Dist. 24, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 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/4/d/24/q/bon-sent-IV-d24-p1-a1-q3
----------------------------------------
### Question III. *Whether in the reception of the corona there is a renunciation of temporal goods.*

In the third place inquiry is made whether in the reception of the corona [the clerical crown] there is a renunciation of temporal goods. And that there is, seems [to be so]:

1. First, through that which they say in the reception of the corona: *The Lord is the portion of my inheritance and of my cup; it is thou that wilt restore my inheritance to me*; but nothing *is restored* except what *is given* and *let go*: if therefore a cleric asks for the *restitution* of an inheritance, this implies its *relinquishment*.

2. Likewise, upon this Jerome says: "The Lord disdains to become a portion together with these portions, namely with transitory ones": it remains therefore that they either do not have *God* as their portion, or lack *another inheritance*.

3. Likewise, Hugh of Saint Victor in the book *On the Sacraments*: "A cleric ought to have no other land than God and the things that pertain to God; for whom it is decreed that he be sustained from the tithes and offerings that are offered to God."

4. Likewise, the clerics of the new testament are bound to a greater perfection than those of the old — whence in Matthew, chapter five: *Unless your justice abound* etc. — but to the priests and Levites it is said in Deuteronomy, chapter eighteen: *The priests and Levites, and all who are of the same stock, shall not have a part and inheritance with the rest of the people of Israel*: therefore if those [of the old law] were bound to this, much more does it seem [so] concerning the clerics of the new testament.

5. Likewise, the tonsure signifies the renouncing of temporal things, and the corona [signifies] the elevation to heavenly things, as the Master says in the text: therefore either it is a false sign, or a cleric ought not to have a patrimony or any possession of temporal goods.

**On the contrary:**
1. Jeremiah was of the priestly order, as is clear in the beginning [of his book]: *The words of Jeremiah* etc., and yet it is said in Jeremiah, chapter thirty-two: *Hanameel said to Jeremiah: Buy my field, which is in Anathoth, for the inheritance belongs to thee*: therefore the inheritance did belong to those [priests]. If therefore the truth answers to the figure, it seems etc.

2. Likewise, Leviticus, chapter twenty-five: *The houses of the Levites, which are in the cities, can always be redeemed*; but it was not so concerning the houses of others: therefore the Levites possessed what they had with greater liberty than others: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, clerics can take wives and beget children before [receiving] holy orders: if therefore they are not bound to chastity, then neither to poverty: therefore they are not bound to renounce their patrimony.

4. Likewise, no one is bound to works of supererogation, unless he voluntarily binds himself: if therefore a cleric in undertaking the tonsure does not intend to renounce his patrimony, it is clear etc.

### Conclusion.

> In the reception of the corona a cleric is by no law compelled to renounce temporal goods as to possession, but rather as to affection, and this only out of what is good and equitable.

**I respond:** It must be said that to renounce temporal goods, in one who serves the Church, or in one who becomes a cleric, is a matter of perfection, not of necessity. Whence this too was [the case] in the primitive Church, that no one had anything of his own, no one *said that anything was his own*, and to this day, by the grace of God, it is found in the perfection of religion. Yet to this a cleric is not compelled, neither by divine nor by human law; nevertheless, out of what is good and equitable, clerics ought to sweat less over the care of temporal things than laymen, who look for succession in their descendants; but *now* that [word], in Ecclesiastes chapter four, is verified: *He is one, and hath not a second, and yet he ceaseth not to labor* etc. — Whence one reason is that they do not look for descendants. Another reason is that they ought to be more intent upon spiritual things, and temporal care excludes the spiritual. And therefore the authorities speak as though [the clerics] ought to yield up all temporal things and let go of everything. But this is not to be understood as to *possession*, but rather as to *affection*; nor do they thereby lay upon themselves a new obligation over others out of *duty*, but only out of what is good and equitable.

1. 2. 3. To that, then, which is objected concerning the restitution of an inheritance, it must be said that it does not say this because he lets go of the *right*, but because it is fitting that he let go of the *affection*, so that he may be intent upon divine things. — And thus is understood that which Jerome says, and that which Master Hugh says.

4. 5. To that which is objected concerning the priests and Levites, that they were not to have an inheritance; it must be said that this is understood as to the *division of the land*, not as to the *possession of movable goods*, such as of flocks and houses and suburban lands for the feeding of cattle. — Now the reason why a temporal inheritance in the possession of land was not given to the Levites was twofold: the first, because they, as cultivators of God, were to be dispersed throughout the whole people; the second, that they might be more intent upon the divine worship, because they had not the means whereby they might otherwise be sustained. But now the clerics are dispersed of every nation throughout the whole world; and therefore that precept did not remain [in force]. And *again*, of the priesthood of Christ the priesthood of Aaron was not so much a figure as also that of Melchizedech, who, according to what is said to the Hebrews, chapter seven, was king and priest, as also is Christ. And although the Lord refused royal honor for the sake of an example of humility, and was himself poor and a beggar; nevertheless, on account of his most sweet kindness, he did not constrain others to this. For he knew that it is better to have hirelings than no children or few; and therefore, charity growing cold, the Holy Spirit disposed that the Church should abound in temporal goods, lest the worship of God should perish through poverty and want. And this is plainly seen, because the poor little churches find almost no rector, unless it be such a one as, for his own worthlessness, is despised by all. Whence it is by no means to be believed that the *state of the universal Church* is governed otherwise than the Holy Spirit disposes, whatever be the case concerning *particular persons*.

---