CHAPTER X
CHAPTER X
_ 0 SE ae ee a al First PoINT OF THE FouRTH ANSWER, IN WHICH THE RELicious LIFE OF THOSE WHO Have No Purse Is DEFENDED AGAINST ERROR, AND THE TRUE RIGHT OF ECCLEsIASTIC PossEssION Is Ex~
POSED
9 SOON as covetousness, ... the primary root of all evils, has invaded the 1 Tm. 6:10 fortress of the human mind, it imposes (AN. upon it such cruel tyranny that it leads
VT it back to the servitude of idols and cf. Eph. 5:5; Col. 3:5 ie CA ) makes it as cruel as a beast. A clear xa teecs| proof of this is the malice of Judas the aes While he held the purse with which he might have appeased the voracity of his covetousness, he was driven by such craving for a promised sum of money that, small as it was, it made him thirst for the blood of the Savcf. Mt. 26:15 iour of All, and sell unto death the Author of Life.
Laboring under the same scourge, the calumniator of the Mendicants begins like Judas by giving them a kiss of peace, by seeming to commend their poverty. Later, however, he deals them a death blow in his attempt to prove by argument that the profession of the Mendicants who have no purse is not only imperfect, but wicked, deceitful, and vicious. By so reasoning, he attempts to induce, not only prelates but also clerics and religious endowed with posses~ sions, to detest and exterminate the Mendicants.
2. First, as offering a kiss, he says: "But you may ask, 'Do you not condemn those who have no purse and do not
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
work?' '"" And he answers: "I do not condemn them, I praise them; yet I do not prefer them to those who own ma~ terial goods, for no disciple is above his teacher." And he continues a little later: "Although a man alone may be able
Mt. 10:24 to live without a purse, yet it is unbelievable of a congrega~tion that is in need of so many things." And later, again:
"Something owned in common is in fact the purse of Christ.
Hence, if you are a member of Christ, with Christ you have a purse." These are his actual words by which, like Judas, he first gives a kiss, saying that he praises those who have no purse, then suddenly inflicts a wound, adding immediately that Christ gave no example of such teaching. He is attempting to prove that to be without a purse is not perfect, but imperfect, because no disciple is above his teacher. ibid.
3. No prudent man gives up his purse for any other reason than to be more perfectly conformed to Christ. According to this man's perverse teaching, anyone who does so would be mistaken.
Furthermore, if it is unbelievable, as he says, that any congregation could subsist without a purse, he justifies such unbelief by either a difficulty or an impossibility. If a difficulty, then by the same token it is unbelievable that any congregation could live in holiness and chastity; if an impossibility, then any congregation that professes the impossible and binds itself to what it cannot do labors under superstition and conceit and needs to be reproved because it errs. Hence those who have no purse would be worthy, not of praise, but of blame.
Again, if, as he says, any member of Christ possesses a purse together with Him, it follows from the negation of the consequent * that a man without a purse is no member of Christ. And hence it also follows that all the Mendicants
CHAPTER X
who have nothing—and more so those who have surren_ dered everything—are outside the unity of the mystical body, for a man who renounces the possession of money would therefore be unable to obtain the grace of Christ. In this sense, Judas, who had a purse, was more blessed than
Peter who said: "Silver and gold I have none." Also, acActs 3:6 cording to this impious teaching, the Lord Jesus Himself, whose place of rest, as the prophet Isaias says, is in him cf. Is. 66:1 ibid, 2* that is poor... and of a contrite spirit, could find repose only among riches.
4. Behold the great eulogizer of the poor! In order to vomit more poison from his breast, he attempts in the following passage to brand the Mendicants with a twofold heresy. Relying on quotations from Augustine "On Heresies' and "Against Faustus,'? he continues: 'There is a certain heresy of those who walk around barefoot, and do so, not for the sake of afflicting their body, but because they claim to be following a manifestation of God's will; in this same manner, the Manicheans were judged heretical, not for having no money or purse, but because they attempted to relate this privation to a manifestation of God's will."
Such are the words of this man, by which he opens the pit of error but fails to close it. For it manifestly remains from this saying that if some men walk barefoot and have no purse, and if they refer this to a manifestation of God's will, they fall into a double heresy, that is, of those who walk barefoot, and of the Manicheans. In reality, the Mendicants we are concerned with walk barefoot and have no purse in order to fulfill literally the passage of the Gospel in which the Lord tells the apostles not to have money in cf. Mt. 10:9-10 their belts or shoes on their feet. According to this man's wicked view the apostles have fallen twice into heresy!
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
Now, if this is true, the apostolic Church erred in every way, for it approved such a state,} and inscribed the authors of such heresies on the roster of the saints. And no less an error was committed by Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome,
Chrysostom, Bede, Rabanus, and Bernard, all of whom affirm that the teaching of Christ to the apostles on the advisability of not carrying money is to be understood literally, as it clearly appears in the quotations from these same authors, given in the first part of the preceding answer.{ And because it is impious to have such an opinion of the saints, this deceitful impostor will have to return to a pious understanding of the truth, if he wishes to avoid being struck with a just sentence of condemnation.
5. Let this unwise and perfidious man attend to the fact that manifestations of divine will may be adapted to such matters in two ways: that is, by manner of counsel, or by manner of precept. And so, if anyone tries to adapt the divine words to nudity of the feet or absence of a purse in such a way that he construes from the Scriptures that such things are prescribed and necessary for salvation
—as if no one could be saved if he did not walk barefoot and without a purse—he is doubly mistaken.tf But, on the contrary, if anyone tries to adapt the expression of the divine will to these things as being counseled, and supererogatory, and advantageous for salvation, he should be taken, not for a heretic, but for a true disciple of Christ; not for a Manichean, but for a true Christian.
That this was the interpretation of the pious doctor Augustine is clearly gathered from his words in the Fifth Book ft Pope Honorius III. t Cf. ch. VIL, 4G Off.
Tt Cf. ch. VII, ¥ 23.
CHAPTER X
"Against Faustus."" After quoting Faustus' self-glorification for having accepted the Gospel because he rejects silver and gold, has no more money in his belt, and other such things,
Augustine answers him in this order. He shows him first to be a hypocrite and a liar, and then a heretic, for the reason that the Church makes a distinction between perfect and imperfect on the basis of the manner in which the Gospel is received, but the Manicheans do not. Then he continues:
"How many are those in our communion who truly fulfill these sublime precepts which you call upon as a pretext to deceive the ignorant!" In the next few lines, after showing the different states within the Church, he continues: "In fact, those who, for the sake of perfection, sell and distribute all they have and follow the Lord are not the only ones cf. Mt. 19:21 to belong to the kingdom of heaven: for there should be added to this Christian militia the group of those who have money and make charitable use of it, and to whom it shall be said at the end: 'I was hungry and you gave Me to eat;
I was thirsty and you gave me to drink.' Otherwise, damnaMt. 25:35 tion would be the lot of those whose houses the Apostle cf. Col. 3:18 set in order with such diligent and attentive care, warning that wives be subject to their husbands, that husbands love their wives, and children obey their parents. Let us not judge such as these to be breaking the evangelical precept and forfeiting eternal life, for while the Lord says: 'He who Mt. 10:38 does not take up his cross and follow Me, is not worthy of Me,' thus exhorting the strong to perfection, He immedicf. Lk. 14:27 ately consoles these others by saying: "He who receives a Mt. 10:41 just man because he is a just man, shall receive a just man's reward.' Why, then, do you deceive your listeners, who minister to you through their wives, sons and families, through their houses and fields, and say that if anyone does
Tae
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
not renounce all such things, he is not receiving the Gospel?
Since it is not resurrection, but a return to this mortal life that you are promising them, so that your elect lead a life as vain, inept, and sacrilegious as your own, by receiving great praise you are truly making them break the evangelical precept."? By these words Augustine clearly shows that some teachings of the Gospel are fitting for the perfect, that their observance is not indispensable for the salvation of the imperfect, and that the Manicheans believed all men to be equally bound to the observance of every one of these teachings. He meant that Faustus was mistaken, not for having said that these propositions were to be understood literally, but for having failed to see the distinction between counsels and precepts.
6. It appears from many attestations of the Doctors that the words referring to the question of not wearing shoes are also to be understood literally.t Indeed, holy Ambrose, in his book "On Flight from the World," speaks as follows:
'Jesus sent his disciples without shoes or money lest they carry with them anything of the world.'
Jerome, also, writing to Eustochius, says: "Moses and Jesus Nave were ordered to stand barefoot on the earth; the disciples were sent out to preach the Gospel barefoot, without the burden of shoes or the bond of sandals; and the Cfo Ex. 3:5 pjos. 510 cf. Mt. 10:10 soldiers, when they shared the clothing of Jesus, found no sandals they could take. For the Lord could not have owned that which He had forbidden His servants to have."*> By these words, Jerome shows that it is not only the disciples, t The disputation that follows seems gratuitous since the counsel of poverty as applied to dress should be understood to mean, not "go barefoot," but "dress as do the poor," taking into consideration the circumstances of place and climate.
CHAPTER X
but also Christ, who walked barefoot, and that this is to be understood literally. He says the same to Ageruchias, in the book "On Monogamy'': "In the course of their travels throughout the world, the disciples had no money in their belt, no staff in their hand, and no sandals on their feet.'
In his final homily on Matthew, John Chrysostom says:
"The apostles went around clothed with a single garment and without shoes, and they overcame all men.'" The same, also, says in his Thirty-second Homily: "Christ said to the ' apostles: "When I sent you without purse... or shoes, did
Lk. 22:35* you want anything?' '* In the Sixth Book of the "History of the Church," Euse~ bius, also, has these words of praise for Origen, who at the time was still a Catholic: "Before anything else, he believed that the precepts of the Gospel and the words of the Saviour by which it was prescribed not to have two garments, or to wear shoes, or to be concerned with the future, were to be fulfilled with the greatest love and attention." And a little later: "Finally, and after many years, the tradition was still that Christ walked barefoot, without any shoes.'""°
From such quotations as these, and from those given earlier,f it is clearly established that Christ went about with bare feet, and that the apostles did the same at His command.
7. And if, perchance, anyone is impressed by the words of the Baptist who says: "The latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose," let him consider the text itself and the Lk. 3:16* glosses. For here John makes use of these words in a mys~ tical and symbolical sense, as when he says that Christ has in His hands the winnowing fan, or the axe. By such symbols he gives to understand the separation at the time of ibid. 17,9 + CE. ch. VIL, (9 8f.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
final judgment. So also by the latchet of the shoes he indicates the mystery of salvation. Thus the gloss reads: "The shoes represent the mystery of the incarnation, and the latchet, the lock of this mystery. John is not worthy to loose the latchet of the shoes because he is unable to solve the mystery of the incarnation.""' And another gloss reads:
"I am not worthy to loose the latchet of His shoes, that is, I do not usurp the name of the Spouse." For this saying is to be understood spiritually, as having a mystical sense.
If anyone replies that it is to be understood literally, in the usual meaning of the words, let him note that when a man, speaking of another whose excellence he desires to proclaim, declares that he is unworthy to take off his shoes even though he may be wearing none, such expression is conditional, for it is understood to mean: if he were wearing shoes."*
Were someone to insist that the angel said to Peter: "Put Acts 12:8 on thy sandals," and that, therefore, Peter was not without shoes any more than were the other apostles, let him listen to Bede in his original commentary on this same passage:
"Instead of the word caligulae or caligae, as some texts have, the Greek has oav8déAta. Now, we read in the Gospel that this kind of footwear was permitted to the apostles."'*. This from Bede.
The grammarian Papias also agrees with him when he says: ''Caligae or caliqulae are named after the sole (callus) because they are tied to the foot.''?
8. Hence if any man filled with the spirit of the world asserts that it is not fitting that the Lord prescribe literally that the apostles go barefoot, under the pretext that this would be something lowly, incompatible with apostolic dignity and foreign to proper customs, let him understand that
CHAPTER X
there are many reasons for this prescription. First, it was given AS A SIGN OF EXTREME POVERTY, according to this passage of Luke: "When I sent you without purse... or Dk, 22:35* shoes, did you want anything?" Commenting on this in his Thirty-second Homily on Matthew, Chrysostom says:
"Someone may say that Christ's other commands had a certain justification; but why did He prohibit the use of a purse, of shoes, or of two garments when traveling since there seems to be no reason for it?" And he answers: "The reason is that He who, earlier, had not permitted the aposcf. Mt. 6:34 tles to be concerned about the morrow desired also to train them in all manner of destitution.'
Second, Christ suggested this AS AN INDUCEMENT TO PENITENTIAL HUMILITY, in accordance with this passage from the Second Book of Kings: But David went up by the ascent of Mount Olivet, going up and weeping, walking barefoot. In this quotation, the noble king, model of all penitence and humility, gives an example to all true peni2 Kgs. 15:30* tents. And the ecclesiastic custom by which feet are bared in processions in order to appease God's anger is a manifestation of the same spirit.
Third, Christ proposed it AS A PROOF OF PROMPT OBE~ DIENCE. Of this text from Isaias: ""As my servant Isaias hath walked, naked and barefoot," the gloss says: "Behold,
Is. 20:3* this is subjection: this man is of royal seed, and yet he walks barefoot through the city of Jerusalem."
Fourth, AS AN EXERCISE IN AUSTERITY OF LIFE. Thus, commenting on this passage from Matthew: "No shoes on cf. Mt. 10:10 their feet," the gloss says: "Even Plato teaches that both extremities of the body are to be left uncovered, and that head and feet are not to be pampered. For when the extremities are hardy, the remainder of the body is strong."
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
Fifth, AS A SIGN OF REMOTENESS FROM ALL CARNALITY.
Thus, commenting on this passage from Exodus: "Remove the sandals from 'your feet," the gloss says: "Because no one may stand in the presence of God, or see God, unless he casts off all carnal desire.'"* Ex. 3:5
Sixth, AS A SIGN OF PERFECT VIRTUE.
Thus, Gregory Nazianzen, praising certain religious of his time, and weeping and crying after their dispersal, has this to say: "I had longed and sought with 'eager and attentive eyes to see the holy choir of those who offer glory to God and sing His praise, who meditate on His law day and night, who live as Ps. 1:2 an example of better life and as a warning for all, as silent preachers of the law of God and the Gospel of Christ, in whom even the appearance and dress display the signs of virtue: a shaggy head with untrained and bristling hair; bare feet, also, like the apostles; cheap clothing that condemns the arrogance and conceit of the world; a belt all the more precious because of its very inelegance, hardly giving any support to the clothing.'
And so, in order to avoid that bare feet, in themselves an affliction and a humiliation, be forsaken as a useless, erroneous, and detestable custom, we have produced these quotations from the fathers. Yet, we do not believe in absolutely rejecting shoes, nor do we mark with the sign of imperfection those who wear them, for the customs of the calced and of the discalced, and the professions of those
+ Another version reads in translation: "'A belt that is graceful by its very lack of research, lightly holding the tunic, so that it seems hardly to hold it at all."
Such, unfortunately, seems to be an idealized interpretation, since there is no doubt about the medieval idea of the uncouth saint, clearly described here as having a "'shaggy head with untrained and bristling hair."
CHAPTER X
who have purses and of those who have none, are pleasing to the Lord for different reasons and considerations, and make the Bride of Christ beautiful, perfect, and admirable by surrounding her with a certain manifold variety. cf. Ps. 44:10* 9. And so, it is vainly that, intending to insult the Memdicants who have nothing, this man who has been accusing them of heresy and simulation,} now excuses Holy Mother
Church from the vice of simulation by offering her worthef Jb: 31:7 less and deceitful praise, as if she had any need of his falsehood. Indeed, he continues: "But Holy Mother Church, set
Mt. 5:14 on a mountain, denies not that she possesses these things, but that she has dominion over them, since in her most faithful distribution of them, she is acting on behalf of the cf. 2 Cor. 5:20
Head."" These are his very words in which he makes use at the same time of two contradictory notions, that the Church
"denies not that she possesses these things," and then, that "she has no dominion over them.'' If, indeed, he demon~ strates that the Church possesses in her own name and without simulation, this is true possession, and backed with true right: and the Church, then, has the right to claim dominion over such things. Why, then, does he say that "she has no dominion over them," and then speak of dis~ tribution? We do not claim truly to possess that which we distribute in another's name, but only that which we hold under our power in our own right. Hence, if the Church shows herself as possessing temporal goods, and yet has none, she is laboring under a simulation opposed to that of the Manicheans: for while the latter pretend not to possess that which, in fact, they do, the Church would be pretending to possess that which, in fact, she does not. And so, if tCh 7 4.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
the Church asserts that she has no possessions, and if she really has none, as this man claims, then the fact of not possessing temporal goods, not even a purse, is truly fitting for this Holy Mother. Why, then, does he accuse and condemn as heretics and simulators both those who have no purse, and those who declare they have none? On the other hand, if, as we have shown, the Church truly possesses and truthfully asserts that she does, this man is unduly taking away from her the dominion she has over ecclesiastic goods—and he is also contradicting himself.
10. Furthermore, if, as he says, dominion over things does not belong to Holy Mother Church, all those who have dominion over anything are excluded from the communion of this Church. Now, such a doctrine undoubtedly pertains to the impiety of the Manicheans, as it appears with evidence from Augustine's opinion quoted above,f taken from his Fifth Book against Faustus. Therefore, since this man burdens the poor of Christ with the impiety of the Manicheans, he falls into the pit which he has made, and is swallowed in the hole which he has dug.
Ps. 7:16
And if he says that this principle does not apply to the universal Church, but to local churches, or, rather, to the clerical body, he is still holding an erroneous and impious opinion, since he is separating from the communion of the Church all the clerics who have possessions of their own.
Hence it is impossible to maintain that the Church is entirely free of such possessions, and also, contrariwise, that she possesses all her goods in proper: indeed, some churchmen, while respecting the truth of the Gospel and their future salvation, truly have private possessions, while others
+ CE. 5.
CHAPTER X
have common possessions, and others still are deprived of both, according to the degrees of evangelical perfection already indicated.
11. Yet, it is true that tithes and offerings are due to the Lord, and that, by divine right, they are given to the Church.
It is also true, nonetheless, that the ownership of real estate, such as fields, farms, dwelling places, cities, and counties, passes into ecclesiastical hands not only by divine but also by human right. Even though this stands out as a clear fact for prudent men and for those well informed in legal matters, yet it needs to be demonstrated through the sacred
Canons, for the sake of refuting the malice of this ignorant and shameless man.
In the twelfth point, question two, from the Council of Orléans, we read: "If anyone among the clerics presumes either to suppress or to disclaim the documents on the strength of which the firm right of ownership of the Church is based, whatever goods may have been disposed of at a loss to the Church through lack of documents, let him pay for it out of his own possessions.'"° A little later, Gregory is quoted on the same matter: 'In like manner as the Church is not to lose what belongs to her, so also it is not fitting that she invade with covetous ardor that which belongs to others." Furthermore, in the same question, there is this excerpt from the Council of Agde: "If the bishop has granted freedom to slaves of the Church,{ those things that were given to them in the act of manumission they will
+ GClech. IX,,7) 11.
+ Some ecclesiastic authorities, following the customs of the secular world of their time, actually believed themselves entitled to have slaves — which to us seems to contradict the most fundamental Christian teachings on the dignity of man.
The fact of assigning the ownership of slaves, not to individual churchmen, but to the Church
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
firmly hold with a perpetual right.""? This from the Canon.
Thus, the Church has slaves; but where there is true slavery there is also true dominion; and so, if the Church is able to have slaves that properly belong to it, the conclusion is evident that it also must enjoy the rights of true property and true ownership.
12. Furthermore, the fact that distinct powers belong to distinct churches is clearly established by the Canons.
There is, for instance, point sixteen, question five, by Pope Nicholas: "If any bishop, for the sake of some good to his flock, decides to build a church on the territory of a city foreign [to his diocese], let him not presume to dedicate it, for this function belongs to the bishop in whose territory the church is being erected."'? In the same point, question three, there are also these words from Gelasius: "It was agreed to add that if— may it never occur— the riches of a church or of a certain diocese came to be owned by bishops, they should claim their own right as it derives from the thirty year [prescription] law, for thus has disposed the authority of our sons the princes.'
Again, in the same question, in the Canon Among things remembered, where the matter of boundaries is settled, Innocent says: "If a legitimate boundary does not enclose a given basilica, and yet it is proven that prescription has been claimed long, since the appeal of the present bishop itself makes things even worse, for the abomination is imputed, not to fallible men, but to the infallible Bride of Christ. This shows how deeply the Church has been influenced at times by established social customs which enlightened leaders should have fought with all their might. One of the main purposes of the present aggiornamento is precisely to eliminate lingering traces of medieval power-politics and autocratic forms of government dating from the days when the Church had degenerated into a worldly kingdom and the popes into potentates surrounded by their court.
CHAPTER X
shall not be valid, since the objection of the thirty year law imposes silence upon him. The laws of the princes of the world also prescribe this, and it is the authority of Roman magistrates that decreed it.' Not only is there here an affirmation of the fact that the churches have a true and distinct power of dominion, because there is between them mutual prescription, but also that they have this power both by divine and by human right, since prescription, as shown in these Canons, draws its origin from a law of the princes approved by the authority of the Supreme Pontiff.
This is even more clearly established in point eleven, question one, in the words of Ambrose against Auxen~tius: "If the Emperor requests tribute, we do not refuse it: let the fields of the xy Y A Z church provide for it."?° But he who must pay tribute to \\ MMAHy Ma Caesar on some property SONY WW owns it not so much by divine as by human right, axe MANIA ss Yee WA ee C= =< wes i 4 as the Saviour attests when He says: "Render .
. . to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, Mt. 22:21 and to God the things that are God's."
Furthermore, the eighth distinction says, in the words of Augustine on John: "By which right do you defend the estates of the Church, the divine or the human? Divine right is expressed in Holy Scriptures, human right in the laws of kings. Thus, whatever a man owns, is it not by human right? For by divine right, the Lord's are the earth
Ps. 23:1 and its fullness.""'
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
The same, also, writes in his Sixth Homily on John: "Do not say: 'What has the king to do with me?' What, then, would you have to do with the right of ownership? For possessions are owned through the rights of kings.f' If you say: 'What has the king to do with me?' do not claim that you own anything, since you have renounced those human rights by which possessions are owned.'"* What could be said more clearly than this to prove that the Church truly owns temporal goods. by both human and divine rights?
13. Indeed, because the sacred Canons assert that offerings made to the Church are consecrated to the Lord, that ministers may not claim for themselves dominion over such things in the name of some faulty ownership,"? and that such goods belong rather to heaven than to earth and should be owned in common rather than exclusively: it follows that, in order to remove all darkness of contradiction or doubt, we should understand that there is a fourfold common ownership of temporal goods, flowing from a fourfold right.
The first form of common ownership is that which flows from the RIGHT OF THE NECESSITY OF NATURE, through which anything required for the sustainment of natural life becomes the share of the man who is in extreme need of it, even though it may have been appropriated by someone else. It is impossible to renounce this form of common ownership because it flows from the law naturally imprinted upon man, since he is an image of God and the most honorable creature, for whose sake all the things of the world were made.
14. The second form of common ownership is that which flows from the RIGHT OF FRATERNAL CHARITY, through } This is an application of the obsolete theory of the absolute and divine rights of kings.
CHAPTER X
which all things belong to the just, and those things that belong to individuals become common to all by way of a certain communion of love, as expressed in these words of the Apostle to the Corinthians: All things are yours.
Augustine says of this ownership, when speaking against 1 Cor. 3:22 the Donatist heretics: "May they come to the Catholic
Church, and may they possess with us not only the earth, but also the Lord who made heaven and earth.'>° Renouncement to this form of common ownership is entirely illicit, because it flows from a divinely infused right, through Ps. 113B:15 which there is unity in the dove, that is, in the universal
Church. No one is free to secede from this unity and communion as long as he is bound to the divine law, which is made up entirely of love.
15. The third form of common ownership is that which flows from the CIVIL LAW OF THE WORLD, through which an empire, kingdom, or city is made to be one community or association, as in the case of merchants or wrestlers who share their gains or losses, or of one family living with an undivided inheritance. Renouncement to this form of common ownership is required by evangelical perfection, for it implies personal property that flows from a humanly established right, and carries with it some consequences that may occasionally become obstacles to good and inducements to evil, and are, therefore, opposed to evangelical perfection.
That is why a holy soul should be persuaded to give it up following the Psalm: Hear, O daughter, and see; turn your
Ps. 44:11 ear, forget your people and your father's house.
+ Donatism, a heretical and schismatical movement that developed in North Africa around the year 311, led to great trouble and violence, and was finally condemned by the Collatio (Conference) of the year 411, where St. Augustine spoke as the principal advocate for the Catholic cause.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
16. The fourth form.of common ownership is that which flows from the RIGHT OF ECCLESIASTICAL DOTATION, through which all goods conferred upon the churches are dedicated to God for the common sustainment of His ministers and of the poor. This particular form exists in all collegiate churches endowed with grants. Renouncement to such com-~ mon ownership is not indispensable for perfection, for it may be kept without damage to perfection, as it appears in the case of holy prelates and religious; and because it flows from a divinely established right, so that they who serve the 1 Cor. 9:13 altar have their share with the altar. All the goods owned in common belong to these men who are of. one heart and Acts 4:32 one, soul and have one spiritual father and one rule of life.
Renouncement to this form of common ownership is not opposed to perfection. On the contrary, it leads to the summit of evangelical perfection. The reason is that while it flows from divine right, it also flows from human right, and so it is not only spiritual, but also temporal. Although it excludes personal ownership, it still admits of collective ownership, by which any member of the collectivity is seen to have not only the right of use, but also dominion, since any one of them has by his own right the power to sue in order to obtain the return of his ecclesiastic goods, and the power to oppose exceptions in their defense. It is clear that a man who may sue and oppose exceptions in relation to certain things has some manner of dominion over them.
17. Now, since it is very hard to rejoice in nothing but poverty after having abandoned all things, and since it is also hard to be content with mere ecclesiastic common ownership after having renounced all private property: it follows that both states are perfect, not by way of human tradition as the adversary of the poor asserts, but by way
CHAPTER X
of a divinely instituted right, most of all if these states are accompanied by the vows of chastity and of renouncement to one's own will.
But when a man comes to assert that clerics are perfect for the sole reason that they give up their worldly fortune while retaining their ecclesiastic revenues, and that the only ones to be imperfect and limping are those who live on their own resources, perhaps very meagerly, as this calumniator of the poor would have us believe, he is gravely overlooking spiritual perfection. Would any man, with any amount of intelligence, be unaware of the fact that it is unreasonable to claim that a cleric who lives on his own resources and is hardly able to afford food and clothing is imperfect and limping; but that another who enjoys any amount of ecclesiastic revenues is righteous and perfect, so long as he has given up his personal fortune? Where is the man, the most covetous and carnal with the deepest mental limp, who would not eagerly exchange the former state against the latter? Is this state toward which any weak, imperfect, limping, covetous, conceited, and carnal man aspires, anything like the perfection of evangelical truth commended by cf. Mt. 19:21ff.
Christ and called sublime and arduous?
18. How amazing that this new way—that a churchman, endowed with clerical revenue, renounce all private property — upon which almost none or, at least, very few of the perfect or imperfect ever proceeded, would come to be preferred to the ancient paths! Who, indeed, among the secular clergy of our time would ever do this? Who ever intended, or even dreamed, when he received ecclesiastic benefits, to cast off his inheritance and those goods he happened to possess, and to hand them out to the poor, and from then on, to make a vow never to own anything
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
privately, and to be content with food and clothing alone?
Thus, to praise such a state which is hardly, if ever at cf. 1 Tm. 6:8 all, found among men, is nothing other than to propose a raven-colored whiteness, and certainly nothing more than to prefer the imagination of one's own brain to an established truth, so that in this manner men of rank... love what is vain and seek after falsehood, turn away from the footsteps of Christ, and follow their own dreams, wandering in the wilderness instead of following the true way.
Ps. 4:3 cf. ibid.
106:40
19. Yet, we do not deny that those who, contenting themselves with ecclesiastic goods, retain of them but what they need and give everything else to the poor, may attain a certain degree of perfection, but it is not to be compared in any way with the perfection of the Mendicants, demonstrated above in the third part of the first answer.
And so, to this man and to his accomplices, the Saviour truly says: "Woe to you,... hypocrites! Because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men. For you yourselves do not go in, nor do you allow those going in to enter."
Mt. 23:13
Thus, if any men come to believe, on the strength of this poisonous teaching, that they are perfect in the world, and are therefore dissuaded from entering the religious life, there is no doubt whatsoever that an account of the blood of such souls who remained in the filth of their sins will be required at the hand of these teachers in a severe judgment by the just Judge, unless, in His immeasurable mercy for which we pray He deigns to recall them from their error by flooding them with the light of His truth. cf. Gn. 9:5 t Cf. ch. II, 4 188.