[Footnote 1:  ’Non videtur secundum humanam rationem esse boni et perfecti divitias abjicere totaliter, sed eis uti bene et reficiendo superfluas pauperibus subvenire et amicis’ (Buridan, Eth., iv. 3).]

Therefore poverty should not be voluntarily undertaken, but rather avoided.’[1] Buridan says:  ’There is no doubt that it is much more difficult to be virtuous in a state of poverty than in one of moderate affluence;’[2] and Antoninus of Florence expresses the opinion that poverty is in itself an evil thing, although out of it good may come.[3] Even the ambition to rise in the world was laudable, because every one may rightfully desire to place himself and his dependants in a participation of the fullest human felicity of which man is capable, and to rid himself of the necessity of corporal labour.[4] Avarice and prodigality alike offended against liberality, because they tended to deprive the community of the maximum benefit which it should derive from the wealth with which it was endowed.  Dr. Cunningham may be quoted in support of this view.  ’One of the gravest defects of the Roman Empire lay in the fact that its system left little scope for individual aims, and tended to check the energy of capitalists and labourers alike.  But Christian teaching opened up an unending prospect before the individual personally, and encouraged him to activity and diligence by an eternal hope.  Nor did such concentration of thought on a life beyond the grave necessarily divert attention from secular duties; Christianity did not disparage them, but set them in a new light, and brought out new motives for taking them seriously....  The acceptance of this higher view of the dignity of human life as immortal was followed by a fuller recognition of personal responsibility.  Ancient philosophy had seen that man is the master of material things; but Christianity introduced a new sense of duty in regard to the manner of using them....  Christian teachers were forced to protest against any employment of wealth that disregarded the glory of God and the good of man.’[5] It was the opinion of Knies that the peculiarly Christian virtues were of profound economic value.  ’Temperance, thrift, and industry—­that is to say, the sun and rain of economic activity—–­were recommended by the Church and inculcated as Christian virtues; idleness as the mother of theft, gambling as the occasion of fraud, were forbidden; and gain for its own sake was classed as a kind of robbery[6].’

[Footnote 1:  Summa cont.  Gent., iii. 131.]

[Footnote 2:  Eth., iv. 3.]

[Footnote 3:  Summa, iv. 12, 3.]

[Footnote 4:  Cajetan, Comm. on II. ii. 118, 1.]

[Footnote 5:  Western Civilisation, vol. ii. pp. 8-9.]

[Footnote 6:  Politische Oekonomie vom Standpuncte der geschichtlichen Methode, p. 116, and see Rambaud, Histoire, p. 759; Champagny, La Bible et l’Economie politique; Thomas Aquinas, Summa, II. ii. 50, 3; Sertillanges, Socialisme et Christianisme, p. 53.  It was nevertheless recognised and insisted on that wealth was not an end in itself, but merely a means to an end (Aquinas, Summa, I. ii. 2, 1).]