Two objections: the old law’s perpetual alms, and the merit of larger and longer alms

Against what has been said, it is objected, by appeal toobicitur per: it is objected, by appeal to this, first, that in the old testament there were many such almselemosina: alms, religions and perpetual rites approved; since, then, the old testament is of as great authority as the new, it followssequitur: it follows that it is lawful to found such perpetual alms on the authority of the old testament. For from here the payment of tithesdecime; pars decima: tithes; the tenth part is derived, as was said in book 3, chapter …, from the testimony of Henry of Ghent and of Saint Thomas; and the assumptionassumptum: the assumption is clear from Leviticus 6 and 7, Exodus 27, and often elsewhere in scripture.¹

Here it is clear that this objection does not impugn what was said before, since the conclusionconclusio: conclusion is to be granted. But would that those who argue so would attend to a sufficient likeness on both sides: first, how in the old testament such perpetuity was ordained singularly by God and not by man. Hence the books of the law and of the prophets begin such perpetual privilegesprivilegium / privilegiare / privilegiacio: privilege / to privilege / privileging thus: "Thus saith the Lord"; and then, since the author of both testaments has expressed his will sufficiently in the gospel, they would not usurp [the right] to add on an ordinanceordinacio; ordinancia: ordinance; of the sacrament, ordination which seems contrary to the ordinance of God, without consulting the Lord himself.² Let them consider, second, how all the said so-calledvocatus (vocata bona, vocata ecclesia): so-called perpetual alms were only for a period, as is clear in the matter of the cessation of the legal [observances], and of the privileged person, whom the privileging Lord removed by reason of an offence, in proportion [to it], as is clear of Dathan and Abiron, Numbers 16, of Heli and his sons, 1 Samuel chapters 2 and 4, and of the priests, scribes and Pharisees in the time of Christ, who were all punished in proportion to their abuse of the privilege.³ How, then, should we claim with colourcolorare: give colour to a privilege from man apart from God, and on top of this an exemptionexempcio: exemption from the protection and regulation of that privilege by him 284who privileges short of God? For the topic from likenesslocus a simili: the topic from likeness drawn from the old law does not ask for this: let a man stay within the limitslimitare; limites: to assign (an office); limits of the privilege of one person, and then it is fitting that the full government of that privilege be assigned to that person who singularly grants [it].⁴ Third, let one who argues so note how the clergyclerus; clericus: the clergy; cleric of the old testament, when it lived carnally, was assigned by God, without anxiety about income or revenuesreditus: revenue(s) acquired or given by men, what it should receive from offerings, first-fruits, or a place to dwell in: how much more would the spiritual clergy of Christ, poor and needy, exclude itself more strictly from worldly things, content with food and covering according to the Apostle’s rule, 1 Timothy 6:8?⁵ For in Ezekiel 44:28–30 it is written thus: "And the priests shall have no inheritance, I am their inheritance: neither shall you give them possessions in Israel, for I am their possession. They shall eat the victim both for sin and for trespass: and every vowed thing in Israel shall be theirs. And the firstfruits of all the firstborn of the cattle, and all the libations of all things that they offer, shall be the priests’."⁶

And they had places to dwell in and to feed their cattle (as is clear from Joshua 21 and the last [chapter]). If, then, the Aaronite clergy, so carnal, so laboriously anxious about the ceremonies of the law, had temporal goodstemporalia: temporal goods so limitedly and strictly, how much more the clergy of Christ, who by the example of [their] manner of lifeconversacio: manner of life and by the word of preaching taught [men] to leave the world, and, by living in heavenly things, to teach the laity [to bring] those [goods] to nothing?⁷ And this is the reason of God’s law, Deuteronomy 18:1, why it commands the people in these words: "The priests and Levites, and all that are of the same tribe, shall have no part nor inheritance with the rest of the people of Israel, because they shall eat the sacrifices of the Lord, and his oblations, 285and they shall receive nothing else of the possession of their brethren: for the Lord himself is their inheritance, as he hath said to them." And so I understand holy scripture, Numbers 18:20, where it is said: "And the Lord said to Aaron: You shall possess nothing in their land, neither shall you have a portion among them: I am thy portion and inheritance." And the priests would have of the best things to eat without anxiety (as is clear from Exodus 19, Leviticus 1 and 4, and the chapters following).⁸ From these things the conclusion can be gathered that the modern endowmentdotacio: endowment of the clergy cannot be founded in either testament.

Second, principally, it is objected, by appeal to this, that to give some alms for some time is, other things being equal, of some merit; to give, other things being equal, as much or greater alms for a longer time would be of more ample merit; and consequently in the time of the law of grace, when charitycaritas: charity ought to be superabundant, the most generous alms ought to be given as to the quantity of the gift, as to the freedom of the giving, and as to the long duration of the time. Now to whom should laymen give, if not to the clergy of Christ, from whom they receive more ample alms? Therefore holy kings and prelatesprelatus: prelate, the laws of the churchecclesia: church and the showings of miracle teach, with the reason from the greatnessprioritas; majoritas: priority; greatness of merit, that such endowment of the church is meritorious on both sides.⁹ Who, I say, doubts that, if Peter has given alms meritorily and, the merit being kept, has added on in any way a more ample alms, the aggregate merit would also increase?¹⁰

To this the answer is, granting the first conclusion (in that the apostles and other dearer disciples of Christ gave all their temporal goods, following Christ in evangelical poverty, so that neither giving nor receiving is 286of itself culpable, but the lack of a good manner), that it must nevertheless be noted that the greatness of the merit of one who gives alms is not reckoned absolutely by the quantity or value of what is given, nor by the quantity of the time for which it is given; for according to Christ’s determination, Luke 21:2–3, the poor little woman, by putting a farthing into the treasury, put in more than all.¹¹ Therefore one must attend to the charity from which bodily almsgiving proceeds. And it is clear that the manner of giving alms has regard to the discretion by which the almsgiverelemosinans: almsgiver relieves the needy. Therefore the gospel does not command that one who leaves his goods should give them to the apostles of Christ, but to the poor, such as the blind, the lame and the feeble.¹² Second, the rightness of the manner of alms requires that the giver observe a servile humbling by which he knows himself to be the bare minister of God, to whom the goods of fortune have been lent, so that he may distribute [them] humbly and charitably. And third, the right manner of giving alms requires that the almsgiver keep a pure and simple intention, not desiring the glory of the world. And therefore Christ teaches, Matthew 6:2–3, that in doing alms you should not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites [do], but let the left hand (that is, the intention that expects a temporal reward) not know what the right hand does: [the right hand being] the part of the intention by which a spiritual and perpetual reward for the other world is rightly and purely expected; and according as these are more matched with greater charity, the alms in the giver is greater.¹³ From this it is clear, with the truth of the fact, that so-called perpetual alms for the most part, or always, have less of the nature of alms than temporary alms to be given. For one who gives alms in that way commonly fails in the discretion of giving to those more needy; he fails, second, in humbling, believing that what is given is his own to order as he will, with no superior lord moving him as his bare servant and instrument; 287and finally, commonly, in alms both bodily and spiritual, there creeps in an affection of vainglory or of a useful temporal good; and (if I am not mistaken) Caesar’s eye was in some way infected in these three.¹⁴ Who, I ask, could teach that Caesar or another secular lord, in founding perpetual alms so publicly, does not aim at the vainglory of the solemnity of his name and of his line, to last for long ages? And if that outweighs the intention of the right hand, he sins mortally, making alms out of what is another’s.¹⁵ And [the answer] to the form of the argument is clear, by granting the conclusion and what followssequela: what follows: for the greatest alms on the wayvia / patria: the way / the homeland is that one should leave civil possession in the world entirely and lay down his present life for the honour of God and the profit of the church, as Christ says, John 15:13: "Greater charity no man hath than that a man lay down his life for his friends"; such a one gives him all his goods of fortune and all his natural goods; and since all things are the just man’s, it is clear that in such a giving the most generous alms is founded; and the conclusion is clear.¹⁶