CHAPTER I
CHAPTER I
First PoINT OF THE First ANSWER: THE PER-
VERSE INTENTION OF THE CALUMNIATOR Is Ex-
POSED, AND THE LOFTY PERFECTION OF CHRIST'S
TRUE CONDESCENSION EXPLAINED
CAREFUL reading of the calumnious pamphlet beginning with the words "So great has been the presumption of some | men... "'t will produce clear evidence that it was composed with a zeal not i) according to knowledge, and that it is cf. Rom. 10:2
-AS| entirely devoid of sound doctrine. irst, it was published in defense of a book full of errors which begins thus: "Behold, they that see shall cry without... "; a book recently condemned by the Apostolic See.
This act of publishing in itself smacks of rebellion, since it Is. 33:7* spurns the Lawgiver's command sanctioned in Deuteronomy: If in your community there is a case at issue which proves too complicated for you to decide, ... you shall
Dt. 17:8-12 then go up... to the Levitical priest.
. According to [his] + In reference to the tracts mentioned here, the Quaracchi editors quote an annotation they found in the margin of Codex A, one of the early manuscripts of the "Apologia":
"From what is said here it appears that: 1) William of St. Amour composed the book beginning with the words: "Behold, they that see...'; 2) Thomas of York composed the tract beginning with the words: 'The hand that is lifted against the Almighty...';
3) Gerard (of Abbeville) wrote the pamphlet beginning with the words: 'So great has been the presumption...';
4) Bonaventure wrote the present ''Apology."'
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
decision... you shall act, ... without turning aside to the right or to the left.... Any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest who officiates there in the ministry of the Lord your God, or to the judge, shall die. Thus, at the time of the figurative priesthood, to oppose the judgment of a pontiff was a crime punishable by death; how much more intolerable, then, at the time of fully revealed truth and grace, and in full knowledge of the plenary power conferred upon the Vicar of Christ," to contradict his definitions in matters of faith and morals, approving what he reproves, restoring what he destroys, and defending what he condemns!
2. Secondly, as has been said, the eye of the attentive reader of this work is at once struck by the blatancy of a doctrine, not sane, but insane and impious. In the first book, the author lavishly praises flight from persecution and death as the characteristic action of the holy and the perfect; while abstinence and fast, under the pretext of their being remedies of spiritual diseases, he ascribes mainly to the imperfect. In the second book, he attempts to prove that the state of those who possess great wealth is admirable, while the state of those who possess nothing is dangerous and imperfect. In the third book, he attempts, with all the cunning and duplicity he can muster, to disparage the poverty and humility of the mendicant religious.
It is obvious that such pernicious teachings are in conflict, not only with the authority of the Apostolic See, but also with that of God and the Lamb. For the Holy Gospels cf. Mt. 5:3ff. read: Blessed are the poor, blessed are they that mourn, blessed are they that hunger, blessed are they that suffer persecution with joy and longing. In all of this, the Goscf. ibid. 7:14 pels lead to the narrow path which in turn leads to life.
CHAPTER I
vu This man, on the contrary, proclaims those perfect and blessed who flee persecution, avoid fasting, accumulate goods, and attain the highest honors! No Christian can be ignorant of the fact that this is foreign to the doctrine of the Saviour. For He, the Teacher of all, always invites His followers, not to the consolations of the flesh, but to the torment of the cross. cf. Mt. 10:38; 16:24; Mk.
8:34; Lk. 9:23; 14:27
3. Finally, the perverse and bitter fanaticism of the author of this book appears in its title, development, and conclusion. He is writing against a friar who refuted the condemned pamphlet in a tract beginning "The hand that is lifted against the Almighty .
. . ,'" which, both in purpose and in content, defends, supports, and praises the ideal of extreme poverty. This man, by contrast, prefaces his work with a title indicating that it is directed "against the enemy of Christian perfection, of prelatures, and of Church benefits," thereby insinuating that any praise of perfect poverty is an insult to Christ and to the dignity of the Church. In this he shows himself either wicked or ignorant. For either he is deliberately imputing to the innocent an imaginary crime, or he fails to understand that each of the different states of the Church is worthy of its own proper and lofty praise, different in every case, although in no way contra~ dictory of the others. The praise of virginity should not be seen as a disparagement of the married state, nor the praise of solitude a condemnation of cenobitic life.
Certainly, Holy Mother Church, who piously sings in tribute to every confessor, There was not found the like to him in glory,
Ecclus. 44:20* who kept the law of the Most High, does not thereby decry the glorious choir of the apostles, nor the white-robed host of the martyrs: each state has its own prerogatives for which it may be especially praised without injustice to the others.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
In fact, if the praise of the sons does not decrease, but rather increases, the praise of the fathers, any commendation of the poor in spirit should be seen, not as a debasing of prelates, but rather as their exaltation and glorification.
4. It clearly follows that the work under discussion is based upon a wholly invented charge through which the enemy of the Mendicants attempts to oppose the fathers to the sons, the tutors to the orphans, the providers to their wards; in order that, having deprived them of their patrons' guidance, he may devour the destitute, rob the poor, and murder the innocent. cf. Ps. 9B:8
In the very introduction of his book, he accuses the Men~ dicants, among whom his adversary was numbered, of being presumptuous, selfish, complacent, pretentious, and arrogant beyond example, implying that they placed themselves before Christ. His very first words are: "Such is the extent of the presumption of some men who are lovers of self and DT; self-willed, and who preach their own justice instead of the 2 Pt. 2:10 justice of Christ, that while the Apostle says, Be imitators
1 Cor. 4:16 of me, as I am of Christ, they, on the contrary, are saying:
Be imitators of us, as we are not of Christ." By starting out in this way, he unquestionably reveals that his whole book originates from the father of lies,...who has not stood in truth....He was a murderer from the beginning,
Jn. 8:44 and the accuser of our brethren.
Ap. 12:10
5. If men such as he describes exist at all and are to be found among the members of the Church, then assuredly they must be deprived of life, both now and in eternity, since they are utterly puffed up with Luciferian pride. But if such men cannot be found for the reason that they do not exist, either what he is saying is meaningless, so much wind, or else he is intentionally calumniating the innocent, cf. Jb. 6:26; 15:2
CHAPTER I
forgetting these words of the Wise Man: He who oppresses the poor blasphemes his Maker, but he who is kind to the needy glorifies Him.
Prv, 14:31
It is truly by providential design that such a foreword introduces this doctrine: it warns the reader that the author speaks, not as a doctor, but as a detractor. The vice of calumny brings about blindness, as Gregory notes in the "Register": "What else do calumniators do but blow upon dust, getting their own eyes full of it? The more they breathe of calumny, the less they perceive of truth.""
That is why, as the propounder of this evil teaching continues, he goes from bad to worse, and blind as he is, falls into the pit. For his next words are these: "What else, indeed, do these men have in mind when they teach in their writings that some of the deeds of Christ the Lord were intended, not as a display of His supreme perfection, but as a sion of His condescension toward the weak and the imperfect;t that perfect men are sometimes free to do the opposite without incurring blame—rather, actually deserving praise; and that it is in fact better to do the opposite than to act as Christ did?' This means that he considers as a supreme error, that he abhors and rejects as a poison, the thought that Christ God, whose ways are perfect, ever did anything out of condescension toward the weak and imperfect; and that he believes such condescension to be absolutely foreign to the Exemplar of utter perfection because opposed to perfect righteousness.
Even though this theory may appear on the surface to uphold the highest perfection of justice in Christ, and hence to redound to His praise, yet, because it refuses to grant Him
+ For definitions of "perfection" and "imperfection," see paragraph 8, below.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
the possibility of an act of supreme kindness, it amounts to wickedly denying the flow of the Fountain of Mercy, to cutting off the Way of Salvation: it is therefore a certain blasphemy against the condescending compassion of the eternal King.
6. Therefore, to defend the truth and dispel error, we have determined, in imitation of David, to choose five smooth stones out of the brook—that is, out of the abun1 Kgs. 17:40* dant wisdom of Catholic doctrine. If the author wishes to assent to truth with pious faith, he may use these, our weapons; but if he prefers to resist it shamelessly, he shall be struck... in the forehead. ibid. 49* Let him listen first to Augustine's commentary on Psalm
103: "The Lord had a purse, as is said in the passage on the holy women who ministered to Him out of their own eon, 12:6; Mt. 27:55 resources.
Paul would seek nothing of the sort, but gave everything to the provincial churches; yet, because many of the weak would be seeking such things, Christ had assumed rather the person of the weak. Is Paul, then, higher than Christ? Christ is higher, because more merciful.
While knowing that Paul would not seek such things, Christ took care not to condemn one who would, and to provide an example for the weak. Likewise, while He knew that many would go eagerly and happily to the passion of their martyrdom, and would even rejoice in the midst of that passion—the strong, the very old, those who were ripe for the harvest— He also knew that some of the weak would be shaken once the trial was upon them. In order to forestall their failure, and to help conform their human will to that of God, it was their person that Christ chose to assume in His passion, saying: 'My soul is sad, even unto death,' "'
Mt. 26:38
CHAPTER I
Could anything more limpidly clear be uttered in reply to the enemy of truth? When Augustine writes that Christ
"chose to assume" the person of the weak, this cannot be construed as an indication that He was weak, under the pretext of His use of the purse and His fear of the passion.
For even Paul and those Augustine describes as going to their passion happily—which he clearly does not count among the weak—were not immune to the shrinking of the flesh, since they too were mortal men.
Again, blessed Ambrose, commenting on the Saviour's words "Remove this cup from Me," has this to say: "Those
Lk. 22:42 are mistaken who, relying on this passage, would use the Lord's anguish to prove a weakness in germ from the very beginning rather than one accepted only for a while, and would prefer to distort the natural meaning of the sentence.
I personally have never found a better reason to wonder at His love and majesty: He would have given less to me had
He not borne my pain.' Clearly, then, we may gather that, besides the general fear of death which is common to all—to those who rejoice in their passion no less than to the others—Christ assumed a certain sensitivity, condescending to the weak, both in His flesh and spirit.
Chrysostom also, in his Twenty-seventh Homily, commenting on Matthew, exclaims: "Behold how much tenderChavis ness there is in Christ's condescension, in His manner of 18-19 eating and drinking, as He appears to eat and drink in a way that is different from that of John [the Baptist]! If He does it, it is for the sake of the salvation of the Jews, or rather, for the salvation of the whole world."' What could be more clearly said than this? Christ's manner of eating and drinking is explained to be a condescension to the Jews who were utterly weak, not so much in the flesh
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
as in the spirit, while even John suffered from the weak~ ness of the flesh.t Gregory, in his twelfth book of "Ethics," has these comments on the words Shall man that is dead, thinkest thou, live again?: "Just men often propose with seeming doubt a doctrine of which they themselves are quite certain; thus borrowing the words of the weak, to which they then
Jb. 14:14" oppose a strong affirmation. In this way, through the very doctrine which they seemingly proposed with doubt, by condescending in some measure to the weak, they strengthen them to embrace the truth. In so doing, they follow the example of our Head who, at the approach of His passion, assumed the voice of the weak when He said: 'Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me'; but continued in a display of the power of fortitude: 'Yet not My will but Thine be done.' "® In this he clearly proves that condescenLk. 22:42 sion to the weakness and imperfections of mortals is characteristic, not only of the stronger members of Christ, but also of the Head Himself.
Finally, Master Hugh, in his exposition of the psalm It is good to give thanks to the Lord, speaks in this manner:
Ps. 91:2
"Jesus had a purse, and He accepted that which was given, conforming Himself to the imperfect. But Paul did not wish to accept any financial compensation from the Gospel, and so he attended without pay to the ministry of the word; thus Paul seems to have done something greater than Christ.
But Christ wished to be numbered among the imperfect lest } This may mean that Christ alone, because of His complete dominion over the flesh, could afford to eat as did the Jews, while
John, subject to the weakness of the flesh, was bound to fasting if he wanted to be perfect. The reasoning seems dangerously close to that of the Cathari (The Pure Ones) who claimed they were free to perform any act once they had been formally cleansed.
CHAPTER I
those who took nothing fall into presumption, lest those who accepted gifts be confounded, and lest a man who did
[in this matter] what Christ refused to do be suspected of not being a true Christian.'"'
The enemy of Christ's condescension is struck straight in the forehead by this fifth stone, the testimony of our final Catholic doctor. From it may be construed, indeed, that the Master of Perfection had a purse out of condescension; but even more: that it is praiseworthy not to have a purse, in fact more so than to have one.
7. This will appear in a clearer light if we consider the fact that, as "good" and "'evil'"' may each have three possible meanings, so may "perfection" and "imperfection": that is, by nature, through circumstances, or in themselves.
That is good by nature which consists in a transient act related to a proper matter, such as going to church, or giving alms. That is good through circumstances which consists in an act which receives its qualification from praiseworthy conditions, such as giving alms in accord with the circumstances of the gift, the giver, and the receiver, of the time, place, and persons concerned. In both cases, goodness may be destroyed by some defective particular, and especially by a disordering of the intention; as, for instance, if one gives alms, or fasts, or goes to church, in order to obtain from the act some human glory. Finally, a thing is good in itself when it can never be turned into evil, for instance, an act of virtue proceeding from the root of love.
In the same way, "evil" also is used in three senses. That is called evil by nature which consists in an act dealing with a forbidden matter, such as killing a man. It is called evil by circumstances when it consists in an act that receives its
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
qualification from disordered conditions, for instance, eating outside of the time appointed by the rule. Finally, it is called evil in itself when it cannot possibly become good: when it consists in one of those acts which, to quote
Aristotle, "'are connected with evil as soon as they are mentioned"? — for instance, lying, fornication, hatred of the truth, and approval of error.
8. Similarly, "perfection" also is used in three senses.
That is perfect by nature which consists in an act both difficult and excellent, for instance, giving up everything, or entering the religious life. That is perfect through circumstances which consists in an act difficult and adorned with favorable conditions, for instance, abandoning wealth joyfully, and for the purpose of edifying the neighbor.
That is perfect in itself which consists in an act both difficult and proceeding from the highest charity, for instance, a movement of fervent and ecstatic love for God, or of pure and complete love for the enemy.
Likewise, "imperfection" is used in three senses. That act is imperfect by nature which is easy and toward which human weakness is inclined, for instance, fearing death, or possessing wealth. That act is imperfect through circumstances which receives its qualification from a condition that inclines toward the lowest level of justice,t for instance, stripping oneself of clothes under duress in order to avoid a greater damage. Finally, that act is imperfect in itself which is absolutely inconsistent with evangelical perfection, for instance, divorcing a wife, or running away from poverty.
9. Since the terms "perfect act" and "'imperfect act'' are } I.e., doing the right thing by physical necessity.
CHAPTER I
applied in widely different cases, several conclusions are clear. First, an act evil by nature may become good through circumstances — for instance, killing an evildoer when such execution is ordered by law and imposed by the state; and, in the opposite scale, an act good by nature may become evil through circumstances— for instance, abandoning the little wealth actually possessed in order to obtain greater ecclesiastical goods, or renouncing every act of the passion of the flesh in order to enjoy a longer physical life; and in the opposite scale, an act imperfect by nature may become perfect through circumstances — for instance, fleeing from cf. Jn. 8:59; 123672); Eon LESS martyrdom in order to suffer for God more gloriously, more fruitfully, and at a better time, as did Christ, and also the Apostle Paul. In similar cases, we are to judge similarly.
10. From these examples there comes a clear notion of what we should truly think of the deeds of Christ. When we speak of these deeds, we may refer either to His interior or to His exterior works. (We call any work interior when considered as productive of an effect, and exterior when considered as the effect produced.)
Every work of Christ considered as interior, that is, as productive of an effect, is most perfect, for it proceeds from the most excellent love, and is an act of the most perfect will and power.
But His exterior work, considered in itself, sometimes was perfect in the very nature of the act—for instance, when
He offered Himself to death and laid down His life for His ef jn 1072 sheep; sometimes it was imperfect by nature
— for instance, when He fled from those who pursued Him, or concealed Himself, or prayed that the chalice be removed. Yet this act imperfect by nature is made perfect because of the love, reason, and purpose by and for which Christ did these things, and because of His very Person.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
Bernard, in his sermon on blessed Andrew, comments on the passage "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from Me": "I perceive in the Warrior the alarm of the feeble
Mt. 26:39 and in the Physician the voice of the sick, I behold the hen become weak with her brood: I consider this love, I am astounded by this condescension, I am terrified by this humility. The merciful Lord did not assume the robust constitution of blessed Andrew, for 'it is not the healthy who need a physician, but they who are sick.' If such condescension scandalizes anyone, this man plainly deserves ibid. 9:12 to hear such words as these: 'Art thou envious because I am generous?' For him indeed the odor of life leads to death. Wouldst Thou have been greater, O Lord Jesus, if, at the time of Thine Advent Thou hadst stood fearlessly as ibid. 20:15 one having the power to lay down his life in such a way that none could take it from him? Was it not much more glorious, since indeed all was being done for our sake, that not only the suffering of Thy body but also the feelings of Thy heart should obtain for us that those whom Thy death had returned to life would at the same time become cf. Jn. 10:18 ff. strong through Thy fear, happy through Thy sorrow, joyful through Thy pain, peaceful through Thy struggle, and consoled through Thy desolation?''® Such is the very thought expressed by Augustine in the quotation given above:t that Paul seemingly performed something more sublime than the work of Christ, while in truth Paul is not more sublime than Christ, but Christ is more sublime, because more merciful.
This Augustine says because the condescension of Christ by which He bowed to the weak and the imperfect proceeded from the th G6.
CHAPTER I
sublimity of the most perfect love.'' By assuming human nature, He became humble in us while remaining in Himself the Most High; so also, through the condescension of His supreme love, He deigned to perform certain deeds that were fitted to our own imperfection and lack of intelligence, and this without compromising His own righteousness.
11. And so it is true that all the works of Christ are cf. Dt. 32:4 perfect in relation to Himself.
It is also true that Christ performed some deeds that consisted in assuming the person of the weak and in condescending to our frailties and imperfections.
Further, it is again true that the opposite of such things may be done praiseworthily, and in view of certain circumstances of time and place, it may even be better to do the opposite. Yet, finally, it is true that in cf. Mt. 10:24 such cases the disciple never becomes greater than his Master; for no one ever ascended to deeds of fortitude with so great a love as that with which Christ was filled when He condescended to these deeds of weakness. Hence the Master is always superior to His disciple: that is, Christ remains superior to any man, even the most perfect.
If the author we are answering had known how to con~ sider all these things with diligence and piety, he would not have brought forth so many abominable teachings against the condescension of Christ. And if, overcome by God's mercy (which is our deepest hope and our most prayerful wish for him), he now humbly desires to consider these arguments in the right way, he will not attempt to worsen his crime through some further heretical depravity, but will endeavor to amend himself and deplore his error.
Unless perhaps, which God forbid, he is one of those men who, because they overlook the high and condescending
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
justice of the sublime and humble Christ and attribute to the Master of Perfection a certain inflexible rigor, reveal themselves as enemies of His true and kindly justice instead of entrusting themselves to it.
WUD a :
, aoe
p>":
\Y ea < < Pi ia \ ~~ y) / i a asi Me 3 SLY, :
<"ty Vis ee yy CAAA By Lee 3 = Ss
f CA LELEE
Py» Pip eS