Quaest. 2, Art. 3
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-a3
----------------------------------------
### 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 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*. First it is shown from *the bond of the law of nature.*

1. Genesis the second: *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 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 we are naturally obliged; but without bodily or manual labour

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: *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: *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: *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: *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: *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: «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: «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: «Let a cleric prepare his food and clothing by a craft or by husbandry,

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, to show that monks are bound to manual or bodily labour.

13. Again, the Gloss upon that word of Luke the twelfth: *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: *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: «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: «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*:

1. By that word of Luke the tenth: *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: *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: *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 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: *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

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: *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: *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: *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: «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: «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: *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*: «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: «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 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**;* 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: therefore either he was in an evil state, which is absurd, or he was not held to labour or to work.

17. Again, either able-bodied poor men *can live* on alms without manual labour, 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*. 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, 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: *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: «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 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: *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: *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*. — 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, that *they hated the children of Israel and brought them to bitter-*

*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 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»; *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 to the salvation, advantage and profit of others. And for this reason Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks, 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 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 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, 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

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: *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 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*, 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 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 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: *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,*

therefore 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; 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 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 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 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: 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: *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». 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 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

hard that so many men should be damned; and it seems a very impious thing to say that clerics of good disposition 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, 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 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; 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 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*. 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*, calling men to penance and to the grace of the Holy Spirit. Whence both of them 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

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 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 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; 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*, 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, 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, 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.

---