Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS

Quaestio II: Which Poverty is more excellent

All (as the common saying goes,) divert the rivulets of waters to their own mill. They say therefore. D. Thomas quaest. 188. art. 7. with the distinguished disciples of his order, and the Fathers of the Society, among whom Suarez tomo 3. de Relig. lib. 8. cap. 9. Valencia disp. 10. quaest. 6. puncto 2. and others related by Basseus, V. Religio 1. num. 13. that their poverty excels the others.

They suppose, however, that Religion to be more perfect which is ordered to the better end. Since indeed the contemplative life is ordered to a higher end, namely it is raised to union with God; than the active, which is destined to the aids of neighbors, as Christ defines, Luke 10. Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things: Mary has chosen the best part, etc. But that is better than both which attends to God by contemplation, and to neighbor by aid, especially spiritual; since these more closely imitate the mixed life of Christ and the Apostles, and not only shine by virtue but also illuminate, as D. Thomas discusses quaest. 188. art. 6. Sylvius with Cajet. ibi Sylvest. V. Religio, 1. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 41. dub. 2. Layman lib. 4. tract. 5. cap. 1.

They suppose next, that Poverty, fasts, etc. are not the very formal object of perfection, but are mere instruments, whence it happens that their goodness and perfection must be drawn not from absolute perfection, but from instrumental; and accordingly that poverty will not be more perfect which strips more strictly, but which better serves the end of religion. Thence they advance, that since some external goods are required for the mixed life, the perfection of religion is not diminished if some goods are laid down in common, surely so that individuals without anxiety may attend to the end of religion. This doctrine is acclaimed with much applause, received. This at least Suarez asserts in some Religions num. 5. after Viguet. sum. cap. 17. §. 1. Ferrar. 3. com. G. cap. 143. and others. He proves it with Valencia, because the Most Holy Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 3. de regul. concedes immovable goods to mendicant Religions, except only the FF. of Observance and the Capuchins.

Pellizarius expends more things for proving this.

The opinion of D. Bonaventure ad cap. 6. Regulae, and the expositors ibi, as also of Bartoli in minorica, cap. 1. cit. that the Poverty of the Minors is far more perfect than the others: Therefore it is called by S. P. Francis cap. 6. et by the supreme Pontiffs, especially Nicholas III. cap. Exiit. Et Clem. V. cap. Exivi, in 6. and others, with John Fenestra in tract. de Pauper. ALTISSIMAM. And he adds: This is that height of the Most High Poverty.

It is proved from the Holy Doctor first, from the foundation of the adversaries. That Poverty is more sublime which leads better to the end of perfection, which is the Charity of God and neighbor, which the Religion professing the mixed life, which is most perfect, professes excellently: Such is the Poverty of the Minors: Therefore. The Major is that of the adversaries. The Minor is proved; for the Poverty of the Minors says every renunciation, even in common, which exceeds all others, and especially separates from the cares of external things, whose cupidity is called the root of all evils, by the Apostle, and idolatry. Then thus: The more one recedes from one extreme, the more one approaches the other; but our Poverty most of all tears away from the world: therefore it most of all raises to the love of God. Hence cap. 6. Regulae, it is called by S. P. Francis rightly and deservedly Most High, and it is acclaimed in the abstract: This is that height of the Most High Poverty, which made you, my most dear brothers, heirs and kings of the kingdom of heaven, poor in things, and raised you in virtues. Behold the summit of virtues, which consists in charity. It alludes to the promise of Christ for the present: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven, as D. Bonaventure notes there, since the Kings of that kingdom, on account of their most high state and merit, are acclaimed stable on the throne, if they persevere in their vocation. The minor is proved still further; for what most of all is repugnant to the love of God and neighbor is the immoderate love of one's own, which makes us, cast down to build the infernal Babylon of the devil, descend to the center, as D. Augustine says 14. de CIV. cap. ult. et lib. 11. de Gen. ad litt. cap. 15. and that Mine and Thine, as D. Gregory says homil. in Breviar. de uno Martyre. Therefore, he who more abstracts from this love raises most of all to the city of God, which is built by Charity, as D. Augustine says loco cit. de civit.

It is confirmed; for this poverty is enjoined by Christ willing perfection: If you will be perfect, go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor, as D. Jerome expounds epist. 8. ad Demetriadem: It belongs to the height of apostolic and perfect virtue to sell all things and distribute to the poor, and thus with Christ to fly upward, light and unencumbered, to heavenly things. The whole argument is D. Bonaventure's also opusculo de Christi paupertate, art. 1. et Apol. paup. cap. 3. resp. prima.

All answer with D. Thomas, that those leading the active life need many resources, because many things are necessary for actions, as Aristotle says 10. Eth. cap. 8. but those living in contemplation, as Monks, need external things less, as the Philosopher says above; for they are more attentive to the spirit, whence they are content with moderate revenues. Those who in the end lead a mixed life, communicating contemplation with action, since they have a doubled solicitude for spiritual things, therefore undergo and suffer the least solicitude; but the least solicitude is to reserve something for necessity. For thus also Christ, the master of the poor, had handed over his purse to Judas for expenses, and necessary things were bought with it, as is gathered from John cap. 4. 12. et 13.

These things are not proved against the Seraphic Doctor, who wove the little work on the poverty of Christ, against William. He indeed admits that Christ had purses at the time of persecution, also compassionating infirmity; but sending the disciples, he commanded: Take nothing, neither scrip, etc. giving them the form of the Evangelical life. He adds, that he had purses as supreme Prelate of the Church, to relieve the necessities of the poor. Therefore he did not have a denarius for himself to pay the tribute Matt. 17. as the Gloss says.

He shows also that it is FALSE, that the least solicitude handed down by Christ is to have purses.

FIRST it is clear from the scriptures Matt. 19. Go, sell all, and give to the poor. He enjoined this, that he might give the form of religious perfection, reserving nothing at all to himself, either in particular or in common, as the Glosses expound, and the Fathers, Matt. 10. Do not possess gold, nor silver, nor money, etc.

Mark 12. he praises the widow, because from her want she had given her whole livelihood.

Luke 12. Consider the ravens, etc. where he addresses the saints to perfection, as the Gloss says, that they have nothing.

Matthew 8. The foxes have dens, and the birds of the air nests: but the son of man has not where to lay his head, where Chrysostom homil. 28. Why do you expect money, following me? Do you not see that I have not a lodging, not even as much as the birds? So the Gloss also there.

SECOND Cor. 8. Christ is called needy and poor. See other scriptures in the Holy Doctor at the cited places, as Act. 3. Silver and gold there is not for me.

He adds MANY testimonies of the Holy Fathers in the cited little works, and quaest. 4. in Regulam.

D. AMBROSE lib. 6. in Lucam, cap. 9. Of what sort he ought to be who evangelizes the kingdom of God is designated by the evangelical precepts, that without staff, without scrip or shoes, without bread, without money, that is, not requiring the supports of secular aid, and secure in faith he may think that he can more abundantly supply the want of them. Hence the mission of the disciples, Luke 10. was without the aid of temporal things.

D. JEROME epist. ad Heliodor. I do not will that you recall former necessities; you love the naked eremus: I do not will that the ancient difficulty of pilgrimage terrify you. You who believe in Christ, believe also his words. Seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things will be added to you. A scrip must not be taken up by you, nor a staff; rich is he who is poor with Christ. Here again he enjoins the counsel of Christ, Matt. 6. Consider the birds of the air, they labor not, neither do they spin, and God feeds them. Be not solicitous therefore. He adds to this the Gloss of D. Jerome himself, and of D. Augustine.

D. GREGORY homil. 20. in Ezech. When one vows something of his own, it is a sacrifice: but when all that he has, all that he lives, it is a holocaust.

D. BERNARD epist. 42. Happy he who retains nothing for himself of all things; he has not a den as the fox, nor a nest as the birds of the air, not purses, as Judas, etc.

He also adduces many reasons. See the work itself.

He ADDS that our Rule was dictated by Christ on the mountain of Palumbo, as is had in the life of S. P. Francis, confirmed by Holy Church, as is had cap. Nimis prava de excess. Praelat. and the Pontiff Honorius III. in this appended confirmation protests the divine indignation against the violator. But if also the holy Council of Trent forbids the Capuchins and Minors of Observance goods in common, surely it makes for perfection, so that so grave a decree not be idle, but concerning the good of the Church.

They OBJECT especially, that God is not to be tempted, but thus God is tempted by casting away necessities.

I answer at once with D. Bonaventure, that he is not tempting God who Matt. 6. promised providence; and in other places gives counsel about this. Nay he tempts God who doubts of his promises exhibited: Consider the birds of the air, etc. Whence D. Jerome says there: Therefore he who doubts of this, as the sons of Israel, tempts God, who said: Can God prepare a table in the desert? But perfect men ought not to be conformed to these, but rather to the Apostles, of whom it is said 2. Cor. 4. We are cast down, but we are not destitute. See the Holy Doctor, who adds in the apol. Bede, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine.

They OBJECT secondly. Virtue is not in extremes, but to give all things is prodigality in the extreme.

The Holy Doctor ANSWERS that Liberality is in the mean: but prodigality is in the extreme, badly consuming; but to leave all things for the love of Christ is the mean of perfection, whereby unburdened we may go more expeditiously to God.

NEITHER let us fear; for 6. Matth. he promises: Seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things (that is, food and clothing) will be added to you. See the Holy Doctor differing excellently in both works.

They OBJECT, that Religions which follow this highest poverty soon relaxed have failed; but others have persevered steadfastly. They urge also that from it proprieties are introduced.

Pellizarius urges that D. Bonaventure held this sense epistolis ad ministros, and that the Council of Trent conceded goods in common to other Orders.

THESE things avail nothing; for the perfection of virtue is in the arduous; what wonder then that the Most High Poverty has been assailed by tempests? the lightnings strike the highest mountains, and if that Order has undergone relaxations, God will provide also reformations. Nor does S. Bonaventure speak in that sense which Pellizar. takes, but he exhorts the ministers to remove relaxations and depraved examples, on account of which worldly men deny alms. But as to what he says of the Council of Trent, let it be that it was judged to belong to perfection, to concede goods in common. Would you then say that it denied these to the Minors on account of imperfection? far be it. Nay, the most prudent Fathers, compassionating the depraved age and the infirmity of religious, concede those goods according to their institutes, who would with difficulty fulfill their duties without them.

Quaestio III: Whether mendicancy befits Religious Poverty

Whether begging befits Religious Poverty.

UVICLEPHUS, therefore, condemned in the Council of Constance, sess. 8, and in the Bull of Martin V, and Luther with Roffensis, art. 41. contra eum, clamored that mendicancy should be done away with altogether. Nicholas III approves it, cap. exiit de verb. significat. in 6. And it is approved by Vualdensis, lib. 4. doctrinae fidei, cap. 3. et 4. Caietanus, ad art. D. Thom. I ASSERT that mendicancy is honorable for religious.

PROVED by St. Bonaventure first from the Rule taken up by St. Francis, from 10 Matth.: Do not possess gold, or silver, nor money in your purses, nor a scrip for the journey, nor two coats, nor shoes. The same he commands Mark 6. and Luke 9. and 10. There they are seen to live not from labor, but from the liberality of those to whom they preached. The same is read 1 Cor. 9. and he gives the reason: Who ever serves at his own charges? And Christ says: The laborer is worthy of his hire. To this the Apostle urges, 2 Cor. 8.

PROVED secondly by St. Bonaventure from the example of Christ, who declares himself a beggar, Psalm. 39. But I am a beggar and poor, and Psalm. 108. And he persecuted a needy and beggarly man: where Bellarmine observes that in these places is the word אבְי֥וֹן, which is had Deuter. 15. where it is said: There shall be no beggar among you. But observe that it in no place signifies a beggar, but in Deuter. the needy man, and in the Psalms, the poor man, as Pagn. notes, although in the Latin Bibles translated by Pagnino it reads beggar. But the LXX also read poor, with the Chaldean Paraphrase. It is had in the original Psalm. 39. עָנִ֣י וְאֶבְיוֹן afflicted, and poor. The same you have Psalm. 108. but among the Hebrews 109. 17. This the Seraphic Doctor observed, I think, who does not bring this passage against himself, when at num. 13. he opposes to himself Cod. de mendic. validis, lib. 11. cap. 25. where the able-bodied are forbidden to beg from house to house publicly.

Both Psalms are applied to Christ, and indeed the former by Paul, Heb. 9. and the latter by Peter, Act. 1. and 2. Cor. 8. For your sakes he was made poor, where the Greek has ἐπτώχευσε, signifying a beggar of gentle birth, who confidently asks for a meal somewhere, as Homer hints, Odiff. 17. Now Christ was such a beggar of gentle birth, such as we call in Italian Poveri vergognosi. He asked indeed, but with reserve, now at Martha's house Luke 10. now at Zacchaeus' ch. 19. now at Simon the Leper's Matth. 26. Marci 14. now in the house of Peter Luke 4. now in the house of Matthew ch. 9. et Marci 11. Having looked round on all things, he went out to Bethany, seeing that no one had invited him.

IN Deuteronomy, however, he said that no beggar at all, or needy man, would be among them, not forbidding, but foretelling from the blessing of their produce, if only they observed the law; otherwise he threatened in the same chapter: The poor shall not be lacking among you. Whence many in Judea in the time of Christ were beggars Luke 16. Lazarus Luke 18. the blind man begging Ioan. 9. another blind man Act. 3. that lame man. Therefore God had promised that there would be no beggar, either of gentle birth, or going publicly from door to door, because he would ward off want from those observing the divine law: but Christ in the Vulgate is called a beggar, and to this we must hold, even if in the Hebrew it is not read, except poor and needy, not a beggar; perhaps because he was not among those who ply their trade at the temple porches and through the streets. I will bring another solution from St. Bonaventure, ad 6.

THESE things I have said, that I may satisfy Armachanus, who says it is not read that Christ was a beggar. But what he adds about the necessary poverty of Christ lies sufficiently refuted by Bellarmine.

HENCE also falls what he adds, that the religious mendicant life was not instituted by Christ; for this is against the declaration of Nicholas P. III, cap. Exiit, and, as Apostolic, it was approved by Innocent III by the testimony of St. Bonaventure, Honorius III, who confirmed the rule. Gregor. IX. Innoc. IV. Alexand. IV. as Ioan. XXII. reports in Extrau. Quia quorundam, de verb. significat. and also the General Council of Lugdunum, as Nicholas P. reports, cap. Exiit, and that of Constance, sess. 8.

NOR did Christ ever revoke this institution, but dispensed for the time of the fierce persecution Lucae 22. Whence also 1. Cor. 9. the Apostle teaches by the argument of Christ, adduced above, namely, that those who preach the Gospel should live from the Gospel.

PROVED still by St. Bonaventure, from 11. Heb. where the Saints are said: They wandered about in sheepskins, destitute. So Elias 3. Regum, 17. Eliseus, and others.

HE proves also by examples of the saints of the new testament, who even wrought miracles in receiving alms. He adds the authorities of the holy Fathers, especially St. Gregory, lib. 8. moral. cap. 5. St. Hieron. ad Iulian. epist. 34.

HE proves also by reasons: Then because the state of the poor is that of the needy, and it is not only not forbidden religious to beg, but it is declared holy and meritorious, because it humbles and makes one contemptible. Then it is fair that the spiritual laborer at least be sustained, while he spends his life for them, as Christ and the Apostle say.

SINCE, however, there is another mendicancy, religious, unto evangelical perfection, which I proved honorable, and the Seraphic Doctor confirms again in the body, by authority, and by reason, as anyone can read through. Another is of necessity, which he shows is meritorious, if patiently undergone, as is shown of Lazarus Luke 16. Another is from cupidity. This the holy Doctors reprehend with St. Ambrose, lib. 2. de offic. cap. 16. St. August. de oper. monach. cap. 21. et seqq.

The adversaries OBJECT first from Scripture, which detests mendicancy, as the cause of many evils, Prouerb. 30. Give me not beggary, and riches: give me only food necessary for my sustenance: lest perhaps being filled I be enticed to deny, and say: Who is the Lord? or compelled by want I steal, and perjure the name of my God, Eccles. 17. Through want many have fallen away.

St. Bonaventure ANSWERS, art. 1. de paupertate Christi, that the Holy Spirit speaks of involuntary poverty, whose desire is the handle of evil; not of voluntary poverty, whereby we are as having nothing, and possessing all things, 2. Cor. 6. For this looks up to heaven, nay, sits in it. He brings St. Chrysostom, homil. 47. in Matth.

He ANSWERS secondly, that it speaks of the state of the old testament, where men, for the most part imperfect, esteemed the greatest blessings in a land flowing with milk and honey, as Chrysost. says, homil. 18. in epist. ad Heb. and Ambros. serm. 8. in Psalm. 118.

They OBJECT secondly: mendicancy is imposed only in punishment of faults, Psalm. 108. Wavering, let his children be removed, and beg, and Psalm. 36. I have not seen the just forsaken, nor his seed seeking bread, Psalm. 33: There is no want to them that fear him, Eccles. 40. Better is it to die, than to want.

The Seraphic Doctor ANSWERS that want of spiritual goods, and involuntary, is the punishment.

To the second passage he says with the Gloss, that the just do not need spiritual food — surely many just men have begged. Elias 3. Reg. 17. David 1. Reg. 21. Lazarus, Luke 16. Therefore Hieronymus and Augustine explain it of spiritual refreshment.

Bellarmine ANSWERS secondly, cap. 46. citing Titelmanus, that that word (derelictum) is referred also to the seed seeking bread. Thus the sense is: I have not seen the just, nor his children, even seeking bread, forsaken by God. It had been better for him to say that this response is that of St. Bonaventure, from whom he excerpted all the others, as is evident to the reader.

¶ The Seraphic Doctor adds that this is true of the anxious solicitude of the greedy, which does not befit the just. Whence in the Hebrew the verb is in the Piel, בקש, which signifies to seek solicitously.

¶ To the third he says it speaks of spiritual want, of which he subjoins: The rich have wanted, and suffered hunger.

¶ To the fourth he answers with the Gloss, that it is understood of those needy of spiritual goods, such as was that one in the Apocalypse.

¶ They object thirdly: moderate riches contribute to a perfect life, Eccli. 7. Wisdom is more profitable with riches.

¶ He answers that nothing is better for the poor wise man than the things of eternal life; but the rich fool is liable to six hundred evils, therefore the rich man is better joined with wisdom together with riches; for thus he does not cling to them, but becomes poor in spirit. Thus the sense is: Wisdom is more profitable, that is, if it is joined with riches, rather than if he lacks it: Or more profitable, insofar as it teaches him to spend them for salvation. Thus St. Bonavent. respons. 4. cap. 3. in Apologia.

¶ But what Bellarmine expounds from the Hebrew: Good is wisdom with riches, because without it riches are evil, not because without riches wisdom itself is evil; and thus he removes the comparison, he accomplishes little.

¶ They object fourthly. Act. 20. It is a more blessed thing to give, than to receive. Whence Aristotle 1. Eth. cap. 8. says that riches are necessary for happiness.

¶ The Seraphic Doctor answers that it is more blessed to give alms, than to receive out of necessity: but it is more blessed to receive by begging for the love of God, than to give: for the former adds the state of perfection. Thus he expounds with St. August. de Eccl. dogm. cap. 71. or Gennad. with St. August. who teaches this in the lib. de bono coniug. cap. 8. Aristotle, however, speaks of human happiness.

¶ They object fifthly, Luke 11. Sell what you possess, etc. where the Gloss says: That you may live by labor.

¶ The Seraphic Doctor answers that it is a counsel, and indeed an alternative one, whence he subjoins: Or make alms. Moreover he urges labor on those not occupied in a greater work.

¶ They object sixthly: Urban Pope 12. quaest. 1. cap. Videntes, orders the Bishops to provide the needy with a common life, that no one be needy.

¶ St. Bonaventure answers that the decree is not for the needy, but for the Bishops. Whence just as the law of Deuter. 15. There shall be no needy one at all, and no beggar among you, is not given against the mendicancy of the poor, but against the tenacity of the rich, as is evident, for in the same cap. it is subjoined: The poor shall not be lacking in the land of your habitation: Therefore I command you, to open your hand etc. so also in this case. This exposition Bellarmine attributes to St. Thomas.

¶ He adds there that Clerics are introduced, that they may not possess property: and it is added, that they should be helped; granted that they may have in common; nevertheless the profession of having nothing in common he teaches is approved by the Supreme Pontiffs, Innocent, Honorius, and Gregory, cap. Nimis prava de excessibus prael. Both, however, Nicholas III praises, cap. Exiit.

¶ They object seventhly, that begging is forbidden in the Cod.

¶ The Seraphic Doctor answers that the law speaks of certain healthy, able-bodied, and idle men, useless to the Republic, not of poor evangelicals, who labor not idly, but for the good of the Republic and of the Church.

¶ They object eighthly, that it is the vice of the Giezi to receive bodily things for spiritual.

¶ The Seraphic Doctor answers that they do not give spiritual things for sustenance, but ask for sustenance, that they may spend their life for the salvation of others.

¶ They object ninthly: the ancient holy Patriarchs, Basilius, Benedictus, Augustinus, Hieronymus, and others, held goods in common, nor are they read to have begged.

¶ The Seraphic Doctor answers amply at 10. that by the great providence of God at this time he sent Blessed Francis to the Church, to be built up by the apostolic life, when men, already growing cold in charity, were declining from the paths of Christ: Therefore he seemed to be renewing the footsteps of Christ, as is read in the Chronicles. He venerates, and deservedly, the other Patriarchs. Thus quaest. 4. in Regulam.

¶ Nor does he fear those denying that Christ was a beggar, and saying that he asked out of urbanity; nor yet that he did these things for imitation. For he showed that he exhibited these to be imitated, and earnestly begged. See the Seraphic Doctor.

¶ From these he deduces that Religious can live from alms; for alms are owed to Religious from the will of the givers, from the necessity assumed for Christ, and from the ministries undertaken for the people, as St. Thom. also says, quaest. 186. art. 4.

¶ But accidentally alms would be illicit for them, if they deviated from their due, and this is lethal, Caietan. says, if they abstained from their office out of contempt for the benefit of alms. See also Valencia, quaest. 5. puncto 3. These St. P. Francis called thieves.

¶ St. Thom. adds in the body with St. Bonau. in the arguments; if it is lawful to receive ample possessions, much more can they receive necessaries for sustenance. But why it is now asked more, see the Seraphic Doctor, quaest. 14. cont. hostes Religionis, and quaest. 8. in Regulam.

Quaestio VI: How Poverty is violated

How Poverty is violated.

INNUMERABLE cases are to be defined here, and so this question must be treated more broadly.

NOTE first, from what was said in question 1 from the obligation induced by the vow, by what means it is violated. The vow of Poverty therefore strips one of all dominion, and of use independent of the free will of the Superior. Wherefore anyone whatsoever usurping some dominion, or use independent of the will of the Superior, will be guilty of rashly violating Poverty.

NOTE secondly, that the will of the superior grants the disposition of some thing in two ways: first expressly, second tacitly, or interpretatively, as D. Bonaventure teaches in the Apology of the Poor, cap. 3. of the fourth response. The will is express, when the Superior expressly grants the faculty by word, in writing, or by signs. The tacit interpretative, or presumed will, is that by which the superior, knowing and able to object, freely permits something; and for that reason we can act, interpreting the will of the Superior, which we morally presume not to resist, and which, if he knew this were being done, he would not refuse, nor would he demand that an express faculty be sought. And this has been introduced chiefly from the custom of doing these things without a sought faculty, as D. Bonav. notes in the opuscula cited, and Bassaeus V. Paupertas, num. 3. It is gathered also from the circumstances of the superior: whether he be discreet, whether gentle, whether friendly. From the circumstances also of the subject: whether he be upright and serious. From the things themselves: whether they be studious, whether useful to the Religion, etc.

But OBSERVE, as Faustus notes in the treasury, lib. 8. question 162, and Bassaeus loc. cit., and Rodrig. part. 3. on the Vow of Poverty, that the Religion in which these things occur must be keenly observed; for what in this one will be venial, or free from fault, in another will be mortal. The customs also must be observed: whether they were introduced and kept by the God-fearing, or rather are corruptions and abuses creeping from the looser morals of the age into the Religion, which the Prelates tolerate for the sake of peace, lest seditions be stirred up. Truly these faculties do not have the character of a privilege in the manner of one, so that they be given and diffused to all by communication; for although all vow Poverty, some vow a stricter one than others, as I showed in question 1, and where the pledge is equal, the observance is not equal.

THEREFORE against the vow of Poverty a Religious sins if he accepts, keeps, consumes, exchanges, or gives away any thing whatsoever, whether of the Religion, or from outside, without the tacit or express consent of the superior: Azor. tom. 1. lib. 12. cap. 12. Valent. d. 10. question 4. point 3. Sanchez lib. 7. moral. cap. 19. Less. lib. 2. cap. 1. num. 78. Bassaeus num. 2. Arag. with D. Thom. 2. 2. question 32. art. 8. Diana on Poverty resol. 31. part. 1. Laym. lib. 4. tract. 5. cap. 7. Sanchez lib. 7. moral. cap. 18.

It is PROVED from the first noting, because he promised the opposite.

THEN among consumable things are also foods, to the grave loss of the Religion; which if they are taken from outside, it is against Poverty; but if from the Monastery, it will also be theft. Yet these are not to be weighed with so delicate a scale, that if anyone, even with a companion, frequently consumes them by eating, it be mortal (except if grave loss were inflicted). Thus Suarez Tom. 3. on Religion lib. 8. cap. 11. num. 41. Tannerus adds 2. 2. d. 7. question 3. d. 4. num. 106. Nor can any severity of the Prelates render such acceptances, with respect to the substance of the thing accepted, iniquitous. Caramuel subscribes d. 60. num. 888.

RESTRICT however, if the Religion were poor, as Barthol. a Sancto Fausto says of himself in the treasury lib. 8. question 110. Sayrus lib. 9. cap. 16. num. 20. Bassaeus num. 3.

But WHAT quantity is required for it to be mortal, Diana does not determine first part. on Poverty resol. 30, nor Faustus, nor Sayrus, nor even Bassaeus.

MOREOVER many things must be weighed, as the quality of things, scarcity, or abundance, as Bassaeus notes with Caramuel.

You will ASK: whether in ownership there can be parvity of matter, say, an obol.

SOME have denied it, and Doctors Benedict, Jerome, Bonaventure, Anthony, and Cassian are brought forward, according to Faustus in the treasury, lib. 8. question 187.

The Saintly Doctor is BADLY brought forward; for ad cap. 6 of the Rule in these words: Let the brothers appropriate nothing to themselves — from which words some deduce that it is forbidden under penalty of ownership to take to oneself even the smallest thing above nothing, as Sanctes reports, among whom they place D. Bonaventure; but the Saintly Doctor shows this exposition to be false, because there is subjoined: Neither a house, nor a place, nor any other thing, inferring that there are excluded not only money, of which above, but also other kinds of things under grave guilt, not singly down to every kind whatever. Nor do the holy Fathers will anything else, or that the appropriation of a minute thing be ownership; but from the parvity of matter they knew that a light one, in the judgment of prudent men, is not a higher precept than this natural precept of not stealing, in which parvity of matter is admitted.

THEREFORE they require grave matter for a mortal sin, and that it be determined, as I showed for constituting the grave theft of sons, in the disputation on theft.

On this matter see Diana part. 1. on Poverty resol. 36, where he says, as many heads, so many opinions; Rodr. tom. 4. cap. 118. posits two aurei; Soto taught it on justice lib. 4. question 3. ad 3, and Aragon. judged it probable 2. 2. question 66. art. 6.

Cenedo on the Poverty of Religious dub. 20. with Ledesm. addition to the summa tom. 2. cap. 4. posits ocho o nueve reales [eight or nine reals], 6. the value of them.

MENDOZA question 8. on Poverty posits two silver coins, which are eight reals.

IOANNES DE LA CRUZ on the Religious state lib. 1. cap. 3. d. 5. and Sanchez sum. tom. 3. lib. 7. cap. 20. posit four silver coins, namely 16 reals. So also Faustus in the treasury lib. 8. question 193, who adds in the wealthiest Religions three silver coins; in middling ones two; in poor ones one; Diana subscribes.

MIRANDA in the Manual tom. 1. question 28. art. 17. teaches that this must be measured according to the variety of the Religion, of persons, of place, and of time, by the judgment of a prudent man. Bassaeus subscribes V. furtum 2. num. 6. This seems right to me.

This is the opinion of D. Bonavent. in the mirror of the soul, cap. 2. §. On theft, where he wills not to determine the quantity, but shows that it varies according to the circumstances.

Bassaeus however WARNS V. Paupertas 3. that there can be grave matter of theft from loss, say of an instrument for gain, for example, a needle; yet it will not be grave by reason of ownership; just as ownership can be grave, say of gold, yet it will not be grave in the genus of theft, say, if it were taken from the King.

But WHEN several petty thefts make one grave one, I taught sufficiently in the disputation on theft.

From the first foundation you have also that a Religious cannot usurp to himself for another use money precisely destined by the superior to one use, Less. lib. 2. cap. 41. Layman. lib. 4. tract. 5. cap. 7. Sanch. lib. 7. cap. 19. num. 115. Faust. lib. 8. question 101. Rodrig. tom. 3. 99. rule question 29. art. 10. Bassaeus num. 5.

You HAVE also that Poverty is violated if he accepts, or keeps those things which are given from outside, cap. ad Monasterium, on the state of Monks. Molina tom. 1. tract. 2. d. 140. For whatever a Religious acquires, he acquires for the Monastery, if it be capable. And if the Religious by a contract or offense does not bring the Monastery under an obligation, cap. Quod quibusdam on suretyship. Except if he has compromised it, or drawn profit from it.

He will VIOLATE Poverty also by hiding a thing from the Prelate, even if he had license from a preceding Prelate. Likewise, he who murmurs with a resisting will, if the thing be taken away by the Prelate; thus Less. cit. num. 79. Sanchez cit. cap. 19. num. 60. Sylvest. V. Relig. 6. question 7. Layman. cit. cap. 7. n. 8. Faust. lib. 8. question 126. Rodtig. cit. art. 10. and 12. Petr. Nauarr. lib. 3. on restitution cap. 1. num. 174. and 179. Bassaeus num. 7.

The Steward also will violate it by distributing against his ministration. Thus D. Thom. question 32. art. 8. Molin. tom. 2. d. 276. Sylvest. ad D. Thomam.

SIMILARLY the Prelate badly distributing the goods of the Monastery, cap. Fraternitatem on donations. Sanchez cit. cap. 19. num. 30. Graff. part. 1. lib. 3. cap. 5. num. 133. Bass. num. 8., who nevertheless numbers various cases in which it is lawful for a Religious to give alms without consulting the superior. But with him unwilling, he can bestow it in extreme necessity. Thus D. Thom. 2. 2. question 32. art. 8. ad 1.

Dubitatio II: Whether a Religious, having superfluities by license of his superior, is a proprietor

Whether a Religious, having superfluous things by the license of the superior, is an owner.

It is CERTAIN that both the superior granting and the Religious having are guilty of a mortal sin, from the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 2., and the holy Congregation at Quarant. V. Reserved case, and the Clementine at Nauarr. Com. 4. on the Rules num. 27.

But whether he is an owner against Poverty; I judge this man guilty, for I do not see of what other crime he would be guilty, except ownership, since he uses superfluous things against the will of the Pontiff, the supreme Father, as is had in the Council of Trent loc. cit. Thus Maior in 4. d. 38. q. 9. Petr. Nauar. lib. 3. on Restitution cap. 1. d. 1. n. 168. Graff. 2. p. lib. 3. cap. 19. Bassaeus Baffaeus num. 11., where he explains the superfluity of things with D. Bernard in the Apology to William, and in the letter to the brothers of Mount Dei, and sermon 4. Adveniens.

S. Bonaventure defers it most excellently to c. 1. of the Rule in these words: Let them be clothed in poor garments.

The Saintly Doctor condemns superfluity in things, above all pomp in buildings, q. 6. on the Rule, where he says these act gravely against poverty. Moreover, he declares them guilty of scandal and of the sins of others.

IN the Apology of the poor, of the first response c. 2. and 3. he gravely reproves superfluity of food; more closely c. 3. respons. 3. But gravely cap. 2. respons. 5. He refutes what a certain adversary objects from the riches of the ancient Levites, from the august pomp of the temple of Solomon, in order to overturn Evangelical Poverty. And cap. 3. he approves a poverty that lacks abundance. He confirms the same, c. 4. and in the Letters to the Ministers.

These things one would have to transcribe with no Iota changed. But I beg you, run through and drink in the flowing wisdom of the Saintly Doctor. Truly I wonder at Baffaeus not to defer to S. Bonaventure; indeed, not even to name him.

The PRELATE, on the other hand, not ministering necessaries to his subjects, when he can, and offering a particular occasion, sins gravely. From D. Antonin. 3. part. tit. 16. c. 1. §. 11. Silvest. V Relig. 6. q. 7. Sanchez l. 7. c. 11. n. 26. Less. l. 2. c. 41. dub. 5. Val. disp. 10. q. 4 point 2. Baff. n. 13. He sins also by receiving more than can be sustained by revenues, or alms, as you have in the Council of Trent sess. 25. cap. 3. and in the Decree on the celebration of Mass under Urban VIII.

But those things which are necessary for the Religious life must be held in common. See the Saintly Doctor in the opuscula cited, with D. Basil. in the Constitutions of Monks c. 9. Chrysost. homily 58. to the people of Antioch.

Whether a Religious sins by accepting alms for others.

Quaestio VII: On the penalties, and marks, of a Proprietor

On the Penalties, and signs of an Owner.

FIRST, the owner in death is deprived of sacred burial, cap. Monachi on the state of Monks; he is therefore to be buried in the dunghill with his money. But if he already lies in a sacred place, he is to be dug out. Secondly, by cap. cum ad Monasterium, on the state of Monks, it is decreed that the Owner be expelled: but this is not in use; rather he is delivered over to prison for Penance. Thirdly, from the Council of Trent sess. 25., let him be deprived for two years both of active and passive voice. See Sanch. l. 7. c. 20. Faust. l. 8. q. 158.

But the FIRST, and principal sign of ownership is noted at cap. Monachi, if a Religious is found to possess a peculium in his own name, where it is indicated as a penalty that, until he comes to his senses, he be removed from communion of the Altar, as guilty indeed both of sacrilege against the vow, and of theft, in retaining what belongs to another.

The SECOND sign, is the concealment of a thing; for even if from the beginning the thing be taken with the presumed permission of the superior, if nevertheless afterwards it is concealed with the mind of retaining it, and not yielding it to the prelate seeking it, the vice of ownership is incurred. And this indeed is true even if the thing has been taken with express license for the particular use of some Religious; for such permission is presumed granted with this tacit condition, that it be always under the dominion of the prelate; if the Religion be such as to be able to possess in common.

HENCE some draw from this a great indication of ownership, that someone keeps a thing sealed with a key without the license of the superior, even if he has obtained the thing itself with this license; which manner here argues a tenacity of mind and affection toward a thing not his own; moreover, as the sign of proprietary possession in civil law a key is wont to be given, leg. clavibus ff. on contracting purchases; for these reasons Alvarus Pelag. lib. 1. on the lament of the Church, cap. 67. Corduba in the exposition of the Rule, cap. 6. question 9. and Serena Conscientia question 81. are judged to have given rise and origin to this opinion. And truly of old it was utterly abhorrent to the Fathers to seal up a thing with a key, as Cassianus has lib. 4. c. 15. of the institutes.

TRULY it is certain, that in itself the key is not a sign of ownership, but of custody, as Suarez well notes lib. 8. on poverty, cap. 12.; whence it indicates ownership only insofar as it withdraws and conceals some thing from common use without the license of the superior, presumed or express, so that the superior cannot dispose of it, as various Authors argue at Suarez in the place cited, who warns that the custom of the Religion must be stood by in this matter, as also the permissions of superiors, who can either inhibit or concede it;

But whether it argues ownership to obtain a thing with an unreasonable, or unjust license of the superior; Suarez denies, with the others whom he cites; because although such permission be badly granted, since nevertheless it is not a dispensation from poverty, but a concession concerning remote matter of poverty, the subject can licitly use it, and with the stronger right, that he always has a mind prepared to remit such a thing at the nod, and pleasure, of the superior.

Tractatus I: PRIMUS DE VIRTUTIBUS THEOLOGICIS

Proemium I: Prooemium

Disputatio I: ON FAITH

Quaestio I: What FAITH signifies, and what it is

Quaestio II: What the object of FAITH is

Quaestio III: Whether the object of FAITH is something complex

Quaestio IV: Whether the object of FAITH can be false

Quaestio V: Whether the object of FAITH can be evident scientifically

Quaestio VI: Whether FAITH is concerned with those things which are seen by vision on the way

Quaestio VII: Whether the articles of FAITH are evidently credible

Quaestio VIII: Whether the things to be believed are rightly arranged according to the articles

Quaestio IX: Whether the articles of FAITH have grown over the course of time

Quaestio X: Whether FAITH has grown as regards light

Quaestio XI: Whether Faith has grown in certitude

Quaestio XII: Whether the articles of Faith are to be expounded by some authority which is an infallible teacher, and what it is

Quaestio XIII: What are the marks of the true Church, in which the authority of expounding FAITH resides

Quaestio XIV: What must be believed by the necessity of means

Quaestio XV: What things are to be believed by the necessity of precept

Quaestio XVI: Whether we are bound to confess FAITH, and when

Quaestio XVII: Whether it is lawful to dispute about FAITH, and when

Quaestio XVIII: Whether Faith resides in the Intellect

Quaestio XIX: Whether Faith is perfected by Charity, as by its form

Quaestio XX: Whether it is certain that FAITH remains without CHARITY

Quaestio XXI: Whether, and how, FAITH is a VIRTUE

Quaestio XXII: Whether FAITH is ONE VIRTUE

Quaestio XXIII: Whether FAITH is the first of the Virtues

Quaestio XXIV: Whether FAITH is more certain than any science, or than any intellectual habit

Quaestio XXV: Whether one can know with certainty that he has FAITH

Quaestio XXVI: In whom FAITH is found

Quaestio XXVII: Whether FAITH is a substantial Gift of GOD

Quaestio XXVIII: Whether the difference between FAITH and other acts, natural as opposed to supernatural moral acts, always arises from the object

Quaestio XXIX: On the effects of FAITH

Quaestio XXX: On the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING

Dubitatio I: Whether UNDERSTANDING is a gift of the Holy Ghost

Dubitatio II: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING can coexist with FAITH

Dubitatio III: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING consists in the contemplation of the Creator and of Creation

Dubitatio IV: Whether the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING is found in all who have grace, and whether in these alone

Dubitatio V: What is the necessity and utility of the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING

Dubitatio VI: Whether* **the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.

Dubitatio VII: Whether* **to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING** *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith

Quaestio XXXI: On the Gift of Knowledge

Dubitatio I: Whether* **KNOWLEDGE** *is a gift of the Holy Ghost

Dubitatio II: Whether knowledge is concerned with Divine things

Dubitatio III: Whether the gift of knowledge is speculative

Dubitatio IV: Whether the third Beatitude corresponds to the Gift of Knowledge: Blessed are they that mourn, etc.

Disputatio II: On Unbelief

Quaestio I: What UNBELIEF is, and what kind of sin it is

Quaestio II: Whether all the works of unbelievers are sins

Quaestio III: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to hear FAITH

Quaestio IV: Whether unbelievers can be compelled to embrace our FAITH, when it has been sufficiently set forth

Quaestio V: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can be compelled to abandon errors or rites contrary to natural reason

Quaestio VI: Whether the rites of unbelievers are to be permitted

Quaestio VII: Whether it is lawful to make agreements with unbelievers about the toleration of their rites

Quaestio VIII: Whether unbaptized unbelievers can retain power over the Faithful, and whether they can be deprived of it

Disputatio III: On Heresy

Quaestio I: What HERESY is

Quaestio II: Whether one who doubts about the articles of FAITH is a heretic

Quaestio III: Whether one who gives merely opinionative assent to an article of FAITH is a heretic

Quaestio IV: Whether, and what, Ignorance excuses from Heresy

Quaestio V: What pertinacity is required for HERESY

Quaestio VI: Whether, for one to be deemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer

Quaestio VII: Whether the Church can compel heretics to receive the Catholic FAITH

Quaestio VIII: On the other means the Church uses against heretics, by forbidding their Books

Quaestio IX: Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics

Quaestio X: What excommunication is inflicted upon heretics

Quaestio XI: On the other spiritual punishments of heretics

Quaestio XII: On the temporal punishments of Heretics

Disputatio IV: On Hope

Quaestio I: What HOPE is

Quaestio II: What the material object of HOPE is

Question III

Quaestio IV: Whether a certain object is set forth for HOPE, and is hoped for

Quaestio V: Whether Hope is a Virtue

Quaestio VI: Whether HOPE is a Theological Virtue

Quaestio VII: Whether HOPE is at times formless

Quaestio VIII: Whether HOPE arises from merits

Quaestio IX: Whether Hope precedes Charity

Quaestio X: What the proximate subject of HOPE is

Quaestio XI: Whether HOPE remains in the Blessed

Quaestio XII: Whether there is a precept of hoping in GOD

Dubitatio VI: Whether* the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING *corresponds to the sixth beatitude, namely, Blessed are the clean of heart, etc.

Dubitatio VII: Whether* to the GIFT OF UNDERSTANDING *there corresponds, among the fruits of the Holy Ghost, Faith

Dubitatio I: Whether* KNOWLEDGE *is a gift of the Holy Ghost