Volume III, Treatise III, Chapter IV

In What True Poverty Consists

Tue Son of God gives us a sufficient notion of true poverty in, these words: ‘ Blessed are the poor in spirit”, and, at the same time, shows us wherein it consists; for by these words he declares that it ought to be in the heart and mind, and that it is not. enough to forsake riches to become truly poor, unless we also bid farewell to all attachment to them. It is the part of true poverty, not only to despoil us of all Earthly things, but even of all desire of them, that by this means we may be more capable of following Christ and devoting ourselves entirely to evangelical perfection, which is the end of a religious life. St. Jerom makes an observation to this purpose upon the answer our Saviour made to these words of St. Peter: “We have forsaken everything and followed thee: what shall we have for our reward?” Our Saviour answered: ‘ Verily I say unto you, that you who have followed me”, etc. Observe here, says St. Jerom, the Son of God does not answer: “Verily I say unto you, that you who have left all”, but “you who have followed me”—Mat., xix. 28; for to leave all is not here the essential part, since several heathen philosophers, as Diogenes, Antisthenes, and others, have done this. It is related even of Crates, the Theban, that, being a man of great wealth, and desirous to go to Athens to study philosophy, he sold all he had, lest his riches should divert him and-call him home; and, having got all his money together, he threw it into the sea, saying: “Get you gone, you covetous desires, to the bottom of the sea; I will drown you now, lest you should one day do the same by me”. There is also a story of Phocion, the Athenian captain, which expresses an equal contempt of riches and no less love of poverty; for Alexander the Great having sent him a hundred talents, which make about sixty thousand French crowns, Phocion asked the messengers why Alexander sent it him. They answered, that Alexander sent it because he looked upon him to be the most virtuous man in Athens. Let him permit me then to remain so, says Phocion, and so dismissed them without receiving a farthing. This refusal, with the answer, was very much admired and spoken of by the Grecian philosophers, who disputed very much which was the greater act— Alexander’s liberality or Phocion’s generous contempt of his present. Antiquity furnishes us with many instances of this nature, all which prove that the heathen philosophers looked upon riches as an impediment to virtue, although, as St. Jerom and St. Austin justly observe, riches of themselves do not properly any harm; and for proof of this, they allege several examples out of the Old Testament, as that of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were all very rich men; of Joseph, who was next to Pharao in power and wealth; of Job, who had great possessions; of David, who was a powerful monarch; of Daniel and his companions, men of great authority in Babylon; of Esther and Mardochai, who were also very considerable in the reign of king Assuerus; and of several others who lived in all the splendour and greatness this world could afford, and yet with an absolute disengagement from all Earthly things, which is the greatest sign of true poverty of spirit, and recommended to us by the Holy Ghost in these words, “If riches abound, set not thy heart upon them” (Psalms 61:11)

But, to return to our subject, you must know that there are two things necessarily required for that poverty of spirit which religious make profession of. The first is, to leave ourselves nothing in this world, and this is done by the vow of poverty.

The second is, to retain no attachment to Earthly things. Now, this second is the principal, because really disengaging our heart from the love of riches, it enables us to give ourselves totally to God. This makes St. Thomas say, that the first is only a disposition to the second, and a help to shake off more freely, and bid farewell to, all that we have in the world: insomuch that St. Austin says, “We love those things that we really possess, far better than those we do not possess”; and, consequently, we can far more easily wean our affections from what we do not possess, than from what we are real masters of. It is much easier not to trouble ourselves about what does not belong to us, than to abandon that which does; for that which we have not, we look upon as a thing quite foreign to us—but that which we actually enjoy, we esteem as a part of ourselves and as incorporated with us. Hence, when we are to part with it, we feel the loss of it as much as of a leg or an arm.

St. Jerom, St. Austin, and St. Gregory, discoursing upon these words of St. Peter, “Behold, we have left all”, treat this subject admirably well. ‘What great confidence”, says St. Jerom, ‘does this manifest in St. Peter! Though he had been but a fisherman, always poor, living upon his trade, and getting his bread by the sweat of his brow, yet with great confidence he says, we have left all”. ‘‘Which he might very well do”, says St. Gregory, “for we are not to consider the things he left, but the will with which he left them; he left a great deal who reserved nothing to himself. It is a great matter to quit all, though the things be very inconsiderable that we leave. Do not we see with what passion we love what we already have, and how earnestly we search after what we have not? It is for this reason that St. Peter and St. Andrew left much, because they denied themselves even the desire and inclination of having anything at all”—Hom. 5, in Matth. St. Austin is of the same opinion, and says, “that the apostles even gloried that they had left all to follow Christ; because, upon his call, they had forsaken their nets and fishing-boat. And in effect he really despises and leaves everything, who quits and despises not only those things which he possessed, but all other things likewise to which his desires might have carried him”—LZpzst. 34, ad Paulin. This is no small comfort for those who have forsaken only a little because they had no more to forsake. This is what the same father observes, when he speaks of the reward he hoped for, for having sold. and left all for Jesus Christ. ‘Though I have not been rich”, says the same holy father, “yet I shall not have the less reward for that. For the apostles, who have done the same thing with me, were no richer than I; he therefore leaves all the world, who leaves all he has, and all desires of ever having more”-——Epist. 89, ad Hilar. If, for the love of God, you forbear to desire a thing, you are justly said to renounce it for his sake; and, therefore, you renounce all Earthly things, if you forsake the desire not only of what you have or might have had, but even of those things to which your affection might have led you; and by consequence you may rejoice, and say with the apostles, “‘ Behold, we have left all”—M©at., xix. 27. On the contrary, he that was a rich man in the world ought not to glory the more upon this account, nor imagine that he has left more than another has done; for he has forsaken very little, if he has not also forsaken the thoughts and desires of all Earthly things. Whereas, he that had but a little in the world, has left a great deal, if in leaving the little he had, he has left the desires of having what he had not.

This is the nature of that poverty of spirit we now treat of. It consists in an absolute disengagement from all things of this world; in treading them under foot by a generous contempt of them; and in believing with the apostle, “that if we can but gain Jesus Christ, all the rest is but filth and ordure” (Philippians 3:8) Those who are thus truly poor in spirit, are the persons whom the Son of God calls happy, and they are really so; for the kingdom of Heaven does not only belong to them, as we have already shown, but they are at present in a state wherein they desire nothing, which is they highest idea that can be formed of temporal happiness. For happiness, according to Boetius, does not consist in the fruition of a great many things, but in the accomplishment of our desires; or, as St. Austin says, “he is happy who has all he desires, and desires nothing but what he ought”. The poor in spirit have a greater advantage than rich men of the world; for they have all they desire, because they desire nothing but what they have, and look upon the rest as superfluous; whereas the rich are never satisfied, and their desires are boundless, ‘The covetous man shall never have his fill of money” (Ecclesiastes 5:9),—says the wise man, and avarice will never say, it is enough. The reason is, because nothing here below can satisfy the heart of man, but renders it rather uneasy than quiet. A covetous man is like one in a dropsy: the more he drinks, the more he thirsts; just as the miser’s “desire of having more, grows and increases with his riches”. Let his wealth be ever so great, his wishes are still greater; he daily languishes after what he has not; and looking upon what he already has as nothing, he is always solicitous how to get more. His trouble also for what he has not, exceeds the pleasure acquired by what he has; and by giving way to his insatiable desires, he spends his days in care and anxiety, and in vain searches after what he can never obtain.

Alexander is said to have wept when he heard Anaxarchus’s opinion of many worlds; and that he made this answer to one who asked him the cause of his tears: Have I not sufficient reason to weep, says he, since there are so many worlds, and I have not as yet conquered one? This very idea alone, of something being wanting to his greatness, damped the joy he felt at all his sucoess in war and at the vast extent of his empire. Crates, on the contrary, though only master of a poor wallet and a cloak, was always merry and pleasant, and always looked as if every day had been a festival with him, and was richer and more content with his poor condition, than Alexander with the empire of the world. This same emperor, happening one day to meet Diogenes, and seeing him very poor, said he thought he was in great necessity, and therefore bid him ask what he pleased, and it should be granted him. The philosopher immediately replied, who do you think, Alexander, is more in want—you or I? I have nothing but my cloak and wallet, nor do I desire anything else. But you, though you are so great a prince, yet expose yourself to a thousand dangers to enlarge your dominions, and the whole world is not able to satisfy your ambition; be therefore assured that I am richer and happier than you. St. Basil says, that Diogenes spoke very rationally. For after all, pray, who is richer—he that wants nothing, or he that wants many things? Certainly the former. Diogenes wanted nothing, because he was content with what he had; but Alexander wanted, because he desired many things, and consequently poor Diogenes was richer than Alexander the Great.

Therefore, as the most substantial riches and the truest happiness of this world, do not consist in the possession of many things, but in the accomplishment of our desires and in the satisfaction of our will, so poverty does not consist in being deprived of all things, but in the desire of not possessing any of them at all, and of being free from that insatiable desire of still getting more, “which”, says Plato, “is no sooner quenched but a good man becomes rich upon it”. St. Chrysostom has a comparison well adapted to our purpose. If a man, says he, is so very thirsty that he is obliged to drink continually without being able to quench his thirst, shall we think this man happy because he has at the same time plenty of water? By no means; for if at the same time we should see another, who in all appearance had no thirst upon him, certainly we should look upon the one as troubled with a dropsy, or else in a burning fever, and upon the other as a person in perfect health. The same difference is found between those whose thoughts are always employed in the pursuit of riches, and who are never content with what they have, and the truly poor in spirit, who are satisfied with the little they enjoy, and never seek after more. These are in perfect health, and the others are indisposed; these are fully satisfied, and the others suffer extreme hunger; these are truly rich in their poverty, and the others really. poor, notwithstanding all their riches. This is what the Holy Ghost would have us understand by these words of Solomon: ‘There are some who seem rich, yet have nothing, and others who seem poor, and yet abound in riches” (Proverbs 13:7) But you will ask me whence this difference comes? I answer, from the very nature of riches themselves, for nothing here below can fully satisfy the heart of - man, and from the nature of poverty of spirit, which is capable of abundantly satisfying those who are masters of it. Socrates used to say, “that he who wanted very few things, did in a particular manner resemble God, who wants nothing”. And passing once through the market-place of Athens, where he saw a great deal of merchandize exposed to sale, he cried out, “How many things are there here which I have no need of!” On the contrary, ordinary people who judge only according to outward appearance, and the covetous, who set no limits to their greedy desires, are troubled at the sight of such things as they have not, and, sighing, cry out: Alas! how many things do I still stand in need of!

About ReligiousBookshelf.com · A Supernerd Media project