Chapter 5 — Whether religious are bound to work with their own hands

Objections

As no sufficient reasons can be found for excluding religious from apostolic labors, their enemies try to impede their work by saying that they are bound to labor with their hands; and that they are thus unable to prosecute the studies which would fit them for preaching or hearing confessions. The malice which inspires these efforts against the labors of religious is typified by the words of the enemies of Nehemiah, who said, come and let us meet together (Neh 6:2). The Gloss has the following commentary on this passage: as the enemies of the holy city begged Nehemiah to come down to the plain, and there to form a league with them, so do heretics and bad Catholics desire to make friends with the faithful not in order that they themselves may ascend to the heights of the Catholic faith and of good works, but in order to induce those that they know to be living virtuously to descend to sin and to false doctrine. (Glossa ordinaria 2, 1367 at Neh 6:2 (PL 113:719).) Those who desire to see religious obliged to labor with their hands multiply arguments in support of their wishes.

Obj. 1: First, they quote the words of St. Paul: work with your hands, as we charged you (1 Thess 4:11), alleging that as religious are above all men bound to obey the apostolic precepts, they ought to consider manual labor as a duty.

Obj. 2: And again we read: those who won’t work shouldn’t eat (2 Thess 3:10). The Gloss contains the following commentary on this passage: (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:10 (PL 192:324D-324A) from Augustine, De opere monachorum, ch. 1, para. 2; ch. 2, para. 3 (CSEL 41; PL 40:549-50).) some persons pretend that the Apostle, in thus speaking, was alluding not to physical labor, such as that of agriculture or handicraft, but to spiritual works. It adds later on: thus they blind both themselves and others to the true meaning of this charitable admonition, and they not only refuse to obey it, but even to understand its meaning. Again the Gloss continues: St. Paul would have the faithful earn their living by bodily labor, although certain religious are specially set apart for the worship of God. Hence, according to this apostolic precept, religious ought to work.

Obj. 3: St. Paul again says: let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need (Eph 4:28). Not merely in order to gain a livelihood (Gloss). (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Eph 4:28 (192:207B).) Hence religious, having no other means of assisting the poor, ought to labor with their hands.

Obj. 4: Again, on Luke 10:2, sell your possessions, the Gloss observes: do not merely give food to the poor, but also sell your possessions, in order that despising all things for the love of Christ, you may work with your hands either in order to live or to have something to give in alms. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 871 at Luke 12:33 (PL 114:297).) Therefore, religious who abandon all their own possessions should live and bestow charity by the work of their hands.

Obj. 5: Further, as religious make profession of perfection, they are bound to imitate the apostolic mode of life. Now we have several proofs that the apostles worked with their hands. For instance, St. Paul writes: we labor, working with our own hands (1 Cor 4:12). In Acts 20:34 we read: these hands ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me. In this they may be imitated by others. We did not eat any one’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you . . . to give you in our conduct an example to imitate (2 Thess 3:8). Religious ought, therefore, to imitate the example of the apostles by manual labor.

Obj. 6: Religious likewise are more bound than are secular ecclesiastics to the performance of lowly work. Yet in the Decretals we find these words: let a cleric, insofar as he can do so without injury to his office, maintain himself either by handicraft or by husbandry (XCIX). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 91, ch. 3 (Friedberg, 1:316).) Again, in the following chapter: let every cleric instructed in the words of God gain his livelihood by industry. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 91, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:316).) Further: all ecclesiastics, whose health will permit it, must study and must acquire some handicraft. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 91, ch. 4 (Friedberg, 1:316).) Therefore, all the more are religious obliged to work.

Obj. 7: Again, in Acts 20:34 we read: these hands ministered to my necessities, and to those who were with me. The Gloss says: an example of action is given the bishops, and a sign by which to discern the flock from the wolves. (Glossa interlinearis, at Acts 20:34 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1203-04).) Now if religious, by preaching, exercise an episcopal office, they are certainly bound to work with their hands.

Obj. 8: Moreover, St. Jerome, writing to Rusticus, says: it is the custom in the Egyptian monasteries to receive no brother who will not work. This rule is made not so much for the sake of self-support as for spiritual advantage and to prevent the mind from being employed in dangerous thoughts. (Jerome, Epistle 125, para. 11 (CSEL 56:131; PL 22:1079).) For this same reason, manual labor is incumbent on religious.

Obj. 9: Again, religious ought to be always eager to make spiritual progress. As St. Paul expresses it, they ought to earnestly desire the higher gifts (1 Cor 12:31). Now St. Augustine, in his book, De opere monachorum, says that religious who labor with their hands are preferable to those who do not work. (Augustine, De opere monachorum, ch. 30, para. 38 (CSEL 41:589; PL 40:577).) And in the commentary on the words: it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35), the Gloss observes: they receive the greatest glory who, having abandoned all that they possessed, labor in order to be able to supply the necessities of those in want. (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1204 at Acts 20:35 (PL 114:464).) Therefore, all religious ought to endeavour to work with their hands.

Obj. 10: St. Augustine, in the book already quoted, (Augustine, De opere monachorum 30.38 (CSEL 41:589; PL 40:577-78).) calls those monks who will not work contumacious, adding: who can bear to hear those who contumaciously resist the apostolic precept not merely excused on account of infirmity, but praised for their holiness? Contumacy is a mortal sin; else the Church would not visit it with excommunication. Hence no religious can, without risk of sinning mortally, exempt himself from the duty of manual labor.

Obj. 11: Further, if religious be dispensed from work, the dispensation ought to be granted in order to give them opportunity for sacred psalmody, for prayer, for preaching, and for reading. But it is not for these reasons that religious are exempted from labor. Therefore, they are bound to work. St. Augustine, in his book De opere monachorum, proves this obligation in the following words: how do they employ themselves who will not labor with their hands? Gladly would I know what they do? They say that they devote themselves to psalmody, to prayer, to reading and to the word of God. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:564).)

The author then proceeds to examine each of these excuses. Speaking of prayer, he says: one prayer from the lips of an obedient man will be heard more speedily than ten made by one that is scornful. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:565).) He, thus insinuates that he who will not work with his hands is proud and unworthy of being listened to by God.

Next, speaking of those who say that instead of laboring they are singing sacred canticles, he says: it is easy to chant and to work at the same time, (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:565).) and below: what is to prevent a servant of God, while employed in labor, from meditating on the law of the Lord, and singing to the name of the Most High? (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:564-565; PL 40:565).)

Third, referring to reading, he says: do not they who say that they devote their time to reading find in the Scriptures the apostolic precept to work? How great is their perversity! These men wish to read, but will not heed what is written. They desire to prolong the time for reading what is virtuous, but they will not accomplish the good works of which they read. Who does not know that he makes the most profit by his reading who is the swiftest to put it into practice? (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).)

Fourth, the saint remarks about preaching: although one monk may have to preach, and therefore may not have time for work, all the brethren in the monastery cannot preach. If then they cannot all preach, why, on the pretext of preaching, should they all leave their work? But even supposing that they can all preach, they ought to do so in turn, both in order that some may be left to do the necessary work, and because one speaker suffices to many listeners. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 18.21 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).)

Further objection

It is noticeable that on this point those who have once forsaken the beaten track of truth have, in their efforts to avoid one error, fallen into a contrary mistake. There was once among certain monks an erroneous idea that manual labor was detrimental to religious perfection, because it hindered religious from casting all their care upon God and thus from fulfilling our Lord’s behest: do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on (Matt 6:25). (Cf. Augustine, De opere monachorum 1.2 (CSEL 41:533-534; PL 40:549).) But they who hold this opinion must, for the sake of consistency, deny that the apostles labored with their hands. They must interpret the words of St. Paul: if any one will not work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10), as referring not to physical, but to spiritual labors. Otherwise the apostolic precept would be opposed to the evangelical command.

St. Augustine, in his book De opere monachorum, which was written to confute this error (as he tells us in his book of Retractations), (Augustine, Retractions, bk. 2, ch. 21 (CCSL 57; CSEL 36:155-156 [ch. 47]; PL 32:638).) clearly proves that it is contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture.

On the strength of this verdict, other captious men have disseminated an error of a precisely contrary nature, teaching that religious are living in a state of damnation unless engaged in manual labor. The Gloss terms the upholders of this opinion friends and supporters of Pharaoh, who said: Moses and Aaron, why do you take the people away from their work? (Exod 5:4). It makes the following commentary on the text: if today Moses and Aaron, by whom is signified the word of a prophet or a preacher, should stir up men’s hearts to leave the world and to renounce all that they possess in order to devote themselves to the service of God and to the study of his law and word, the friends of Pharaoh would immediately exclaim: "see how men are led away, and youths persuaded to forsake work and military service and everything useful, in order to spend their time in idleness and folly. For what is their service to God? A pretext for idleness?" Such were the words of Pharaoh, and thus do his friends still speak. (Glossa ordinaria 1, 530 at Exod 5:4 (PL 113:199) from Origen, Homilies on Exodus, homily 3 (PG 12:315A-B).)

Response

I answer that, in order to defend the servants of God from persecution of this nature, we shall now prove that religious are not, except perhaps occasionally, bound to manual labor. Moreover, those who do not work with their hands are in a state of salvation.

In the first place, the Gloss, commenting on the words: look at the birds of the air (Matt 6:26), says: the saints are deservedly compared to birds, for they seek heaven, and they are so far removed from the world that they do no work on earth. They do not labor, but by contemplation dwell in heaven. Of such may it truly be said: "who are these that fly like clouds?" (cf. Isa 60:8). (Glossa ordinaria 5, 140 at Matt 6:26 (PL 114:106).)

St. Gregory, in the second part of his second homily on Ezekiel, says: he who leads a contemplative life turns his whole mind to the love of God and of his neighbour. He ceases from external work, and is engrossed by a desire for his creator, which leaves him capable of no other activity. He forgets all other cares, and yearns only to behold God face to face. (Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel 2.2.8 (CCSL 142; PL 76:953A-B).) Hence perfectly contemplative souls withdraw themselves from exterior occupations.

Again, the Gloss thus comments on the words: Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? (Luke 10:40), by saying, such are the words of those who, understanding nothing of the nature of true contemplation, consider that charity to our neighbour is the only work pleasing to God. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 846 at Luke 10:40.) Those who hold that religious are bound to labor with their hands consider that this is an obligation imposed on them by brotherly love, in order that by their work they may have something to bestow in alms. They quote the words of St. Paul: let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need (Eph 4:28). Therefore, they who desire to see religious obliged to work join in the murmur of Martha. But the Lord made excuse for the idleness of Mary.

We can prove our point by the following example. St. Benedict, as we are told by St. Gregory (Dialogues, 2), lived for three years in a cave, not working with his hands, and unknown to any save to the monk Romanus who brought him food. (Gregory the Great, Dialogues 2.1 (PL 66:128C).) But who will dare to say that he was not in a state of salvation, when the Lord spoke of him to a certain priest, saying: my servant is dying of hunger in such a place? (Gregory the Great, Dialogues 2.1 (PL 66:130B).) Both in the Dialogues and in the lives of the fathers we find many other examples of saints who passed their lives without working with their hands.

Again, manual labor is either a precept or a counsel. If it is a counsel, no one is bound to observe it, unless it is by a vow. Hence manual labor is no duty for religious whose rule does not prescribe it. If, on the other hand, manual labor is a precept, it is incumbent alike on seculars and on religious, since both laymen and religious are equally bound to obey the divine and apostolic precepts. Hence if a layman, before his entrance into religion, was free to live in the world without work, he would, on becoming a religious, be equally exempt from the necessity of labor.

Again, at the time at which St. Paul said: if any one will not work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10), religious were not distinguished from seculars; and the rule of labor was established for all Christians alike. All were equally called brethren, as we see from the words: keep away from any brother who is living in idleness (2 Thess 3:6). Again: if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever (1 Cor 7:12). On these words, the Gloss interprets the word brother to mean any one of the faithful. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:6 (PL 191:1591B).) If, then, religious are bound to manual labor on account of the admonition of St. Paul, the same duty is equally incumbent upon the laity.

Again, St. Augustine, in his book De opere monachorum, says: credit must be given to, and allowances made for, the delicate health of those who were able to live in the world without working; and who, on their conversion to God, have distributed all that they had to the poor. Men of this class are not generally equal to physical toil. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 21.25 (CSEL 41:570; PL 40:567-68).) Hence we see that those who have lived in the world without labor are not bound to work with their hands when they go into religion.

This point is further proved by another passage of the same book. In this, speaking in praise of a certain wealthy man who had given all his goods to a monastery, St. Augustine says: he has done well to set others an example by working with his own hands. For, had he been unwilling to labor, who would have dared to constrain him to do so? (Augustine, De opere monachorum* 25.33 (CSEL 41:579; PL 40:573).)* Neither is it of any consequence that he gave his possessions to a monastery instead of dividing them otherwise. For all Christians unite in one commonwealth. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 25.33 (CCSL 41:580; PL 40:573).) The same follows as before.

When a precept is only given under certain conditions or circumstances, it is only binding in the event of such conditions or circumstances arising to necessitate its observance. St. Paul gave the command to labor only in particular cases, as a safeguard against sin. When such sin can be otherwise avoided, manual labor is not a duty. The Apostle only enjoins manual labor in three places.

First, in Ephesians 4:28: let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need. Here he proposes work as a remedy against theft to such as preferred to steal rather than to earn their living.

Second, he prescribes labor in 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12, saying: work with your hands, as we charged you, so that you may command the respect of outsiders, and be dependent on nobody. In this passage, labor is enjoined as a preventive against covetousness, which is theft by desire.

Third, St. Paul again enjoins labor in these words: for even when we were with you, we gave you this command: if any one will not work, let him not eat. For we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies (2 Thess 3:10–11), making a living by unjustifiable means (Gloss). (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:11 (PL 192:325C).) Now we charge those who are such, and beseech them, by the Lord Jesus Christ that working with silence, they would eat their own bread (2 Thess 3:12).

In these verses, St. Paul enjoins labor on those who, instead of working for a livelihood, procured it by illicit means. Hence we see that there is no duty of manual labor incumbent on either laymen or religious who can maintain themselves without either theft, covetousness or dishonesty.

Neither does St. Augustine say that work is a precept to be obeyed by all. If we examine his words, we shall see that he only urges the fulfilment of the apostolic precept. Hence religious are only bound to manual labor under certain circumstances.

Again, those who do not depend upon their work for subsistence are not obliged to labor. Otherwise, all rich men, both seculars and ecclesiastics, who live without working would be in a state of damnation; which is, of course, an absurd hypothesis. Now there are some religious who have an assured livelihood, either from the alms of benefactors, or because the ministry of preaching is committed to them, and the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel (1 Cor 9:14). The Gloss says that God has made this provision for preachers, in order that they may be the more swift to proclaim his word. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 9:14 (PL 191:1610A).) Therefore, these words cannot be understood as referring only to prelates, for though bishops have authority to preach in their own right, yet not only they, but all such as have a commission to preach, must be diligent in the exercise of this duty. Religious, as we have already proved, are included in this category. There are likewise certain religious who assist in the divine office in the Church. They have a right to live by this means, for St. Paul says that those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings (1 Cor 9:13). St. Augustine says, in his book De opere monachorum: if religious are evangelists, I grant that they have a right to live on the alms of the faithful. If they minister at the altar, they can claim the same right, for it is their due, and it is not an unjust demand. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 21.24 (CSEL 41:569-570; PL 40:567).)

The same remarks apply to those religious who devote themselves to the study of the Sacred Scripture. St. Jerome writes, in his epistle to Vigilantius: the custom prevailed in Judaea, and is still extant in our time, that those who possessed nothing on earth, whose only portion was the Lord, and who meditated day and night on his law, were maintained by the synagogues, and by the good offices of all mankind. (Jerome, Contra Vigilantius, para. 13 (CCSL 79C; PL 23:365C).) Hence we see that there is no obligation to labor incumbent on all religious.

Again, spiritual profit is always to be preferred to temporal advantage. Now those who minister to the public welfare by the preservation of temporal peace are justly paid a stipend which enables them to live. St. Paul says: for the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing (Rom 13:6), by fighting for their country, says the Gloss. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 13:6 (PL 191:1506C).) Hence they who minister to the spiritual necessities of the Church (either by preaching, or expounding the Scriptures, or assisting in the public prayers of the Church) have a far better right to be supported by the contributions of the faithful. They are therefore not bound to manual labor.

St. Augustine observes, again, in his book De opere monachorum, (Augustine, De opere monachorum 18.21 (CSEL 41:565-567; PL 40:565-66).) that St. Paul worked with his hands in those places (of which one was Corinth) in which he was accustomed to preach to the Jews only on the Sabbath day. But when he was at Athens and preached daily, he lived not by his labor, but by the alms brought to him by the brethren from Macedonia. Hence we see that the function of preaching is not to be set aside for the sake of manual labor. Those men, therefore, who (whether by commission from a superior or of their own right) are able to preach daily, or otherwise to minister to souls, ought to abstain from manual work.

Further, works of mercy are preferable to physical labor. St. Paul says: for bodily exercise is profitable to little; but godliness is profitable to all things (1 Tim 4:8). But even works of fraternal charity must give place to the exercise of preaching: it is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables (Acts 6:2). Leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God (Luke 9:60). On this the Gloss observes: the Lord teaches us to forego lesser advantages for the sake of greater ones. It is more profitable to raise souls from the death of sin by preaching than to bury dead bodies in the earth. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 833 at Luke 9:60.) Hence manual labor may lawfully be neglected for the sake of preaching.

Again, it is impossible to gain a livelihood by work and to carry on a systematic study of Sacred Scripture at the same time. St. Gregory, expounding Exodus 25:15: the poles shall remain in the rings of the ark, says: it is above all necessary that they who are destined for preaching should be unremitting in their studies, so that although they are not always preaching, they may always be prepared to preach. (Gregory the Great, Liber regulae pastoralis 2.11 (PL 77:50A).) Hence those whose duty it is to preach, whether by their own authority (as is the case with bishops) or by the commission of prelates, ought to set aside manual labor for the sake of study.

There are some words in the prologue of St. Jerome’s commentary on the book of Job, which show clearly that religious are justified in neglecting bodily labor for the sake of studying Sacred Scripture: were I to spend my time in weaving baskets or plaiting palm branches in order to eat my bread in the sweat of my brow, no one would reproach me for my anxiety to supply my material wants. Now that, however, in obedience to the admonition of our Savior, I labor for a meat that does not perish, and strive to clear the sacred volume from the errors that have accumulated therein, I am reproached with having committed a double fault. (Jerome, Preface to the Book of Job (PL 29:63B).) Later on he adds: therefore, my brethren, please accept these spiritual and durable gifts in lieu of fans, baskets and other little monastic presents. (Jerome, Preface to the Book of Job (PL 29:63B).) Thus we see that the monk St. Jerome was rebuked by envious tongues for preferring the study of Sacred Scripture to manual labor. His example may profitably be followed by religious, in spite of the complaints uttered against them by their detractors.

St. Augustine further says in his book De opere monachorum: they who have renounced all their possessions and distributed their fortune, whatever it may be, among the needy, and with pious humility desire to be enrolled among the poor of Christ, can perform a work of mercy even greater than that of dividing their substance among those in want. For, if they are not hindered by ecclesiastical labors and have sufficient strength to work, they will set a good example to the idle by manual labor. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 25.33 (CSEL 41:579; PL 40:572-73).) Hence we see that religious are dispensed from the duty of bodily toil either by infirm health or by ecclesiastical business. Now of all clerical duties, preaching is the noblest and most useful. Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching (1 Tim 5:11). Therefore, religious who are engaged in preaching ought not to be employed in bodily labor.

Replies to objections

These being seen, it now remains to answer the arguments brought forward to the contrary.

Ad 1: The first argument brought against us is that manual labor is an apostolic precept. To this objection we reply that it is a precept not of positive right, but of the natural law. This is clear from the words of St. Paul: keep away from any brother who is living inordinately (2 Thess 3:6), which the Gloss interprets to mean: who lives not according to the law of nature. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:6 (PL 192:324A).) The Apostle is speaking of such as will not work. Now, the very constitution of our bodies teaches us that nature intends us to labor. We are not provided with clothing as other animals are furnished with hides. Neither has nature given us weapons such as cattle's horns or lion's claws. Nor is any food, save milk, supplied naturally to us, as Avicenna remarks. (Avicenna, On the Soul, bk. 5, ch. 1.) In lieu of the gifts bestowed upon other animals, man is endowed with reason (which teaches him to supply his needs), and with hands to carry out the dictates of reason, as Aristotle says (De animalibus, 14). (Aristotle, Parts of Animals, bk. 4, ch. 10, 687a6.) As the precepts of the natural law regard all men without distinction, the law of manual labor does not apply more to religious than to others.

Nevertheless, it is not true that all men are bound to work with their hands. There are certain laws of nature which, in their observance, are of profit to none save to the one who obeys them. Such is the law obliging man to eat. These laws must be obeyed by every individual man. Other natural laws, such as that of reproduction, regard not only the man who obeys them, but are advantageous to the whole human race. It is not necessary that all these laws should be obeyed by every individual; for no single man is competent to perform all the activities which are needed for the continuation of the human race. One individual would not suffice for the different works of reproduction, of invention, of architecture, of agriculture, or for the other functions which must be exercised for the continuance of the human race. To supply the needs common to all mankind one individual must assist another, just as in the body one limb is aided by another.

It is in allusion to this mutual service which men are bound to render to each other that St. Paul says: We are members of one another (Rom 12:5). The differences existing among men, and enabling them to devote themselves to different occupations, are to be attributed primarily to divine providence, and secondarily to natural causes, whereby certain men are disposed to the performance of certain functions in preference to others.

Hence we see that no man is bound to any particular work unless necessity obliges him to it, and unless no one else will accomplish it for him. For example, if a man be constrained by necessity to dwell in a house which no one will build for him, he must build it for himself. Similiarly, I say that no one is bound to manual labor unless he needs something which must be produced by such labor and which he cannot obtain from others without sin. For we are said to be able to do anything when we can lawfully do it. This appears from the words of St. Paul: We labor, working with our own hands (1 Cor 4:12), on which the Gloss comments: Because no one will supply our necessities. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 4:12 (PL 191:1569A).) Hence the Apostle does not enjoin manual labor as a precept on any save on those who choose to gain their living by sin, rather than by work. Nor can it be proved that anyone, whether layman or religious, is bound to manual labor except to save himself from death by starvation or to avoid a sinful mode of gaining a livelihood.

Ad 2: To the second objection, which is based on the commentary of the Gloss on, if any one will not work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10), we answer that this saying must be understood as referring to physical, as distinguished from spiritual, work. It was directed against certain monks who interpreted this passage as signifying spiritual labors only, wishing that the servants of God would be forbidden to work wth their hands. The Gloss corrects this interpretation, and St. Augustine likewise finds fault with it (De opere monachorum).

But even if the verse: if any one will not work, let him not eat, is understood as referring to manual labor, it does not prove that everyone who desires to eat is bound to work with his hands. Were such a precept of labor universally imposed, it would contradict the words of St. Paul: with toil and labor we worked night and day . . . It was not because we have not that power, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate (2 Thess 3:8–9). As the Apostle had power to eat without working, the words: if any one will not work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10), cannot be understood as implying an obligation to work imposed on all mankind.

The class of men to whom St. Paul refers becomes quite evident from some other words of his in the same chapter: for we hear that some of you are living in idleness, mere busybodies, not doing any work (2 Thess 3:11), or, as the Gloss says: providing themselves with the necessities of life by illicit means. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:11 (PL 192:325B).) St. Paul continues: now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living (2 Thess 3:12). For one accustomed to gain his living in an unlawful manner ought not to eat if he will not work. The words of the Gloss which follow: that they may not be compelled by want to beg, (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Thess 3:12 (PL 192:325A).) show that labor is not to be imposed upon the servants of God as a necessity, but that it is proposed to them as means of avoiding the evil of compulsory mendicancy. For it is better for a man to work with his hands than to be reduced against his will to beggary. Nor does it follow that they who profess poverty and who are content to beg out of humility are bound to work with their hands.

Ad 3: To the third objection, we reply that the Apostle has given no absolute precept concerning manual work. He speaks of it as being preferable to theft: let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his hands, so that he may be able to give to those in need (Eph 4:28). Hence as religious can live without stealing, there is no reason why they should be bound to work.

Ad 4: To the fourth objection, our answer is that they who have sold all things in obedience to the counsel of our Lord ought to follow him. Therefore, Peter said: lo, we have left everything and followed you (Matt 19:27). Now men can follow Christ either by a life of contemplation or by one of action. They are equally his followers who leave all things in order to devote themselves to contemplation, or in order to give material alms, or to bestow spiritual assistance by preaching or teaching. The passage quoted from the Gloss, while it mentions one mode whereby the counsels of our Lord are observed, does not thereby intend to exclude the other way, or else it would contradict the gospel. For Luke 9:59 tells us how our Lord said to a certain man, follow me. But he to whom he spoke asked for time to bury his father. Christ answered him: leave the dead to bury their own dead; but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God (Luke 9:60).Thus it was our Lord’s will that some men, when they had left all things, should follow him to proclaim the word of God. We can also say that this text, together with all that is contained about it in the Gloss, is a counsel. It is therefore binding only on such who are vowed to its observance.

Ad 5: Our answer to the fifth objection is that the manual labor of the apostles was sometimes a matter of necessity, and at other times a work of supererogation. When no one would supply the apostles with food, they were obliged to work (as is clear from the Gloss on 1 Corinthians 4:12 (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 4:12 (PL 191:1569A).)). But we see in 1 Corinthians 9 that at other times manual labor was for them a matter of supererogation. (1 Cor 9:4-15.) Now there are three reasons for which the apostles chose to do work that was not a necessity.

First, it was in order to take from those false apostles, who preached only for the sake of temporal gain, the occasion of preaching: what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do (2 Cor 11:12).

Second, the apostles resorted at times to manual labor, lest they to whom they preached should, in their avarice, find it a burden to provide for the material needs of those from whom they received spiritual benefits, and lest they should so fall away from the faith: in what were you less favored than the rest of the churches, except that I myself did not burden you? (2 Cor 12:13).

Third, the apostles labored in order to set an example of industry: we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you (2 Thess 3:8).

But St. Paul did not work in cities, such as Athens, where he had facilities for preaching daily (as Augustine says in De opere monachorum (Augustine, De opere monachorum 18.21 (CSEL 41:566-567; PL 40:566).)). Hence it is not a matter of salvation for religious to imitate his manual labor, since all works of supererogation are not binding upon them. The other apostles did not work with their hands except when they were obliged to do so in order to obtain food.

Ad 6: To the sixth objection, we reply that the decree quoted by it refers only to those clerics who are not sufficiently endowed with ecclesiastical revenues, or assisted by the alms of the faithful, to be able to live without working.

Ad 7: We reply to the seventh objection that St. Paul gives to bishops the example of manual labor in those cases in which he himself had recourse to it, namely, when such labor would not be an obstacle to the performance of their ecclesiastical duties, or when it would cause scandal to recent converts were they to be asked for material assistance.

Ad 8: Our answer to the eighth objection is that manual labor, according to the authority of St. Jerome, (Jerome, Epistle 125, para. 11 (CSEL 56:131; PL 22:1079).) is performed not only to earn a livelihood, but likewise to repress dangerous thoughts arising from idleness and self-indulgence. But sloth and the desires of the flesh are overcome not only by bodily toil, but likewise by spiritual exercises. Hence St. Jerome writes: love the knowledge of the Scripture, and you will not love the vices of the flesh. (Jerome, Epistle 125, para. 11 (CSEL 56:130; PL 22:1078).) There is no precept enjoining manual labor if idleness can be avoided by means of spiritual exercises, and if the body is subdued by means of other austerities such as watching, fasting and the like, among which penitential practices St. Paul mentions labor: labors, watching, hunger (2 Cor 6:5). The Gloss adds, in manual labor, the reason being because the Apostle worked with his hands. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 6:5 (PL 192:46C).)

Ad 9: We reply to the ninth objection that at times it is advisable to work with the hands, and at other times it is better not to work in this manner. When manual labor does not call a man away from some more useful occupation, it is very praiseworthy both as a means of self-support and of charity to those in need. It is especially to be counselled in cases wherein those weak in faith or but recently converted would be scandalised if preachers, instead of earning their own livelihood, were to live on the alms of the faithful. It was on such occasions (as the Gloss remarks (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 9:1 (PL 191:1607A); Glossa ordinaria 6, 1203 at Acts 20:35 (PL 114:463).)) that St. Paul had recourse to manual labor (1 Cor 9). When, however, such labor hinders a man from engaging in more useful occupation, it is better to set it aside. This lesson is given us by the commentary of the Gloss on the words: leave the dead to bury their own dead (Luke 9:60), (Glossa ordinaria 5, 833 at Luke 9:60.) and also by the example of St. Paul, who ceased to work when he had an opportunity of preaching. Manual labor is naturally a greater hindrance to modern preachers than to those of the apostolic age. For the apostles were taught by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, whereas in our time preachers must prepare themselves for their office by constant study, as is evidenced by St. Gregory in the words already given. (Gregory the Great, Liber regulae pastoralis 2.11 (PL 77:50A).)

Ad 10: To the tenth objection, we reply that the monks whom St. Augustine condemns as contumacious belong to the class which is bound to work according to the apostolic precept, and which St. Paul says is worthy of excommunication (2 Thess 3). (2 Thess 3:11-14.) Men of this description refuse to work because they prefer to live in sloth and to get their living by illicit means. That St. Augustine clearly refers to this class of person appears when he assigns a reason why those who leave an agricultural life in order to enter religion ought to employ themselves in physical labor: such men should work with their hands, because it is difficult to tell whether they become religious for the purpose of serving God, or in order to escape from a toilsome and penurious condition to a state wherein they may be clothed and fed, living in idleness and honored by those who hitherto have despised them and considered them nothing. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 22.25 (CSEL 41:571; PL 40:568).) Such men evidently belong to the class denounced by the Apostle as slothful, and urged by him to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living (3 Thess 3:12). St. Augustine accuses them of contumacy chiefly because, perverting the words of St. Paul, they maintain that it is not lawful for the servants of God to work with their hands.

Ad 11: Our answer to the eleventh objection is that by the spiritual works to which this objection refers may be understood either the spiritual exercises that are for the common good, or such as are profitable to individuals. A man may either join in the prayers and psalmody of the divine office, and thus perform a work destined for the public edification of the Church, or he may, as do many laymen, occupy himself in private devotions. It is of the latter class that St. Augustine is speaking in the passage quoted in this objection. He is not alluding to those engaged in the public functions of the Church. This is clear from the words which follow. They can, he says, at the same time sing sacred canticles and work with their hands, after the example of craftsmen, who tell each other stories and listen with great attention, yet without ceasing to work. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).) This conduct would not be permissible to such as are reciting the canonical hours.

Again, reading may be, for some religious, a public duty, for they may have either to teach or to attend lectures in the schools as masters and scholars, either religious or secular. It may, on the other hand, be a private occupation, as is the study of the Scriptures done by monks in the cloister for their own consolation. St. Augustine recognizes this distinction, and in the passage quoted as an objection, he speaks not of monks engaged in teaching or lecturing, but of such as say that they devote their time to reading. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).)

In like manner, preaching may be a public duty; and it is so for such as are bound to proclaim the Word of God to the people. At other times, it is a private exercise, as is the case when, in a community, one of the religious gives a spiritual exhortation, or when the fathers of the desert used to address words of edification to the brethren who came to visit them. It is clear that St. Augustine refers to this private mode of instruction. For he says: can all the religious of a monastery speak spiritual words to the brethren who come to them? (Augustine, De opere monachorum 18.21 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).) Hence it is plain that his words are to be applied not to preachers, but to such as speak unto edification. For as the Gloss says: speaking is a private exercise, preaching a public function (1 Cor 2:4). (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 2:4 (PL 191:1548A).)

They, therefore, who are employed publicly in the various spiritual exercises which we have mentioned are justified in accepting the means of livelihood from the faithful to whom they minister. But those who devote themselves to such works for their private edification, to the neglect of manual labor, do certainly transgress against the apostolic precept. They belong to the category of those whom St. Paul rebukes, and whom he bids to work in quietness and to earn their own living (2 Thess 3:12). It is of such men that St. Augustine speaks. This is made clear by his words: why should we not devote a part of our time to the observance of the apostolic precepts? (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:565).) Again he says: one prayer from the mouth of an obedient man will be heard more speedily than ten that proceed from scornful lips. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 565).) Once more, how great is their perversity! They will not obey what they read. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 17.20 (CSEL 41:565; PL 565).)

All these passages prove that St. Augustine denounces only those religious who apply themselves to spiritual exercises in such a manner as to transgress the apostolic precept. But only those who are bound to fulfill this precept can disobey it, as we have before observed, they do not transgress it who neglect manual labor for the sake of public duties, and also private works. Neither do they obey it who, instead of working with their hand, devote themselves to the exercise of contemplation. For they are not impelled by sloth to escape from labor and to lead an idle life. They are, on the contrary, filled with such an abundance of divine love as to render them oblivious of every earthly care. And this is proved by the authorities quoted above.