Chapter III — Regulars vowing evangelical poverty vow the very community of goods

I. All theologians and canonists teach that Regulars are bound by force of an ecclesiastical precept gravely obliging to the community of goods, private purses being driven out. But whether this precept enter the very essence of the vow, or range outside it, comes to the same thing as regards that which is the head of the disputation. For whether Regulars violate the vow directly, while they retain a private purse, necessity being taken away, or the precept, they perpetrate a mortal sacrilege. Wherefore even if what I am about to say were false, they would not on that account perceive any emolument thence, since according to all theologians and canonists Regulars are bound by a most grave ecclesiastical precept of observing the common life.

II. And that what I am about to say may be more evidently plain, we must have before our eyes that the vow of poverty taken generally, precise from every circumstance, admits several degrees, mention of which was made in the preceding chapter; and that in this acceptation it betrays neither one before another, nor includes nor rejects community. Another thing is no less manifest, namely that any solemn vow whatsoever claims for itself a certain and predetermined matter. These things being constituted, I evince what I proposed.

III. All Regulars vow poverty to God — not an uncertain poverty, not one squared to the rule of some metaphysical definition which some have fashioned for themselves; but they vow that poverty which is determined in their own rules. This first proposition is inescapable. For poverty admits a latitude and very many degrees, as all confess and as in fact is established; therefore it must be determined by the intention of the one vowing. But this determination cannot be made by individual Regulars; otherwise there would be as many kinds of poverties as there are men vowing, and all things would be confused and disturbed. Wherefore all the sacred Orders have their own rules, in which is defined the poverty which all of the same Order ought to keep. But all the Rules — of Sts. Basil, Augustine, Benedict, Francis, and of all the holy Patriarchs — determine for the matter of the vow of poverty the common life. Therefore Regulars vowing poverty vow the common life. Unless the second proposition be true, I am willing that the cause should fall of its own accord. I could here transcribe the texts of all the Rules, which from a study of brevity I pass over. Let it suffice to indicate in passing that in all the aforesaid rules like things are had: Let all things be common to you, as you read in the Acts of the Apostles.

IV. But although this argumentation were false, not on that account, as I have said, would a private purse be lawful to Regulars, since according to all, both theologians and canonists, they are bound by a most grave ecclesiastical precept to observe the common life void of every private purse. Hence a Religious places all his goods, both present and future, under the dominion of the Religion, on this condition and agreement, that the Religion may dispose of those goods for the common use of the Religious as shall have seemed to it expedient; and the Religion in turn binds itself by the same bond to furnish food and clothing and all necessaries to the Religious. Further, just as in any contract whatsoever, one party failing in fulfilling its own duty, the other also necessarily fails; so likewise if the Religion be lacking to its own office in the congruous provision of food and clothing, forthwith there arises in the professed Religious a right of nature, antecedent to any contract whatsoever, of procuring that food and clothing which the Religion ought to bestow. This is the whole that can be said in favour of Religious and of a private purse. For the rest, the superiors of Religions as much as the Religious are bound by a most grave precept either to reintegrate the contract, if it be broken, or to observe it, if it stand, as I shall say below.