QUESTIONS 183-189 QUESTION OF MAN’S VARIOUS DUTIES AND STATES IN GENERAL (FOUR ARTICLES) We must next consider man’s various states and duties. We shall consider (1) man’s duties and states in general; (2) the state of the perfect in particular.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry: (1) What constitutes a state among men? (2) Whether among men there should be various states and duties? (3) Of the diversity of duties; (4) Of the diversity of states.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1) Whether the notion of a state denotes a condition of freedom or servitude?

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1)- O(1) — It would seem that the notion of a state does not denote a condition of freedom or servitude. For “state” takes its name from “standing.” Now a person is said to stand on account of his being upright; and Gregory says (Moral. vii, 17): “To fall by speaking harmful words is to forfeit entirely the state of righteousness.” But a man acquires spiritual uprightness by submitting his will to God; wherefore a gloss on Psalm 32:1, “Praise becometh the upright,” says: “The upright are those who direct their heart according to God’s will.” Therefore it would seem that obedience to the Divine commandments suffices alone for the notion of a state.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1)- O(2) — Further, the word “state” seems to denote immobility according to 1 Corinthians 15:48, “Be ye steadfast [stabiles] and immovable”; wherefore Gregory says (Hom. xxi in Ezech.): “The stone is foursquare, and is stable on all sides, if no disturbance will make it fall.”

Now it is virtue that enables us “to act with immobility,” according to Ethic. ii, 4. Therefore it would seem that a state is acquired by every virtuous action.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1)- O(3) — Further, the word “state” seems to indicate height of a kind; because to stand is to be raised upwards. Now one man is made higher than another by various duties; and in like manner men are raised upwards in various ways by various grades and orders. Therefore the mere difference of grades, orders, or duties suffices for a difference of states.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1) — On the contrary, It is thus laid down in the Decretals (II, qu. vi, can. Si Quando): “Whenever anyone intervene in a cause where life or state is at stake he must do so, not by a proxy, but in his own person”; and “state” here has reference to freedom or servitude.

Therefore it would seem that nothing differentiates a man’s state, except that which refers to freedom or servitude.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1) — I answer that, “State,” properly speaking, denotes a kind of position, whereby a thing is disposed with a certain immobility in a manner according with its nature. For it is natural to man that his head should be directed upwards, his feet set firmly on the ground, and his other intermediate members disposed in becoming order; and this is not the case if he lie down, sit, or recline, but only when he stands upright: nor again is he said to stand, if he move, but only when he is still. Hence it is again that even in human acts, a matter is said to have stability [statum] in reference to its own disposition in the point of a certain immobility or restfulness.

Consequently matters which easily change and are extrinsic to them do not constitute a state among men, for instance that a man be rich or poor, of high or low rank, and so forth. Wherefore in the civil law [*Dig. I, IX, De Senatoribus] (Lib. Cassius ff. De Senatoribus) it is said that if a man be removed from the senate, he is deprived of his dignity rather than of his state. But that alone seemingly pertains to a man’s state, which regards an obligation binding his person, in so far, to wit, as a man is his own master or subject to another, not indeed from any slight or unstable cause, but from one that is firmly established; and this is something pertaining to the nature of freedom or servitude. Therefore state properly regards freedom or servitude whether in spiritual or in civil matters.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1)- RO(1) — Uprightness as such does not pertain to the notion of state, except in so far as it is connatural to man with the addition of a certain restfulness. Hence other animals are said to stand without its being required that they should be upright; nor again are men said to stand, however upright their position be, unless they be still.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1)- RO(2) — Immobility does not suffice for the notion of state; since even one who sits or lies down is still, and yet he is not said to stand.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(1)- RO(3) — Duty implies relation to act; while grades denote an order of superiority and inferiority. But state requires immobility in that which regards a condition of the person himself.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2) Whether there should be different duties or states in the Church?

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2)- O(1) — It would seem that there should not be different duties or states in the Church. For distinction is opposed to unity. Now the faithful of Christ are called to unity according to John 17:21,22: “That they... may be one in Us... as We also are one.” Therefore there should not be a distinction of duties and states in the Church.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2)- O(2) — Further, nature does not employ many means where one suffices. But the working of grace is much more orderly than the working of nature. Therefore it were more fitting for things pertaining to the operations of grace to be administered by the same persons, so that there would not be a distinction of duties and states in the Church.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2)- O(3) — Further, the good of the Church seemingly consists chiefly in peace, according to <19E703> Psalm 147:3, “Who hath placed peace in thy borders,” and 2 Corinthians 13:11, “Have peace, and the God of peace... shall be with you.” Now distinction is a hindrance to peace, for peace would seem to result from likeness, according to Ecclus. 13:19, “Every beast loveth its like,” while the Philosopher says (Polit. vii, 5) that “a little difference causes dissension in a state.” Therefore it would seem that there ought not to be a distinction of states and duties in the Church.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2) — On the contrary, It is written in praise of the Church ( Psalm 44:10) that she is “surrounded with variety”: and a gloss on these words says that “the Queen,” namely the Church, “is bedecked with the teaching of the apostles, the confession of martyrs, the purity of virgins, the sorrowings of penitents.”

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2) — I answer that, The difference of states and duties in the Church regards three things. In the first place it regards the perfection of the Church. For even as in the order of natural things, perfection, which in God is simple and uniform, is not to be found in the created universe except in a multiform and manifold manner, so too, the fulness of grace, which is centered in Christ as head, flows forth to His members in various ways, for the perfecting of the body of the Church. This is the meaning of the Apostle’s words ( Ephesians 4:11,12): “He gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors for the perfecting of the saints.”

Secondly, it regards the need of those actions which are necessary in the Church. For a diversity of actions requires a diversity of men appointed to them, in order that all things may be accomplished without delay or confusion; and this is indicated by the Apostle ( Romans 12:4,5), “As in one body we have many members, but all the members have not the same office, so we being many are one body in Christ.” Thirdly, this belongs to the dignity and beauty of the Church, which consist in a certain order; wherefore it is written ( 1 Kings 10:4,5) that “when the queen of Saba saw all the wisdom of Solomon... and the apartments of his servants, and the order of his ministers... she had no longer any spirit in her.” Hence the Apostle says ( 2 Timothy 2:20) that “in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth.”

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2)- RO(1) — The distinction of states and duties is not an obstacle to the unity of the Church, for this results from the unity of faith, charity, and mutual service, according to the saying of the Apostle ( Ephesians 4:16): “From whom the whole body being compacted,” namely by faith, “and fitly joined together,” namely by charity, “by what every joint supplieth,” namely by one man serving another.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2)- RO(2) — Just as nature does not employ many means where one suffices, so neither does it confine itself to one where many are required, according to the saying of the Apostle ( 1 Corinthians 12:17), “If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing?” Hence there was need in the Church, which is Christ’s body, for the members to be differentiated by various duties, states, and grades.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(2)- RO(3) — Just as in the natural body the various members are held together in unity by the power of the quickening spirit, and are dissociated from one another as soon as that spirit departs, so too in the Church’s body the peace of the various members is preserved by the power of the Holy Spirit, Who quickens the body of the Church, as stated in John 6:64. Hence the Apostle says ( Ephesians 4:3): “Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” Now a man departs from this unity of spirit when he seeks his own; just as in an earthly kingdom peace ceases when the citizens seek each man his own. Besides, the peace both of mind and of an earthly commonwealth is the better preserved by a distinction of duties and states, since thereby the greater number have a share in public actions. Wherefore the Apostle says ( Corinthians 12:24,25) that “God hath tempered [the body] together that there might be no schism in the body, but the members might be mutually careful one for another.”

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3) Whether duties differ according to their actions?

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3)- O(1) — It would seem that duties do not differ according to their actions. For there are infinite varieties of human acts both in spirituals and in temporals. Now there can be no certain distinction among things that are infinite in number. Therefore human duties cannot be differentiated according to a difference of acts.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3)- O(2) — Further, the active and the contemplative life differ according to their acts, as stated above ( Q(179), A(1) ). But the distinction of duties seems to be other than the distinction of lives.

Therefore duties do not differ according to their acts.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3)- O(3) — Further, even ecclesiastical orders, states, and grades seemingly differ according to their acts. If, then, duties differ according to their acts it would seem that duties, grades, and states differ in the same way. Yet this is not true, since they are divided into their respective parts in different ways. Therefore duties do not differ according to their acts.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3) — On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. vi, 19) that “officium [duty] takes its name from ‘efficere’ [to effect], as though it were instead of ‘efficium,’ by the change of one letter for the sake of the sound.” But effecting pertains to action. Therefore duties differ according to their acts.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3) — I answer that, As stated above ( A(2) ), difference among the members of the Church is directed to three things: perfection, action, and beauty; and according to these three we may distinguish a threefold distinction among the faithful. One, with regard to perfection, and thus we have the difference of states, in reference to which some persons are more perfect than others. Another distinction regards action and this is the distinction of duties: for persons are said to have various duties when they are appointed to various actions. A third distinction regards the order of ecclesiastical beauty: and thus we distinguish various grades according as in the same state or duty one person is above another.

Hence according to a variant text [*The Septuagint] it is written ( Psalm 47:4): “In her grades shall God be known.”

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3)- RO(1) — The material diversity of human acts is infinite. It is not thus that duties differ, but by their formal diversity which results from diverse species of acts, and in this way human acts are not infinite.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3)- RO(2) — Life is predicated of a thing absolutely: wherefore diversity of acts which are becoming to man considered in himself. But efficiency, whence we have the word “office” (as stated above), denotes action tending to something else according to Metaph. ix, text. 16 [*Ed. Did. viii, 8]. Hence offices differ properly in respect of acts that are referred to other persons; thus a teacher is said to have an office, and so is a judge, and so forth. Wherefore Isidore says (Etym. vi, 19) that “to have an office is to be officious,” i.e. harmful “to no one, but to be useful to all.”

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(3)- RO(3) — Differences of state, offices and grades are taken from different things, as stated above ( A(1), ad 3). Yet these three things may concur in the same subject: thus when a person is appointed to a higher action, he attains thereby both office and grade, and sometimes, besides this, a state of perfection, on account of the sublimity of the act, as in the case of a bishop. The ecclesiastical orders are particularly distinct according to divine offices. For Isidore says (Etym. vi): “There are various kinds of offices; but the foremost is that which relates to sacred and Divine things.”

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4) Whether the difference of states applies to those who are beginning, progressing, or perfect?

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4)- O(1) — It would seem that the difference of states does not apply to those who are beginning, progressing, or perfect. For “diverse genera have diverse species and differences” [*Aristotle, Categ. ii]. Now this difference of beginning, progress, and perfection is applied to the degrees of charity, as stated above ( Q(24) , A(9) ), where we were treating of charity. Therefore it would seem that the differences of states should not be assigned in this manner.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4)- O(2) — Further, as stated above ( A(1) ), state regards a condition of servitude or freedom, which apparently has no connection with the aforesaid difference of beginning, progress, and perfection.

Therefore it is unfitting to divide state in this way.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4)- O(3) — Further, the distinction of beginning, progress, and perfection seems to refer to “more” and “less,” and this seemingly implies the notion of grades. But the distinction of grades differs from that of states, as we have said above ( AA(2),3 ). Therefore state is unfittingly divided according to beginning, progress, and perfection.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4) — On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xxiv, 11): “There are three states of the converted, the beginning, the middle, and the perfection”; and (Hom. xv in Ezech.): “Other is the beginning of virtue, other its progress, and other still its perfection.”

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4) — I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ) state regards freedom or servitude. Now in spiritual things there is a twofold servitude and a twofold freedom: for there is the servitude of sin and the servitude of justice; and there is likewise a twofold freedom, from sin, and from justice, as appears from the words of the Apostle ( Romans 6:20,22), “When you were the servants of sin, you were free men to justice... but now being made free from sin,” you are... “become servants to God.”

Now the servitude of sin or justice consists in being inclined to evil by a habit of sin, or inclined to good by a habit of justice: and in like manner freedom from sin is not to be overcome by the inclination to sin, and freedom from justice is not to be held back from evil for the love of justice.

Nevertheless, since man, by his natural reason, is inclined to justice, while sin is contrary to natural reason, it follows that freedom from sin is true freedom which is united to the servitude of justice, since they both incline man to that which is becoming to him. In like manner true servitude is the servitude of sin, which is connected with freedom from justice, because man is thereby hindered from attaining that which is proper to him. That a man become the servant of justice or sin results from his efforts, as the Apostle declares ( Romans 6:16): “To whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death, or of obedience unto justice.” Now in every human effort we can distinguish a beginning, a middle, and a term; and consequently the state of spiritual servitude and freedom is differentiated according to these things, namely, the beginning — to which pertains the state of beginners — the middle, to which pertains the state of the proficient — and the term, to which belongs the state of the perfect.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4)- RO(1) — Freedom from sin results from charity which “is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, Who is given to us” ( Romans 5:5). Hence it is written ( 2 Corinthians 3:17): “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Wherefore the same division applies to charity as to the state of those who enjoy spiritual freedom.

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4)- RO(2) — Men are said to be beginners, proficient, and perfect (so far as these terms indicate different states), not in relation to any occupation whatever, but in relation to such occupations as pertain to spiritual freedom or servitude, as stated above ( A(1) ).

P(2b)- Q(183)- A(4)- RO(3) — As already observed ( A(3), ad 3), nothing hinders grade and state from concurring in the same subject. For even in earthly affairs those who are free, not only belong to a different state from those who are in service, but are also of a different grade.

QUESTION OF THE STATE OF PERFECTION IN GENERAL (EIGHT ARTICLES) We must now consider those things that pertain to the state of perfection whereto the other states are directed. For the consideration of offices in relation to other acts belongs to the legislator; and in relation to the sacred ministry it comes under the consideration of orders of which we shall treat in the Third Part [*XP, Q(34) ].

Concerning the state of the perfect, a three-fold consideration presents itself: (1) The state of perfection in general; (2) Things relating to the perfection of bishops; (3) Things relating to the perfection of religious.

Under the first head there are eight points of inquiry: (1) Whether perfection bears any relation to charity? (2) Whether one can be perfect in this life? (3) Whether the perfection of this life consists chiefly in observing the counsels or the commandments? (4) Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection? (5) Whether especially prelates and religious are in the state of perfection? (6) Whether all prelates are in the state of perfection? (7) Which is the more perfect, the episcopal or the religious state? (8) The comparison between religious and parish priests and archdeacons.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1) Whether the perfection of the Christian life consists chiefly in charity?

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1)- O(1) — It would seem that the perfection of the Christian life does not consist chiefly in charity. For the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 14:20): “In malice be children, but in sense be perfect.”

But charity regards not the senses but the affections. Therefore it would seem that the perfection of the Christian life does not chiefly consist in charity.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1)- O(2) — Further,’it is written ( Ephesians 6:13): “Take unto you the armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect”; and the text continues ( Ephesians 6:14,16), speaking of the armor of God: “Stand therefore having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of justice... in all things taking the shield of faith.”

Therefore the perfection of the Christian life consists not only in charity, but also in other virtues.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1)- O(3) — Further, virtues like other habits, are specified by their acts. Now it is written ( James 1:4) that “patience hath a perfect work.” Therefore seemingly the state of perfection consists more specially in patience.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1) — On the contrary, It is written ( Colossians 3:14): “Above all things have charity, which is the bond of perfection,” because it binds, as it were, all the other virtues together in perfect unity.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1) — I answer that, A thing is said to be perfect in so far as it attains its proper end, which is the ultimate perfection thereof. Now it is charity that unites us to God, Who is the last end of the human mind, since “he that abideth in charity abideth in God, and God in him” ( 1 John 4:16). Therefore the perfection of the Christian life consists radically in charity.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1)- RO(1) — The perfection of the human senses would seem to consist chiefly in their concurring together in the unity of truth, according to 1 Corinthians 1:10, “That you be perfect in the same mind [sensu], and in the same judgment.” Now this is effected by charity which operates consent in us men. Wherefore even the perfection of the senses consists radically in the perfection of charity.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1)- RO(2) — A man may be said to be perfect in two ways. First, simply: and this perfection regards that which belongs to a thing’s nature, for instance an animal may be said to be perfect when it lacks nothing in the disposition of its members and in such things as are necessary for an animal’s life. Secondly, a thing is said to be perfect relatively: and this perfection regards something connected with the thing externally, such as whiteness or blackness or something of the kind. Now the Christian life consists chiefly in charity whereby the soul is united to God; wherefore it is written ( 1 John 3:14): “He that loveth not abideth in death.” Hence the perfection of the Christian life consists simply in charity, but in the other virtues relatively. And since that which is simply, is paramount and greatest in comparison with other things, it follows that the perfection of charity is paramount in relation to the perfection that regards the other virtues.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(1)- RO(3) — Patience is stated to have a perfect work in relation to charity, in so far as it is an effect of the abundance of charity that a man bears hardships patiently, according to Romans 8:35, “Who... shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation? Or distress?” etc.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2) Whether any one can be perfect in this life?

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2)- O(1) — It would seem that none can be perfect in this life. For the Apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 13:10): “When that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.” Now in this life that which is in part is not done away; for in this life faith and hope, which are in part, remain. Therefore none can be perfect in this life.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2)- O(2) — Further, “The perfect is that which lacks nothing” (Phys. iii, 6). Now there is no one in this life who lacks nothing; for it is written ( James 3:2): “In many things we all offend”; and ( <19D801> Psalm 138:16): “Thy eyes did see my imperfect being.” Therefore none is perfect in this life.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2)- O(3) — Further, the perfection of the Christian life, as stated ( A(1) ), relates to charity, which comprises the love of God and of our neighbor. Now, neither as to the love of God can one have perfect charity in this life, since according to Gregory (Hom. xiv in Ezech.) “the furnace of love which begins to burn here, will burn more fiercely when we see Him Whom we love”; nor as to the love of our neighbor, since in this life we cannot love all our neighbors actually, even though we love them habitually; and habitual love is imperfect. Therefore it seems that no one can be perfect in this life.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2)- OTC On the contrary, The Divine law does not prescribe the impossible. Yet it prescribes perfection according to Matthew 5:48, “Be you... perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.” Therefore seemingly one can be perfect in this life.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2) — I answer that, As stated above ( A(1) ), the perfection of the Christian life consists in charity. Now perfection implies a certain universality because according to Phys. iii, 6, “the perfect is that which lacks nothing.” Hence we may consider a threefold perfection. One is absolute, and answers to a totality not only on the part of the lover, but also on the part of the object loved, so that God be loved as much as He is lovable. Such perfection as this is not possible to any creature, but is competent to God alone, in Whom good is wholly and essentially.

Another perfection answers to an absolute totality on the part of the lover, so that the affective faculty always actually tends to God as much as it possibly can; and such perfection as this is not possible so long as we are on the way, but we shall have it in heaven.

The third perfection answers to a totality neither on the part of the object served, nor on the part of the lover as regards his always actually tending to God, but on the part of the lover as regards the removal of obstacles to the movement of love towards God, in which sense Augustine says (QQ.

LXXXIII, qu. 36) that “carnal desire is the bane of charity; to have no carnal desires is the perfection of charity.” Such perfection as this can be had in this life, and in two ways. First, by the removal from man’s affections of all that is contrary to charity, such as mortal sin; and there can be no charity apart from this perfection, wherefore it is necessary for salvation. Secondly, by the removal from man’s affections not only of whatever is contrary to charity, but also of whatever hinders the mind’s affections from tending wholly to God. Charity is possible apart from this perfection, for instance in those who are beginners and in those who are proficient.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2)- RO(1) — The Apostle is speaking there of heavenly perfection which is not possible to those who are on the way.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2)- RO(2) — Those who are perfect in this life are said to “offend in many things” with regard to venial sins, which result from the weakness of the present life: and in this respect they have an “imperfect being” in comparison with the perfection of heaven.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(2)- RO(3) — As the conditions of the present life do not allow of a man always tending actually to God, so neither does it allow of his tending actually to each individual neighbor; but it suffices for him to tend to all in common and collectively, and to each individual habitually and according to the preparedness of his mind. Now in the love of our neighbor, as in the love of God we may observe a twofold perfection: one without which charity is impossible, and consisting in one’s having in one’s affections nothing that is contrary to the love of one’s neighbor; and another without which it is possible to have charity. The latter perfection may be considered in three ways. First, as to the extent of love, through a man loving not only his friends and acquaintances but also strangers and even his enemies, for as Augustine says (Enchiridion lxxiii) this is a mark of the perfect children of God. Secondly, as to the intensity of love, which is shown by the things which man despises for his neighbor’s sake, through his despising not only external goods for the sake of his neighbor, but also bodily hardships and even death, according to John 15:13, “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Thirdly, as to the effect of love, so that a man will surrender not only temporal but also spiritual goods and even himself, for his neighbor’s sake, according to the words of the Apostle ( 2 Corinthians 12:15), “But I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls.”

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3) Whether, in this life, perfection consists in the observance of the commandments or of the counsels?

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3)- O(1) — It would seem that, in this life, perfection consists in the observance not of the commandments but of the counsels.

For our Lord said ( Matthew 19:21): “If thou wilt be perfect, go sell all [Vulg.: ‘what’] thou hast, and give to the poor... and come, follow Me.”

Now this is a counsel. Therefore perfection regards the counsels and not the precepts.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3)- O(2) — Further, all are bound to the observance of the commandments, since this is necessary for salvation. Therefore, if the perfection of the Christian life consists in observing the commandments, it follows that perfection is necessary for salvation, and that all are bound thereto; and this is evidently false.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3)- O(3) — Further, the perfection of the Christian life is gauged according to charity, as stated above ( A(1) ). Now the perfection of charity, seemingly, does not consist in the observance of the commandments, since the perfection of charity is preceded both by its increase and by its beginning, as Augustine says (Super Canonic. Joan.

Tract. ix). But the beginning of charity cannot precede the observance of the commandments, since according to John 14:23, “If any one love Me, he will keep My word.” Therefore the perfection of life regards not the commandments but the counsels.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3) — On the contrary, It is written ( Deuteronomy 6:5): “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart,” and ( Leviticus 19:18): “Thou shalt love thy neighbor [Vulg.: ‘friend’] as thyself”; and these are the commandments of which our Lord said ( Matthew 22:40): “On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.” Now the perfection of charity, in respect of which the Christian life is said to be perfect, consists in our loving God with our whole heart, and our neighbor as ourselves. Therefore it would seem that perfection consists in the observance of the precepts.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3) — I answer that, Perfection is said to consist in a thing in two ways: in one way, primarily and essentially; in another, secondarily and accidentally. Primarily and essentially the perfection of the Christian life consists in charity, principally as to the love of God, secondarily as to the love of our neighbor, both of which are the matter of the chief commandments of the Divine law, as stated above. Now the love of God and of our neighbor is not commanded according to a measure, so that what is in excess of the measure be a matter of counsel. This is evident from the very form of the commandment, pointing, as it does, to perfection — for instance in the words, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart”: since “the whole” is the same as “the perfect,” according to the Philosopher (Phys. iii, 6), and in the words, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” since every one loves himself most. The reason of this is that “the end of the commandment is charity,” according to the Apostle ( Timothy 1:5); and the end is not subject to a measure, but only such things as are directed to the end, as the Philosopher observes (Polit. i, 3); thus a physician does not measure the amount of his healing, but how much medicine or diet he shall employ for the purpose of healing. Consequently it is evident that perfection consists essentially in the observance of the commandments; wherefore Augustine says (De Perf. Justit. viii): “Why then should not this perfection be prescribed to man, although no man has it in this life?”

Secondarily and instrumentally, however, perfection consists in the observance of the counsels, all of which, like the commandments, are directed to charity; yet not in the same way. For the commandments, other than the precepts of charity, are directed to the removal of things contrary to charity, with which, namely, charity is incompatible, whereas the counsels are directed to the removal of things that hinder the act of charity, and yet are not contrary to charity, such as marriage, the occupation of worldly business, and so forth. Hence Augustine says (Enchiridion cxxi): “Whatever things God commands, for instance, ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery,’ and whatever are not commanded, yet suggested by a special counsel, for instance, ‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman,’ are then done aright when they are referred to the love of God, and of our neighbor for God’s sake, both in this world and in the world to come.” Hence it is that in the Conferences of the Fathers (Coll. i, cap. vii) the abbot Moses says: “Fastings, watchings, meditating on the Scriptures, penury and loss of all one’s wealth, these are not perfection but means to perfection, since not in them does the school of perfection find its end, but through them it achieves its end,” and he had already said that “we endeavor to ascend by these steps to the perfection of charity.”

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3)- RO(1) — In this saying of our Lord something is indicated as being the way to perfection by the words, “Go, sell all thou hast, and give to the poor”; and something else is added wherein perfection consists, when He said, “And follow Me.” Hence Jerome in his commentary on Matthew 19:27, says that “since it is not enough merely to leave, Peter added that which is perfect: ‘And have followed Thee’“; and Ambrose, commenting on Luke 5:27, “Follow Me,” says: “He commands him to follow, not with steps of the body, but with devotion of the soul, which is the effect of charity.” Wherefore it is evident from the very way of speaking that the counsels are means of attaining to perfection, since it is thus expressed: “If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell,” etc., as though He said: “By so doing thou shalt accomplish this end.”

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3)- RO(2) — As Augustine says (De Perf. Justit. viii) “the perfection of charity is prescribed to man in this life, because one runs not right unless one knows whither to run. And how shall we know this if no commandment declares it to us?” And since that which is a matter of precept can be fulfilled variously, one does not break a commandment through not fulfilling it in the best way, but it is enough to fulfil it in any way whatever. Now the perfection of Divine love is a matter of precept for all without exception, so that even the perfection of heaven is not excepted from this precept, as Augustine says (De Perf.

Justit. viii [*Cf. De Spir. et Lit. XXXVI]), and one escapes transgressing the precept, in whatever measure one attains to the perfection of Divine love. The lowest degree of Divine love is to love nothing more than God, or contrary to God, or equally with God, and whoever fails from this degree of perfection nowise fulfils the precept. There is another degree of the Divine love, which cannot be fulfilled so long as we are on the way, as stated above ( A(2) ), and it is evident that to fail from this is not to be a transgressor of the precept; and in like manner one does not transgress the precept, if one does not attain to the intermediate degrees of perfection, provided one attain to the lowest.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(3)- RO(3) — Just as man has a certain perfection of his nature as soon as he is born, which perfection belongs to the very essence of his species, while there is another perfection which he acquires by growth, so again there is a perfection of charity which belongs to the very essence of charity, namely that man love God above all things, and love nothing contrary to God, while there is another perfection of charity even in this life, whereto a man attains by a kind of spiritual growth, for instance when a man refrains even from lawful things, in order more freely to give himself to the service of God.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4) Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection?

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4)- O(1) — It would seem that whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection. For, as stated above ( A(3), ad 3), just as bodily perfection is reached by bodily growth, so spiritual perfection is acquired by spiritual growth. Now after bodily growth one is said to have reached the state of perfect age. Therefore seemingly also after spiritual growth, when one has already reached spiritual perfection, one is in the state of perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4)- O(2) — Further, according to Phys. v, 2, movement “from one contrary to another” has the same aspect as “movement from less to more.” Now when a man is changed from sin to grace, he is said to change his state, in so far as the state of sin differs from the state of grace.

Therefore it would seem that in the same manner, when one progresses from a lesser to a greater grace, so as to reach the perfect degree, one is in the state of perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4)- O(3) — Further, a man acquires a state by being freed from servitude. But one is freed from the servitude of sin by charity, because “charity covereth all sins” ( Proverbs 10:12). Now one is said to be perfect on account of charity, as stated above ( A(1) ). Therefore, seemingly, whoever has perfection, for this very reason has the state of perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4) — On the contrary, Some are in the state of perfection, who are wholly lacking in charity and grace, for instance wicked bishops or religious. Therefore it would seem that on the other hand some have the perfection of life, who nevertheless have not the state of perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4) — I answer that, As stated above ( Q(183), A(1) ), state properly regards a condition of freedom or servitude. Now spiritual freedom or servitude may be considered in man in two ways: first, with respect to his internal actions; secondly, with respect to his external actions. And since according to 1 Kings 16:7, “man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart,” it follows that with regard to man’s internal disposition we consider his spiritual state in relation to the Divine judgment, while with regard to his external actions we consider man’s spiritual state in relation to the Church. It is in this latter sense that we are now speaking of states, namely in so far as the Church derives a certain beauty from the variety of states [*Cf. Q(183), A(2) ].

Now it must be observed, that so far as men are concerned, in order that any one attain to a state of freedom or servitude there is required first of all an obligation or a release. For the mere fact of serving someone does not make a man a slave, since even the free serve, according to Galatians 5:13, “By charity of the spirit serve one another”: nor again does the mere fact of ceasing to serve make a man free, as in the case of a runaway slave; but properly speaking a man is a slave if he be bound to serve, and a man is free if he be released from service. Secondly, it is required that the aforesaid obligation be imposed with a certain solemnity; even as a certain solemnity is observed in other matters which among men obtain a settlement in perpetuity.

Accordingly, properly speaking, one is said to be in the state of perfection, not through having the act of perfect love, but through binding himself in perpetuity and with a certain solemnity to those things that pertain to perfection. Moreover it happens that some persons bind themselves to that which they do not keep, and some fulfil that to which they have not bound themselves, as in the case of the two sons ( Matthew 21:28,30), one of whom when his father said: “Work in my vineyard,” answered: “I will not,” and “afterwards... he went,” while the other “answering said: I go... and he went not.” Wherefore nothing hinders some from being perfect without being in the state of perfection, and some in the state of perfection without being perfect.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4)- RO(1) — By bodily growth a man progresses in things pertaining to nature, wherefore he attains to the state of nature; especially since “what is according to nature is,” in a way, “unchangeable” [*Ethic. v, 7], inasmuch as nature is determinate to one thing. In like manner by inward spiritual growth a man reaches the state of perfection in relation to the Divine judgment. But as regards the distinctions of ecclesiastical states, a man does not reach the state of perfection except by growth in respect of external actions.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4)- RO(2) — This argument also regards the interior state.

Yet when a man passes from sin to grace, he passes from servitude to freedom; and this does not result from a mere progress in grace, except when a man binds himself to things pertaining to grace.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(4)- RO(3) — Again this argument considers the interior state. Nevertheless, although charity causes the change of condition from spiritual servitude to spiritual freedom, an increase of charity has not the same effect.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5) Whether religious and prelates are in the state of perfection?

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5)- O(1) — It would seem that prelates and religious are not in the state of perfection. For the state of perfection differs from the state of the beginners and the proficient. Now no class of men is specially assigned to the state of the proficient or of the beginners. Therefore it would seem that neither should any class of men be assigned to the state of perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5)- O(2) — Further, the outward state should answer to the inward, else one is guilty of lying, “which consists not only in false words, but also in deceitful deeds,” according to Ambrose in one of his sermons (xxx de Tempore). Now there are many prelates and religious who have not the inward perfection of charity. Therefore, if all religious and prelates are in the state of perfection, it would follow that all of them that are not perfect are in mortal sin, as deceivers and liars.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5)- O(3) — Further, as stated above ( A(1) ), perfection is measured according to charity. Now the most perfect charity would seem to be in the martyrs, according to John 15:13, “Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends”: and a gloss on Hebrews 12:4, “For you have not yet resisted unto blood,” says: “In this life no love is more perfect than that to which the holy martyrs attained, who strove against sin even unto blood.” Therefore it would seem that the state of perfection should be ascribed to the martyrs rather than to religious and bishops.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5) — On the contrary, Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v) ascribes perfection to bishops as being perfecters, and (Eccl. Hier. vi) to religious (whom he calls monks or \therapeutai\, i.e. servants of God) as being perfected.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5) — I answer that, As stated above ( A(4) ), there is required for the state of perfection a perpetual obligation to things pertaining to perfection, together with a certain solemnity. Now both these conditions are competent to religious and bishops. For religious bind themselves by vow to refrain from worldly affairs, which they might lawfully use, in order more freely to give themselves to God, wherein consists the perfection of the present life. Hence Dionysius says (Eccl.

Hier. vi), speaking of religious: “Some call them \therapeutai\,” i.e. servants, “on account of their rendering pure service and homage to God; others call them \monachoi\” [*i.e. solitaries; whence the English word ‘monk’], “on account of the indivisible and single-minded life which by their being wrapped in,” i.e. contemplating, “indivisible things, unites them in a Godlike union and a perfection beloved of God” [*Cf. Q(180), A(6) ].

Moreover, the obligation in both cases is undertaken with a certain solemnity of profession and consecration; wherefore Dionysius adds (Eccl.

Hier. vi): “Hence the holy legislation in bestowing perfect grace on them accords them a hallowing invocation.”

In like manner bishops bind themselves to things pertaining to perfection when they take up the pastoral duty, to which it belongs that a shepherd “lay down his life for his sheep,” according to John 10:15. Wherefore the Apostle says ( 1 Timothy 6:12): “Thou... hast confessed a good confession before many witnesses,” that is to say, “when he was ordained,” as a gloss says on this passage.

Again, a certain solemnity of consecration is employed together with the aforesaid profession, according to 2 Timothy 1:6: “Stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands,” which the gloss ascribes to the grace of the episcopate. And Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that “when the high priest,” i.e. the bishop, “is ordained, he receives on his head the most holy imposition of the sacred oracles, whereby it is signified that he is a participator in the whole and entire hierarchical power, and that not only is he the enlightener in all things pertaining to his holy discourses and actions, but that he also confers this on others.”

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5)- RO(1) — Beginning and increase are sought not for their own sake, but for the sake of perfection; hence it is only to the state of perfection that some are admitted under certain obligations and with solemnity.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5)- RO(2) — Those who enter the state of perfection do not profess to be perfect, but to tend to perfection. Hence the Apostle says ( Philippians 3:12): “Not as though I had already attained, or were already perfect; but I follow after, if I may by any means apprehend”: and afterwards ( Philippians 3:15): “Let us therefore as many as are perfect, be thus minded.”

Hence a man who takes up the state of perfection is not guilty of lying or deceit through not being perfect, but through withdrawing his mind from the intention of reaching perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(5)- RO(3) — Martyrdom is the most perfect act of charity. But an act of perfection does not suffice to make the state of perfection, as stated above ( A(4) ).

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6) Whether all ecclesiastical prelates are in the state of perfection?

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6)- O(1) — It would seem that all ecclesiastical prelates are in a state of perfection. For Jerome commenting on Titus 1:5, “Ordain... in every city,” etc. says: “Formerly priest was the same as bishop,” and afterwards he adds: “Just as priests know that by the custom of the Church they are subject to the one who is placed over them, so too, bishops should recognize that, by custom rather than by the very ordinance of our Lord, they are above the priests, and are together the rightful governors of the Church.” Now bishops are in the state of perfection. Therefore those priests also are who have the cure of souls.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6)- O(2) — Further, just as bishops together with their consecration receive the cure of souls, so also do parish priests and archdeacons, of whom a gloss on Acts 6:3, “Brethren, look ye out... seven men of good reputation,” says: “The apostles decided here to appoint throughout the Church seven deacons, who were to be of a higher degree, and as it were the supports of that which is nearest to the altar.”

Therefore it would seem that these also are in the state of perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6)- O(3) — Further, just as bishops are bound to “lay down their life for their sheep,” so too are parish priests and archdeacons.

But this belongs to the perfection of charity, as stated above ( A(2), ad 3).

Therefore it would seem that parish priests and archdeacons also are in the state of perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6) — On the contrary, Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v): “The order of pontiffs is consummative and perfecting, that of the priests is illuminative and light-giving, that of the ministers is cleansing and discretive.” Hence it is evident that perfection is ascribed to bishops only.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6) — I answer that, In priests and deacons having cure of souls two things may be considered, namely their order and their cure.

Their order is directed to some act in the Divine offices. Wherefore it has been stated above ( Q(183), A(3), ad 3) that the distinction of orders is comprised under the distinction of offices. Hence by receiving a certain order a man receives the power of exercising certain sacred acts, but he is not bound on this account to things pertaining to perfection, except in so far as in the Western Church the receiving of a sacred order includes the taking of a vow of continence, which is one of the things pertaining to perfection, as we shall state further on ( Q(186), A(4) ). Therefore it is clear that from the fact that a man receives a sacred order a man is not placed simply in the state of perfection, although inward perfection is required in order that one exercise such acts worthily.

In like manner, neither are they placed in the state of perfection on the part of the cure which they take upon themselves. For they are not bound by this very fact under the obligation of a perpetual vow to retain the cure of souls; but they can surrender it — either by entering religion, even without their bishop’s permission (cf. Decret. xix, qu. 2, can. Duae sunt) — or again an archdeacon may with his bishop’s permission resign his archdeaconry or parish, and accept a simple prebend without cure, which would be nowise lawful, if he were in the state of perfection; for “no man putting his hand to the plough and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God” ( Luke 9:62). On the other hand bishops, since they are in the state of perfection, cannot abandon the episcopal cure, save by the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff (to whom alone it belongs also to dispense from perpetual vows), and this for certain causes, as we shall state further on ( Q(185), A(4) ). Wherefore it is manifest that not all prelates are in the state of perfection, but only bishops.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6)- RO(1) — We may speak of priest and bishop in two ways. First, with regard to the name: and thus formerly bishops and priests were not distinct. For bishops are so called “because they watch over others,” as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei xix, 19); while the priests according to the Greek are “elders.” [*Referring to the Greek \episkopos\ and \presbyteros\ from which the English ‘bishop’ and ‘priest’ are derived.] Hence the Apostle employs the term “priests” in reference to both, when he says ( 1 Timothy 5:17): “Let the priests that rule well be esteemed worthy of double honor”; and again he uses the term “bishops” in the same way, wherefore addressing the priests of the Church of Ephesus he says ( Acts 20:28): “Take heed to yourselves” and “to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God.”

But as regards the thing signified by these terms, there was always a difference between them, even at the time of the apostles. This is clear on the authority of Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v), and of a gloss on Luke 10:1, “After these things the Lord appointed,” etc. which says: “Just as the apostles were made bishops, so the seventy-two disciples were made priests of the second order.” Subsequently, however, in order to avoid schism, it became necessary to distinguish even the terms, by calling the higher ones bishops and the lower ones priests. But to assert that priests nowise differ from bishops is reckoned by Augustine among heretical doctrines (De Heres. liii), where he says that the Arians maintained that “no distinction existed between a priest and a bishop.”

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6)- RO(2) — Bishops have the chief cure of the sheep of their diocese, while parish priests and archdeacons exercise an inferior ministry under the bishops. Hence a gloss on 1 Corinthians 12:28, “to one, helps, to another, governments [*Vulg.: ‘God hath set some in the church... helps, governments,’ etc.],” says: “Helps, namely assistants to those who are in authority,” as Titus was to the Apostle, or as archdeacons to the bishop; “governments, namely persons of lesser authority, such as priests who have to instruct the people”: and Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. v) that “just as we see the whole hierarchy culminating in Jesus, so each office culminates in its respective godlike hierarch or bishop.” Also it is said (XVI, qu. i, can. Cunctis): “Priests and deacons must all take care not to do anything without their bishop’s permission.”

Wherefore it is evident that they stand in relation to their bishop as wardens or mayors to the king; and for this reason, just as in earthly governments the king alone receives a solemn blessing, while others are appointed by simple commission, so too in the Church the episcopal cure is conferred with the solemnity of consecration, while the archdeacon or parish priest receives his cure by simple appointment; although they are consecrated by receiving orders before having a cure.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(6)- RO(3) — As parish priests and archdeacons have not the chief cure, but a certain ministry as committed to them by the bishop, so the pastoral office does not belong to them in chief, nor are they bound to lay down their life for the sheep, except in so far as they have a share in their cure. Hence we should say that they have an office pertaining to perfection rather than that they attain the state of perfection.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(7) Whether the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates?

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(7)- O(1) — It would seem that the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates. For our Lord said ( Matthew 19:21): “If thou wilt be perfect, go” and “sell” all [Vulg.: ‘what’] “thou hast, and give to the poor”; and religious do this. But bishops are not bound to do so; for it is said (XII, qu. i, can. Episcopi de rebus): “Bishops, if they wish, may bequeath to their heirs their personal or acquired property, and whatever belongs to them personally.” Therefore religious are in a more perfect state than bishops.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(7)- O(2) — Further, perfection consists more especially in the love of God than in the love of our neighbor. Now the religious state is directly ordered to the love of God, wherefore it takes its name from “service and homage to God,” as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi); [*Quoted above A(5) ] whereas the bishop’s state would seem to be ordered to the love of our neighbor, of whose cure he is the “warden,” and from this he takes his name, as Augustine observes (De Civ. Dei. xix, 19). Therefore it would seem that the religious state is more perfect than that of bishops.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(7)- O(3) — Further, the religious state is directed to the contemplative life, which is more excellent than the active life to which the episcopal state is directed. For Gregory says (Pastor. i, 7) that “Isaias wishing to be of profit to his neighbor by means of the active life desired the office of preaching, whereas Jeremias, who was fain to hold fast to the love of his Creator, exclaimed against being sent to preach.” Therefore it would seem that the religious state is more perfect than the episcopal state.

P(2b)- Q(184)- A(7) — On the contrary, It is not lawful for anyone to pass from a more excellent to a less excellent state; for this would be to look back [*Cf.