Quaest. 2, Art. 1
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/10/d/2/q/bon-qpe-q2-a1
----------------------------------------
### Question II. *On poverty.*

The question is about poverty, and two things are asked. First it is asked about poverty as to renunciation. Second, as to begging.

### Article I. *On poverty as to renunciation.*

Concerning the first, one proceeds thus, and it is asked whether it belongs to Christian perfection to renounce all things, in common as well as in private. And that it does, it seems:

1. Matthew, chapter 19, where it is said: *If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and come follow me;* the Gloss: «Behold the contemplative [life], which pertains to the Gospel». It is certain that the Lord was not calling this man to riches, and yet he was counselling him to renounce all things; nor to manual labours, but rather to the contemplative [life], as the Gloss says: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Matthew, chapter 19: *Behold, we have left all things* etc.; Gregory, treating that word, says: «So much was given up by those who followed as could have been coveted by those who did not follow»: therefore perfect imitation wholly extinguishes the appetite for riches; but this extinction is most of all in him who renounces all things: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, Mark, chapter 10: *Go, sell whatsoever thou hast and give to the poor;* the Gloss: «Not a part, as Ananias did»; but he who gives the whole, reserving nothing for himself, most of all does what the Lord counsels, reserving nothing for himself, neither in common nor in particular; and he who does this does it most perfectly: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, Mark, chapter 12, the Lord says of the widow: *Amen I say to you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than all. For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want cast in all she had, even her whole living;* but in this the poor little widow is praised: therefore those who do this, the more perfectly they act, the more praiseworthy they are: therefore etc.

5. Likewise, Luke, chapter 12: *Consider the ravens* etc.; the Gloss: «The saints are fittingly compared to birds, who, doing nothing in the world and not labouring, desire only eternal things, already like the Angels»; but the more one gives up these things, the more one is likened to the Angels: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, Luke, chapter 14, it is said: *Unless a man renounce all that he possesseth, he cannot* etc.; the Gloss: «This is the difference between *to renounce all things* and *to leave all things:* that *to renounce* befits all who so lawfully use the worldly things they possess that they nevertheless tend in mind to eternal things; but *to leave* belongs only to the perfect, who put all temporal things behind them and gape after eternal things alone». But he who utterly renounces all things, in common and in private, most of all puts all things behind him: therefore etc.

Likewise, this same thing is shown *by the example of Christ:*

7. Concerning whom, Matthew, chapter 8: *The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests,* on which Chrysostom says: «Why do you expect, following me, to gather money? Do you not see that I have not even a lodging as the birds have»? Therefore Christ had utterly nothing: therefore etc.

8. Likewise, on that text of Matthew, chapter 17: *Go to the sea;* the Gloss: «The Lord was of such great poverty that he had nothing wherewith to pay the tribute; Judas indeed had the common funds in the purse, but he held it an impiety to take the goods of the poor for his own uses, giving us an example of that very thing». If therefore Christ was of such great poverty that he could not pay a penny, it is manifest that he was in the highest poverty.

9. Likewise, Luke, chapter 9: *The foxes have holes;* the Gloss says: «I am of such great poverty that I have not even a lodging, nor do I use a roof of my own»: therefore etc.

10. Likewise, John, chapter 14: *The prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not any thing;*

the Gloss: «The Lord would not have anything he could lose; he came poor, lest the devil should have anything to take away»: therefore, if all temporal things can be lost, he had nothing temporal.

11. Likewise, the second to the Corinthians, chapter 8: *You know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that for your sakes he became needy, when he was rich, that through his need* etc.: therefore he who so renounces as to be in need conforms himself more to Christ.

12. Likewise, on what follows in the same place: *And herein I give my counsel;* Augustine in the original: «He became needy to such an extent that he had not what the foxes have; and herein I give my counsel, it is understood, that you imitate his poverty»; but he who renounces all things imitates his poverty: therefore etc.

13. Likewise, on that text of James: *Hath not God chosen the poor;* the Gloss: «He chose poor parents, by whose service he would be brought up»; but the indigence of Christ's parents was the greatest, according to that text of Luke, chapter 2: *She wrapped him up in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger:* therefore Christ loved poverty not only in himself, but also in others.

14. Likewise, Christ was most imitable according to the state which he had on the cross, according to that text of the first of Peter, chapter 2: *Christ suffered for us, leaving an example, that you should follow his steps;* but on the cross he was wholly naked; whence Jerome to Hedibia: «Do you wish to be perfect and to stand on the first summit of dignity, do what the Apostles did: sell all that you have, and give to the poor, and follow the Saviour, and follow the naked and lone cross, naked and alone in virtue»: therefore etc.

Likewise, this same thing is seen *from the testimonies of the Saints.*

15. Ambrose on Luke: «What sort of man he ought to be who preaches the kingdom of God is marked out by the evangelical precepts: that without staff, without scrip, without shoes, without bread, without money, that is, not seeking the supports of worldly aid, and safe in faith, he should think that the less he seeks them, the more they can be supplied to him». If therefore this bears witness to the perfection of the preacher of evangelical perfection, that he seek utterly no worldly support; and this is to be in the highest poverty: it is clear etc.

16. Likewise, in the book *On Duties*: «Riches afford no support to the blessed life; which the Lord evidently showed in the Gospel, saying: *Blessed are the poor in spirit* etc. And so it has been most evidently proved that poverty, hunger, pain, which are thought evils, not only are no impediment to the blessed life, but are even a help to it. Thus, therefore, the external goods of the body are not only no support to the blessed life, but are even a loss». But what is not a support, but a loss, it is perfect to leave: therefore etc.

17. Likewise, Jerome to Heliodorus the monk: «I would not have you remember your former needs; the desert loves the naked; I would not have the difficulty of your old wandering frighten you. You who believe in Christ, believe also his words: *Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you.* No scrip is to be taken by you, no staff; he is abundantly rich who is poor with Christ»: therefore all things can be left, hope being placed in Christ alone.

18. Likewise, Jerome, on that text of Matthew, chapter 6: *Is not the life more than the meat?* «Let no one doubt the promises of the Truth; let man be what he ought to be, and presently all things will be added to him, for whose sake all things were made». Therefore he who leaves all things for Christ, trusting in the promise of Christ, acts according to perfect faith in him; and he does this most of all who reserves utterly nothing for himself, neither in common nor in particular: therefore etc.

19. Likewise, Augustine, treating that text of Matthew, chapter 6: *Behold the birds of the air:* «The saints are fittingly compared to birds, because they seek heaven, and because they are already so far removed from the world that on earth they do nothing, labour at nothing, but already dwell in heaven by contemplation alone». If therefore this life is the highest, then, all things being spurned, to set the whole hope of one's life in God belongs to perfect virtue.

20. Likewise, Augustine, *On the Good of Marriage*: «They did well who ministered necessities to Christ and his disciples from their substance; but better, those who gave up all their substance, that they might follow the same Lord more unencumbered»; but the more one gives up, the more unencumbered one is: therefore the more praiseworthy.

21. Likewise, in the book *On Ecclesiastical Dogmas*: «It is good to distribute one's means to the poor with management; better, with the intention of following the Lord, to give once for all and, freed from care, to be in need with Christ». Therefore he who is more in need and is freed from the cares of the world follows Christ more perfectly: therefore etc.

22. Likewise, Gregory, in the eighth homily of the second part on Ezechiel: «When anyone vows something of his to God and does not vow something, it is a *sacrifice;* but when he has vowed to almighty God all that he has, all that he lives, all that he knows, it is a *holocaust.* For those who reserve nothing for themselves, but immolate to almighty God their sense, life, tongue and the substance they have received, what do they offer but a holocaust»? Whence a little before he said that he offers a holocaust who «has decreed within himself to bestow all that he possesses on the needy, to reserve nothing for himself, to commit his life to the heavenly governance alone»; but he does this most of all who so distributes that he reserves nothing for himself, neither in common nor in particular: therefore etc.

23. Likewise, John Chrysostom in the book *That no one is harmed except by himself*: «What harm did the penury of bodily things do the Apostles? Did they not live in hunger and thirst and nakedness, and for these things were they not held the more illustrious and magnificent, and did they not gain through this a great confidence with God»? Therefore that poverty is more praiseworthy in which the penury of things is greater.

24. Likewise, Bernard to Henry, archbishop of Sens: «Happy he who retains nothing for himself out of all things; he has not a hole, like the foxes, nor a nest, like the birds, nor a purse, like Judas, nor houses, just as Mary had no place in the inn, imitating indeed him who had not where to lay his head»; but he who utterly gives up all things, retaining nothing at all for himself, neither in common nor in particular, does this most of all: therefore etc.

25. Likewise, Prosper praises Paulinus and Hilary for this, that they distributed all their means to the poor, although by reason of the episcopal office they afterwards dispensed ecclesiastical goods, as is found in Cause twelve, question one: *Expedit*, where he speaks thus: «Then saint Paulinus distributed to the poor the vast estates that were his». And below: «What of saint Hilary? Did not he too either leave all his goods to the poor, or sell them all and distribute them to the poor»? These are praised and are praiseworthy, because they despised all their goods for Christ and distributed them to the poor; but they do this most of all who retain nothing for themselves, neither in common nor in particular: therefore such come nearest to the summit of evangelical perfection.

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

26. The city is twofold, namely of God and of the devil, Jerusalem and Babylon, which are opposed both in themselves and in their foundations; but the foundation of the city of Babylon, as Augustine says, is cupidity: therefore the more one withdraws from cupidity, the more one withdraws from the city of the devil. But the poverty in which one utterly renounces all things, in common and in particular, in effect as well as in affection, is that which most removes one from avarice: therefore etc.

27. Likewise, riches are an incentive to cupidity, because it is difficult to have them and not love them; but the more one removes oneself from the incentive to sin, the more perfectly one acts; and he does this who renounces all things in common and in particular: therefore etc.

28. Likewise, the counsel is threefold: of poverty, of obedience and of chastity; but the more generally and universally one obeys, the more perfectly one acts, and likewise concerning the counsel of chastity: therefore by a like reason it will be true also concerning the counsel of poverty. — *If you say* that it is not alike, because riches are of necessity for

life; this is nothing, since many who have utterly no property can live.

29. Likewise, that poverty is more perfect which a more perfect obedience accompanies; but those who have something of their own in common cannot be excluded from it by obedience except by reason of sin; but those who have utterly nothing are bound to obey anywhere on earth: if therefore evangelical perfection consists most of all in the perfection of obedience, to renounce all things universally, reserving utterly nothing, makes for the summit of evangelical perfection.

30. Likewise, contempt of the present world is praiseworthy; this is true of itself: therefore a greater contempt is more praiseworthy, and the greatest contempt most praiseworthy; but he most of all despises the present world who renounces all things in common and in particular: therefore such a one acts most perfectly.

31. Likewise, high poverty is praiseworthy; this is true of itself: therefore higher is more praiseworthy, and highest most praiseworthy; but such is that which reserves to itself no property, neither in common nor in particular: therefore etc.

32. Likewise, a way is the straighter, the more its middle is conformed to its extremes; but the highest poverty is both at the beginning of life and at its end: therefore if in the middle all things are renounced, one proceeds by the straightest way. But the straighter a way is, the more perfect it is: therefore the poorest way and life is the most perfect.

Sᴇᴅ ᴄᴏɴᴛʀᴀ: 1. Ecclesiasticus, chapter 27: *Through want many have sinned;* but nothing that is a way leading into fault pertains to evangelical perfection: therefore etc. — Likewise, Ecclesiastes, chapter 7: *Wisdom with riches is more profitable;* the Gloss: «than alone»; but riches do not make a man perfect: therefore much less do poverty and indigence. — Likewise, Proverbs, chapter 30: *Give me neither riches nor mendicancy;* and afterwards: *Lest being compelled by need, I should steal, and forswear the name of my God;* but nothing makes for evangelical perfection which the Wise Man wisely refuses: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Luke, chapter 6: *Every one shall be perfect, if he be as his master;* but Christ had a purse, as is clear from John, chapter 12, where it is said that Judas carried the purse: therefore to refuse to have property in common does not seem to be perfection, but rather superstition, in which the disciple seems to wish to prefer himself to the master. — *If you say* that he had the purse for others; *on the contrary:* Augustine says, and it is found in Cause twelve, question one: «The Lord had a purse, keeping what was offered by the faithful, and he gave to the necessities of his own and to other needy people».

3. Likewise, on that text of the first to Timothy, chapter 6: *Having food* etc.; the Gloss: «Although *we brought nothing into this world,* yet these temporal things are not to be utterly cast away»: therefore he who casts away the whole does ill.

4. Likewise, the second to the Corinthians, chapter 8: *If the will be forward according to that which it hath;* the Gloss: «Let him retain what is necessary, not giving beyond his strength»: therefore he does ill who so dispenses that he reserves utterly nothing for himself.

5. Likewise, he who tempts God sins mortally; but he who has a human refuge and, passing it over, seeks the divine, tempts God; and he does this who has whereby to be sustained and, having given it up, waits to be sustained by God: therefore such a one acts against the Gospel.

6. Likewise, virtue consists about the mean; but to give up all things altogether is to decline to an extreme: therefore this belongs rather to vice than to virtue or evangelical perfection.

7. Likewise, just as always to hold on to all things is avarice, so always to give all things is prodigality; but always to hold on to all things is a vice: therefore likewise always to give all things.

8. Likewise, he who withdraws necessities from another sins mortally; but one is bound to provide for oneself as much as for another: therefore he who gives up all things and reserves nothing for himself sins mortally, because he acts against evangelical perfection.

9. Likewise, he who exposes himself to the danger of being killed sins mortally: therefore likewise he who exposes himself to the danger of famine; but such is he who gives up all things and reserves nothing for himself: therefore etc.

10. Likewise, no one ought altogether to reject what he daily asks of God; but every day we ask in the Lord's prayer *our daily bread:* therefore he does ill who forsakes the whole.

> **Conclusio.** *To renounce all things, in private as well as in common, belongs to Christian perfection, not only sufficient but also superabundant.*

Rᴇsᴘᴏɴᴅᴇᴏ: It must be said that to renounce all things, in private as well as in common, belongs to Christian perfection, not only sufficient but also superabundant, as the *principal counsel* and *fundamental principle* and *sublime foundation* of evangelical perfection. Nature urges the first, Scripture the second, grace the third.

The first, I say, is the *principal counsel,* because it offers the way to the others. For abounding poverty disposes to the mortification of the flesh and to the perfect denial of one's own will, since one keeps nothing for oneself, neither house nor place nor any thing. — And *nature itself* makes a way to it especially, whether *as instituted* or *as fallen.* For man was formed naked, and if he had stood in that state, he would have appropriated utterly nothing to himself; but fallen man is born naked, dies naked. And therefore this is the straightest way, that, not declining from the extremes, so far as nature can bear, he should go poor and naked. And this is what is said in the first to Timothy, chapter 6: *We brought nothing into this world, and certainly we can carry nothing out.* And from this he concludes: *Having food, and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content.* Now nothing is narrower or poorer than to be content with simple food and covering; which the Apostle urges from the teaching of nature as good and perfect.

It is also the *fundamental principle.* For the old Law differs from the new in this, that the former induces fear, the latter love; the former promises temporal things, the latter teaches to despise temporal things. If therefore the foundation of the perfection of the city of God consists principally in charity; and that is most perfect when all cupidity is excluded, because the poison of charity is cupidity; and he wholly casts this cupidity out who wholly leaves all things in fact and in will: then as *the root of all evils is cupidity,* so the root and principle of perfection is the highest poverty. Whence Augustine, in the book of *Eighty-three Questions*: «The poison of charity is the hope of obtaining or retaining temporal things; its nourishment is the lessening of cupidity, its perfection no cupidity. The sign of its progress is the lessening of fear, the sign of its perfection no fear; because *the root of all evils is cupidity,* and *perfect charity casteth out fear*». That poverty therefore is the most perfect which wholly exterminates cupidity.

It is no less the *sublime foundation:* because, since the life to which grace disposes is twofold, namely the *active* and the *contemplative; the active* directs downwards, but *the contemplative* raises up into heaven. Now no spirit is more fit for this than he who is entirely unburdened of the burden of temporal things, and who *has* his whole *treasure in heaven*, and whose *kingdom is not of this world,* who has *here no lasting city, but seeks one to come.* And such is he who has perfectly renounced all earthly things; and therefore such a one already has the *foundation* of his building set in the *heights.* Whence Augustine, in the book *On the Christian Combat*: «Since cognition and action make a man blessed; as in cognition error is to be avoided, so in action wickedness is to be avoided. And he errs, if anyone thinks he can know the truth while he still lives wickedly; and wickedness is to love this world, and to hold as great the things that are born and pass away, and to covet them, and to labour for them that they may be acquired, and to rejoice when they abound, and to fear lest they perish, and to be sad when they perish». He therefore is most fit for the contuition of sublime things and sublimely founded there, who is the most perfect despiser of all these things; such is he who *casts* his whole *thought upon the Lord* and all his care, who has utterly no possession.

It belongs therefore to Christian perfection to possess nothing in the world for Christ, neither in common nor as one's own. Therefore the Lord counselled this most expressly; therefore he showed the example in himself; therefore the Holy Spirit urged it manifoldly in the Saints. For this most arduous poverty, as has been shown, nature, Scripture and grace urge; Christ the Lord urges it by instructing, by his manner of life, by in-

spiring. For what spirit other than God's makes a man despise present things and love heavenly ones? For the diabolical spirit does not do this, nor the worldly, nor one's own, since they always incline to a private good; the Holy Spirit therefore does it.

And hence it is that, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, the supreme Pontiff approved this manner of living, as the decretal *On the Excesses of Prelates, Nimis prava*, says, that «the Apostolic See is known to have approved the order and rule of the friars Preachers and Minors». Whence it is utterly lawful for no one to think the contrary of this, as though such men seemed to act foolishly, to expose themselves to dangers and to tempt God. For against such it is said in the rule of blessed Francis, in which such poverty is confirmed: «Let it therefore be lawful to no man at all to infringe this page of our confirmation or to go against it with rash daring». Against such also Augustine says, in the Treatise on almsgiving: «Elias in the wilderness is fed, the ravens ministering, and to Daniel, shut up by the king's order in the den as prey for the lions, a dinner is brought by God; and do you fear lest food be lacking to one who works and merits of the Lord? when he himself in the Gospel, to the reproach of those whose mind is doubtful and whose faith is small, bears witness and says: *Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow, nor do they reap, nor gather into barns, and your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are not you of much more value than they?* God feeds the birds, and daily food is supplied to the birds, and to those who have no sense of divine things neither food nor drink is lacking; and do you think that anything will be lacking to a Christian, to a servant of God, to one given to good works, to one dear to his Lord? Do you think that he who feeds Christ will not be fed by Christ himself? Will earthly things be lacking to those to whom heavenly and divine things are given? Whence this incredulous thought? Whence this impious and sacrilegious meditation? What does a faithless breast in the house of God? Why is he called and said to be a *Christian* who does not believe Christ at all? The name of *Pharisee* befits you more. For when in the Gospel he was disputing about almsgiving, and faithfully and wholesomely forewarning us to make ourselves friends of earthly gains by provident working, who would afterwards receive us into the eternal tabernacles; Scripture adds after this, saying: *Now the Pharisees, who were covetous, heard all these things, and they derided him.* Such we now see some in the Church, whose closed ears and blinded hearts admit no lumen from spiritual and wholesome admonitions. At whom it is not to be wondered that they despise the servants in such men, when we see the Lord himself despised by such».

From these things it appears evidently that to renounce all things altogether and universally for Christ is not to be blamed, but rather to be praised as the summit of evangelical perfection. Whence the reasons, examples and authorities for this side are to be conceded; to establish which most sufficiently, one sole authority, expressed from the mouth of Christ counselling to give up all things, would be most sufficient, even if many sayings of the Glosses and of the expositors and of the doctors seemed to be contrary. For Augustine says to Paulina, *On Seeing God*, thus: «Attend to what you believe, and in those very things to which you give faith though they are not seen, weigh the weights of the witnesses, to be discerned. For you do not believe me as you believe Ambrose; or if you think both of us are to be believed in equal balance, will you in any way compare us with the Gospel? Will you make our writings equal to the canonical scriptures? Surely, if you judge rightly, you see that we stand far below that authority, and I indeed farther. But however much you believe either of us, you in no way compare either to that excellence». Since therefore the divine authority so expressly says that all things are to be given up by him who wishes to ascend to evangelical perfection, it is manifest that that truth ought to be held so certainly that it cannot be opposed without danger to the faith.

1. To that, then, which is first objected to the contrary concerning want, that it draws one into sin, and concerning need, which makes one forswear; it must be said that want is twofold: one *voluntary,* and one *involuntary.* *Involuntary* want induces a defect of mind, and a proneness, and induces an occasion for sinning. But *voluntary* want or poverty has sufficiency joined to it, according to that text of the second to the Corinthians, chapter 6: *As having nothing* etc. And this disposes to perfect justice, because it makes the mind fit for every good, just as on the contrary *the root of all evils is avarice.* And this is what Chrysostom says, in the forty-seventh homily on Matthew: «If you wish to see the soul of one who loves gold, like a garment eaten by ten thousand worms and having nothing sound, so you will find it perforated on all sides by cares and rotted by sins and full of rust. But not such is the soul of the voluntarily poor man, but

it shines like gold, it gleams like a pearl, it blooms like a rose. There is no moth there, there is no thief there, there is no care for the business of this life, but it lives as an Angel. It is not subject to demons, it does not stand before kings, but stands before God; it does not do battle with men, but with the Angels; it has not the earth for its treasure, but heaven; it does not need servants, rather it has as servants the passions and thoughts which rule over kings. What then is better than this poor man? He has heaven, in short, for his pavement. And if the pavement is such, think out the roof. But has he not horses and a chariot? And what need has he of these, who is to be borne upon a cloud and *to be with Christ*»? — From these things it appears that in voluntary poverty there is great sufficiency, there is great nobility, which makes one transcend all earthly things.

Or it can be said otherwise, that those words were spoken in the time of the written Law, which promised temporal things, not eternal, in which poverty was despised. Whence Chrysostom, in the eighteenth homily on the Epistle to the Hebrews, treating the aforesaid word: *Riches and mendicancy* etc., says: «These things were said in the old Testament, where much account was taken of riches, where there was very great contempt of poverty, where the one was cursed, namely poverty, the other blessed, namely riches. But now it is not so at all. But if you wish to hear the preaching of poverty, Christ himself professed it and said: *But the Son of man hath not where to lay his head;* and again he said to the disciples: *Do not possess gold*». From which it appears that the authority is not contrary to those who take up voluntary poverty, since the one was said in the time of the written Law, the other in the time of the law of grace. Nor was that said in the person of a perfect man, but rather of an infirm one, as is clear from the word of Chrysostom. — And by this the reply to the first three authorities is clear.

2. To that which is objected, that Christ had a purse; it must be said that Christ had a purse for three reasons. For he had a purse *for other poor people,* according to what Jerome says in the authority set down above: «Christ was of such great poverty» etc.; and this does not take away the highest poverty. — He had a purse also *in condescension to the infirm,* as is said in the Gloss on that text of the Psalm: *Bringing forth grass for cattle:* «The Lord had or kept a purse for the uses of those who were with him, and of his own, and of the religious women in his company who ministered to him of their substance, in these things taking on rather the person of the infirm. For he foresaw that there would be many infirm who would seek these things, just as there too he took on their person, where he said: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death*». And of these two, on that text of John, chapter 12: *The things that were put therein* etc.; the Gloss: «He to whom Angels minister has a purse for the expenses of the poor, condescending to the infirm». — He had a purse also *in the moment of necessity,* as when he was passing through the Samaritans. In which moment also he permitted the disciples to have purses, according to that text of Luke, chapter 22: *When I sent you without purse and scrip* etc.; the Gloss: «He does not instruct the disciples by the same rule of living in the time of persecution as in the time of peace. When the disciples were sent to preach, he ordained and commanded that they take nothing on the way, namely, that he who announces the Gospel should live by the Gospel. But when the moment of death was at hand, and that whole nation was persecuting shepherd and flock together, he decreed a rule fitting for that time, permitting them to take what was necessary for food, until, the madness of the persecutors being laid to rest, the time of preaching the Gospel should return». — From these Glosses it manifestly appears that the manner of having a purse in the Lord in nothing lessened poverty. For thus the Lord condescended to infirmity and necessity, that nevertheless the form of poverty and the example should be kept safe, which he had come chiefly to show to men. According to what the Apostle says: *He became needy for us, that through his need we might be rich,* namely by voluntarily imitating the highest poverty.

3. To that which is objected concerning the Gloss on the first to Timothy, chapter 6: *Having food* etc., where it is said that temporal things are not to be cast away altogether; it must be said that it understands this of casting away temporal things as to *use,* not as to *ownership.* For the use of temporal things is necessary to human life, which nevertheless can be had without ownership and property, as is clear in the poor, who have no property. — And that this is the understanding of it is clear through what

follows immediately in the Gloss, where it adds that «*having food and wherewith to be covered, with these we are content;* he who reaches beyond finds evil». To be content, therefore, with the use of covering and food is the mode of perfect virtue. And thus the Gloss ought to be understood, nor is this repugnant to the highest poverty. But he who would so wish to cast away temporal things as to be unwilling either to accept food or to have covering would not act perfectly, but foolishly. And this is what that Gloss wishes to insinuate.

4. To that which is objected concerning the Gloss on the second to the Corinthians, chapter 8: *If the will be forward* etc.; the Gloss: «that he retain what is necessary»; it must be said that that Gloss is truncated, because there follows at once: «This is not said as though this, namely to give the whole, were not better; but he fears for the infirm, whom he admonishes so to give that they may not suffer need». From which it appears that that Gloss makes rather for the contrary than for the proposition, if it be looked at with a sound and upright eye.

5. To that which is objected, that he who so universally renounces all things tempts God; it must be said that it is false, both on account of the divine promises, and on account of the very many remedies that can be had, and on account of the examples by which we manifestly see that such poor men are sustained. From which it is manifestly gathered, if we are not hardened, that such a manner of renouncing, divinely inspired, does not amount to tempting God, but one who so renounces leans securely upon the divine promises; rather, he tempts God who doubts of the divine promises. On account of which Jerome, on that text: *Is not the life more than the meat?* «Let no one doubt the promises of the Truth; let man be what he ought to be, and presently all things are added to him, for whose sake all things were made». — He therefore who doubts of this tempts God, like the children of Israel, who said: *Can God furnish a table in the wilderness?* But perfect men ought not to be conformed to these, but rather to the Apostles; of whom it is said in the second to the Corinthians, chapter 4: *We are straitened, but we are not destitute;* the Gloss: «*We are straitened,* that is, we are poor to such a degree that necessities are lacking; *but we are not destitute* of God altogether, because God feeds us». And that this extends not only to the Apostles, but also to their imitators, appears through what is said to the Hebrews, the last chapter: *Let your manners be without covetousness, contented with such things as you have. For he hath said: I will not leave thee, neither will I forsake thee;* there the Gloss: «The almighty Lord himself said to Jesus Nave: *I will not leave thee,* but that I will give what is necessary; *neither will I forsake thee,* he would be forsaken who perished of hunger; but since this is not so, let not man be covetous. This he said to Josue after the death of Moses, this he says also to everyone who hopes in him, as Josue did. For these things he promises us, if we put our hope in him, not to the tenacious, not to the covetous, but to those hoping in him. And because it could seem to them that this promise was made to Josue alone, to this the Apostle answers, saying that he will help us as he helped him, as if to say: there is no doubting about the promise, because Jesus Christ, who *yesterday,* that is in the past, helped Josue, the same *today,* that is in the present, helps us and the other faithful, and will help in the future *for ever,* that is without end».

6. To that which is objected, that virtue consists about the mean; it must be said that that is true as to the things that are *of necessity,* as is largesse; but it fails in the things *that are of supererogation,* as is the counsel of poverty and of chastity. For the perfection of such things is looked to rather according to perfect configuration to Christ and the mode of divine love, which is that God be loved above all things, than according to the superfluous and the diminished in regard to the exterior object. — And that this is true is clear through Ambrose, in the book *On Duties,* near the beginning, as it were, where he speaks thus: «Every duty is either *middle* or *perfect;* which we can prove by the author-

ity of the Scriptures. For we have in the Gospel: *If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. Thou shalt do no murder* etc. These are *middle duties,* to which something is lacking. *If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor,* and where he says that enemies are to be loved and that we are to pray for those who calumniate and persecute us, if we wish to be perfect. This is the *perfect duty,* which the Greeks called *catorthoma,* by which all things are corrected that could have any lapses». — *Largesse* therefore, which is looked to according to the *middle* duty, keeps a measure in bestowing. But *poverty of spirit,* which is looked to according to the *perfect* duty, gives the whole. Whence in the same book, in the treatment of liberality: «It is clear that there ought to be a measure of liberality, lest largesse become useless, whose sobriety is to be kept». Of which measure he adds: «The measure of liberality is to be kept, so that what you do well you may be able to do daily, lest you withdraw from necessity what you have indulged to profusion. For Joseph could have given away the whole wealth of Egypt, poured out the royal treasures, yet he would not seem profuse with what was another's. He preferred to sell the grain rather than give it to the hungry, because, if he had given it to a few, it would have been lacking to more». But this pertains to the *middle duty,* according to what he himself says elsewhere, treating in the same book that text of the Apostle: *Not that others should be eased, and you burdened:* «We notice how he included benevolence and liberality and measure and fruit and persons; therefore *measure,* because he was giving counsel to the imperfect; for none suffer straits except the imperfect». — But because it is not repugnant to perfection to keep a measure, if one dispenses the goods of the Church, he therefore adds: «But if anyone, not wishing to burden the Church, established in some priesthood or ministry, does not confer the whole of what he has, but works with honesty, as much as is sufficient for his office, he does not seem to me imperfect».

From what has been said, therefore, it is gathered that, although it belongs to virtue according to the *common state* and the *middle duty* to keep the mean, yet it belongs to evangelical *perfection* to leave the whole. If however something is had *in common,* so that it may be dispensed, this does not make one imperfect; nor does *to leave the whole universally* denote excess, because this pertains to the *perfect duty,* as is clear from what has been said, and from what Ambrose sets down in the preceding chapter, where he speaks thus: «For the rest, the Lord does not wish wealth to be poured out all at once, but to be dispensed, unless perhaps, as Eliseus killed his oxen and fed the poor from what he had, so that he might be held by no domestic care, but, having left all things, might give himself to the prophetic discipline». If therefore for the prophetic discipline all things are to be left, much more for evangelical perfection.

7. To that which is objected, that to scatter all things is prodigality; it must be said that it is prodigality when all things are scattered for vanity, but not when they are given for usefulness; and so it is with evangelical poverty, because, as is said in Mark, chapter 10, the Lord will restore *a hundredfold* in the present with tribulations, and in the future *life everlasting.* But it is otherwise with the universal retention of all things. For that is not done for spiritual usefulness, but rather for earthly cupidity; therefore it is not alike on the one side and the other.

8. To that which is objected concerning him who withdraws necessities from another etc.; it must be said that it is not alike: because he who withdraws necessities *from another* does violence and brings him into involuntary poverty. But he who withdraws them *from himself* does so voluntarily and brings himself into voluntary poverty; and hence, just as that argument is not valid: involuntary poverty is not praiseworthy, therefore neither is voluntary; so the aforesaid reason does not compel. — There is also another defect in the aforesaid argument. For it proceeds by the supposition of a falsehood, in that he who renounces all things universally does not altogether withdraw necessities from himself, because he commits himself to the government of divine providence and leaves himself many ways of living and of seeking necessities.

9. To that which is objected, that he exposes himself to the danger of famine; it must be said that it is false, as appears altogether from what has been said and is manifestly gathered from all past times. For nowhere and never is it read that anyone wishing to serve God in poverty perished of hunger for lack of food. And this is what Augustine says in a certain treatise on the Lord's prayer: «For daily food cannot be lacking to the just man, since it is written: *The Lord will not afflict the soul of the just with famine;* and again: *I have been young,*

*and now am old, and I have not seen the just forsaken;* and again: *To those who seek the kingdom of God and his justice he promises that all things shall be added;* and indeed, since all things are God's, nothing will be lacking to him who has God, if he himself be not lacking to God. Thus to Daniel, shut up by the King's order in the lions' den, a dinner is provided by God, and among hungry beasts the man of God is fed. Thus also Elias in flight, the ravens ministering and the birds bringing him food, is nourished. O detestable cruelty of human malice! The beasts spare, the birds feed, and men lie in wait and rage». — From these things it is manifestly gathered that it is not a danger, but a refuge, all things being spurned, to dedicate oneself wholly to worshipping God.

10. To that which is objected last, that we ask for our daily bread in the Lord's prayer; it must be said that this makes rather for the opposite than for the proposition. For from the fact that we ask daily for the bread of the day, and do not ask for what we have, it is manifest that it belongs to evangelical perfection to be content with daily food. And because this cannot be seen to be perfection in the hearts of the avaricious, the Lord led to it not only by *the counsels of wisdom,* but also by *the examples of nature* and *the oracles of grace,* so that thus at least, through that threefold testimony, the counsel of poverty may be firmly proved, as the highest and stable foundation of all evangelical perfection.

---