title: Quaest. 2, Art. 3

title_alt: Utrum pauperes validi, et maxime regulares, ad opera manualia universaliter sint astricti

title_alt: Whether able-bodied poor men, and most of all regulars, are universally bound to manual labour

source_text:
<!-- page 156 -->

### Articulus III. *Utrum pauperes validi, et maxime regulares, ad opera manualia universaliter sint astricti.*

Tertio ad maiorem evidentiam eorum quae de mendicitate dicta sunt, quaeritur[^p156-1], utrum pauperes validi, et maxime regulares, ad opera manualia universaliter sint astricti? Et quod sic, ostenditur triplici via, tam ratione *obligationis naturae* quam *religionis christianae* quam etiam *professionis monasticae*[^p156-2]. Primo ex *vinculo legis naturae* ostenditur.

1. Genesis secundo[^p156-3]: *Posuit Deus hominem in paradiso, ut operaretur;* item, tertio eiusdem dictum est homini peccanti: *In sudore vultus tui vesceris pane tuo* etc. Ergo praeceptum de laborando respicit hominem secundum naturam *institutam* et secundum naturam *lapsam,* ergo secundum omnia tempora; sed maxime respicit hominem, qui potest per se ipsum et non potest supplere per alium; talis autem est pauper validus: ergo talis tenetur ad manualiter laborandum.

2. Item, in Zachariae decimo tertio[^p156-4] dicitur: *Homo agricola ego sum, quia Adam exemplum meum ab adolescentia mea;* Glossa: «Ut comedam panem meum *in sudore vultus,* dum ille se ostenderet natum ad hoc, ut *in sudore vultus* comederet panem»; sed hoc maxime convenit ei qui indiget pane et potest laborem et sudorem ferre; et talis est validus pauper: ergo tenetur corporaliter laborare.

3. Item, ad ea, sine quibus non potest natura sustineri nec salvari[^p156-5], sumus naturaliter obligati; sed sine labore corporali sive manuali non potest

<!-- page 157 -->

genus humanum in *esse* conservari: ergo ad hoc necessario aliqui obligantur. Sed non nisi illi qui sunt idonei; sed tales sunt pauperes validi, quia indigent et possunt: ergo tales praecipue obligantur.

4. Item, sicut os datum est homini ad manducandum, ita et manus ad operandum; sed qui neglexerit comedere, cum indiget, si possit, facit contra dictamen iuris naturalis: ergo pari ratione, qui neglexerit operari manualiter, si indiget et valet. Sed talis est pauper validus: ergo etc.

Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *ratione religionis christianae.*

5. Primo per apostolicum *praeceptum,* ad Ephesios quarto[^p157-1]: *Qui furabatur iam non furetur, magis autem laboret operando manibus suis* etc. — *Si dicas,* hoc esse consilium; *contra:* primae ad Thessalonicenses quarto: *Operemini manibus vestris, sicut praecepimus vobis, et ut honeste ambuletis ad eos qui foris sunt, et nullius aliquid desideretis;* Glossa: «Nedum rogetis, vel tollatis». Sed hoc maxime respicit pauperes: ergo etc.

6. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per apostolicum *exemplum,* secundae ad Thessalonicenses tertio[^p157-2]: *Ipsi scitis, quemadmodum oporteat imitari nos, quia non inquieti fuimus inter vos neque gratis panem manducavimus, sed in labore et fatigatione* etc.; Glossa: «Apostolus forma erat his qui tenues erant in substantia in plebe, ut discerent libertatem suam non amittere. Qui enim ad alienam mensam frequenter convenit, otio deditus, aduletur necesse est pascenti se, cum religio nostra ad libertatem hominem vocet»: ergo hoc est contra religionem christianam.

7. Item, hoc ipsum videtur per apostolicum *edictum,* secundae ad Thessalonicenses tertio[^p157-3]: *Cum essemus apud vos, hoc denuntiabamus vobis, quoniam, si quis non vult operari, non manducet;* sed constat, quod non loquitur nisi de his qui indigent refectione: ergo etc. — *Si dicas,* quod non intelligitur de labore *corporali; contra* hoc est quod ibidem dicit Glossa: «Dicunt quidam, de operibus *spiritualibus* hoc Apostolum praecepisse; sed superflue conantur et sibi et ceteris caliginem obducere, ut quod utiliter caritas monet non solum facere nolint, sed nec intelligere».

8. Item, hoc idem videtur per apostolicum *iudicium,* secundae ad Thessalonicenses tertio[^p157-4]: *Si quis non obedierit verbo, hunc notate et non commisceamini cum illo;* sed ille qui habet opportunitatem et facultatem implendi mandatum, dicitur *inobediens,* si non implet; sed pauper validus est huiusmodi: ergo si operari non voluerit, est inobediens praeceptis apostolicis, ergo per iudicium Apostoli tanquam excommunicatus debet evitari. — *Sed forte dices,* quod haec verba Apostoli et praemissa intelliguntur dici ad curiosos, vagos et otiosos, non ad Christi servos spiritualibus occupatos; *contra:* super illud[^p157-5]: *Qui non laborat non manducet;* Glossa: «Vult Apostolus, servos Dei corporaliter operari, ut habeant unde vivant, ut non compellantur egestate necessaria petere»; sed *servi Dei* dicuntur viri boni et iusti, et talibus praecipit operari, ut non compellantur mendicare: ergo pauperes validi etc.

9. Item, Augustinus in libro de Opere monachorum[^p157-6]: «Audiant quibus hoc praecipit Apostolus, scilicet operari manibus, id est, qui non habent hanc potestatem, quam ille habebat, ut tantummodo spiritualiter operantes manducent panem a corporali labore gratuitum. Et quemadmodum dicit: *Praecipimus et obsecramus, ut cum silentio operantes panem suum manducent;* non disputent contra manifestissima verba Apostoli, quia et hoc pertinet ad *silentium,* cum quo debent operantes manducare panem suum».

10. Item, idem paulo post[^p157-7]: «Quid agunt qui corporaliter operari nolunt? Cui rei vacent, scire desidero. Orationibus, inquiunt, et psalmis et lectionibus et verbo Dei. Sancta plane vita et Christi suavitate laudabilis; sed si ab his avocandi non sumus, nec manducandum est, neque escae praeparandae sunt, ut possint apponi et assumi. Si autem ad ista vacari servos Dei certis intervallis temporum ipsius infirmitatis necessitas cogit, cur non et praeceptis apostolicis observandis aliquas partes temporis deputemus? Citius enim exauditur una obedientis oratio quam decem millia contemptoris». Et consequenter ostendit, quod haec spiritualia opera non excusent, nec lectio nec psalmodia nec oratio nec exhortatio.

11. Item, idem ex concilio Carthaginiensi[^p157-8]: «Clericus victum et vestitum artificio vel agricultura

<!-- page 158 -->

absque officii sui detrimento dumtaxat praeparet». — *Si dicas,* quod intelligatur de idiotis; *contra hoc* statim sequitur: «Clericus quilibet verbo Dei eruditus artificio victum quaerat». — *Si dicas,* quod non intelligitur de omnibus; *contra hoc* sequitur: «Omnes clerici, qui ad operandum validi sunt, et artificia et litteras discant». — Ex his ergo Patrum sententiis manifeste colligi videtur, quod *praecepta apostolica* ad omnes pauperes validos se extendant, sive clericos sive laicos, sive otiosos sive spiritualibus occupationibus intentos: ergo potissime ad pauperes religiosos.

Hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione *professionis monasticae.*

12. Primo per beatum Augustinum, qui per totum librum de Opere monachorum intendit tanquam finali conclusione et principali[^p158-1] ostendere, quod monachi astricti sunt ad opera manualia sive corporalia.

13. Item, Glossa super illud Lucae duodecimo[^p158-2]: *Vendite quae possidetis, et date eleemosynam* etc.; «ut, omnibus semel pro Deo spretis, postea labore manuum operemini unde vivatis, vel eleemosynam faciatis»; sed omnes regulares ex voto tenentur ad consilium paupertatis: ergo secundum Glossam labor manualis debet sequi abrenuntiationem: ergo omnes tenentur ad corporalem operationem.

14. Item, Hieronymus ad Rusticum et habetur de Consecratione, distinctione ultima[^p158-3]: *Semper aliquid boni facito, ut te diabolus inveniat occupatum. Si Apostoli, habentes potestatem de Evangelio vivere, laborabant manibus suis, ne quemquam aggravarent; cur tu in usus tuos successuras res non praeparas? Vel fiscellam texe iunco, vel canistrum lentis plecte viminibus».* Et post: «Scribantur libri, ut et manus operentur cibos, et anima saturetur lectione».

15. Item, beatus Benedictus in regula sua[^p158-4]: «Tunc veri monachi sunt, si de opere manuum suarum vivant, sicut patres nostri Apostoli»: ergo si hoc facit nos imitatores Apostolorum, et omnes religiosi debent esse tales; ergo et operari manualiter, cum opera supererogationis non diminuant, sed implere debeant opera praeceptorum.

16. Item, beatus Franciscus in regula sua[^p158-5]: «Fratres, inquit, quibus dedit Dominus gratiam laborandi, laborent fideliter et devote». Et quod de labore corporali intelligat, patet per hoc quod sequitur: «De mercede vero laboris pro se et suis fratribus corporis necessaria recipiant praeter denarios».

Cᴏɴᴛʀᴀ, quod non omnes pauperes validi ad opera manualia sint astricti, videtur tum ratione *contemplationis,* tum ratione *praedicationis,* tum ratione *spiritualis occupationis.* Primo ratione *contemplationis*[^p158-6] ostenditur:

1. Per illud Lucae decimo[^p158-7]: *Martha, sollicita es* etc., usque *elegit:* melius ergo faciebat Maria intendens contemplationi, quam Martha corporali occupationi; sed non melius ageret, si omitteret illud, ad quod tenebatur: ergo intendens contemplationi absolvitur ab opere corporali.

2. Item, Lucae duodecimo[^p158-8]: *Respicite volatilia caeli;* Glossa: «Sancti merito avibus comparantur, qui, nihil in hoc mundo habentes nec laborantes, sola contemplatione aeterna quaerunt, iam similes Angelis». Sed si nihil habentes tenerentur laborare universaliter, iam tales essent transgressores: ergo si hoc est falsum, non omnes pauperes validi astringuntur.

3. Item, super illud Genesis vigesimo tertio[^p158-9]: *Confirmatus est ager;* Glossa: «Contemplativa vita a cunctis actionibus funditus dividit»; sed non dividit ab actionibus spiritualibus: ergo a corporalibus. Nec dividit contra legem Dei: ergo contemplantes non sunt astricti ad hoc.

4. Item, labor manualis non est actus respiciens universaliter omnia membra Christi, alioquin nullus sine eo posset salvari; respicit ergo officium alicuius membri; sed membrum habens officium dignius non tenetur ad officium[^p158-10] membri indignioris: ergo si digniora sunt membra, quae habent gratiam contemplandi, non astringuntur ad officium vel exercitium actionis vel operationis, maxime cum necessitas non compellit defectus inferioris membri supplere.

Item, quod non omnes astringantur, ostenditur ratione *praedicationis.*

5. Lucae decimo[^p158-11]: *Misit eos binos* etc.; Glossa Ambrosii: «Tanta debet esse praedicatori fiducia, ut sibi necessaria non defectura certissime sciat, ne, dum sibi providet terrena, minus aliis provideat

<!-- page 159 -->

aeterna». Ergo studium praedicationis et doctrinae non debet intermitti propter opus corporale, cum homo non perfecte sufficit ad utrumque.

6. Item, super illud Lucae nono[^p159-1]: *Dimitte mortuos;* Glossa: «Docet Dominus, minora bona pro utilitate maiorum esse praetermittenda; maius enim est animas mortuorum praedicando suscitare quam corpus mortuum in terra condere». Si ergo mortuos sepelire, et maxime patrem, est opus maximae pietatis naturalis et corporalis; et hoc docet Dominus intermitti, et ad hoc non tenentur intendentes praedicationi: ergo tales non sunt astricti ad opera manualia, quantumcunque sint egeni.

7. Item, super illud Lucae decimo[^p159-2]: *Dignus est operarius mercede sua;* Glossa: «Duae mercedes praedicatori debentur: una in via, quae in labore sustentat; altera in patria, quae in resurrectione remunerat»; sed quod debetur alicui, non tenetur illud labore corporali acquirere: ergo praedicator pauper non tenetur propter sustentationem corporis manualiter operari.

8. Item, super illud primae ad Corinthios nono[^p159-3]: *Quis militat* etc.; Glossa: «Sicut Dominus constituit, ex Evangelio viventes panem *gratuitum* manducabant ab eis sumtum, quibus gratuitam gratiam praedicabant»; sed panis *gratuitus* dicitur, quia non erat acquisitus per laborem corporalem: ergo praedicationis opus exercentes non tenentur ad laborem corporalem.

9. Item, Augustinus, in libro de Opere monachorum[^p159-4]: «Si evangelistae sunt, si ministri altaris, si dispensatores Sacramentorum, plane sibi hanc vindicant potestatem», vivendi scilicet sine opere corporali, quia de hoc loquitur: ergo huiusmodi non astringuntur.

10. Item, Hieronymus adversus Vigilantium[^p159-5]: «Haec in Iudaea usque hodie perseverat consuetudo non solum apud nos, verum etiam apud Hebraeos, ut qui *in lege Domini meditantur die ac nocte* synagogarum et totius orbis pascantur ministeriis»; sed consuetudo esset vituperabilis, si tales essent astricti ad vivendum de laboribus propriis: ergo qui divinis, utpote doctrinae praedicationis et lectioni, vacant non sunt huiusmodi operibus alligati.

Item, quod non omnes astringantur, ostenditur ratione *spiritualis occupationis.*

11. Primae ad Corinthios nono[^p159-6]: *Nescitis, quod qui in sacrario operantur, quae de sacrario sunt edunt; et qui altario serviunt cum altario participant?* Glossa: «Naturalis ratio dictat, ut quis vivat inde, ubi laborat». Si ergo fidelis, qui intentus est spiritualibus occupationibus, dignus est sustentari, nec talis est otiosus: ergo nec ratione otii vitandi nec etiam victus acquirendi tenetur manualiter operari.

12. Item, Anselmus de Similitudinibus[^p159-7]: «Tres quippe sunt hominum ordines, *orantes, agricultores* et *defensores,* quos ad diversa officia Deus in hoc mundo disposuit: *monachos,* ut pro aliis orent et lacte praedicationis imbuant; *agricultores,* ut de suo labore et ipsi et alii vivant; *milites,* ut orantes et agricultores defendant»; sed milites digni sunt sustentari, quando suum officium exercent absque labore corporali: ergo pari ratione et monachi digni sunt.

13. Item, Augustinus in libro de Opere monachorum[^p159-8]: «Si habebant aliquid in saeculo, quo facile supportarent hanc vitam, quod conversi ad Deum dispertiti sunt, credenda est eorum infirmitas et ferenda»: ergo qui disperserunt bona sua pauperibus merentur in Ecclesia sustentari, si disperserunt semel temporalia, absque labore corporali: ergo multo fortius meretur, si dispersit ipse spiritualia orando, consulendo et exempla bona aliis conferendo.

14. Item, si spiritualis occupatio[^p159-9] non excusat a labore corporali, ergo multo minus nec scientialis: ergo omnes validi pauperes, qui student in qualibet scientia, sunt in malo statu, quia non vivunt de labore manuum suarum; sed hoc est valde absurdum: ergo et primum.

15. Item, Christus Legem perfectissime implevit, quia *decebat eum implere omnem iustitiam*[^p159-10]*;* sed Christus pauperrimus fuit et validus: ergo si tales universaliter operari tenentur, Christus non perfecte Legem implevit nec dedit exemplum perfectum. Sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo et primum.

16. Item, beatus Benedictus, quando fuit in spelunca, erat pauper et validus, et tamen non vivebat de labore manuum suarum, sed de hoc quod sibi Romanus apportabat, ut dicitur secundo Dialogorum[^p159-11]: ergo vel erat in malo statu, quod absurdum est, vel non tenebatur ad laborandum vel operandum.

<!-- page 160 -->

17. Item, aut pauperes validi *possunt vivere* de eleemosynis absque manuali labore[^p160-1], aut *non. Si sic,* habeo propositum, quod non tenentur. *Si non possunt;* ergo cum omnia bona ecclesiarum et monasteriorum non sint nisi eleemosynae pauperum, ut Sancti dicunt et manifestum est, ergo omnes, quotquot validi et clerici et monachi, qui vivunt de huiusmodi bonis sine labore manuali, sunt in statu perditionis. Si ergo hoc est absurdissimum, patet, quod et illud, ex quo sequitur. — *Si dicas,* quod de grossis et magnis eleemosynis licet, sed de parvis non licet; hoc non solum absurdum est, verum etiam adeo ridiculosum, ut manifeste qui sic dicit *colet culicem et glutiat camelum*[^p160-2]. Restat ergo, quod ad huiusmodi opera manualia non omnes validi pauperes sunt astricti.

CONCLUSIO.

> *Tenenda est via media, quod scilicet de pauperibus validis aliqui ad laborem sunt astricti, aliqui vero ab eo absoluti; et quod aliquibus labor indicitur sub praecepto, aliquibus pro consilio, aliquibus nec isto nec illo modo.*

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod, sicut circa fidem beatissimae Trinitatis triplex est via sentiendi[^p160-3], ita quod duae, quae declinant ad extrema, sunt erroneae, sicut haeresis Sabelliana et Ariana, media vero vera et catholica; sic in hac quaestione pariter duplex est via declinans ad extrema, et ideo erronea et reprobanda, media vero recta et acceptanda.

Unus est modus dicendi, quod *nulli* pauperes voluntarii, quantumcumque validi, ad opera manualia sunt astricti, sed solum ad spiritualia. Et hi fundaverunt se super illud Matthaei sexto[^p160-4]: *Respicite volatilia caeli.* — Hic autem modus dicendi est erroneus, quia est *corruptivus Ecclesiae* et *depravativus Scripturae. Corrumpit Ecclesiam,* dum, simulando falsam iustitiam, fovet pigritiam; dum simulat, se velle Evangelium perficere, vult otium carnis nutrire. Unde de talibus Augustinus, in libro de Opere monachorum[^p160-5]: «Quis ferat homines contumaces saluberrimis monitis Apostoli resistentes, non sicut infirmiores tolerari, sed sicut sanctiores etiam praedicari, ut monasteria doctrina saniore fundata gemina illecebra corrumpantur: et dissoluta licentia vacationis et falso nomine sanctitatis»? — *Depravat* etiam *Scripturam,* quia nimis *ampliat* verba evangelica et nimis *arctat* verba apostolica. Vult enim, quod Evangelium inhibeat perfectis omne opus corporale, et vult, quod Apostolus non suadeat nisi opus spirituale; quorum utrumque falsum est. Et contra hanc falsitatem Augustinus totum librum de Opere monachorum condidit, ostendens, quod Apostolus intelligit de opere *corporali,* et quod Evangelium non vetat *corporalia* opera, sed solum quod cor non sollicitetur praeoccupatum circa temporalia. Unde in principio libri de Opere monachorum[^p160-6] ait: «Prius debemus ostendere, beatum Apostolum opera corporalia servos Dei operari voluisse; deinde ostendere, evangelica illa praecepta, de quibus nonnulli non solum pigritiam, sed etiam arrogantiam suam fovent, apostolico praecepto et exemplo non esse contraria». Unde convincit Augustinus, positionem istam esse reprobandam.

Secundus modus dicentium est, quod *omnes* validi pauperes, qui non habent unde vivant, ad opera manualia seu corporalia sunt astricti. Et isti innituntur verbis Apostoli, secundae ad Thessalonicenses tertio[^p160-7]: *Qui non laborat non manducet.* Nec possunt excusari, ut dicunt, per opera spiritualia. — Et hic quidem modus dicendi est erroneus, sicut et primus. Nam nimis deviando ad alterum extremum, *depravat Scripturam* et *corrumpit Ecclesiam. Scripturam depravat,* quia nimis *ampliat* verba Apostoli, dum dicit: *Qui non laborat non manducet;* volens, illa verba de labore manuali non solum ad otiosos, sed quantumcumque utiliter in spiritualibus occupatos extendi, qui non sunt curati. Nimis etiam *restringit* verba evangelica, dum illa verba[^p160-8]: *Dignus est operarius mercede sua;* ad eos solos extendit, qui habent animarum curam; cum potius fiat homo dignus mercede ex opere quam ex dignitate. Absit omnino a fidelibus mentibus, quod cooperatores habentium curam non sint *digni operarii* nec *digni mercede* et sustentatione sua, *maxime qui* fideliter *collaborant in verbo et doctrina*[^p160-9]. — *Ecclesiam* etiam *corrumpit,* dum simulat districtionem iustitiae et persequitur spiritum vitae. Quid enim aliud est hoc, quam quod significatum est per praepositos Pharaonis, de quibus dicitur Exodi primo[^p160-10], quod *oderant filios Israel et ad amaritu-*

<!-- page 161 -->

*dinem perducebant, affligentes eos operibus duris luti et lateris, atque omni servitute?* Et ne forte videar moveri spiritu proprio, audi, quid dicit Glossa super illud Exodi quinto: *Quare, Moyses et Aaron, sollicitatis populum ab operibus suis? Ite ad onera vestra:* «Hodie si Moyses et Aaron, id est propheticus et sacerdotalis sermo, animam sollicitet ad servitium Dei, exire de saeculo, renuntiare omnibus, quae possidet, attendere legi et verbo Dei; continuo audies unanimes amicos Pharaonis dicentes: videte, quomodo seducuntur homines, et pervertuntur adolescentes, ne laborent, ne militent, ne agant aliquid, quod prosit, et relictis rebus necessariis, inertias sectantur et otium! Quid est servire Deo? Laborare nolunt et otii occasiones quaerunt. Haec erant tunc verba Pharaonis, haec et nunc amici eius loquuntur, nec solum verbis, sed etiam verberibus persequuntur». Hucusque Glossa.

Quoniam igitur utraque harum opinionum vel sententiarum declinat ad extrema et declinando depravat Scripturam et corrumpit Ecclesiam; ideo utraque reprobanda est: prima, quia dat fomentum pigritiae, secunda, quia nititur exstinguere spiritum vitae sub onere servitutis Aegyptiacae; prima, quia fovet otium carnale, secunda, quia persequitur spirituale. Propterea secunda longe perversior est quam prima, licet utraque sit mala. Ideoque, utraque repulsa, tenenda est via media, quod de pauperibus validis aliqui sunt astricti, aliqui vero absoluti, aliquibus indicitur sub praecepto, aliquibus pro consilio, aliquibus nec isto nec illo modo.

Ad cuius pleniorem evidentiam[^p161-1] notandum est, quod regimen reipublicae in Ecclesia attenditur circa tria, scilicet quantum ad bonum *inferius,* quod est corporale; quantum ad bonum *exterius,* quod est civile; et quantum ad bonum *interius,* quod est spirituale. Et secundum hoc triplex genus operis est necessarium ad regimen reipublicae et Ecclesiae militantis, scilicet opus *artificiale,* quod et *manuale* dicitur, quia «manus est organum organorum[^p161-2]», opus *civile* et opus *spirituale.* Opus *manuale* sive corporale dico, quod est necessarium ad praeparanda alimenta, vestimenta, habitacula et diversorum opificum et artium instrumenta. Opus *civile* dico, quod est ipsorum praesidum gubernantium, militum defendentium, mercatorum negotiantium et famulorum ministrantium. Opus *spirituale* dico, quod consistit in disseminando divina *verba,* in decantando divina *cantica,* in dispensando *Sacramenta* et in distribuendo *bona* sibi divinitus data, sive terrena, sive spiritualia. Nam *distribuere* sua pro Christo opus est *spirituale,* non civile nec civitatis terrenae. — Sicut ergo qui intenti sunt operibus civilibus reipublicae ad opera manualia per apostolicum praeceptum non intelliguntur astricti; sic nec hi qui intenti sunt spiritualibus, maxime si redundent[^p161-3] in aliorum salutem, commodum et profectum. Et ideo occupatos in quatuor generibus operum spiritualium praedictorum excipit Augustinus a tentione apostolici praecepti in libro de Opere monachorum[^p161-4], cum dicit: «Si evangelistae sunt, si ministri altaris, si dispensatores Sacramentorum, plane hanc sibi vindicant potestatem; si saltem aliquid habebant in saeculo, quo facile sine opificio sustentarent hanc vitam, quod conversi ad Deum indigentibus dispertiti sunt». Evangelistae autem disseminant divina verba; ministri altaris decantant divinas laudes et divina cantica; dispensatores Sacramentorum dispensant divina Sacramenta, et maxime eucharistiae vel poenitentiae; qui diviserunt suas possessiones distribuerunt bona sua: ergo digni sunt sustentari pro unica distributione temporalium, multo magis pro continua distributione[^p161-5] spiritualium, etsi nihil corporaliter operentur; et si ille qui docet filium alicuius grammaticam, meretur ab eo sustentari, quare non ille qui docet viam regni caelestis, qui impetrat gratiam orando, qui etiam exemplis bonae vitae excitat et dirigit ad aeternam salutem? — Cum ergo respublica universalis Ecclesiae seu ecclesiasticae hierarchiae indigeat ad sui conservationem triplici opere supradicto; nec Deus nec Angelus nec pastor Ecclesiae vel rector, sicut Apostolus, astringit ad huiusmodi opera, nisi secundum quod exigit salus, necessitas et utilitas ipsius ecclesiasticae hierarchiae, cuius servi Christi sunt membra.

Et quoniam[^p161-6] inter membra Christi sunt quaedam maxime idonea ad operationes corporales et minime ad spirituales, quaedam e converso, quaedam medio modo; hinc est, quod illis pauperibus validis, qui ad opera corporalia maxime sunt idonei et minime ad spiritualia, qui convenienter aliter nesciunt vitare otium et opus facere victu dignum, tales ad opera manualia astringuntur, et eis est opus manuale in *praecepto.* — His autem, qui simul spiritualibus sufficienter possunt intendere et labore manuum victum acquirere[^p161-7] vel in toto, vel magna parte, qualis fuit Apostolus Paulus, est opus manuale in *consilio.* — His autem, qui maxime sunt idonei ad spiritualia opera praedicta, vel etiam ad civilia, et minime ad haec manualia, huiusmodi opera lucrativa et artificialia non sunt in *praecepto* nec etiam in *consilio;* quia

<!-- page 162 -->

stultum esset, quod pro re modicae utilitatis commune bonum magnum incurreret detrimentum; nec hoc ordinavit Deus nec eius Apostolus, sicut in sequentibus evidenter ostendetur.

Quod autem de huiusmodi operibus et hominibus diversificari debeat iudicium secundum diversitatem donorum, officiorum et gratiarum sibi divinitus collatarum; ostendit Glossa super illud Deuteronomii vigesimo octavo[^p162-1]: *Benedictus fructus ventris tui et fructus terrae tuae et fructus iumentorum tuorum,* ita dicens: «Diversos ordines notat subditorum. Alii enim doctoribus corporalia praebent alimenta; alii laborare possunt quod sibi fuerit praeceptum; alii simplicitate contenti per innocentiam vitae student Deo placere; *unusquisque proprium donum habet ex Deo*». — Concedendum est igitur, quod non omnes validi pauperes, etiam non curati, ad huiusmodi opera manualia sunt astricti; et concedendae sunt etiam auctoritates et rationes hoc ostendentes.

1. 2. Ad illud autem quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de obligatione legis naturae; dicendum, quod *natura* ad hoc non astringit nisi ratione periculi vitandi. Nam si ex lege naturae haec manaret[^p162-2] obligatio, cuncti essent universaliter et aequaliter obligati; quod absurdissimum est. Ideo, si quis a natura astringitur, hoc non est nisi propter *vitandum periculum;* et hoc potest esse tripliciter: aut quia non potest sine labore *vivere,* aut quia non potest *honeste vivere,* aut quia non potest *fructuose vivere;* in primo periclitatur *entitas,* in secundo *honestas,* in tertio *utilitas.* Est autem naturaliter insertus homini amor sui *esse continui,* amor *honesti* et amor *commodi;* et per hoc lege naturae astringitur homo ad vitandum hoc triplex periculum. Sic igitur astringitur necessario ad manualiter operandum pauper validus, si in tali articulo constitutus est, quod non potest aliter *vivere,* vel non potest *honeste vivere*[^p162-3] vel etiam non potest aliter *vivere fructuose.* Si autem aliter potest hoc periculum vitare aeque vel magis utiliter, astringi ad hoc non habet ex lege naturae. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod homo ex prima sua conditione ordinatus est ad istam operationem; dicendum, quod nullus homo debet esse sine labore in hac vita, ne forte de eo dicatur quod de reprobis dicitur in Psalmo: *In labore hominum non sunt et cum hominibus non flagellabuntur;* sed ex hoc non sequitur, quod oporteat occupari circa laborem manuum et maxime lucrativum. — Et per hoc patet responsio ad sequens de exemplo Adae, quia constans est, quod non omnes obligantur ad opus agriculturae. Nec[^p162-4] illud quod dicitur: *In sudore vultus tui* etc., dictum est tunc in praeceptum vitae, sed in poenam culpae perpetratae, sicut patet per textum sequentem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sine huiusmodi opere non potest genus humanum sustentari; dicendum, quod duplex est mandatum: unum, quod respicit conservationem[^p162-5] *individui,* aliud, quod respicit conservationem *speciei,* sicut est mandatum de manducando et mandatum de generando. Illud ergo, quod respicit conservationem *speciei,* non obligat nisi in communi, quia, uno implente, alius absolvitur, sicut patet de generatione; et quia opus manuale est huiusmodi, nisi in eo qui constitutus est in statu periculi; ideo non habet nisi talis astringi.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sicut os est ad manducandum, ita et manus ad operandum; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia, si homo posset vivere sine comestione, sicut potest vivere sine manuali opere; non teneretur manducare. — *Praeterea,* unus homo potest operari pro alio, sed non manducare pro alio; et ideo non oportet sic omnes astringi universaliter ad manualem operationem, sicut ad manducationem.

5. 6. 7. 8. Ad illud quod obiicitur de *praecepto, exemplo, edicto* et *verbo apostolico;* notandum, quod circa apostolicum *praeceptum* consideranda est *persona,* cui praecipitur, *causa,* pro qua praecipitur, et *forma,* sub qua praecipitur. Si consideretur *persona,* non omnibus praecipit hoc generaliter, sed determinate quibusdam. Ait enim sic secundae ad Thessalonicenses tertio[^p162-6]: *Et audivimus quosdam inter vos ambulantes inquiete, nihil operantes, sed curiose agentes. His autem, qui huiusmodi sunt, denuntiamus, ut cum silentio operantes suum panem manducent.* Praecipit ergo *inquietis, curiosis* et *otiosis.* — Si autem consideretur *causa,* non est dubium, quin sit ad remotionem horum trium vitiorum. Quia enim labor corporalis valet ad *corpus domandum,* ad *otium tollendum,* ad *victum ho-*

<!-- page 163 -->

*neste quaerendum;* ideo[^p163-1] Apostolus imponebat eis laborem quasi in vitiorum istorum medicamentum. Nam *inquieti* labore domante, *otiosi* labore excitante, *curiosi* «et foeda cura victum quaerentes», ut dicit Glossa, indigent labore victum promerente. Ideo Apostolus quasi per se loquitur et proprie et sufficientissime in praedicto mandato, si attendatur *causa.* — Si vero attendatur *forma,* sub qua praecipit, constans est, quod debet convenire cum *causa.* Apostolicum[^p163-2] enim hoc praeceptum est; et ad tria praedicta ille *astringitur,* qui non potest habere illa tria per aliam viam licitam et convenientem; qui vero potest, *non astringitur* determinate ad hanc viam, quantum est de ipsius praecepti efficacia, quod dedit Apostolus ad ordinandam et aedificandam Ecclesiam, non ad destruendam illam, secundum potestatem, quam ad aedificationem dicit[^p163-3] sibi divinitus datam. — Dicendum ergo, quod apostolicum *praeceptum, exemplum, edictum* et *iudicium* illos obligat potissime, qui sunt *inquieti, otiosi* et *curiosi,* ut ab his redeant; vel eos qui non possunt aliter convenienter quam per laborem corporalem vitare vitia supradicta, sicut manifeste ostensum est.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, quod vult Apostolus, servos Dei corporaliter operari; dicendum, quod si istud est[^p163-4] velle *praecepti,* intelligendum est *indefinite* de servis Dei, id est, de his qui sunt ad servitium dominicum conversi, qui per maiora et utiliora opera non sunt a manuali opere excusati, sicut exemplificat Augustinus[^p163-5] de his qui vitam in saeculo de labore corporali transigebant; et sic illud *indefinite* debet intelligi et *non universaliter,* quia absurdum esset dicere, quod omnes servi Dei ad hoc sint astricti. — Patet etiam hoc, quia Augustinus, a quo sumta sunt verba illius Glossae, sed mutata, excipit quatuor genera hominum, quos dicit non teneri, ut labore proprio victum quaerant, sicut ostensum est supra[^p163-6]: unde super praedictam Glossam innitendum non est; tum quia *mutat* verba Augustini. Dicit enim in originali: «Primum debemus ostendere, Apostolum corporalia opera servos Dei operari *voluisse,* ut victu et vestitu a nullo indigerent», nec aliquam mentionem fecit de *petitione;* quia illi, contra quos agebat, non vivebant de *petitis,* sed *oblatis,* sicut in secundo libro Retractationum dicit. Facienda est ergo vis in hoc, quod dicit *voluisse,* quod non semper praeceptum est; et in hoc, quod dicit *servos Dei,* quod indefinite dictum est; et in hoc, quod dicit *ne compellantur,* quod non pertinet ad pauperes voluntarios, sed potius ad invitos.

9. Ad illud Augustini[^p163-7]: *Audiant quibus hoc praeceptum est* etc.; dicendum, quod habere potestatem vivendi de alieno, hoc est tripliciter: vel secundum legem *iustitiae,* vel secundum legem *clementiae,* vel mixtim secundum *utramque.* Secundum legem *iustitiae* habent illi qui habent auctoritatem officii et *operis onus;* et tales possunt *potestative* petere et in iudicium trahere. — Secundum legem *clementiae* potestatem habent vivendi de alieno qui possunt sufficientem allegare miseriam, per quam digni sunt misericordia, ut pauperes infirmi. — Secundum *utramque* vero habent illi qui opera faciunt apostolica, non tamen incedunt cum *auctoritatis dignitate,* sed cum *humilitate paupertatis;* et ideo digni sunt sustentari tanquam operarii et tanquam egeni. Qui ergo *nullo modo* habent hanc potestatem absque dubio obligantur per apostolicum praeceptum; sed non sunt omnes tales, sicut visum est.

10. Ad illud quod obiicit, quod opera spiritualia non excusant; dicendum, quod «sermones inquirendi sunt secundum materiam[^p163-8]». Augustinus autem loquitur ibi de monachis, qui ex professione ad opus manuale erant astricti, qui ex elatione erant contentiosi, et licet simularent spiritualitatem, erant tamen carnales et otiosi; et talibus dicit, quod non possunt per huiusmodi opera excusari, quia revera in eis non erant spiritualia, sed infecta. — *Praeterea,* illa opera spiritualia non redundabant in manifestam utilitatem reipublicae, quia nec praedicabant nec docebant nec confessiones excipiebant[^p163-9] nec animarum salutem suis consiliis procurabant, quin potius sibi vacando impediebant, et eorum vacatio generabat in Ecclesia litem et dissensionem ad invicem monachorum et erat in pallium illorum monachorum gyrovagorum, sicut melius in sequenti videbitur.

11. Ad illud quod obiicit de clericis, dicendum, quod nec clerici pauperes universaliter ad opera manualia per canones astringuntur nisi propter otium vitandum, vel victum acquirendum, si illum acquirere honeste aliter non possunt; alioquin valde du-

<!-- page 164 -->

rum esset, tot homines damnari; et impium valde videtur dicere, quod clerici bonae indolis[^p164-1] studio litterarum continuo intendentes, si sunt pauperes et fortes, quod ad opera manualia sint astricti.

12. Ad illud quod obiicitur de monachis, dicendum, quod monachi regulares aliqui habent in professione et voto laborem manualem, aliqui vero minime. Ratio vero huius est diversitas professionum ex parte *temporum, personarum* et *intentionum.* — Ex parte *temporum:* quia circa tempora primitivae Ecclesiae quatuor erant genera monachorum, sicut distinguit beatus Benedictus in principio regulae suae[^p164-2], scilicet coenobitae, anachoretae, sarabaitae et gyrovagi. Primi erant boni, secundi optimi, tertii mali, et quarti pessimi. Tertii enim et quarti non ducebantur iugo aliquo, sed secundum proprias concupiscentias ambulabant: sarabaitae intendentes carni, gyrovagi mutabiles et vagabundi et ad omnia mala parati. Secundi, scilicet anachoretae, regula non indigebant, quia tanquam perfectissimi regulabantur a gratia. Primis debuit regula dari, ut distinguerentur a gyrovagis et sarabaitis; et conveniens fuit, ne compellerentur exterius exire, ad laborem corporalem eos astringi. Unde Augustinus in libro de Opere monachorum[^p164-3] ait: «Callidissimus hostis tam multos hypocritas sub habitu monachorum usquequaque dispersit, circumeuntes provincias, nusquam missos, nusquam fixos, nusquam stantes, nusquam sedentes». Et post: «Nonne *calescit cor vestrum intra vos,* et in *meditatione* vestra *exardescit ignis,* ut istorum mala opera bonis operibus persequamini, ut eis amputetis occasionem turpium nundinarum, quibus aestimatio vestra laeditur, et infirmis offendiculum ponitur? Miseremini ergo et compatimini et ostendite hominibus, non vos in otio facilem victum quaerere, sed per angustam et arctam viam huius propositi regnum Dei quaerere. Eadem vobis ratio est, quae fuit Apostolo, ut *amputetis occasionem his qui quaerunt occasionem,* ut qui illorum putoribus praefocantur in vestro bono odore reficiantur». Hucusque Augustinus.

Ex parte etiam *personarum* voventium: quia monachi tunc temporis pro maxima parte erant laici et plebeii[^p164-4]; et ideo competebat eis circa consueta opera occupari. Unde Augustinus in libro de Opere monachorum: «Illi qui praeter istam sanctam societatem vitam labore corporis transigebant, ex quorum numero plures ad monasteria veniunt; si nolunt operari, non manducent. Neque enim in christiana militia ad paupertatem divites humiliantur, ut pauperes ad superbiam extollantur; nulloque modo decet, ut in ea vita, ubi senatores fiunt laboriosi, ibi fiant opifices otiosi; et quo veniunt, relictis deliciis, qui fuerunt praediorum domini, ibi fiant rustici delicati».

Ex parte *intentionum:* quia monasteria primitiva instituta erant ad vitam solitariam agendam, ut unusquisque haberet curam sui et apud se habitaret, et ideo *monachus* dictus est. Et quia paucissimorum est semper posse[^p164-5] divinis intendere; ideo, ne otiosi essent, congruebat eorum professioni exerceri circa opus manuale. Unde Hieronymus ad Rusticum: «Aegyptiorum monasteria hunc morem tenent, ut nullum absque labore suscipiant, non tam propter victus necessaria quam propter animae salutem, ne vagentur perniciosis cogitationibus et ad instar fornicantis Ierusalem omni transeunti divaricent pedes suos».

Competebat ergo monasteriis primi temporis astringi ex professione ad opus manuale, ratione *temporis, personarum* et *intentionum*[^p164-6]. Sed post instantibus temporibus modernis, quando illi gyrovagi erant consumti, et Ecclesia opulenta fuit tam in clericis quam in monachis; magis erat opus dandum circa spirituale exercitium; et hinc est, quod monachi laborem manualem sive corporalem bene et recte in spiritualem exercitationem et psalmodiam commutaverunt. Et quia Ecclesiae iam ditatae magis indigebant spiritualibus operariis quam vinitoribus et agricolis; hinc est, quod Spiritus sanctus religiones pauperculas suscitavit, quarum sollicitudo et cura tota esset ad *signandos servos Dei in frontibus eorum signo Dei vivi*[^p164-7], vocando ad poenitentiam et ad gratiam Spiritus sancti. Unde utraeque[^p164-8] a sua primaria institutione habent officium praedicandi; et ideo, cum tales circa opera spiritualia sint intenti — propter quae alii ab aliis merentur sustentari — nec sunt otiosi nec curiosi sic vivendo nec in periculo, cum Dominus eos paverit usque modo; nec habent hoc ex voto: ideo nec ipsi nec omnes pauperes voluntarii, licet sint validi, sunt ad opus corporale

<!-- page 165 -->

astricti, quia nec ratione *periculi* nec ratione *praecepti* apostolici nec ratione *voti emissi,* ut manifeste liquet ex praemissis.

Ad illud quod obiicitur de Augustino, in libro de Opere monachorum, dicendum, quod beatus Augustinus in libro illo non ad hos loquitur, sed ad primos, qui opera corporalia, quae habebant ex professione, sub praetextu spiritualitatis contemnebant; quia nec propter spiritualia debebant omittere corporalia, nec etiam e converso. Unde Bernardus, ad tales loquens, in Apologia[^p165-1] ait: «Iam vero de labore manuum quid gloriamini, cum et Martha laborans increpata, et Maria quiescens laudata sit, et Paulus aperte dicat: *Labor corporalis ad modicum utilis est, pietas autem ad omnia?* Optimus labor, de quo Propheta dicebat: *Laboravi in gemitu meo;* et de quo alibi: *Memor fui Dei, et delectatus sum et exercitatus sum;* ac ne corporale intelligas exercitium, *et defecit spiritus meus,* inquit; unde ubi non corpus, sed spiritus fatigatur, spiritualis labor procul dubio intelligitur. Quid ergo, inquis? Siccine spiritualia illa persuades, ut etiam haec quae ex regula habemus corporalia damnes? Nequaquam. Sed *illa oportet agere et ista non omittere;* alioquin, cum aut ista omitti necesse est, aut illa; ista potius omittenda sunt quam illa. Quanto enim spiritus melior est corpore, tanto spiritualis quam corporalis exercitatio fructuosior. Tu vero, cum, de horum observatione elatus, aliis non eadem observantibus deroges, nonne te magis regulae transgressorem indicas, cuius, licet minima quaedam tenens, meliora devitas?» — Sunt ergo ad opus manuale astricti illi qui habent hoc[^p165-2] ex obligatione professionis, nisi forte opus manuale commutent in opus spirituale, ita quod hoc etiam sit de voluntate et licentia superioris.

13. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, Lucae duodecimo, dicendum, quod illud totum est *consilium,* sicut textus ille, super quem Glossa fundatur. Nec aliquis ad totum illud nec ad partem se astringit, nisi quantum ex professione promittit. Unde sicut eleemosynas dare non est praeceptum ei qui omnia dedit, nec simpliciter praecipitur omnia dari[^p165-3]; sic nec illud intermedium, scilicet *operari,* tenet ibi rationem obligationis necessariae, sed solius suasionis monitoriae, vel etiam consultivae.

14. 15. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hieronymo et Benedicto, iam manifesta est responsio per praedicta.

16. Ad illud quod obiicitur de beato Francisco, dicendum, quod in regula beati Francisci quaedam dicuntur *praeceptorie,* quaedam *monitorie,* quaedam *informative,* sicut ipsa regula per aperta vocabula distinguit expresse. Hoc autem, quod dictum est de labore, non est dictum *praeceptorie,* quia non imperaret, quod *facerent devote*[^p165-4], cum hoc non sit in nostra potestate, sed dictum est *informative.* Informat enim, *quorum* sit manualiter operari et *qualiter:* quia *illorum,* qui habent *gratiam,* id est facultatem virtutis et industriam artis et opportunitatem loci et temporis; *qualiter,* quia *fideliter* ad proximum, *devote* ad Deum et *modeste* ad se ipsos. Unde sanctus Pater[^p165-5], intelligens per Spiritum sanctum suam vocationem et collectionem fratrum suorum, in qua erant laici cum clericis, nec mandatum dedit de manualiter operando, ne clerici omitterent spiritualia propter minus utilia; nec tamen omnino reticuit, ne laici et qui non sunt ad spiritualia idonei nec circa necessaria fratrum intenti nec adhuc sunt ad contemplationis indefessum otium elevati panem comederent otiosi. Cum enim omnibus sit cavenda otiositas tanquam sentina omnium vitiorum[^p165-6]; potissime his cavenda est, qui se perfectioni evangelicae astrinxerunt. — Sic ergo patet, quod non omnes validi pauperes, etiam non curati, ad opera manualia sunt astricti[^p165-7].

---

english:
<!-- page 156 -->

### Article III. *Whether able-bodied poor men, and most of all regulars, are universally bound to manual labour.*

Thirdly, for the fuller clearing of the things that have been said about mendicancy, it is asked[^p156-1] whether able-bodied poor men, and most of all regulars, are universally bound to manual labour. And that they are, is shown in three ways: by reason of *the obligation of nature,* by reason of *the Christian religion,* and also by reason of *monastic profession*[^p156-2]. First it is shown from *the bond of the law of nature.*

1. Genesis the second[^p156-3]: *God placed man in paradise, that he might work;* likewise, in the third chapter of the same it was said to man when he had sinned: *In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread,* and so forth. Therefore the precept about labouring regards man according to nature *as instituted* and according to nature *as fallen,* and therefore according to all times; but it regards most of all the man who can work by himself and cannot supply the want through another; and such a man is the able-bodied poor man: therefore such a man is bound to labour with his hands.

2. Again, in Zacharias the thirteenth[^p156-4] it is said: *I am a husbandman, for Adam is my example from my youth;* the Gloss: «That I may eat my bread *in the sweat of my face,* since he showed himself born for this, that *in the sweat of his face* he should eat bread»; but this suits most of all the man who is in want of bread and can bear toil and sweat; and such a man is the able-bodied poor man: therefore he is bound to labour bodily.

3. Again, to those things without which nature can neither be sustained nor saved[^p156-5] we are naturally obliged; but without bodily or manual labour

<!-- page 157 -->

the human race cannot be preserved in *being:* therefore some men are necessarily obliged to it. But only those who are fit for it; and such are the able-bodied poor, because they are in want and they are able: therefore such men are chiefly obliged.

4. Again, as the mouth was given to man for eating, so also the hands for working; but he who neglects to eat, when he is in want and is able, acts against the dictate of natural right: therefore for like reason does he who neglects to work with his hands, if he is in want and is able. But such a man is the able-bodied poor man: therefore, and so forth.

Again, the same thing is shown *by reason of the Christian religion.*

5. First by the apostolic *precept,* to the Ephesians the fourth[^p157-1]: *He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands,* and so forth. — *If thou sayest* that this is a counsel; *on the contrary:* the first to the Thessalonians the fourth: *Work with your own hands, as we commanded you, and that you walk honestly towards them that are without, and that you want nothing of any man's;* the Gloss: «Much less should you ask for it, or take it». But this regards the poor most of all: therefore, and so forth.

6. Again, the same thing seems to follow from the apostolic *example,* the second to the Thessalonians the third[^p157-2]: *You know yourselves how you ought to imitate us, for we were not restless among you, neither did we eat any man's bread for nothing, but in labour and in toil,* and so forth; the Gloss: «The Apostle was a pattern to those who were of slender substance among the people, that they might learn not to lose their liberty. For he who often comes to another man's table, being given over to idleness, must needs flatter the man who feeds him, whereas our religion calls a man to liberty»: therefore this is against the Christian religion.

7. Again, the same thing seems to follow from the apostolic *edict,* the second to the Thessalonians the third[^p157-3]: *When we were with you, this we declared to you, that if any man will not work, neither let him eat;* but it is certain that he speaks only of those who are in want of sustenance: therefore, and so forth. — *If thou sayest* that this is not understood of *bodily* labour; *against* this is what the Gloss says in the same place: «Some say that the Apostle laid this down concerning *spiritual* works; but they labour to no purpose to draw a mist over themselves and over the rest, so that what charity usefully advises they are not only unwilling to do, but unwilling even to understand».

8. Again, the same thing seems to follow from the apostolic *judgment,* the second to the Thessalonians the third[^p157-4]: *If any man obey not our word, note that man, and do not keep company with him;* but he who has the opportunity and the means of fulfilling the command is called *disobedient* if he does not fulfil it; and the able-bodied poor man is such a one: therefore if he will not work, he is disobedient to the apostolic precepts, and therefore by the Apostle's judgment he ought to be shunned as one excommunicated. — *But perhaps thou wilt say* that these words of the Apostle, and those set down before, are understood to be said to busybodies, vagrants and the idle, and not to the servants of Christ who are occupied with spiritual things; *on the contrary:* upon that word[^p157-5]: *He that works not, let him not eat;* the Gloss: «The Apostle wills that the servants of God should work bodily, that they may have whereof to live, that they may not be compelled by want to beg what is necessary»; but *the servants of God* means good and just men, and to such he commands work, that they may not be compelled to beg: therefore able-bodied poor men, and so forth.

9. Again, Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks[^p157-6]: «Let those hear to whom the Apostle commands this, namely to work with their hands; that is, those who have not that power which he had, so that, working only spiritually, they may eat bread that is free of bodily labour. And as he says: *We charge and beseech that, working with silence, they eat their own bread;* let them not dispute against the plainest words of the Apostle, since this too belongs to that *silence* with which they ought to work and eat their own bread».

10. Again, the same, a little after[^p157-7]: «What are they doing who will not work bodily? What business they are free for, I should like to know. Prayers, they say, and psalms and readings and the word of God. A holy life, plainly, and praiseworthy for the sweetness of Christ; but if we are not to be called away from these, then neither must we eat, nor must food be prepared, that it may be set on the table and taken. But if the necessity of our very weakness compels the servants of God to be free for those things only at fixed intervals of time, why should we not assign some portions of time to the keeping of the apostolic precepts as well? For one prayer of an obedient man is sooner heard than ten thousand of a despiser». And next he shows that these spiritual works do not excuse a man, neither reading nor psalmody nor prayer nor exhortation.

11. Again, the same, out of the council of Carthage[^p157-8]: «Let a cleric prepare his food and clothing by a craft or by husbandry,

<!-- page 158 -->

only without detriment to his office». — *If thou sayest* that this is understood of the unlettered; *against this* there follows at once: «Let any cleric who is learned in the word of God seek his food by a craft». — *If thou sayest* that it is not understood of all; *against this* there follows: «Let all clerics who are able-bodied for work learn both crafts and letters». — From these sayings of the Fathers, therefore, it seems plainly to be gathered that *the apostolic precepts* extend to all able-bodied poor men, whether clerics or laymen, whether idle or intent upon spiritual occupations: therefore above all to the poor religious.

The same thing is shown by reason of *monastic profession.*

12. First by blessed Augustine, who throughout the whole book On the Work of Monks intends, as his final and principal conclusion[^p158-1], to show that monks are bound to manual or bodily labour.

13. Again, the Gloss upon that word of Luke the twelfth[^p158-2]: *Sell what you possess and give alms,* and so forth; «that, when all things have been once despised for God, you may afterwards work with the labour of your hands whereby you may live, or may give alms»; but all regulars are held by vow to the counsel of poverty: therefore according to the Gloss manual labour ought to follow renunciation: therefore all are held to bodily work.

14. Again, Jerome to Rusticus, and it is found in *On Consecration,* the last distinction[^p158-3]: *Always be doing something good, that the devil may find thee occupied. If the Apostles, having power to live by the Gospel, laboured with their own hands lest they should burden any man, why dost thou not prepare things that will serve thy own uses? Either weave a basket of rushes, or plait a hamper with pliant twigs.* And afterwards: «Let books be copied, that the hands too may earn food, and the soul be filled with reading».

15. Again, blessed Benedict in his rule[^p158-4]: «Then are they true monks, if they live by the labour of their own hands, as our fathers the Apostles did»: therefore if this makes us imitators of the Apostles, then all religious ought to be such; therefore they ought also to work with their hands, since works of supererogation do not lessen but ought to fulfil the works of the precepts.

16. Again, blessed Francis in his rule[^p158-5]: «Let those brethren, he says, to whom the Lord has given the grace of labouring, labour faithfully and devoutly». And that he understands bodily labour is plain from what follows: «But of the wages of that labour let them receive for themselves and for their brethren what is necessary for the body, excepting money».

Cᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: that not all able-bodied poor men are bound to manual labour seems to follow, both by reason of *contemplation,* and by reason of *preaching,* and by reason of *spiritual occupation.* First it is shown by reason of *contemplation*[^p158-6]:

1. By that word of Luke the tenth[^p158-7]: *Martha, thou art careful,* and so forth, as far as *hath chosen:* Mary therefore was doing better in giving herself to contemplation than Martha in bodily occupation; but she would not be doing better if she were leaving undone that to which she was bound: therefore one who gives himself to contemplation is released from bodily work.

2. Again, Luke the twelfth[^p158-8]: *Behold the birds of the air;* the Gloss: «The Saints are rightly likened to birds, who, having nothing in this world and not labouring, seek eternal things by contemplation alone, being already like the Angels». But if those who have nothing were universally bound to labour, then such men would be transgressors: therefore if this is false, not all able-bodied poor men are bound.

3. Again, upon that word of Genesis the twenty-third[^p158-9]: *The field was made sure;* the Gloss: «The contemplative life divides a man utterly from all actions»; but it does not divide him from spiritual actions: therefore from bodily ones. Nor does it divide him against the law of God: therefore contemplatives are not bound to this.

4. Again, manual labour is not an act that regards all the members of Christ universally, otherwise no one could be saved without it; it regards therefore the office of some one member; but a member having a worthier office is not held to the office[^p158-10] of a less worthy member: therefore if those members are worthier which have the grace of contemplating, they are not bound to the office or exercise of action or operation, especially when necessity does not compel them to supply the failure of an inferior member.

Again, that not all are bound is shown by reason of *preaching.*

5. Luke the tenth[^p158-11]: *He sent them two and two,* and so forth; the Gloss of Ambrose: «So great ought a preacher's confidence to be that he knows most surely that what he needs will not fail him, lest, while he provides earthly things for himself, he provide less

<!-- page 159 -->

of eternal things for others». Therefore the study of preaching and of teaching ought not to be interrupted for bodily work, since a man is not perfectly sufficient for both.

6. Again, upon that word of Luke the ninth[^p159-1]: *Let the dead bury;* the Gloss: «The Lord teaches that lesser goods are to be passed over for the sake of greater; for it is a greater thing to raise up the souls of the dead by preaching than to lay a dead body in the earth». If therefore to bury the dead, and most of all a father, is a work of the greatest natural and bodily piety, and the Lord teaches that this be left undone, and those who give themselves to preaching are not held to it: therefore such men are not bound to manual labour, however needy they may be.

7. Again, upon that word of Luke the tenth[^p159-2]: *The labourer is worthy of his hire;* the Gloss: «Two wages are owed to a preacher: one on the way, which sustains him in his toil; the other in the fatherland, which rewards him in the resurrection»; but what is owed to a man he is not held to acquire by bodily labour: therefore a poor preacher is not held to work with his hands for the sustaining of his body.

8. Again, upon that word of the first to the Corinthians the ninth[^p159-3]: *Who serves as a soldier,* and so forth; the Gloss: «As the Lord ordained, those who lived by the Gospel ate bread given *free* and taken from those to whom they preached grace freely given»; but the bread is called *free* because it had not been acquired by bodily labour: therefore those who exercise the work of preaching are not held to bodily labour.

9. Again, Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks[^p159-4]: «If they are evangelists, if they are ministers of the altar, if they are dispensers of the Sacraments, plainly they claim this power for themselves», namely of living without bodily work, since it is of this that he speaks: therefore such men are not bound.

10. Again, Jerome against Vigilantius[^p159-5]: «This custom has lasted in Judaea until this day, not only among us but among the Hebrews also, that those who *meditate in the law of the Lord day and night* are fed by the ministrations of the synagogues and of the whole world»; but the custom would be blameworthy if such men were bound to live by their own labours: therefore those who are free for divine things — that is, for the teaching of preaching and for reading — are not bound by works of this kind.

Again, that not all are bound is shown by reason of *spiritual occupation.*

11. The first to the Corinthians the ninth[^p159-6]: *Know you not that they who work in the holy place eat the things that are of the holy place; and they that serve the altar partake with the altar?* The Gloss: «Natural reason dictates that a man should live from the place where he labours». If therefore the faithful man who is intent upon spiritual occupations is worthy to be sustained, and such a man is not idle: therefore neither by reason of avoiding idleness nor by reason of acquiring his food is he held to work with his hands.

12. Again, Anselm in the book *On Likenesses*[^p159-7]: «There are three orders of men, *those who pray, husbandmen* and *defenders,* whom God has appointed in this world to different offices: *monks,* that they may pray for the rest and nourish them with the milk of preaching; *husbandmen,* that by their own labour both they themselves and others may live; *soldiers,* that they may defend those who pray and the husbandmen»; but soldiers are worthy to be sustained when they exercise their office without bodily labour: therefore for like reason monks too are worthy.

13. Again, Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks[^p159-8]: «If they had anything in the world whereby they might easily have supported this life, and being converted to God have distributed it, their weakness is to be believed and to be borne with»: therefore those who have scattered their goods among the poor deserve to be sustained in the Church, if they have once scattered temporal things, without bodily labour: therefore he deserves it much more strongly who has himself scattered spiritual things by praying, by counselling, and by giving others the example of a good life.

14. Again, if spiritual occupation[^p159-9] does not excuse a man from bodily labour, then much less does the occupation of learning: therefore all able-bodied poor men who study in any science whatever are in an evil state, because they do not live by the labour of their own hands; but this is exceedingly absurd: therefore so is the first.

15. Again, Christ fulfilled the Law most perfectly, because *it became him to fulfil all justice*[^p159-10]*;* but Christ was most poor and able-bodied: therefore if such men are universally held to work, Christ did not perfectly fulfil the Law nor give a perfect example. But this is unfitting: therefore so is the first.

16. Again, blessed Benedict, when he was in the cave, was poor and able-bodied, and yet he did not live by the labour of his own hands, but by what Romanus brought him, as is said in the second book of the Dialogues[^p159-11]: therefore either he was in an evil state, which is absurd, or he was not held to labour or to work.

<!-- page 160 -->

17. Again, either able-bodied poor men *can live* on alms without manual labour[^p160-1], or *they cannot. If they can,* I have what I proposed, namely that they are not bound. *If they cannot;* then, since all the goods of churches and monasteries are nothing but the alms of the poor, as the Saints say and as is plain, therefore all the able-bodied, both clerics and monks, who live on such goods without manual labour, are in a state of perdition. If therefore this is most absurd, it is plain that so is the other, from which it follows. — *If thou sayest* that it is lawful in the case of large and great alms, but not lawful in the case of small ones; this is not only absurd but even so ridiculous that whoever says so plainly *strains out a gnat and swallows a camel*[^p160-2]. It remains, therefore, that not all able-bodied poor men are bound to manual labour of this kind.

CONCLUSION.

> *The middle way is to be held: namely, that of able-bodied poor men some are bound to labour and others are released from it; and that to some labour is enjoined under a precept, to some by way of counsel, and to some in neither way.*

I ᴀɴsᴡᴇʀ: For the understanding of what has been said it must be noted that, just as concerning faith in the most blessed Trinity there is a threefold way of thinking[^p160-3], such that the two which incline to the extremes are erroneous, like the Sabellian and the Arian heresy, while the middle way is true and catholic; so likewise in this question there is a twofold way that inclines to the extremes, and is therefore erroneous and to be rejected, while the middle way is right and to be accepted.

One way of speaking is that *no* voluntary poor men, however able-bodied, are bound to manual labour, but only to spiritual works. And these men founded themselves upon that word of Matthew the sixth[^p160-4]: *Behold the birds of the air.* — But this way of speaking is erroneous, because it is *corruptive of the Church* and *depravative of Scripture. It corrupts the Church,* when, feigning a false justice, it fosters sloth; when it pretends that it wishes to perfect the Gospel, it wills to nourish the idleness of the flesh. Whence of such men Augustine says, in the book On the Work of Monks[^p160-5]: «Who could bear men so obstinate, resisting the most wholesome warnings of the Apostle, not to be borne with as weaker men but even to be proclaimed as holier, so that monasteries founded upon sounder teaching are corrupted by a twofold enticement: by the dissolute licence of idleness and by a false name of sanctity»? — It also *depraves Scripture,* because it *enlarges* the words of the Gospel too far and *narrows* the words of the Apostle too much. For it will have it that the Gospel forbids to the perfect every bodily work, and it will have it that the Apostle urges nothing but spiritual work; both of which are false. And against this falsehood Augustine composed the whole book On the Work of Monks, showing that the Apostle understands *bodily* work, and that the Gospel does not forbid *bodily* works, but only that the heart be not made anxious by being taken up beforehand with temporal things. Whence at the beginning of the book On the Work of Monks[^p160-6] he says: «First we must show that the blessed Apostle willed the servants of God to do bodily works; then we must show that those evangelical precepts, by which some men foster not only their sloth but their arrogance too, are not contrary to the apostolic precept and example». Whence Augustine convicts that position of being one to be rejected.

The second way of those who speak is that *all* able-bodied poor men who have not whereof to live are bound to manual or bodily labour. And these men lean upon the words of the Apostle, the second to the Thessalonians the third[^p160-7]: *He that works not, let him not eat.* Nor can they be excused, as these men say, by spiritual works. — And this way of speaking is indeed erroneous, as the first was. For, by straying too far to the other extreme, it *depraves Scripture* and *corrupts the Church. It depraves Scripture,* because it *enlarges* the words of the Apostle too far, when he says: *He that works not, let him not eat;* wishing those words about manual labour to be stretched not only to the idle but to men occupied however usefully in spiritual things, who have no cure of souls. It also *narrows* the words of the Gospel too much, when it stretches those words[^p160-8]: *The labourer is worthy of his hire;* to those alone who have the cure of souls; whereas a man is made worthy of his hire rather by his work than by his dignity. Far be it altogether from faithful minds that the fellow-workers of those who have the cure should not be *worthy labourers* nor *worthy of their hire* and of their sustenance, *especially they who* faithfully *labour together in the word and in teaching*[^p160-9]. — It also *corrupts the Church,* when it feigns the strictness of justice and persecutes the spirit of life. For what else is this than what was signified by the taskmasters of Pharao, of whom it is said in Exodus the first[^p160-10], that *they hated the children of Israel and brought them to bitter-*

<!-- page 161 -->

*ness, afflicting them with hard works of clay and brick, and with all manner of service?* And lest perhaps I should seem to be moved by a spirit of my own, hear what the Gloss says upon that word of Exodus the fifth: *Why do you, Moses and Aaron, draw off the people from their works? Go to your burdens:* «If today Moses and Aaron, that is, the prophetic and the priestly word, should urge a soul to the service of God, to go out of the world, to renounce all that it possesses, to attend to the law and the word of God; straightway thou wilt hear the friends of Pharao saying with one voice: see how men are being seduced, and how young men are being perverted, that they may not labour, that they may not serve as soldiers, that they may do nothing that is of use, and that, leaving behind the things that are necessary, they may follow after slothfulness and idleness! What is it to serve God? They will not labour, and they seek occasions of idleness. These were then the words of Pharao, and these his friends speak now also, and they persecute not with words only but with blows as well». Thus far the Gloss.

Since therefore each of these opinions or judgments inclines to an extreme, and by so inclining depraves Scripture and corrupts the Church, both are therefore to be rejected: the first, because it gives fuel to sloth; the second, because it strives to quench the spirit of life under the burden of Egyptian servitude; the first, because it fosters carnal idleness, the second, because it persecutes spiritual leisure. For that reason the second is far more perverse than the first, although both are evil. And so, both being repelled, the middle way is to be held: that of able-bodied poor men some are bound and others released, to some it is enjoined under a precept, to some by way of counsel, and to some in neither way.

For the fuller clearing of this[^p161-1] it must be noted that the government of the commonwealth in the Church attends to three things: namely, to the *lower* good, which is bodily; to the *outer* good, which is civil; and to the *inner* good, which is spiritual. And according to this a threefold kind of work is necessary for the government of the commonwealth and of the Church militant: namely, *craftsman's* work, which is also called *manual,* because «the hand is the instrument of instruments[^p161-2]»; *civil* work; and *spiritual* work. By *manual* or bodily work I mean that which is necessary for preparing food, clothing, dwellings, and the instruments of the various crafts and arts. By *civil* work I mean that of the governing magistrates themselves, of soldiers defending, of merchants trading and of servants ministering. By *spiritual* work I mean that which consists in sowing the divine *words,* in chanting the divine *songs,* in dispensing the *Sacraments,* and in distributing the *goods* divinely given to a man, whether earthly or spiritual. For *to distribute* one's own goods for Christ is a *spiritual* work, not civil, nor of the earthly city. — As therefore those who are intent upon the civil works of the commonwealth are not understood to be bound to manual labour by the apostolic precept; so neither are those who are intent upon spiritual works, especially if these redound[^p161-3] to the salvation, advantage and profit of others. And for this reason Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks[^p161-4], excepts those occupied in the four kinds of spiritual works already named from the reach of the apostolic precept, when he says: «If they are evangelists, if they are ministers of the altar, if they are dispensers of the Sacraments, plainly they claim this power for themselves; or if at least they had something in the world whereby they might easily have sustained this life without a craft, and being converted to God have distributed it to the needy». Now evangelists sow the divine words; ministers of the altar chant the divine praises and the divine songs; dispensers of the Sacraments dispense the divine Sacraments, and most of all those of the eucharist and of penance; those who have divided their possessions have distributed their own goods: therefore they are worthy to be sustained for a single distribution of temporal things, and much more for a continual distribution[^p161-5] of spiritual things, even though they do nothing bodily. And if he who teaches another man's son grammar deserves to be sustained by him, why not he who teaches the way of the kingdom of heaven, who obtains grace by praying, and who by the examples of a good life stirs up and directs men to eternal salvation? — Since therefore the commonwealth of the universal Church, that is, of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, needs for its own preservation the threefold work spoken of above; neither God nor an Angel nor a pastor or ruler of the Church, such as the Apostle was, binds men to works of this kind, except in so far as the welfare, the necessity and the usefulness of that same ecclesiastical hierarchy demands it, whose members the servants of Christ are.

And since[^p161-6] among the members of Christ there are some most fit for bodily operations and least fit for spiritual ones, some the other way about, and some in a middle way; hence it is that those able-bodied poor men who are most fit for bodily works and least for spiritual ones, who do not know how fittingly to avoid idleness and to do work worth their keep in any other way — such men are bound to manual labour, and for them manual work is under a *precept.* — But for those who can at once give themselves sufficiently to spiritual things and acquire their food by the labour of their hands[^p161-7], either wholly or in great part, such as the Apostle Paul was, manual work is under a *counsel.* — But for those who are most fit for the spiritual works already named, or even for civil ones, and least fit for these manual ones, works of gain and craft of this kind are neither under a *precept* nor even under a *counsel;* because

<!-- page 162 -->

it would be foolish that for a matter of small usefulness the common good should incur great loss; and neither God nor his Apostle ordained this, as will be plainly shown in what follows.

Now that the judgment about works and men of this kind ought to be varied according to the diversity of the gifts, offices and graces divinely conferred upon them, the Gloss shows upon that word of Deuteronomy the twenty-eighth[^p162-1]: *Blessed shall be the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle,* saying thus: «It marks out the different ranks of subjects. For some furnish bodily food to teachers; some are able to labour at what has been laid upon them; some, content with simplicity, strive to please God by innocence of life; *every one has his proper gift from God*». — It must be granted, therefore, that not all able-bodied poor men, even those without a cure of souls, are bound to manual labour of this kind; and the authorities and reasons that show this must also be granted.

1. 2. To that which is objected first on the contrary side, about the obligation of the law of nature, it must be said that *nature* does not bind a man to this except by reason of avoiding danger. For if this obligation flowed[^p162-2] from the law of nature, all men would be universally and equally obliged; which is most absurd. Therefore, if anyone is bound by nature, this is only for the *avoiding of danger;* and this can happen in three ways: either because he cannot *live* without labour, or because he cannot *live honestly,* or because he cannot *live fruitfully;* in the first his *existence* is at risk, in the second his *honesty,* in the third his *usefulness.* Now there is naturally implanted in man a love of his own *continued being,* a love of *what is honest* and a love of *what is advantageous;* and by this the law of nature binds a man to avoid this threefold danger. So then the able-bodied poor man is necessarily bound to labour with his hands if he is set in such a case that he cannot *live* otherwise, or cannot *live honestly*[^p162-3], or also cannot otherwise *live fruitfully.* But if he can avoid this danger otherwise, equally well or more usefully, he has no obligation to it from the law of nature. — To the objection, then, that man from his first condition was ordained to this kind of work, it must be said that no man ought to be without labour in this life, lest perhaps that be said of him which is said of the reprobate in the Psalm: *They are not in the labour of men, neither shall they be scourged with men;* but from this it does not follow that a man must be occupied about the labour of the hands, and most of all about gainful labour. — And by this the answer is plain to what follows, about the example of Adam, since it is certain that not all men are obliged to the work of husbandry. Nor[^p162-4] was that which is said: *In the sweat of thy face,* and so forth, said then as a precept of life, but as a punishment for the fault committed, as is plain from the text that follows.

3. To the objection that without work of this kind the human race cannot be sustained, it must be said that there is a twofold command: one which regards the preservation[^p162-5] of *the individual,* the other which regards the preservation of *the species,* as is the command about eating and the command about begetting. That command, therefore, which regards the preservation of *the species* obliges only in common, because, when one man fulfils it, another is released, as is plain in the case of begetting; and since manual work is of this kind, except in the man who is set in a state of danger, therefore only such a man has reason to be bound.

4. To the objection that as the mouth is for eating, so also the hand is for working, it must be said that the case is not alike: because, if a man could live without eating, as he can live without manual work, he would not be held to eat. — *Besides,* one man can work for another, but he cannot eat for another; and therefore it is not necessary that all men be bound universally to manual work as they are to eating.

5. 6. 7. 8. To the objection about the apostolic *precept, example, edict* and *word,* it must be noted that concerning the apostolic *precept* three things must be considered: the *person* to whom it is given, the *cause* for which it is given, and the *form* under which it is given. If the *person* is considered, he does not lay this down for all in general, but for certain men determinately. For he says thus, the second to the Thessalonians the third[^p162-6]: *And we have heard that there are some among you walking restlessly, working not at all, but being busybodies. Now to them who are such, we declare that, working with silence, they eat their own bread.* He lays down the precept, therefore, for the *restless,* for *busybodies* and for the *idle.* — But if the *cause* is considered, there is no doubt that it is for the removal of these three vices. For since bodily labour avails for *taming the body,* for *taking away idleness,* and for *seeking one's food honestly,*

<!-- page 163 -->

therefore[^p163-1] the Apostle laid labour upon them as a medicine, so to speak, for those vices. For the *restless* need labour to tame them, the *idle* need labour to rouse them, and *busybodies,* who «seek their food with a base anxiety», as the Gloss says, need labour to earn it. Therefore the Apostle speaks, as it were, of himself and properly and most sufficiently in the command already named, if the *cause* is attended to. — But if the *form* is attended to, under which he lays down the precept, it is certain that it ought to agree with the *cause.* For this precept is apostolic[^p163-2]; and he is *bound* to the three things named who cannot have those three by another lawful and fitting way; but he who can, *is not bound* determinately to this way, as far as the efficacy of the precept itself goes, which the Apostle gave for the ordering and building up of the Church, not for the destroying of it, according to the power which he says[^p163-3] was divinely given him for building up. — It must be said, therefore, that the apostolic *precept, example, edict* and *judgment* oblige most of all those who are *restless, idle* and *busybodies,* that they may come back from these; or those who cannot fittingly avoid the vices named above otherwise than by bodily labour, as has been plainly shown.

To the objection about the Gloss, that the Apostle wills the servants of God to work bodily, it must be said that if this is[^p163-4] the will of a *precept,* it is to be understood *indefinitely* of the servants of God, that is, of those who are converted to the Lord's service and are not excused from manual work by greater and more useful works, as Augustine illustrates[^p163-5] in the case of those who passed their life in the world in bodily labour; and so that word must be understood *indefinitely* and *not universally,* because it would be absurd to say that all the servants of God are bound to this. — This is plain also because Augustine, from whom the words of that Gloss were taken, though altered, excepts four kinds of men whom he says are not held to seek their food by their own labour, as has been shown above[^p163-6]: whence one must not lean upon the Gloss already named; and this too because it *alters* Augustine's words. For he says in the original: «First we must show that the Apostle *willed* the servants of God to do bodily works, so that they might want for neither food nor clothing from any man», and he made no mention at all of *asking;* because those against whom he was arguing did not live on what was *asked for,* but on what was *offered,* as he says in the second book of the Retractations. The weight, then, must be put on this, that he says *willed,* which is not always a precept; and on this, that he says *the servants of God,* which was said indefinitely; and on this, that he says *that they be not compelled,* which does not pertain to voluntary poor men but rather to unwilling ones.

9. To that word of Augustine[^p163-7]: *Let those hear to whom this is commanded,* and so forth; it must be said that to have the power of living on another's goods is a thing of three kinds: either according to the law of *justice,* or according to the law of *clemency,* or in a mixed way according to *both.* According to the law of *justice* those men have it who have the authority of an office and the *burden of work;* and such men can demand it *by right of power* and bring it into court. — According to the law of *clemency* those have the power of living on another's goods who can plead a sufficient misery for which they are worthy of mercy, as the infirm poor. — But according to *both* those men have it who do apostolic works, yet do not walk with the *dignity of authority* but with the *humility of poverty;* and therefore they are worthy to be sustained both as labourers and as needy men. Those therefore who in *no way* have this power are without doubt obliged by the apostolic precept; but not all men are such, as has been seen.

10. To the objection that spiritual works do not excuse a man, it must be said that «discourses are to be sought out according to the matter[^p163-8]». Now Augustine there speaks of monks who by their profession were bound to manual work, who out of pride were contentious, and who, though they feigned spirituality, were nevertheless carnal and idle; and of such men he says that they cannot be excused by works of this kind, because in truth there was nothing spiritual in them, but what was tainted. — *Besides,* those spiritual works did not redound to any manifest usefulness of the commonwealth, because they neither preached nor taught nor heard confessions[^p163-9] nor procured the salvation of souls by their counsels, but rather hindered it by being free for themselves, and their idleness bred in the Church strife and dissension among the monks one with another, and it was a cloak for those gyrovague monks, as will be better seen in what follows.

11. To the objection about clerics, it must be said that not even poor clerics are universally bound by the canons to manual labour, except for the avoiding of idleness or for the acquiring of their food, if they cannot honestly acquire it otherwise; for otherwise it would be very

<!-- page 164 -->

hard that so many men should be damned; and it seems a very impious thing to say that clerics of good disposition[^p164-1] who give themselves continually to the study of letters, if they are poor and strong, are for that reason bound to manual labour.

12. To the objection about monks, it must be said that of regular monks some have manual labour in their profession and vow, and others do not at all. And the reason for this is the diversity of professions as regards *times, persons* and *intentions.* — As regards *times:* because about the times of the primitive Church there were four kinds of monks, as blessed Benedict distinguishes at the beginning of his rule[^p164-2], namely cenobites, anchorites, sarabaites and gyrovagues. The first were good, the second best, the third bad, and the fourth worst. For the third and the fourth were led by no yoke, but walked according to their own desires: the sarabaites giving themselves to the flesh, the gyrovagues changeable and wandering and ready for every evil. The second, namely the anchorites, had no need of a rule, because, being most perfect, they were ruled by grace. To the first a rule had to be given, that they might be distinguished from the gyrovagues and the sarabaites; and it was fitting, lest they should be compelled to go outside, that they should be bound to bodily labour. Whence Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks[^p164-3] says: «That most crafty enemy has scattered everywhere so many hypocrites under the habit of monks, going about the provinces, nowhere sent, nowhere settled, nowhere standing, nowhere sitting». And afterwards: «Does not *your heart grow warm within you,* and in your *meditation* does not *a fire burn,* that you should pursue their evil works with good works, that you should cut away from them the occasion of their base traffic, by which your good name is harmed and a stumbling-block is set before the weak? Have pity therefore and have compassion, and show men that you are not seeking an easy living in idleness, but seeking the kingdom of God by the narrow and strait way of this purpose. You have the same reason that the Apostle had, that you may *cut off the occasion from them that seek an occasion,* so that those who are choked by the stench of those men may be refreshed by your good odour». Thus far Augustine.

As regards also the *persons* of those who take the vow: because monks at that time were for the most part laymen and common folk[^p164-4]; and therefore it suited them to be occupied about their accustomed works. Whence Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks: «Those who, apart from that holy fellowship, passed their life in bodily labour, and of whose number many come to monasteries; if they will not work, let them not eat. For in the Christian warfare the rich are not brought low to poverty in order that the poor may be raised up to pride; and it is in no way fitting that in that life, where senators become labourers, craftsmen should become idle; and that where men come who were lords of estates, having left their delights behind them, there peasants should become delicate».

As regards *intentions:* because the primitive monasteries were founded for the leading of a solitary life, so that each man might have care of himself and dwell with himself, and for that reason he was called a *monk.* And since it is given to very few to be able always[^p164-5] to give themselves to divine things, therefore, that they might not be idle, it suited their profession to be exercised about manual work. Whence Jerome to Rusticus: «The monasteries of the Egyptians hold to this custom, that they receive no one without labour, not so much for the necessities of food as for the health of the soul, lest they should wander in ruinous thoughts and, after the manner of the fornicating Jerusalem, spread their feet to every passer-by».

It was fitting, therefore, that the monasteries of the first age should be bound by profession to manual work, by reason of the *time,* the *persons* and the *intentions*[^p164-6]. But afterwards, in the present modern times, when those gyrovagues had been done away with, and the Church became wealthy both in clerics and in monks, work had rather to be given to spiritual exercise; and hence it is that monks have well and rightly exchanged manual or bodily labour for spiritual exercise and psalmody. And since the churches, now enriched, had more need of spiritual labourers than of vine-dressers and husbandmen, hence it is that the Holy Spirit raised up poor religious orders, whose whole care and concern should be *to sign the servants of God on their foreheads with the sign of the living God*[^p164-7], calling men to penance and to the grace of the Holy Spirit. Whence both of them[^p164-8] have from their first institution the office of preaching; and therefore, since such men are intent upon spiritual works — for the sake of which some men deserve to be sustained by others — they are neither idle nor busybodies in living so, nor are they in danger, since the Lord has fed them until now; nor have they this by vow: therefore neither they themselves, nor all voluntary poor men, though they be able-bodied, are bound to bodily

<!-- page 165 -->

work, because they are bound neither by reason of *danger* nor by reason of the apostolic *precept* nor by reason of a *vow taken,* as is plainly clear from what has gone before.

To the objection about Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks, it must be said that blessed Augustine in that book does not speak to these men, but to the first sort, who despised under the pretext of spirituality the bodily works which they had by profession; because they ought neither to leave bodily things undone for the sake of spiritual ones, nor the other way about. Whence Bernard, speaking to such men, in the Apology[^p165-1] says: «But now, why do you glory in the labour of your hands, when Martha who laboured was rebuked and Mary who rested was praised, and Paul says openly: *Bodily labour is profitable to little, but piety is profitable to all things?* That is the best labour of which the Prophet said: *I have laboured in my groaning;* and of which he says elsewhere: *I remembered God, and was delighted, and was exercised;* and lest you should understand a bodily exercise, *and my spirit fainted,* he says; whence, where not the body but the spirit is wearied, spiritual labour is without doubt meant. What then, you say? Do you so urge those spiritual things that you condemn these bodily ones which we have from the rule? By no means. But *those things you ought to do, and these not to leave undone;* otherwise, when either these must be left undone or those, these are rather to be left undone than those. For by as much as the spirit is better than the body, by so much is spiritual exercise more fruitful than bodily. But you, since, puffed up by the keeping of these things, you disparage others who do not keep the same, do you not rather show yourself a transgressor of the rule, whose better things you shun, though you hold to certain of its least things?» — Those men, therefore, are bound to manual work who have this[^p165-2] from the obligation of profession, unless perhaps they exchange manual work for spiritual work, and that too by the will and leave of the superior.

13. To the objection about the Gloss on Luke the twelfth, it must be said that the whole of it is a *counsel,* as is the text upon which the Gloss is founded. Nor does anyone bind himself either to the whole of it or to a part, except in so far as he promises it by profession. Whence, just as giving alms is not a precept for the man who has given all he has, and it is not simply commanded that all be given[^p165-3]; so neither does that middle thing, namely *to work,* hold there the character of a necessary obligation, but only of a monitory, or even of an advisory, persuasion.

14. 15. To the objection about Jerome and Benedict, the answer is already plain from what has been said.

16. To the objection about blessed Francis, it must be said that in the rule of blessed Francis some things are said *by way of precept,* some *by way of admonition,* and some *by way of information,* as the rule itself expressly distinguishes in plain words. But what was said about labour was not said *by way of precept,* because he would not have commanded that they should do it *devoutly*[^p165-4], since this is not in our power, but it was said *by way of information.* For he informs us *whose* part it is to work with the hands, and *how:* namely, of *those* who have the *grace* for it, that is, the capacity of virtue and the skill of a craft and the opportunity of place and time; and *how,* namely *faithfully* towards their neighbour, *devoutly* towards God, and *modestly* towards themselves. Whence the holy Father[^p165-5], understanding through the Holy Spirit his own vocation and the gathering of his brethren, in which there were laymen together with clerics, neither gave a command about working with the hands, lest the clerics should leave spiritual things undone for the sake of things less useful; nor yet did he keep silence altogether, lest the laymen, and those who are not fit for spiritual things nor intent upon the necessities of the brethren nor as yet raised to the unwearied leisure of contemplation, should eat their bread in idleness. For since idleness is to be shunned by all as the bilge of all vices[^p165-6], it is above all to be shunned by those who have bound themselves to evangelical perfection. — So then it is plain that not all able-bodied poor men, even those without a cure of souls, are bound to manual labour[^p165-7].

---

la: Haec quaestio invenitur in codd. D E K M. Cod. K omittit *Tertio* et *de mendicitate,* M et edd. incipiunt sic: *Quaeritur, utrum.* — Hanc quaestionem duabus praecedentibus posterius additam esse, satis apparet tum ex verbis exordii huius articuli, tum ex initio totius quaestionis de paupertate (supra pag. 124), ubi quaestio in duos tantum articulos dividitur, quam divisionem consulto etiam in editione retinuimus; tum denique ex eo, quod de obligatione ad laborem manualem in 2. art. iam disputata sint non pauca, praesertim in solut. ad 9. et in replicatione sub n. V; unde etiam quaedam argumenta repetuntur. Licet igitur haec quaestio specialis et quasi coordinata secundae (de paupertate) esse videatur; tamen eam ut tertium eiusdem articulum inscripsimus, eo magis, quia pag. 117 tantum 4 quaestiones de perfectione evangelica positae sunt. — In omnibus edd. non pauca deficiunt, quae omnia a nobis ex codd. D E K suo loco sunt suppleta.

en: This question is found in the codices D E K M. Codex K omits *Tertio* ("Thirdly") and *de mendicitate* ("about mendicancy"); M and the editions begin thus: *Quaeritur, utrum* ("It is asked whether"). — That this question was added later than the two preceding ones appears sufficiently, both from the words of this article's opening, and from the beginning of the whole question on poverty (above, p. 124), where the question is divided into only two articles, a division which we have deliberately kept in the edition as well; and finally from the fact that not a few things about the obligation to manual labour have already been disputed in the 2nd article, especially in the reply to 9 and in the replication under no. V; whence also certain arguments are repeated. Although, therefore, this question seems to be a special one and as it were co-ordinate with the second (on poverty), we have nevertheless entitled it the third article of that question, all the more because on p. 117 only 4 questions on evangelical perfection are set out. — In all the editions not a few things are missing, all of which we have supplied in their place from the codices D E K.

la: Verba *triplici via... monasticae,* et infra *tertio eiusdem dictum est homini peccanti* [ult. verbum deest in K] supplevimus ex D E K.

en: The words *triplici via... monasticae* ("in three ways ... monastic"), and below *tertio eiusdem dictum est homini peccanti* ("in the third chapter of the same it was said to man when he had sinned") [the last word is missing in K], we have supplied from D E K.

la: Vers. 15; 3, 19, ubi Vulg. omittit *tuo* post *pane.* — In fine arg. D E *operandum* pro *laborandum.*

en: Verse 15 [Gen. 2:15]; Gen. 3:19, where the Vulgate omits *tuo* ("thy") after *pane* ("bread"). — At the end of the argument D E have *operandum* ("working") for *laborandum* ("labouring").

la: Vers. 5; Glossa est *interlinearis* apud Lyranum et secundum Hieron. in hunc loc. — Inferius ex codd. D E K substituimus *laborem et sudorem ferre* pro *laborare,* deinde ex K post *ergo* addidimus *tenetur corporaliter laborare.*

en: Verse 5 [Zach. 13:5]; the Gloss is the *interlinear* one in Lyra, and follows Jerome on this place. — Below, from the codices D E K we have substituted *laborem et sudorem ferre* ("bear toil and sweat") for *laborare* ("labour"); then from K after *ergo* ("therefore") we have added *tenetur corporaliter laborare* ("he is bound to labour bodily").

la: Ita D E et etiam K [tamen habet *subsistere* pro *sustineri*], edd. *natura subsistere.*

en: So D E and also K [which, however, has *subsistere* ("subsist") for *sustineri* ("be sustained")]; the editions have *natura subsistere* ("nature subsist").

la: Vers. 28; deinde loc. cit. v. 11. — Glossa est apud Lombard. in hunc locum. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 134, nota 8.

en: Verse 28 [Eph. 4:28]; then the place cited [I Thess. 4], v. 11. — The Gloss is in Lombard on this place. Compare also above, p. 134, note 8.

la: Vers. 7. 8, ubi Vulgata *quoniam* pro *quia,* et post *manducavimus* addit *ab aliquo.* — Glossa est apud Petrum Lombardum, sed nonnullis hic omissis. Cfr. supra pag. 135, nota 3. — In fine arg. ex D E K substituimus *christianam* pro *nostram.*

en: Verses 7–8 [II Thess. 3:7–8], where the Vulgate has *quoniam* for *quia* ("for"), and after *manducavimus* ("did we eat") adds *ab aliquo* ("of any man"). — The Gloss is in Peter Lombard, but with some things omitted here. Compare above, p. 135, note 3. — At the end of the argument we have substituted from D E K *christianam* ("Christian") for *nostram* ("our").

la: Vers. 10. Vulgata *nec manducet* pro *non manducet.* — Glossa est apud Strabum et Lombardum *ordinaria,* sumta ex August., de Opere monach. c. 1. n. 2. seq., in qua cum originali et E M substituimus *utiliter caritas monet* pro *intelligitur caritas monere.*

en: Verse 10 [II Thess. 3:10]. The Vulgate has *nec manducet* for *non manducet* ("neither let him eat"). — The Gloss is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lombard, taken from Augustine, *On the Work of Monks* c. 1, n. 2 f., in which, with the original and E M, we have substituted *utiliter caritas monet* ("charity usefully advises") for *intelligitur caritas monere* ("charity is understood to advise").

la: Vers. 14. Vulgata post *verbo* addit *nostro per epistolam,* deinde *ne* pro *non.*

en: Verse 14 [II Thess. 3:14]. The Vulgate after *verbo* ("word") adds *nostro per epistolam* ("our ... by this epistle"), then *ne* for *non* ("not").

la: Epist. II. Thess., 3, 10, de quo et de Glossa vide supra pag. 135, nota 2. — Porro post *servi* ex codd. et 5 adiecimus *Dei.* — Argg. 8. 9. 10. 11. cum epilogo desunt in edd.

en: II Thess. 3:10, concerning which and concerning the Gloss see above, p. 135, note 2. — Further, after *servi* ("servants") we have added *Dei* ("of God") from the codices and edition 5. — Arguments 8, 9, 10 and 11 with the epilogue are missing in the editions.

la: Cap. 3. n. 4. Respicitur II. Thess. 3, 12.

en: Chapter 3, n. 4. II Thess. 3:12 is in view.

en: Chapter 17, n. 20.

la: Can. *Clericus victum* (3.), dist. 91. — Seq. can. *Clericus quantumlibet verbo* est ibid. c. 4, in cuius 1. § habetur tertius: *Omnes clerici* — In fine epilogi pro *intentos* E *intendentes.*

en: Canon *Clericus victum* (3), dist. 91. — The following canon, *Clericus quantumlibet verbo,* is ibid. c. 4, in whose 1st § the third is found: *Omnes clerici* ("All clerics"). — At the end of the epilogue, for *intentos* ("intent") E has *intendentes* ("attending").

la: Ex D E adiecimus *et principali,* et post *manualia* ex K E *sive corporalia,* M tantum *opera corporalia.*

en: From D E we have added *et principali* ("and principal"), and after *manualia* ("manual") from K E *sive corporalia* ("or bodily"); M has only *opera corporalia* ("bodily works").

la: Vers. 33. — De Glossa, in qua pro *semel* M et edd. *simul,* vide supra pag. 134, nota 7.

en: Verse 33 [Luke 12:33]. — On the Gloss, in which for *semel* ("once") M and the editions have *simul* ("at the same time"), see above, p. 134, note 7.

la: Can. *Nunquam de manu* (33), dist. 5. Locus apud Hieron. est Epist. 125. (alias 4.) n. 11: *Facito aliquid operis, ut te semper diabolus... ne quem gravarent; et aliis tribuebant refrigeria, quorum pro spiritualibus debebant metere carnalia* [I. Cor. 9, 11.], *cur tu* etc. — Seq. locus ibid.

en: Canon *Nunquam de manu* (33), dist. 5. The place in Jerome is Epistle 125 (otherwise 4), n. 11: *Do some piece of work, that the devil may always ... lest they should burden any man; and they gave refreshment to others, from whom for spiritual things they ought to reap carnal things* [I Cor. 9:11], *why dost thou* etc. — The following place is ibid.

la: Cap. 48. — Pro *nos imitatores* M *veros imitatores.*

en: Chapter 48. — For *nos imitatores* ("us imitators") M has *veros imitatores* ("true imitators").

la: Cap. 5. — In edd. duo loci sunt truncati.

en: Chapter 5. — In the editions the two passages are truncated.

la: Verba post *videtur* supplevimus ex D E K; nam M et 1, 2, 3, 4 tantum *primo ratione contemplationis,* Vat. et 5 *pro* (!) *ratione contemplationis.*

en: The words after *videtur* ("seems") we have supplied from D E K; for M and editions 1, 2, 3, 4 have only *primo ratione contemplationis* ("first by reason of contemplation"), the Vatican edition and edition 5 *pro* (!) *ratione contemplationis* ("for (!) by reason of contemplation").

la: Vers. 41. seqq. — Argg. 2. 6. 8. 10. 13. desunt in edd. et in M et suppleta sunt ex D E K.

en: Verses 41 ff. [Luke 10:41]. — Arguments 2, 6, 8, 10 and 13 are missing in the editions and in M, and have been supplied from D E K.

la: Vers. 24: *Considerate corvos, quia* etc. — De Glossa quae est *ordinaria,* vide supra pag. 125, nota 5. Verba Scripturae in textu sunt Matth. 6, 26, ubi est eadem Glossa, verbis tamen aliquatenus diversis. Cfr. supra pag. 126, nota 9.

en: Verse 24 [Luke 12:24]: *Consider the ravens, for* etc. — On the Gloss, which is the *ordinary* one, see above, p. 125, note 5. The words of Scripture in the text are Matth. 6:26, where the same Gloss stands, though in somewhat different words. Compare above, p. 126, note 9.

la: Vers. 17. — Glossa ex Gregor., VI. Moral. c. 37. n. 56, est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, ubi pro *cunctis,* quod est in Glossa et D E K, M et edd. *saecularibus.* — Post *sed non* ex codd. adiecimus *dividit.*

en: Verse 17 [Gen. 23:17]. — The Gloss, from Gregory, *Moralia* VI c. 37 n. 56, is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lyra, where for *cunctis* ("all"), which is in the Gloss and D E K, M and the editions have *saecularibus* ("secular"). — After *sed non* ("but not") we have added *dividit* ("does it divide") from the codices.

la: Ita D E, in aliis *actum;* infra post *actionis* ex D E K adiecimus *vel operationis;* E K M addunt *nec* post *compellit.*

en: So D E; in the others *actum* ("act"). Below, after *actionis* ("of action") we have added *vel operationis* ("or operation") from D E K; E K M add *nec* ("not") after *compellit* ("compel").

la: Vers. 1. — De Glossa vide supra pag. 136, nota 7. Verba Ambrosii vide supra a. 1. fundam. 15. seq.

en: Verse 1 [Luke 10:1]. — On the Gloss see above, p. 136, note 7. For the words of Ambrose see above, a. 1, *fundamentum* 15 f.

la: Vers. 60; Vulgata: *Sine, ut mortui sepeliant mortuos suos;* apud Matth. 8, 22: *Dimitte, mortuos sepelire mortuos suos.* — De Glossa cfr. supra pag. 144, nota 5.

en: Verse 60 [Luke 9:60]; the Vulgate: *Suffer the dead to bury their dead;* in Matth. 8:22: *Let the dead bury their dead.* — On the Gloss compare above, p. 144, note 5.

la: Vers. 7. — De Glossa vide supra pag. 147, nota 3. — Post *praedicator* in edd. tantum desideratur *pauper,* quae etiam pro *sustentationem* ponunt *necessitatem.*

en: Verse 7 [Luke 10:7]. — On the Gloss see above, p. 147, note 3. — After *praedicator* ("preacher") *pauper* ("poor") is lacking only in the editions, which also put *necessitatem* ("necessity") for *sustentationem* ("sustaining").

la: Vers. 7: *Quis militat suis stipendiis unquam?* — Glossa est ibi apud Lombardum.

en: Verse 7 [I Cor. 9:7]: *Who serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charges?* — The Gloss is there in Lombard.

la: Cap. 21. n. 24. Vide supra pag. 144, nota 9. — Cum D E M supplevimus *hanc* ante *vindicant,* et ex D E post *corporali* verba, quae sequuntur.

en: Chapter 21, n. 24. See above, p. 144, note 9. — With D E M we have supplied *hanc* ("this") before *vindicant* ("they claim"), and from D E the words that follow after *corporali* ("bodily").

la: Num. 13. Cfr. supra pag. 148, col. II; ubi et pag. seq. integer locus refertur, nec non ibi nota 5.

en: Number 13. Compare above, p. 148, col. II; where and on the following page the whole passage is quoted, and also note 5 there.

la: Vers. 13. Vulgata: *Nescitis, quoniam qui... qui altari deserviunt cum altari* etc. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: Verse 13 [I Cor. 9:13]. The Vulgate: *Know you not that they who ... they that serve the altar partake with the altar* etc. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lyra.

la: Potius est opus Eadmeri, c. 127. seq., pluribus tamen ibi interiectis. — In fine textus ex D E K cum originali supplevimus *et agricultores.*

en: It is rather a work of Eadmer, c. 127 f., though with a good deal interposed there. — At the end of the text we have supplied *et agricultores* ("and the husbandmen") from D E K with the original.

la: Cap. 21. n. 25; cfr. supra pag. 144, nota 7.

en: Chapter 21, n. 25; compare above, p. 144, note 7.

la: D E *exercitatio.*

en: D E have *exercitatio* ("exercise").

la: Matth. 3, 15: *Sic enim decet nos implere* etc.

en: Matth. 3:15: *For so it becometh us to fulfil* etc.

la: Cap. 1. Vide supra pag. 138, nota 7. — Ex D E K substituimus *fuit* pro *erat,* et *de hoc* pro *edebat,* et adiecimus *laborandum vel.*

en: Chapter 1. See above, p. 138, note 7. — From D E K we have substituted *fuit* ("was") for *erat* ("was"), and *de hoc* ("by what") for *edebat* ("he ate"), and have added *laborandum vel* ("to labour or").

la: Ita D E, in aliis *opere.*

en: So D E; in the others *opere* ("work").

la: Respicitur Matth. 23, 24. De ipsa re cfr. supra a. 2. in corp. circa finem.

en: Matth. 23:24 is in view. On the matter itself compare above, a. 2, in the body of the question, near the end.

la: Ita recte K, in aliis et edd. *sciendi;* inferius cum D E K adiunximus *hac* ante *quaestione,* et substituimus *pariter,* quod clare exhibet D, pro *proposita.*

en: So rightly K; in the others and the editions *sciendi* ("of knowing"). Below, with D E K we have joined *hac* ("this") before *quaestione* ("question"), and have substituted *pariter* ("likewise"), which D clearly shows, for *proposita* ("proposed").

la: Vers. 26. — Infra posuimus fide D E K *Unde de talibus* pro *De quibus.*

en: Verse 26 [Matth. 6:26]. — Below, on the authority of D E K, we have put *Unde de talibus* ("Whence of such men") for *De quibus* ("Of whom").

en: Chapter 30, n. 38.

la: Cap. 3. n. 4. Post *voluisse* plura ibi adduntur.

en: Chapter 3, n. 4. After *voluisse* ("willed") more is added there.

la: Vers. 10: *Si quis non vult operari, nec manducet.* — Inferius fide D E substituimus *deviando* pro *declinando,* et *alterum extremum* (ita etiam M) pro *alteram extremitatem,* nec non cum codd. *verba* pro *verbo.*

en: Verse 10 [II Thess. 3:10]: *If any man will not work, neither let him eat.* — Below, on the authority of D E, we have substituted *deviando* ("straying") for *declinando* ("inclining"), and *alterum extremum* ("the other extreme") (so also M) for *alteram extremitatem* ("the other extremity"), and also with the codices *verba* ("words") for *verbo* ("word").

la: Luc. 10, 7. et I. Tim. 5, 18. — Inferius pro *omnino* E *autem.*

en: Luke 10:7 and I Tim. 5:18. — Below, for *omnino* ("altogether") E has *autem* ("but").

la: Epist. I. Tim. 5, 17. Vulgata *laborant* pro *collaborant.*

en: I Tim. 5:17. The Vulgate has *laborant* ("labour") for *collaborant* ("labour together").

la: Vers. 13, seq. Vulgata: *Oderantque filios Israel Aegyptii et affligebant illudentes eis atque ad... perducebant vitam eorum operibus* etc. Seq. locus est ibid. 5, 4. cum Glossa *ordinaria* ex Origene, homil. 3. in Exod. n. 3, apud Lyranum: *Hodie quoque, si* etc.

en: Verses 13 f. [Exod. 1:13]. The Vulgate: *And the Egyptians hated the children of Israel, and afflicted them and mocked them, and they made their life ... with hard works* etc. The following place is ibid. 5:4, with the *ordinary* Gloss from Origen, *Homily* 3 on Exodus, n. 3, in Lyra: *Today also, if* etc.

la: K *intelligentiam;* superius D E *nec pro isto loco nec isto;* et infra M et edd. bis falso *regnum* pro *regimen.*

en: K has *intelligentiam* ("understanding"); above, D E have *nec pro isto loco nec isto* ("neither in place of this nor this"); and below, M and the editions twice wrongly have *regnum* ("kingdom") for *regimen* ("government").

la: Aristot., III. de Anima text. 38. (c. 8.). Cfr. tom. IV. pag. 627, nota 8. — Inferius contra codd. minus bene edd. *meditando divina cantica... Sacramenta, in communicando bona.* Pro *astricti* E M et 1, 2, 3, 4 *astringi.*

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 38 (c. 8). Compare tome IV, p. 627, note 8. — Below, against the codices and less well, the editions have *meditando divina cantica... Sacramenta, in communicando bona* ("in meditating the divine songs ... Sacraments, in sharing goods"). For *astricti* ("bound") E M and editions 1, 2, 3, 4 have *astringi* ("to be bound").

la: Edd. et codd. *redundet.*

en: The editions and codices have *redundet* ("redounds", singular).

la: Cap. 21. n. 24. 25. Vide supra pag. 144, nota 7. et 9.

en: Chapter 21, nn. 24–25. See above, p. 144, notes 7 and 9.

la: Edd. omnes corrupte omittunt *temporalium, multo magis pro continua distributione.*

en: All the editions corruptly omit *temporalium, multo magis pro continua distributione* ("of temporal things, and much more for a continual distribution").

la: Ita E, in aliis *Quoniam ergo.* Infra ante *modo* fide D K M adiecimus *quaedam medio;* deinde edd., excepta 5, ante *manuale* omittunt *opus.* — Constructio propositionis est incongrua.

en: So E; in the others *Quoniam ergo* ("Since therefore"). Below, before *modo* ("way"), on the authority of D K M we have added *quaedam medio* ("some in a middle"); then the editions, except edition 5, omit *opus* ("work") before *manuale* ("manual"). — The construction of the sentence is incongruous.

la: E K M *quaerere.*

en: E K M have *quaerere* ("seek").

la: Vers. 4. Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum, sumta ex Rabano in hunc loc. In fine allegatur I. Cor. 7, 7. — Aliquanto inferius ante *ostendentes* solae edd. inepte addunt *probantes hoc.*

en: Verse 4 [Deut. 28:4]. The Gloss is the *ordinary* one in Strabo and Lyra, taken from Rabanus on this place. At the end I Cor. 7:7 is alleged. — Somewhat below, before *ostendentes* ("that show"), the editions alone ineptly add *probantes hoc* ("proving this").

la: Edd., excepta 5, *maneret.* Inferius pro *tripliciter* edd. *triplex.* Deinde ante *sine labore* Vat. et 5 adiiciunt *fructuose,* refragantibus codd. et 1, 2, 3, 4, a quibus hoc verbum econtra recte inferius suppletur ante *vivere.* — De triplici appetitu cfr. II. Sent. d. 25. p. I. q. 1. in corp. et ibi nota 1.

en: The editions, except edition 5, have *maneret* ("remained"). Below, for *tripliciter* ("in three ways") the editions have *triplex* ("threefold"). Then before *sine labore* ("without labour") the Vatican edition and edition 5 add *fructuose* ("fruitfully"), against the codices and editions 1, 2, 3, 4, by which this word is on the contrary rightly supplied lower down, before *vivere* ("live"). — On the threefold appetite compare II Sent. d. 25, p. I, q. 1, in the body, and note 1 there.

la: Edd. et M *sive iuste* pro *vivere,* et post *vel* omittunt *etiam* [M habet *cum*]. — Inferius allegatur Ps. 72, 5.

en: The editions and M have *sive iuste* ("or justly") for *vivere* ("live"), and after *vel* ("or") omit *etiam* ("also") [M has *cum*]. — Below, Ps. 72:5 is alleged.

la: Edd. *Ad,* et mox praefigunt *non* ante *dictum;* superius edd. *ab exemplo* pro *de exemplo,* et inferius *praeceptum iuris* pro *praeceptum vitae.* — Textus sequens (Gen. 3, 19.) est: *Donec revertaris in terram, de qua sumtus es, quia pulvis es* etc. Magis vero assertio illa patet ex praecedentibus (v. 17. 18.): *Quia audisti vocem uxoris tuae et comedisti de ligno* etc.

en: The editions have *Ad* ("To"), and presently prefix *non* ("not") before *dictum* ("said"); above, the editions have *ab exemplo* ("from the example") for *de exemplo* ("about the example"), and below *praeceptum iuris* ("a precept of right") for *praeceptum vitae* ("a precept of life"). — The following text (Gen. 3:19) is: *Till thou return to the earth out of which thou wast taken, for dust thou art* etc. But that assertion is more plain from the preceding verses (vv. 17–18): *Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree* etc.

la: In solis edd. desiderantur verba *quod respicit conservationem.* Deinde pro *manducando* K *comedendo;* denique edd. omittunt *patet* ante *de generatione* (cfr. IV. Sent. d. 26. a. 1. q. 3.). Infra post *huiusmodi* illud *nisi* stat pro *praeterquam;* quod, teste Forcellini, etiam apud classicos invenitur.

en: In the editions alone the words *quod respicit conservationem* ("which regards the preservation") are lacking. Then for *manducando* ("eating") K has *comedendo* ("eating"); finally the editions omit *patet* ("is plain") before *de generatione* ("in the case of begetting") (compare IV Sent. d. 26, a. 1, q. 3). Below, after *huiusmodi* ("of this kind"), that *nisi* ("except") stands for *praeterquam* ("save that"); which, on the testimony of Forcellini, is found also among the classical authors.

la: Vers. 11. 12: *Audivimus enim, quosdam inter vos.... His autem* etc.

en: Verses 11–12 [II Thess. 3:11–12]: *For we have heard that there are some among you .... Now to them* etc.

la: Solae edd. non bene *idem;* inferius M et Vat. *sedula cura* pro *et foeda cura.* — Verba haec sunt ex Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum, sumta ex Comment. olim Ambrosio attributo ad II. Thess. 3, 11.

en: The editions alone, not well, have *idem* ("the same"); below, M and the Vatican edition have *sedula cura* ("with diligent anxiety") for *et foeda cura* ("and with a base anxiety"). — These words are from the *ordinary* Gloss in Strabo, taken from the Commentary once attributed to Ambrose on II Thess. 3:11.

la: K *Ei.* Inferius pro *qui vero* D *in quantum vero.*

en: K has *Ei* ("To him"). Below, for *qui vero* ("but he who") D has *in quantum vero* ("but in so far as").

la: Epist. II. Cor. 10, 8: *Quam (potestatem) dedit nobis Dominus in aedificationem, et non in destructionem vestram.* — Superius edd. et codd., excepto K, *ornandam* pro *ordinandam.* Inferius pro *ab his redeant* M *ab his recedant,* sed D corrupte *ab illis petant,* E *ab illis peccant.* Fortasse originale habuit: *ab illis peccatis recedant (redeant).*

en: II Cor. 10:8: *Which (power) the Lord hath given us unto edification, and not for your destruction.* — Above, the editions and codices, except K, have *ornandam* ("adorning") for *ordinandam* ("ordering"). Below, for *ab his redeant* ("come back from these") M has *ab his recedant* ("withdraw from these"), but D corruptly *ab illis petant* ("ask from them"), E *ab illis peccant* ("sin from them"). Perhaps the original had: *ab illis peccatis recedant (redeant)* ("withdraw (come back) from those sins").

la: M et edd. *illud esset.*

en: M and the editions have *illud esset* ("that were").

la: De Opere monachorum c. 25. n. 33; cfr. supra pag. 154, nota 5; et infra pag. 164, nota 4. Inferius secuti sumus lectionem E, dum alii legunt *a quo verba illius Glossae accepta sunt.*

en: *On the Work of Monks* c. 25, n. 33; compare above, p. 154, note 5, and below, p. 164, note 4. Below we have followed the reading of E, while the others read *a quo verba illius Glossae accepta sunt* ("from whom the words of that Gloss were received").

la: Scil. in corp. post verba *Ad cuius pleniorem evidentiam.* — Seq. locus August. est de Opere monachorum, c. 3. n. 4; alter vero II. Retract. c. 21.

en: Namely in the body of the question, after the words *Ad cuius pleniorem evidentiam* ("For the fuller clearing of this"). — The following place of Augustine is *On the Work of Monks,* c. 3, n. 4; the other is *Retractations* II c. 21.

la: Haec solutio et duae seqq. non inveniuntur in edd., sicut nec obiectiones; supplevimus eas ex D E K.

en: This reply and the two following are not found in the editions, as neither are the objections; we have supplied them from D E K.

la: Ut dicit Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 2. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 10, nota 2.

en: As Aristotle says, *Ethics* II c. 2. Compare tome I, p. 10, note 2.

la: E *audiebant.*

en: E has *audiebant* ("heard").

la: E *clerici boni in scholis.*

en: E has *clerici boni in scholis* ("good clerics in the schools").

la: Cap. 1. — *Suae* supplevimus ex D E, et post *tertii* ex D E K *mali;* post *gyrovagi* K *instabiles* pro *mutabiles,* et pro *omnia* D *opera;* denique ex D E et 5 supplevimus *et* ante *conveniens.*

en: Chapter 1. — *Suae* ("his") we have supplied from D E, and after *tertii* ("the third") from D E K *mali* ("bad"); after *gyrovagi* ("gyrovagues") K has *instabiles* ("unstable") for *mutabiles* ("changeable"), and for *omnia* ("every") D has *opera* ("works"); finally from D E and edition 5 we have supplied *et* ("and") before *conveniens* ("fitting").

la: Cap. 28. n. 36. Vide supra pag. 140, nota 5. Seq. locus ibid., ubi respicitur Ps. 38, 4. [Vulgata *concaluit,* August. *concalescit*]. Pro *nundinarum* D E *immunditiarum,* qui et omittunt *et compatimini,* refragante etiam originali, in quo *existimatio* pro *aestimatio,* et cum K *vobis causa* pro *vobis ratio.* — In fine respicitur Matth. 7, 14: *Quam angusta porta et arcta via* etc., et II. Cor. 11, 12: *Ut amputem occasionem eorum, qui volunt occasionem.*

en: Chapter 28, n. 36. See above, p. 140, note 5. The following place is ibid., where Ps. 38:4 is in view [the Vulgate has *concaluit,* Augustine *concalescit*]. For *nundinarum* ("traffic") D E have *immunditiarum* ("uncleannesses"), and they also omit *et compatimini* ("and have compassion"), against the original too, in which *existimatio* stands for *aestimatio* ("good name"), and, with K, *vobis causa* ("you ... the cause") for *vobis ratio* ("you ... the reason"). — At the end Matth. 7:14 is in view: *How narrow is the gate and strait is the way* etc., and II Cor. 11:12: *That I may cut off the occasion from them that desire occasion.*

la: E *laici plebis.* — Locus August. est libr. cit. c. 25. n. 33, sed nonnullis hic omissis. Cfr. supra pag. 140, nota 4. et pag. 154, nota 5.

en: E has *laici plebis* ("laymen of the people"). — The place of Augustine is in the book cited, c. 25, n. 33, but with some things omitted here. Compare above, p. 140, note 4, and p. 154, note 5.

la: Fide D E K supplevimus *posse;* mox E *opera manualia* pro *opus manuale.* — Locus Hieron. est Epist. 125. (alias 4.) n. 11, ubi circa finem sic: *ne vagetur perniciosis cogitationibus mens et instar... divaricet pedes suos* [respicitur Ezech. 16, 25.].

en: On the authority of D E K we have supplied *posse* ("to be able"); presently E has *opera manualia* ("manual works") for *opus manuale* ("manual work"). — The place in Jerome is Epistle 125 (otherwise 4), n. 11, where near the end it runs thus: *lest the mind wander in ruinous thoughts and after the manner of ... spread its feet* [Ezech. 16:25 is in view].

la: Codd. et edd. male *professionis.* Inferius Vat. et 5 perperam *modicis* pro *modernis;* subinde pro *opulenta* M *opulentata.*

en: The codices and editions wrongly have *professionis* ("of profession"). Below, the Vatican edition and edition 5 mistakenly have *modicis* ("small") for *modernis* ("modern"); next, for *opulenta* ("wealthy") M has *opulentata* ("enriched").

la: Apoc. 7, 3. — Inferius respicitur Matth. 6, 26: *Pater vester caelestis pascit illa* etc.

en: Apoc. 7:3. — Below, Matth. 6:26 is in view: *Your heavenly Father feedeth them* etc.

la: Scilicet religiones Praedicatorum et Minorum.

en: Namely the religious orders of the Preachers and of the Minors.

la: Scil. ad Gulielmum, abbatem S. Theuderici, c. 6. 7, n. 12. 13. — Verba ultima post *indicas,* quae desunt in edd. et aliis codd., ex D E K et originali supplevimus. — Allegantur vel respiciuntur Luc. 10, 40. seq., I. Tim. 4, 8, ubi Vulgata: *Nam corporalis exercitatio ad modicum utilis est... ad omnia utilis est;* Ps. 6, 7; 76, 4; Luc. 11, 42.

en: Namely to William, abbot of Saint-Thierry, cc. 6–7, nn. 12–13. — The last words after *indicas* ("show"), which are missing in the editions and the other codices, we have supplied from D E K and the original. — Alleged or in view are Luke 10:40 f.; I Tim. 4:8, where the Vulgate has: *For bodily exercise is profitable to little ... is profitable to all things;* Ps. 6:7; 76:4; Luke 11:42.

la: Supplevimus ex E K *hoc,* et *opus* ante *spirituale,* post quod K prosequitur *si tamen hoc sit.*

en: We have supplied from E K *hoc* ("this"), and *opus* ("work") before *spirituale* ("spiritual"), after which K continues *si tamen hoc sit* ("if yet this be so").

la: Verba *nec simpliciter... dari* supplevimus ex D E, et iterum post *tenet* ex E K M *ibi.*

en: The words *nec simpliciter... dari* ("and it is not simply ... be given") we have supplied from D E, and again after *tenet* ("holds") from E K M *ibi* ("there").

la: Cap. 5: *Fratres illi, quibus gratiam dedit Dominus laborandi, laborent fideliter et devote, ita quod... orationis ac devotionis spiritum non exstinguant* etc. — Superius ante *aperta* solae edd. perperam omittunt *per,* et inferius pro *id est* ponunt *et,* refragantibus E K.

en: Chapter 5: *Let those brethren to whom the Lord has given the grace of labouring labour faithfully and devoutly, in such a way that ... they do not quench the spirit of prayer and devotion* etc. — Above, before *aperta* ("plain"), the editions alone mistakenly omit *per* ("in"), and below for *id est* ("that is") they put *et* ("and"), against E K.

la: M et edd., refragantibus D E K, omittunt *Pater,* et deinde *collectionem fratrum suorum,* et post *operando* verba *ne clerici.... utilia;* denique post *reticuit* pro *ne* ponunt *ut,* addentes *non* post *panem.*

en: M and the editions, against D E K, omit *Pater* ("Father"), and then *collectionem fratrum suorum* ("the gathering of his brethren"), and after *operando* ("working") the words *ne clerici .... utilia* ("lest the clerics ... less useful"); finally after *reticuit* ("keep silence") they put *ut* ("that") for *ne* ("lest"), adding *non* ("not") after *panem* ("bread").

la: Hieron., V. in Ezech. c. 16, 51. dicit, «quod videlicet semper aliquid agendum sit, ne ager pectoris nostri, cessante manu, malarum cogitationum sentibus occupetur.

en: Jerome, *On Ezechiel* V, on c. 16:51, says «that something is always to be done, lest the field of our breast, while the hand ceases, be taken over by the briars of evil thoughts.

la: Ultima propositio: *Sic ergo* etc., omittitur in nostris codd., pro qua D E habet *etc.* M. *Deo gratias in saec. saec. Amen etc.* — Iuvat observare, S. Bonaventuram, postquam ad regimen totius Ordinis fratrum Minorum promotus est, praeter minora opuscula aliud insigne opus de eisdem et connexis circa paupertatem controversiis composuisse, inscriptum *Apologia pauperum,* in quo catholicam de perfectione evangelica doctrinam mirifice defendit, non tamen in forma, quae quaestionibus disputatis tunc erat propria. In tertia eiusdem operis parte multa superius dicta repetuntur et confirmantur, scilicet p. III. c. 1. 2. 3. et p. IV. c. 1. 2. agitur de *abrenuntiatione;* p. IV. c. 3. de *mendicitate* et *labore manuum.*

en: The last sentence, *Sic ergo* ("So then") etc., is omitted in our codices, in place of which D E have *etc.*, M *Deo gratias in saec. saec. Amen etc.* ("Thanks be to God for ever and ever. Amen etc."). — It is worth observing that St. Bonaventure, after he had been raised to the government of the whole Order of Friars Minor, besides lesser opuscula composed another notable work on these same controversies about poverty and those connected with them, entitled *Apologia pauperum* ("Defence of the Poor"), in which he defends the catholic doctrine of evangelical perfection admirably, though not in the form that was then proper to disputed questions. In the third part of that work many things said above are repeated and confirmed: namely, pt. III cc. 1, 2, 3 and pt. IV cc. 1, 2 treat of *renunciation;* pt. IV c. 3 of *mendicancy* and *the labour of the hands.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/doctorisseraphic05bona_djvu.txt`, **raw L32212–L33706**), with every heading, italic, apparatus anchor, marginale and digit checked against the 450 dpi plates (`raw/vision/vol5/p-156..166.png`, 2571×3823 each, pixel size verified after extraction). Body raw usable throughout; footers usable but digit-corrupt (below). **Apparatus read from the footer bands only**, every entry paired with its body anchor. **Italics come from the plate only.** Fresh literal English translation. One agent, the standard cadence, small incremental appends.

**Structure.** p. 156: `ARTICULUS III.` full measure at the very head of the leaf; its italic subtitle *Utrum pauperes validi, et maxime regulares, ad opera manualia universaliter sint astricti.* is **UNANCHORED** (read on a full-width crop); the numbered opener *Tertio ad maiorem evidentiam eorum quae de mendicitate dicta sunt, quaeritur*¹ — **n. 1 anchors at *quaeritur*** — is transcribed as printed, including its *Tertio* against Q. II's printed *duo* (n. 1 is the editors' own account of why: the articulus was added after the other two, kept as a third article because p. 117 lists only four questions). The opener announces a threefold proof, and the **opening series argues FOR the obligation**, sixteen arguments (marginale `Ad oppositum.` beside arg. 1): *ratione obligationis naturae* 1–4, *ratione religionis christianae* 5–11 (an UNNUMBERED run-head *Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur ratione religionis christianae.*, then apostolic *praeceptum / exemplum / edictum / iudicium* 5–8, Augustine 9–10, the council of Carthage 11 closing with an unnumbered epilogue *Ex his ergo Patrum sententiis…*), *ratione professionis monasticae* 12–16 (unnumbered run-head; Augustine, the Gloss on Luke 12, Jerome to Rusticus, Benedict, Francis). Then **`Cᴏɴᴛʀᴀ,`** in-column small caps on p. 158 (marginale `Fundamenta.`) — **seventeen arguments AGAINST the universal obligation**, in three groups each under an unnumbered run-head: *ratione contemplationis* 1–4, *ratione praedicationis* 5–10, *ratione spiritualis occupationis* 11–17. `CONCLUSIO.` stands in-column on p. 160 over the italic conclusion (rendered `> *…*`); **`Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ:`** reprobates two extremes (`Modus dicendi 1.`, `Modus 2.`) on the model of Sabellius and Arius and takes the *via media* under precept / counsel / neither, then the threefold work (manual, civil, spiritual) and the Deut. 28 Gloss, closing *Concedendum est igitur…*.

**⭐ WHICH SERIES THE REPLIES ANSWER — MEASURED ON THE LEMMATA, NOT ASSUMED: the OPENING series, one for one.** The replies are numbered `1. 2.` · `3.` · `4.` · `5. 6. 7. 8.` · (an unnumbered paragraph on the Gloss) · `9.` · `10.` · `11.` · `12.` · `13.` · `14. 15.` · `16.` — sixteen, matching the opening sixteen, not the seventeen of the `Cᴏɴᴛʀᴀ`. The lemmata settle it independently of the count: `1. 2.` *Ad illud autem quod primo obiicitur in contrarium de obligatione legis naturae* (args 1–2, *ex vinculo legis naturae*); `3.` *quod sine huiusmodi opere non potest genus humanum sustentari* (arg. 3); `4.` *quod sicut os est ad manducandum, ita et manus ad operandum* (arg. 4); `5. 6. 7. 8.` *de praecepto, exemplo, edicto et verbo apostolico* (args 5–8); the unnumbered paragraph *Ad illud quod obiicitur de Glossa, quod vult Apostolus, servos Dei corporaliter operari* answers the Gloss inside arg. 8 (its marginale prints `De Glossa in fine 8. arg.`); `9.` *Ad illud Augustini: Audiant quibus* (arg. 9); `10.` *quod opera spiritualia non excusant* (arg. 10); `11.` *de clericis* (arg. 11); `12.` *de monachis* (arg. 12) with a further unnumbered paragraph *de Augustino, in libro de Opere monachorum*; `13.` *de Glossa, Lucae duodecimo* (arg. 13); `14. 15.` *de Hieronymo et Benedicto* (args 14–15); `16.` *de beato Francisco* (arg. 16). **So in this work: `q2-a1` answered the `Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ`, `q2-a2` the opening series, and `q2-a3` the opening series — which here argues the thesis the *Respondeo* REJECTS.** The `Cᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` series is conceded (*concedendae sunt etiam auctoritates et rationes hoc ostendentes*). p. 163 n. 7 records that replies 9–11 and their objections are wanting in the editions.

**Marginal gloss `Conclusio 1.` / `2.` / `3.`** — the first beside the *Respondeo*, the second and third on p. 161. The p. 160 numeral was checked at 3.5×: a serif `1`, same face as the `1` of `Modus dicendi 1.` a few lines below; the series 1-2-3 is its own control. p. 161's `Genera 4 operum spiritualium.` is a real `4`: the body lists four (*verba, cantica, Sacramenta, bona*) and the text says *quatuor generibus*.

### ▶ SPAN AND BOUNDARY 4 — FIXED POSITIVELY ON THE PLATE

⭐⭐ **The articulus closes on p. 165, and p. 166 is a LEAF EDGE, split 0/10.** `raw/vision/vol5/p-166.png` was extracted **ALONE and read first**, per the standing order, before pp. 157–165 were pulled: its numeral prints **`166`**, and **`QUAESTIO III.` stands at the very head of the leaf**, full measure, with its subtitle *De continentia.* and the Q. III opener *Postquam habitum est de paupertate…*, whose first sentence carries **n. 1** (*A D omittunt agere*); `ARTICULUS I.` *De pudicitia coniugali* follows on the same leaf. The p. 498 rule — *a shared leaf forwards a register entry only where the incoming unit's numbered BODY carries its anchor* — does not arise: nothing of Articulus III stands on p. 166, **all ten of p. 166's notes are Q. III's**, and p. 166's register opens INDENTED at n. 1 (no page-crossing runover in). Articulus III ends *…ad opera manualia sunt astricti*⁷. just past mid-leaf in p. 165's right column, and that leaf's white space was NOT taken as the evidence — p. 166's heading was. `colcrop` on p. 166 returned a **207 px** run, the display-heading failure signature, which agrees. ⚠ **The raw prints p. 165's numeral `163`** (plate `165`, read at 5× beside its own `6`) — the worn-`5`-reads-as-`3` class again, and exactly the shape that made p. 156's raw numeral `136`. ▶ **`bon-qpe-q3-a1` opens clean at p. 166 and inherits NOTHING from this chunk**; it owns p. 166's `QUAESTIO III.` heading, its unanchored-or-not proemium (n. 1 anchors in it) and all ten notes.

**Boundary 3 (p. 156) re-derived: LEAF EDGE, 0/5, as `q2-a2` measured.** The five anchors on p. 156 are *quaeritur*¹, *monasticae*², *secundo*³, *decimo tertio*⁴, *salvari*⁵ — all in Articulus III's numbered body.

### ⛔ THE *ADDITAMENTUM* ON p. 156 — RECORDED, NOT TRANSCRIBED, NOT ANCHORED, OWNERSHIP NOT DECIDED

**Where it sits.** p. 156's footer is TWO blocks under a short body (the body is only ~13 lines per column, because the footer fills the lower ~60 % of the leaf). **The LEFT block is entirely *additamentum*** — Jerome to Furia and the pseudo-Jerome *Breviarium in Psalterium* (Ps. 108 and Ps. 145), Chrysostom hom. 4, 88 and 69 on Matthew, then *His etiam manifeste concordat Bernardus* (Quaracchi: *potius Aelredus Abbas, de Iesu puero duodenni*) — and it ends at the foot of the left block mid-clause: *…quaerens, ubi Christus fuit in triduo, dicit sic: « Per*.

⭐⭐⭐ **CORRECTION TO `q2-a2`'s RECORD: the *additamentum* does NOT break off. It CONTINUES AT THE HEAD OF p. 156's RIGHT FOOTER BLOCK and CLOSES THERE.** Read on a full-width crop of the lower leaf: the right block opens flush left with *illud triduum ubi eras, bone Iesu? Quis tibi cibum ministravit aut potum?…* (the Aelred passage completed), then *Item, Glossa super illud Pauli: Qui cum esset dives etc.* (*iam citata supra pag. 153, col. II.*), and ends ***Ex his igitur et aliis auctoritatibus praedictae quaestionis veritas probatur.*** — a closing formula. **Directly beneath it, in the same right block, stands p. 156's own numbered register, nn. 1–5**, opening indented at n. 1. `q2-a2` read the left block's foot ("blank paper beneath it") and did not carry across the gutter; the raw has the whole of it in order (raw L32264–L32323 for the additamentum, L32325 ff. for nn. 1–5). **So the *additamentum* is a complete unit on pp. 155–156**: it opens under p. 155's register with its marginale `Additamentum.`, runs through p. 156's left block, and closes in the head of p. 156's right block, *above* Articulus III's register.

**How it relates to the leaf's numbered register.** It carries no note number and no body anchor on p. 156; nothing in Articulus III's body points to it; it stands between the column rule and p. 156 n. 1, i.e. it is set as a continuation of p. 155's footer that the compositor finished before starting p. 156's register. Its only attachment anywhere is p. 155 n. 8 (Articulus II's *replicatio*), which names it and relegates it *ad calcem*. **This chunk does not transcribe it, anchor it, or decide its ownership** — per the order in hand, the disposition is **the WORK-CLOSE GATE's / Wilson's**. What changes for the gate: the question is no longer "what to do with a truncated passage" but "where a complete, unanchored, pp. 155–156 editorial appendix to `q2-a2`'s *replicatio* should live" — and the `bon-hex-c23` precedent (an addition that closed on its own leaf, made an anchored apparatus entry) is now closer in shape than `q2-a2` thought.

### ▶ RULINGS MET — STATED POSITIVELY

- **Ruling 5 met ONCE:** p. 158 n. 11 `Verba Ambrosii vide supra a. 1. fundam. 15. seq.` → **"For the words of Ambrose see above, a. 1, *fundamentum* 15 f."** Internal to this work; retained Latin per the ruling. No other `fundam.` in the 82 entries.
- **Ruling 1:** no *intellect-* word in the body; *intelligentia* (the p. 161 n. 1 variant) → "understanding"; *intelligitur/intelligendum* → "understood". **Zero bare "intellect".**
- **Ruling 2:** no *lux* / *lumen* in the span. Not reached.
- **Numeral edition-sigla (settled in `q2-a2`) met repeatedly and transcribed as printed:** p. 157 n. 5 `ex codd. et 5`; p. 158 n. 6 `M et 1, 2, 3, 4` and `Vat. et 5`; p. 161 n. 2 `E M et 1, 2, 3, 4`; p. 161 n. 6 `edd., excepta 5`; p. 162 n. 2 `Edd., excepta 5` and `Vat. et 5 … codd. et 1, 2, 3, 4`; p. 164 n. 2 `ex D E et 5`; p. 164 n. 6 `Vat. et 5`. Expanded in the English only ("edition 5", "editions 1, 2, 3, 4"). **No bare numeral read as a damaged letter.**

### ⭐ *VACARE* — THE DIKAISUNE RULE APPLIED; ALL SITES COVERED; NO NEW NOTE

**Five sites (six occurrences), not the three the hand-off predicted.** Each rendered by context; none is "rest"; **no `tr-` note written**, because every site leans to a side one of the three existing notes (`tr-vacare`, `tr-vacare-2`, `tr-vacare-3`, all in `bon-qpe-q2-a2`) already covers:
1. p. 157 arg. 10, Augustine: *Cui rei vacent, scire desidero* — dative *rei* → **"What business they are free for, I should like to know."** Free FOR: `tr-vacare`'s side.
2. p. 157 arg. 10, Augustine: *Si autem ad ista vacari servos Dei … necessitas cogit* — impersonal passive with **`ad` + accusative** → **"compels the servants of God to be free for those things."** A construction none of the notes names, but the SIDE is free FOR, which `tr-vacare` covers; the construction alone does not justify a fourth note.
3. p. 159 `Cᴏɴᴛʀᴀ` 10: *qui divinis, utpote doctrinae praedicationis et lectioni, vacant* — dative, the very shape of `tr-vacare`'s model note → **"those who are free for divine things."**
4. p. 160 *Respondeo*, Augustine: *dissoluta licentia vacationis et falso nomine sanctitatis* — absolute and pejorative → **"the dissolute licence of idleness."** `tr-vacare-2`'s side (absolute, "plain leisure, which in these men is idleness").
5. p. 163 reply 10: *quin potius sibi vacando impediebant, et eorum vacatio generabat in Ecclesia litem* — reflexive dative *sibi vacando* → **"hindered it by being free for themselves"** (free FOR, turned on the self: `tr-vacare`), then absolute *vacatio* → **"their idleness"** (`tr-vacare-2`).
No `ab` + ablative site here, so `tr-vacare-3`'s side is not reached. ⚠ **Related but NOT a *vaca-* word:** *otium* is rendered by context too — pejorative "idleness" throughout (*otium carnis*, *otii occasiones*, *vitare otium*), but **"spiritual leisure"** at p. 161 (*prima fovet otium carnale, secunda persequitur spirituale*) and **"the unwearied leisure of contemplation"** at p. 165 (*contemplationis indefessum otium*), where the Latin praises it. *otiositas* → idleness; *otiosi* → the idle.

### ▶ REGISTER — the adopted choices as applied

*opera manualia / opus manuale* → manual labour / manual work · *labor corporalis* → bodily labour · *inquieti / otiosi / curiosi* → the restless / the idle / busybodies (II Thess. 3:11 Douay adjusted: *ambulantes inquiete … curiose agentes* → "walking restlessly … being busybodies", so the reply's *inquietis, curiosis et otiosis* keeps the same three English words) · *regulares* → regulars · *religiosi* → religious · *religiones pauperculas* → "poor religious orders" (p. 164; *religio* = an order) but *religio nostra* / *religio christiana* → "our religion" / "the Christian religion" (p. 157, the faith, not an order) · *praeceptum* → precept against *consilium* → counsel, and *praeceptorie / monitorie / informative* → by way of precept / admonition / information · *egeni* → needy men vs *pauperes* → poor men · *validus* → able-bodied · *curati / non curati* → "those with / without a cure of souls" · *gyrovagi / sarabaitae* → gyrovagues / sarabaites · *vilificare se* not present · *mendicitas* → mendicancy (opener); *mendicare* → to beg · *renuntiare* → renounce, *abrenuntiatio* → renunciation (p. 158 arg. 13; p. 165 n. 7) · *dominium* not present.

### ⭐ RAW-VS-PLATE DIGIT CORRECTIONS (each settled at ≥5× against a same-line control)

- **p. 156 n. 3** `Vers. 15` — raw `13` (control: the `3` of `3, 19` on the same line has a round top; the `15`'s last glyph is flagged). Gen. 2:15 is the *Posuit Deus hominem in paradiso* verse.
- **p. 157 n. 5** `ex codd. et 5` — raw `et 3` (control: `135` two words earlier on the same line).
- **p. 158 n. 3** `dist. 5` — raw `dist. o` (control: `(33)` on the same line).
- **p. 158 n. 5** `Cap. 5` — raw `Cap. 3` (control: `Cap. 48` one line above, same size and ink; the Franciscan Rule's labour chapter is c. 5, and p. 165 n. 4 prints `Cap. 5` again).
- **p. 162 n. 2** `excepta 5` — raw `excepla H`.
- **p. 163 n. 5** `c. 25` — raw `c. 2S`.
- **p. 165 page numeral** `165` — raw `163`.
- Also plate-settled, raw damaged: p. 157 n. 1 `pag. 134` (raw `13i`), p. 157 n. 4 `Vers. 14` (raw `M`), p. 158 n. 8 `Vers. 24`, p. 159 n. 1 `nota 5` (raw `S`), p. 162 n. 1 `Vers. 4` (raw `i`), p. 164 n. 4 `pag. 154, nota 5` (raw `1.54, nota .5`), p. 165 n. 7 `p. III.` (raw `p. ni.`).

### ▶ GUTTERS

156 **1392** (62 px) · 157 **1208** (59 px) · 158 **1343** (default 1348 on 52 px; windows forked 1279–1370; band 1313–1374, 62 px, centre-rule island 1342–1344) · 159 **1229** (61 px) · 160 **1334** (default 1318 on 27 px — windows agreed at 1318 but on the left sub-band alone; band 1304–1365, 62 px, rule island 1333–1338) · 161 **1237** (58 px) · 162 **1361** (48 px, spread 0; band 1333–1390, 58 px, rule 1356–1367 heavily inked) · 163 **1181** (default 1186 on 38 px; band 1153–1209, 57 px, rule 1175–1188) · 164 **1339** (default 1356 on 27 px — again the right sub-band; band 1309–1370, 62 px, rule 1336–1342, peak 804) · 165 **1143** (default 1116 on **4 px**, WEAK RUN flagged; band 1114–1172, 59 px, rule 1140–1150) · 166 not measured for the body (display heading, 207 px run). **Four of ten leaves had the default sit on a single sub-band of a heavily inked centre rule** — the p. 260 species; the band midpoint was adopted each time. No skew leaf.

### ▶ RUNOVERS AND THE INCOMING REGISTERS

**Three gutter runovers, ZERO page-crossing.** p. 160 n. 7 (left block → right block, *Inferius fide D E substituimus deviando…*) · p. 162 n. 4 (*edd. ab exemplo pro de exemplo…*) · p. 165 n. 5 (*rici.... utilia; denique post reticuit…*). The head of every incoming register (pp. 157–166) was read before its first numeral: **all ten open INDENTED at n. 1.** The three flush-left right-block openings on pp. 160, 162 and 165 are each the second half of a same-leaf gutter runover. p. 156's right block opens flush left with the *additamentum*'s continuation, not with a register entry (above).

### ▶ MARGINALIA, IN BODY ORDER (53, none clipped after re-cropping the outer margin of pp. 163 and 165)

**p. 156** — `Ad oppositum.` · `Ratione obligationis naturae.`
**p. 157** — `Ratione religionis christianae.`
**p. 158** — `Ratione professionis.` · `Fundamenta.` · `Ratione contemplationis.` · `Ratione praedicationis.`
**p. 159** — `Ratione spiritualis occupationis.`
**p. 160** — `Conclusio 1.` · `Modus dicendi 1.` · `Reprobatur dupliciter.` · `Primo.` · `Secundo.` · `Modus 2.` · `Reprobatur dupliciter.` · `Primo.` · `Secundo.`
**p. 161** — `Conclusio 2.` · `Conclusio 3.` · `Explicatio et probatio.` · `Triplex bonum et genus operis.` · `Genera 4 operum spiritualium.` · `Applicatio.` · `Concluditur.` · `Aliqui tenentur ad opus manuale.` · `Aliis hoc consulitur.` · `Aliis minime.`
**p. 162** — `Confirmatur.` · `Solutio oppositorum.` · `Triplex periculum.` · `Triplex amor naturalis.` · `Duplex mandatum.` · `Alia ratio.` · `Tria notanda.` · `Persona.` · `Causa.` · `Labor valet ad tria.`
**p. 163** — `Forma.` · `De Glossa in fine 8. arg.` · `Triplex modus vivendi de alieno.` · `Notandum.` · `Alia ratio.`
**p. 164** — `De monachis in genere.` · `Triplex diversitas professionum.` · `Ex parte temporum.` · `Ex parte personarum.` · `Ex parte intentionum.` · `Concluditur.` · `Notandum.`
**p. 165** — `De loco Augustini.` · `Notandum.` · `De regula S. Francisci.` · `Otiositas cavenda.`

### ⭐ AS PRINTED, NOT EMENDED

- **p. 161 n. 3** `Edd. et codd. redundet.` against the body's printed *redundent* — the note reports every witness reading the singular, yet the text prints the plural. Transcribed as printed both places; not resolved.
- **p. 161 n. 6** ends *Constructio propositionis est incongrua* — the editors' own warning on the *Et quoniam … tales ad opera manualia astringuntur* sentence; the English follows the Latin's anacoluthon with a dash rather than repairing it.
- **p. 162 reply `5. 6. 7. 8.`** names the fourth apostolic item *verbo apostolico*, where arg. 8 had *iudicium* and the reply's own conclusion says *iudicium* again. As printed.
- **p. 165 n. 6** opens a guillemet (*dicit, «quod videlicet…*) and never closes it. As printed.
- **p. 161** carries the signature line `S. Bonav. — Tom. V.` under its left register and the gathering signature `21` under its right — not apparatus.

### LEDGER

**82 entries, pp. 156–165**: p. 156 **5** · p. 157 **8** · p. 158 **11** · p. 159 **11** · p. 160 **10** · p. 161 **7** · p. 162 **6** · p. 163 **9** · p. 164 **8** · p. 165 **7**. Zero `[?]`. `KNOWN_TOTALS` additions: 156 = 5, 157 = 8, 158 = 11, 159 = 11, 160 = 10, 161 = 7, 162 = 6, 163 = 9, 164 = 8, 165 = 7.

### CHUNK TOTALS

**82 apparatus entries over pp. 156–165. Zero `[?]` flags. Three runovers, all gutter-crossing, none page-crossing** (ledger line appended to `manual-review/vol5-runover-ledger.tsv`, comma-separated). **53 marginalia.** **No translator's note** (all *vacare* sites covered, above). Ruling 5 met once.