On Manual Work

Question 7

On manual work

The question concerns manual work, and about this there were two things asked:

first, whether to work with one’s hands is a matter of precept;

second, whether those who are at leisure for spiritual works are excused from this precept.

Article 1

Whether to work with one’s hands is a matter of precept

To the first we proceed thus. It seems that to work with one’s hands is a matter of precept.

Obj. 1: If anyone wishes not to work, let him not eat. For we have heard there are some among you who walk disorderly, not working at all, but curiously meddling (2 Thess 3:10–11). The Gloss says: as though to say: I command this for this reason: that I have heard. Therefore, to work with one’s hands is a precept. (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Thessalonians 3:10–11, 6.679 (PL 192:325; 114:636).)

Obj. 2: Augustine, in the book On the Works of Monks, says: let them hear therefore for whom the Apostle commands this, who do not have this power. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 3.4 (CSEL 41:537; PL 40:551).)

Obj. 3: As the law says, no one should be excommunicated except for mortal sin. (Gratian, Decretum, Part 2, Cause 11, question 3, canon 41, 1:655.) But no one sins mortally unless acting against a precept. Since, therefore, he who is inactive from manual work can be excommunicated by law (which is clear through that said in 2 Thessalonians 3:14: if anyone has not obeyed our word through the epistle, note him, and do not intermingle with him so that he may be confounded), it seems that to work with one’s hands is a matter of precept.

Obj. 4: He who has sinned is held to undergo due punishment for his sin from the necessity of precept. But all in Adam have sinned (Rom 5:12), and the punishment of sin for Adam is manual labor: in the sweat of your face shall you eat your bread (Gen 3:19). Therefore, to labor with one’s hands is a precept for all.

Obj. 5: He who was stealing, now let him not steal, yet rather let him labor, by working with his hands (Eph 4:28). The Gloss says: let each one labor by working not only through slaves, but also by his own hands. (Glossa ordinaria, at Ephesians 4:28, 6.555 (PL 192:207; 114:597).) Yet that which pertains to all is a precept, not a counsel. Therefore, to work with one’s hands is a precept.

Obj. 6: Manual labor is necessary for the sustaining of bodily life just as the acts of the virtues are necessary for the sustaining of spiritual life. But the acts of the virtues are a matter of precept. Therefore, so too is to labor with one’s hands.

Obj. 7: That which mortal sin follows upon cannot be done without mortal sin. But not laboring follows upon not eating—which sometimes is mortal sin: he who does not work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10). Therefore, not to work with one’s hands is mortal sin. Therefore, its opposite is a matter of precept.

On the contrary (1): A precept is not contrary to a precept or counsel. But the Lord either by commanding or by counseling says: do not be anxious for your souls (Matt 6:25). (See also: Matthew 6:31; Luke 12:32; cf. Aquinas, An Apology for the Religious Orders, cc. 5, 7.) Yet manual labor is contrary to this because those who labor with their hands are anxious concerning bodily necessities. Therefore, manual labor is not a matter of precept.

Furthermore (2): The Old Law, as far as concerns moral precepts, sufficiently contained those things necessary for salvation, hence the Lord says: if you wish to enter into life, observe the commandments (Matt 19:17). And he speaks of the mandates of the Decalogue, hence he adds: thou shalt not commit homicide; thou shalt not steal (Matt 19:18; Rom 13:9). But in the precepts of the Old Law nothing is contained concerning labor of the hands. Therefore, labor of the hands is not a matter of precept.

Furthermore (3): All are held to observe the precepts; but all are not held to labor of the hands. Otherwise, those who are rich and do not labor with their hands would sin mortally. (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 2.) Therefore, labor of the hands is not a matter of precept.

Furthermore (4): Religious are held to the precepts no more than seculars. But religious seem to be held to laboring with their hands more than seculars, hence Augustine in the book On the Works of Monks blames monks because they do not labor with their hands, yet not others. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks (CSEL 41; PL 40:547–80).) Therefore, it is not a matter of precept.

Furthermore (5): The use of the liberal arts is nobler than that of the mechanical arts, which consists in manual work. But the use of the liberal arts is not a matter of precept. Therefore, much less is labor of the hands.

I answer that judgment concerning each matter must be done with regard to the end to which it is ordered. (Cf. Aristotle, Ethics 3.7, 1115b22.) For labor of the hands is found to be useful for three things.

First, it is useful for removing idleness; hence Jerome says to the monk Rusticus: always be doing something of work, so that the devil may find you occupied. (Jerome, Letter 125, ad Rusticum monachum 11 (CCSL 56:130; PL 22:1078).) And what he thinks of manual work is clear through what he adds: or weave a wicker-basket with a rush; (Jerome, Letter 125, ad Rusticum monachum 11 (CCSL 56:130; PL 22:1078).) and afterwards he adds: everyone is idle in desires. (Jerome, Letter 125, ad Rusticum monachum 11 (CCSL 56:131; PL 22:1079).)

Second, it is useful for mastering the body. Hence labor is enjoined in 2 Corinthians 6:5 to the other carnal macerations, where it is said: in labors, the Gloss says: of works, because he worked with his hands; (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Corinthians 6:5, 6.399 (PL 192:46; 114:560).) and it adds: in fasts, in vigils. (2 Corinthians 6:5.)

Third, it is ordered to seeking a livelihood: unto those things which were useful for me and for these who were with me those hands have ministered (Acts 20:34). If, therefore, labor of the hands were to be considered in regard to how it is ordered to removing idleness or mastering the body, thus the judgment is the same concerning labor of the hands and other exercises ordered to the same things.

For it is not a matter of precept for idleness to be removed by such and such an occupation, but it suffices for removing idleness that someone desists from idleness by any licit occupation. And thus, the occupation of labor of the hands is not a matter of precept, when this end is considered. And the reason is similar concerning labor of the hands in regard to how it is ordered to mastering the body, because the body can be mastered by many exercises, such as fasts, vigils, and many things of this sort. Hence none of those, inasmuch as it is ordered to such an end, is a matter of precept specially, although in general it is a matter of precept so to master the body by any sort of exercise so that deadly concupiscence may be repressed. (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, ad 5–8.)

Yet in regard to how it is ordered to seeking a livelihood, thus it seems to be a matter of precept. Hence it is said in 1 Thessalonians 4:11: work with your hands as we commanded you. Nor only is this a matter of precept of positive law, but also of natural law: (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, obj. 4, ad 1–4.) for those things concern the natural law unto which man is inclined from his natural dispositions. Yet, as is clear from the very disposition of the body, man has a natural ordering to manual work, on account of which it is said in Job 5:7: man is born for work and bird for flying. (Cf. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 6.13, para. 15 (CCSL 143:294; PL 75:737).) For although nature has provided sufficiently for other animals in what pertains to the sustenance of their life in food and arms and coverings, for man she does not provide in these things, because man is gifted with reason, through which he can provide for himself in all the things said above. Hence also she gave to him in place of all the aforementioned things hands suitable for diverse works, by which the conceptions of reason may pursue diverse artifacts, as is said in the fourteenth book of On Animals. (Aristotle, On the Parts of Animals 4.10, 687a6–b4.)

Nevertheless, it must be known that the precept of the natural law is twofold. (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, ad 3.) One is ordered to removing the defect of one individual person, either spiritual, such as a precept concerning the acts of the virtues, or bodily, as the precept which God gave man: concerning every tree which is in Paradise, eat (Gen 2:16). Whereas the other is that which is ordered to removing the defect of the whole species, as this which is given in Genesis 1:28: increase and be multiplied and fill out the land: for in this the act of generation is commanded, by which nature is saved and multiplied. Yet it concerns these two genera of precepts that everyone is held to observe singly the first precept of the natural law, but not just anyone is held individually to the second precept. For in what pertains to the species, all men are reckoned as if one man: for by participation of the species many men are one man, as Porphyry says. (Porphyry, Isagogue 6.) Hence just as one man has diverse members by which he is occupied in diverse offices ordered to removing his own defect, which cannot all be exercised through one member, just as the eye sees for the whole body and the foot carries the whole body, so it is necessary for this to be the case in what pertains to the whole species: for one man would not suffice to pursue everything which human society needs, and for this reason, it is necessary that diverse men be occupied in diverse offices, as is said in Romans 12:4: just as in one body we have many members. Yet this diversification of men in diverse offices happens first from divine providence, which so distributes the states of men that nothing ever is found to be lacking the things necessary for life; second, it also happens from natural causes whereby in diverse men there are diverse inclinations to diverse offices or to diverse ways of living.

Therefore, because someone can relieve both his own defect and another’s by labor of the hands, since one man cannot suffice for himself in all things but needs another’s help, it is clear that the precept concerning the work of the hands in a certain way is contained under both genera of the abovementioned precepts. For inasmuch as the necessities of others are relieved by labor of one’s hands, thus it pertains to the second genus of natural precepts. Yet inasmuch as someone relieves his own necessities through this, it pertains to the first genus, just as also the precept concerning eating. Yet a precept which is ordered to removing a bodily defect does not obligate except when the defect exists. Hence, if there were someone who could live without food, he would not be obligated by the precept concerning eating. (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, ad 4.)

Thus, therefore, the precept concerning labor of the hands does not obligate someone individually even as it is ordered to removing a common defect in some way, nor even as it is ordered to removing one’s own defect, except when this defect exists. And for this reason, he who has another way to live licitly is not held to work with his hands. Yet he who does not have another way to live, or unless he would acquire his livelihood by some illicit business, is held to labor with his hands.

And this is clear through the Apostle in three places where he gives a precept concerning the work of the hands. The first is in Ephesians 4:28, where by prohibiting theft he enjoins work of the hands: he who has stolen, let him steal no longer, yet rather labor with his hands. The second is in 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12, where he commanded labor of the hands, prohibiting the desire of others’ things: work, he says, with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you might walk honorably unto those who are outside and might desire something of no one. (Cf. Peter Lombard, Gloss on 1 Thessalonians, at 1 Thessalonians 4:11–12 (PL 192:300).) The third is in 2 Thessalonians 3:11–12, where he commanded work of the hands, prohibiting the disgraceful businesses by which some men were seeking their livelihood: We have heard, he says, that certain men amongst you walk unquietly, doing no work, but acting curiously. The Gloss says: those who provide necessities for themselves by filthy concerns; (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Thessalonians 3:11–12, 6.679 (PL 192:325; 114:624); Ambrosiaster, Commentary on the Pauline Epistles, on 2 Thessalonians 3:11–12 (CSEL 81:247; PL 17:460).) and he adds: yet as for these who are of this sort we denounce and beseech them in the lord Jesus Christ that they should eat their bread working with silence (2 Thess 3:12).

It must also be known that, just as sight is more principal amongst the other senses, by reason of which all the other senses obtain the name of sight, as Augustine says, (Augustine, Confessions 10.35, para. 54 (CCSL 27:184; PL 32:802).) so the hand, because it is necessary for many works, is called the organ of organs in the third book of On the Soul. (Aristotle, On the Soul 3.8, 432a1–2.) And for this reason, manual work is understood as not only that done by hands, but by any bodily instrument; and briefly any business man does, from which he licitly can acquire a livelihood, is included under labor of the hands. For it does not seem reasonable that masters of the mechanical arts can live from their art and that masters of the liberal arts cannot live from their art. Similarly, advocates also can live from the defense which they present in cases, and similarly concerning all other licit occupations. (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, s.c., sect. 14.)

Therefore, because it is a matter of precept, but it does not obligate all, for this reason, each of the objections must be responded to.

Reply Obj. 1–2: The solution is clear from what has been said, because we concede that labor of the hands is a matter of precept. Nevertheless, not all are obligated to it individually.

Reply Obj. 3: It must be said that, as is clear from what has been said, the Apostle is speaking of a case when, omitting labor of the hands, they acquired a livelihood for themselves by filthy businesses, in which case they are obligated to observe the precept, and for this reason, they were worthy to be excommunicated.

Reply Obj. 4: It must be said that those words of the Lord are more of one foretelling punishment than of one commanding satisfaction. Hence he declares: cursed be the land in your work (Gen 3:17); and: it shall sprout forth thorns and thistles for you (Gen 3:18); and similarly he said to the woman: in pain shall you give your children birth (Gen 3:16). And for this reason, it does not follow that every man is obligated to labor from necessity of precept, otherwise it would follow that every man is held to agriculture, (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, ad 1–2.) concerning which the Lord makes mention there.

Reply Obj. 5 [6]: It must be said that no one can preserve the spiritual life except through the acts of the virtues, and for this reason, every man is obligated to observe the precepts which concern the acts of the virtues. But bodily life can be preserved by many without them working with their hands, and for this reason, although that be generally a matter of precept, nevertheless not every man is held to its observance.

Reply Obj. 6 [7]: It must be said that not to eat is not a mortal sin, except when life cannot be preserved without eating: for then someone would kill his very life by not eating. And similarly, it is not necessary for someone to sin by not laboring with his hands, unless when otherwise he cannot conserve life except through illicit concerns. And for this reason, since illicit concerns must be fled in all ways, the Apostle placed not eating and not working under the same distinction, saying: he who does not wish to work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10–11).

Reply Sed Contra 1: Yet to the first objection to the contrary, it must be said that the Lord does not prohibit every solicitude for the Apostles, namely, of things which pertain to the livelihood of the body, otherwise he would not have had a money bag; (Cf. Augustine, On the Work of Monks 5.6 (CSEL 41:539; PL 40:552–53); John 12:6, 13:29.) rather, he prohibited suffocating solicitude. (Cf. Matthew 13:7, 22; Mark 4:7, 19; Luke 8:7, 14; Albert the Great, On Matthew 6.25.) The mind is suffocated by this in two ways. One way is such that it places the goal of right work in temporal things, and this God prohibits. Hence Augustine in the book On the Works of Monks, expounding that: do not be solicitous (Matt 6:25), says: not so that they might not procure those things as much as it is of necessity whence honorably they will be able to, but that they might not regard them and on account of them do whatever they are commanded to do in the preaching of the Gospel; (Cf. Augustine, On the Work of Monks 26.34 (CSEL 41:581; PL 40:573).) and this is in the Gloss on 2 Thessalonians 3. (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Thessalonians 3:5, 6.679 (PL 192:325; 114:623).) Second, the mind is suffocated by the abovementioned solicitude when it sends its trust away from God, and this the Lord intends to prohibit. Hence the Gloss on Matthew 6 says: by this example he does not prohibit providence and labor—namely, concerning birds and lilies—but solicitude, so that our whole trust might be in God, through whom even the birds live without care. (Glossa ordinaria, at Matthew 6:25, 5.140 (PL 114:105).)

Reply Sed Contra 2: It must be said that not all things which are a matter of precept are contained explicitly in the precepts of the Decalogue. But they can be reduced to those, since they are contained in them implicitly. And thus, the precept concerning labor of the hands, through which bodily life is conserved, is reduced to this precept: thou shalt not kill, (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9.) just as also the precept concerning eating. Or it is reduced to this precept: thou shalt not commit theft, (Exodus 20:18; Luke 18:20.) by which every illicit profit, which is shunned through labor of the hands, is prohibited.

Reply Sed Contra 3: It must be said that two things must be considered in any precept, namely, the end of the precept and the possibility of observing it, because all precepts of any law are ordered to inducing some good or removing some evil; nor can something impossible be commanded to man rightly. Hence Jerome says: he who says that God commands the impossible, let him be anathema. (Cf. ST II-II.33.2, obj. 1; Pelagius, Libellus fidei ad Innocentiam Papam (PL 45:1718); Pelagius, Letter to Demetrias (PL 30:31).) If, therefore, there is such a precept, rendered in no way impossible to observe, and without which the intended end cannot be had, its obligation always remains a matter of precept, just as it is with precepts concerning the acts of the virtues, since interior acts at least are always in the power of man, and without these the spiritual life cannot be preserved, as has been said. (Above: obj. 6.) Therefore, the precept concerning labor of the hands does not oblige in two ways: in one way, when someone is rendered impotent to labor on account of the weakness of the body; another way is when he can attain the end of this precept, namely, the preservation of bodily life, without labor of the hands, as is clear from what has been said before. (Above: response.)

Reply Sed Contra 4: It must be said that, speaking essentially, religious and seculars are held equally to labor of the hands. This is clear from two things. The first is from the word of the Apostle, where he posits a precept concerning work of the hands, saying: carry yourselves away from every brother walking inordinately (2 Thess 3:6); for he calls all Christians brothers, since at that time some had not been determined as religious. Second, it is clear from this: that religious are not held to other things than seculars, unless to those by which they have obligated themselves by vow. But it happens that this precept incidentally touches religious more than others, and this in two ways. The first is because religious live in poverty; hence it can befall them more easily than seculars that they do not have a source whence to live. The second is from the statute of the rule in some orders. (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, obj. 11.) Hence Jerome says in his epistle to the monk Rusticus: the monasteries of the Egyptians hold this custom, that they receive nothing without work and labor, not so much on account of the necessities of their livelihood, as on account of health of soul, lest it should wander by pernicious thoughts; (Jerome, Letter 125, ad Rusticum monachum 11 (CCSL 56:131; PL 22:1079).) just as religious sometimes are also held by their statutes to vigils and other things by which the body is mastered, to which seculars are not held.

Reply Sed Contra 5: It must be said that, although the use of the liberal arts is nobler, nevertheless it is not thus more necessary for sustaining the life of the body. And besides, this is included under the work of the hands, as is clear from what has been said. (Cf. response; Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, s.c., sect. 14.)

Article 2

Whether those who are at leisure for spiritual works are excused from this precept

About the second we proceed thus. It seems that those who are at leisure for spiritual works are not excused from labor of the hands.

Obj. 1: On 2 Thessalonians 3:10: if anyone does not wish to work, let him not eat, the Gloss of Augustine says: certain men say that the Apostle commanded this concerning spiritual works; (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Thessalonians 3:10, 6.679 (PL 192:324–25; 114:618); cf. Augustine, On the Work of Monks 1.2, 2.3 (CSEL 41:533, 535; PL 40:547–49).) and afterwards he adds: but superfluously they try to spread darkness over both themselves and others, so that what charity admonishes usefully, they refuse not only to do, but also to understand. And thus, it seems that they are not excused from labor of the hands through spiritual works.

Obj. 2: Amongst all the greatest spiritual works are prayer, reading, and preaching. But none are excused from manual work through those works. Therefore, those who are at leisure for spiritual works are not excused from labor of the hands.

Proof of the minor premise: Augustine, in the book On the Work of Monks, says: what they do who refuse to work bodily I desire to know, and for what thing they are at leisure. For prayers, they say, and readings and the word of God; (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:564).) and afterwards he adds: but if from these we must not be called away, neither are we to eat nor prepare meals. Yet if necessity of weakness forces the servants of God to be at leisure for those at fixed intervals of time, why should we not also allot other parts of time for observing the apostolic precepts? (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:564–65).)

And as far as concerns those praying, he says: one prayer of a man obeying is heard more quickly than ten thousand of a man scorning. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 17.20 (CSEL 41:564; PL 40:565).)

Whereas as far as concerns those singing psalms, he adds: those working with their hands easily can sing divine songs and console the labor itself as by a divine rowers’ call. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 17.20 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).)

Whereas as far as concerns those reading, he adds: yet those who say that they are at leisure for reading, do they not find there what the Apostle commands? Namely, therefore, that perversity to refuse to obey the reading, while he wishes to be at leisure for it? For who does not know both that anyone accomplishes more quickly when he reads good things, and that he does more quickly what he reads? (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 18.21 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).)

Whereas as far as concerns those preaching, he adds: yet if a word to be expended on anyone even so occupies him that he is not at leisure to work with his hands, can this be: that all in the monastery can either expound the divine readings for those coming to them or dispute healthfully concerning any questions? When, therefore, not all can, why do all wish to be at leisure under this pretext? Nevertheless, even if all could, they ought to do so in turns, not only so that the rest would be occupied by necessary acts*, but because it suffices that one should speak to many listening*. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 18.21 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).)

Obj. 3: Clerics most of all are occupied by spiritual works; but these very ones are held to labor of the hands. Therefore, those who are at leisure for spiritual works are not excused from labor of the hands.

Proof of the minor premise: in distinction 81 of the Decretum, it is said: let a cleric prepare a livelihood and clothing for himself by art or agriculture, only without detriment of his office. (It is actually: Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 91, c. 3, 1:316.) It is said likewise in another chapter: let any cleric educated in the word of God seek a livelihood by art. Likewise: let all clerics who are mighty to work learn both the trades and letters. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 91, c. 4, 1:316.)

Obj. 4: Religious, who have forsaken all things, are most of all at leisure for spiritual works; but such men are held to labor of the hands. Therefore, those who are at leisure for spiritual works are not excused from labor of the hands.

Proof of the minor premise: on Luke 12:33: sell what you possess, the Gloss says: not only share your food with the poor, but even sell your possessions, so that all your things having been spurned once for the Lord, afterwards you may work by the labor of your hands, whence you may live and give alms. (Glossa ordinaria, at Luke 12:33, 5.871 (PL 114:297–98); Bede, On the Gospel of Luke 4, on Luke 12:33 (CCSL 120:254–55; PL 92:494).)

Obj. 5: The Decretum says that he is a heretic who acts against a statute of the Roman Church (D. 22). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, D. 22, c. 1, 1:73.) but those who beg, not working with their own hands, act against a statute of Pope Callistus, “All the priests seeing,” (It is unclear why this is attributed to Pope Callistus (217–222 AD); it is more commonly attributed to Pope Urban I (222–230 AD), but was actually written, however, by Pseudo-Isidore and later received in the collections of canons by Gratian and others; cf. Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, c. 16, 1:682.) where it is said that the Church establishes that amongst those who wished to live a common life, let no one be found lacking. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, c. 16, 1:683.) Therefore, religious are not excused from labor of the hands on account of spiritual works; nay, rather, if they beg, they are heretics.

Obj. 6: He who exposes himself to danger of death is as though tempting God, just as someone would tempt God if he saw a bear coming in fury and put down the arms by which he could defend himself. (Aquinas, An Apology for the Religious Orders, ch. 6, obj. 19, ad 19; cf. Samuel 17:8; Proverbs 17:12.) But he who forsakes all things and does not labor with his hands casts away from himself the necessities of his livelihood, by which consumption is resisted which happens in the body through natural heat. (Aristotle, On Length and Shortness of Life 5, 466b28–33.) Therefore, such a man sins, as though tempting God. (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 1, obj. 9.)

Obj. 7: The Apostle says: be imitators of me, brethren (Phil 3:17). But he himself, although he would preach and be at leisure for spiritual works, nonetheless sought a livelihood by the work of his hands, as he says: you yourselves know in what way it is necessary to imitate us, because we have not been restless amongst you, nor without cost did we eat bread from another, but in labor and fatigue, working night and day, lest we would burden any of you (2 Thess 3:7–8). Therefore, those who are at leisure for spiritual works are not excused from labor of the hands.

Obj. 8: On Genesis 23:17: the field was confirmed, the Gloss says that the perfect preacher hides his soul under the rule of good work and contemplation. (Glossa ordinaria, at Genesis 23:17, 1.277 (PL 113:140); Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 6.37.56 (CCSL 143:325; PL 75:760–61).) And thus, those who pursue spiritual works through contemplation ought also to be at leisure for exterior works through action; and thus, spiritual works do not excuse from labor of the hands.

On the contrary (1): On Luke 9:60: allow that the dead may bury their dead, the Gloss says: the Lord teaches that lesser goods must be dismissed for (Glossa ordinaria, at Luke 9:60, 5.833 (PL 114:283); cf. Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 19.25.42 (CCSL 143A:990; PL 76:162); Bede, On the Gospel of Luke (CCSL 120:213).) greater ones. But spiritual works are greater goods than manual works. Therefore, man ought to pass over these on account of those.

Furthermore (2): Works of piety are more powerful than bodily exercises: bodily exercise is useful for a little, yet piety prevails for all things (1 Tim 4:8). But works of piety and mercy must be given up so that one may be at leisure for preaching: it is not equitable that we should forsake the word of God (Acts 6:2); and: allow the dead, yet you go and announce the word of God (Luke 9:60). (Cf. Matthew 8:22.) Therefore, much more strongly on account of preaching and other spiritual works must manual work and others which pertain to bodily exercise be dismissed.

Furthermore (3): No one fighting for God implicates himself in secular businesses (2 Tim 2:4); the Gloss says: those things are secular businesses by which the mind is occupied by the care for amassing money. (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Timothy 2:4, 6.735 (PL 192:368; 114:634).) But those who work with their hands care for amassing money. Therefore, they are implicated in secular businesses, and thus those who fight for God in spiritual works ought not to be occupied in works of the hands.

I answer that the truth of this question appears from that said in the question above. (Above: q. 7, a. 1, resp.) For it was said above that only those are obligated to observe this precept, namely, concerning work of the hands, who do not have another source whereby they can live licitly. And for this reason, those who exercise spiritual works, and can live licitly otherwise than from labor of the hands, are not held to labor with their hands.

Hence it is necessary to distinguish concerning spiritual works. For there are certain spiritual goods which profit the common good, (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, concl.) and certain which pertain to the individual advancement of the one doing them.

Yet those who are occupied in spiritual works for the common utility should be supported by those whose utility they serve. This is clear through the authority of 1 Corinthians 9:11: if we sow spiritual things for you, it is not great if we reap your carnal things. This also is clear through reason, because spiritual utility is preferred to temporal utility. Yet for those who serve the common utility in temporal things, sustenance is due from their own labor by which they serve the common utility, (Aristotle, Ethics 5.6, 1134b6–8.) as is clear concerning soldiers, who fight for the peace of the republic; hence it says: who ever fights at his own expense? (1 Cor 9:7). Hence so much the more can those who promote the common good in spiritual things be sustained from such ministry, and thus they are not held to labor with their hands.

Yet there are four spiritual works by which the common utility is promoted, (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, concl.) and from this stipends are due to them.

The first is occupation in executing ecclesiastical judgments. For this is said about secular power which exercises secular judgment: for this reason, also you pay tributes—namely, to judges—for they are ministers of God, serving in this very thing (Rom 13:6)—namely, you. And on account of this Augustine also says in the book On the Works of Monks, that only those who are at leisure from ecclesiastical occupations should pursue labors of the hands. Hence he also excuses himself from labor of the hands on account of the ecclesiastical judgments by which he is occupied, saying: although we can say: who ever fights by his own stipends, and so forth*, nevertheless I invoke the Lord Jesus as witness upon my soul because, as far as pertains to my advantage, I would much prefer through each day at fixed hours, as much as is constituted in well moderated monasteries, to work on something with my hands, and to have the rest of the hours free for praying and reading or doing something concerning divine letters, than to suffer the most tumultuous perplexities of other cases concerning secular businesses, either resolving with a judgment or cutting off with an intervention*. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 29.37 (CSEL 41:596–97; PL 40:576).)

The second spiritual work which profits the common good is the work of preaching, by which the fruit of souls is procured amongst the people. And for this reason, as is said in 1 Corinthians 9:14, the Lord has ordained for these who announce the Gospel to live from the Gospel. Nor ought this be applied only to those who have the authority of preaching, such as prelates, but also to those who licitly preach in any way from the commission of prelates, because stipends are not due to power, but to work and labor, (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, concl.) as is said in 2 Timothy 2:6: it is necessary for the laboring farmer to receive first from its fruits. The Gloss there says: namely, the preacher, who cultivates the hearts of his hearers in the field of the Church by the hoe of the word. (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Timothy 2:6, 6.735 (PL 192:368; 114:634).) Nor can only those who preach live from the Gospel, but even those who minister to them as cooperating with this office, which is clear in Romans 15:27: if the Gentiles have been made participants of theirs in spiritual things, they ought also to minister to them in carnal things. The Gloss says there: of theirs, namely, of the Jews, who sent preachers from Jerusalem. (Glossa interlinearis, at Romans 15:27, in Glossa ordinaria, 6.184 (PL 191:1526 B).) Hence even those who send preachers can live from the fruit of the Gospel.

The third spiritual work which profits the common good are the prayers made in the canonical hours for the salvation of the Church, in order that the wrath of God might be averted from the people: you have not opposed a wall for the house of Israel, so that you would stand in battle in the day of the Lord (Ezek 13:5). The Gloss says there: fighting by prayers and resisting the divine judgment. (Glossa interlinearis, at Ezekiel 13:5, in Glossa ordinaria, 4.1167; Jerome, On Ezekiel 4.13, on verse 5 (CCSL 75:139; PL 25:110).) And for this reason, it is said in 1 Corinthians 9:13 that those who serve the altar, are made participants with the altar.

And concerning these two works Augustine says in the book On the Works of Monks: if they are evangelists, I confess, they have—namely, the power of living from the expenses of the faithful, because he is speaking about this—if they are ministers of the altar, they are dispensers of the sacraments; they do not arrogate that to themselves, but claim the power. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 21.24 (CSEL 41:569–70; PL 40:567); Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 3, concl.)

The fourth spiritual work which profits the common good is the elucidation of Sacred Scripture. And for this reason, such men who by the study of Sacred Scripture are at leisure to instruct others can also live from this spiritual work: let those who excel well as priests be considered worthy of a double honor, yet most of all those who labor in word and doctrine (1 Tim 5:17). The Gloss says there: namely, so that they might obey them spiritually, and minister exterior things; who labor in word. (Glossa interlinearis, at 1 Timothy 5:17, in Glossa ordinaria, 6.716–17 (PL 192:354).) The Gloss says there: in exhortation of those knowing, and doctrine, of those not knowing. (Glossa interlinearis, at 1 Timothy 5:17, in Glossa ordinaria, 6.716 (PL 192:354).) And this also Jerome says more plainly to Vigilantius: this custom perseveres in Judea even today not only amongst us, but also amongst the Hebrews: that those who are in the midst of the law of the Lord day and night, and do not have a father in the land, except God alone, are cherished by the ministries of the synagogues of the whole world. (Jerome, Against Vigilantius, para. 13 (PL 23:350; CCSL 79C).)

Therefore, it is clear that those who are at leisure for the abovementioned spiritual works are not held to labor with their hands.

Yet concerning those who are at leisure for spiritual works which do not directly profit the common good, but the good of the one doing them, such as private prayers, fasts, and things of this sort, a distinction must be made, because those who are occupied in religion by those works either had in the world a source whereby they would live without labor of the hands, or not.

If yes, such men, when they come to religion, are not held to labor with their hands. Hence Augustine says in the book On the Work of Monks: if they at least had something in this world by which they would sustain that life easily without working, because having distributed to the needy they have converted to God, their weakness must be believed and borne. For such men brought up more feebly are not accustomed to be able to endure bodily labor. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 21.25 (CSEL 41:570; PL 40:567–68).)

Yet if in the world they were workers, living from the labor of their hands, then from a double cause they can interrupt the labor of the hands when they come to religion. One way is from sloth of working, wishing to live in idleness, and such men sin; and this is what Augustine says in the aforesaid book: generally they come to the profession of the servitude of God from a servile condition and a rustic life and from the exercise of workers and plebian labor; (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 22.25 (CSEL 41:570; PL 40:568).) and afterwards he adds: therefore such men cannot excuse themselves from the weakness of the body, because they work less; surely they are convicted by the custom of their past life. And he inserts: for it is not apparent whether they have come out of the intention of the servitude of God, or fleeing a meager and laborious life. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 22.25 (CSEL 41:571; PL 40:568).) Another way is when some interrupt manual work out of the intensity of divine love, by which they are elevated to the work of contemplation as though continuously. Such men, since they are drawn by the spirit of God, do not sin, because where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. (2 Corinthians 3:17.) Hence Gregory says in his commentary on Ezekiel: the contemplative life is to retain the charity of God and neighbor with the whole heart, to rest from exterior action, to adhere only to the desire of the Fashioner, so that it is pleasing to do nothing any longer. (Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel the Prophet, bk. 2, homily 2, para. 8 (CCSL 142:230; PL 76:953).) And this same thing is had in a certain gloss on Genesis 23:17: and the field was confirmed: the contemplative life utterly divides from all actions. (Glossa ordinaria, at Genesis 23:17, 1.276–77 (PL 113:140); Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job 6.37.56 (CCSL 143:325; PL 75:760).) This is also what is said in a gloss on Matthew 6:26: consider the birds of heaven: holy men are compared to birds, because they seek heaven, and indeed are so removed from the world, that they do nothing any longer upon the lands, labor in nothing, but by contemplation alone spend their time already in heaven. (Glossa ordinaria, at Matthew 6:26, 5.140 (PL 114:106).)

Reply Obj. 1: It must be said that that gloss is taken from Augustine in the book On the Work of Monks, a book he wrote against certain monks who were saying it was not licit for servants of God to labor with their hands; and what the Apostle says: he who does not wish to work, let him not eat (2 Thess 3:10), they were applying to spiritual work. Augustine in that book disproved this exposition in many ways. Hence it must be said that that saying of the Apostle: he who does not wish to work, let him not eat, (2 Thessalonians 3:10.) is understood concerning manual work. Nevertheless, it does not follow that all are held to fulfill this precept: for he himself was not held, hence he declared: not as though we did not have the power (2 Thess 3:9), namely, of receiving expenses and living without labor of the hands. Hence it is clear that that gloss is not to the point. (Cf. Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Thessalonians 3:10, 6.679 (PL 192:324–25; 114:624); Augustine, On the Work of Monks 1.1–2 (CSEL 41:531, 533; PL 40:547–49).)

Reply Obj. 2: It must be said that a distinction must be made amongst all the works which the objection touches, because they can be either somewhat public works or private. Yet Augustine speaks about those spiritual works according to how they are private works. (Cf. Augustine, On the Work of Monks 17.20–18.21 (CSEL 41:564–65; PL 40:564–65).) For he understands these as private prayers and songs, not those celebrated solemnly in a church, which is clear when he says that they who work with their hands can simultaneously sing divine songs, which would not be fitting if the canonical hours were understood. Similarly, what he says concerning readings, he says concerning only those who are at leisure to read for their own consolation, as monks do in monasteries, yet not concerning those whose life is assigned to the study of the Scriptures for their own and others’ instruction: for there is no doubt that study would be impeded through the labor of the hands. Similarly, what he says about preaching must be understood concerning those who do not preach publicly, but speak some edifying words to men coming to them, as the holy fathers were accustomed to do in the desert; and this is clear from the very words introduced above. Hence he also says: if a word is to be expended, (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 18.21 (CSEL 41:565; PL 40:565).) because, as the Gloss says on 1 Corinthians 2:4: my word and my preaching: (Glossa interlinearis, at 1 Corinthians 2:4, in Glossa ordinaria 6.209 (PL 191:1548 A).) word is what was done privately, but preaching, what was done in common.

Reply Obj. 3: It must be said that the Decretum speaks about those clerics for whom the oblations and alms made for them by the faithful or by the means of the Church do not suffice. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, C. 91, c. 3, 1:316.) For the reasoning is the same concerning those who live from the means of the Church as well as those who live from one alms after another, because the means of the Church are alms and are given unto the sustenance of the poor. Hence the Gloss says on Isaiah 3:14: and the robbery of the poor in your home: in the homes of princes is the robbery of the poor, while they hoard the riches of the Church as treasure for themselves and squander in delights, what is given unto the sustenance of the poor. (Glossa ordinaria, at Isaiah 3:14, 4.56 (PL 113:1239); Jerome, On Isaiah 2 (CCSL 73:54; PL 24:68–69).) And this is what is found in Cause 12, question 1. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, 1:676–86.) On account of this it is also said, in the canon on “Priests,” that the priest to whom the care of dispensation has been committed, with praise of piety receives things to be dispensed from the people, and faithfully dispenses what he has received, because all his things he has either forsaken to his parents, or distributed to the poor, or joined to the things of the Church, and he has established himself in the number of the poor by love of poverty, so that whence he ministers to the poor, thence also he may live as a pauper more voluntarily (C. 1, q. 2). (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 1, q. 2, c. 9, 1:410.) And thus, it is clear that clerics who live from the things of the Church have the same reason for using them as those who, lacking means, live from the alms given for them.

Reply Obj. 4: It must be said that that gloss (Glossa ordinaria, at Luke 12:33, 5.871 (PL 114:297–98).) does not impose upon these who forsook their things that they must work with their hands as a necessity, but it shows a certain good which they can do who forsake their things, namely, that from the labor of their hands they might acquire a source whence they might provide for themselves and give alms to others. Nor, nevertheless, through this is it excluded that they might also do well, if by not laboring with their hands they should be at leisure for spiritual alms, which are more powerful than bodily ones.

Reply Obj. 5: It must be said that the first part of that objection is false: for he who acts against a statute of the pope is not a heretic, unless perhaps he believes that the pope is not to be obeyed. Hence in the chapter introduced it is said: he who attempts to remove a privilege of the Roman Church handed over from the highest head of all the Churches, he beyond doubt slips into heresy. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 1, d. 22, c. 1, 1:73.) Yet the abovementioned privilege consists in this: that it is due to it to be obeyed by all Christians. Similarly, the minor is false: for it is not against a statute of the Church that someone should beg or place himself in a state of need, but this is against a statute of the Church if their necessities are not provided for by those who possess the means of the Church. Hence these are the words of the chapter introduced: from which—namely, the things of the Church—the bishops and dispensers of these ought to minister all necessities to all those willing to live a common life, as they are better able, so that no one might be found needy amongst them. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 12, q. 1, c. 16, 1:683.)

Reply Obj. 6: It must be said that those who forsake all things, reserving nothing to themselves nor working with their hands, do not expose themselves to crisis on account of this, because so great a devotion of the faithful probably is reckoned and is learned by experience that it provides to them in necessities. (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 1, ad 9.) Nor also do they tempt God, because he promises by moving the hearts of others to provide for them in necessities, as is clear from Matthew 6. (Matthew 6:25–33.) And a certain gloss on Luke 10 says: so great for the preacher ought to be his trust in God that the expenses of the present life, although he should not provide them, nevertheless he knows most certainly that they will not be lacking to him in the future, lest while his mind is occupied with temporal things, he preaches less eternal things. (Glossa ordinaria, at Luke 10:4, 5.837 (PL 114:284); Bede, On Luke, bk. 3 (CCSL 120:215; PL 92:462); Gregory the Great, On the Gospels, homily 17 (PL 76:1141 D).)

Similarly, if anyone were amongst the armed who would defend him and he were to put down his arms for some cause, he would not tempt God. Yet if he were alone, he would seem to tempt God, unless perhaps he were secure by an interior inspiration concerning divine aid, just as blessed Martin said: I, protected by the sign of the cross, not by a shield or helmet, shall penetrate the battalion of the enemies secure. (Cf. Sulpicius Severus, The Life of Saint Martin 4.5 (PL 20:163; SC 133:260).)

Similarly, it would seem to be a temptation of God if anyone amongst infidels or inhospitable men were not to provide for himself concerning the necessities of his livelihood. Hence the Gloss on Luke 22:36 says: he who has a purse, let him remove it: in this is given to us an example so that sometimes, with a cause urging, we can interrupt certain things concerning the rigor of our intention without fault, for example, if we are making a journey through inhospitable regions, it is licit to carry more provisions than we have at home. (Glossa ordinaria, at Luke 22:36, 5.976 (PL 114:340); Bede, On Luke, bk. 6, on Luke 22:36 (CCSL 120:384; PL 92:601).) And, nevertheless, in the desert some without the labor of their hands have been sustained by bread sent from heaven, (Cf. Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, q. 2, a. 1 (referring to Elijah and Daniel).) as is read in the Lives of the Fathers; (Jerome, Life of Paul (PL 23:25); Rufinus, Inquiry about the Monks in Egypt, ch. 11, “De Heleno” (PL 21:429–30); Sulpicius Severus, Dialogues 1.5 (PL 20:190–91); Life of Saint Frontonius 6–9 (PL 73:440–42); these can also be found in the collection Vitae Patrum.) but the privileges of a few do not make a common law. (Jerome, On Jonah 1:7 (CCSL 76:387; PL 25:1125); cf. Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 25, q. 1, c. 16, 1:1012; Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 1, q. 1, c. 106, 1:400.)

Reply Obj. 7: It must be said that the Apostle’s labor, since he would have been able to live from the Gospel, belonged to supererogation, (Cf. Aquinas, An Apology for the Religious Orders, ch. 5, ad 5.) as is clear in 1 Corinthians 9:12, and for this reason, other preachers are not held to imitate him in this.

Nevertheless, it must be known that sometimes a preacher would do well by not receiving expenses from these to whom he preaches, but by living from the labor of his hands, namely, in those cases in which the Apostle was laboring, lest he scandalize those to whom he was preaching, who on account of avarice were burdened to give expenses, and he posits this cause in 2 Thessalonians 3:8: working night and day lest we would burden any of you. Likewise, so that by his example they would be drawn back from idleness: hence he adds in the same place: not as though we did not have the power, but so that we might give our very selves as a form for you to imitate us (2 Thess 3:9). He could do likewise to repress the rapacity of the pseudo-apostles, hence he says: yet what I do, I also shall do, so that I might cut off the occasion of those who want an occasion, so that in what they glory, such men might be found also as we are (2 Cor 11:12).

Yet sometimes a preacher would do badly if he would implicate himself in the labors of his hands, namely, if through labor he would be drawn back from preaching. Hence the Gloss on Luke 10 says: the preacher must beware lest while his mind is occupied unto temporal things, he preaches less eternal things. (Glossa ordinaria, at Luke 10:4, 5.837 (PL 114:284).) For this reason, Augustine says, in that oft-mentioned book, that the Apostle, while he was in Athens, where it was necessary that he would preach daily, was not working with his hands, which later he did after coming to Corinth, where he was preaching to the Jews only on the Sabbath day. (Augustine, On the Work of Monks 18.21 (CSEL 41:56; PL 40:565–66).)

For it is necessary for preachers not only to have time free from occupations in which they may preach, but also in which they may study, since they do not have knowledge from infusion as the Apostle did, but from continuous study. Hence Gregory says in the Book of Pastoral Rule, expounding Exodus 25:15: the bars always shall be in circles. The bars, he says, always shall be in circles, because doubtless it is necessary that those who keep watch at the office of preaching, should not recede from the study of sacred reading. (Gregory the Great, Book of Pastoral Rule 2.11 (CCSL 141; PL 77:50).)

Reply Obj. 8: It must be said that not only is manual work understood through action, but all things which pertain to the active life. Yet the solicitude which is exhibited by preachers, about those to whom they preach, pertains to the active life.

Reply Sed Contra 1–3: The reasons to the contrary I concede. Nevertheless, the last is introduced beyond the intention of the Gloss: for the Gloss says that secular businesses are those which are done for the sake of amassing money without manual labor, as through trade and things of this sort, (Glossa ordinaria, at 2 Timothy 2:4, 6.735 (PL 192:368; 114:634).) from which the servants of God ought utterly to withhold themselves.