Chapter 6 — Whether it is lawful for a religious to leave all he has, so that no property, either private or common, remains to him

Objections

Obj. 1: The enemies of truth are not satisfied with the many false assertions disproved above, but endeavour to overthrow the very basis of all religious life, namely, the practice of poverty established by our Lord. They affirm that, unless done with the intention of doing manual labor, it is unlawful for religious to abandon all their possessions in order to enter a religious order, owning neither property nor income. They quote Proverbs 30:8–9 as an authority for this assertion: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me, lest I be full, and deny thee . . . and lest I be poor, and steal, and profane the name of my God. Those who leave all things and enter a poor religious order, which is destitute of all possessions, abandon their means of subsistence and expose themselves to beggary: and this is particularly the case with those who do not have the intention of working with their hands. They, therefore, who act thus are liable to be tempted to steal and to profane the name of God. Thus it seems reprehensible.

Obj. 2: Again, we read in Ecclesiastes 7:12: wisdom with riches is more profitable, and the Gloss adds, than wisdom alone. (Glossa interlinearis, at Eccl 7:12 (in Glossa ordinaria 3, 1787-88).) Hence it is reprehensible to choose wisdom without riches by abandoning the means of support in order to gain wisdom.

Obj. 3: Again, we are told that through poverty many have sinned (Sir 27:1). The Gloss interprets these words as meaning poverty of heart and of work. (Glossa interlinearis, at Sir 27:1 (in Glossa ordinaria 3, 2111-12, at Sir 26:29).) Now if every occasion of sin is to be avoided, no man ought to reduce himself to poverty by parting with all his goods.

Obj. 4: Again, St. Paul gives to the Corinthians the following rule concerning almsgiving: for if the readiness is there, it is acceptable according to what a man has, not according to what he has not. I do not mean that others should be eased and you burdened (2 Cor 8:12). The Gloss interprets this text to mean that a man must keep for himself the necessities of life, and that if he bring on himself poverty, he is giving beyond his means. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 8:12 (PL 192:58D).) Hence those who abandon all their possessions are giving alms inordinately, and in a manner contrary to the apostolic rule.

Obj. 5: On the words of St. Paul: we beseech you, brethren, to respect those who labor among you (1 Thess 5:12), the Gloss has the following comment: riches beget carelessness about salvation. Penury also causes men to forsake justice in their efforts to acquire wealth. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Thess 5:12 (PL 192:308C).) Now they who give up all that they possess in order to become religious reduce themselves to excessive poverty. Thus they lay themselves open to a temptation to depart from justice.

Obj. 6: Again, on the words of the same Apostle: if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content (1 Tim 6:8), the Gloss says: although we have brought nothing into the world, and shall take nothing out of it, temporal possessions are not to be entirely rejected. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Tim 6:8 (PL 192:358D).) Therefore, he who casts aside all material wealth in order to go into religion acts inordinately.

Obj. 7: Again, on Luke 3:11: he who has two coats, let him share with him who has none, the Gloss says: we are commanded to divide two cloaks, for if one were divided it would clothe no one. Hence we see that charity must be proportioned to the capability of our human condition, and that no one should render himself entirely destitute, but that he should rather divide what he has with the poor. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 734 at Luke 3:11.) Hence to give away everything in alms, and to keep nothing for ourselves, is unreasonable and inordinate conduct. It is therefore sinful.

Obj. 8: Again, in Luke 12:29, we read: do not seek what you are to eat. The Gloss remarks: our Lord does not forbid us to reserve money for our own necessities; for he himself had a purse. Unless such provision for ourselves were right, it would be forbidden, and Christ would have kept nothing for himself. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 871 at Luke 12:33.) Hence it must be virtuous and fitting to retain some portion of our property, instead of renouncing the whole.

Obj. 9: Again, it is an act of prodigality to give away both what ought and what ought not to be given. He who gives away everything gives what ought not to be given, but what ought to be retained. Thus he sins by prodigality.

Obj. 10: Again, in Romans 12:1, St. Paul speaks of your reasonable service. The Gloss says that this is lest it give too much. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 12:1 (PL 191:1496C).) But to give away everything is to give too much, and therefore it is to exceed the medium of liberality, which consists in giving enough, and keeping enough. Hence he who gives up everything to go into religion does not offer a reasonable service to God.

Obj. 11: Again, Exodus 20:13 says: you shall not kill, and the Gloss adds: by depriving another of the means of life which you owe him. (Glossa interlinearis, at Exod 20:13 (in Glossa ordinaria 1, 673-74).) Now as temporal possessions are the means of life, and as we owe the means of subsistence, in the first place, to ourselves, he who deprives himself of all material possessions sins against the commandment, you shall not kill, by depriving himself of the means of living.

Obj. 12: Again, happier were the victims of the sword than the victims of hunger who pined away (Lam 4:9). Hence it is more iniquitous to expose ourselves to death by starvation than to destruction by violence. It is not lawful for a man to act thus when he can act otherwise without sin, says St. Augustine. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 22, q. 2, ch. 15 (Friedberg, 1:872), from Augustine, Contra mendacium, ch. 17, para. 34 (CSEL 41:518; PL 40:542).) Much less, then, is it permitted to us to expose ourselves through starvation, by parting with all that we possess, and retaining nothing.

Obj. 13: Again, a man is more bound to preserve his own life than to care for another. Now it would be sinful to deprive another man of all means of subsistence, and thus to cause him to perish: the bread of the needy is the life of the poor; whoever deprives them of it is a murderer (Sir 34:25). Therefore, he who gives away his all and retires into a religious order which has no common property sins by suicide.

Obj. 14: Again, the life of Christ is the example of perfection. But we read that our Lord had a purse (John 12:6), and again that his disciples went into a city to buy bread (John 4:8). Hence the entire renunciation of all property cannot be perfect.

Obj. 15: Further, the observances of the religious orders originated in the apostolic mode of life. For, as St. Jerome says in his book On Illustrious Men, (Jerome, On Illustrious Men, ch. 11 (PL 23:627A).) all Christians of the primitive Church resembled the most perfect religious of our day. We are informed of the same fact by the book In collationibus Patrum, (John Cassian, Collationes partum, collection 18, ch. 5 (CSEL 13:510; PL 49:1095A).) and also by the Gloss on Acts 4:32: the company of those who believed. (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1025 at Acts 4:32 (PL 114:437A).) But this same chapter of Acts also states that in the apostolic times the faithful had all things in common, and that there was no one needy among them. (Acts 4:32, 34.) They, therefore, who relinquish their possessions and, having no common property, are bound to be destitute, lead not a religious but a superstitious life.

Obj. 16: Again, when our Lord sent his disciples to preach, he gave them two commands.

First, he told them to take nothing with them on the way, (Matt 10:9-10; Mark 6:8-9; Luke 9:3, 10:4.)

and second, not to go into the way of the Gentiles (Matt 10, Mark 6, Luke 9). (Matt 10:5-6.)

When the time of his Passion was at hand, he rescinded his first command, saying: but now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag (Luke 22:36). He would seem likewise to have revoked his second command in the words, go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19), and: go into all the world and preach the gospel (Mark 26:15). Since the second order has been rescinded, it need no longer be observed; but, on the contrary, the Gospel must be preached to the Gentiles. In the same way, the first of these two precepts is not now to be put in practice. Therefore, men need not entirely deprive themselves of the means of subsistence.

Obj. 17: Again, in Decretals, XII, q. 1 we read: it is right to possess the property belonging to the Church, and to despise our own possessions. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, ch. 13 (Friedberg, 1:681).) And again: it is manifest that, while men ought to renounce what belongs to them for the sake of perfection, they may possess the property of the Church, which belongs to all, without any imperfection. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, ch. 13 (Friedberg, 1:681).) Therefore, it stands to reason that if any man abandon his own possessions to go into religion, he ought to choose an order holding some common property.

Obj. 18: Again, in the same question, cap. Videntes, it is laid down that the Sovereign Pontiffs have ordained that property should be conferred on the Church, in order that there should be no destitution among those leading a common life. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, ch. 16 (Friedberg, 1:682).) Hence those who despise common property, and prefer to live in want, sin by acting counter to the ordinances of the holy fathers.

Obj. 19: The Gloss on the words: if you are the Son of God, throw yourself down (Matt 4:6), has the following commentary: no one ought to tempt God when human reason teaches him how to act. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 83 at Matt 4:6 (PL 114:85).) And again: a man, when his human reason is at a loss, ought to commend himself to God, not tempting him, but devoutly confessing to him. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 83 at Matt 4:6 (PL 114:85).) Now he who has the means of procuring the necessaries of life (that is, food and clothing) is taught by human reason how to act. If, then, he refuses to make use of these means, and yet expects his life to be preserved, he sins by tempting God as much as a man would sin who, seeing a bear approach him, should throw down his weapon of self-defence and yet expect God to save him.

Obj. 20: Again, we ought not to reject that which we daily pray for. Now each day we beg of God to supply our bodily wants, saying: give us this day our daily bread. (Luke 11:3.) Therefore, we ought not to expose ourselves to poverty by casting aside all our temporal possessions.

Obj. 21: Again, we read in the Decretals that a church ought not to be built before he who desires to build it has provided a sum sufficient for the maintenance of the priest who is to take charge of such a church (De consecr., 1, Nemo). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, ch. 9 (Friedberg, 1:1296).) They, therefore, who possess no property live in opposition to the statutes of the Holy Fathers.

Obj. 22: Again, the mode of religious life in which common property is enjoyed is approved by the ancient fathers such as Augustine, Basil, Benedict, and many others. It appears rash, therefore, to introduce another form of religious life.

Obj. 23: Again, in the New Testament our Lord enjoins his followers to assist the poor in their necessities. But this precept cannot be carried out by those who have neither private nor common property. Therefore, entire renunciation of all possessions is not praiseworthy.

Response

I answer that, because things may at times be best understood by tracing them to their source, we will now examine the origin of these propositions; and we will investigate the mode of their development.

In the early days of Christianity there flourished at Rome a heretic, confuted in the writings of St. Jerome, whose name was Jovinian. He taught that all who preserved their baptismal innocence would receive, in Heaven, an equal reward. (Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, bk. 1, para. 3 (PL 23:224B).) He further taught that virgins, married persons and widows were, if baptized, all of equal merit in the sight of God, provided that there was no discrepancy between them with regard to their works. (Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.3 (PL 23:224B).) He said that as there is no difference between abstinence from food and eating with giving of thanks, so there is no inequality between virginity and marriage. By this teaching, he, of course, stultified both the counsel of virginity given by our Lord when he says: not all men can receive this precept, that is, to remain single, but only those to whom it is given (Matt 19:2), and the advice of St. Paul on the same subject: now concerning virgins, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my counsel (1 Cor 7:25). The opinions of Jovinian have, St. Augustine tells us, (Augustine, Retractations 2.22 (CCSL 57; CSEL 36:156 [ch. 48]; PL 32:639).) been condemned as heretical.

The errors of Jovinian were, however, revived by Vigilantius, (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, para. 1 (CCSL 79C; PL 23:355B).) who impugned the faith and hated continence, and who, in the midst of riotous feasting, declaimed against the fasting practiced by holy men (see St. Jerome’s epistle Contra Vigilantium). (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, para. 1 (CCSL 79C; PL 23:355B).) But Vigilantius was not contented with imitating Jovinian in rejecting the counsel of virginity; he proceeded further to condemn the practice of poverty. St. Jerome, speaking of the errors of Vigilantius, says: he maintains that it is better to distribute our goods among the poor by degrees than to sell them altogether and give away the price. Let him accept his answer not from me, but from God, who has said, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess" (Matt 29:21). (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, para. 14 (CCSL 79C; PL 23:366B).) The error of Vigilantius has been handed down by a succession of heretical teachers to our days. It is still perpetuated by the sect of the Cathari, and is expounded in a treatise written by a certain heresiarch of Lombardy named Desiderius, (Moneta of Cremona mentions this in his Summa adversus Catharos et Valdenses, ed. T. Ricchini, N. Palearini, and M. Palearini (Rome: Pallas, 1743), p. 248, 347, 357.) who, amongst other heretical propositions, condemns the conduct of those who sell all that they may live in poverty with Christ. (Moneta, Summa adversus Catharos et Valdenses, p. 451b.)

More recently, however, the old heresies concerning virginity and poverty have been revived by men who, while pretending to defend the truth, have gone from bad to worse, and who, not content with teaching like Jovinian that a condition of wealth is as meritorious as voluntary poverty, or with preferring riches to poverty, as did Vigilantius, hold that poverty is to be absolutely condemned; and that it is not lawful for a man to leave all things for Christ, unless he enter an order which possesses some common property, or can support itself by means of manual labor. (William of Saint-Amoure, De quantitate eleemosynae, corp.; De periculis novissimorum temporum, ch. 12; Collectiones catholicae et canonicae scripturae 2, 252-53.) They further assert that the poverty commended by the Scriptures is not that actual poverty whereby a man strips himself of all temporal possessions, but that habitual poverty which causes him to despise those earthly goods which he actually owns. We will now proceed to refute this mistaken opinion.

First, we will prove that for evangelical perfection not only habitual poverty is required, but likewise that actual poverty which consists in the renunciation of material possessions.

Second, we shall show that perfection is attained even by those who own no common property.

Third, we shall make it evident that manual labor is not essential to perfection, even where men possess nothing.

Fourth, we shall refute the arguments whereby our adversaries seek to maintain their errors.

Evangelical perfection requires actual poverty

In order to prove that evangelical poverty requires, not only habitual, but likewise actual poverty, we will remind our readers of the words: if you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess (Matt 19:21). Now he who sells all that he has and distributes it to the poor practices not merely habitual, but likewise actual poverty. Hence actual poverty is needed for evangelical perfection. Again, evangelical perfection consists in the imitation of Christ, who was poor not only in desire, but in fact. The Gloss on the words: go to the sea (Matt 17:27), says: so great was the poverty of the Lord that he had nothing by which to pay the tribute money. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 298 at Matt 17:27.) Again, on the words: foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests (Luke 9:58), the Gloss says: our Lord meant to say that his poverty was so extreme that he had no shelter and no roof to call his own. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 833 at Luke 9:58.) We might adduce many other proofs that actual poverty pertains to evangelical perfection.

The apostles were mirrors of evangelical perfection. They practiced actual poverty, renouncing all that they possessed. Thus Peter said: lo, we have left everything and followed you (Matt 19:27). Hence St. Jerome writes to Hebidia: would you be perfect and attain to the highest dignity? Do as the apostles did. Sell all that you have and give to the poor, and follow our Savior. Alone, and stripped of all things, follow only the Cross in its bare poverty. (Jerome, Epistle 120, ch. 1 (CSEL 55:477-478; PL 22:985).) Hence actual poverty forms part of evangelical perfection.

Again, the Gloss on the words: how hard it will be for those who have riches to enter the kingdom of God (Mark 10:23), has the following comment: it is one thing to have money, another to love it. Many possess it without loving it; many love it without possessing it. Thus, while some men own wealth and love it, others congratulate themselves on neither owning nor loving it, for this is the safer course. Such men can say with the Apostle, "The world has been crucified to me, and I to the world" (Gal 6:14). (Glossa ordinaria 5, 588 at Mark 10:23.) Hence it is evident that habitual poverty, in conjunction with actual poverty, is preferable to habitual poverty alone. This same remark may be made with reference to the words in Matthew 19:23: it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. The Gloss here observes, it is safest neither to possess nor to love riches. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 321 at Matt 19:23 (PL 114:149).)

Again, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world? (Jas 2:5). The Gloss inteprets this as those who are poor in temporal possessions. (Glossa interlinearis, at Jas 2:5 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1277-78).) Hence those who are actually poor are chosen by God.

Again, the Gloss on Luke 14:33: whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple, observes that there is a difference between renouncing everything and leaving everything. All who make lawful use of their material possessions renounce them, insofar as their aspirations tend towards such things as are eternal. But those who leave all things act with greater perfection, for they set aside what is temporal in order to seek only what is eternal. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 902 at Luke 14:33.) Hence abandonment of all things by actual poverty is a point of evangelical perfection; renunciation of all things by habitual poverty is necessary for salvation.

Again, St. Jerome, in his epistle against Vigilantius, says: the Lord speaks to him who desires to be perfect and, with the Apostle, leaves father, ship, and net. The one you praise is in the second or third rank; for he desires only to give the income of his possessions to the poor. We accept such a one, although we know that the first degree of virtue is preferable to the second or third degree. (Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, para. 14 (CCSL 79C; PL 23:366C).) From these words, it is plain that they who give all that they possess to the poor are to be preferred to such as give alms only of their income.

Again, St. Jerome says in his epistle to the Monk Rusticus: if you have possessions, sell them and give to the poor. If you do not have them, you are free from a great burden. Therefore, being stripped of all things, you follow Christ in his poverty. This is a hard and painful undertaking; but it is rewarded with a glorious recompense. (Jerome, Epistle 125, para. 20 (CSEL 56:142; PL 22:1085).) For the sake of brevity, we omit many other passages from St. Jerome, all of which must be understood as referring to actual poverty.

Again, St. Augustine (Gennadius) says in his book De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus: though it is good to distribute our riches by degrees among the poor, it is better to give all away at once with the intention of following our Lord, in order that we may share his poverty, free from anxiety. (This text is in reality written by Gennadius Massiliensis in his work De ecclesiasticis dogmatibus, ch. 71 (PL 58:997A).) And thus the same follows as before.

Again, St. Ambrose, in like manner, says in his book De Officibus: riches will not give us the slightest assistance in attaining to a life of blessedness. This is clearly pointed out by our Lord’s words, "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God." And again, he says that poverty, hunger, pain, and such things as are thought to be evils are not merely no obstacle to blessedness, but they are clearly pronounced to be aids towards attaining to it. (Ambrose of Milan, De officiis ministorum, bk. 2, ch. 4, para. 15 (CCSL 15; PL 16:107C).) Now these words cannot be understood as referring to habitual poverty, whereby a man is merely detached from riches; for riches have never been held by any to be obstacles to happiness. They must, therefore, be understood to refer to actual poverty, whereby all possessions are given up.

Again, St. Gregory says: when a man consecrates to God one thing, but not another, he offers a sacrifice. But when he gives to God his whole life, with all that he has and all that he loves, he offers a holocaust, which is the most acceptable form of sacrifice (Homily 8, 2 on Ezechiel). (Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel 2.8.16 (CCSL 142; PL 76:1037C).) Hence it is the most perfect work to abandon all that we have for the love of God.

Again, St. Gregory says: while I was still constrained to serve the world in appearance, many temporal anxieties rose up around me and claimed all my attention. At length, escaping from them, I sought the gate of the monastery and, forsaking the things of this world, which I then regarded as vanities, I escaped from them as a mariner from a shipwreck (prolog. Moral.). (Gregory the Great, Epistle in Morals, ch. 1 (CCSL 143; PL 75:511A).) Hence we see that it is dangerous to possess material goods, for they occupy the mind to a perilous degree. It is better, therefore, to relinquish the possession of earthly things by actual poverty, so that the mind may be freed from solicitude concerning them.

St. Chrysostom asks: what harm did material poverty do to the apostles? Did they not live in hunger and thirst and nakedness? And were they not, on this account, more renowned and glorious? And did not their poverty increase their trust in God? (John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, homily 4 (PG 52:464).) Hence we see that actual poverty, which consists in privation of all things, forms part of apostolic perfection.

Again, St. Bernard writes to the Archbishop of Sens: blessed is he who keeps for himself nothing of what he possesses. Blessed is he who has not a den like the wolves, nor a nest like the birds, nor a purse like Judas, nor a house, but who, like Mary, finds no room even in an inn, and thus imitates him who had nothing on which to lay his head. (Bernard of Clairvaux, Epistle 42, ch. 3, para. 11 (PL 182:817D).) Entire destitution of all earthly possessions, therefore, pertains to Christian perfection.

In Decretals I, q. 2, Si quis, we read: he who strips himself of everything, or who, possessing nothing, desires nothing, is more perfect than he who out of his abundance gives something to the Church. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 1, q. 2, ch. 8 (Friedberg, 1:410).) These words are another proof that actual poverty is a point of Christian perfection.

Again, they who devote themselves to the contemplation of divine things ought to be more disengaged from temporal anxiety than they who apply themselves to the study of philosophy. But philosophers, in order to be able to give their whole attention to study, used to relinquish all their worldly possessions. St. Jerome says to the priest Paulinus: Socrates the Theban, a very wealthy man, cut away a large quantity of gold when he went to study philosophy at Athens, judging that he could not, at the same time, possess both virtue and riches (de Instil. monach.). (Jerome, Epistle 58, para 2 (CSEL 54:529; PL 22:580), although the text speaks of Crates the Theban rather than Socrates.) It is far more praiseworthy, then, to relinquish all worldly goods for the sake of divine contemplation. The interlinear Gloss on the words, if you would be perfect (Matt 19:21), says: behold, the life of contemplation taught by the Gospel. (Glossa interlinaris, at Matt 19:21 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 321-22).)

Again, a great reward is only given for great merit. Now a great reward, namely, judicial power, is due to actual poverty. This appears from the words of our Lord: you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones (Matt 19:28). On which the Gloss says: they who have left all things and have followed the Lord shall be judges; but they who have lawfully retained and used their goods shall be judged. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 324 at Matt 19:28 (PL 114:149).) Therefore, the higher merit is due to actual poverty.

Again, St. Paul, in counselling virginity, gives as the reason of his counsel that they may be without solicitude (1 Cor 7:32). The renunciation of riches frees a man from solicitude. For riches engender many anxieties in their possessors. Hence our Lord speaks of them as thorns which, by their care, choke the Word of God in the hearts of the hearers (Luke 8:14). Therefore, actual poverty belongs to evangelical perfection even as does virginity.

Evangelical perfection does not require common property

We shall prove in conclusion that the perfection which consists in the entire sacrifice of private property does not necessitate the possession of common property.

Now, the foundation of all perfection was laid by Christ and by the apostles. We do not, however, read that when they left all that they had, they possessed property in common. On the contrary, we are told that they had no house in which to dwell. Hence common property is not an essential of perfect poverty.

St. Augustine tells us that in the primitive Church, the Jews who converted to Christianity, being constantly in close contact with spiritual things, were so receptive of the influence of the Holy Spirit that they sold all that they had, and laid the price at the feet of the apostles, to be distributed among the poor (De doctrina Christiana, 3). (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3.6.10 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:69).) He further observes that this fact is not narrated of any Gentile church; for they who had for gods idols made by hands were not so open to the Holy Spirit. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3.6.11 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:69).) Hence we see that St. Augustine considers the perfection of the early Jewish church to have been superior to that of the Gentile churches. For, while the Gentile converts sold all that they had to give to the poor, the Jews sold their possessions so absolutely as to reserve to themselves no common property whatsoever. Hence poverty, without common property, is more perfect than that which retains property in common.

Again, St. Jerome, writing to Hellodorus on the death of Nepotiau, says in derision: men are richer as monks than they were as seculars. With the poverty of Christ, they possess wealth that they had not when they were subject to the devil; and the Church mourns over the riches of those whom the world despised as beggars. (Jerome, Epistle 60, para. 11 (CSEL 54:563; PL 22:596).) These words may often be verified in religious orders that maintain common property. They can never be true of such religious as possess nothing. Hence it is more meritorious for religious to have nothing than to possess property.

Again, St. Jerome writes to Lucinus Beticus: as long as we are engaged in things of the world, and our mind is occupied about our possessions and revenues, we cannot think freely of God. (Jerome, Epistle 71, para. 3 (CSEL 55:4; PL 22:670).) Hence it is better for religious to be without property and revenues than to possess them.

Again, St. Gregory says, speaking of Isaac a servant of God: when, as frequently happened, his disciples pressed him to accept for the use of the monastery the things that were offered to him, Isaac, vigilant in his care for poverty, was wont to make use of these strong words: "The monk who seeks possessions on earth, is no monk." For he feared to lose his poverty as a miser fears to be robbed of his gold (Dialogues, 3). (Gregory the Great, Dialogues 3.14 (PL 77:245A-B).) This example proves that it is safest for religious not to possess common property.

Again, the monks of Egypt, of whom we read in the lives of the Fathers, deemed those religious to be the most perfect who lived in the desert, possessing nothing. (Cf. Augustine, De opere monachorum 23.29 (CSEL 41:575-576; PL 40:570); Cassian, Coll., preface (CSEL 13:4; PL 49:479B).) Hence common property is not an essential of evangelical poverty.

Again, religious can be deprived of common property by tyrants. If, then, men are not to leave all that they possess unless they go into an order holding property in common, tyrants would have it in their power to hinder the practice of evangelical poverty. This idea is, of course, an absurd one.

Again, the intention of our Lord in giving the counsel of poverty was to enable men to disengage their minds from anxiety about temporal things. Now common property cannot be possessed without much solicitude concerning its preservation and improvement. Hence those who possess no common property practice the counsel of poverty in the most perfect manner.

Actual poverty does not require manual labor

We shall finally show that actual poverty does not necessarily involve manual labor. St. Augustine says: they who in the world possessed the means of living without work and who, on their conversion to God, have parted with all that they had, should not be forced to labor with their hands. It is praiseworthy in them to embrace voluntary poverty for the love of Christ, even if they possess no common property (De opere monachorum). (Augustine, De opere monachorum 21.25 (CSEL 41:570; PL 40:567).) In the primitive church of Jerusalem there were, as we know by the testimony of St. Augustine, (Augustine, De opere monachorum 21.25 (CSEL 41:570; PL 40:567-568).) many men of this description. Hence those who embrace voluntary poverty are not bound to manual labor, even though they possess no common property.

Again, no one is bound by precept to work with his hands unless he can by no other lawful means procure a livelihood. Manual labor is not, therefore, a duty for those who possess nothing, unless they be obliged thereto by vow. Hence it is not true that they are bound absolutely to manual labor. They are only obliged to perform it when it is their only means of subsistence; and, in such a case, everyone would be obliged to work with his hands, even if no vow imposed such labor on him as a duty.

Again, the counsel of poverty was given by our Lord in order to facilitate contemplation. This is pointed out by the Gloss on the words of Matthew 19:21: if you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, which says: behold, the contemplative life ordained by the Gospel. (Glossa interlinearis, at Matt 19:21 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 321-22).) They, however, who are forced to gain their livelihood by the work of their hands are greatly distracted from contemplation. If, then, those who, for the love of Christ, choose a life of poverty, are bound to manual labor, the very purpose for which the counsel of poverty was given will be frustrated. The counsel, therefore, will have been given to no purpose. This line of argument is, of course, absurd.

Again, if they who leave all things for the love of Christ are bound to have the intention of working with their hands, they must form this intention for one of the three following reasons. They must intend to perform manual labor either for its own sake, or to provide means of subsistence, or in order to procure money which can be given in alms. Now it is absurd to say that the spiritual perfection of poverty can consist in manual labor undertaken for its own sake. For if such were the case, the work of the body would be preferred before the perfection of the soul.

Again, it is not reasonable to say that a man ought to leave all things with the intention of going to earn his own living. For if he had stayed in the world he could have lived by the possessions which he has forsaken; and further, the manual labor of the poor of Christ who devote themselves to prayer and other spiritual exercises barely suffices to maintain them. They must, therefore, be assisted by the faithful, as St. Augustine says in his book De opere monachorum. (Augustine, De opere monachorum 16.17 (CSEL 41:558-559; PL 40:562).)

Third, it cannot be maintained that manual labor ought to be undertaken in order to procure means for almsgiving. For they who enter religion could have given much more abundantly to the poor of the goods which they possessed in the world. Thus, they would act unreasonably in leaving all things, in order to do manual work for the sake of giving alms. They, therefore, who, having left all things enter a religious order which has no common property are not, as we have already shown, bound to have the intention of performing manual labor.

Replies to objections

It only remains for us now to reply to the objections of our opponents.

Ad 1: With regard to Proverbs 30:8: give me neither poverty nor riches, we answer that as there is no evil in riches themselves, but in the abuse of them, so beggary or poverty is not, in itself an evil. The only evil of poverty is its abuse, when there is impatience or reluctance in bearing the suffering resulting from it, or when there arises a covetous desire of the goods of others. Those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare (1 Tim 6:9). St. Chrysostom likewise says on St. Matthew: listen, you who are poor, and still more carefully you who desire to be rich. It is not a bad thing to be poor; the real evil is to be unwilling to be poor. (John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew*, homily 90, para. 3 (PG 58:791).)* It is therefore evident that necessary poverty is accompanied by certain dangers from which voluntary poverty is free. For they who become poor by their own act do not desire to be rich. Hence the prayer of Solomon concerning beggary and riches refers to involuntary poverty. This is clear from the context: lest I be poor, and steal. (Prov 30:9.) The Gloss likewise says on this text: the man who walks with God prays that he may not, either through abundance or scarcity of material goods, fall into forgetfulness of such as are eternal. (Source not found.) Hence we see that Solomon teaches us that it is not poverty or riches themselves which are to be avoided, but the misuse of either of these conditions.

Ad 2: Ecclesiastes 7:12: wisdom with riches is more profitable, must be explained according to the rule laid down by Aristotle that the greatest good, such as happiness, joined to a lesser good is preferable to that lesser good (Ethics, 1). (Aristotle, Ethics 1.9, 1097b17.) Hence wisdom, which is amongst the greatest goods, is preferable to riches, which are an inferior good. But, according to this rule, the greatest good joined to another very great good is of more worth than if it be joined to a lesser good, or if it be considered by itself. Hence wisdom joined to evangelical perfection, which consists in poverty, and is one of the greatest goods, is worth more than wisdom considered by itself, or joined to riches.

Ad 3: The words, through poverty many have sinned (Sir 27:1), refers to compulsory poverty, which is necessarily accompanied by a desire for riches. We see this by the context: whoever seeks to get rich will avert his eyes. As the Gloss explains: he turns away the eye of his soul from the fear of the Lord. (Glossa interlinearis, at Sir 27:1 (in Glossa ordinaria 3, 2111-12).)

Ad 4: The passage of the Gloss, quoted as a fourth objection, is mutilated and misinterpreted. This becomes clear if we subjoin its context: he does not say that it is not better to give everything; but, out of consideration to those who are weak in virtue, he recommends them to give in such a manner that they shall not suffer want. (Peter lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 8:12 (PL 192:58D).)

Ad 5: The warning that poverty diminishes friendship, is to be understood of involuntary poverty, which causes covetousness. This is plain by the words that follow, while he seeks to be filled. Satiety implies that superabundance which those who are not satisfied with a little desire, unlike what 1 Timothy 6:8 says: if we have food and clothing, with these we shall be content. Hence he says below: those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare (1 Tim 6:9); for the desire of great wealth often causes men to fall away from justice.

Ad 6: The words of the Gloss that temporal possessions are not to be entirely rejected are to be interpreted to mean that we are to use our temporal means to procure food and clothing. This appears clearly from 1 Timothy 6:8: having food and clothing, with these we shall be content. The Gloss does not mean that man can ignore all provision for temporal needs. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 734 at Luke 3:11.)

Ad 7: To the seventh objection, we reply that some temporal things, such as food and clothing, are absolutely necessary for the support of life. If I have more of such things than I need, I ought to assist the destitute, but I ought not to deprive myself of necessary food or raiment. It is of such things as are acquired for our present needs that the Gloss speaks in the passage quoted in the seventh objection. But there are temporal things, such as money and property, which, though not needed at present, may in the future be necessary to our support. There is no reason why perfect men should not distribute these things to the poor; for, before they are needed, God may supply the lack of them in some other way; and we are commanded in the Scriptures to trust that he will do so.

Ad 8: To the eighth objection, we reply that although it be not a matter of precept to reserve money for our necessities, it is nevertheless a matter of counsel. Our Lord carried a purse not because he was unable otherwise to supply his needs, but for the sake of his weaker members, and in order that they might understand that it was lawful for them to do what they saw done by Christ. Hence the Gloss on the words: as he had the money box (John 12:6), says: he to whom the angels ministered carried a purse out of condescension to our weakness and for the assistance of the poor. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 1214-15 at John 12:6 (PL 114:401).) Again, on the verse in Psalm 104(103):14: you cause the grass to grow for the cattle, the Gloss says: the Lord had a purse for the use of those who were with him, and because in his own person he carried the infirmity of the weak, as when he said: "My soul is sorrowful." (Matt 26:38.) He was followed by pious women who ministered to him of their substance. For he foresaw that in the future many of his followers would be weak and would seek material assistance. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Ps 104(103):14 (PL 191:935B).) He did not fill his purse with his own property, but with alms given him by devout and faithful men.

Ad 9: Our answer to the ninth objection, is the rule laid down in Ethics, 2, namely, that the medium in virtue does not signify the distance from extremes, but the due proportion of circumstances, ordered by well balanced reason. (Aristotle, Ethics 2.6, 1106a30-b26.) Hence the medium of virtue does not consist in preserving the right balance between superfluity and scarcity in any circumstance considered in itself, but in a circumstance considered in comparison with other circumstances. Thus, the medium of virtue may vary according to the variability of circumstances. In sobriety, for instance, the circumstance who is varied according to the variety of the circumstance what. An amount of food which would be a moderate quantity for one person would be too much for another, and too little for a third. Thus again, some virtue, such as magnanimity, existing in its highest degree, may be moderate in proportion to some other circumstance. The magnanimous man, says Aristotle, confers the greatest dignity on himself (Ethics, 4). (Aristotle, Ethics 4.8, 1123b2-9.) He who exceeds the virtue of magnanimity by superfluity does not thereby acquire greater dignity, but oversteps the limits of virtue; and those things which were moderation in him as a magnanimous man are now superfluous. Hence we see that the medium of virtue is not destroyed because one circumstance is in its highest degree, so long as that circumstance be proportioned to other circumstances. Thus, in a case of liberality, if we consider the quantity to be given, and if we attend only to the circumstance that in certain cases it is superfluous to give everything, we shall find the vice of prodigality. On the other hand, with a certain change of circumstances, this prodigality will become perfect liberality. For instance, if a man gives all that he possesses to save his country from danger, he will be an example of perfect liberality. In the same way, he who gives away all that he has in order to fulfil the counsel of our Lord acts not with prodigality, but with perfect virtue. If, however, such a man were to spend his all upon some unfitting object, or with some unseemly circumstances, he would be prodigal. We may say the same of virginity and of all other virtues in which there appears to be excess when the common mean of virtue is overstepped. Hence we see that to give everything for the love of Christ means not to give both what ought and ought not to be given, but to give only that which ought to be given. For, although all things are not in every case to be given, yet all things are to be given up for Christ.

Ad 10: Our reply to the tenth objection is that grace is the perfection of nature. Therefore, it cannot be its destruction. There are certain things, such as food and sleep, which pertain immediately to the preservation of nature. In connection with these things, virtue does not exceed the limits of the preservation of nature. Hence if anyone deprive himself of that which nature demands for its support, it is a vicious and unreasonable act. It is such conduct that is rebuked both by St. Paul and by the Gloss. (Cf. Rom 12:1, and Peter Lombard's commentary on the text (PL 191:1495-96).) The Gloss says: let the service which you offer by the maceration of the flesh be reasonable, that is, tempered by discretion and not excessive. Chastise your body with moderation, so that it be not destroyed. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 12:1 (PL 191:1496C).) But nature can be preserved without luxury. Hence, if a man abstain from sensual pleasure, he is not performing a superfluous act, unless he should fall into sin by such abstention. For this reason, virginity is praiseworthy. Again, life can be preserved without material possessions if we trust that divine providence will assist us in many ways. Hence a man does nothing superfluous, in giving up all that he possesses for Christ. Consequently, voluntary poverty, practiced for the love of Christ, is no departure from the medium which ought to be observed in virtue.

Ad 11: To the next objection, we reply that although he who leaves all things for the love of Christ, does, to a certain extent, deprive himself of the means of existence; yet, he can always count on the assistance of divine providence, which will never fail him; he can also reckon on the charity of the faithful. St. Augustine, in his book, On Almsdeeds, thus expresses himself on this subject: do you think that anything will be lacking to a Christian, to a servant of God, to one devoted to good works, and to one precious in the sight of his Master? Shall he who feeds Christ not likewise be fed by him? Shall earthly things be wanting to him, on whom divine and heavenly gifts are bestowed? Where do such unbelief and such impious and sacrilegious ideas spring from? How then can any be found in the house of God with so little confidence in him? Does he who does not trust Christ absolutely deserve to be called a Christian? No, rather such a one should be named a Pharisee. For, as we read in the Gospel, (Luke 16:14.) the Pharisees, hearing our Lord teach the duty of giving alms and of making to ourselves friends of earthly goods, derided him in their avarice. And even now we behold in the Church men who resemble the Pharisees, whose ears are closed and whose eyes are blinded, so that they can perceive no ray of the light of spiritual and salutary teaching. We have no reason then to wonder that such men hold the servants of God in contempt, when we know that the Lord himself was despised. (This text is in reality written by St. Cyprian of Carthage in his work De opere et eleemosynis, paras. 11-12 (CCSL 3A; CSEL 3.1:382; PL 4:610A-B).) These words point out, clearly that it is sacrilegious to say that they who abandon all things for the love of Christ, expose themselves to the risk of suicide.

Ad 12: Our answer to the twelfth objection, is that he who leaves all things for God does not incur any danger of dying of hunger. For divine providence will never abandon him: I will never fail you nor forsake you (Heb 13:5). The Gloss thus comments on these words: but in case any should say: "what are we to do if necessary help should fail us?," the consoling words from the book of Joshua are added, "I will not fail you nor forsake you." (Josh 1:5.) A man who should die of hunger would certainly be forsaken; but, as this will never happen, let no one be covetous. For God speaks these words to every man that trusts in him, as well as to Joshua. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Heb 13:5 (PL 192:512A-B).) He makes this promise to us on condition that we place our trust in him. His words are not spoken to the avaricious nor to the covetous, but to such as trust in God. It is not true to say that it is not lawful for a man to expose himself to danger; for a man may meritoriously expose himself to death for the name of Christ, even if it be possible for him to act otherwise. Thus, we read of many martyrs who, in the time of persecution, offered themselves to death by confessing their faith. If it were unlawful to expose oneself to peril, soldiers would not be justified in crossing the sea and incurring risks for the glory of God.

Ad 13: To the thirteenth objection, we reply that a man is a master of his own, not of his neighbour’s, property. He therefore injures another if he deprives him of what belongs to him; but he does no injury to himself by sacrificing his own possessions. Hence Aristotle says that a man cannot, strictly speaking, commit an injustice against himself (Ethics, 5). (Aristotle, Ethics 5.11, 1134b12.) Furthermore, he who deprives his neighbour of what belongs to him reduces him to involuntary poverty, which is dangerous. He who abandons his own possessions accepts voluntary poverty which, if it is embraced for the love of God, is meritorious.

Ad 14: Our answer to the next objection is that our Lord reserved a certain sum of money for necessary uses out of condescension to the weak; just as, out of condescension to human infirmity, he willed to eat and to drink wine with the Pharisees. It must not, then, be reputed as superstition in the holy fathers in the desert if they refused to keep money for their own use, or if they chose to abstain from wine or from delicate fare. The money which our Lord reserved was not his own private property; it had been given to him as alms. For we are told that some women . . . provided for him out of their means (Luke 8:3).

Ad 15: To the fifteenth objection, we likewise reply that, although the apostles reserved certain sums for themselves and to distribute among those holy men who had made themselves poor for Christ, that money was not their own, but was given them by the faithful in charity. When we are told that there were none needy among them, we are not to conclude that the apostles and Christians of the early Church did not endure much poverty for the love of Christ. For St. Paul says: to the present hour we hunger and thirst (1 Cor 4:11). And again: in afflictions, hardships, calamities (2 Cor 6:4), or, as the Gloss says, want of food and clothing. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 2 Cor 6:4 (PL 192:46C).) We must understand by these texts that the apostles, insofar as they were able, supplied the poorer members of the community with such things as were needful to them.

Ad 16: To the sixteenth objection we reply that the prohibition given by our Lord to his disciples, go nowhere among the gentiles (Matt 10:5), was absolutely rescinded by him after the resurrection; because it then became necessary for the Jews to preach the word of God to the gentiles (Acts 13:46). But Christ did not, at the last supper, absolutely revoke his precept to the disciples to take nothing with them on the way. He only gave them a different order, which was to be obeyed during the time of persecution, when they would not have been able to procure the necessities of life. Hence on Luke 22:35: when I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?, the Gloss says: the apostles are not told to observe the same rule in time of persecution as in time of peace. For when they were sent to preach, our Lord told them take nothing with them, for it was his will that those who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel. But, when his death was imminent, and the hour drew near when both the pastors and the flock should be exposed to persecution, he instituted a rule befitting the circumstances; and so he permitted his disciples to carry with them the means of sustenance till such time as the fury of their persecutors should have abated, and a fitting season for preaching the Gospel should have arrived. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 975-76 at Luke 22:35 (PL 114:339-40).)

In another place it says: thus does Christ teach us that under certain circumstances we are justified in relaxing the rigor of our rule. For example, when preaching in a hostile country, we may carry with us larger supplies than we should have at home. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 976 at Luke 22:36 (PL 114:340).) But the heretics who make the objection which it is our duty to combat do not accept the Gloss. (Cf. Moneta, Summa adversus Catharos et Valdenses, p. 248, 347, 357, 451b.) We shall therefore show by the text of the Scriptures that when the faithful increased in number, the disciples of Christ did not carry with them the means of support.

3 John 1:5–8 says: beloved, it is a loyal thing you do when you render any service to the brethren, especially to strangers. . . . For they have set out for his sake and have accepted nothing from the heathen. So we ought to support such men. Now if the apostles had carried supplies with them, it would not have been necessary for them to have been assisted by the faithful, even though the gentiles had refused them any help. This is made still more clear by the words of the Gloss: because for his name they went forth, forsaking their own possessions. (Glossa interlinearis, at 3 John 1:7 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1429-30).)

Ad 17: The seventeenth objection is answered by the fact that the Church supports many that are sick; and that she could not do so without the possession of some material wealth. Hence it is right for a man to give up his own property and to hold that of the Church; and he should act this way, on account of the poor. But, it does not follow that it is not expedient for perfect men, who have sacrificed all that belongs to them, to lead a religious life in an order which possesses no common property. Apostolic perfection is not wanting to those who have possessions in common; but it appears more manifestly in those who relinquish their private property and have no property in common.

Ad 18: We reply to the eighteenth objection that the decree quoted by it does not forbid the choice of a life of poverty for the love of Christ. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, ch. 16 (Friedberg, 1:682).) It is simply a precept commanding bishops and all in possession of ecclesiastical property, which belongs to the poor, to provide for the poor, as far as they can, and to assist them in their needs. This will be easily perceived by anyone who studies the context of the chapter.

Ad 19: Our answer to the nineteenth objection is that they who have relinquished all things for Christ, in the trust that he will provide for them, neither sin by presumption, nor do they tempt God. For to have due confidence in God is not presumptuous, nor is it tempting him. Now the poor of Christ, especially the preachers of the truth, are bound to cherish this confidence in God. On Luke 10:4: take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money, the Gloss says: a preacher ought to have such trust in God that even though he is not supplied with means to support him in this present life, he ought to be quite certain that necessary things will not be wanting to him, lest in his anxiety about temporal things, he fail to preach eternal truths. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 837 at Luke 10:4 (PL 114:283).) Yes, unless he has this confidence in Providence, he is tempting God. On the words of 1 Corinthians 10:9: we must not put the Lord to the test, the Gloss says: let us not ask: "can God prepare a table in the desert?" (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Cor 10:9, referring to Ps 78(77):19 (PL 191:1621B).)

But we must distinguish between the cases in which this implicit confidence does or does not tempt God. There are certain dangers from which a man cannot be rescued save by miracle; and if he exposes himself to such perils, he is tempting God. A person would tempt God if he should fling himself from a wall in hopes of divine protection, unless he had been miraculously forewarned that it was the will of God to save him from death. Such foreknowledge was given to St. Peter when, at the command of Jesus, he walked upon the sea; (Matt 14:28-29.) to Blessed Martin, when he said: bnder your protection, not of helmet nor of shield, but of the sign of the Cross, I shall safely make my way through the ranks of the enemy; (Sulpicius Severus, The Life of Saint Martin, para. 4 (CSEL 1:114; PL 20:163A).) to St. John the Evangelist, when he courageously swallowed the poisoned draught; (Saint Isidore of Seville, De ortu et obitu Patrum, ch. 72, para. 128 (CCSL 107B:3; PL 83:151C, 1288D).) to St. Agatha, who said, carnal medicine for the body I have never taken; but I possess the Lord Jesus Christ who, by his word alone, restores all things. (Antiphon for Lauds for the Feast of St. Agatha from the Dominican Breviary.)

There are other cases in which a remedy is attainable by inferior means; and a man does not tempt God if, under such circumstances, he trusts him entirely. Thus a soldier does not tempt God by going to battle, although he is uncertain as to the issue of the fight. Neither does someone tempt God who renounces for his sake all that he possesses, trusting both in divine providence and in the charity of the faithful for the supply of his necessities. Rather, he resembles a man who, seeing a bear approach, resigns his weapon of self-defence for some reasonable motive to armed men whose duty and desire it is to defend him.

Ad 20: The answer to the twentieth objection is that we are instructed to beg of God to supply our temporal necessities, and that we ought not reject temporal assistance until we are provided with the food and clothing that we need.

Ad 21: The statute, quoted in the twenty-first objection, was drawn up in favour of the ministers of the Church. But if any choose to serve the Church without stipend as a work of supererogation, they are so much the more praiseworthy in that they resemble St. Paul, who preached the Gospel without reward; he was a preacher ordained by God (1 Cor 9:14).

Ad 22: We reply to the twenty-second objection that although the holy Fathers have commended one course, they have not blamed the other. Therefore, it is not presumptuous to follow this other course; or else it would not be lawful to introduce into the Church any new ordinance. Nevertheless, the mode of life of which we speak cannot be called new, (Cf. Augustine, De opere monachorum 23.29 (CSEL 41:575; PL 40:570); Cassian, Coll., preface (CSEL 13:4; PL 49:479B).) as it was approved by many saints even in the primitive Church. (Cf. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3.6.10 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:69).)

Ad 23: Our answer to the twenty-third objection is that it is a duty for rich men to assist the needy. For as 1 John 3:17 says: if any one has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? But it is even more praiseworthy if a man, besides sacrificing all his possessions, consecrates himself to God. This is truly apostolic perfection. For as St. Jerome says: to offer oneself to God is a truly Christian act and worthy of the apostles, who, having renounced all they had, offered themselves to the Lord (ad Lucinum Beticum). (Jerome, Epistle 71, para. 3 (CSEL 55:4; PL 22:670).)