis forma virtutum in actibus suis. Unde Augustinus de Vera Religione[^p151-5]: «Nullum peccatum committi potest, nisi dum appetuntur ea quae ille contempsit, aut fugiuntur quae ille sustinuit. Tota itaque vita eius in terris per hominem, quem suscipere dignatus est, disciplina morum fuit». — Quis igitur audeat dicere, quod non sit *trahenda ad consequentiam,* nisi qui audet dicere, quod Christo non debetur imitatio in his quae humiliter gessit? Hoc autem si dicimus, quidquid sanctitatis, virtutis et perfectionis est et religio christiana confunditur et subvertitur[^p151-6], et etiam enervatur, quia, qua ratione de hoc dicitur, eadem ratione et de aliis exemplis virtutum dici poterit. Absit autem hoc ab omnibus cordibus christianis.

III. Refellere nititur nihilominus aliqua sicut *inconsequentia.* — Dicit enim, quod non sequitur, quod quamvis *egestas* sit conveniens perfectioni Sanctorum, quod propter hoc et *mendicitas,* quae egestatem aliquando concomitatur; quod similiter posset argui de manducatione filiorum et de furtis et rapinis, quae ex egestate et paupertate pluries subsequuntur. — Inconsequens etiam dicit, quod licet beatus Benedictus fuerit perfectus, quod propter hoc, accipiendo ab illo Romano eleemosynas quotidianas[^p151-7], opus egerit ad perfectionem spectans, quia perfectus multa facit, quae ad perfectionem non spectant, sicut comedere, egerere et cetera consimilia. — Inconsequens etiam dicit, quod licet se ipsum *vilificare* et *humiliare* pro Christo sit bonum, quod propter hoc *humiliare se mendicando* sit bonum, quia *mendicare* non est *se ipsum humiliare,* sed sui curam agere. Et *iterum* meretrix se ipsam vilificat prostituendo, nec tamen in hoc placet Domino; pari modo nec vilificatio, qua quis se vilificat mendicando.

Has autem instantias foedas, quia foeda proponit exempla et mendicitatem foedare nititur, facile est spirituali viro[^p151-8] respuere tanquam foedas, falsas et fictas. Invenimus enim, viros christianos et perfectos in suis legendis non laudari de crudelitatibus in manducandis hominibus, vel de cupiditatibus in praedis agendis, vel de egestionibus, fornicationibus et huiusmodi similibus; laudari autem et praedicari inveniuntur de hoc, quod in tanta penuria vivere elegerunt, quod non habebant victum neque vestitum nec habere volebant tanquam divites, sed potius mendicare humiliter tanquam pauperes et despecti, sicut apparet in exemplis supra[^p151-9] introductis. — Nam quod ad egestatem sequatur comestio filiorum, hoc est contra *ordinem naturae;* quod sequatur furtum et rapina, hoc est contra *ordinem morum et iustitiae.* — Quod autem sequatur insinuatio suae necessitatis ad proximum et postulatio

<!-- page 152 -->

subsidii pro amore Dei, hoc est secundum *ordinem caritatis et pietatis* tam naturalis quam etiam gratuitae et spiritualis. Nam omnis lex mandat, proximum a proximo foveri et relevari. Quomodo igitur simile est de hoc quod ordinem pervertit et est secundum ordinem perversum, ad hoc quod fit secundum ordinem rectum, iustum et bonum, caritativum et pium? — Laudatur igitur Romanus monachus, quia secundum legem caritatis beato Benedicto procurabat, et Benedictus, qui humillime suscipiebat[^p152-1] Nusquam autem invenies eum laudatum, quia egerebat et stercorizabat; hoc enim valde est abominabile in medium introducere, cum agitur de laudibus Sanctorum.

Laudatur autem mendicans, licet *curam sui agat,* non quia hoc facit *qualitercumque,* sed quia facit *humillime;* unde sicut *sobrie comedere* est actus virtutis, licet *comedere* sit curam sui agere; sic et in proposito intelligendum est. Unde Chrysostomus, homilia quarta[^p152-2] super Matthaeum, loquens de pueris sanctis, qui erant in palatio regis Babylonis, ait sic: «Sancti itaque existentes et iusti, decies millies elegissent mendicare domi et eis quae in templo erant potiri bonis. *Elegi* enim, ait, *abiectus esse in domo Dei mei magis, quam habitare in tabernaculis peccatorum.* Decies millies itaque elegissent abiecti esse domi, quam regnare in Babylonia». Est igitur in mendicatione humiliatio et vilificatio sui Deo accepta, alioquin a sanctis pueris non esset eligenda; *eligitur* autem, eo quod cura sit sui cum humilitate sua. Illi autem, qui *curam carnis* suae agunt *in desideriis et concupiscentiis*[^p152-3], illi procul dubio non laudantur, etiam si se ipsos humiliare et vilificare videantur, sicut meretrix, quae se ipsam prostituit amore pecuniae, vel fervore libidinis. Sed absit hoc a fidelium cordibus, ut humiliatio virorum spiritualium in mendicatione sit similis vilificationi meretricis in sui prostitutione. Nam *membra Christi non sunt tollenda, ut fiant membra meretricis*[^p152-4]. Christus autem de se in forma servi et etiam pro suis membris dicit: *Ego sum mendicus et pauper, Dominus autem sollicitus est mei.* Quod nequaquam diceret, nisi *esse mendicum* pro Christo adeo placeret Deo, ut Deum faciat gerere curam nostri specialissimam, sicut gerit pater de filiis; quod de meretricibus et meretricantibus sentire procul sit ab auribus et mentibus christianis.

IV. Refellere nihilominus conatur aliqua alia velut *dubia.* — Nam ad illud quod dicitur de beato Alexio, quod mendicavit, et de beato Francisco, quod miraculis hoc confirmavit; respondet: *Proba,* tanquam ad[^p152-5] dubia et incerta; addens, quod etiam si miracula essent facta, non esset adhuc certum: quia multi mali miracula faciunt, et quod de panibus etiam furtim sublatis possent miracula fieri; nec tamen ex hoc constaret, quod bonum esset furari. — Dubium etiam dicit, quod Romana Ecclesia approbaverit mendicationem: quia, si hoc faceret, errare convinceretur; similiter et, si imponeret in poenam satisfactionis, erraret; et hoc dicit nullatenus esse credendum.

Huic autem obviationi per dubitationem se protegenti sine dubio resistendum est. Nam si in dubium revocetur, quod legitur in legenda sancti Alexii et legenda beati Francisci; pari ratione in dubium venit quidquid legitur in legendis aliorum Sanctorum: ergo omnia exempla virtutum et gesta Sanctorum iam revocantur[^p152-6] in dubium. Sed dubia imitari vel credere periculosum est; ac per hoc perit fides, devotio et reverentia, quae habetur in Sanctis, si in dubium revocentur cetera, quae narrantur de ipsis. — *Rursus,* si miracula, quae fecerunt, non sunt testimonia efficacia ad sanctitatem eorum astruendam, stultizat hodie Ecclesia, quae propter testimonia miraculorum Sanctos canonizat et catalogo Sanctorum ascribit. — *Postremo,* quis unquam audivit, quod Deus per furem panem furtim acceptum multiplicaret ad aliorum salutem? Audivimus tamen, per mendicum pauperem panem, quem mendicando acquisierat, multipliciter augmentasse[^p152-7]. — *Quodsi dicas,* hoc speciale fuisse privilegium, et familiari sancti Spiritus consilio esse factum; quomodo hoc aliis tradidit in legem et regulam, in qua eos ad mendicationem invitat, si sibi soli pro se solo est inspirata? — *Si dicas,* quod[^p152-8] ex proprio capite, non per inspirationem; quomodo non potest esse damnatus qui ad actum reprehensibilem tanquam ad actum moris et perfectionis temerarie invitavit? Quomodo etiam Sedes Romana de consensu cardinalium hoc approbavit?

*Quodsi dicas,* hoc non esse credendum, quod mendicitatem alicui imponat in *poenam,* vel quod approbet pro *regula* et vita sancta; sed[^p152-9] quod mendicitatem peregrinationis imponat, habetur de Poenitentia[^p152-10], ubi dicitur de sacerdote, qui revelat confes-

<!-- page 153 -->

siones, «quod deponatur et omni tempore vitae suae ignominiosus peregrinando pergat». Sed si viveret de labore honesto, vel de sumtibus propriis; non pergeret ut vilis, sed potius ut honorabilis. Restat igitur, quod imponit, ut vadat *ut mendicus.*

Quod autem pro *regula* approbet, patet per illud scriptum superius[^p153-1] allegatum, de Excessibus praelatorum, *Nimis prava,* ubi dicitur, quod «ordinem et regulam fratrum Praedicatorum et Minorum Sedes apostolica noscitur approbasse». Patet etiam per regulam beati Francisci a domino Honorio approbatam et confirmatam, ubi dicitur, quod fratres «vadant pro eleemosyna confidenter». Sed si erravit hoc approbando — et constat, eum hoc approbasse et confirmasse; constat etiam, quod universalis Ecclesia per totum mundum huiusmodi ordines et status acceptat — concludendum est ergo secundum dictum huius hominis unius, quod universalis Ecclesia tota erravit et decepta fuit; et qui huiusmodi statum erroneum invenerunt et approbaverunt, omnes damnati sunt; quod est horribilissimum et incredibilissimum, quod Deus permitteret sic[^p153-2] errare universaliter populum sanctum suum et tantam multitudinem sapientium, qui haec tempora praecesserunt. Quis autem hic tam *sapiens* et tam *iustus,* ut audeat ceteros praeter se iudicare fuisse deceptos et reprobos? Mira est haec *sapientia,* quae omnium ostendit insipientiam; et mira *iustitia,* quae ceteros condemnat. Quodsi hoc non est sapientia, sed potius temeritas, Sedem apostolicam velle iudicare, quae a solo Deo iudicatur, et eius iudicium et sententiam reprobare[^p153-3] et tot viros sanctos in infernum retrudere et in barathrum damnationis; procul ergo haec fiant a cordibus fidelibus et christianis.

V. Refellere etiam conatur plurima, immo fere omnia tanquam *doctrinae apostolicae inimica,* pro eo quod dicit, mendicationem ab Apostolo esse prohibitam tanquam malam et tantum in casu esse concessam. — Dicit etiam, me fuisse mentitum et contra Scripturam et Apostolum defendisse falsum et defendere, in hoc quod dicit, me dixisse, quod laborare opere manuali non sit praeceptum. Dicit igitur, quod *mendicare* non est indifferens, sed malum; et ideo propter adiectionem circumstantiae fieri nequaquam potest bonum; immo, quod plus est, in praedicantibus asserit esse simoniacum.

Hoc autem suae positionis fundamentum, frequentius iteratum, facile est advertere esse ruinosum cum omni eo, quod superaedificatur. Nam si *mendicare* prohibitum est, et *mendicare* peccare: ergo *esse mendicum* est *esse peccatorem.* Cum ergo Christus se dicat *mendicum,* immo Propheta[^p153-4] in persona Christi; fatetur ergo Christus, se esse peccatorem; quod dicere vel credere non parvum est flagitium vel peccatum. — *Rursus,* si *mendicare* peccare est, mendicitas sive mendicatio peccatum est. Sed secundae ad Corinthios octavo[^p153-5], super illud: *Ut eius inopia vos divites essetis;* Glossa dicit: «Nemo se contemnat: pauper in cella, dives in conscientia securior dormit in terra, quam auro dives in purpura. Non ergo expavescas cum tua mendicitate ad illum accedere, qui indutus est nostra paupertate; ubi se pauperavit, nos ditavit». Ergo mendicitas disponit, non retrahit a divino accessu; constat igitur, quod non est peccatum.

Amplius, Chrysostomus super Matthaeum homilia sexagesima nona in fine[^p153-6] dicit, quod «mendicare in nullo offendit Deum; furari autem sive rapere offendit Deum et hominem». Hoc etiam patet per auctoritatem Chrysostomi superius allegatam de homilia quarta super Matthaeum. Non ergo est ab Apostolo prohibitum, nec invenitur alicubi, hoc Apostolum prohibuisse, sed potius cum suis coapostolis commendasse. Nam primae ad Corinthios decimo sexto[^p153-7] et praedicavit et procuravit, quod collectae fierent in pauperes Sanctorum, qui erant in Ierusalem, sicut eleemosynae eis gratis impensae. Et ad Galatas secundo dicit, quod *Petrus et Iacobus dexteras dederunt mihi et Barnabae societatis, ut nos in gentibus, ipsi in circumcisione, tantum ut pauperum memores essemus;* Glossa: «*Pauperum,* qui rerum suarum venditarum pretium ad pedes Apostolorum posuerant, *memores essemus,* ad opus illorum faciendo collectas». Si ergo Apostolus simoniacus non erat in hoc, quod collectas petebat et discipulos mittebat ad hoc, ut peterent eleemosynas ab his quibus spiritualia seminaverat, pro pauperibus, qui erant in Ierusalem; si summus Pontifex Ordines statuat pauperes, qui spiritualia seminent et de eorum quos aedificant verbo et exemplo eleemosynis gratuitis, petitis, seu ultro oblatis, vivant: ab Apostolo in nullo prorsus discordat, quin potius concordat, cum tan-

<!-- page 154 -->

tam, sicut ipse, et maiorem potestatem habeat in gubernando et disponendo ipsius Ecclesiae membra.

Sed *obiicies,* quod Apostolus praecepit laborem corporalem in textu, et Glossae[^p154-1] videntur dicere, quod hoc facit contra mendicitatem.

Sed ad hoc est plana responsio: esto, quod Apostolus laborem huiusmodi manualem praecipiat — quod nunquam negavi, sicut apparet in verbis meis, sed quod hoc non *universaliter* praecipit servis Christi, nisi forte in articulo necessitatis, in quo non patet licita via habendi victum nisi per laborem manuum — sed praecipit personis *determinatis,* secundum quod apparet ex textu[^p154-2]: *Audivimus quosdam inter vos ambulantes inquiete, nihil operantes, sed curiose agentes. His autem, qui eiusmodi sunt, denuntiamus et obsecramus in Domino Iesu Christo, ut cum silentio operantes suum panem manducent.* Et paulo ante: *Denuntiamus, ut subtrahatis vos* etc.; Glossa: «Incipit hic de curiosis et otiosis, monens, ut corrigantur». Patet ergo ex serie textus et ex Glossa, quod mandatum illud se extendit ad curiosos et otiosos. — Similiter primae ad Thessalonicenses quarto[^p154-3]: *Rogamus vos, fratres, ut operam detis, ut quieti sitis, et operemini manibus vestris, sicut praecepimus vobis;* Glossa: «*Operemini,* quod adiuvat vos, quietos esse. Illud enim malum de otio venit». Ex hoc etiam patet, quod hoc dicit ad otium vitandum et pigritiam tollendam, quae est sentina desideriorum et fomentum peccatorum. Unde ad Ephesios quarto[^p154-4]: *Qui furabatur iam non furetur, magis autem laboret operando manibus suis* etc. — Ex hoc igitur patet, quod labor non *omnibus* praecipitur; ac per hoc non inhibetur mendicatio, nisi illa quae venit ex otio et cupiditate, secundum quod insinuant textus et Glossae.

Sed *obiicies* de Augustino, de Opere monachorum, qui loquebatur ad monachos, qui spiritualibus exercitiis erant occupati et intenti, non otiosi; et illis dicit, quod ad huiusmodi opera sunt astricti.

Ad hoc apparet manifesta responsio, si attendatur conclusio circa finem, qua confutat eorum positionem, qui repudiabant operationem corporalem; in quo male sentiebant, ibi[^p154-5]: «Quamobrem illi qui, relicta sive ampla sive qualicumque opulentia, inter pauperes Christi vivere voluerunt, si corpore valent et ab ecclesiasticis occupationibus vacant; tamen si et ipsi manibus operantur, misericordius agunt, quam cum omnia sua indigentibus diviserunt. Quod si nolunt, quis audeat cogere? Illi autem, qui praeter istam sanctam societatem vitam labore corporis transigebant, si non laborant, non manducent».

Apparet igitur, qui sunt astricti, scilicet validi et fortes, et qui ab ecclesiasticis occupationibus vacant, et qui vitam in saeculo de labore corporis transigebant, et tales multi erant inter illos monachos, et plures erant[^p154-6] in exordio religionis Minorum fratrum, et ideo ad labores erant arctandi; nunc autem comparatione aliorum paucissimi sunt tales: et ideo non est contra Apostolum, si talibus conceditur simpliciter[^p154-7] mendicare, maxime cum talis actus non sit multum appetibilis nec delectabilis nec honorabilis, immo repletus multis vilitatibus et miseriis, ad quem nullius valentis viri cor posset inclinari nisi in spe praemii aeterni et amore Christi et desiderio proficiendi cum adiutorio gratiae Spiritus sancti, sine qua vix credo posset dives ad tantae abiectionis incommodum inclinari. Nec tales gravant populum Domini et Ecclesiam, maxime si nihil ultra necessaria petant, quia multo plura expenderent et consumerent de eleemosynis pauperum, si clerici in saeculo in beneficiis praebendalibus remansissent; nec tunc[^p154-8], quando modicum intenderent spiritualibus operibus, etiam in divitiis praecluderetur via salutis. Absit igitur, quod nunc praecludatur in tanta arctitudine paupertatis.

Ex iam dictis in hac quaestione de paupertate, ut cetera recolligamus in summa, apparet, quod sicut *mendicare* in pauperibus debilibus et infirmis est *necessitas naturae,* in validis otiosis et cupidis est *vitiositas culpae;* sic in pauperibus voluntariis, contemptoribus sui et imitatoribus Christi et praedicatoribus Evangelii est *actus consonans,* non repugnans *evangelicae perfectioni,* pro eo quod omnibus universaliter *renuntiare,* nullam rem sibi appropriando, est *consultum*[^p154-9] a Domino ut perfectum; eleemosynas *accipere* iustis pauperibus est *concessum* tanquam licitum et in nullo perfectionis evangelicae inimicum; eleemosynas etiam *humiliter petere* pauperibus voluntariis *non est inhibitum* tanquam malum; vitam suam de *lucro laboris sui transigere* non est omnibus validis pauperibus iniunctum tanquam praeceptum necessario astrictivum.

<!-- page 155 -->

Si quis ergo impugnat rerum temporalium *universalem abrenuntiationem,* impugnat Christum pauperem, crucifixum; impugnat evangelicum consilium; impugnat coetum Apostolorum dicentium[^p155-1]: *Ecce nos reliquimus omnia;* impugnat etiam Spiritum sanctum, qui hoc inspirat et suggerit cordibus perfectorum; impugnat et ipsum Deum Patrem universorum, qui est *refugium pauperum;* impugnat denique regnum caelorum, totum universum, cuius dominium pauperi est concessum, dicente Domino: *Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum;* et ideo contra talem *insensatum* necesse est ut *pugnet orbis terrarum.*

Qui autem impugnat *eleemosynarum acceptionem,* et Christum impugnat, qui stipendium accipiebat a mulieribus sibi servientibus et se invitantibus, Lucae septimo[^p155-2]; et coetum Apostolorum, qui et ipsi eleemosynas accipiebant, quae *ponebantur ad pedes eorum,* Actuum quarto; et statum monachorum, qui super eleemosynas fundati sunt; et universum clerum — nam et ipsi de eleemosynis vivunt, quae ultro ecclesiis Christi collatae sunt — et per consequens communem pauperum statum, quem tamen Scripturae divinae indicant Deo maxime esse acceptum.

Qui vero impugnat humilem *eleemosynarum petitionem* in eis qui egent et licite possunt accipere, impugnat *Christum,* qui humiliter petiit hospitium, qui etiam fatetur, se[^p155-3] esse mendicum; impugnat et *Paulum,* qui petiit, collectas fieri pauperibus Sanctis, et hoc de voluntate Petri; impugnat *vinculum caritatis,* quod facit communicari *in ratione dati et accepti;* impugnat *officium humanitatis,* per quam indigens exponit necessitatem suam, ne sibi sit inhumanus, et alium excitat, qui potest et vult, ut proximo sit humanus et pius; et in hoc nullus offenditur, nulli praeiudicatur, nihil inordinate concupiscitur, nihil indebite aufertur, in eis praecipue, qui non quaerunt *datum,* sed *fructum*[^p155-4].

Qui autem impugnat *otiositatem, cupiditatem, carnalitatem et superfluitatem* in ceteris Christianis et praecipue in religiosis, bene facit et recte, si tamen secundum ordinem rectum procedat.

Qui autem universaliter omnibus validis *onus imponit lucrativi laboris,* de quo debeant sustentari, praeceptum Apostoli nimis ampliat et iugum servitutis super Christi servos nimium aggravat et spirituales viros a spiritualibus occupationibus et laboribus retardat in periculum salutis animarum, dum magis facit eos sollicitos de suis morituris corporibus pascendis quam de proximorum animis Domino acquirendis. Quod si fiat, *decimatur mentha et cyminum, et relinquentur quae graviora sunt Legis, iudicium et misericordia*[^p155-5], praefertur misericordia corporalis spirituali; ac per hoc corpus spiritui praefertur, privatum commodum utilitati communi, quae specialiter consistit in aedificatione populi Christi, in eleemosynis, in documentis et animarum consiliis, ad quae misit Deus istos ordines postremos per summum Pontificem et praelatos. Ad quae si quis dicat eos *non missos,* manifeste obviat *veritati,* cum expressa ad hoc testimonia habeantur tam in regula quam in privilegio et institutione et approbatione huius duplicis ordinis[^p155-6]. — Si autem dicat, *non debere mitti;* detrahit *evangelicae perfectioni.* Quis enim magis idoneus ad hoc, quam qui devovit evangelicam perfectionem? — Si quis dicat, eos a Papa et episcopis *non posse mitti;* derogat *apostolicae auctoritati* et *potestati clavium* in praelatis et *plenitudini potestatis* in summo Pontifice, qui in terris, ut[^p155-7] Scriptura asserit, fides sentit, iura testantur, rationes etiam irrefragabiles convincunt, ut caput unum et summum et sponsus unicus et hierarcha praecipuus, in quo est totius Ecclesiae militantis status, obtinet locum Christi. Et ideo omne genu debet ei curvari, et principum et praelatorum et clericorum et laicorum et religiosorum in terris, ad instar Christi in caelis, cui *omne genu flectitur caelestium, terrestrium et infernorum*[^p155-8]. Amen.

---

english:
<!-- page 134 -->

### Article II. *On poverty as to mendicancy*[^p134-1].

Next the question is about mendicancy, and it is asked whether to beg for Christ belongs to Christian perfection; and I call *to beg* to seek alms, or to live on daily alms. And that it does not, it seems:

1. First, by the authority of the Psalm[^p134-2]: *Fear the Lord, all ye his saints: for there is no want to them that fear him:* therefore to be in want and to fear God do not stand together.

2. Likewise, the Psalm[^p134-3]: *I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread:* therefore he who seeks bread is not just, nor the seed of the just.

3. Likewise, the Psalm[^p134-4]: *Let his children be carried about vagabonds, and beg;* but nothing that the Psalmist, speaking in the spirit of God, imprecates as a punishment pertains to evangelical perfection or to perfect justice; to beg is of this kind: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Ecclesiasticus, chapter 40[^p134-5]: *My son, in thy life be not indigent; for it is better to die than to be indigent:* therefore it is better to be dead than a beggar.

5. Likewise, Acts, chapter 20[^p134-6]: *It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive;* but to give alms does not make a man attain to evangelical perfection: therefore much less does receiving.

6. Likewise, Luke, chapter 12[^p134-7]: *Sell what you possess;* the Gloss: «that, having once spurned all things for God, you may afterwards work with the labour of your hands for what to live on, or to give alms»: therefore to live by one's own labour and to give alms pertains to evangelical perfection: therefore its opposite, namely to beg and to live by another's labour, is contrary to evangelical perfection.

7. Likewise, the first to the Thessalonians, chapter 4[^p134-8]: *Desire nothing of any man's;* the Gloss: «*Desire*

<!-- page 135 -->

*nothing of any man's,* much less ask for it, or take it». If therefore *to ask* or *to request* is more than *to crave,* and the first, namely *to desire* or to crave what is another's, is forbidden by the Apostle as unlawful: therefore much more strongly *to request.*

8. Likewise, the first to the Thessalonians, chapter 5[^p135-1]: «*We beseech you, that you know them who labour among you, and are over you in the Lord;* the Gloss: «Just as riches beget neglect of salvation, so need, while it longs to be sated, turns aside from justice»; but what makes one turn aside from justice does not pertain to evangelical perfection: therefore etc.

9. Likewise, the second to the Thessalonians, chapter 3[^p135-2]: *If any man will not work, neither let him eat;* the Gloss: «The Apostle wills that the servants of God work bodily, so that they may have whereon to live, and not be compelled by need to request necessities»; but this is what mendicants do: therefore it does not belong to the servants of God to beg, according to the Apostle.

10. Likewise, in the same chapter, on that text[^p135-3]: *That we might give a pattern unto you;* the Gloss: «He who frequently comes to another's table, given to idleness, must needs flatter the one who feeds him»; but to flatter is contrary to truth and to perfection: therefore etc.

11. Likewise, in Causa 12, question 1, *Videntes*[^p135-4], Pope Urban says that «bishops ought to minister all necessities to all who wish to live the common life, as best they can, so that no one among them be found needy». And afterwards: «If anyone shall arise, in modern or in future times, who strives to tear this away, let him be struck with the condemnation already stated»: therefore it is against the canonical sanctions that some should live the common life in the Church, being in need and begging in it.

12. Likewise, in *De consecratione*, distinction 1[^p135-5], it is forbidden that a church be consecrated unless it is first endowed: therefore, if a church ought not to be consecrated unless those who minister in it have whereby to be sustained, much more strongly ought no religious order to be instituted without a sustaining possession.

13. Likewise, in civil law it is forbidden that the able-bodied beg, by the law on able-bodied mendicants[^p135-6]; but the Church ought to be more ordered than the commonwealth: if therefore it is against the right governance of the commonwealth that the able-bodied beg, much more is it against the sublimity of evangelical perfection.

14. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by reason.* To beg is an indifferent work; but an indifferent [work] does not become a work of perfection through the addition of an end, as appears manifestly in other works, such as going to church and giving alms: therefore etc.

15. Likewise, it belongs to perfection to serve freely and liberally and to flee the obligations of sins; but he who receives alms obliges himself to intervene[^p135-7] for the sins of others: if therefore an obligation of this kind is not consonant with perfection, therefore etc.

16. Likewise, those of this kind who beg by profession do this either because they are *poor,* or because they are *preachers.* If because *poor:* then all the poor who beg are perfect, which is against Augustine in the book *On the Work of Monks*[^p135-8], who rebukes monks who beg and are willing to do no work. If because *preachers:* then no one among them ought to beg who does not preach; the contrary of which we see all day long.

17. Likewise, to preach is something spiritual; but he who gives a spiritual thing and receives a temporal one is like Giezi, who received money from Naaman on the pretext of a spiritual benefit previously shown to him[^p135-9]; but this is damnable: therefore it is damnable for a preacher to beg: therefore it does not belong to evangelical perfection.

18. Likewise, it belongs to the perfect to refrain *from every evil appearance*[^p135-10]; but this is an evil appearance, that preachers request temporal things, because in this they are like the pseudo-preachers: therefore etc.

<!-- page 136 -->

19. Likewise, those of this kind either have authority in preaching, or they do not. If they do not: then they do ill by preaching, therefore they merit nothing; if they have it — but those who have authority can request by right of their power: therefore such men, by begging[^p136-1], do injury to the authority of the preaching of the Gospel: therefore in this they are not perfect, but impious.

20. Likewise, it is safer and more perfect to follow men more approved and wiser; but the most approved and wisest men in the religious orders were Basil, Benedict, Augustine, Jerome, Gregory, Hilary and Paulinus; but such men so left their own things that they possessed things in common, nor are they read to have begged: therefore this mode of begging newly introduced by Dominic and Francis seems to be superstitious and vain, since it seems foolish to set the mind and spirit of two poor men before such great wisdom and sublimity of the Saints and doctors who went before[^p136-2].

Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Matthew, chapter 10[^p136-3]: *Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, nor two coats, nor shoes;* the Gloss: «Let them not carry with them even necessary things, nor a store-room; nothing besides clothing, with which one can be content». But in this the form of perfection is handed down to the Apostles themselves, and to imitate what belongs to perfection is perfect: therefore so to go through the world pertains to evangelical perfection. But this is to beg and to live on alms: therefore this pertains to evangelical perfection.

2. Likewise, Mark, chapter 6[^p136-4]: *He commanded them that they should take nothing for the way, neither bread, nor money in their purse;* therefore he commanded this to them either as to *prelates,* or as to the *perfect.* If as to *prelates:* then prelates would still be bound to it; which is manifestly false. Therefore he commanded this to them as to perfect men; but perfection is set before all in common to be imitated, for it is said: *He that can take, let him take it:* therefore so to live pertains to evangelical perfection.

3. Likewise, Luke, chapter 9[^p136-5]: *Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money;* the Gloss: «*Not to carry a staff* is not to be solicitous about the things that are necessary for human sustenance, because these are owed to preachers»; if *therefore* the Lord urged upon the Apostles, whom he sent to preach even among *unbelievers,* the exclusion of solicitude about necessary sustenance, much more strongly, when the Gospel is preached to *the faithful,* does it belong to perfection not to be solicitous about such things, but to be content with the food and clothing given one.

4. Likewise, Luke, chapter 9[^p136-6]: *Whosoever shall receive a child in my name;* the Interlinear: «a poor man»; and another Gloss: «He who receives an imitator of Christ receives Christ»: therefore when a poor man imitating Christ is received, Christ is received. If therefore it belongs to evangelical perfection to be poor and an imitator of Christ, it belongs to evangelical perfection to wish to be received for Christ in such a poor man. If therefore such a one requests by begging, he does not withdraw from evangelical perfection.

5. Likewise, Luke, chapter 10[^p136-7]: *Carry neither purse, nor scrip;* the Gloss: «So great ought to be the preacher's confidence in God that, even if he does not provide beforehand the expenses of the present life, he should yet know most certainly that they will not fail him, lest, while his mind is occupied with temporal things, he preach eternal things the less». Therefore it makes for a more unencumbered preaching of the truth that one should not provide temporal things for oneself beforehand, but expect them to be given one by others when one has need: therefore such a mode of living is consonant with truth and with evangelical perfection.

6. Likewise, Luke, chapter 16[^p136-8]: *Make unto you friends of the mammon of iniquity; that when you shall fail, they may receive you into everlasting dwellings;* the Gloss: «Not any poor whatever, but those who can receive into the everlasting dwellings»; but such are *the poor*

<!-- page 137 -->

*in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven:* therefore it is according to the divine counsel that alms be given to such poor and that they be received by them. But what is consonant with the divine counsel is not repugnant to evangelical perfection: therefore etc.

7. Likewise, Jerome against Vigilantius[^p137-1], treating the aforesaid word, says: «Can these poor, amid whose filth and uncleanness of body burning lust holds sway, have the everlasting dwellings, who possess neither present things nor future ones? For not the poor simply, but the poor in spirit are called blessed, of whom it is written: *Blessed is he that understandeth concerning the needy and the poor: the Lord will deliver him in the evil day.* In sustaining the poor of the common people there is need not at all of understanding, but of alms; in the holy poor there is the blessedness of intelligence, that you should give to him who blushes to receive and, when he has received, grieves, reaping carnal things and sowing spiritual ones».

8. Likewise, the second to the Corinthians, chapter 8[^p137-2]: *Let your abundance supply their want, that their abundance also may be a supplement to your want;* the Gloss: «*Let your abundance* of earthly things *supply their want, that,* conversely, the *abundance* of the spiritual merits *of those* who are free for divine things[^tr-vacare] *may be a supplement to your want*». If therefore it pertains to the perfection of the Lord's body that the members communicate with one another *in the matter of giving and receiving,* it makes for the perfection of the Church and of the Gospel that the just poor request and receive sustenance from the worldly and imperfect rich. — *If you say* that they can *receive,* but not *request;* this is nothing, because the worldly rich can request the prayers of spiritual men to relieve the want of their own merits: therefore, conversely, the spiritual poor can request bodily alms for the sustenance of their bodies.

9. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by the example of Christ.* The Psalm[^p137-3]: *But I am a beggar and poor;* the Gloss: «Christ says this of himself: I am a beggar in the form of a servant. A *beggar* is he who requests from another, a *poor man* is he who is not sufficient for himself». But it is certain that this is not understood of Christ as to spiritual gifts or goods, because he was a comprehensor and full of all grace: therefore it is understood as to temporal goods; therefore as to these he was a beggar and requested from another.

10. Likewise, the Psalm[^p137-4]: *He persecuted the man in want and the beggar;* the Gloss: «namely Christ. To persecute the poor is cruelty alone; others indeed sometimes suffer such things for the sake of riches and honours».. Either therefore Christ is called a *beggar* because he begged from the *Father,* or because he begged from *man.* If because he begged from the *Father,* then all men are beggars, the rich as well as the poor: therefore so to persecute Christ would not have been the height of cruelty; if because he begged from *men,* we have the proposition: therefore etc.

11. Likewise, Mark, chapter 11[^p137-5]: *Having viewed all things round about, he went out to Bethania;* the Gloss: «[to see] whether anyone would receive him with hospitality; for he was of such great poverty, and so little the flatterer of anyone, that in so great a city he found no lodging»; but it is certain that, if he had wished to hire a lodging, he would have found one to hire: therefore he looked round about like a poor little man and a beggar.

12. Likewise, Luke, chapter 19[^p137-6]: *Zacheus, make haste and come down; for this day I must abide in thy house;* the Gloss: «Not invited, he invites»; but to invite another to this, that he receive one with hospitality, is nothing other than to beg and to request: therefore etc.

13. Likewise, John, chapter 4[^p137-7]: *Give me to drink;* Augustine in the original, the fifteenth homily on John: «In everything that Christ did as man, he was holding out to men who would believe in him

<!-- page 138 -->

an example»; and afterwards: «He *asks* for drink and *promises* drink; he is in need as one who will receive, and he promises as one who will satisfy». But it is certain that he was not in need of *spiritual* drink, because he was promising it: therefore he was in need of *bodily* drink and was asking for it. — But you will object the Gloss as if contrary, which says: «Although Jesus after his weariness could thirst, yet he does not demand this drink»; but this is understood to mean that he was not principally requesting this drink, lest the Gloss contradict the deed.

14. Likewise, Jerome to Rusticus[^p138-1]: «What is viler than the Samaritan woman? Yet she not only believes in the Messiah, whom she comes to know at the well, but also, while the Apostles are buying food, she refreshes him when hungry and sustains him when weary»: therefore it seems that Christ was sustained bodily by her.

15. Likewise, as the Gospel history relates[^p138-2], Christ, invited by the Pharisees, ate with them: either therefore as *lord,* or as a *poor man.* If as *lord:* then he did not give an example of poverty; if as a poor man — but this is to beg: therefore etc.

16. Likewise, for this there is *the example of the Saints.* In Hebrews, chapter 11[^p138-3], it is said in praise of the Saints: *They wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in need* etc.; but so to wander about is to beg: therefore etc.

17. Likewise, there is the example of Elias, the third of Kings, chapter 17[^p138-4], of whom Augustine says in a certain sermon: «Had God failed to feed his servant Elias? Did not birds minister to him who lacked men? God therefore showed that he can feed his servants whence he will and when he will; and yet, so that a religious widow might feed him, he made him to be in need».

18. Likewise, for this there is the example of the disciples of John the Evangelist, of whom it is said in his legend[^p138-5] that, selling all things that they could have, they gave to the needy; and afterwards it is added that they were tempted, because they had seen themselves in need in one cloak, but their own servants rich and resplendent».

19. Likewise, the example of the disciples of Paul; whence Chrysostom, on the praises of Paul[^p138-6]: «Paul did not possess money; for he himself also testifies to this: *Even unto this hour,* he says, *we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no fixed abode;* and why do I say money, when he indeed often had not even necessary food, nor clothing to put around him»? And there follows: «Of his disciples too, very many were poor, unskilled and strangers to all learning, living in hunger and need, obscure» etc.: therefore the disciples of Paul were beggars.

20. Likewise, for this there is the example of blessed Benedict, of whom it is read in the second book of the *Dialogues*[^p138-7] that for three years he was in a cave, doing no work at all, but a certain Roman monk ministered bread to him; and it is certain that Benedict did not sin in this.

21. Likewise, the example of Saint Alexius, who was a man of wonderful holiness, in whose legend[^p138-8] it is read that, being the son of a very wealthy Roman, he despised his patrimony and went begging through the world.

22. Likewise, the example of Saint Dominic[^p138-9], who at his death imprecated a curse on all who should try to bring possessions into his order: therefore he willed that they live on alms, according as he himself lived.

23. Likewise, for this there is the example of blessed Francis, who not only begged and counselled begging, but also confirmed his begging by miracles, as appeared in the sailors, whom he sated with the remnants of his food and, having sated them, delivered; and he had it confirmed through the rule approved by the supreme Pontiff, in which he says[^p138-10] that «the brothers, in poverty and

<!-- page 139 -->

humility serving the Lord, may go for alms with confidence» etc.

24. Likewise, Gregory, in the *Morals*, on that text of Job[^p139-1]: *I have numbered to myself wearisome nights:* «The elect serve the Maker of things and are often straitened by want of things; through love they cleave to God, and yet they are in need of the supports of the present life». Therefore to be in need of the supports of the present life befits the perfection of the Saints.

25. Likewise, Jerome, in the forty-first epistle[^p139-2], to a certain hospitable man: «A great number of Saints is sustained by you throughout the islands of Dalmatia; but you would do better if you yourself too lived as a saint among the Saints». Therefore it is better to live on alms than to give alms.

Likewise, this same thing is shown *by reason.*

26. As the habit is, so also is the act[^p139-3]; but the act of one who is wholly poor, insofar as he is poor, is to be in need and to beg: therefore, if to be poor is good, to beg for Christ is praiseworthy and perfect.

27. Likewise, to beg is not prohibited by the law of nature, nor by the law of Scripture, nor by the law of grace; but what is not prohibited, being imposed through obedience, becomes praiseworthy and meritorious, above all if it is difficult and burdensome[^p139-4]: therefore, if some by profession have to beg, since they do this out of obedience, it will be praiseworthy and perfect for them.

28. Likewise, the Church imposes, as a penalty of satisfaction, begging for a time, or even perpetual begging; but it would not impose this unless it were satisfactory[^p139-5]; but he who voluntarily binds himself to a satisfactory work acts perfectly: therefore he who has vowed always to beg for Christ acts perfectly and praiseworthily in this.

29. Likewise, contempt of self belongs to perfection, and greater contempt to greater perfection; but he who begs for Christ most of all despises himself and casts himself down: therefore such a one acts most perfectly.

30. Likewise, voluntary poverty pleases God more than involuntary: therefore also begging proceeding from that poverty is more pleasing to God; but the first can be praiseworthy and meritorious: therefore much more the second.

31. Likewise, he who serves some lord merits to be sustained by him; but he who renounces all things and fulfils the counsels serves the greatest[^p139-6] Lord: therefore such a one most of all merits to be sustained by the Lord, therefore also by the servants of the Lord. If therefore one is voluntarily poor, by this very fact that he is such, if he requests alms, he requests justly.

32. Likewise, he who gives greater things can receive lesser; but the poor man, praying, bestows spiritual mercy: therefore much more strongly can he receive bodily alms.

33. Likewise, one preaching by authority can receive expenses by right of his power: therefore one preaching by sub-authority and commission or mandate can request them by supplication.

34. Likewise, he who serves another[^p139-7] is justly sustained by him; therefore those who serve the universal Church are justly sustained by the whole world: therefore, if there are any who, running through the world, serve the Christian people by word and example, they can deservedly request sustenance from it.

35. Likewise, if it is lawful to receive the greater, much more strongly is it lawful to receive the lesser; but it is lawful for poor religious, who have renounced their own things, to receive very ample possessions; therefore much more strongly is it lawful to receive daily sustenance. Otherwise it seems monstrous to say that it is lawful to receive a hundred marks of gold, and not lawful to receive a hundred pieces of bread. — *If you say* that it is lawful to *receive,* but not lawful to *request;* this is utterly nothing, because *to request* is ordered to *receiving* and exists for its sake; and just as *to give* is more than *to promise,* so *to receive* is more than *to request.* But it is certain that whatever it is lawful to give it is lawful to promise: therefore whatever it is lawful to receive it is lawful to request[^p139-8].

36. Likewise, if a friend requests a gift from his friend, he acts against no law, neither the one by requesting, nor the other by giving, nor the first again by receiving; but the law of charity and of divine love is more communicative than the social law; therefore if anyone requests that something be given him for the love of God, he offends in nothing and in no respect withdraws from perfection.

37. Likewise, it is undoubtedly lawful to request something in the giving of which the condition of the giver is made better; but he who gives something for God *lendeth to the Lord*[^p139-9] and exchanges a temporal thing for an eternal one and exercises himself in the work of the most noble virtue, namely piety. If therefore all these things befall him who gives by reason of the one who petitions, the poor man who requests alms acts most of all according to the law of charity; therefore he in no way withdraws from perfection.

<!-- page 140 -->

> **Conclusio.** *Begging that is done for the imitating of Christ, or for the evangelizing of Christ, or in both ways, is not to be blamed; rather it belongs to evangelical perfection.*

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: For the understanding of what has been said it must be noted that begging comes about in three ways. And the first way is from the *necessity of nature;* and this way is when someone begs not only because he is poor, but also because he has *infirmity,* or *weakness,* or *both.* Now this way is wretched and tolerable, but through good patience it becomes meritorious and praiseworthy; as one reads in Luke sixteen[^p140-1] about Lazarus, that *there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at the gate of the rich man, full of sores;* and afterwards it is added that *the beggar died and was carried by the Angels into Abraham's bosom.* But of the rich man it is said that *he was buried in hell.* From which it is gathered that mendicancy, even when it comes from necessity, is an occasion that leads into the way of eternal salvation; according to what Gregory says[^p140-2], that the evils which press upon us here compel us to go to God.

The second way of begging is from the *viciousness of fault;* and this is when someone begs either for the *fostering of idleness,* or for the *heaping up of gain,* or *in both ways.* And this way, I say, is blameworthy in all who beg thus. Of whom Ambrose says in the book *On Duties*[^p140-3]: «For the sake of petitioning the able-bodied come, they come having no cause but that of wandering, and they wish to empty out the supports of the poor and to drain the store; nor content with a little, they seek greater things, catching at the favour of their petitioning by the display of their clothes, and by feigning a noble birth bidding up the increase of their gains». But although in all of them it deserves to be rebuked, it is nevertheless to be rebuked above all in those who have the appearance of sanctity. Of whom Augustine says in the book *On the Work of Monks*[^p140-4]: «It is in no way fitting that in that life, where senators become labourers, there workmen should become idlers; and that where they come, having left their own delights, they who were lords of estates, there peasants should become dainty». And afterwards, to rebuke their idleness and their gain-seeking, he adds[^p140-5]: «Yet the most cunning enemy has scattered everywhere many hypocrites under the habit of monks, going about the provinces, nowhere sent, nowhere fixed, nowhere standing, nowhere sitting; some hawk the limbs of martyrs, if indeed they are martyrs'; others *enlarge their fringes and their phylacteries;* others lie that they have heard their parents or kinsfolk are living in this or that region and that they are journeying to them; and all of them beg, all of them exact either the costs of a lucrative neediness, or the price of a feigned sanctity». — Against such men blessed Augustine inveighs much in the book *On the Work of Monks,* for this reason, that they not only fostered sloth in themselves by begging, but also persuaded others of it by preaching, ill understanding the Gospel[^p140-6], where he seems to suggest that men, like the birds, ought not to labour; and worse still, expounding the Apostle, where he urges the brethren to work, by saying that this is to be understood of spiritual, not of bodily labour. And because in this they were deceiving both themselves and others, therefore Augustine rebukes them and in many ways shows the contrary throughout the whole book *On the Work of Monks,* which is wholly against those who approve this second way of begging. Whence of such men he says[^p140-7]: «Men who were preaching sloth as though it were the preserver of the Gospel, accusing mercy as though it were the Gospel's betrayer. Would that these men, who wish to be at leisure with their hands[^tr-vacare-2], were wholly at leisure with their tongues too! For they would not invite so many to imitate them, if they set before them examples not only slothful but also dumb. But as it is, against the Apostle of Christ they recite the Gospel of Christ. For so marvellous are the works of the slothful, that they wish the Gospel to be hindered in the very thing which the Apostle therefore commanded and did, that the Gospel might not be hindered».

But the third way of begging is from the *supererogation of justice;* and this is when someone begs for the *imitating of Christ,* or for the *evangelizing of Christ,* or *in both ways.* — For *Christ,* I say, *to be imitated* as regards *contempt of self, affection for one's neighbour* and *the worship of God.* For in these three above all we ought to imitate Christ. And this indeed he does who voluntarily begs for the name of Christ, that he may make himself vile and humble himself, that he may build up his neighbour and stir him to piety, and that he may be free for God with a mind at liberty,

<!-- page 141 -->

having laid aside all care of the world. And of such men Augustine, in a certain Lenten sermon[^p141-1], says: «In this time, in so far as God commends the works of mercy, he has made his own Saints to be in need, so that, when they have been made the friends of God, they may *receive of the mammon of iniquity* and may themselves receive their friends *into the everlasting dwellings;* that is, so that, since the godly servants of God, while they are continually free for God, are sometimes indigent, those who have the riches of the world may lavish alms upon them; and as they make them partakers in earthly substance, so with them they may deserve to have a part in life eternal». — From which it appears that such begging is praiseworthy which is done for the *imitating of Christ*[^p141-2].

And likewise that which is done for the *evangelizing of Christ,* because it opens a way for the Gospel, by reason of *what* is preached, *by whom* it is preached and *to whom* it is preached. — By reason of *what is preached,* because we preach contempt of the world; which is more effectively urged by word and example than by word alone. — It is also *preached by more,* if those who preach live by the Gospel, than if they were compelled to live by their own means or labour. — It is also *more effectively received from more,* while those who receive the teaching lavish sustaining benefits. This is what John Chrysostom says on Matthew, in the thirty-second homily[^p141-3]: «It is manifest that the disciples had to be fed by those to whom they preached, so that neither should they themselves be high-minded against those who were being taught, as giving all things and receiving nothing from them; nor again should these be cut off, despised by them. Then, lest they should say, "You bid us live by begging", and be ashamed of it, he shows this to be a *debt,* and calls them *workmen,* and names what is given a *wage.* For do not, because the work consists in *words,* think the benefit that comes from you a *small* one. For it has many labours, and whatever those who are taught give, they do not bestow it *as men lavishing a gift,* but *as men rendering a recompense*».

When therefore anyone begs for the imitating and the evangelizing of Christ according to the form prescribed, not only does he not sin, but he even fulfils perfect justice: first, because sustenance is *much* owed to a just poor man *imitating Christ;* secondly, because it is *more* owed to him as to a Gospel poor man, *evangelizing Christ;* thirdly, because it is *most* owed to a grateful poor man, who humbly receives as a favour what is owed and humbly makes supplication, seeing that, being *free from all men, he makes himself the servant of all.* — And this is what Augustine says on that text of the Psalm[^p141-4]: *Who bringeth forth grass for cattle* etc.: «*Bringing forth,* he says, *grass,* that is, temporal things; *for cattle,* that is, for preachers, that *they who announce the Gospel may live by the Gospel;* and *herb,* that is, temporal things; *for the service of men,* that is, for preachers, the servants of men for Christ's sake. Whence the Apostle: *Whereas I was free from all men, I made myself the servant of all.* Which servitude is from charity, which makes men humble, who for Christ become the servants of men, intent upon the benefit of the brethren. These are the *cattle,* to whom *herb* is owed as a wage, because they serve. Of whom it is said: *Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn;* and: *The labourer is worthy of his hire.* For temporal things are owed to preachers, because they lavish spiritual things. Whence the Apostle: *If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things?* For whom it is said: *Blessed* is he who forestalls the voice of one about to request, that is, *he that understandeth concerning the needy and the poor.* For you ought not to deal with the ox that treads out the corn as with a beggar passing by. For to him, that is, to the beggar, you give because it is read: *Give to every one that asketh;* but to this man you ought to give even *when he does not ask.* See therefore that, if the soldier of Christ is so indigent that he asks, he does not judge you, that is, show you to be damnable. For just as it is said of the man who seeks you out: *Give to every one that asketh;* so of that preacher, whom you ought to seek out, it is said: *Let thy alms sweat in thy hand, until thou find a just man to whom to give.* To every one that asketh, then, whoever he may be, give, discerning in him to whom you give; but much more give to the servant of God, the soldier of Christ, even when he does not ask». — From these things, therefore, it manifestly appears that in a preacher and evangelizer of Christ to beg is not a matter of vice or of fault, but rather of evangelical perfection. Whence the reasons and authorities and examples which are brought forward for this side are to be conceded[^p141-5].

For if anyone should wish to attack and disapprove every way of begging in the servants of Christ, he will seem to attack not only the order of the poor, but also the *supreme Pontiff* himself, who approved this way of living; and not only him, but also this *great company of Saints* who begged, namely Francis, Dominic, Ale-

<!-- page 142 -->

xius, Benedict and the very band of the Apostles and Prophets; and not only these, but also *the Lord Jesus Christ* himself, whom Scripture does not fear to call *poor* and *a beggar;* since our faith says and holds greater things of him, namely that for us he was not only *poor* and *a beggar* for our example, but also *stripped* and *made vile* even to the uttermost kind of abjection, that he might give an example of perfectly despising the world. — Lastly, over and above all these evils the *state of the universal Church* seems to be overthrown. For if it is unlawful for the poor of Christ to receive by the acceptance of alms the sustenance of life, much more strongly is it unlawful to receive the breadth and multitude of possessions and great revenues. For who is so absurd as to say that it is lawful for someone to receive a talent of gold, and not a piece of bread? And if this is true, then — since the possessions of all the churches, both among religious who have property and among secular clerics, are held through the acceptance of alms voluntarily and freely given — it will seem from this that the state of all the churches is overthrown, if to receive alms or to live on alms, whether in a small quantity or in a great, is judged unlawful; unless perhaps someone should say that it is lawful to *receive,* but not lawful to *request.* But this seems strange, that a man should be able to do what is greater, and not what is less[^p142-1]; and that some monastery should be able to receive a hundred thousand marks in revenues from some prince, and one poor little man not be able suppliantly to implore the relief of his indigence; and that someone should be able to request from a friend out of friendship, and a Christian not be able to request from a Christian out of charity; and that someone should be able to request certain things expedient for the security and abundance of some rich monastery, and a voluntary poor man not be able to request the sustenance of life; and that some scholar should be able lawfully to beg for the love of advancing in the knowledge of a learning that puffs up, so that he may at length come to temporal riches; and a poor religious not be able to request for the love of advancing in charity and humility, which builds up[^p142-2], so that he may at length come to eternal life — and other like things, which seem exceedingly absurd. If therefore all these are not small but great incongruities, it must be held that it is lawful for the poor to be sustained by the alms of others, at least according to the third way of begging explained above.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected in the contrary sense first, that *there is no want to them that fear God;* it must be said that want is twofold, namely *bodily* and *spiritual;* and that word is understood not of any sort of want, but of *spiritual* want. — And that this is true appears from what immediately follows[^p142-3]: *The rich have wanted and have suffered hunger;* it is certain that this is not understood of the need of material riches; it remains, therefore, that it be understood of the want of spiritual things, which, though it be in the rich, is nevertheless not in those who fear God; because *fear is the beginning of wisdom,* of which it is said in Wisdom seven: *Now all good things came to me together with her* etc.

2. To that which is objected from the Psalm: *I have not seen the just forsaken* etc.; it must be said that bread is twofold, namely *bodily* and *spiritual;* and that word is not understood of *bodily* bread, but of *spiritual* bread. And that this is true appears from the Gloss in the same place[^p142-4]: *Nor his seed seeking bread,* Gloss: «spiritual bread, that is, to be in need of the bread of the word of God, because the word of God is always with him». — The text can also be so construed that it is understood: *I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread have I seen forsaken;* because, according to what is said on the last chapter to the Hebrews, on that text: *I will not leave thee, neither will I forsake thee;* Gloss: «He would be forsaken who should perish of hunger». The Prophet therefore means to say that he has seen neither the just man nor the just man's seed dead of hunger; and this does not call a man back from poverty, but rather invites him to it.

3. To that which is objected, that begging is an evil which the Psalmist, speaking in the Spirit of God, imprecates; it must be said that there is a *voluntary* begging and a *forced* begging, which is with murmuring and impatience. The first is meritorious, the second is demeritorious and afflicting; and the Psalm is understood of the second, not of the first. And that this is true appears from the text, because it is said[^p142-5]: *Let them be carried about vagabonds and be cast out;* and all these things seem to sound of compulsion and violence.

4. To that which is objected from Ecclesiasticus: *My son, in thy lifetime be not indigent;* it must be said that, according to the distinction already laid down, that word is to be understood of *spiritual* indigence in respect of grace, not of *bodily* indigence in respect of the sustaining of nature. And that this is true appears from the Gloss[^p142-6]: «*Be not indigent,* says the Gloss, of virtues or of good morals».

<!-- page 143 -->

5. To that which is objected, that it is a more blessed thing to give than to receive; it must be said that this is true when the acceptance of alms comes from the *necessity of nature;* but not when it comes from the *supererogation of justice,* according to the distinction made in the principal solution. — And that this is true appears from what is said in the book *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*[^p143-1]: «It is good to distribute one's means to the poor with discretion, but it is better, with the intention of following the Lord, to give all at once and, released from care, to be in need with Christ». Augustine says this same thing in the book *On the Good of Marriage,* as was cited in the preceding question.

6. To that which is objected from the Gloss on Luke twelve[^p143-2], that when all things have been spurned for God's sake men ought to work with the labour of their hands; it must be said that this is a counsel as regards the *first* thing, which is said: *Sell what you possess;* but as regards the *second* it belongs only to the *well-being* of the counsel, which does not bind even perfect men, and least of all those who can be occupied about greater goods. — And that this is true appears from the same Gloss, when it is added: «whereby you may live, or may give alms». For it is certain that those who have once given all things for God are in no way bound to give further alms; and therefore that Gloss does not state what belongs to the *essence* and substance of the counsel, but rather what is according to its *well-being,* according to the state and condition of certain persons, who are more fit for working with their hands than for doing something more arduous. For if it were said otherwise, that this belonged to the *essence* of the perfection of the counsel, then no one would have fulfilled that counsel except those who worked with their hands; and by this we should judge that the Apostles other than Paul and Barnabas[^p143-3], and very many others of the most perfect Saints, whom we do not read to have worked with their hands, were not perfect. It is indeed true that manual work is in accord with evangelical perfection, provided that it does not hinder greater goods. Whence the Gloss on that text[^p143-4]: *I go a fishing:* «It must be known that they were not forbidden to seek their living by their own lawful craft, the integrity of the apostolate being preserved, when they had not whereby to live; and so, as they laboured, God added to them the necessaries which he had promised». — But that this labour belongs to those not occupied about greater things is manifest, because at that time the Apostles were by no means free for preaching. Whence Chrysostom[^p143-5]: «Simon came to fish, because Christ was not continually with them, nor had the Spirit been given, nor had anything been committed to them then, nor had they anything to do; and so they plied their craft». And therefore from this it does not follow that perfect men are bound to work with their hands, unless perhaps when they have no spiritual and better exercise. — Besides, grant that a perfect man were bound to work with his own hands; from this nevertheless it cannot be inferred that he may not, for his own humiliation and the building up of others, humbly request alms according to place and time.

7. To that which is objected from the Gloss on the first to the Thessalonians, chapter four, that nothing of another's is to be desired or requested; it must be said that a man can request something from another in two ways: either out of desire for *another's property,* or out of desire for *another's salvation.* The first the Apostle forbids as an evil and as forbidden in the Law, where it is said[^p143-6]: *Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's goods;* but the second he does not forbid, because the law of charity grants it, which is nourished by mutual benefits and makes the burden of the one to be borne by the other. For what is so absurd as for us to believe that the Apostle denied that anyone should request from another either a benefit or help or the consolation of brotherly mercy and piety? — And that this is true appears from what the Apostle says in the last chapter to the Philippians[^p143-7] about himself, giving them thanks for the benefit conferred: *I seek not the gift, but I require the fruit abounding to your account.* For according to what Augustine expounds in the thirteenth book of the *Confessions,* he seeks the *gift* who takes his delight chiefly in the thing received; he requires the *fruit* who takes his delight in another's salvation. This is the sense of Augustine's words, although the words are changed.

8. To that which is objected from the Gloss on the first to the Thessalonians, chapter five, that *neediness makes a man turn aside from justice;* it must be said that, just as riches are not at fault, but the greed of riches; so neediness is not at fault, but impatience of neediness; and he who has this turns aside from justice, while, in fleeing neediness,

<!-- page 144 -->

he goes after money; and he who follows money easily turns aside from justice; *for they that will become rich fall into temptations and into the snare of the devil and into many desires hurtful and harmful*[^p144-1]. And just as such neediness is evil, so too is the begging that proceeds from such neediness to be blamed. — But when scarcity pleases a man more than abundance, and a man out of love of poverty despises the abundance of earthly things, such a one has no occasion of turning aside from justice on account of such neediness; and such is the poverty and the begging which belongs to evangelical perfection. — And that this answer is right is plain from the Gloss itself, in which it is said that «neediness, while *it desires to be filled,* turns aside from justice». For the needy man who *desires to be filled*[^p144-2] is the needy man who loves not poverty but satiety, not scarcity but abundance. And such a one is not the Gospel and heavenly poor man who begs from the supererogation of justice; but rather the greedy and earthly man who begs from the viciousness of fault, according to the answer given before.

9. To that which is objected from the Gloss on the second to the Thessalonians, chapter three, that the Apostle wills that the servants of God work bodily etc.; it must be said that this *willing* either is not the *willing of a precept,* but of an *admonition;* or, if it is the *willing of a precept,* it does not extend to all, but to those who wish to be in need; or, if it does extend to those who wish to be in need for Christ[^p144-3], it extends only to those who cannot do greater things. And from this it is not gathered that the life of the poor is evil who eat and do not work with their own hands, if they are occupied with better and more wholesome exercises. — And that this is true is manifest. For if that word: *He that will not work, let him not eat,* were a precept *without qualification,* then all would be in an evil state who do not seek their own food with their own hands, when they can; and this would be to condemn the whole world. — And that it does not extend to *voluntary and perfect poor men,* this appears from the Gloss itself, which says, «that they may not be compelled by neediness to request necessaries». For such men do not beg as those *compelled by necessity,* but as those *led on by the love of perfection.* — Lastly, that it does not extend save to those who are not occupied about greater things appears from the very text of the second to the Thessalonians, chapter three[^p144-4]: *We have heard that some among you walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling; now we charge them that are such, that working with silence they would eat their own bread.*

And that this is true is plain from Ambrose, who on that text of Luke nine[^p144-5]: *Let the dead bury their dead,* speaks thus: «The Lord teaches that lesser goods are to be passed over for the profit of greater. For it is greater to raise up by preaching the souls of the dead than to hide a dead body in the earth». Whence the Apostles too said, in Acts six: *It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.* — It appears also from Jerome in the prologue on Job, who speaks thus: «If I were weaving a basket of rushes, or folding palm leaves, so as to eat my bread in the sweat of my face and to handle the belly's business with an anxious mind, no one would carp, no one would blame. But as it is, because according to the Saviour's word I wish to *labour for the meat which perisheth not*[^p144-6], and to clear of briars and brushwood the ancient path of the divine volumes; a twofold error is fastened upon me: as a corrector of the copyists I am called a *forger,* and one who does not take errors away but sows them». — This appears also from blessed Augustine in the book *On the Work of Monks*[^p144-7], where he says that those who «had in this world something by which they might easily sustain this life without handicraft, and who, being converted to the Lord, distributed it to the needy — such men are not bound or compelled to manual works, nor to seeking their own food». And afterwards, further down, he gives the reason: because those who have sustained the poor ought to be and can be sustained by the alms of the poor. For he speaks thus[^p144-8]: «There is one commonwealth of all Christians; and therefore whoever has distributed necessaries to Christians anywhere, from wheresoever he himself receives what is necessary for him, he receives it of the goods of Christ; because wherever he himself gave to such men, who received it but Christ»? — If therefore, according to Ambrose, greater goods are not to be passed over for the sake of lesser; and according to Jerome the goods of preaching and instruction are greater than those of manual work; and according to Augustine those who were rich and delicately bred are not bound to works of this kind — it manifestly appears that those intent on preaching and on the works of spiritual mercy are not bound to works of this kind, but ought to be and can be sustained by alms. And this is what Augustine in the same book[^p144-9], before these words, sets

<!-- page 145 -->

down: that men of this kind have such a power, if they are *evangelists, if they are ministers of the altar, if they are dispensers of the Sacraments.* For if by doing bodily works a man merits his own sustenance, much more strongly by bestowing spiritual works, which are deservedly preferred to bodily works.

I confess therefore what is true, that if anyone were so strong both in spirit and in body[^p145-1] that he could work bodily and nonetheless, according to place and time, be free for spiritual exercises and for the Church's benefit, he would in so doing act more perfectly. But who is fully fit for this, since one must sweat with much labour that the truth be known, that when known it be loved, and that when known and loved it be set before others? For this there is needed continuity of reading and of prayer and of meditation; and he who wishes to attend to these carefully can be little occupied about bodily labour. Bodily labour, therefore, is to be praised and urged, yet so that the fervour of prayer be not hindered, nor the fruit of preaching, nor regular observance.

10. To that which is objected from the Gloss, that one who comes to another's table must needs flatter; it must be said that the Gloss expounds itself in what it says: «given over to idleness»; in which it suggests that the man who frequents another's table and begs for the fostering of idleness is prone to cajolery and flattery. And what wonder, if he who loves idleness and pampers his belly breaks out into a flattering word? But from this the Gospel poor man is not condemned, who comes to another's table for the sake of evangelizing and imitating Christ. For if such men, by the very fact that they are poor and come to another's table, were *flatterers,* then, since Christ sent the Apostles to preach the Gospel and to live at the expense of another's table, he would rather have made his Apostles *flatterers* than true *preachers.* Christ himself too would have been the greatest of flatterers, who was frequently invited and ate in the houses of the Pharisees[^p145-2]. — Whence, if we understand rightly, the vice of flattery is attached rather to the worldly rich than to the Gospel and voluntary poor. Whence Chrysostom, in the ninetieth homily[^p145-3] on Matthew, speaking of the rich, says thus: «One must flatter many, both princes and subjects, and be indigent of many things and serve basely and dread and suspect and fear the eyes of those who suspect and fear the mouths of slanderers and of others and the desires of the covetous. But poverty is nothing of the kind, but wholly the contrary; it is a region not subject to thieves, but fortified, a quiet harbour and a wrestling-ground and a gymnasium of philosophy. Hear, whoever of these you are that are poor, and still more whoever of you desire to be enriched: it is not an evil *to be poor,* but *not to be willing to be poor;* and do not reckon poverty to be an evil, and it will not be an evil to you». And a little after: «Do not bring forward to me those who accuse poverty, but those who have shone through it. With this Elias, brought up in it, was caught away by that blessed rapture; with this Eliseus was illustrious, with this John, with this all the Apostles. But with avarice Achab, Jezabel, Giezi, Judas, Nero, Caiphas were condemned».

11. To that which is objected from the decree of Urban, it must be said that there is a threefold defect in the citing of that decree. The first, because that decree is addressed to bishops, who ought to feed those who beg, not to those who are in need. Whence just as that law of Deuteronomy fifteen[^p145-4]: *There shall be no one indigent and a beggar among you,* was not given against the mendicancy of the poor, but against the tight-fistedness of the rich — which is plain from what is added in the same chapter: *The poor will not be wanting in the land of thy habitation; therefore I command thee to open thy hand to thy needy and poor brother* — so this law too is given to bishops who have abundance, for the sustenance of poor clerics, and above all of those who are not in need voluntarily, but under compulsion, lest through indigence they be made undevout about the divine service. — The second defect is that the decree is brought forward to prove that clerics ought not to have property of their own, as appears at the end of the chapter[^p145-5], where it is said: «From all these things it is clear that it is in no way lawful for clerics to have property of their own; and if they have had it, they will not be clerics». Whence by that decree the way is not closed to the poor who wish to have nothing of their own, but rather opened. — The third defect is this: that just as having property in common has been confirmed and approved by the authority of the supreme Pontiff, namely Urban, as appears here; so the manner of living in the highest poverty has been approved by the authority of the supreme Pontiff, as is plain from the title *On the Excesses of Prelates: Nimis prava*[^p145-6] etc. Whence the decree of Pope Urban could not prejudice the authority of Innocent, Honorius and Gregory, who approved that manner both in the common law and in private privileges, because «an equal has no command over an equal[^p145-7]»; and a consti-

<!-- page 146 -->

tution is more firmly established the other way about. — Nor from this can instability or contradiction among the rulers of the Church be argued, because statutes can and ought to be changed according to place and time; as is plain in the statute on the degrees of kinship and in very many others, which were justly established at the beginning, and nonetheless others have been introduced[^p146-1] no less justly.

12. To that which is objected about the consecration of a church, it must be said that in the citing of that decree too there is a threefold defect: first, because that statute about the consecration of an unendowed church was made for the relief of bishops; secondly, for the spreading of divine worship; and thirdly, for the comfort of ministering clerics, who do not wish voluntarily to bind themselves to the vow of poverty. But the contrary of these is found in the case proposed. For both the bishops and the Church are less burdened by religious living on alms than if provision were made for them[^p146-2] in benefices and prebends; secondly, because the worship of God would not be increased but rather diminished if this manner of living were taken away; thirdly, because such voluntary poor men serve God more gladly by begging than they would even serve God for a great benefice, and are more content with tiny alms than they would be with great benefices and prebends.

13. To that which is objected about the law on able-bodied mendicants, it must be said that there is likewise a threefold defect in the citing of that law: the first, because that law was introduced against certain men who in a time of famine usurped the alms of the poor, feigning incapacity; the second, because such men were idle and brought no benefit to the commonwealth; the third, because such men, who were able to work and were then occupied about nothing[^p146-3] and wished to have abundance, were prone to evil deeds and to robberies. And therefore by a just judgement the ruler of the commonwealth kept such men from begging and punished them with a very heavy penalty. But it is wholly otherwise with poor little religious, in whom is found neither the feigning of incapacity nor the love of idleness nor the danger of robbery, and by this neither loss to the Church, but rather the love of perfect virtue; and therefore they are not kept away by human law, but rather are proclaimed and commended by the divine law.

14. To that which is objected, that to beg is indifferent; it must be said that to beg, so far as it is of itself, does not belong to perfection, unless the universal renunciation of all things is presupposed; which indeed is according to the divine counsel, in which the Lord declared to the young man that if he fulfilled that counsel, by that very fact he would come to the summit of perfection. For he says[^p146-4]: *If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all;* nor did he add: hand it over to me, that I may put it in my purses and all things be in common; but rather: *give to the poor;* nor did he subjoin: go and earn your living by the labour of your hands; but rather: *come, follow me.* In which, according as the Gloss expounds, is understood a calling to contemplation, or to imitating and evangelizing Christ.

15. To that which is objected, that it belongs to perfection to serve freely and to flee obligations; it must be said that there is an obligation that comes from the *guilt of fault* and one that comes from the *affection of perfect charity.* The first obligation is to be avoided, but the second is to be accepted, according to what is said in Romans thirteen[^p146-5]: *Owe no man anything, but to love one another.* For the Lord praises the friendship of spiritual men which is made *of the mammon of iniquity;* and it belongs to the perfection of Christ's mystical body that the members should share with one another *in the matter of giving and receiving,* so that mutual indigence may be supplied in turn.

16. To that which is objected, that those who beg by profession do this either because they are poor or because they are preachers; it must be said that they do this because they are poor *imitators* and *evangelizers* of Christ. For they *imitate* Christ by the observance of regular discipline, in which they are free for the divine praises, for prayers, for vigils and for the other regular disciplines; and they worship God and attack the enemy and protect and defend what is weak and unfortified in the camp of the Church. — Again, because they *announce the word of truth;* and likewise they praise God and attack the enemy and build up and instruct their hearers. And therefore, since these works of theirs are very useful and highly necessary to the Church, no one doubts that they merit their own sustenance; and therefore they do not act unlawfully if they request it humbly and suppliantly. For just as the eye by seeing does work highly necessary to the hand, so that the hand cannot reproach the eye nor say: *I need not thy help*[^p146-6]; nay rather its work is useful to the whole body, and so it merits to be sustained, just as the hand and the foot and the other members which are exposed to labour: so also of these members of the Church it ought to and can be understood without absurdity, if anyone will look with a devout eye upon the work and the watchfulness of these eyes.

17. To that which is objected, that such men are imitators of Giezi, who minister spiritual things for temporal; to this the Gloss answers sufficiently enough

<!-- page 147 -->

on that text of the first to the Corinthians, chapter nine[^p147-1]: *A dispensation is committed to me:* «We ought not to evangelize in order to eat, but to eat in order to evangelize, so that food may not be the good that is sought, but the necessity that is added; that this may be fulfilled: *Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you*». Whence if anyone were to set his end in a temporal thing in preaching the word of God, without doubt he would be perverse, because he would make an end of the way, and he would be like Giezi and Balaam, who loved the wages of iniquity, and like the other false prophets, who *taught for hire and divined for gifts*[^p147-2]. But if they seek sustenance as a way ordered to the preaching of the Gospel, then they walk rightly and imitate the Apostles and in nothing depart from the path of truth. Whence on that text of Luke ten[^p147-3]: *Eating and drinking such things as they have; for the labourer is worthy of his hire;* the Gloss: «Note that for the one work of preachers two wages are owed: one on the way, which sustains us in our labour; the other in our homeland, which rewards us at the resurrection».

18. To that which is objected, that it belongs to the perfect to abstain from an evil appearance; it must be said that an appearance is evil when[^p147-4] a man can reasonably suspect evil, all the circumstances that occur being weighed; but if anyone rightly attends to these things, men preaching thus do not have the appearance of false preachers. For *false preachers* are so called by opposition to *true preachers.* And those are called *true preachers* whose preaching has *authority, truth* and *usefulness;* *false preachers,* therefore, are those who have the contraries of these, either without qualification or in part. — But if we are willing rightly to attend to the preachers of the modern orders[^p147-5], they have these three in themselves: *authority* indeed, because they are sent by the supreme Pontiff and by other prelates, who are the lords of the harvest; *truth,* as is plain, because they have preached faith and morals according to the law of the Gospel; *usefulness,* because they have called many from the state of fault to the state of grace or of penance: and therefore they have incomparably greater appearance and likeness, if anyone attends with a devout eye, to true preachers than to false ones; although in so great a number it can hardly be but that some, with Judas, love the purse[^p147-6] and stray from the straight road. For if the Lord did not grant this to the twelve Apostles, whom he personally chose, that they should universally be good; what wonder if he does not grant it to other congregations? Nor yet on this account are the good to be condemned with the evil, just as the evil are not just, although they are mingled with the good.

19. To that which is objected, that either they have authority or they do not; it must be said that to have authority is twofold: either from *first institution,* or from *commission* or mandate; or, in other words: either from *an office enjoined,* or from *a privilege granted.* The first is *principal* authority and belongs to power, and it pertains to the Apostles and to the seventy and their successors, who are bishops and other curates, as the Gloss says on Luke ten[^p147-7]. The second is a *less principal* authority and may without absurdity be called *sub-authority,* and it belongs to those who are sent by the Apostles as disciples, as Paul used to send his disciples to different places; and it belongs above all to him who is in the place of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, nay in the place of Christ, who is the universal Lord of the harvest, on account of which he is also said to have the fulness of power[^p147-8]. As therefore it belongs to the first, who have *principal* authority, to receive expenses *by right of their power,* as the Gloss on the second to Timothy, chapter two, says[^p147-9]: *The husbandman that laboureth must first partake of the fruits;* and there the Gloss: «To take necessaries for oneself from those among whom one serves God as a soldier, and whom one works as a vinedresser, or feeds as a flock, is not mendicancy, but power»: so to those to whom *sub-principal* authority belongs, it belongs to receive *by supplication.* Which the Holy Spirit ordained for the Church's benefit, that they might build up not only by the word of preaching, but also by the word and equally by the example of humility. He, therefore, who has learned from Christ *to be meek and humble of heart* — I marvel if he dares to condemn this humility and humiliation as reprobate.

20. To that which is objected, that it is safer and more perfect to follow men more approved and more wise; it must be said that, according to the disposition of divine wisdom, God disposes and orders all things in their own times. Whence, as in the first age of the Church he brought in men powerful both in miracles and in signs, such as

<!-- page 148 -->

were the Apostles and their disciples; and in the middle age men of understanding in the Scriptures and in living reasons[^p148-1]: so in the last age he has brought in men voluntarily begging and poor in worldly things. And this indeed was rightly fitting, that by the first idolatry and the portents of idols should be destroyed, by the second heresy, by the third avarice, which reigns most of all at the end of the world. — Nevertheless, because poverty is the foundation of evangelical perfection, and is itself as it were the completion of the same; therefore it flourished at the beginning of the Church, and it is fitting that it should flourish about the Church's final state. Whence, as Jerome resolves that question about the eating of flesh, distinction thirty-five, *Ab exordio*[^p148-2], saying that in the first age, before the flood, the eating of flesh was not in use, and afterwards, after the flood, it was commonly granted to all, and later, at the coming of Christ, abstinence from the eating of flesh was praiseworthy — whence he says in the same place that «the omega turns back to the alpha», that is, the final state agreed with the first — so it can fittingly enough be understood in the matter before us also. Yet as Jerome does not understand his words of abstinence from the eating of flesh as regards all, but only as regards monks; so neither do I think what is said of poverty is to be understood except as regards the *voluntary* poor, who have voluntarily renounced the world. — Yet I do not wish anyone to argue from this as though I were saying that *the day of the Lord is now at hand*[^p148-3], nor that I *make broad and enlarge* my own *fringes,* wishing to be justified before men; nor that I prefer the moderns to the ancient Saints, because in a great and lofty state many weak and imperfect men may be found; nor was this spirit of poverty lacking in times past. According to which Gregory says, in the third book of the Dialogues[^p148-4], of a certain most holy man, Isaac by name, who was a chief lover of poverty. Whence he says also of him: «When his disciples frequently suggested to him that he should accept, for the monastery's use, the possessions that were offered; he, a careful guardian of his own poverty, held firmly to this saying: a monk who seeks a possession on earth is not a monk. For he feared to lose the security of his poverty, as misers are wont to guard perishing riches. And so there his life shone out, by the spirit of prophecy and by great miracles, to all who dwelt far and wide». From which it appears that his teaching was not to be despised.

This also was shown above by manifold examples, and could be shown by many more still. And if there were no examples, the state of most excellent poverty is of itself praiseworthy enough, not only according to sacred Scripture, but also according to the teachings of the Saints, which commend the state of voluntary poverty as chief and perfect. As therefore it is very absurd to reprove the state of married rich men, and more absurd that of clerics and religious having possessions; so it also seems most absurd, if anyone be found who would reprove the state of the poor who serve Christ the Lord in the highest poverty and the most humble begging, according to the counsel set forth by the mouth of Jesus Christ and promulgated beyond reproach. Their cause Jerome defends in the letter which he wrote against Vigilantius[^p148-5]: «It has been reported to me, he says, that against the authority of the Apostle Paul, nay of Peter, John and James, who *gave to Paul and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship,* and had charged them *to be mindful of the poor,* you forbid any relief of expenses to be sent to Jerusalem for the use of the Saints. Doubtless, if I answer this, you will at once bark that I am pleading my own cause, you who have bestowed on all so great a bounty that, unless you had come to Jerusalem and spent or poured out your own money or your patrons', we should all be in peril of famine. I say this which the blessed Paul says and enjoins in almost all his letters, that in the churches of the Gentiles *on the first day of the week,* that is, on the Lord's day, all ought to contribute what is to be sent to Jerusalem for the relief of the Saints. Could he not have distributed in some other part of the world, and in those churches which, newly born, he was instructing in his own faith, what he had received from others? But he desired to give to the holy poor, who, leaving their little means for Christ, were converted with their whole mind to the Lord's service. For it would be long now, if I wished to go over all the testimonies from the rest of his letters, in which he does this and hastens with his whole mind that money may be sent by believers to Jerusalem and to the holy places, not for avarice, but for refreshment, not

<!-- page 149 -->

for the gathering of riches, but for the sustaining of the frail little body and the warding off of cold and hunger; this custom persisting in Judaea to this day, not only among us, but also among the Hebrews, that those who *meditate on the law of the Lord day and night* and have no portion in the land save God alone should be supported by the ministrations of the synagogues and of the whole world, but only out of equality, *not that others should have* refreshment *and others tribulation,* but that the *abundance* of some may *supply the want* of others». These things being seen, the answer to what has been said is plain enough.

### Rᴇᴘʟɪᴄᴀᴛɪᴏɴ ᴀɢᴀɪɴsᴛ ᴛʜᴇ ᴏʙᴊᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴs ᴀꜰᴛᴇʀᴡᴀʀᴅs ᴍᴀᴅᴇ.

But to these things[^p149-1] which have been said someone has attempted to be adverse in manifold ways, wishing to refute some of them as *impertinent,* some as *false,* some as *inconsequent,* some as *doubtful,* but very many of them as *hostile to apostolic teaching.* And this he does in replying to a certain question collected less than sufficiently afterwards in the schools, saving the collector's grace, as may better appear in the question already named.

I. First, then, he reckons *impertinent* whatever we bring forward about the disciples of Christ sent to preach, because to them was given the *authority* necessary for receiving, not from *mendicancy,* but from *power.* But those who preach without authority are false prophets, and therefore in neither way, neither from *authority* nor from *mendicancy,* ought they to request. — And *if it be said* that such men are sent by the Pope and by the bishops; he says that they are to be fed by the bishops, according to what is said in the Extra, on the Office of the ordinary judge, *Inter cetera*[^p149-2]. A form, therefore, was given to those preaching by office and authority, but *for a time,* that impediments might be removed. And therefore the authorities both of the text and of the Glosses seem in this case impertinent to the matter proposed, according to him who seems to be adverse to the aforesaid question.

But it is easy to detect the sophistical appearance of this objection, if one understands the root of the power which is in the Apostles and in prelates and in the messengers sent by the Apostles. For it is certain that this was radically in Christ, according as the Apostle says to the Galatians, chapter one[^p149-3], that he was *an Apostle by Jesus Christ;* and John twenty: *As the Father hath sent me* etc. Now Christ, in sending the Apostles, gave them a twofold power, namely of *preaching* and of *exacting* their own *sustenance.* And it is evident that these powers are distinct; because, although a bishop can *once* in the year exact his procurations in one place, he can nevertheless preach whenever he will: therefore the supreme Pontiff, who holds the place of Christ on earth, can give both together, and can also separate the one from the other. Since therefore the supreme Pontiff and the prelates cannot exercise personally by themselves all the things that pertain to them, on account of the scattered peoples subject to them; the Holy Spirit ordained in the governance of the Church that he should sometimes send legates who should have both powers. And *again,* lest particular Churches should be burdened, he ordained that the bishops should send suitable persons to preach and to hear confessions, for whom they themselves should also provide, in the Extra, on the Office of the ordinary judge, *Inter cetera*[^p149-4]. He ordained also that he, with the prelates, should send voluntary poor men and skilled, to whom neither should the bishops be bound to furnish supplies, lest they be burdened by the multitude of expenses, nor should they have power to exact procurations, so as to take away the burden of their subjects; and thus men who should walk humbly as poor, content with little and taking only necessary things, and humbly making their need known, when there was need, to those who both could and would freely and without burden and with cheerfulness support and relieve them. Whence, as the decretal on the Office of the ordinary judge went forth from the Apostolic See, so also the confirmation of the order and rule of such poor men preaching the truth, in the Extra, on the Excesses of prelates, *Nimis prava,* as has been said above[^p149-5]. — Nor is this done to the prejudice, but rather to the help, of parish priests; nor is the Church prostituted by this, if God provides help for those who have the cure, so that they may guard the souls committed to them, of which they have the care, more perfectly uncorrupted from every corruption of sin, spiritual men assisting them, not as lords, or as having the cure, but rather as servants through the charity of Christ.

Such men, therefore, because being sent they preach in humility and poverty, are like apostolic men, not like false prophets. But because they do not have that fulness of authority which prelates have, and the Apostles had; therefore they are to be numbered among the *helps,* first to the Corinthians, chapter twelve[^p149-6]: *God hath set in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors, after that miracles, then helps* etc.; the Gloss: «*Helps,* that is, those who

<!-- page 150 -->

bring resources to their greater ones, as Titus to the Apostle, and archdeacons to bishops». Among these also can be numbered those whom the Shepherd of the Church of God has appointed to bring help to others. And therefore I said, according to the usage of theological speech — which says that *sub-authority* is in him who is sent — that they have sub-authority, not *to make excuses in sins*[^p150-1], as is laid to my charge, but rather for the understanding of the truth. The form, therefore, prescribed to the Apostles both ought to and can belong to these men.

For as to what is said, that it was *temporary;* since it has no authority from the Scriptures, it is despised with the same ease with which it is proved. — *Again,* if the form was fitting in the primitive Church, why not likewise in the final one, chiefly as regards those who wish to imitate the Apostles in this form? For I do not say that the universal Church is in all things to be reduced to poverty — as is laid to my charge by them — as appears from my words above[^p150-2]; but those who wish can imitate the perfection of the Apostles and the height of poverty. — Whence by the example of the Apostles, from the words of the Gospel recited in the Church, blessed Francis was stirred up to take up this manner of life, as shines out more clearly from his legend[^p150-3]. — Since therefore an order of this kind is founded upon those words, they are not *impertinent,* but in every way pertinent, as the most stable foundations of living in this way. Such men, therefore, are to be received, because they set out as poor for the name of Christ, as is said in the Canonical letter of John[^p150-4], that those who receive such are *fellow-helpers of the truth.* Therefore those who are adverse to such men and do not receive them, or say they are not to be received, are like Diotrephes, of whom the Gloss says that he was also a heresiarch of that time; whose teaching and sect be far from all Christians.

II. He attempts to refute some things as *false.* — For he asserts it to be false that Christ requested anything as a beggar. For even if he is called *a beggar* in the Psalms, this is said inasmuch as he made request of the Father, or inasmuch as he took upon himself our infirmities. — If it be said that he requested water from the Samaritan woman and lodging from Zacchaeus[^p150-5], this was not from *mendicancy,* but from *authority,* or from *courtesy.* — And *again,* even if he had begged, it would not be *to be drawn into a precedent.* — He says it to be false nonetheless that any begging is *voluntary;* nay, that every begging must be unwilling and forced.

But it is easy to convict this objection, which fastens falsity upon truth, of falsity, if anyone will devoutly hear the truth. — For that Christ *was a beggar,* both the prophetic text and the Glosses testify; and that he *requested as a beggar,* as was alleged in the objecting[^p150-6] in two Glosses; and likewise in that Psalm: *O God, come to my assistance,* on that text: *But I am needy and poor;* the Gloss says: «He takes to himself the words of God, who in the preceding Psalm said these same things of himself, as if he said: They *who seek my soul* are rich; but I am *needy,* that is, one who requests, and *poor,* that is, insufficient for myself: because he neither has worldly abundance, and within, where he is rich, he always reaches out, desires and receives». According to this it is evident that Christ *was needy and poor* and *one who requests as one needy,* not from the Father only; for then all would in this way be beggars, and none rich, even those having abundance; which is against the Gloss. *Moreover,* Christ still makes request of the Father[^p150-7], the Angels make request, and the saints who see him face to face; and yet they are not called *beggars.*

Since therefore the text says this by so express a testimony, and the Gloss agrees, and no authority contradicts; why shall we not confess that Christ requested as a beggar? For we confess that he was a virgin and lacked a wife, although Scripture makes no mention of this. — The *Gospel* also expresses that he requested both drink and lodging; and it is evident that it was not from command and lordship and *authority,* because then he would not have given an example of poverty. — He would also have said what was false, that he had not where to lay his head[^p150-8], since he had subjects from whom he could exact procurations; and he would have acted less justly in this, that he preached in Jerusalem and was fed in Bethany, working fruit and preaching in one place, and receiving the emolument in another.

But you will say that he requested from *courtesy.* But did Christ take poverty upon himself to teach courtesy? Was it for the teaching of human civilities that he willed to become needy and poor? Does he call himself

<!-- page 151 -->

a master of courtesy and not rather of humility? *Learn of me,* he says, Matthew eleven[^p151-1], *because I am meek and humble of heart.* He requested, therefore, from *humility* what was opportune for relieving his own indigence, and by this as a poor beggar.

And it is evident that he did not have this indigence except because he willed it; nor did he request, except because he willed: because he could turn stones into gold when he willed; as his disciple John the evangelist did[^p151-2] for those men who were unwilling to beg and to be in need and were evangelizing, who had turned back, and who afterwards preferred mendicancy and poverty to precious gems. — And by this it is evident that it belongs to Christ and to those who follow him to beg *voluntarily;* otherwise they would in no way merit in this begging and poverty. For it is absurd to say that poverty and neediness are voluntary, and that the begging that proceeds from them is forced.

If, therefore, begging in Christ was from poverty and humility and voluntary; why is it not *to be drawn into a precedent?* since he himself says: *Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart;* since he also invites the rest who wish to come to the highest summit of perfection to follow him through poverty of this kind: *Go,* he says[^p151-3], *and sell* etc.; and the Apostle says, second to the Corinthians, chapter eight: *You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,* and afterwards: *I give counsel,* the Gloss: «that you may imitate his poverty»; since this also is that perfection which is set forth to all in common, and it is said[^p151-4]: *He that can take, let him take;* since Augustine on John says, in the fifteenth homily: «In all things which Christ did as man, he was furnishing an example to men who would believe in him»; since Jerome says that even if he is not to be imitated by us in miracles, in those things which he did humbly he is to be imitated by us; since he was also the universal form of the virtues in his acts. Whence Augustine, On True Religion[^p151-5]: «No sin can be committed except while those things are sought which he despised, or those things are fled which he endured. And so his whole life on earth, through the man whom he deigned to take, was a discipline of morals». — Who, therefore, would dare to say that it is not *to be drawn into a precedent,* except one who dares to say that imitation is not owed to Christ in those things which he did humbly? But if we say this, whatever there is of sanctity, virtue and perfection, and the Christian religion, is confounded and subverted[^p151-6], and is also enfeebled, because by the same reasoning by which this is said, by the same reasoning it will be possible to say it of the other examples of the virtues also. But far be this from all Christian hearts.

III. He strives nonetheless to refute some things as *inconsequent.* — For he says that it does not follow that, although *neediness* is suitable to the perfection of the Saints, on that account *mendicancy* is too, which sometimes accompanies neediness; which might likewise be argued of the eating of one's children and of thefts and robberies, which often follow upon neediness and poverty. — He says it also to be inconsequent that, although blessed Benedict was perfect, on that account, in receiving daily alms from that Roman[^p151-7], he did a work pertaining to perfection, because a perfect man does many things which do not pertain to perfection, such as eating, evacuating and other like things. — He says it also to be inconsequent that, although *to make oneself vile* and *to humble oneself* for Christ is good, on that account *to humble oneself by begging* is good, because *to beg* is not *to humble oneself,* but to take care of oneself. And *again,* a harlot makes herself vile by prostituting herself, and yet in this she is not pleasing to the Lord; in like manner neither is the making vile by which someone makes himself vile by begging.

But these foul instances, since he sets forth foul examples and strives to befoul mendicancy, it is easy for a spiritual man[^p151-8] to spit out as foul, false and feigned. For we find that Christian and perfect men are not praised in their legends for cruelties in eating men, or for cupidities in taking plunder, or for evacuations, fornications and the like; but they are found to be praised and proclaimed for this, that they chose to live in so great a scarcity that they had neither food nor clothing, nor did they wish to have them as the rich do, but rather to beg humbly as poor and despised men, as appears in the examples introduced above[^p151-9]. — For that the eating of one's children should follow upon neediness, this is against the *order of nature;* that theft and robbery should follow, this is against the *order of morals and of justice.* — But that there should follow the making known of one's necessity to a neighbour and the request

<!-- page 152 -->

for help for the love of God, this is according to the *order of charity and piety,* both natural and also gratuitous and spiritual. For every law commands that neighbour be cherished and relieved by neighbour. How, therefore, is that which perverts the order and is according to a perverse order like that which is done according to a right, just and good order, charitable and pious? — The Roman monk, therefore, is praised, because according to the law of charity he provided for blessed Benedict, and Benedict, who most humbly received[^p152-1] Nowhere, however, will you find him praised because he evacuated and voided; for it is exceedingly abominable to bring this forward when the praises of the Saints are being treated.

Now the beggar is praised, although *he takes care of himself,* not because he does this *in any way whatever,* but because he does it *most humbly;* whence, as *to eat soberly* is an act of virtue, although *to eat* is to take care of oneself; so it is to be understood in the matter before us. Whence Chrysostom, in the fourth homily[^p152-2] on Matthew, speaking of the holy youths who were in the palace of the king of Babylon, says thus: «Being therefore holy and just, they would ten thousand times have chosen to beg at home rather than to enjoy the goods that were in the temple. For *I have chosen,* he says, *to be an abject in the house of my God, rather than to dwell in the tabernacles of sinners.* And so ten thousand times they would have chosen to be abjects at home rather than to reign in Babylonia». There is, therefore, in begging a humbling and a making of oneself vile that is acceptable to God, otherwise it would not have been chosen by the holy youths; and it is *chosen* because it is care of oneself together with one's humility. But those who take *care of their flesh in its desires and concupiscences*[^p152-3], they without doubt are not praised, even if they seem to humble themselves and make themselves vile, like the harlot who prostituted herself for the love of money or for the heat of lust. But far be this from the hearts of the faithful, that the humbling of spiritual men in begging should be like the making vile of a harlot in her prostitution. For *the members of Christ are not to be taken away, that they may be made the members of a harlot*[^p152-4]. But Christ, of himself in the form of a servant and also for his members, says: *I am a beggar and poor, but the Lord is careful for me.* Which he would in no way say, unless *to be a beggar* for Christ so pleased God as to make God bear a most special care of us, as a father bears of his sons; and to think this of harlots and of those who play the harlot be far from Christian ears and minds.

IV. He attempts nonetheless to refute certain other things as *doubtful.* — For to that which is said of blessed Alexius, that he begged, and of blessed Francis, that he confirmed this by miracles; he answers: *Prove it,* as to things[^p152-5] doubtful and uncertain; adding that even if miracles had been done, it would not yet be certain: because many evil men work miracles, and because miracles could be done even with loaves taken away by stealth; nor yet would it be established from this that it was good to steal. — He says it also to be doubtful that the Roman Church approved begging: because, if she did this, she would be convicted of erring; likewise also, if she imposed it as a penalty of satisfaction, she would err; and this he says is by no means to be believed.

But this objection, which shelters itself behind a doubt, must without doubt be resisted. For if that which is read in the legend of saint Alexius and in the legend of blessed Francis be called into doubt; by parity of reasoning whatever is read in the legends of the other Saints comes into doubt: therefore all the examples of the virtues and the deeds of the Saints are now called[^p152-6] into doubt. But it is dangerous to imitate or believe doubtful things; and by this the faith, devotion and reverence which is had toward the Saints perishes, if the other things which are told of them be called into doubt. — *Again,* if the miracles which they did are not efficacious testimonies for establishing their sanctity, the Church plays the fool today, which on account of the testimonies of miracles canonizes Saints and ascribes them to the catalogue of the Saints. — *Finally,* who has ever heard that God multiplied for the salvation of others a loaf taken by a thief through stealth? Yet we have heard that through a poor beggar a loaf, which he had got by begging, was multiplied manifold[^p152-7]. — *But if you say* that this was a special privilege, and was done by the familiar counsel of the Holy Spirit; how did he hand this down to others as a law and rule, in which he invites them to begging, if it was inspired to him alone for himself alone? — *If you say* that it was[^p152-8] out of his own head, not by inspiration; how can he not be damned who rashly invited men to a reprehensible act as to an act of morals and of perfection? How, too, did the Roman See approve this with the consent of the cardinals?

*But if you say* that this is not to be believed, that she imposes mendicancy on anyone as a *penalty,* or that she approves it as a *rule* and a holy life; yet[^p152-9] that she imposes the mendicancy of pilgrimage is had in the treatise on Penance[^p152-10], where it is said of a priest who reveals confes-

<!-- page 153 -->

sions, «that he be deposed and go on pilgrimage in ignominy all the time of his life». But if he were to live by honest labour, or by his own expenses, he would not go as one vile, but rather as one honourable. It remains, therefore, that what she imposes is that he go *as a beggar.*

And that she approves it as a *rule* is plain from that writing alleged above[^p153-1], on the Excesses of prelates, *Nimis prava,* where it is said that «the Apostolic See is known to have approved the order and rule of the friars Preachers and Minors». It is plain also from the rule of blessed Francis, approved and confirmed by the lord Honorius, where it is said that the brothers «should go for alms confidently». But if she erred in approving this — and it is evident that she approved and confirmed it; it is evident also that the universal Church throughout the whole world accepts orders and states of this kind — the conclusion must then be, according to the saying of this one man, that the whole universal Church erred and was deceived; and that those who found out and approved this erroneous state are all damned; which is most horrible and most incredible, that God should permit his holy people thus[^p153-2] to err universally, and so great a multitude of wise men who went before these times. But who is this man, so *wise* and so *just,* that he dares to judge all the rest besides himself to have been deceived and reprobate? Marvellous is this *wisdom,* which shows the folly of all; and marvellous the *justice,* which condemns the rest. But if this is not wisdom, but rather rashness, to wish to judge the Apostolic See, which is judged by God alone, and to reprove its judgement and sentence[^p153-3] and to thrust so many holy men into hell and into the pit of damnation; let these things, therefore, be far from faithful and Christian hearts.

V. He attempts also to refute very many things, nay almost all, as *hostile to apostolic teaching,* on the ground that he says begging was forbidden by the Apostle as evil and was granted only in a particular case. — He says also that I have lied and have defended and do defend what is false against Scripture and the Apostle, in this that he says that I said that to labour with manual work is not a precept. He says therefore that *to beg* is not indifferent, but evil; and therefore that by the addition of a circumstance it can in no way become good; nay, what is more, in preachers he asserts it to be simoniacal.

But it is easy to observe that this foundation of his position, repeated rather frequently, is ruinous together with everything that is built upon it. For if *to beg* is forbidden, and *to beg* is to sin: therefore *to be a beggar* is *to be a sinner.* Since therefore Christ calls himself *a beggar,* nay the Prophet[^p153-4] does so in the person of Christ; Christ therefore confesses that he is a sinner; which to say or to believe is no small outrage or sin. — *Again,* if *to beg* is to sin, mendicancy or begging is a sin. But second to the Corinthians, chapter eight[^p153-5], on that text: *That by his poverty you might be rich;* the Gloss says: «Let no one despise himself: the poor man in his cell, rich in conscience, sleeps more securely on the ground than the man rich in gold in his purple. Do not, therefore, be afraid to approach with your mendicancy him who is clothed with our poverty; where he made himself poor, he enriched us». Therefore mendicancy disposes, and does not draw back, from the divine approach; it is evident, therefore, that it is not a sin.

Further, Chrysostom on Matthew, in the sixty-ninth homily at the end[^p153-6], says that «to beg in no way offends God; but to steal or to seize offends God and man». This is plain also from the authority of Chrysostom alleged above from the fourth homily on Matthew. It is not, therefore, forbidden by the Apostle, nor is it found anywhere that the Apostle forbade this, but rather that he commended it together with his fellow-apostles. For in the first to the Corinthians, chapter sixteen[^p153-7], he both preached and procured that collections should be made for the poor of the Saints who were in Jerusalem, as alms freely bestowed on them. And to the Galatians, chapter two, he says that *Peter and James gave to me and to Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision, only that we should be mindful of the poor;* the Gloss: «*Of the poor,* who had laid the price of their sold goods at the feet of the Apostles, *we should be mindful,* by making collections for their work». If, therefore, the Apostle was not simoniacal in this, that he requested collections and sent disciples for this, that they should request alms from those among whom he had sown spiritual things, for the poor who were in Jerusalem; if the supreme Pontiff should establish poor Orders, who should sow spiritual things and live on the free alms, requested or freely offered, of those whom they build up by word and example: he in nothing at all disagrees with the Apostle, nay rather he agrees, since he has as

<!-- page 154 -->

great power as he, and greater, in governing and disposing the members of the Church itself.

But *you will object* that the Apostle enjoined bodily labour in the text, and that the Glosses[^p154-1] seem to say that this tells against mendicancy.

But to this there is a plain answer: granted that the Apostle enjoins manual labour of this kind — which I have never denied, as appears in my words, but that he does not enjoin it *universally* on the servants of Christ, except perhaps in a case of necessity, in which no lawful way of having food lies open save by the labour of the hands — yet he enjoins it on *determinate* persons, according as appears from the text[^p154-2]: *We have heard there are some among you who walk disorderly, working not at all, but curiously meddling. Now we charge them that are such, and beseech them by the Lord Jesus Christ, that working with silence they would eat their own bread.* And a little before: *We charge you that you withdraw yourselves* etc.; the Gloss: «Here he begins about the curious and the idle, admonishing that they be corrected». It is plain, therefore, from the sequence of the text and from the Gloss, that that command extends to the curious and the idle. — Likewise, first to the Thessalonians, chapter four[^p154-3]: *We entreat you, brethren, that you use your endeavour to be quiet, and that you work with your own hands, as we commanded you;* the Gloss: «*Work,* which helps you to be quiet. For that evil comes of idleness». From this also it is plain that he says this for the avoiding of idleness and the removing of sloth, which is the bilge of desires and the fomenting of sins. Whence to the Ephesians, chapter four[^p154-4]: *He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands* etc. — From this, therefore, it is plain that labour is not enjoined on *all;* and by this begging is not prohibited, save that which comes from idleness and cupidity, according as the text and the Glosses suggest.

But *you will object* concerning Augustine, On the Work of Monks, who was speaking to monks who were occupied and intent upon spiritual exercises, not idle; and to them he says that they are bound to works of this kind.

To this a manifest answer appears, if one attends to the conclusion near the end, by which he confutes the position of those who repudiated bodily work; in which they thought ill, there[^p154-5]: «Wherefore those who, having left behind either ample or any sort of wealth, have wished to live among the poor of Christ, if they are strong in body and are free from ecclesiastical occupations[^tr-vacare-3]; yet if they too work with their hands, they act more mercifully than when they divided all their goods among the needy. But if they will not, who would dare to compel them? But those who, outside that holy fellowship, were passing their life by bodily labour, if they do not labour, let them not eat».

It appears, therefore, who they are that are bound, namely the able and strong, and those who are free from ecclesiastical occupations, and those who were passing their life in the world by bodily labour, and many such there were among those monks, and there were more[^p154-6] at the beginning of the religious order of the friars Minor, and therefore they had to be constrained to labours; but now in comparison with the others very few are such: and therefore it is not against the Apostle if to such men it is granted simply[^p154-7] to beg, especially since such an act is not much to be craved nor delightful nor honourable, but rather filled with many vilenesses and miseries, to which the heart of no able man could be inclined save in the hope of the eternal reward and the love of Christ and the desire of profiting, with the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit, without which I scarcely believe a rich man could be inclined to the discomfort of so great an abjection. Nor do such men burden the people of the Lord and the Church, especially if they request nothing beyond what is necessary, because they would spend and consume far more of the alms of the poor if they had remained in the world as clerics in prebendal benefices; nor then[^p154-8], when they would be little intent upon spiritual works, would the way of salvation be closed to them even in riches. Far be it, therefore, that it should now be closed in so great a straitness of poverty.

From what has now been said in this question on poverty, that we may gather up the rest in sum, it appears that, as *to beg* in the poor who are weak and infirm is a *necessity of nature,* and in the able who are idle and covetous is a *viciousness of fault;* so in the voluntary poor, who despise themselves and imitate Christ and preach the Gospel, it is an *act in harmony with,* not repugnant to, *evangelical perfection,* on the ground that to *renounce* all things universally, appropriating no thing to oneself, is *counselled*[^p154-9] by the Lord as perfect; to *receive* alms is *granted* to the just poor as lawful and in nothing hostile to evangelical perfection; to *request* alms *humbly* is *not prohibited* to the voluntary poor as evil; to pass one's life *by the gain of one's own labour* is not enjoined on all the able poor as a precept binding of necessity.

<!-- page 155 -->

If anyone, therefore, impugns the *universal renunciation* of temporal things, he impugns Christ poor and crucified; he impugns the evangelical counsel; he impugns the company of the Apostles saying[^p155-1]: *Behold we have left all things;* he impugns also the Holy Spirit, who inspires and suggests this to the hearts of the perfect; he impugns God the Father of all things himself, who is the *refuge of the poor;* he impugns finally the kingdom of heaven, the whole universe, the lordship of which is granted to the poor man, the Lord saying: *Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven;* and therefore against such a *senseless* man it is necessary that *the whole world fight.*

But he who impugns the *receiving of alms* impugns Christ also, who received a stipend from the women who served him and invited him, Luke seven[^p155-2]; and the company of the Apostles, who also themselves received alms, which *were laid at their feet,* Acts four; and the state of monks, who are founded upon alms; and the whole clergy — for they too live on alms, which have been freely bestowed on the churches of Christ — and consequently the common state of the poor, which nevertheless the divine Scriptures declare to be most acceptable to God.

But he who impugns the humble *request for alms* in those who are in need and can lawfully receive, impugns *Christ,* who humbly requested lodging, who also confesses that he[^p155-3] is a beggar; he impugns also *Paul,* who requested that collections be made for the holy poor, and this with Peter's consent; he impugns the *bond of charity,* which makes men communicate *in the account of giving and receiving;* he impugns the *office of humanity,* through which one in need sets forth his necessity, lest he be inhuman to himself, and stirs up another, who can and will, to be human and pious to his neighbour; and in this no one is offended, no one is prejudiced, nothing is inordinately coveted, nothing is unduly taken away, especially in those who seek not the *gift,* but the *fruit*[^p155-4].

But he who impugns *idleness, cupidity, carnality and superfluity* in other Christians and especially in religious, does well and rightly, provided that he proceed according to a right order.

But he who universally lays upon all the able the *burden of gainful labour,* by which they ought to be sustained, enlarges the Apostle's precept too far and weighs down too heavily the yoke of servitude upon the servants of Christ, and holds back spiritual men from spiritual occupations and labours, to the peril of the salvation of souls, while he makes them more solicitous about feeding their own dying bodies than about gaining their neighbours' souls for the Lord. And if this be done, *mint and cummin are tithed, and the weightier things of the Law are left, judgement and mercy*[^p155-5]; bodily mercy is preferred to spiritual; and by this the body is preferred to the spirit, private advantage to the common good, which consists especially in the building up of the people of Christ, in alms, in teachings and counsels of souls, for which God has sent these last orders through the supreme Pontiff and the prelates. And if anyone should say that for these things they are *not sent,* he manifestly runs counter to *the truth,* since express testimonies to this are had both in the rule and in the privilege and institution and approbation of this twofold order[^p155-6]. — But if he should say that they *ought not to be sent,* he detracts from *evangelical perfection.* For who is more fit for this than he who has vowed evangelical perfection? — If anyone should say that they *cannot be sent* by the Pope and the bishops, he derogates from *apostolic authority* and from the *power of the keys* in prelates and from the *fulness of power* in the supreme Pontiff, who on earth, as[^p155-7] Scripture asserts, faith holds, the laws bear witness, and irrefragable reasons also convince, as the one and highest head and the only bridegroom and the chief hierarch, in whom is the state of the whole Church militant, holds the place of Christ. And therefore every knee ought to be bowed to him, of princes and of prelates and of clerics and of laymen and of religious on earth, after the likeness of Christ in heaven, to whom *every knee is bowed of those that are in heaven, on earth and under the earth*[^p155-8]. Amen.

---

la: In hac quaestione usi sumus codd. A D E K M. Eadem invenitur etiam in cod. L, sed in forma valde diversa, quia, ut dicitur in fine eiusdem, est a quodam clerico *reportata,* et quidem «minus sufficienter». Nam ad eandem respexisse videtur S. Doctor in principio *replicationis* ad obiectiones denuo factas, quae immediate post hanc quaestionem sequitur. Verba ipsius sunt: «respondendo cuidam quaestioni *minus sufficienter* post collectae in scholis, salva gratia collectoris». Nihilominus speciminis gratia posuimus in notis plura argumenta pro utraque parte, sicut exhibentur (in fundam. plerumque valde *insufficienter*) in codice L. Plura de hoc dicuntur in Prolegomenis nostris.

en: In this question we have used the codices A D E K M. The same is found also in codex L, but in a very different form, because, as is said at its end, it was *reported* by a certain cleric, and indeed «less than sufficiently». For the holy Doctor seems to have had regard to it at the beginning of the *replication* to the objections made anew, which follows immediately after this question. His words are: «in replying to a certain question collected *less than sufficiently* afterwards in the schools, saving the collector's grace». Nevertheless, by way of specimen, we have set down in the notes several arguments for each side, as they are given in codex L (in the fundamenta, mostly very *insufficiently*). More is said about this in our Prolegomena.

la: Psalm. 33, 10. — Post *timentibus eum* L addit: *sed omnis mendicus est inops: ergo nullus mendicus est timens Deum; sed timor Dei est de perfectione religionis christianae: ergo etc.*

en: Ps. 33:10. — After *timentibus eum* ("to them that fear him") L adds: *but every beggar is in want: therefore no beggar is one who fears God; but the fear of God belongs to the perfection of the Christian religion: therefore etc.*

la: Psalm. 36, 25. — L arg. complet addens post *panem* haec: *sed omnis mendicus quaerit panem: ergo nullus mendicus iustus; sed miseria est(!) de perfectione christiana: ergo mendicare non est de perfectione eiusdem.*

en: Ps. 36:25. — L completes the argument, adding after *panem* ("bread") these words: *but every beggar seeks bread: therefore no beggar is just; but misery is(!) of Christian perfection: therefore to beg is not of the perfection of the same.*

la: Psalm. 108, 10: Nutantes... mendicent et eiiciantur de habitationibus suis. — L prosequitur: *hic Propheta loquitur per Spiritum sanctum: ergo Spiritus sanctus maledicit mendicantes, et ita mendicare non est opus perfectionis christianae.*

en: Ps. 108:10: Vagabonds... beg; and let them be cast out of their dwellings. — L continues: *here the Prophet speaks through the Holy Spirit: therefore the Holy Spirit curses mendicants, and so to beg is not a work of Christian perfection.*

la: Vers. 29: Fili, in tempore vitae tuae ne... indigere. — L subiungit: *sed constat, quod loquitur Salomon per Spiritum sanctum: ergo Spiritus sanctus inhibet mendicantis* (mendicantibus), *ergo etc.*

en: Verse 29: My son, in the time of thy life be not... to be indigent. — L subjoins: *but it is certain that Solomon speaks through the Holy Spirit: therefore the Holy Spirit forbids mendicantis* (mendicantibus, "to mendicants"), *therefore etc.*

la: Vers. 35: Beatius... accipere. — L prosequitur: *et ita dare est perfectionis: ergo accipere, eius oppositum, non est perfectionis; sed mendicare est accipere vel velle accipere: ergo mendicare non est perfectionis, immo potius imperfectionis.* — In conclusione ex D E posuimus *multo minus* pro *multo magis.*

en: Verse 35: It is a more blessed thing... to receive. — L continues: *and so to give belongs to perfection: therefore to receive, its opposite, does not belong to perfection; but to beg is to receive or to wish to receive: therefore to beg does not belong to perfection, but rather to imperfection.* — In the conclusion we have put, from D E, *multo minus* ("much less") for *multo magis* ("much more").

la: Vers. 33. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, est secundum Bedam (in hunc loc.): Ut, omnibus vestris [ita etiam L, qui ordinem argg. hic invertit] semel pro Domino spretis etc. — Post verba Glossae prosequitur L: *perfectionis igitur christianae est omnia vendere et postea ad suum victum laborare: non ergo mendicare.*

en: Verse 33. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra, follows Bede (on this place): That, all your things [so also L, which here inverts the order of the arguments] having once been spurned for the Lord etc. — After the words of the Gloss L continues: *therefore it belongs to Christian perfection to sell all things and afterwards to labour for one's own sustenance: therefore not to beg.*

la: Vers. 12. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum: Opus agendum est, non otiandum... et non desiderabitis rem alterius, nedum rogetis etc. — Post Glossam legit L: *sed omnis mendicus rogat sive petit: ergo omnis mendicus facit contra Apostolum; sed qui facit contra Apostolum non est in perfectione christiana*

en: Verse 12. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra: Work is to be done, not idling... and you will not desire another's goods, much less ask for them etc. — After the Gloss L reads: *but every beggar asks or requests: therefore every beggar acts against the Apostle; but he who acts against the Apostle is not in Christian perfection*

la: Vers. 12: Rogamus autem vos, fratres, ut etc. — Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum sumta est ex Comment. (in hunc loc.) attributo alias Ambrosio. — L *minorem* exhibet sic: *sed a iustitia declinare non est perfectionis christianae; sed omnis mendicus est egenus: ergo* etc.

en: Verse 12: And we beseech you, brethren, that etc. — The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra is taken from the Commentary (on this place) sometimes attributed to Ambrose. — L gives the *minor* thus: *but to turn aside from justice does not belong to Christian perfection; but every beggar is needy: therefore* etc.

la: Vers. 10. Vulgata *nec* pro *non.* — Glossa, in qua textus originalis omittit *ut habeant,* est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum (qui ipsam attribuit August., de Opere monachor. c. 1. n. 2. seqq.). — L prosequitur post verba Glossae: *ergo omnis mendicus facit contra Apostolum; sed qui facit contra Apostolum non habet perfectionem christianam, ergo nec qui mendicat.*

en: Verse 10. The Vulgate has *nec* for *non.* — The Gloss, in which the original text omits *ut habeant* ("so that they may have"), is the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra (who attributes it to Augustine, *On the Work of Monks*, ch. 1, n. 2 ff.). — L continues after the words of the Gloss: *therefore every beggar acts against the Apostle; but he who acts against the Apostle does not have Christian perfection, therefore neither does he who begs.*

la: Vers. 9. — Glossa, quam refert Petr. Lombard. et Lyranus ut *ordinariam,* sumta est ex Comment. (in hunc loc.), qui olim Ambrosio tribuebatur. — Post verba Glossae legit L: *sed omnis mendicus frequenter ad alienam mensam accedit: ergo omnis mendicus otio deditus adulatur; sed nullus in perfectione christianae religionis existens adulatur, cum adulatio sit peccatum mortale: ergo nullus mendicus est in perfectione christianae religionis.*

en: Verse 9. — The Gloss, which Peter Lombard and Lyra report as the *ordinary* Gloss, is taken from the Commentary (on this place) which was once attributed to Ambrose. — After the words of the Gloss L reads: *but every beggar frequently comes to another's table: therefore every beggar, given to idleness, flatters; but no one existing in the perfection of the Christian religion flatters, since flattery is a mortal sin: therefore no beggar is in the perfection of the Christian religion.*

la: Can. 16, qui Urbano quidem adscribebatur, sed alium auctorem habet. — L legit *Item, Causa duodecima quaest. prima, c.* Videntes summi Pontifices, *dicitur, quod nullus communem vitam ducens sit in christiana religione indigens; sed omnis mendicus indiget: ergo nullus mendicus est in perfectione christianae religionis secundum decreta Sanctorum et maxime, quia in fine istius decreti dicitur:* Si aliquis exstiteri .. iam dicta damnatione feriatur. *Ergo omnis, qui mendicus est vel indigens, per istud decretum excommunicatus est, et sic in peccato mortali; sed nullus talis est in statu perfectionis: ergo* etc.

en: Canon 16, which was indeed ascribed to Urban, but has another author. — L reads: *Likewise, Causa 12, question 1, chapter* Videntes summi Pontifices, *it is said that no one leading the common life should be indigent in the Christian religion; but every beggar is indigent: therefore no beggar is in the perfection of the Christian religion according to the decrees of the Saints, and above all because at the end of that decree it is said:* If anyone shall have arisen .. let him be struck with the condemnation already stated. *Therefore everyone who is a beggar or indigent is excommunicated by that decree, and so in mortal sin; but no such person is in the state of perfection: therefore* etc.

la: Can. *Nemo ecclesiam* (9.). — Pro *consecretur* et *consecrari* I *construatur* et *construi,* quae lectio canoni magis congruit: Nemo ecclesiam aedificet... et ante praefiniat qui aedificare vult, quae ad luminaria et ad custodiam et ad stipendia custodum sufficiant, et ostensa donatione sic domum aedificet etc.

en: Canon *Nemo ecclesiam* (9). — For *consecretur* ("be consecrated") and *consecrari* ("to be consecrated") I has *construatur* ("be built") and *construi* ("to be built"), a reading that agrees better with the canon: Let no one build a church... and let him who wishes to build determine beforehand what will suffice for the lamps and for the custody and for the stipends of the custodians, and, the donation having been shown, let him so build the house etc.

la: Cod. lib. XI. tit. 25. lege unica *Cunctis quos in publicum,* in Authen. — Superius pro *inhibetur* D E K *prohibetur;* inferius pro *gubernationem* I *ordinationem* et pro *sublimitatem perfectionis* D *perfectionem legis.*

en: *Code*, book XI, title 25, the single law *Cunctis quos in publicum*, in the *Authenticum*. — Above, for *inhibetur* ("it is forbidden") D E K have *prohibetur* ("it is prohibited"); below, for *gubernationem* ("governance") I has *ordinationem* ("ordering"), and for *sublimitatem perfectionis* ("the sublimity of perfection") D has *perfectionem legis* ("the perfection of the law").

la: D *intercedendum.*

en: D has *intercedendum* ("to intercede").

la: Vide infra in corp. quaest. — Pro *Item, huiusmodi* D *Item qui.*

en: See below in the body of the question. — For *Item, huiusmodi* ("Likewise, those of this kind") D has *Item qui* ("Likewise, those who").

la: Cfr. IV. Reg. 5, 20. seqq.

en: Compare IV Kings 5:20 ff.

la: Epist. I. Thess. 5, 22: Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos. — Post *pseudo-praedicatoribus* K addit *vel quaestuarii.*

en: First Epistle to the Thessalonians 5:22: From every evil appearance refrain yourselves. — After *pseudo-praedicatoribus* ("pseudo-preachers") K adds *vel quaestuarii* ("or questors", i.e. professional alms-collectors).

la: Edd. perperam *praedicando.*

en: The editions wrongly have *praedicando* ("by preaching").

la: L pro isto arg. substituit hoc: *Item, persona praedicatoris debet esse discreta et nobilis sive honorabilis, non vilis; sed nulla vilior persona quam persona mendicantis: ergo persona mendicantis, ut praedicatoris, non debet esse mendicans; et sic mendicare praedicantibus non est opus perfectionis christianae.*

en: In place of this argument L substitutes this one: *Likewise, the person of a preacher ought to be discreet and noble or honourable, not vile; but no person is viler than the person of a beggar: therefore the person of a beggar, as of a preacher, ought not to be begging; and so to beg is not, for those who preach, a work of Christian perfection.*

la: Vers. 9. seq. — Glossa est *interlinearis* apud Lyranum, qua posita, L prosequitur: *Cum ergo necessaria a Domino discipulis gerere inhibeantur, eisdem accipere ab eis quibus praedicant conceditur sive petere; sed hoc est mendicare: ergo Dominus praecepit mendicationem, et ita erit perfectionis christianae pro Christo mendicare, maxime quia illa praecepta sunt non parabolice, sed ad litteram intelligenda.*

en: Verse 9 f. — The Gloss is the *interlinear* Gloss in Lyra; having set it down, L continues: *Since therefore the disciples are forbidden by the Lord to carry necessities, it is granted to them to receive them from those to whom they preach, or to request them; but this is to beg: therefore the Lord commanded begging, and so it will belong to Christian perfection to beg for Christ, above all because those precepts are to be understood not parabolically, but according to the letter.*

la: Vers. 8: Et praecepit... in via, nisi virgam tantum, non peram etc. — In fine arg. allegatur Matth. 19, 12. — L: *Istud praeceptum* [Marc. 6, 8.] *datum Apostolis aut datur a Domino tanquam praelatis, vel tanquam perfectis. Non tanquam praelatis; quia, si sic, praelati hoc deberent facere: ergo cum non faciant, non datur Apostolis tanquam praelatis; et ita datur eis tanquam perfectis: ergo istud quilibet potest facere perfectus; sed per hoc praeceptum conceditur petitio sumtuum: ergo perfectionis est petere sumtus; hoc est mendicare: ergo* etc.

en: Verse 8: And he commanded... for the way, but a staff only; no scrip etc. — At the end of the argument Matt. 19:12 is alleged. — L: *This precept* [Mark 6:8] *given to the Apostles is given by the Lord either as to prelates, or as to the perfect. Not as to prelates; because, if so, prelates would have to do this: therefore, since they do not do it, it is not given to the Apostles as to prelates; and so it is given to them as to the perfect: therefore anyone who is perfect can do this; but by this precept the requesting of expenses is granted: therefore it belongs to perfection to request expenses; this is to beg: therefore* etc.

la: Vers. 3. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum. — In L desideratur hoc arg.

en: Verse 3. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra. — This argument is wanting in L.

la: Vers. 48. Vulgata post *puerum* addit *istum.* — Glossam *interlinearem* exhibet Lyranus (idem dicitur in Glossa *ordinaria,* sumta ex Beda, apud Strabum et Lyranum: Vel simpliciter *pauperes* Christi... esse honore suscipiendos etc.). — Seq. Glossa est *ordinaria* (ex Ambros., VII. Expos. in Luc. n. 24.) apud Strabum et Lyranum. — Post hanc Glossam L legit: *sed nemo magis pauper quam mendicus: ergo pauperes mendicantes a fidelibus sunt maxime recipiendi; sed non essent a fidelibus recipiendi, si peccatum facerent mendicando: ergo mendicare pro Christo non est peccatum, immo potius perfectionis.*

en: Verse 48. After *puerum* ("child") the Vulgate adds *istum* ("this"). — Lyra gives the *interlinear* Gloss (the same is said in the *ordinary* Gloss, taken from Bede, in Strabo and Lyra: Or simply that the *poor* of Christ... are to be received with honour etc.). — The following Gloss is the *ordinary* Gloss (from Ambrose, *Exposition of Luke* VII, n. 24) in Strabo and Lyra. — After this Gloss L reads: *but no one is more poor than a beggar: therefore poor mendicants are most of all to be received by the faithful; but they would not have to be received by the faithful if they committed sin by begging: therefore to beg for Christ is not a sin, but rather belongs to perfection.*

la: Vers. 4. — Glossam, quae sumta est ex Beda (in hunc loc.), exhibent Strabus et Lyranus ut *ordinariam.* — L omittit hoc arg.

en: Verse 4. — The Gloss, which is taken from Bede (on this place), Strabo and Lyra give as the *ordinary* Gloss. — L omits this argument.

la: Vers. 9. — Glossa est *interlinearis* apud Lyranum. — Inferius allegatur Matth. 5, 3: Beati pauperes spiritu, quoniam ipsorum est regnum caelorum. — Post verba Glossae L: *sed isti sunt pauperes spiritu: ergo pauperibus spiritu debent fideles ministrare necessaria, et ab eis necessaria recipere; sed nullus magis pauper spiritu, quam qui et omnibus et proprio et in communi renuntiat: ergo talis potest recipere eleemosynas; et qui potest recipere et petere supplicando potest; sed hoc est mendicare: ergo mendicare non est peccatum, immo potius perfectionis.*

en: Verse 9. — The Gloss is the *interlinear* Gloss in Lyra. — Below, Matt. 5:3 is alleged: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. — After the words of the Gloss L: *but these are the poor in spirit: therefore the faithful ought to minister necessities to the poor in spirit, and to receive necessities from them; but no one is more poor in spirit than he who renounces all things, both his own and in common: therefore such a one can receive alms; and he who can receive can also request by supplicating; but this is to beg: therefore to beg is not a sin, but rather belongs to perfection.*

la: Num. 15: Numquid isti pauperes, inter quorum pannos et illuviem etc. — Allegatur Ps. 40, 1. — L omittit hoc arg. — Circa finem pro *tribuat* fide D E M posuimus *tribuas.*

en: Number 15: Can these poor, amid whose rags and uncleanness etc. — Ps. 40:1 is alleged. — L omits this argument. — Near the end, on the authority of D E M, we have put *tribuas* ("you should give") for *tribuat* ("he should give").

la: Vers. 14. — Glossa, quae exhibetur a Petro Lombardo (in hunc loc.), est *interlinearis* apud Lyranum. — Inferius respicitur Phil. 4, 15: Nulla mihi ecclesia communicavit in ratione dati et accepti nisi vos soli. — Post Glossam L prosequitur: *ergo illi qui vacant divinis possunt recipere a divitibus; sed pauperes mendicantes pro Christo vacant divinis: ergo tales possunt recipere eleemosynas et etiam petere supplicando, et ita idem quod prius.*

en: Verse 14. — The Gloss, which is given by Peter Lombard (on this place), is the *interlinear* Gloss in Lyra. — Below, Phil. 4:15 is in view: No church communicated with me in the matter of giving and receiving, but you only. — After the Gloss L continues: *therefore those who are free for divine things can receive from the rich; but poor mendicants for Christ are free for divine things: therefore such can receive alms and also request by supplicating, and so the same as before.*

la: Psalm. 39, 18. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, qui ipsam attribuunt Cassiodoro (in hunc loc.).

en: Ps. 39:18. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra, who attribute it to Cassiodorus (on this place).

la: Psalm. 108, 17. — Glossa exhibetur a Petro Lombardo (in hunc loc.; apud Lyranum ipsa est partim *interlinearis,* partim *ordinaria*) et est secundum Cassiodor. — In L desideratur hoc arg.

en: Ps. 108:17. — The Gloss is given by Peter Lombard (on this place; in Lyra it is partly *interlinear*, partly *ordinary*) and follows Cassiodorus. — This argument is wanting in L.

la: Vers. 11: Et circumspectis omnibus, cum iam vespera esset hora, exiit etc. — Glossa apud Lyranum *interlinearis* est et secundum Bedam in hunc loc. — L: *Glossa, «Si quis eum hospitio susciperet», circumspiciebat: ergo aut est ut de hospitio, aut ut hospitium conduceret, aut ut sibi hospitium dari vellet. Non primo modo, quod patet per Glossam: «Si quis eum hospitio susciperet». Non secundo modo, per Glossam; ibidem enim: «Tantae paupertatis fuit, ut in tanta urbe nullum hospitium inveniret»; ergo ut volens hospitium sibi dari gratis circumspiciebat, et ita petebat signo et voluntate, sed non verbo; sed sic petere est mendicare: ergo Christus mendicavit, et ita perfecti ipsum sequendo sine peccato possunt mendicare.*

en: Verse 11: And having viewed all things round about, when now the eventide was come, he went out etc. — The Gloss in Lyra is *interlinear* and follows Bede on this place. — L: *The Gloss: «whether anyone would receive him with hospitality», he looked round about: therefore it is either as concerning a lodging, or that he might hire a lodging, or that he wished a lodging to be given him. Not in the first way, as is clear through the Gloss: «whether anyone would receive him with hospitality». Not in the second way, through the Gloss; for in the same place: «He was of such great poverty that in so great a city he found no lodging»; therefore he looked round about as one wishing a lodging to be given him freely, and so he requested by sign and by will, but not by word; but so to request is to beg: therefore Christ begged, and so the perfect, following him, can beg without sin.*

la: Vers. 5. — Glossa est *interlinearis* apud Lyranum et sumta ex Ambros., VIII. Expos. Evang. secundum Luc. n. 82: Alterum sanaturus interrogat, apud alterum se non invitaturum [alias: *se non invitatus*] invitat. — L post Glossam: *Dominus ergo petiit hospitium: ergo qui sequuntur Christum hoc facere possunt; sed hoc est mendicare: ergo mendicare possunt pro Christo perfecti imitatores Christi.*

en: Verse 5. — The Gloss is the *interlinear* Gloss in Lyra and is taken from Ambrose, *Exposition of the Gospel according to Luke* VIII, n. 82: Being about to heal the one, he questions him; with the other, who would not have invited him, he invites himself [otherwise: *se non invitatus*, "himself, not invited"]. — L after the Gloss: *The Lord therefore requested a lodging: therefore those who follow Christ can do this; but this is to beg: therefore the perfect imitators of Christ can beg for Christ.*

la: Vers. 7. — Verba August. habentur in Ioan. Evang. tr. 15. n. 2. et n. 12. (textus originalis pro secundo *et promittit* substituit *et affluit*). — Glossa inferius posita apud Strabum et Lyranum est *ordinaria* in Ioan. 4, 7. — In fine arg. pro *facto* I *sibi.*

en: Verse 7. — Augustine's words are in the *Tractates on the Gospel of John*, tr. 15, n. 2 and n. 12 (for the second *et promittit* ("and promises") the original text substitutes *et affluit* ("and abounds")). — The Gloss set down below is, in Strabo and Lyra, the *ordinary* Gloss on John 4:7. — At the end of the argument, for *facto* ("by the deed") I has *sibi* ("for himself").

la: Sive Epist. 125. (alias 4.) n. 1. Textus originalis in secunda propos. substituit *credidit* pro *credit,* et *cognovit* pro *cognoscit,* pluribus praeterea additis.

en: That is, Epistle 125 (otherwise 4), n. 1. In the second sentence the original text substitutes *credidit* ("believed") for *credit* ("believes"), and *cognovit* ("knew") for *cognoscit* ("comes to know"), several things being added besides.

la: Cfr. Luc. 7, 36; 11, 37; 14, 1. — Inferius pro *hoc est* D *hoc erat.*

en: Compare Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1. — Below, for *hoc est* ("this is") D has *hoc erat* ("this was").

la: Vers. 37: Circuierunt in etc. — I: *Item, ad Hebr. 11. exemplum Sanctorum laudans Apostolus ait:* Circumierunt etc.

en: Verse 37: They went about in etc. — I: *Likewise, in Hebr. 11, praising the example of the Saints, the Apostle says:* They wandered about etc.

la: Vers. 4. seqq. — Verba August. inveniuntur in Serm. 11. (alias 18. inter 50 homil.) n. 2. Voci *Ostendit* textus originalis praemittit *Nonne illi panem afferebat corvus mane et ad vesperam carnes?* Subinde pro *quando* exhibet *quomodo.*

en: Verse 4 ff. — Augustine's words are found in Sermon 11 (otherwise 18 among the 50 homilies), n. 2. Before the word *Ostendit* ("showed") the original text puts *Nonne illi panem afferebat corvus mane et ad vesperam carnes?* ("Did not a raven bring him bread in the morning and flesh in the evening?"). Next, for *quando* ("when") it gives *quomodo* ("how").

la: Ex libro Abdiae, Babyloniae primi episcopi ab Apostolis constituti, de historia certaminis Apostolorum libri X, Iulio Africano interprete etc. Paris. 1566.» lib. V. pag. 62. — L: *Item, in legenda B. Ioannis duo honorifici viri, omnibus suis relictis sive pauperibus erogatis, secuti sunt B. Ioannem; cum non post longum tempus reversi sunt ad civitatem, de qua fuerant, tentati sunt a diabolo, eo quod viderent se egentes; et ita B. Ioannes et ipsi egebant; sed nullus magis est egens quam pauper mendicus pro Christo: ergo tales maxime sunt in statu perfectionis.*

en: From the book of Abdias, first bishop of Babylon, appointed by the Apostles, *On the History of the Contest of the Apostles*, in ten books, translated by Julius Africanus etc., Paris 1566.» book V, page 62. — L: *Likewise, in the legend of blessed John, two honourable men, having left all their things or paid them out to the poor, followed blessed John; when not long afterwards they returned to the city from which they had come, they were tempted by the devil, because they saw themselves in need; and so blessed John and they themselves were in need; but no one is more needy than a poor beggar for Christ: therefore such are most of all in the state of perfection.*

la: Homil. 4. de Laudibus Pauli (tom. 2. pag. 494. seq.): Audi... ipsum [Paulum, II. Cor. 11, 6.] loquentem: *Etsi imperitus sermone* nec pecunias possidens; nam hoc quoque ipse [I. Cor. 4, 11.] testatur: *Usque* etc.

en: Homily 4 *On the Praises of Paul* (tome 2, page 494 f.): Hear... him [Paul, II Cor. 11:6] saying: *Although I be rude in speech*, and not possessing money; for this too he himself [I Cor. 4:11] testifies: *Even unto* etc.

la: Cap. 1. — L: *Item, B. Benedictus perfectus fuit, et in II. Dialog. scribitur, quod quidam Romanus in spelunca quadam, ubi orabat, per triennium eum sustentavit, ei necessaria ministrando. Sustentari ergo ab alio, exemplo praedicti Sancti, est perfectionis; sed qui petit eleemosynas pro Christo et accipit ab alio sustentatur: ergo petere ab alio sive mendicare, quod idem est, erit perfectionis.*

en: Chapter 1. — L: *Likewise, blessed Benedict was perfect, and in the second book of the Dialogues it is written that a certain Roman sustained him for three years in a certain cave where he prayed, ministering necessities to him. Therefore to be sustained by another, by the example of the aforesaid Saint, belongs to perfection; but he who requests alms for Christ and receives them is sustained by another: therefore to request from another, or to beg, which is the same, will belong to perfection.*

la: Vide Breviar. Roman. die 17. Iulii. — L: *Item, B. Alexius, contempto patrimonio, et patre et matre et muliere relictis, ivit per mundum mendicando et Sanctus fuit; sed si mendicare pro Christo esset peccatum, Sanctus non fecisset: ergo exemplo eius viri in statu perfectionis possunt mendicare.*

en: See the Roman Breviary, on 17 July. — L: *Likewise, blessed Alexius, having despised his patrimony and left father and mother and wife, went through the world begging and was a Saint; but if to beg for Christ were a sin, the Saint would not have done it: therefore by his example men in the state of perfection can beg.*

la: Cfr. lib. II. Annal. Ord. Praedic. n. 24. — L: *Item, hoc videtur exemplo novorum Sanctorum, quod reputo manifestum testimonium, immo magnum quisquis unum repraesentat. Primo exemplo B. Dominici, qui imprecatus est maledictionem in morte ei qui divitias in ordine suo poneret, immo fratres suos voluit per mundum universum mendicare.*

en: Compare book II of the *Annals of the Order of Preachers*, n. 24. — L: *Likewise, this is seen by the example of the new Saints, which I reckon a manifest testimony, indeed a great one, whoever represents one. First by the example of blessed Dominic, who at his death imprecated a curse on anyone who should place riches in his order; indeed he willed his brothers to beg through the whole world.*

la: Cap. 6. — De praecedentibus cfr. Legenda S. Francisci scripta a S. Bonav. c. 9. — Superius post *consuluit* D addit *et mendicare docuit.* — L: *Item, dicunt: Sanctus Franciscus istud miraculis confirmavit, quia, cum vellet transferri ultra mare, nautae, quia non habebant victum, ipsum recipere noluerunt; et petiit eleemosynas et habuit parum ad victum. Postea ingressus navem cum aliis, cum navigarent per mare, defecerunt victualia aliorum, victus autem praedicti Sancti supererat, unde alios sustentavit; et ita Dominus voluit et fecit, ut alii de mendicatione sustentarentur per miraculum, et mendicatio per miraculum fuit approbata.*

en: Chapter 6. — On what precedes, compare the *Legend of St. Francis* written by St. Bonaventure, ch. 9. — Above, after *consuluit* ("counselled") D adds *et mendicare docuit* ("and taught to beg"). — L: *Likewise, they say: Saint Francis confirmed this by miracles, for, when he wished to be carried across the sea, the sailors, because they had no food, refused to take him; and he requested alms and had a little for food. Afterwards, having boarded a ship with others, while they were sailing over the sea, the provisions of the others failed, but the food of the aforesaid Saint was left over, from which he sustained the others; and so the Lord willed and brought it about that others were sustained by begging through a miracle, and begging was approved through a miracle.*

la: Cap. 7, 3. — Gregor., VIII. Moral. c. 8. n. 15. — In L desideratur hoc arg.

en: Chapter 7:3. — Gregory, *Morals* VIII, ch. 8, n. 15. — This argument is wanting in L.

la: Quae nunc est 118. ad Iulian. (alias 34.). n. 5.

en: Which is now 118, to Julian (otherwise 34), n. 5.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 760, nota 6. et tom. III. pag. 388, nota 2. — Finem arg. exhibet D sic: *ergo si esse pauperem pro Christo bonum est, et mendicare.* L omittit hoc arg.

en: See tome II, page 760, note 6, and tome III, page 388, note 2. — D gives the end of the argument thus: *therefore, if to be poor for Christ is good, so also is to beg.* L omits this argument.

la: Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 3: Circa id quod difficilius est semper ars et virtus versatur.

en: Aristotle, *Ethics* II, ch. 3: Art and virtue are always concerned with what is more difficult.

la: D *meritorium et satisfactorium,* et inferius vocibus *se astringit* interserit *obligat et.*

en: D has *meritorium et satisfactorium* ("meritorious and satisfactory"), and below it inserts *obligat et* ("obliges and") into the words *se astringit* ("binds himself").

la: M *maxime.*

en: M has *maxime* ("most of all").

la: D E M *altari,* sed contra contextum.

en: D E M have *altari* ("the altar"), but against the context.

la: Duo seqq. argg. omittuntur a L, qui in hoc arg. addit:   *t haec argumenta sufficiant ad istius partis ostensionem.*

en: The two following arguments are omitted by L, which in this argument adds:   *t* [*sic*] *let these arguments suffice for the showing of this side.*

la: Prov. 19, 17: Feneratur Domino qui miseretur pauperis etc.

en: Prov. 19:17: He that hath mercy on the poor, lendeth to the Lord etc.

la: Vers. 20. et 22: Factum est autem, ut moreretur mendicus et portaretur ab Angelis etc.

en: Verses 20 and 22: And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the Angels etc.

la: Vide II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 36, in qua explicat parabolam de coena magna, ad quam multi erant vocati, qui tamen «coeperunt omnes simul excusare... Et ait Dominus servo: Exi... et *compelle intrare*» [Luc. 14, 16 — 24.]. Ultima haec verba loc. cit. n. 9. explicat de adversitatibus compellentibus ad Deum redire: «Qui ergo huius mundi adversitatibus fracti, ad Dei amorem redeunt atque a praesentis vitae desideriis corriguntur, quid isti, fratres mei, nisi compelluntur, ut intrent»? — L, ad solutionem quaestionis triplici posita mendicationis distinctione, scil. «ex necessitate naturae, ex vitiositate culpae, ex supererogatione iustitiae», de primo membro affert tantum exemplum Lazari, et etiam de modo secundo pauca refert.

en: See the second book of the *Homilies on the Gospels,* homily 36, in which he explains the parable of the great supper, to which many had been called, who nevertheless «began all at once to make excuse... And the Lord said to the servant: Go out... and *compel them to come in*» [Luke 14:16–24]. These last words he explains in the place cited, n. 9, of the adversities that compel a man to return to God: «Those, then, who, broken by the adversities of this world, return to the love of God and are corrected from the desires of the present life — what are they, my brethren, but compelled to enter»? — L, at the solution of the question, having set down the threefold distinction of begging, namely «from the necessity of nature, from the viciousness of fault, from the supererogation of justice», brings forward for the first member only the example of Lazarus, and reports few things also about the second mode.

en: Book II, ch. 16, n. 76.

la: Cap. 25. n. 33. — Pro *deliciis* edd. cum aliquot codd. *divitiis.*

en: Ch. 25, n. 33. — For *deliciis* ("delights") the editions, with several codices, have *divitiis* ("riches").

la: Cap. 28. n. 36. Respicitur Matth. 23, 5, ubi de Scribis et Pharisaeis dicitur: Dilatant enim phylacteria sua et magnificant fimbrias.

en: Ch. 28, n. 36. Reference is made to Matt. 23:5, where it is said of the Scribes and Pharisees: For they make broad their phylacteries and enlarge their fringes.

la: Matth. 6, 25, seqq.: Ideo dico vobis, ne solliciti sitis animae vestrae quid manducetis... Respicite volatilia caeli, quoniam non serunt etc. — Verbum Apostoli est II. Thess. 3, 10: Si quis non vult operari, nec manducet.

en: Matt. 6:25 ff.: Therefore I say to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat... Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow etc. — The word of the Apostle is II Thess. 3:10: If any man will not work, neither let him eat.

la: Cap. 22. seq. n. 26. seq. Post *misericordiam* textus originalis plura addit et circa finem pro *ut impedire velint Evangelio* substituit *ut impediri velint Evangelio.* Correximus vitium codd. et edd., qui habent *impedire velint Evangelium.*

en: Ch. 22 f., n. 26 f. After *misericordiam* ("mercy") the original text adds several things, and towards the end for *ut impedire velint Evangelio* it substitutes *ut impediri velint Evangelio* ("that they wish the Gospel to be hindered"). We have corrected the fault of the codices and editions, which have *impedire velint Evangelium.*

la: Serm. 11. (alias 18. inter 50 homilias n. 1.). Respicitur Luc. 16, 9: Facite vobis amicos de mammona etc. Textus originalis: In isto autem tempore, ut noverimus, quantum... fecit, ut, cum fiunt hic amici de mammona etc. [subinde textus originalis aliter legit, in nota adiecta exhibetur tamen lectio nostra].

en: Sermon 11 (otherwise 18, among the 50 homilies, n. 1). Reference is made to Luke 16:9: Make unto you friends of the mammon etc. The original text reads: But in this time, that we might know, how much... he made, that, when men are made friends here of the mammon etc. [thereafter the original text reads otherwise; in an added note our reading is nevertheless given].

la: L etiam de tertio modo multa omittens et male contrahens agit. — Vocibus *laudabilis est* D praemittit *meritoria et.*

en: L treats of the third mode too, omitting much and abridging it badly. — Before the words *laudabilis est* ("is praiseworthy") D puts *meritoria et* ("meritorious and").

la: Alias 33. n. 4. seq. Pro *qui docebantur* (τῶν μαθητευομένων) edd. *qui docebant,* et pro *monstrat hoc debitum existens* (δείκνυσι τὸ πρᾶγμα ὀφειλὴν ὄν) eaedem edd. *monstrat hoc debitum existere,* ac demum *a nobis* pro *a vobis* (παρ' ὑμῶν).

en: Otherwise 33, n. 4 f. For *qui docebantur* ("who were being taught", τῶν μαθητευομένων) the editions have *qui docebant* ("who were teaching"), and for *monstrat hoc debitum existens* ("showing this to be a debt", δείκνυσι τὸ πρᾶγμα ὀφειλὴν ὄν) the same editions have *monstrat hoc debitum existere,* and finally *a nobis* ("from us") for *a vobis* ("from you", παρ' ὑμῶν).

la: Psalm. 103, 14. Verba allegata habentur in Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum, Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum (in hunc loc.) et formata sunt ex iis quae August. (Enarrat. in Ps. 103. serm. 3. n. 9. seq.) docet. — Loci Scripturae sunt I. Cor. 9, 14: Ita et Dominus ordinavit iis qui Evangelium annuntiant de Evangelio vivere. Secundus ibid. v. 19; tertius ibid. v. 9, sumtus ex Deut. 25, 4; quartus Luc. 10, 7: Dignus est enim operarius etc. Quintus I. Cor. 9, 11: Si nos vobis spiritualia seminavimus, magnum est, si nos carnalia vestra metamus? Sextus Ps. 40, 1; septimus Luc. 6, 30: Omni autem petenti te tribue. Pro octavo in ed. Lyrani allegatur Eccli. 29. — Textus originalis omittit *ut de Evangelio vivant qui Evangelium annuntiant,* et post *humiles* plura addit.

en: Ps. 103:14. The words cited are found in the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo, Peter Lombard and Lyra (on this passage), and are formed out of what Augustine teaches (*Enarrationes in Psalmos,* on Ps. 103, sermon 3, n. 9 f.). — The Scripture passages are I Cor. 9:14: So also the Lord ordained that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel. The second is ibid. v. 19; the third ibid. v. 9, taken from Deut. 25:4; the fourth Luke 10:7: For the labourer is worthy etc. The fifth I Cor. 9:11: If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things? The sixth Ps. 40:1; the seventh Luke 6:30: And give to every one that asketh thee. For the eighth, in Lyra's edition Ecclus. 29 is cited. — The original text omits *ut de Evangelio vivant qui Evangelium annuntiant,* and after *humiles* adds several things.

la: L omittit quae sequuntur.

en: L omits what follows.

la: Regul. iuris in VI. regula 53: Cui licet quod est plus, licet utique quod est minus.

en: *Rules of law* in the Sext, rule 53: He to whom the greater is lawful, to him assuredly the lesser is lawful.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 8, 1: Scientia inflat, caritas vero aedificat. — Aliquanto superius pro *securitatem* I *saturitatem,* et *licite petere, ut proficiat* pro *licite mendicare pro amore proficiendi.*

en: Epistle I Cor. 8:1: Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. — Somewhat above, for *securitatem* ("security") I has *saturitatem* ("satiety"), and *licite petere, ut proficiat* ("lawfully to request, that he may advance") for *licite mendicare pro amore proficiendi* ("lawfully to beg for love of advancing").

la: Psalm. 33, 11. — Seq. locus est Ps. 110, 10: Initium sapientiae timor Domini (cfr. Prov. 1, 7. et Eccli. 1, 16.); tertius Sap. 7, 11: Venerunt autem mihi etc. — Inferius pro *materialium* M *temporalium.* L eodem sensu, brevius tamen, solvit arg.

en: Ps. 33:11. — The following passage is Ps. 110:10: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (cf. Prov. 1:7 and Ecclus. 1:16); the third is Wisd. 7:11: Now all good things came to me etc. — Below, for *materialium* ("material") M has *temporalium* ("temporal"). L solves the argument in the same sense, but more briefly.

la: Psalm. 36, 25. — Glossam affert Petr. Lombard. (in hunc loc.); cfr. de ipsa August., Enarrat. in Ps. 36. serm. 3. n. 5. — De Glossa super Hebr. 13, 5. vide supra a. 1. ad 5. — Finem solut. I sic habet: *sed magis ad eam invitat.* L alterum solutionis modum omittit.

en: Ps. 36:25. — Peter Lombard brings forward the Gloss (on this passage); on it cf. Augustine, *Enarrationes in Psalmos,* on Ps. 36, sermon 3, n. 5. — On the Gloss on Heb. 13:5 see above, article 1, reply 5. — I has the end of the solution thus: *sed magis ad eam invitat* ("but rather invites to it"). L omits the second manner of solution.

la: Psalm. 108, 10: Nutantes transferantur filii eius et mendicent et eiiciantur de habitationibus suis.

en: Ps. 108:10: Let his children be carried about vagabonds and beg, and let them be cast out of their dwellings.

la: Scilicet *interlinearem* apud Lyranum in Eccli. 40, 29. Cfr. Raban., in hunc loc.

en: Namely the *interlinear* Gloss in Lyra on Ecclus. 40:29. Cf. Rabanus, on this passage.

la: Cap. 38. Vide supra pag. 127, nota 2. — Seq. locus habetur supra a. 1. fundam. 20.

en: Ch. 38. See above, page 127, note 2. — The following passage is found above, article 1, fundamentum 20.

la: Vers. 33. — De verbis Glossae, quae inferius allegantur, cf. ipsam obiectionem.

en: Verse 33. — On the words of the Gloss which are cited below, cf. the objection itself.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 9, 6. — Superius pro *secundum bene esse* K *de bene esse.*

en: Cf. I Cor. 9:6. — Above, for *secundum bene esse* ("according to well-being") K has *de bene esse* ("of well-being").

la: Ioan. 21, 3. — Glossa, quam exhibet Strabus ut *ordinariam* super v. 1, sumta est ex Beda, in v. 1.

en: John 21:3. — The Gloss, which Strabo gives as the *ordinary* Gloss on v. 1, is taken from Bede, on v. 1.

la: Homil. 87. (alias 86.) in Ioan. n. 2. Respicitur illud Ioan. 7, 39: Nondum enim erat Spiritus datus etc. In fine alia versio: Ad artem suam redierant.

en: Homily 87 (otherwise 86) on John, n. 2. Reference is made to that text of John 7:39: For as yet the Spirit was not given etc. At the end another version reads: They had returned to their trade.

la: Exod. 20, 17: Non concupisces domum proximi tui etc. — Subinde respicitur Gal. 6, 2: Alter alterius onera portate, et sic adimplebitis legem Christi. — Inferius pro *denegasse* I *prohibuisse* et pro *solatium misericordiae et pietatis fraternae* edd. corrupte *solatium ex pietatis et caritatis fine.*

en: Exod. 20:17: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house etc. — Thereupon reference is made to Gal. 6:2: Bear ye one another's burdens, and so you shall fulfil the law of Christ. — Below, for *denegasse* ("to have denied") I has *prohibuisse* ("to have forbidden"), and for *solatium misericordiae et pietatis fraternae* the editions have corruptly *solatium ex pietatis et caritatis fine.*

la: Vers. 17: Non quia quaero datum etc. — Verba August., XIII. Confess. c. 26. seq. n. 39. seqq., sunt: Pascuntur autem his escis qui laetantur eis, nec illi laetantur eis, *quorum Deus venter est* [Phil. 3, 19.]. Neque enim et in illis, qui praebent ista, ea quae dant *fructus* est, sed quo animo dant... *Datum* est res ipsa, quam dat qui impertitur haec necessaria, veluti est nummus, cibus, potus, vestimentum, tectum, adiutorium. *Fructus* autem bona et recta voluntas datoris est (n. 41.)... Cum homines idiotae atque infideles... suscipiunt corporaliter reficiendos... cum id, quare faciendum sit et quo pertineat, ignorent, nec illi istos pascunt, nec isti ab illis pascuntur; quia nec illi haec sancta et recta voluntate operantur, nec isti eorum datis, ubi fructum nondum vident, laetantur; inde quippe animus pascitur, unde laetatur (c. 27. n. 42.). — Pro *regratians eis de beneficio* I *ubi regratiatur eis de beneficio.*

en: Verse 17: Not that I seek the gift etc. — Augustine's words, *Confessions* XIII, ch. 26 f., nn. 39 ff., are: But they are fed with these foods who are gladdened by them, and they are not gladdened by them *whose God is their belly* [Phil. 3:19]. For in those too who furnish these things, it is not what they give that is the *fruit,* but the mind with which they give... The *gift* is the thing itself which he gives who bestows these necessaries, such as money, food, drink, clothing, shelter, help. But the *fruit* is the good and right will of the giver (n. 41)... When ignorant and unbelieving men take in those who are to be refreshed in body... while they know not why it should be done or to what it tends, neither do these feed those nor are those fed by these; because neither do these do these things with a holy and right will, nor are those gladdened by what these give, where they do not yet see the fruit; for the mind is fed from that whereby it is gladdened (ch. 27, n. 42). — For *regratians eis de beneficio* ("giving them thanks for the benefit") I has *ubi regratiatur eis de beneficio* ("where he gives them thanks for the benefit").

la: Epist. I. Tim. 6, 9: Nam qui volunt... in tentationem... multa inutilia et nociva.

en: Epistle I Tim. 6:9: For they that will... into temptation... many unprofitable and hurtful desires.

la: Edd. *Egenus est qui cupit saturari. Est.*

en: The editions have *Egenus est qui cupit saturari. Est* ("He is needy who desires to be filled. He is").

la: Edd. ultimum membrum omittunt.

en: The editions omit the last member.

la: Vers. 11. seq. Vulgata post *denuntiamus* addit *et obsecramus in Domino Iesu Christo.*

en: Verse 11 f. After *denuntiamus* ("we charge") the Vulgate adds *et obsecramus in Domino Iesu Christo* ("and beseech in the Lord Jesus Christ").

la: Vers. 60: Sine, ut mortui sepeliant mortuos suos. Cfr. tamen Matth. 8, 22. — Verba, quae Ambrosio tribuuntur (vide eius Expos. in Luc. lib. VII. n. 34, ubi eadem sententia tangitur), inveniuntur in Glossa *ordinaria* in hunc loc. apud Lyranum; de qua Glossa cfr. Beda in hunc loc. — Seq. locus est Act. 6, 2.

en: Verse 60: Let the dead bury their dead. Cf. however Matt. 8:22. — The words attributed to Ambrose (see his *Exposition on Luke,* book VII, n. 34, where the same thought is touched on) are found in the *ordinary* Gloss on this passage in Lyra; on which Gloss cf. Bede on this passage. — The following passage is Acts 6:2.

la: Ioan. 6, 27: Operamini non cibum, qui perit. — Inferius pro *geminus* Maurini recte *genuinus* [dens], et pro *corrector scriptorum* textus originalis *corrector vitiorum.*

en: John 6:27: Labour not for the meat which perisheth. — Below, for *geminus* ("twofold") the Maurists rightly have *genuinus* [*dens*] ("a back tooth"), and for *corrector scriptorum* ("corrector of the copyists") the original text has *corrector vitiorum* ("corrector of faults").

la: Cap. 21. n. 25: Si saltem habebant... dispertiti sunt, et credenda est eorum infirmitas et ferenda.

en: Ch. 21, n. 25: If at least they had... they distributed, and their weakness is to be believed and borne with.

la: Cap. 25. n. 33. Textus originalis *ubicumque etiam,* codd. et 1, 2, 3, 4 *ubique etiam* pro *undecumque etiam.*

en: Ch. 25, n. 33. The original text has *ubicumque etiam* ("wherever also"), and the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 4 have *ubique etiam* ("everywhere also") for *undecumque etiam* ("from wheresoever also").

la: Cap. 21. n. 24: Isti autem fratres nostri temere sibi arrogant, quantum existimo, quod eiusmodi habeant potestatem. Si enim evangelistae [cfr. Eph. 4, 11.] sunt, fateor, habent; si ministri altaris, dispensatores Sacramentorum [cfr. I. Cor. 4, 1.], bene sibi istam non arrogant, sed plane vindicant potestatem.

en: Ch. 21, n. 24: But these brethren of ours rashly claim for themselves, as I judge, that they have such a power. For if they are evangelists [cf. Eph. 4:11], I grant it, they have it; if they are ministers of the altar, dispensers of the Sacraments [cf. I Cor. 4:1], they rightly do not claim this power for themselves, but plainly vindicate it.

la: Ita D E, in aliis *carne.* Inferius pro *sudandum* edd. *sudatum.* — L tres rationes pro solutione tamen alio modo affert.

en: So D E; in the others *carne* ("in flesh"). Below, for *sudandum* ("must be sweated") the editions have *sudatum.* — L brings forward three reasons for the solution, but in another manner.

la: Cfr. supra fundam. 15.

en: Cf. above, fundamentum 15.

la: Alias 91. n. 3. Ante *avarorum* versio Graecae homiliae omittit *et.* — Seq. locus est ibid. n. 4.

en: Otherwise 91, n. 3. Before *avarorum* ("of the covetous") the version of the Greek homily omits *et.* — The following passage is ibid., n. 4.

la: Vers. 4. — Seq. locus est ibid. v. 11, ubi Vulgata verbo *praecipio* praemittit *ego* et omittit *tuam.* — Aliquanto inferius pro *obsequium* I *officium,* M *officium vel obsequium.*

en: Verse 4. — The following passage is ibid. v. 11, where the Vulgate puts *ego* before the word *praecipio* and omits *tuam.* — Somewhat below, for *obsequium* ("service") I has *officium* ("duty"), M *officium vel obsequium.*

la: Post can. *Habebat Dominus* (17.), C. 12. q. 1, Gratianus haec addit: His omnibus auctoritatibus claret... licet habere quid proprium, quod si etc.

en: After the canon *Habebat Dominus* (17), C. 12 q. 1, Gratian adds these words: From all these authorities it is clear... it is lawful to have anything of one's own; and if etc.

la: Cap. 17. X. libr. V. tit. 31.

en: Ch. 17 of the Decretals, book V, title 31.

la: Ut dicit Innocent. III. in C. *Innotuit nobis* (20.), X. de Electione et electi potest. (lib. I. tit. 6.), et occurrit in Glossa super legem *Ille* (13.), § Tempestivum, D. Ad senatus consultum Trebell. (lib. 36. tit. 1.). — De gradibus parentelae cfr. IV. Sent. d. 40. q. 3.

en: As Innocent III says in the chapter *Innotuit nobis* (20), Decretals, *On Election and the Power of the One Elected* (book I, title 6); and it occurs in the Gloss on the law *Ille* (13), § *Tempestivum,* Digest, *On the Trebellian Decree of the Senate* (book 36, title 1). — On the degrees of kinship cf. *Sentences* IV, d. 40, q. 3.

la: I *approbata.*

en: I has *approbata* ("approved").

la: K M *providerent.*

en: K M have *providerent* ("they were to provide").

la: Pro *circa nihil,* quod praebet K, alii codd. vel cum 1, 2, 3, 4 *nihil,* vel cum Vat. *in nihil.* Superius pro *simulantes* K *simulando,* et pro *onerosi* ex D E substituimus *otiosi.*

en: For *circa nihil* ("about nothing"), which K gives, the other codices have either, with editions 1, 2, 3, 4, *nihil,* or, with the Vatican edition, *in nihil.* Above, for *simulantes* ("feigning") K has *simulando* ("by feigning"), and for *onerosi* ("burdensome") we have substituted, from D E, *otiosi* ("idle").

la: Matth. 19, 21; cfr. supra pag. 125, nota 1, in qua etiam de Glossa, quae inferius allegatur. Hieron. in hunc locum ait: Et hoc ad perfectionem non sufficit, nisi post contemptas divitias Salvatorem sequatur [Glossa *interlinearis* addit *id est imitetur*], id est, relictis malis faciat bona... Sequitur autem Dominum qui imitator eius est et per vestigia illius graditur. — Pro *culmen* edd. *cumulum.*

en: Matt. 19:21; cf. above, page 125, note 1, in which the Gloss cited below is also treated. Jerome on this passage says: And this does not suffice for perfection, unless, after riches have been despised, he follow the Saviour [the *interlinear* Gloss adds *id est imitetur,* "that is, imitate him"], that is, having left evils behind, let him do good things... Now he follows the Lord who is his imitator and walks in his footsteps. — For *culmen* ("summit") the editions have *cumulum* ("heap").

la: Vers. 8. — Inferius respicitur Luc. 16, 9. et Phil. 4, 15: In ratione dati et accepti. — Superius pro *veniens* M *proveniens.* Finem solut. exhibent edd. sic: *ut mutua diligentia vicissim possit impleri.*

en: Verse 8. — Below, reference is made to Luke 16:9 and Phil. 4:15: In the matter of giving and receiving. — Above, for *veniens* ("coming") M has *proveniens* ("arising"). The editions give the end of the solution thus: *ut mutua diligentia vicissim possit impleri* ("that mutual diligence may in turn be fulfilled").

la: Epist. I. Cor. 12, 21: Non potest autem oculus dicere manui: opera tua non indigeo.

en: Epistle I Cor. 12:21: And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help.

la: Vers. 17. — Glossa, quae est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, est secundum August., II. de Sermone Domini in monte, c. 16. n. 54. seq. Allegatur in ipsa Matth. 6, 33: Quaerite ergo primum regnum Dei etc.

en: Verse 17. — The Gloss, which is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lyra, is according to Augustine, *On the Lord's Sermon on the Mount* II, ch. 16, n. 54 f. In it Matt. 6:33 is cited: Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God etc.

la: Mich. 3, 11: Sacerdotes eius in mercede docebant, et prophetae eius in pecunia divinabant. — De Giezi et Balaam cfr. IV. Reg. 5, 20. seqq. et Num. 22, 7. seqq. — Pro *amavit* M *amaverunt.*

en: Mich. 3:11: Her priests taught for hire, and her prophets divined for money. — On Giezi and Balaam cf. IV Kings 5:20 ff. and Num. 22:7 ff. — For *amavit* ("he loved") M has *amaverunt* ("they loved").

la: Vers. 7. — Glossa, quae est ex Beda (in hunc loc.), exhibetur a Strabo et Lyrano ut *ordinaria.*

en: Verse 7. — The Gloss, which is from Bede (on this passage), is given by Strabo and Lyra as the *ordinary* one.

la: K *de qua.* Mox pro *occurrunt* I *occurrerent.*

en: K has *de qua* ("concerning which"). Presently, for *occurrunt* ("occur") I has *occurrerent* ("would occur").

la: Scilicet ordinis Praedicatorum et Minorum. — Inferius respicitur Luc. 10, 2: Rogate ergo dominum messis etc. — Vat. *modernum ordinem.* I legit *moderni praedicatores.* Paulo ante pro *vel simpliciter* I *vel in toto.* Inferius pro *praedicaverunt* I M *praedicant.*

en: Namely of the order of Preachers and of Minors. — Below, reference is made to Luke 10:2: Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest etc. — The Vatican edition has *modernum ordinem* ("the modern order"). I reads *moderni praedicatores* ("modern preachers"). A little before, for *vel simpliciter* ("or without qualification") I has *vel in toto* ("or in whole"). Below, for *praedicaverunt* ("they have preached") I M have *praedicant* ("they preach").

la: Vers. 1. — Glossa (ex Beda in hunc loc.) *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum: Sicut in Apostolis est forma episcoporum, sic in septuaginta duobus forma est presbyterorum.

en: Verse 1. — The *ordinary* Gloss (from Bede on this passage) in Strabo and Lyra: As in the Apostles there is the form of bishops, so in the seventy-two there is the form of priests.

la: Vide tom. IV. pag. 535, nota 2. verba Bernardi, et infra q. 4. a. 3.

en: See tome IV, page 535, note 2, the words of Bernard, and below, question 4, article 3.

la: Vers. 6. — Glossam, quae est secundum August., de Opere monachor. c. 15. n. 16, exhibet Petr. Lombard. in hunc loc. — Inferius respicitur Matth. 11, 29: Discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde. — Circa finem solut., posito *efficeretur* pro *aedificent,* edd. post *verum etiam verbo* prosequuntur: *humilitatis. Quomodo ergo* etc.

en: Verse 6. — The Gloss, which is according to Augustine, *On the Work of Monks,* ch. 15, n. 16, is given by Peter Lombard on this passage. — Below, reference is made to Matt. 11:29: Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart. — Towards the end of the solution, having put *efficeretur* for *aedificent,* the editions continue after *verum etiam verbo* thus: *humilitatis. Quomodo ergo* etc.

la: I *miris,* ed. Alex. Hal. *nimis abundantes.* Nulla lectio placet.

en: Codex I *miris;* the edition of Alexander of Hales, *nimis abundantes.* Neither reading is satisfactory.

la: Can. 2, sumtus ex Hieron., I. adversus Iovinian. n. 18. — Inferius edd. cum M omittunt *ab esu.*

en: Canon 2, taken from Jerome, *Against Jovinian* I, n. 18. — Below, the editions with M omit *ab esu.*

la: Epist. II. Thess. 2, 2. — Immediate post respicitur Matth. 23, 5, de quo vide supra pag. 140, nota 5; subinde Luc. 16, 15: Vos estis, qui iustificatis vos coram hominibus.

en: The letter II Thess. 2:2. — Immediately after, Matt. 23:5 is had in view, on which see above, p. 140, note 5; then Luke 16:15: You are they who justify yourselves before men.

la: Cap. 14. In fine pro *claruit* textus originalis *inclaruit.*

en: Chapter 14. At the end, for *claruit* the original text has *inclaruit.*

la: Libr. contra Vigilant. n. 13. Allegatur Gal. 2, 9. seq. et I. Cor. 16, 2. In fine respicitur Ps. 1, 2: In lege eius meditabitur die ac nocte (cfr. Iosue 1, 8.); Num. 18, 20: Dixitque Dominus ad Aaron: In terra eorum nihil possidebitis nec habebitis partem inter eos, ego pars et hereditas tua etc. (cfr. Deut. 18, 1. seq.); II. Cor. 8, 13. seq.: Non enim, ut aliis sit remissio, vobis autem tribulatio, sed ex aequalitate. In praesenti tempore vestra abundantia illorum inopiam suppleat etc. — Textus originalis ante *ecclesiis gentium* omittit *in,* et post *solatia dirigantur* plura addit. — D paulo superius post *mendicatione,* omissis subnexis, solutionem obiectionis concludit. — L in fine suae solut. haec bene observanda addit: Hanc quaestionem determinavit ita magister Bonaventura de Ordine Fratrum Minorum, secundum quod a quodam clerico potuit reportari. Deo gratias et Amen. — Porro in eodem codice L ad latus *fundamentorum, responsionis* et *solutionis* obiectorum scriptae sunt animadversiones contra doctrinam S. Bonaventurae satis acriter exhibitae, et *praecise eaedem,* quas S. Doctor in sequenti *replicatione* recenset et magna vi rationum et eloquentiae refellit. Animadversiones istae certo sunt vel Gulielmi a Sancto Amore, vel sectatorum eiusdem. De ipsis diffuse agitur in nostris Prolegomenis ad hanc quaestionem.

en: The book against Vigilantius, n. 13. Gal. 2:9 ff. and I Cor. 16:2 are alleged. At the end Ps. 1:2 is had in view: On his law he shall meditate day and night (cf. Josue 1:8); Num. 18:20: And the Lord said to Aaron: You shall possess nothing in their land, neither shall you have a portion among them: I am thy portion and inheritance etc. (cf. Deut. 18:1 f.); II Cor. 8:13 f.: For I mean not that others should be eased, and you burdened, but by an equality. In this present time let your abundance supply their want etc. — The original text omits *in* before *ecclesiis gentium,* and after *solatia dirigantur* adds several things. — D, a little above, after *mendicatione,* omitting what follows, concludes the solution of the objection. — L, at the end of its own solution, adds these things, well worth observing: Thus did master Bonaventure of the Order of Friars Minor determine this question, according as it could be reported by a certain cleric. Thanks be to God, and Amen. — Further, in the same codex L, beside the *fundamenta,* the *response* and the *solution* of the objections, there are written animadversions against the doctrine of St. Bonaventure, set out sharply enough, and *precisely the same ones* which the holy Doctor reviews in the following *replication* and refutes with great force of reasoning and eloquence. Those animadversions are certainly either William of Saint-Amour's or his followers'. They are treated at length in our Prolegomena to this question.

la: Quae sequuntur exhibent solum D I M et edd., E K ipsa omittunt. Vide dicta in fine notae praecedentis. — Aliquanto inferius vocibus *post collectae* M interserit *me.*

en: What follows is given only by D I M and the editions; E K omit it. See what was said at the end of the preceding note. — Somewhat lower, M inserts *me* among the words *post collectae.*

la: Cap. 15. X. lib. I. tit. 31: Quibus [praedicatoribus, visitatoribus, confessariis ab episcopis constitutis] ipsi, cum indiguerint, congrue necessaria subministrent, ne pro necessariorum defectu compellantur desistere ab incepto. — Superius ex M substituimus *pseudoprophetae* pro *pseudo.*

en: Chapter 15, Decretals, book I, title 31: To whom [preachers, visitors and confessors appointed by the bishops] let them, when they are in need, duly supply what is necessary, lest for want of necessaries they be compelled to desist from what they have begun. — Above, from M, we have substituted *pseudoprophetae* for *pseudo.*

la: Vers. 1: Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum etc. — Seq. locus est Ioan. 20, 21. — Superius pro *apparentiam sophisticam* I *falsitatem.*

en: Verse 1: Paul, an Apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ etc. — The following passage is John 20:21. — Above, for *apparentiam sophisticam* codex I has *falsitatem.*

la: Vide notam penultimam.

en: See the last note but one.

la: In solut. ad 11. — Inferius, post *Christi* M addito *electis,* prosequitur *Et quia missi* etc.

en: In the solution to argument 11. — Below, after *Christi,* M, having added *electis,* continues *Et quia missi* etc.

la: Vers. 28: Et quosdam quidem posuit… deinde virtutes, exinde gratias curationum, opitulationes etc. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. (in hunc loc.), quae est apud Lyranum *interlinearis.*

en: Verse 28: And God indeed hath set some… then miracles, then the graces of healing, helps etc. — Peter Lombard gives the Gloss (on this passage), which in Lyra is the *interlinear* one.

la: Psalm. 140, 4. — De subauctoritate cfr. I. Sent. d. 15. p. I. q. 3. ad 5. et q. 4. in corp. et ad 3.

en: Psalm 140:4. — On sub-authority cf. I *Sent.* d. 15, pars I, q. 3, ad 5, and q. 4 in the body and ad 3.

la: In solut. ad 20. — D addit *positis.* Superius ante *mihi imponitur* substituimus *ab eis* pro *rabies,* quod corrupte habent codd. et edd., excepto I, qui verbum illud omittit; M et 5 *sicut rabies mihi imponit.* Inferius pro *et paupertatis altitudinem* I *in altitudine paupertatis.*

en: In the solution to argument 20. — D adds *positis.* Above, before *mihi imponitur,* we have substituted *ab eis* for *rabies,* which the codices and the editions have corruptly, except I, which omits that word; M and edition 5, *sicut rabies mihi imponit.* Below, for *et paupertatis altitudinem* codex I has *in altitudine paupertatis.*

la: Cfr. Vita prima S. Francisci Assis., auctore B. Thoma de Celano, eius discipulo, c. 9, et Legenda trium sociorum, c. 8. Verba illa sunt Matth. 10, 9; Luc. 9, 3.

en: Cf. the First Life of St. Francis of Assisi, by blessed Thomas of Celano, his disciple, c. 9, and the Legend of the Three Companions, c. 8. Those words are Matt. 10:9; Luke 9:3.

la: Epist. III. v. 8. seq.: Nos ergo debemus suscipere huiusmodi, ut cooperatores simus veritatis… sed is qui amat primatum gerere in eis, Diotrephes, non recipit nos. — Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum: Diotrephes non curat nostram auctoritatem. Diotrephes, haeresiarcha illius temporis, nova docendo principatum sibi usurpabat (secundum Bedam, in hunc loc.).

en: The third letter, v. 8 f.: We therefore ought to receive such, that we may be fellow-helpers of the truth… but he who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, Diotrephes, doth not receive us. — The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo and Lyra: Diotrephes cares nothing for our authority. Diotrephes, a heresiarch of that time, was usurping the primacy for himself by teaching new things (according to Bede, on this passage).

la: Cfr. supra fundam. 9-13. — Inferius respicitur Regula iuris in VI. regul. 28: Quae a iure communi exorbitant nequaquam ad consequentiam sunt trahenda. — Eadem locutione utitur adversarius in praedicto codice L circa finem responsionis, negans ipsam conclusionem principalem.

en: Cf. above, fundamenta 9-13. — Below, the Rule of law in the Sixth Book, rule 28, is had in view: Things that depart from the common law are by no means to be drawn into a precedent. — The adversary uses the same expression in the aforesaid codex L near the end of his response, denying the principal conclusion itself.

la: Scilicet in fundam. 9. seq. — Seq. locus est Ps. 69, 6. Glossa, quae est secundum Cassiodor. (in hunc loc.), apud Strabum et Lyranum est *ordinaria.* Allegatur in ipsa v. 3. eiusdem Psalmi.

en: Namely in fundamentum 9 ff. — The following passage is Ps. 69:6. The Gloss, which is according to Cassiodorus (on this passage), in Strabo and Lyra is the *ordinary* one. In it v. 3 of the same Psalm is alleged.

la: Cfr. Rom. 8, 34; Hebr. 7, 25, et I. Ioan. 2, 1. — Inferius substituimus *textus hoc* pro *textus hic.*

en: Cf. Rom. 8:34; Heb. 7:25, and I John 2:1. — Below, we have substituted *textus hoc* for *textus hic.*

la: Matth. 8, 20. et Luc. 9, 58: Filius autem hominis non habet, ubi caput reclinet. — Mox pro *cum haberet* I *si haberet.*

en: Matt. 8:20 and Luke 9:58: But the Son of man hath not where to lay his head. — Presently, for *cum haberet* codex I has *si haberet.*

la: Vers. 29.

en: Verse 29.

la: Ut narrat Abdias supra pag. 138, nota 5. allegatus. — Ed. Alex. Hal. prosequitur: *duobus potentibus mendicare et egere nolentibus, qui conversi fuerant retro, qui postmodum poenitentes mendicitatem* etc.; et infra *ex paupertate humili* pro *ex paupertate et humilitate.* Immediate post pro *et voluntaria* M *et voluntate.*

en: As Abdias relates, cited above on p. 138, note 5. — The edition of Alexander of Hales continues: *for two powerful men unwilling to beg and to be in need, who had turned back, who afterwards, repenting, mendicancy* etc.; and below *ex paupertate humili* for *ex paupertate et humilitate.* Immediately after, for *et voluntaria* M has *et voluntate.*

la: Matth. 19, 21: Vade, vende etc. — Seq. locus est II. Cor. 8, 9: Si enim gratiam etc.; tertius ibid. v. 10: Et consilium in hoc do. — De Glossa cfr. supra pag. 126, nota 2.

en: Matt. 19:21: Go, sell etc. — The following passage is II Cor. 8:9: For if the grace etc.; the third, ibid. v. 10: And herein I give counsel. — On the Gloss cf. above, p. 126, note 2.

la: Matth. 19, 12. — Verba August. sunt in Ioan. Evang. tr. 15. n. 2.: In omni re, quam gessit etc. — Sententia altera videtur expressa in Regula monachorum etc. (inter opera Hieron.) c. 19. (de humilitate Christi, quem imitari debemus): Imitemur ergo Salvatorem nostrum, quia ipse mitis et humilis… Amemus et nos Christum… Quodque beata Dei genitrix a Filio suo non didicit, caelos fabricare, Angelos creare, mira Deitatis insignia operari, sed tantum humiliari ceteraque virtutum documenta intra humilitatis custodiam aggregare. Cfr. August., Serm. 69. (alias 10. de Verbis Domini), c. 1. n. 2: Discite a me non mundum fabricare… sed *quoniam mitis sum et humilis corde* [Matth. 11, 29.].

en: Matt. 19:12. — Augustine's words are in the Tractates on John's Gospel, tr. 15, n. 2: In every thing which he did etc. — The other opinion seems expressed in the Rule of monks etc. (among the works of Jerome), c. 19 (on the humility of Christ, whom we ought to imitate): Let us therefore imitate our Saviour, because he himself is meek and humble… Let us too love Christ… And what the blessed Mother of God did not learn from her Son was to build the heavens, to create Angels, to work the wondrous marks of the Godhead, but only to be humbled and to gather the rest of the lessons of the virtues within the guard of humility. Cf. Augustine, Sermon 69 (elsewhere 10, On the Words of the Lord), c. 1, n. 2: Learn of me, not to build the world… but *because I am meek and humble of heart* [Matt. 11:29].

la: Cap. 16. n. 31. seq. Cfr. supra pag. 118, nota 5.

en: Chapter 16, n. 31 f. Cf. above, p. 118, note 5.

la: I M et ed. Alex. Hal. *funditus subvertitur.*

en: Codices I M and the edition of Alexander of Hales, *funditus subvertitur.*

la: Vide supra fundam. 20.

en: See above, fundamentum 20.

la: I et ed. Alex. Hal. addit *et intelligenti.* Superius pro *pari modo* I *pari ratione.*

en: Codex I and the edition of Alexander of Hales add *et intelligenti.* Above, for *pari modo* codex I has *pari ratione.*

la: Fundam. 16. seqq.

en: Fundamenta 16 ff.

la: I legit: *caritatis servo Dei humiliter et caritative serviebat, et sanctus Benedictus, quia humiliter et gratanter pro Christo suscipiebat.*

en: Codex I reads: *caritatis servo Dei humiliter et caritative serviebat, et sanctus Benedictus, quia humiliter et gratanter pro Christo suscipiebat.*

la: Num. 11. Allegatur Ps. 83, 11. et Dan. 3, 12. seqq.

en: Number 11. Ps. 83:11 and Dan. 3:12 ff. are alleged.

la: Rom. 13, 14: Carnis curam ne feceritis in desideriis. — Ex D M paulo inferius addidimus *etiam si se… videantur.*

en: Rom. 13:14: Make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences. — From D M we have added a little below *etiam si se… videantur.*

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 6, 15; seq. locus est Ps. 39, 18.

en: I Cor. 6:15 is had in view; the following passage is Ps. 39:18.

la: Ex D et 1, 2, 3 supplevimus *ad.* Infra posuimus cum I et ed. Alex. Hal. *si imponeret* pro *si imponeretur.*

en: From D and editions 1, 2, 3 we have supplied *ad.* Below we have set, with I and the edition of Alexander of Hales, *si imponeret* for *si imponeretur.*

la: I *revocabuntur.*

en: Codex I, *revocabuntur.*

la: I legit: *panem furtim sublatum multiplicavit ad aliorum sustentationem, sicut audivimus, quod per mendicum multiplicavit ad solatium pauperum. Quodsi.* Idem etiam in seqq. ab aliis codd. recedit.

en: Codex I reads: *panem furtim sublatum multiplicavit ad aliorum sustentationem, sicut audivimus, quod per mendicum multiplicavit ad solatium pauperum. Quodsi.* The same codex also departs from the others in what follows.

la: M addit *invenit.* Deinde pro *temerarie invitavit* I (cum verborum transpositione) *alios invitavit.*

en: M adds *invenit.* Then, for *temerarie invitavit,* codex I (with a transposition of the words) has *alios invitavit.*

la: Ex D supplevimus *sed;* ed. Alex. Hal. *contrarium apparet,* et infra posuimus ex canone, I et ed. Alex. Hal. *revelat* pro *revelabat,* et cum 1, 2, 3, 4 *ut vadat* pro *quod vadat.*

en: From D we have supplied *sed;* the edition of Alexander of Hales has *contrarium apparet,* and below we have set, from the canon, I and the edition of Alexander of Hales having *revelat* for *revelabat,* and with editions 1, 2, 3, 4 *ut vadat* for *quod vadat.*

la: Can. *Sacerdos ante omnia* (2.), de Poenit. dist. 6.

en: The canon *Sacerdos ante omnia* (2), On Penance, distinction 6.

la: Art. 1. in corp. et hic ad 11, et quoad locum in regula supra fundam. 23.

en: Article 1 in the body and here in the reply to argument 11, and as to the passage in the rule, above, fundamentum 23.

la: Ex D et ed. Alex. Hal. supplevimus *sic,* et inferius ante *tam sapiens* ex eodem cod. *hic.*

en: From D and the edition of Alexander of Hales we have supplied *sic,* and below, before *tam sapiens,* from the same codex, *hic.*

la: S. Anselm., Lucens. episc. († 1086), inter capitula I. Collectionis canon. haec reconit: Ut prima Sedes a nullo iudicetur (18.), et: Ut nemo apostolicae Sedis iudicium iudicare, aut retractare praesumat (20.).

en: St. Anselm, bishop of Lucca († 1086), among the chapters of book I of his Collection of canons, sets down these: That the first See be judged by no one (18), and: That no one presume to judge or to reconsider the judgement of the Apostolic See (20).

la: Psalm. 39, 18; 108, 17. Cfr. supra fundam. 9. seq.

en: Psalm 39:18; 108:17. Cf. above, fundamentum 9 f.

la: Vers. 9. — Glossa in hunc locum est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum et sumta est ex August., Serm. 36. (alias de Tempore 212.) c. 3. n. 4; ultima propos. ex Enarrat. in Ps. 101. serm. 1. n. 1. — Pro *expavescas* D I et ed. Alex. Hal. *erubescas,* refragante etiam originali.

en: Verse 9. — The Gloss on this passage is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lyra, and is taken from Augustine, Sermon 36 (elsewhere On the Season 212), c. 3, n. 4; the last proposition from the Commentary on Ps. 101, sermon 1, n. 1. — For *expavescas,* D I and the edition of Alexander of Hales have *erubescas,* the original also being against it.

la: Alias 70. n. 4; sequens eiusdem locus refertur supra sub n. III. circa finem.

en: Elsewhere 70, n. 4; the following passage of the same is reported above, under n. III, near the end.

la: Vers. 1. seqq.; alter locus est Gal. 2, 9. 10. [Vulgata: in gentes, ipsi in circumcisionem] cum Glossa *interlineari* apud Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum. — Post *pauperum* D addit secundum Glossam *in Ierusalem.*

en: Verse 1 ff.; the other passage is Gal. 2:9-10 [the Vulgate: in gentes, ipsi in circumcisionem] with the *interlinear* Gloss in Peter Lombard and Lyra. — After *pauperum,* D adds, following the Gloss, *in Ierusalem.*

la: Cfr. supra arg. 6-9. ad oppos. — Inferius post *verbis meis, sed* supplendum est *dixi,* quod includitur in praecedentibus terminis.

en: Cf. above, arguments 6-9 on the opposite side. — Below, after *verbis meis, sed,* one must supply *dixi,* which is contained in the preceding terms.

la: Epist. II. Thess. 3, 11. 12; subinde allegatur v. 6. — Glossa est apud Petrum Lombardum, Collectanea in Epist. S. Pauli, loc. cit.: Incipit… monens bonos, ut eos corripiant.

en: The letter II Thess. 3:11-12; then v. 6 is alleged. — The Gloss is in Peter Lombard, Collectanea on the Letters of St. Paul, at the place cited: He begins… admonishing the good to correct them.

la: Vers. 10. 11: Rogamus autem vos, fratres, ut abundetis magis, et operam… quieti sitis, et ut vestrum negotium agatis et operemini… — Glossa est apud Lombard. ibid. — M et 1, 2, 3, 4 cum textu originali *ex otio* pro *de otio.*

en: Verses 10-11: And we entreat you, brethren, that you abound more, and that you use your endeavour… to be quiet, and that you do your own business and work… — The Gloss is in Lombard, ibid. — M and editions 1, 2, 3, 4, with the original text, have *ex otio* for *de otio.*

la: Vers. 28. — Inferius posuimus *Glossae* pro *Glossa* fide M 1, 3, quia supra solut. ad 6. 9. et hic plures citantur Glossae.

en: Verse 28. — Below we have set *Glossae* for *Glossa* on the faith of M and editions 1, 3, because above, in the solutions to arguments 6 and 9, and here, several Glosses are cited.

la: Cap. 25. n. 33, sed pluribus hic omissis. — In textu cum originali substituimus *tamen si et ipsi manibus* pro *sed manibus,* I M *si manibus,* D *cum omnia manibus.* Superius pro *qui repudiabant* M 1, 2, 3, 4 *qua repudiabant.*

en: Chapter 25, n. 33, but with several things here omitted. — In the text we have substituted, with the original, *tamen si et ipsi manibus* for *sed manibus;* I M have *si manibus,* D *cum omnia manibus.* Above, for *qui repudiabant,* M and editions 1, 2, 3, 4 have *qua repudiabant.*

la: I M *fuerunt;* subinde post *labores* ex D I M supplevimus *erant.*

en: I M, *fuerunt;* then, after *labores,* from D I M we have supplied *erant.*

la: I *humiliter;* infra ex D post *praemii* addidimus *aeterni;* denique post *vix credo* M supplet *quod.*

en: Codex I, *humiliter;* below, from D, after *praemii* we have added *aeterni;* lastly, after *vix credo,* M supplies *quod.*

la: I praefigit *tamen.*

en: Codex I prefixes *tamen.*

la: Ita I, in aliis *consilium,* et infra post *transigere non* ex D M supplevimus *est.*

en: So codex I; in the others *consilium;* and below, after *transigere non,* from D M we have supplied *est.*

la: Matth. 19, 27; dein respicitur Ps. 9, 10, citatur Matth. 5, 3, et alluditur ad Sap. 5, 21: Et pugnabit cum illo orbis terrarum contra insensatos.

en: Matt. 19:27; then Ps. 9:10 is had in view, Matt. 5:3 is cited, and there is an allusion to Wisd. 5:21: And the whole world shall fight with him against the unwise.

la: Vers. 36: Rogabat autem illum quidam de Pharisaeis, ut manducaret cum illo. — De mulieribus, *quae ministrabant ei de facultatibus suis,* cfr. Luc. 8, 3. — Substituimus *invitantibus* [quod Vat. habet in margine] loco *imitantibus;* hoc enim non congruit loco Lucae cit. Seq. locus est Act. 4, 34. 35. — Infra pro *communem pauperum* D non male *omnem pauperum.*

en: Verse 36: And one of the Pharisees desired him to eat with him. — On the women *who ministered unto him of their substance,* cf. Luke 8:3. — We have substituted *invitantibus* [which the Vatican edition has in the margin] for *imitantibus;* for the latter does not suit the passage of Luke cited. The following passage is Acts 4:34-35. — Below, for *communem pauperum,* D has, not badly, *omnem pauperum.*

la: Ita M; in aliis omittitur *etiam* et *se.*

en: So M; in the others *etiam* and *se* are omitted.

la: Cfr. supra solut. ad 7.

en: Cf. above, the solution to argument 7.

la: Respicitur Matth. 23, 23. — Infra post *populi Christi* I *qui exemplis, documentis et consiliis animarum.* Subinde ante *missos* Vat. falso omittit *non.*

en: Matt. 23:23 is had in view. — Below, after *populi Christi,* codex I has *qui exemplis, documentis et consiliis animarum.* Then, before *missos,* the Vatican edition falsely omits *non.*

la: Vide supra pag. 130, nota 1. 2. et in regula S. Francisci c. 9. 12.

en: See above, p. 130, notes 1 and 2, and in the rule of St. Francis, cc. 9 and 12.

la: Supplevimus *ut,* exigente hoc ipsa grammaticali constructione. Inferius pro *est totius* Vat. *etiam totus;* eadem omittit *Et* ante *ideo.*

en: We have supplied *ut,* the grammatical construction itself requiring it. Below, for *est totius,* the Vatican edition has *etiam totus;* the same omits *Et* before *ideo.*

la: Phil. 2, 10. — Hic expliciunt D I M; in edd. sequitur additamentum, quod novem auctoritates continet separatim positas. Cum autem harum tres iam in praecedentibus de paupertate quaestionibus a S. Doctore relatae sint, non videtur verisimile, illas ab eodem hic iterum esse repetitas aliasque adiunctas. Licet igitur hi loci occurrant etiam in antiquo codice E (qui totam immediate praecedentem replicationem omittit); tamen nobis convenientius esse visum est, ut hoc additamentum, cum videatur non genuinum esse et ad perfectionem quaestionis sit superfluum, ad calcem reiiceretur. Refertur autem praecipue secundum E, emendatis ope originalium nonnullis vitiis editionum et codicis.

en: Phil. 2:10. — Here D I M come to an end; in the editions there follows an addition, which contains nine authorities set down separately. But since three of these have already been reported by the holy Doctor in the preceding questions on poverty, it does not seem likely that they were repeated here again by the same author and others joined to them. Although, therefore, these passages occur also in the ancient codex E (which omits the whole of the immediately preceding replication); nevertheless it has seemed to us more fitting that this addition, since it appears not to be genuine and is superfluous to the completeness of the question, should be relegated to the close. It is reported chiefly according to E, some faults of the editions and of the codex having been corrected by the help of the originals.

en: Translator's note: the Latin *vacare* holds together several senses that English has to split: being at leisure, being free, being free *for* something (with a dative, as here, *divinis vacant*) and being free *from* something (with *ab*). Here the dative governs, so the English takes the side of being free *for* divine things: the point of the Gloss is what these poor are given over to, not what they are released from. No *vaca-* word is rendered "rest" in this translation, because *quies* and *requies* take that word.

en: Translator's note: Augustine is punning, and the pun needs one English word in both halves. Here *vacare* has no dative of the thing one is free *for;* it stands absolute, with an ablative of the part of the body that is unoccupied, and so it leans to the other side of the word — plain leisure, which in these men is idleness. The English therefore takes "to be at leisure" in both halves: they want their hands at leisure, and Augustine wishes their tongues were at leisure too. Rendering the first half "idle" and the second "silent" would say what he means and lose the joke, which is his argument.

en: Translator's note: here *vacare* takes neither of the constructions the two notes above describe. It governs *ab* with the ablative — *ab ecclesiasticis occupationibus vacant* — and so it leans to the side of being free *from* something: what is in view is men on whom no church duty lies, who are therefore at liberty for manual work. The English takes "free from," keeping the same English root as the "free for" of the earlier passages, so that a reader can see it is one Latin word turning on its preposition. Bonaventure repeats Augustine's clause in his own voice a few lines later, and the same rendering stands there. As throughout, no *vaca-* word is rendered "rest."

translators_notes:
**Provenance, pp. 134–139.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt`, **raw L28999–L29851** for this span), with every heading, italic, apparatus anchor position, marginale and digit checked against the 450 dpi plates (`raw/vision/vol5/p-134..141.png`, 2571×3823 each, pixel size verified after extraction). Body raw usable throughout pp. 134–139; footers usable but digit-corrupt (below). **Italics come from the plate only.** Fresh literal English translation.

**Structure (pp. 134–139).** p. 134: below Art. I's replies 9 (tail)–10 (`bon-qpe-q2-a1`'s), `ARTICULUS II.` full measure, unanchored; its italic subtitle ***De paupertate quoad mendicitatem*¹** — **ANCHORED, n. 1** (Art. II's textual note: codd. A D E K M, and the L *reportatio*), read on a full-width crop: the only mark after `II.` is its point, and the numeral `1` stands after *mendicitatem* before the point. The opener (*Consequenter est quaestio de mendicitate…* — *mendicare* defined as *eleemosynam quaerere seu de quotidianis eleemosynis vivere*) asks whether to beg for Christ belongs to Christian perfection, *Et quod non, videtur*. **The opposing series comes FIRST here and argues AGAINST** (marginale `Ad oppositum.` beside arg. 1): **twenty arguments** — from authority 1–13 (Psalms, Ecclus., Acts, Luke, I–II Thess. with the Gloss; Gratian C. 12 q. 1 *Videntes*, *De consecratione* d. 1, the Code's law on able-bodied beggars), and from reason 14–20 (arg. 14 itself opens *Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione*, numbered, marginale `Argg. ex ratione.`), ending with the secular masters' case against Dominic and Francis (arg. 20, *superstitiosus et vanus*). Then **`Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1.`** on p. 136 (letter-spaced small caps in-column; marginale `Fundamenta ex auctoritate.`) — **thirty-seven arguments FOR mendicancy**: Scripture with its Glosses 1–8 (7 is Jerome on the Luke 16 text of 6); *Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur exemplo Christi* (arg. 9, numbered) 9–15; *ad hoc est exemplum Sanctorum* (arg. 16, numbered) 16–25 (Elias, John's disciples, Paul's disciples, Benedict, Alexius, Dominic, Francis, Gregory, Jerome); an UNNUMBERED run-head *Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione.* (marginale `Rationes.`) before 26–37. ⭐ Quaracchi's labels are the reverse of Art. I's: there `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` carried the objections; here it carries the *fundamenta* and the objections stand first — **the replies' lemmata were checked one by one to learn which series they answer — see below.** ⭐ **p. 134 n. 1 explains the long italic L-variants in nearly every note of this span**: L is a clerical *reportatio* which Bonaventure's own *replicatio* calls *minus sufficienter … collectae*; Quaracchi prints its arguments *speciminis gratia*.

### ▶ RULINGS MET — STATED POSITIVELY (pp. 134–139)

- ⭐ ***vacare* — the dikaisune rule MET, and the translator's note WRITTEN.** Body: p. 137 `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` 8, the Gloss on II Cor. 8:14, *abundantia meritorum illorum spiritualium, **qui divinis vacant*** → ***"of those who are free for divine things"***, with the `tr-vacare` anchor after "things" (English only). Apparatus: p. 137 n. 2 (L's addition), *illi **qui vacant divinis** … pauperes mendicantes pro Christo **vacant divinis*** → *"those who are free for divine things … are free for divine things"* — **the same side (dative, free FOR), so no `tr-vacare-2`.** Latin `vaca-` census over pp. 134–139's body: one (*vacant*); apparatus: two. "rest": zero in the English.
- **Ruling 5 MET ONCE, rendering quoted:** p. 134 n. 1 `(in fundam. plerumque valde insufficienter)` → ***"(in the fundamenta, mostly very insufficiently)"*** — the plural, un-numbered form, meaning the L-reportatio's opening arguments.
- ***intellect-*:** p. 137 `Contra` 7 (Jerome) *intelligit super egenum* → "understandeth" (Douay Ps. 40:2), *nequaquam **intellectu*** → "not at all of understanding", *beatitudo est **intelligentiae*** → "the blessedness of intelligence"; *intelligitur* → "is understood" (pp. 137–138); p. 136 n. 3 *ad litteram intelligenda* → "to be understood according to the letter". **Zero bare "intellect".**
- **Ruling 2 not reached:** *lux* / *lumen* zero; p. 135 n. 5's *luminaria* (a church's lamps) → "lamps". ***pietas*** once → "piety" (p. 139 `Contra` 37). ***praeceptum*** → "precept" (p. 136 n. 3 *illa praecepta*; n. 4 *Istud praeceptum*), *praecipere* → "command"; ***consilium*** → "counsel" (`Contra` 6 *divinum consilium*, 31 *consilia implet*).

### ▶ REGISTER — the adopted choices as applied (pp. 134–139)

- ***mendicitas*** → "mendicancy" (subtitle, opener) · ***mendicatio*** → "begging" (`Contra` 23 *mendicationem suam*, 28, 30; p. 136 n. 3 *praecepit mendicationem*; p. 138 n. 10) · ***mendicare*** → "to beg" · ***mendicus*** → "beggar" · ***mendicantes*** → "mendicants" (arg. 9 *hoc est mendicantium* → "this is what mendicants do"; arg. 13 *lege de Mendicantibus validis* → "the law on able-bodied mendicants"; notes).
- ***egenus / egere / egestas*** → "needy / to be in need / need" · ***inops / inopia*** → "in want / want" (arg. 1 Ps. 33:10; `Contra` 8; `Contra` 10's Ps. 108 *hominem inopem* → "the man in want", Douay's "poor man" adjusted so *pauper* keeps "poor") · ***indigere / indigens*** → "to be indigent / indigent" (arg. 4 Ecclus. 40:29, Douay "indigent… want" adjusted to one root; p. 135 n. 4) · ***pauper*** → "poor".
- ***petere*** → "to request" · ***rogare*** → "to ask" · ***postulare*** → "to ask for / petition" · ***quaerere*** → "to seek" · ***appetere*** → "to crave" · ***desiderare*** → "to desire" (arg. 7 turns on *rogare vel petere* against *appetere*/*desiderare*, so each keeps its own verb). *accipere* / *recipere* → "receive".
- ***praelatus*** → "prelate" (`Contra` 2; p. 136 n. 4). ***abrenuntiare / renuntiare*** → "renounce". ***dominus*** (`Contra` 15 *sicut dominus*) → "lord".
- ***religio*** → "religious order" where it names an institute (arg. 12 *nec aliqua religio institui debet*; arg. 20 *in religionibus*), "religion" in *christiana religio* (notes). ***potestative / supplicative*** → "by right of (their) power / by supplication" (arg. 19; `Contra` 33). ***otium*** → "idleness" (not a *vaca-* word). ***vilis*** → "vile" (p. 136 n. 2; `Contra` 14 *vilius* → "viler").
- **Scripture** on the Douay base, adjusted where Quaracchi's Latin differs (Luke 9:48 without *istum* → "a child"; II Thess. 3:9 without *nosmetipsos*; II Cor. 8:14's second clause → "may be a supplement to your want", because the Gloss repeats the word).

### ⭐ PRINTING ANOMALIES — AS PRINTED, NOT EMENDED (pp. 134–139)

- **p. 139 n. 8 — a COMPOSITOR'S BLANK before *t haec argumenta*** (L's closing line, *[E]t haec argumenta sufficiant ad istius partis ostensionem*). The continuation line starts ~21 px right of the column's flush-left edge — one capital's width — and that space is paper (min grey **231**, no ghost); the *t* itself runs at full strength (min **43**, like its line). **First branch of the ratified rule → the gap is reproduced** (`  `, the `bon-qmt-q3-a2` encoding) and the English carries `[*sic*]`. Plainly *Et*; not supplied.
- **p. 137 `Contra` 8 *Evangelli*** (for *Evangelii*) — at 2× a tall *l* in the *i* position; the raw agrees. An identifiable wrong sort → **as printed**; English "Gospel".
- **p. 135 arg. 8** — an opening **«** stands before the italic verse *Rogamus vos…* and is never closed (the Gloss then opens its own «…»). As printed.
- **p. 138 `Contra` 18** — the legend's report closes **»** after *fulgentes* with no opening «; **p. 138 n. 5** likewise closes **»** after *Paris. 1566.* with no opening « (a speck above the comma after *Abdiae* is not a guillemet). As printed.
- **p. 137 `Contra` 10** — *…patiuntur»..* prints **two points** after the guillemet (raw agrees). As printed.
- **p. 136 `Contra` 3** — *si **ergo** excludere* — *ergo* is set in italic on the plate. As printed.
- **p. 135 n. 4** — L's quotation of the canon's tail prints *Si aliquis exstiteri .. iam dicta damnatione feriatur* — measured: *exstiteri* (x 1950–2060), a normal word-space (20 px, against 20–25 px elsewhere on the line), then two points; no room for a lost *t*. **As printed**; English "If anyone shall have arisen ..".
- **p. 134 n. 8** ends *…non est in perfectione christiana* with **no final point**, and p. 135's register opens indented at n. 1 — not a runover. As printed.
- **p. 134 n. 7** — a raised speck after *…hic invertit]* — not a letter or a point on the baseline; omitted.
- **p. 137 n. 4 `Psalm. 108, 17`** — read at 3× (both `1`s the same serif sort); the Clementine verse for *persecutus est hominem inopem et mendicum* is 108:16. **As printed**, flagged for the gate (in range, so the resolver will not see it).
- **p. 135 n. 6 `Cod. lib. XI. tit. 25.`** — the `5` flat-topped at 3×; the modern Code numbers *De mendicantibus validis* 11.26 (older numbering differs). As printed.
- **Letters present minus strokes → transcribed plain, disclosed here** (the `bon-qmt-q4-a1` *sententia* precedent): p. 134 n. 1 ***usi*** (*s* a fragment, *i* faint; raw `iisi`); p. 135 n. 10 ***abstinete*** and ***vel quaestuarii*** (line-end fading at the leaf's outer edge; raw `abstinn.` / `rel' quaestuarii^`); p. 139 `Contra` 25 ***Dalmatiae*** (the first *a* a fragment; raw `DiJmatiae`).

### ⭐ RAW-VS-PLATE DIGIT CORRECTIONS (pp. 134–139)

p. 134 arg. 5 numeral `D.`→**`5.`** · p. 135 n. 9 `IV. Reg. .'>, 20`→**`5, 20`** · p. 135 n. 10 `.5, 22`→**`5, 22`** · p. 136 n. 7 `Vers. i.`→**`4.`** (Luke 10:4) · p. 138 n. 1 `Epist. 12S.`→**`125.`**, `n. I.`→**`n. 1.`** (Jerome to Rusticus = Ep. 125) · p. 138 n. 2 `Luc; 7, .36; 11, .S7; \i, 1`→**`Luc. 7, 36; 11, 37; 14, 1`** · p. 138 n. 3 `Hebr. 41.`→**`11.`** (the serif `1`) · p. 139 `Contra` 25 `23.`→**`25.`** · p. 139 `Contra` 35 `33.`→**`35.`** · p. 139 n. 1 `n. 1.5`→**`n. 15`** · p. 139 n. 2 `n. i`→**`n. 5`** (Jerome Ep. 118.5, the *insulas Dalmatiae* sentence) · p. 138 n. 6 `[\. Cor. 4, 11.]`→**`[I. Cor. 4, 11.]`**. Checked and standing: p. 137 n. 1 `Num. 15` (flat-topped `5` at 2×) and `Ps. 40, 1` (serif `1`, the verse-1 numbering of *Beatus qui intelligit*); p. 136 n. 4 `Matth. 19, 12` (*Qui potest capere capiat* = 19:12 ✓).

### ▶ GUTTERS (pp. 134–139)

134 **1379** for Art. II's region *(rows 0.32–0.60: six windows 1377–1379 on 59–62 px; six more at 1350/117 px discarded as blow-outs; band 1350–1408, centre-rule island 1378–1382; Art. I's region above is 1370, `q2-a1`'s value)* · 135 **1190** *(62 px, sound)* · 136 **1338** *(default **1412 on 214 px** and every window 443–462 px — blown; the skew screen's 255 px "drift" is a stacked-region artefact, not skew; per-column profile band **1307–1370 (64 px)**, midpoint 1338; the rule stands at ~1340 on the crops, both columns clean)* · 137 **1150** *(default 1142 on 50 px → windows 1149–1152, spread 3 px; band 1122–1178, rule 1147–1155)* · 138 **1386** *(62 px, sound)* · 139 **1192** *(default 1184 on 53 px → windows 1189–1192; band 1165–1220, rule 1186–1199)*.

### ▶ RUNOVERS AND THE INCOMING REGISTERS (pp. 134–139)

**Three gutter runovers, two PAGE-CROSSING** on pp. 134–139. The head of every incoming register (pp. 135–140) was read before its first numeral: **pp. 135, 136, 138 and 140 open indented at n. 1; pp. 137 and 139 open with a FLUSH-LEFT runover paragraph.**

- **p. 135 n. 4** (gutter) — left block ends *…dicitur, quod nullus communem*; right opens flush *vitam ducens sit in christiana religione…*.
- **p. 136 n. 4** (gutter) — left ends *…conceditur petitio sum-*; right opens flush *tuum: ergo perfectionis est petere sumtus…* (joined, *sumtuum*).
- **p. 136 n. 8 → p. 137** (**PAGE**) — p. 136's right block ends *…ergo pauperibus spiritu debent fi-*; p. 137's register opens flush-left *deles ministrare necessaria…* and runs six lines to *…immo potius perfectionis.* before n. 1 (joined, *fideles*).
- **p. 137 n. 5** (gutter) — left ends *…cum iam vespera*; right opens flush *esset hora, exiit etc.…*.
- **p. 138 n. 10 → p. 139** (**PAGE**) — p. 138's right block ends *…cum navigarent per mare,*; p. 139's register opens flush-left *defecerunt victualia aliorum…* and runs four lines to *…per miraculum fuit approbata.* before n. 1.

⚠ p. 137 carries the signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` under its left register and the gathering signature `18` under its right — not apparatus.

Ledger line, pp. 134–139: `p.135 n.4:gutter,p.136 n.4:gutter,p.136 n.8:page,p.137 n.5:gutter,p.138 n.10:page` (appended in the chunk's single ledger line, below).

### ▶ MARGINALIA, IN BODY ORDER (pp. 134–139)

**p. 134** — `Ad oppositum.` *(printed `Ad opposi-` / `tum.`)* · `Argg. ex auctoritate.` *(printed `Argg. ex au-` / `ctoritate.`)* — both beside arg. 1, left margin
**p. 135** — `Argg. ex ratione.` *(printed `Argg. ex ra-` / `tione.`, beside arg. 14)*
**p. 136** — `Fundamenta ex auctoritate.` *(printed `ex aucto-` / `ritate.`, beside `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` 1)*
**p. 137** — `Exemplum Christi.` *(beside `Contra` 9)*
**p. 138** — `Exempla Sanctorum.` *(beside `Contra` 16)*
**p. 139** — `Rationes.` *(beside the unnumbered run-head before `Contra` 26)*

**Seven, all run-heads, none clipped** (the outer and gutter-side margins of each leaf read on crops to the image edge; p. 139's `Rationes.` stands in the narrow gutter-side margin and is complete).

### ▶ PAGE MARKERS (pp. 134–139)

**Both languages carry the same six markers over 134–139, in the same order, each at a word boundary:** p. 135 inside arg. 7's Gloss, before *aliquid* (printed *ali-*|*quid*; English after «*Desire*); p. 136 before arg. 19; p. 137 inside `Contra` 6, before *spiritu* (printed *spi-*|*ritu*; English *the poor* | *in spirit*); p. 138 inside `Contra` 13's Augustine, before *exemplum* (printed *exem-*|*plum*; English *…in him* | *an example*); p. 139 inside `Contra` 23's Rule quotation, after *in paupertate et* (English *in poverty and* | *humility*). **52 anchors in each language, same order, each defined once, plus the English-only `tr-vacare`.** The digit-multiset screen shows only the spelled-out-chapter false-positive class (English numerals for *decimo nono* etc.).

### LEDGER — pp. 134–139

**52 entries, pp. 134–139**: p. 134 **8** (all of it — n. 1 on the subtitle, nn. 2–8 on args 1–7) · p. 135 **10** · p. 136 **8** · p. 137 **7** · p. 138 **10** · p. 139 **9**. Zero `[?]`. `KNOWN_TOTALS`: p. 134 = 8 was already there from `q2-a1`'s work and was verified; 135 = 10, 136 = 8, 137 = 7, 138 = 10, 139 = 9 added.

**Provenance, pp. 140–147.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt`, **raw L29855–L30966** for this span), with every heading, italic, apparatus anchor position, marginale and digit checked against the 450 dpi plates (`raw/vision/vol5/p-140..148.png`, 2571×3823 each, pixel size verified after extraction; pp. 142–148 extracted fresh this pass). **Body raw usable throughout pp. 140–147; footers digit-corrupt as before.** *Italics come from the plate only.* Fresh literal English translation.

**Structure (pp. 140–147).** p. 140 opens at the head of the LEFT column with `CONCLUSIO.` set in-column in letter-spaced small caps (NOT full measure), its sentence in indented italic — rendered as the frozen `> **Conclusio.**` blockquote — then **`Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ:` (so printed, as in Art. I; `q1` printed *Solutio*)**. The *Respondeo* runs pp. 140–142 in one movement: **three ways of begging** — *ex necessitate naturae* (Lazarus; Gregory), *ex vitiositate culpae* (Ambrose *de Officiis;* Augustine *de Opere monachorum,* including the *vacare* pun), *ex supererogatione iustitiae* (begging *pro Christo imitando* and *pro Christo evangelizando*) — then the threefold debt (*multum · magis · maxime*), the long Gloss on Ps. 103:14, and an epilogue arguing that to condemn all mendicancy is to condemn the supreme Pontiff, Francis, Dominic, Alexius, Benedict, the Apostles, **Christ himself called *pauper* and *mendicus*,** and finally *universalis Ecclesiae status.* **The replies begin at p. 142's right column** and run **one per argument, in order, none combined**; **replies 1–19** fall in this span. ⭐ **The replies answer the FIRST series — the two proofs are recorded below.**

### ▶ RULINGS MET — STATED POSITIVELY (pp. 140–147)

- ⭐⭐ ***vacare* — six sites, five on the dative side and ONE on the other, which got the second translator's note.** The five: p. 140 *ut **vacet Deo** libera mente* → "that he may **be free for God** with a mind at liberty" · p. 141 (Augustine, Lenten sermon) *dum iugiter **Deo vacant*** → "while they are continually **free for God**" · p. 143 *tunc Apostoli **praedicationi** minime **vacabant*** → "the Apostles **were by no means free for preaching**" · p. 145 *spiritualibus **vacare** exercitiis et ecclesiasticae utilitati* → "**be free for** spiritual exercises and for the Church's benefit" · p. 146 *in qua **vacant divinis laudibus,** orationibus, vigiliis* → "in which they **are free for the divine praises,** for prayers, for vigils". **All five carry a DATIVE of the thing one is free FOR — the dative side exactly, so none of them takes a note.** ⛔ **The sixth is Augustine's pun at p. 140** (*de Opere monachorum* c. 22): *Utinam isti, qui **vacare volunt manibus,** omnino **vacarent et linguis**!* — **no dative at all; *vacare* stands absolute with an ablative of the unoccupied member,** so the sense leans to plain leisure (which in these men is idleness). Rendered **"who wish to be at leisure with their hands… were wholly at leisure with their tongues too"** — **ONE English root across both halves, as ruled** — with **`tr-vacare-2` anchored in the ENGLISH ONLY** after "hands". **"rest" appears nowhere in this span's English for a `vaca-` word.**
- **Ruling 5 MET TWICE, both renderings quoted:** p. 143 n. 1 `Seq. locus habetur supra a. 1. fundam. 20.` → ***"The following passage is found above, article 1, fundamentum 20."*** · p. 145 n. 2 `Cfr. supra fundam. 15.` → ***"Cf. above, fundamentum 15."*** — the singular numbered form both times, the Latin retained, as the apparatus convention requires. **Both are INTERNAL back-references into `bon-qpe-q2-a1`'s `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` series** (which that articulus's own register also calls *fundamenta*).
- ***intellect-*:** the stem occurs **fourteen times** in pp. 140–147's Latin (*intelligentiam, intelligitur* ×5, *intelligenda, intelligendum, male intelligentes, esse intelligendum, recte intelligimus, intelligi, intellecta*) and **every one goes to "understand(ing)"** — p. 140 *Ad praedictorum **intelligentiam*** → "For the **understanding** of what has been said"; p. 140 *male **intelligentes** Evangelium* → "**ill understanding** the Gospel"; p. 145 *si recte **intelligimus*** → "if we **understand** rightly". **Zero bare "intellect" over pp. 140–147**, and the narrow *intellectus agens* exception is not reached.
- **Ruling 2 not reached over pp. 140–147 either:** *lux* zero, *lumen* zero over pp. 140–147 (stem census on `lux|luc-|lumin`: only proper names — *Lucae, Lucam* — and p. 145's *fulserunt* "have shone", which is not a *lux* word). ***pietas*** → "piety" (p. 140 *provocet ad **pietatem***; p. 143 n. 6's *pietatis*). ***praeceptum/praecipere*** → "precept / command" (p. 144 *simpliciter esset praeceptum* → "were a precept without qualification"; p. 145 n. 4's *praecipio* → "I command"); ***consilium*** → "counsel" (p. 143 *illud est consilium… de bene esse consilii*; p. 146 *secundum divinum consilium*) — the *praeceptum*/*consilium* backbone is carried unchanged.

### ▶ REGISTER — the adopted choices as applied (pp. 140–147)

- ***mendicitas*** → "mendicancy" (p. 140 *mendicitas, etiam ex necessitate veniens*; p. 145 Deut. 15:4 *contra mendicitatem pauperum*; p. 147 n. 9's Gloss *non est mendicitas, sed potestas* → "is not mendicancy, but power") · ***mendicatio*** → "begging" (p. 140 the *Conclusio* itself; pp. 142, 144, 146) · ***mendicare*** → "to beg" · ***mendicus*** → "beggar" · ***mendicantes*** → "mendicants" only where it names the class (p. 146 *de lege de mendicantibus validis* → "the law on able-bodied mendicants", as on pp. 134–139), "those who beg" where it is a plain participle (p. 145 *qui debent pascere mendicantes*). **The pair is kept apart throughout.**
- ***vilificare se*** → "to make oneself vile" (p. 140 *ut se ipsum **vilificet** et humiliet* → "that he may **make himself vile** and humble himself"), kept apart from ***humiliare*** → "humble" and ***abiectio*** → "abjection" (p. 142 *usque ad **abiectionis** genus extremum*); p. 142's ***vilificatus*** → "**made vile**". `q1`'s choice applied without change, and p. 140 is the control the choice was made for — the two verbs stand side by side in one clause.
- ***egenus / egere / egestas*** → "needy / to be in need / neediness" · ***inops / inopia*** → "in want / want" (reply 1 turns on *duplex est inopia*) · ***indigere / indigentia*** → "to be indigent / indigence" (reply 4 turns on *indigentia spiritualis* against *corporalis*) · ***penuria*** → "scarcity" (p. 144, against *abundantia*) · ***saturitas*** → "satiety". **Five words, five English words, none shared.**
- ***petere*** → "to request" · ***rogare*** → "to ask" · ***quaerere*** → "to seek" · ***postulare*** → "to petition" · *accipere / recipere* → "receive" — the grid of pp. 134–139 unchanged, and it is load-bearing here: p. 142's *licitum est **accipere,** sed non est licitum **petere*** and p. 147's *accipere **potestative*** / *accipere **supplicative***.
- ***potestative / supplicative*** → "by right of (their) power / by supplication" (p. 147, reply 19's hinge) · ***subauctoritas*** → "sub-authority", ***subprincipalis*** → "sub-principal" · ***praelatus*** → "prelate" · ***religio*** → "religious order" where it names an institute · ***otium / otiositas*** → "idleness" (NOT a *vaca-* word; p. 140 *pro otio fovendo* → "for the fostering of idleness", p. 145's Gloss *otio deditus* → "given over to idleness") · ***proprium / proprietas*** → "property of one's own / property" (p. 145 reply 11's second defect) · ***dominium*** does not occur over pp. 140–147.
- **Scripture** on the Douay base, adjusted where Quaracchi's Latin differs: Luke 16:20–22 (*ulceribus plenus,* without *qui iacebat ad ianuam eius*); I Tim. 6:9 (*desideria multa et nociva* against Douay's "many unprofitable and hurtful desires" — Quaracchi's own note flags the variant); Deut. 15:4 *Non erit omnino indigens et mendicus inter vos* → "There shall be no one indigent and a beggar among you", so that *indigens* and *mendicus* keep the register's own words; I Cor. 9:19 *liber ex omnibus* → "free from all men" (so that "free" is not confused with the *vacare* sites, which are all "free FOR"); Matt. 19:21 *vade et vende omnia* (Quaracchi's shorter text).

### ⭐ PRINTING ANOMALIES — AS PRINTED, NOT EMENDED (pp. 140–147)

- **p. 141 *praedioatur*** (for *praedicatur*), in *A pluribus etiam praedioatur* — read at 3×: a round `o` where the `c` belongs, the bowl fully closed on both sides, at full ink strength with its neighbours. **An identifiable wrong sort, not a failing impression** → **as printed**; the English renders the sense ("it is also preached by more"). ⚠ Its two sister clauses in the same sentence print *praedicatur* correctly, which is the control.
- **p. 146 n. 5 *diligentia*** — in the editions' variant *ut mutua diligentia vicissim possit impleri:* the `g` inked as a hairline stem with no bowl and no descender, the flanking `i` and `e` at full strength. **Letters present minus strokes** → **transcribed plain** (the `bon-qmt-q4-a1` *sententia* precedent, as used for *usi* above), and disclosed here. The reading is determinate: *diligentia* is the only word the stem fits, and Quaracchi is quoting the editions against its own *indigentia* in the body.
- **p. 145 — the signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` stands under the LEFT register** (the same class as p. 137's, and like it not apparatus); **no gathering signature is visible on p. 145's right.**
- **p. 140 n. 5's Vulgate quotation prints *magnificant fimbrias* where the body's Augustine prints *fimbrias et phylacteria sua magnificant*** — the note and the body invert the pair. Both **as printed**; the note itself is Quaracchi telling the reader the source is Matt. 23:5, so the inversion is Augustine's, not a slip.
- **p. 142 *cum eo est*** (in the Gloss on Ps. 36:25, *quia verbum Dei semper cum eo est*) — the `o` of *eo* broken at the top right and reading as a `u` at 1×; at 3× the break is a chip in the bowl, the rest of the letter round. **Transcribed *eo*** (the syntax admits nothing else) and disclosed.
- **p. 147 n. 5 prints `Vat.` for the Vatican edition** — a siglum pp. 134–139 did not meet; expanded in the English only ("the Vatican edition"), the Latin left as printed.

### ⭐ RAW-VS-PLATE DIGIT CORRECTIONS (pp. 140–147)

**Marginalia, and the 1-vs-4 class settled by its own three-term series:** p. 140 `De 4. modo`→**`De 1. modo`** · p. 140 `Do 4. modo`→**`De 2. modo`** · p. 140 `De 3. modo` standing (raw agrees). **The three marginalia print `1.`, `2.`, `3.` in one column against three body clauses that say *primus modus, secundus modus, tertius modus* — the series is its own control, and the raw's two `4`s are both the serif `1`.**
**Apparatus:** p. 140 n. 1 `et 2-2`→**`et 22`** · p. 140 n. 2 `Luc. U, 16 — 2i`→**`Luc. 14, 16 — 24`** · p. 143 n. 5 `Homil. 87. (alias 8` + `Ioan. 7, 39`→**`homil. 87. (alias 86.) … n. 2`** · p. 145 n. 3 `Alias 91. n. 3` standing (flat-topped `9`, checked at 3×) · p. 147 n. 1 `c. 16. n. S4. seq.`→**`n. 54.`** · p. 147 n. 2 `IV. Reg. S, 20`→**`5, 20`** and `Num. 22, 1. seqq.`→**`22, 7. seqq.`** (the `7` has its full crossbar at 3×) · p. 147 n. 8 `infra q. t. a. 3`→**`q. 4. a. 3`** · p. 147 n. 9 `Vers. fi`→**`Vers. 6`**, `c. IS. n. l(i`→**`c. 15. n. 16`**, `Matth. II, 29`→**`11, 29`**.
**Body:** p. 147 raw `condemnnre`→**`condemnare`**. **Checked and standing:** p. 144 nn. 7 and 9 both `Cap. 21.` (against `n. 25` and `n. 24` — two `21`s four lines apart, same sort, and the note numbers run backwards as the text requires, since n. 9 quotes what Augustine says *ante haec verba*) · p. 145 n. 6 `Cap. 17. X. libr. V. tit. 31.` · p. 146 n. 4 `Matth. 19, 21` and `supra pag. 125` · p. 142 n. 3 `Psalm. 33, 11` (arg. 1 quoted 33:10, and the reply expressly cites *quod immediate sequitur* — the sequence is the control). **No digit was adopted from the raw anywhere on pp. 140–147.**

### ▶ GUTTERS (pp. 140–147)

140 **1367** *(59 px, sound; the single profile taken on the previous span confirmed)* · 141 **1171** *(default **1180 on a 38 px run** — rejected: twenty-four windows all returned 1180/38 px with zero spread, which is the centre rule truncating the run, not a real answer; the per-column profile gives two runs **1144–1165 (22 px)** and **1176–1199 (24 px)** with the **rule's ink island at 1166–1175, peak 503**, so the true blank band is **1144–1199 (56 px)** and its midpoint is **1171**)* · 142 **1366** *(61 px, sound)* · 143 **1176** *(59 px, sound)* · 144 **1334** *(default **1337 on a 45 px run**; windows drift 1337→1331 and two blow out at 273 px and 463 px — discarded; band **1309–1360 (52 px)**, rule island 1327–1341, midpoint **1334**, and the twenty sound windows' median is **1333**, 1 px away)* · 145 **1176** *(default 1176 on a 54 px run → windows 1173–1176, spread 3 px; band 1149–1203, rule 1170–1182, midpoint 1176 — the measurement and the band agree, so the sub-60 px run is the rule's width, not a failure)* · 146 **1356** *(61 px, sound)* · 147 **1190** *(60 px, sound)*.  ⚠ **Three of eight leaves needed the escalation and two of those three changed the value** — the run-width rule paid again.

### ▶ RUNOVERS AND THE INCOMING REGISTERS (pp. 140–147)

**Four gutter runovers, ZERO page-crossing** on pp. 140–147. The head of every incoming register (pp. 141–148) was read before its first numeral: **all eight open INDENTED at n. 1** — the first span in this chunk with no page-crossing runover at all.

- **p. 141 n. 4** (gutter) — left block ends *…habentur in Glossa* ordinaria *apud Strabum, Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum (in hunc loc.)*; right opens flush *et formata sunt ex iis quae August. … docet.*
- **p. 145 n. 5** (gutter) — left ends *…C. 12. q. 1, Gratia-*; right opens flush *nus haec addit: His omnibus auctoritatibus claret…* (joined, *Gratianus*).
- **p. 146 n. 4** (gutter) — left ends *…Glossa* interlinearis *addit* id est imi-; right opens flush *tetur], id est, relictis malis faciat bona…* (joined, *imitetur*).
- **p. 147 n. 5** (gutter) — left ends *…I legit* moderni praedicatores. *Paulo*; right opens flush *ante pro* vel simpliciter *I* vel in toto…

⚠ **p. 145 carries the signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` under its left register** — not apparatus. (p. 137 carried the same line plus the gathering signature `18`; the next signature falls on p. 153.)

Ledger line, pp. 140–147: `p.141 n.4:gutter,p.145 n.5:gutter,p.146 n.4:gutter,p.147 n.5:gutter` (appended in the chunk's single ledger line, below).

### ▶ MARGINALIA, IN BODY ORDER (pp. 140–147)

**p. 140** — `Triplex modus mendicandi.` *(printed `Triplex mo-` / `dus men-` / `dicandi.`)* · `De 1. modo` · `De 2. modo ex triplici ratione.` · `Notandum.` · `Confirmatur.` · `De 3. modo ex triplici ratione.` · `Imitatio Christi quoad tria.`
**p. 141** — `Pro evangelizando Christo pauperes iuvat tripliciter.` · `Primo.` · `Secundo.` · `Tertio.` · `Conclusio.` · `Et confirmatur.` · `Epilogus et confirmatio multiplex.` · `Primo.` · `Secundo.`
**p. 142** — `Quarto.` · `Obiectio refellitur.` · `Duplex inopia.` · `Confirmatur.` · `Duplex panis.` · `Alia solutio.` · `Duplex mendicatio.`
**p. 143** — `Confirmatur.` · `Distinctio.` · `Confirmatur.` · `Distinctio.` · `Distinctio.` · `Alia solutio.` · `Notandum.` · `Confirmatur.`
**p. 144** — `Confirmatur.` · `De labore manuali.` · `Distinctio.`
**p. 145** — `Determinatur magis.` · `Confirmatur.` · `Defectus 1.` · `Defectus 2.` · `Defectus 3.`
**p. 146** — `Observatio notanda.` · `Defectus triplex.` · `Defectus triplex.` · `Duplex obligatio.` · `Notandum.` · `Duplex ratio. Prima.` · `Secunda.` · `Simile.`
**p. 147** — `Intentio prava.` · `Quid species mala.` · `Tria requisita in praedicatoribus.` · `Applicatur ad 2 ordines.` · `Notandum.` · `Duplex auctoritas.` · `De prima.` · `De secunda.` · `De summo Pontifice.`

**Thirty-nine over pp. 140–147, none clipped** (both margins of each leaf read on tiled strips to the image edge). ⭐ **The solution-heavy split of `q2-a1` holds here too, and harder:** the fifty-seven arguments of pp. 134–139 carried **seven** glosses; the *Respondeo* and nineteen replies carry **thirty-nine** over eight leaves. ⛔ **p. 147's tenth marginale is `Triplex Dei dispositio.`, beside reply 20's *Unde sicut in primo tempore Ecclesiae introduxit* — recorded in the pp. 148–155 list below with the rest of reply 20's span.**

### ▶ PAGE MARKERS (pp. 140–147)

**Both languages carry the same eight markers over 140–147, in the same order, each at a word boundary:** p. 140 before the `Conclusio` blockquote (leaf head); p. 141 inside the *Respondeo,* after *ut vacet Deo libera mente,* / before *deposita omni saeculi sollicitudine* (English *with a mind at liberty,* | *having laid aside all care of the world*); p. 142 inside the epilogue, at the printed split of *Ale-*|*xium* (English *Ale-*|*xius*); p. 143 before reply 5; p. 144 inside reply 8, before *vadit post pecuniam* (English *he goes after money*); p. 145 at the printed split of *prae-*|*mittit* (English *sets* | *down*); p. 146 at the printed split of *consti-*|*tutius* (English *a consti-*|*tution*); p. 147 inside reply 17, after *respondet Glossa* / before *super illud primae ad Corinthios* (English *answers sufficiently enough* | *on that text of the first to the Corinthians*). **108 anchors in each language, same order, each defined once, plus the two English-only `tr-` notes.**

### LEDGER — pp. 140–147

**56 entries, pp. 140–147**: p. 140 **7** · p. 141 **5** · p. 142 **6** · p. 143 **7** · p. 144 **9** · p. 145 **7** · p. 146 **6** · p. 147 **9** (all of it — n. 9 is the leaf's last anchor and falls inside reply 19). Zero `[?]`. `KNOWN_TOTALS` additions: 140 = 7, 141 = 5, 142 = 6, 143 = 7, 144 = 9, 145 = 7, 146 = 6, 147 = 9.

**Provenance, pp. 148–155.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt`, **raw L30968–L32208** for this span), with every heading, italic, apparatus anchor position, marginale and digit checked against the 450 dpi plates (`raw/vision/vol5/p-148..156.png`, 2571×3823 each, pixel size verified after extraction). **Body raw usable throughout pp. 148–155; footers digit-corrupt as before.** *Italics come from the plate only.* Fresh literal English translation.

**Structure, pp. 148–155.** Reply 20 runs from p. 147's right column onto p. 148 (marginale `Triplex Dei dispositio.`), answering argument 20 exactly as the lemma predicted — *tutius et perfectius est sequi viros probatiores et sapientiores* — and closing the reply series at twenty, one per argument, in order, none combined. An unnumbered **epilogue** follows on p. 148 (marginale `Epilogus et confirmatio.`), gathering the whole and ending on Jerome *contra Vigilantium.* ⭐⭐ **Then a SECOND STRUCTURAL UNIT opens, and p. 134 n. 1 predicted it: `Rᴇᴘʟɪᴄᴀᴛɪᴏ ᴀᴅᴠᴇʀsᴜs ᴏʙɪᴇᴄᴛɪᴏɴᴇs ᴘᴏsᴛᴇᴀ ꜰᴀᴄᴛᴀs.`**, set in-column in letter-spaced small caps on p. 149's left column (**unanchored**; its opening sentence *His autem*¹ carries p. 149 n. 1). It runs pp. 149–155 and is built on **five censurae** the adversary is said to have made — the opener names them (*impertinentia · falsa · inconsequentia · dubia · doctrinae apostolicae inimica*) and the body then takes them in order as **I · II · III · IV · V**, each with numbered *Obi.* marginalia and a *Responsio.* The fifth (pp. 153–155) is the longest and closes with a recapitulation of the whole question on p. 154 (marginale `Epilogus totius quaestionis.`) and a final peroration on p. 155 ending **`Amen.`** ⛔ **So something DOES follow the replies, and it is exactly the *replicatio ad obiectiones denuo factas* that p. 134 n. 1 warned of** — the prediction was checked, not assumed, and p. 148 n. 5 and p. 155 n. 8 both name the unit by that word.

### ▶ RULINGS MET — STATED POSITIVELY (pp. 148–155)

- ⭐⭐⭐ ***vacare* — TWO NEW SITES, BOTH ON A THIRD SIDE OF THE WORD, AND THE THIRD TRANSLATOR'S NOTE WAS WRITTEN.** Both stand on p. 154 and both govern **`ab` with the ablative**: Augustine's *si corpore valent et **ab ecclesiasticis occupationibus vacant*** (quoted in the reply to the second objection of censura V) and Bonaventure's own repetition of the clause a few lines later, *qui **ab ecclesiasticis occupationibus vacant.*** **Neither existing note covers this construction** — `tr-vacare` is the dative "free FOR", `tr-vacare-2` the absolute "at leisure" of Augustine's pun — so **`tr-vacare-3` was written and anchored in the ENGLISH ONLY** after the first of the two, on the standing instruction that a third note is warranted only where the sense leans to a side the existing notes do not cover. Rendered **"are free from ecclesiastical occupations"** at both sites, deliberately keeping the same English root as the "free for" passages so that a reader can see one Latin word turning on its preposition. **"rest" appears nowhere in this span's English for a `vaca-` word.** Latin `vaca-` census over pp. 148–155: two, both in the body; apparatus: zero.
- **Ruling 5 MET SIX TIMES, every rendering quoted:** p. 150 n. 5 `Cfr. supra fundam. 9-13.` → ***"Cf. above, fundamenta 9-13."*** · p. 150 n. 6 `Scilicet in fundam. 9. seq.` → ***"Namely in fundamentum 9 ff."*** · p. 151 n. 7 `Vide supra fundam. 20.` → ***"See above, fundamentum 20."*** · p. 151 n. 9 `Fundam. 16. seqq.` → ***"Fundamenta 16 ff."*** · p. 153 n. 1 `…quoad locum in regula supra fundam. 23.` → ***"…as to the passage in the rule, above, fundamentum 23."*** · p. 153 n. 4 `Cfr. supra fundam. 9. seq.` → ***"Cf. above, fundamentum 9 f."*** **All six are INTERNAL back-references into `bon-qpe-q2-a1`'s `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` series.** Nine sites in the chunk in all.
- ***intellect-*:** the stem occurs three times over pp. 148–155 (*intelligat, intelligentiam, intelligere*) and **every one goes to "understand(ing)"** — p. 149 *si quis **intelligat** radicem potestatis* → "if one **understands** the root of the power"; p. 150 *ad **intelligentiam** veritatis* → "for the **understanding** of the truth". **Zero bare "intellect" in the chunk.**
- **Ruling 2 not reached here either:** *lux* zero, *lumen* zero over pp. 148–155 on a stem census. ***pietas*** → "piety" (p. 152's *ordinem caritatis et pietatis* → "the order of charity and piety"; p. 155's *humanus et pius*). ***praeceptum / praecipere*** → "precept / command" against ***consilium*** → "counsel" — the work's backbone, and it is load-bearing on p. 154, where *praecipit* recurs six times against *consultum a Domino ut perfectum* in the recapitulation.

### ▶ REGISTER — the adopted choices as applied (pp. 148–155)

- The whole *mendic-* grid is carried unchanged and is under its heaviest pressure in the chunk: ***mendicitas*** → "mendicancy" · ***mendicatio*** → "begging" · ***mendicare*** → "to beg" · ***mendicus*** → "beggar". p. 153's *si **mendicare** peccare est, **mendicitas** sive **mendicatio** peccatum est* sets three of the four in one clause and the English keeps them apart.
- ***vilificare se*** → "to make oneself vile" and ***vilificatio*** → "the making of oneself vile", kept apart from ***humiliare*** → "to humble" and ***abiectio*** → "abjection" — `q1`'s choice, and p. 151's censura III is the sharpest control the work has produced, since the adversary's whole objection turns on *se ipsum vilificare et humiliare* against *humiliare se mendicando.*
- ***petere*** → "to request" · ***rogare*** → "to ask" · ***quaerere*** → "to seek" · ***postulare*** → "to petition" · *accipere / recipere* → "receive". Load-bearing again at p. 155, whose three paragraphs divide *eleemosynarum acceptionem* from *eleemosynarum petitionem.*
- ***auctoritas / subauctoritas*** → "authority / sub-authority" · ***potestas*** → "power" · ***plenitudo potestatis*** → "fulness of power" · ***praelatus*** → "prelate" · ***procurationes*** → "procurations" · ***opitulationes*** → "helps" (I Cor. 12:28, the Douay's own word) · ***otiositas*** → "idleness" (NOT a *vaca-* word) · ***impertinentia / inconsequentia / dubia*** → "impertinent / inconsequent / doubtful", the five censurae's own names, kept fixed across heading and body.
- **Scripture** on the Douay base, adjusted where Quaracchi's Latin differs: Ps. 39:18 *Ego sum mendicus et pauper* → "I am a beggar and poor" (Douay "beggar" retained, so that *mendicus* keeps the register's word); Ps. 33:11's *egenus* → "needy"; I Cor. 12:28's *opitulationes* → "helps"; Phil. 2:10 *omne genu flectitur* rendered in the indicative, as Quaracchi prints it.

### ⭐ PRINTING ANOMALIES — AS PRINTED, NOT EMENDED (pp. 148–155)

- ⭐ **p. 153 — the marginale beside section `V.` prints `Censura quarta.`, repeating the marginale beside `IV.` on p. 152.** Read at 6× on a full-width strip: the two lines are `Censura` / `quarta.` and there is no trace of a `quinta`. The body is unambiguous (`V. Refellere etiam conatur plurima…`, the fifth of the five censurae the opener names), so this is a compositor's slip in the gloss, not in the text. **Recorded as printed; the gloss is NOT corrected in the Marginalia list below.**
- **p. 152 arg. — *…et Benedictus, qui humillime suscipiebat*¹ *Nusquam autem inveniens…*** — the anchor stands where the sentence's full stop should be and **no point is printed.** Read at 4×: the superscript `1` sits on the shoulder of the final `t` and the baseline after it is clean paper. The `bon-qmt-q1-a1` argument-21 precedent (a numeral printed without its following point) governs; **reproduced as printed, not supplied.**
- ⭐⭐ **NUMERAL SIGLA FOR THE PRINTED EDITIONS ARE A REAL FEATURE OF THIS WORK'S APPARATUS, not a misprint.** p. 150 n. 2 reads `M et 5 sicut rabies mihi imponit`, and the bare `5` reads as a digit at 10× (flat top bar, lower bowl; it is not a failed `E`). It was doubted until **p. 152 n. 5 (`Ex D et 1, 2, 3 supplevimus ad`) and p. 152 n. 9 (`et cum 1, 2, 3, 4 ut vadat`) and p. 154 n. 3 (`M et 1, 2, 3, 4 cum textu originali`) and p. 154 n. 5 (`M 1, 2, 3, 4 qua repudiabant`) settled it**: Quaracchi sigles the printed editions of this work by arabic numerals alongside the letter sigla for the codices. **Transcribed as printed everywhere, and expanded in the English only** ("edition 5", "editions 1, 2, 3"). ⚠ **Do not read a bare numeral in this work's apparatus as a damaged letter.**
- **p. 148's first marginale prints `Determinator.`** — set as `Determina-` / `tor.` and read on a full-image-width strip; the expected gloss here would be *Determinatur.* **Recorded as printed, not normalised** (the `bon-praec-c2` `Duplex no-` precedent: a marginale is transcribed as the compositor set it).
- **p. 153 carries the signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` under its LEFT register and the gathering signature `20` under its RIGHT** — the same class as p. 137's and p. 145's, and like them not apparatus.

### ⭐ RAW-VS-PLATE DIGIT CORRECTIONS (pp. 148–155)

**Checked and settled on the plate, never adopted from the raw:** p. 149 n. 2 `Cap. 15. X. lib. I. tit. 31` — the raw and a 1.4× band both read `45` and `34`; at 2.2× against `lib. I.` on the same line both leading glyphs are the serif `1` with its top flag, and **the target confirms it independently** (X 1.31 is *De officio iudicis ordinarii,* which is what the note is citing, and c. 15 is *Inter cetera,* the decretal the body names). · p. 149 n. 3 `Ioan. 20, 21` (raw `24`) — settled by the target, since John 20:21 is *Sicut misit me Pater,* the clause the body quotes. · p. 149 n. 5 `In solut. ad 11.` — both glyphs identical uprights with top flags at 2.2×. · p. 150 n. 1 `Psalm. 140, 4` — confirmed by sense (*ad excusandas excusationes in peccatis* is Ps. 140:4, the phrase the body quotes). **Checked and standing:** p. 152 n. 2 `Num. 11` — *numerus* 11 of Chrysostom's fourth homily, **not the book of Numbers**, and it carries no verse, exactly the class the index's `require_verse` flag exists for · p. 152 n. 10 `de Poenit. dist. 6.` · p. 154 n. 5 `Cap. 25. n. 33` · p. 155 n. 6 `supra pag. 130, nota 1. 2.` **No digit was adopted from the raw anywhere on pp. 148–155.**

### ▶ GUTTERS (pp. 148–155)

148 **1352** *(61 px, sound — the value the previous span predicted, here confirmed)* · 149 **1169** *(default **1155 on a 38 px run** rejected; rows 0.15–0.55 give band **1138–1200 (63 px)** with the centre-rule island at **1168–1174, peak 329**, midpoint 1169 — 14 px from the default)* · 150 **1381** *(**SKEW**, and the first in this chunk: the skew screen over rows 0.10–0.72 shows the band walking from 1338–1401 at the head to 1359–1421 at 0.56, ~21 px down the leaf; two slices blow out and are discarded. One split still suffices — max left edge 1359 < min right edge 1401 — and the screen's own single-split recommendation, **1381**, is adopted against the default's 1390/52 px)* · 151 **1160** *(61 px, sound)* · 152 **1376** *(default **1399 on a 21 px run** — the run is the RIGHT sub-band alone; the profile gives band **1347–1406 (60 px)** with the rule's island at **1373–1381, peak 398**, midpoint 1376, so the default was 23 px out)* · 153 **1144** *(default 1133 on a 47 px run; band **1115–1173 (59 px)**, island 1140–1149, peak 149, midpoint 1144)* · 154 **1420** *(61 px, sound)* · 155 **1158** *(default 1156 on a 46 px run; band **1130–1186 (57 px)**, island **1153–1164, peak 1157** — the most heavily inked centre rule in the chunk — midpoint 1158, so the default is confirmed within 2 px, not corrected)*. ⚠ **Five of eight leaves left the 58–64 px band and needed the escalation; three of the five changed the value and two were confirmed.** ⭐ **p. 150 is the chunk's only genuine skew leaf, and the screen named it as skew rather than as a stacked region because the drift is monotonic across every slice — the stacked-region signature is two or three outlying slices against a stable rest.**

### ▶ RUNOVERS AND THE INCOMING REGISTERS (pp. 148–155)

**Five gutter runovers, ZERO page-crossing** on pp. 148–155. The head of every incoming register (pp. 149–156) was read before its first numeral: **pp. 152, 154, 155 and 156 open INDENTED at n. 1; pp. 149, 150, 151 and 153 open with a FLUSH-LEFT runover paragraph** — which is the other half of each gutter runover below, not a page-crossing one, since in every case the outgoing half is in the same leaf's left block.

- **p. 148 n. 5** (gutter) — left block ends *…In praesenti tempore*; right opens flush *vestra abundantia illorum inopiam suppleat etc.* ⭐ This is the chunk's largest single entry: it carries the whole Jerome apparatus, **L's own closing colophon** (*Hanc quaestionem determinavit ita magister Bonaventura de Ordine Fratrum Minorum, secundum quod a quodam clerico potuit reportari. Deo gratias et Amen.*) and the editors' statement that the marginal animadversions in L are *precisely the same* as those the *replicatio* answers, and are William of Saint-Amour's or his followers'.
- **p. 149 n. 3** (gutter) — left ends *…Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per*; right opens flush *hominem, sed per Iesum Christum etc.*
- **p. 150 n. 4** (gutter) — left ends *…Diotrephes, haeresiarcha illius temporis, nova*; right opens flush *docendo principatum sibi usurpabat (secundum Bedam, in hunc loc.).*
- **p. 151 n. 4** (gutter) — left ends *…(de humilitate Christi, quem imitari debemus): Imitemur*; right opens flush *ergo Salvatorem nostrum, quia ipse mitis et humilis…*
- **p. 153 n. 5** (gutter) — left ends *…Glossa in hunc locum est* ordinaria. *apud Stra-*; right opens flush *bum et Lyranum et sumta est ex August., Serm. 36.…* (joined, *Strabum*).

⚠ p. 153 carries the signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` under its left register and the gathering signature `20` under its right — not apparatus, and on p. 153 the signature line stands **between** the two halves of n. 5's runover.

### ▶ MARGINALIA, IN BODY ORDER (pp. 148–155)

**p. 148** — `Determinator.` *(printed `Determina-` / `tor.`; see the printing anomalies above)* · `De esu carnium.` · `Notandum.` · `Cautio auctoris.` · `Exemplum.` · `Epilogus et confirmatio.`
**p. 149** — `Adversarii quinque censurae.` · `Notandum.` · `Responsio.` · `Radix potestatis ecclesiasticae.` · `Duplex potestas.` · `Notandum.` · `Triplex modus missionis.` · `Notandum.` · `De ordinibus Praedic. et Min.` · `Notandum.`
**p. 150** — `Quid subauctoritas.` · `Forma apostolica non fuit ad tempus.` · `Origo ordinis Minorum.` · `Concluditur.` · `Censura secunda.` · `Obi. 1.` · `Obi. 2.` · `Responsio.` · `Ad obi. 1.` · `Concluditur.` · `Non ex auctoritate.` · `Nec ex urbanitate.`
**p. 151** — `Ad obi. 2.` · `Mendicitas voluntaria.` · `Concluditur, Christi mendicationem imitandam esse.` · `Notandum.` · `Censura tertia.` · `Obi. 1.` · `Obi. 2.` · `Obi. 3.` · `Responsio.` · `Ad obi. 1.`
**p. 152** — `Ad obi. 2.` · `Ad obi. 3.` · `Notandum.` · `Censura quarta.` · `Obi. 1.` · `Obi. 2.` · `Responsio.` · `Ad 1. ratio prima.` · `Secunda.` · `Tertia.` · `Evasio 1. refellitur.` · `Item altera.` · `Ad 2.`
**p. 153** — `De approbatione regulae.` · `Censura quarta.` *(so printed, beside section **V.**; see the printing anomalies above)* · `Obi. 1. de mendicatione.` · `Obi. 2. de labore manuali.` · `Responsio.` · `Ad 1. obi. de mendicatione ratio prima.` · `Secunda.` · `Tertia.`
**p. 154** — `Ad obi. 2. de labore manuali.` · `Resp.` · `Obiicitur iterum.` · `Resp.` · `Conclusio de labore manuum.` · `Notandum.` · `Notandum.` · `Epilogus totius quaestionis.`
**p. 155** — `Contra eos qui impugnant abrenuntiationem.` · `Vel eleemosynarum acceptionem.` · `Vel earum petitionem.` · `Contra imponentes omnibus onus laboris lucrativi.` · `De primatu.` · `Additamentum.`

**Sixty-five over pp. 148–155; one hundred and eleven in the chunk, none clipped** (both margins of every leaf read on full-image-width strips at high magnification, the `q2-a1` and `bon-qmt-q4-a1` discipline). ⭐ **The solution-heavy split holds a third time and in a new form:** the *replicatio* is itself all solution, and its seven leaves carry fifty-nine of this span's sixty-five glosses, with the adversary's objections glossed only by the bare numbered `Obi. N.` labels.

### ▶ PAGE MARKERS (pp. 148–155)

**Both languages carry the same eight markers over 148–155, in the same order, each at a word boundary:** p. 148 inside reply 20, before *fuerunt* (printed *fue-*|*runt*; English *such as* | *were the Apostles*); p. 149 inside the Jerome quotation of the epilogue, after *non in refrigerium, non* / before *ad divitias congregandas* (English *not* | *for the gathering of riches*); p. 150 inside censura I's response, at the printed split of *ma-*|*ioribus* (English *those who* | *bring resources*); p. 151 at the printed split of *se* | *magistrum* (English *himself* | *a master of courtesy*); p. 152 inside censura III's response, before *subsidii* (English *the request* | *for help*); p. 153 at the printed split of *confes-*|*siones* (English *confes-*|*sions*); p. 154 inside censura V, at the printed split of *cum tan-*|*tam* (English *since he has as* | *great power*); p. 155 before *Si quis ergo impugnat* (leaf head). **170 anchors in each language, same order, each defined once, plus the three English-only `tr-` notes.** The digit-multiset screen shows only the spelled-out-chapter false-positive class.

### ▶ SPAN AND BOUNDARY 3 — FIXED POSITIVELY ON THE PLATE

⭐⭐ **The articulus closes on p. 155, and p. 156 is a LEAF EDGE, split 0/5.** `raw/vision/vol5/p-156.png` was extracted **ALONE and read first**, per the standing order, before pp. 148–155 were pulled: **`ARTICULUS III.` stands at the very head of p. 156**, full measure, with its subtitle *Utrum pauperes validi, et maxime regulares, ad opera manualia universaliter sint astricti* and its own numbered opener *Tertio ad maiorem evidentiam…* on the same leaf. Applying the **p. 498 rule** — *a shared leaf forwards a register entry only where the incoming unit's numbered BODY carries its anchor* — the leaf is not shared at all: Articulus II's body ends *Amen.* on p. 155, **all five of p. 156's register entries anchor in Articulus III's body**, and `bon-qpe-q2-a2` therefore owns nothing whatever of p. 156. ⛔ **The raw's `ARTICULUS III.` at L32212 sits six lines below p. 156's own numeral, which the OCR prints `136` — the worn-`5`-reads-as-`3` class — so the raw alone would have put the heading ambiguously; the plate settled it.** ▶ **`bon-qpe-q2-a3` opens clean at p. 156 and inherits NOTHING.**

### LEDGER — pp. 148–155

**62 entries, pp. 148–155**: p. 148 **5** · p. 149 **6** · p. 150 **8** · p. 151 **9** · p. 152 **10** · p. 153 **7** · p. 154 **9** · p. 155 **8**. Zero `[?]`. `KNOWN_TOTALS` additions: 148 = 5, 149 = 6, 150 = 8, 151 = 9, 152 = 10, 153 = 7, 154 = 9, 155 = 8.

### CHUNK TOTALS

**170 apparatus entries over pp. 134–155**, the largest register any Vol V chunk has carried. **Zero `[?]` flags.** **Fourteen runovers — twelve gutter-crossing, two page-crossing** (pp. 136 n. 8 → 137 and 138 n. 10 → 139); the single ledger line appended to `manual-review/vol5-runover-ledger.tsv` is **comma-separated**, per the standing warning that the checker swallows a semicolon line silently. **One hundred and three marginalia, none clipped.** **Three translator's notes**, the corpus's first chunk to carry more than one.

### ▶ OPEN QUESTIONS — FOR THE WORK-CLOSE GATE

1. ⭐⭐⭐ **THE *ADDITAMENTUM* IS NOT TRANSCRIBED IN THIS CHUNK, AND THE DECISION IS WILSON'S.** p. 155 n. 8 (transcribed in full above) records that the editions carry, after the articulus, an **additamentum of nine authorities** which Quaracchi judge *non genuinum* and *ad perfectionem quaestionis superfluum* and have relegated *ad calcem.* **Measured on the plates:** it begins on p. 155, in the right footer block, below n. 8 and under its own marginale `Additamentum.` (*Hanc etiam eandem veritatem multiplex astruit auctoritas non solum ipsius Hieronymi, verum etiam Ioannis Chrysostomi et Bernardi…*), continues in **p. 156's LEFT footer block** (Chrysostom hom. 88 and hom. 69, then Bernard/Aelred), and **breaks off mid-clause at the foot of p. 156** — *…quaerens, ubi Christus fuit in triduo, dicit sic: « Per* — with blank paper beneath it. **pp. 157 and 158 carry no additamentum block at all**, so it does not resume on the next two leaves. It therefore straddles the Articulus II / Articulus III boundary, sits beneath another unit's body, and does not close within reach of this chunk. **Three reasons it was left out rather than guessed at:** (a) the editors say they relegated it *ad calcem,* which is not this articulus's foot; (b) a span of 134–155 cannot own matter printed on p. 156 and later; (c) the corpus's one precedent — `bon-hex-c23`'s p. 449 Additamentum, made an anchored apparatus entry — was **Wilson's own ruling**, taken on a case that closed on the leaf it opened on, and it does not decide this one. ▶ **Nothing is lost to the reader in the meantime: p. 155 n. 8 states the addition's existence, extent, contents and the editors' reasoning verbatim.** ⛔ **`bon-qpe-q2-a3` must read p. 156's left footer block and say where the additamentum goes; the work-close gate should settle it for the work.**
2. **The codex-`I` question, unchanged from the earlier spans** — and pp. 148–155 add eight more `I` citations (p. 148 n. 1; p. 149 n. 3; p. 150 nn. 2, 8; p. 151 nn. 6, 8; p. 152 nn. 6, 7, 8, 9; p. 153 n. 5; p. 154 nn. 6, 7, 9), so the siglum is used steadily over the whole articulus, which strengthens the case that it is a real siglum and not a broken `L`.
3. **p. 139 n. 8's missing initial** and **p. 146 n. 5's *diligentia*** (recorded above), unchanged.
4. **Quaracchi's own internal `fundam. N` back-references into `bon-qpe-q2-a1`'s `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ`** — nine sites in this chunk. The resolver will not parse a bare `fundam. N`, so none of them produces a citation record; as at `q1` and `q2-a1`, this is a resolver matter for the gate, not an edit.
5. **Resolver artefacts named for the gate:** p. 148 n. 3's `supra pag. 140, nota 5`, p. 150 n. 2's `In solut. ad 20.`, p. 151 n. 3's `supra pag. 126, nota 2`, p. 153 n. 1's `Art. 1. in corp. et hic ad 11`, p. 155 n. 6's `supra pag. 130, nota 1. 2.` — all INTERNAL to `bon-qpe-q1`/`q2-a1`/this chunk and all correct as printed, but a bare `pag. N` inherits the *volume* rather than the note's own last-named tome, the known `q5-a2` class.
6. **The numeral edition-sigla** (`1`, `2`, `3`, `4`, `5`) are new to the corpus in this chunk and are recorded above; if any later chunk meets a bare numeral in a variant clause, it is an edition siglum, not a damaged letter.
7. ⚠⚠ **BUILDING THIS CHUNK CHANGED WHAT TWO OTHER CHUNKS' CITATIONS RESOLVE TO, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE NEW RESOLUTIONS IS WRONG.** The `citations.tsv` diff shows three inbound lines that now land here: `bon-hex-c7`'s `supra pag. 149, nota 8` (and the `ibid.` that follows it by anaphora) and `bon-don-c8`'s bare `pag. 154`. ⛔ **p. 149 carries SIX notes, so `nota 8` cannot be this leaf** — the reference is to another tome, and the resolver has inherited the *volume* rather than the note's own last-named tome, the `bon-qmt-q5-a2` class; it now *looks* resolved, which is the `bon-qmt-q6-a2` warning firing again. `bon-don-c8`'s `pag. 154` is the same shape and has no arithmetic check to catch it. **Both for the work-close gate; no text was edited on either side.** ▶ The general lesson stands: **read the citations.tsv diff for INBOUND lines after building a chunk, not only for the chunk's own records.**

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0