No More Learning

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 (1 Tim. 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. "

Reply to Objection 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 Mat. 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 Lk. 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. "

Reply to Objection 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 [3757](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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether whoever is perfect is in the state of perfection?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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" (Prov. 10:12). Now one is said to
be perfect on account of charity, as stated above [3758](A[1]).
Therefore, seemingly, whoever has perfection, for this very reason has
the state of perfection.

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.

I answer that, As stated above ([3759]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. [3760] 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 Gal. 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 (Mat. 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether religious and prelates are in the state of perfection?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 3: Further, as stated above [3761](A[1]), perfection is
measured according to charity. Now the most perfect charity would seem
to be in the martyrs, according to Jn. 15:13, "Greater love than this
no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends": and a gloss
on Heb. 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.

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.

I answer that, As stated above [3762](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 Jn.
10:15. Wherefore the Apostle says (1 Tim. 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 Tim. 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. "

Reply to Objection 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.

Reply to Objection 2: Those who enter the state of perfection do not
profess to be perfect, but to tend to perfection. Hence the Apostle
says (Phil. 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 (Phil. 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.

Reply to Objection 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 [3763](A[4]).
__________________________________________________________________

Whether all ecclesiastical prelates are in the state of perfection?

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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.

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 ([3764]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
([3765]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 arch-deaconry 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" (Lk. 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
([3766]Q[185], A[4]). Wherefore it is manifest that not all prelates
are in the state of perfection, but only bishops.

Reply to Objection 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 Tim. 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
Lk. 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. "

Reply to Objection 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 Cor. 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.

Reply to Objection 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.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether the religious state is more perfect than that of prelates?

Objection 1: It would seem that the religious state is more perfect
than that of prelates. For our Lord said (Mat. 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.

Objection 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.

Objection 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.

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. Lk. 9:62]. Yet a man may pass from the religious to the episcopal
state, for it is said (XVIII, qu. i, can. Statutum) that "the holy
ordination makes a monk to be a bishop. " Therefore the episcopal state
is more perfect than the religious.

I answer that, As Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 16), "the agent is
ever more excellent than the patient. " Now in the genus of perfection
according to Dionysius (Eccl. Hier. v, vi), bishops are in the position
of "perfecters," whereas religious are in the position of being
"perfected"; the former of which pertains to action, and the latter to
passion. Whence it is evident that the state of perfection is more
excellent in bishops than in religious.

Reply to Objection 1: Renunciation of one's possessions may be
considered in two ways. First, as being actual: and thus it is not
essential, but a means, to perfection, as stated above [3767](A[3]).
Hence nothing hinders the state of perfection from being without
renunciation of one's possessions, and the same applies to other
outward practices. Secondly, it may be considered in relation to one's
preparedness, in the sense of being prepared to renounce or give away
all: and this belongs directly to perfection. Hence Augustine says (De
QQ. Evang. ii, qu. 11): "Our Lord shows that the children of wisdom
understand righteousness to consist neither in eating nor in
abstaining, but in bearing want patiently. " Wherefore the Apostle says
(Phil. 4:12): "I know . . . both to abound and to suffer need. " Now
bishops especially are bound to despise all things for the honor of God
and the spiritual welfare of their flock, when it is necessary for them
to do so, either by giving to the poor of their flock, or by suffering
"with joy the being stripped of" their "own goods" [*Heb. 10:34].

Reply to Objection 2: That bishops are busy about things pertaining to
the love of their neighbor, arises out of the abundance of their love
of God. Hence our Lord asked Peter first of all whether he loved Him,
and afterwards committed the care of His flock to him. And Gregory says
(Pastor. i, 5): "If the pastoral care is a proof of love, he who
refuses to feed God's flock, though having the means to do so, is
convicted of not loving the supreme Pastor. " And it is a sign of
greater love if a man devotes himself to others for his friend's sake,
than if he be willing only to serve his friend.

Reply to Objection 3: As Gregory says (Pastor. ii, 1), "a prelate
should be foremost in action, and more uplifted than others in
contemplation," because it is incumbent on him to contemplate, not only
for his own sake, but also for the purpose of instructing others. Hence
Gregory applies (Hom. v in Ezech. ) the words of Ps. 144:7, "They shall
publish the memory . . . of Thy sweetness," to perfect men returning
after their contemplation.
__________________________________________________________________

Whether parish priests and archdeacons are more perfect than religious?

Objection 1: It would seem that also parish priests and archdeacons are
more perfect than religious. For Chrysostom says in his Dialogue (De
Sacerdot. vi): "Take for example a monk, such as Elias, if I may
exaggerate somewhat, he is not to be compared with one who, cast among
the people and compelled to carry the sins of many, remains firm and
strong. " A little further on he says: "If I were given the choice,
where would I prefer to please, in the priestly office, or in the
monastic solitude, without hesitation I should choose the former. "
Again in the same book (ch. 5) he says: "If you compare the toils of
this project, namely of the monastic life, with a well-employed
priesthood, you will find them as far distant from one another as a
common citizen is from a king. " Therefore it would seem that priests
who have the cure of souls are more perfect than religious.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (ad Valerium, Ep. xxi): "Let thy
religious prudence observe that in this life, and especially at these
times, there is nothing so difficult, so onerous, so perilous as the
office of bishop, priest, or deacon; while in God's sight there is no
greater blessing, if one engage in the fight as ordered by our
Commander-in-chief. " Therefore religious are not more perfect than
priests or deacons.

Objection 3: Further, Augustine says (Ep. lx, ad Aurel. ): "It would be
most regrettable, were we to exalt monks to such a disastrous degree of
pride, and deem the clergy deserving of such a grievous insult," as to
assert that 'a bad monk is a good clerk,' "since sometimes even a good
monk makes a bad clerk. " And a little before this he says that "God's
servants," i. e. monks, "must not be allowed to think that they may
easily be chosen for something better," namely the clerical state, "if
they should become worse thereby," namely by leaving the monastic
state. Therefore it would seem that those who are in the clerical state
are more perfect than religious.

Objection 4: Further, it is not lawful to pass from a more perfect to a
less perfect state. Yet it is lawful to pass from the monastic state to
a priestly office with a cure attached, as appears (XVI, qu. i, can. Si
quis monachus) from a decree of Pope Gelasius, who says: "If there be a
monk, who by the merit of his exemplary life is worthy of the
priesthood, and the abbot under whose authority he fights for Christ
his King, ask that he be made a priest, the bishop shall take him and
ordain him in such place as he shall choose fitting. " And Jerome says
(Ad Rustic. Monach. , Ep. cxxv): "In the monastery so live as to deserve
to be a clerk. " Therefore parish priests and archdeacons are more
perfect than religious.

Objection 5: Further, bishops are in a more perfect state than
religious, as shown above [3768](A[7]). But parish priests and
archdeacons. through having cure of souls, are more like bishops than
religious are. Therefore they are more perfect.

Objection 6: Further, virtue "is concerned with the difficult and the
good" (Ethic. ii, 3). Now it is more difficult to lead a good life in
the office of parish priest or archdeacon than in the religious state.
Therefore parish priests and archdeacons have more perfect virtue than
religious.

On the contrary, It is stated (XIX, qu. ii, cap. Duce): "If a man while
governing the people in his church under the bishop and leading a
secular life is inspired by the Holy Ghost to desire to work out his
salvation in a monastery or under some canonical rule, since he is led
by a private law, there is no reason why he should be constrained by a
public law. " Now a man is not led by the law of the Holy Ghost, which
is here called a "private law," except to something more perfect.
Therefore it would seem that religious are more perfect than
archdeacons or parish priests.

I answer that, When we compare things in the point of super-eminence,
we look not at that in which they agree, but at that wherein they
differ. Now in parish priests and archdeacons three things may be
considered, their state, their order, and their office. It belongs to
their state that they are seculars, to their order that they are
priests or deacons, to their office that they have the cure of souls
committed to them.

Accordingly, if we compare these with one who is a religious by state,
a deacon or priest by order, having the cure of souls by office, as
many monks and canons regular have, this one will excel in the first
point, and in the other points he will be equal. But if the latter
differ from the former in state and office, but agree in order, such as
religious priests and deacons not having the cure of souls, it is
evident that the latter will be more excellent than the former in
state, less excellent in office, and equal in order.

We must therefore consider which is the greater, preeminence of state
or of office; and here, seemingly, we should take note of two things,
goodness and difficulty. Accordingly, if we make the comparison with a
view to goodness, the religious state surpasses the office of parish
priest or archdeacon, because a religious pledges his whole life to the
quest of perfection, whereas the parish priest or archdeacon does not
pledge his whole life to the cure of souls, as a bishop does, nor is it
competent to him, as it is to a bishop, to exercise the cure of souls
in chief, but only in certain particulars regarding the cure of souls
committed to his charge, as stated above (A[6], ad 2). Wherefore the
comparison of their religious state with their office is like the
comparisons of the universal with the particular, and of a holocaust
with a sacrifice which is less than a holocaust according to Gregory
(Hom. xx in Ezech. ). Hence it is said (XIX, qu. i, can. Clerici qui
monachorum. ): "Clerics who wish to take the monastic vows through being
desirous of a better life must be allowed by their bishops the free
entrance into the monastery. "

This comparison, however, must be considered as regarding the genus of
the deed; for as regards the charity of the doer it happens sometimes
that a deed which is of less account in its genus is of greater merit
if it be done out of greater charity.

On the other hand, if we consider the difficulty of leading a good life
in religion, and in the office of one having the cure of souls, in this
way it is more difficult to lead a good life together with the exercise
of the cure of souls, on account of outward dangers: although the
religious life is more difficult as regards the genus of the deed, by
reason of the strictness of religious observance. If, however, the
religious is also without orders, as in the case of religious lay
brethren, then it is evident that the pre-eminence of order excels in
the point of dignity, since by holy orders a man is appointed to the
most august ministry of serving Christ Himself in the sacrament of the
altar. For this requires a greater inward holiness than that which is
requisite for the religious state, since as Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier.
vi) the monastic order must follow the priestly orders, and ascend to
Divine things in imitation of them. Hence, other things being equal, a
cleric who is in holy orders, sins more grievously if he do something
contrary to holiness than a religious who is not in holy orders:
although a religious who is not in orders is bound to regular
observance to which persons in holy orders are not bound.

Reply to Objection 1: We might answer briefly these quotations from
Chrysostom by saying that he speaks not of a priest of lesser order who
has the cure of souls, but of a bishop, who is called a high-priest;
and this agrees with the purpose of that book wherein he consoles
himself and Basil in that they were chosen to be bishops. We may,
however, pass this over and reply that he speaks in view of the
difficulty. For he had already said: "When the pilot is surrounded by
the stormy sea and is able to bring the ship safely out of the tempest,
then he deserves to be acknowledged by all as a perfect pilot"; and
afterwards he concludes, as quoted, with regard to the monk, "who is
not to be compared with one who, cast among the people . . . remains
firm"; and he gives the reason why, because "both in the calm end in
the storm he piloted himself to safety. " This proves nothing more than
that the state of one who has the cure of souls is fraught with more
danger than the monastic state; and to keep oneself innocent in face of
a greater peril is proof of greater virtue. on the other hand, it also
indicates greatness of virtue if a man avoid dangers by entering
religion; hence he does not say that "he would prefer the priestly
office to the monastic solitude," but that "he would rather please" in
the former than in the latter, since this is a proof of greater virtue.

Reply to Objection 2: This passage quoted from Augustine also clearly
refers to the question of difficulty which proves the greatness of
virtue in those who lead a good life, as stated above (ad 1).

Reply to Objection 3: Augustine there compares monks with clerics as
regards the pre-eminence of order, not as regards the distinction
between religious and secular life.

Reply to Objection 4: Those who are taken from the religious state to
receive the cure of souls, being already in sacred orders, attain to
something they had not hitherto, namely the office of the cure, yet
they do not put aside what they had already. For it is said in the
Decretals (XVI, qu. i, can. De Monachis): "With regard to those monks
who after long residence in a monastery attain to the order of clerics,
we bid them not to lay aside their former purpose. "

On the other hand, parish priests and archdeacons, when they enter
religion, resign their cure, in order to enter the state of perfection.
This very fact shows the excellence of the religious life. When
religious who are not in orders are admitted to the clerical state and
to the sacred orders, they are clearly promoted to something better, as
stated: this is indicated by the very way in which Jerome expresses
himself: "So live in the monastery as to deserve to be a clerk. "

Reply to Objection 5: Parish priests and archdeacons are more like
bishops than religious are, in a certain respect, namely as regards the
cure of souls which they have subordinately; but as regards the
obligation in perpetuity, religious are more like a bishop, as appears
from what we have said above ([3769]AA[5],6).

Reply to Objection 6: The difficulty that arises from the arduousness
of the deed adds to the perfection of virtue; but the difficulty that
results from outward obstacles sometimes lessens the perfection of
virtue---for instance, when a man loves not virtue so much as to wish
to avoid the obstacles to virtue, according to the saying of the
Apostle (1 Cor. 9:25), "Everyone that striveth for the mastery
refraineth himself from all things": and sometimes it is a sign of
perfect virtue---for instance, when a man forsakes not virtue, although
he is hindered in the practice of virtue unawares or by some
unavoidable cause. In the religious state there is greater difficulty
arising from the arduousness of deeds; whereas for those who in any way
at all live in the world, there is greater difficulty resulting from
obstacles to virtue, which obstacles the religious has had the
foresight to avoid.
__________________________________________________________________

OF THINGS PERTAINING TO THE EPISCOPAL STATE (EIGHT ARTICLES)

We must now consider things pertaining to the episcopal state. Under
this head there are eight points of inquiry:

(1) Whether it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop?

(2) Whether it is lawful to refuse the office of bishop definitively?

(3) Whether the better man should be chosen for the episcopal office?

(4) Whether a bishop may pass over to the religious state?

(5) Whether he may lawfully abandon his subjects in a bodily manner?

(6) Whether he can have anything of his own?

(7) Whether he sins mortally by not distributing ecclesiastical goods
to the poor?

(8) Whether religious who are appointed to the episcopal office are
bound to religious observances?
__________________________________________________________________

Whether it is lawful to desire the office of a bishop?

Objection 1: It would seem that it is lawful to desire the office of a
bishop. For the Apostle says (1 Tim. 3:1): "He that desires [Vulg. : 'If
a man desire'] the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. " Now it
is lawful and praiseworthy to desire a good work. Therefore it is even
praiseworthy to desire the office of a bishop.

Objection 2: Further, the episcopal state is more perfect than the
religious, as we have said above ([3770]Q[184], A[7]). But it is
praiseworthy to desire to enter the religious state. Therefore it is
also praiseworthy to desire promotion to the episcopal state.

Objection 3: Further, it is written (Prov. 11:26): "He that hideth up
corn shall be cursed among the people; but a blessing upon the head of
them that sell. " Now a man who is apt, both in manner of life and by
knowledge, for the episcopal office, would seem to hide up the
spiritual corn, if he shun the episcopal state, whereas by accepting
the episcopal office he enters the state of a dispenser of spiritual
corn. Therefore it would seem praiseworthy to desire the office of a
bishop, and blameworthy to refuse it.

Objection 4: Further, the deeds of the saints related in Holy Writ are
set before us as an example, according to Rom. 15:4, "What things
soever were written, were written for our learning. " Now we read (Is.
6:8) that Isaias offered himself for the office of preacher, which
belongs chiefly to bishops. Therefore it would seem praiseworthy to
desire the office of a bishop.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Civ. Dei xix, 19): "The higher
place, without which the people cannot be ruled, though it be filled
becomingly, is unbecomingly desired. "

I answer that, Three things may be considered in the episcopal office.
One is principal and final, namely the bishop's work, whereby the good
of our neighbor is intended, according to Jn. 21:17, "Feed My sheep. "
Another thing is the height of degree, for a bishop is placed above
others, according to Mat. 24:45, "A faithful and a wise servant, whom
his lord hath appointed over his family. " The third is something
resulting from these, namely reverence, honor, and a sufficiency of
temporalities, according to 1 Tim. 5:17, "Let the priests that rule
well be esteemed worthy of double honor. " Accordingly, to desire the
episcopal office on account of these incidental goods is manifestly
unlawful, and pertains to covetousness or ambition. Wherefore our Lord
said against the Pharisees (Mat. 23:6,7): "They love the first places
at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues, and salutations in
the market-place, and to be called by men, Rabbi. " As regards the
second, namely the height of degree, it is presumptuous to desire the
episcopal office. Hence our Lord reproved His disciples for seeking
precedence, by saying to them (Mat. 20:25): "You know that the princes
of the gentiles lord it over them. " Here Chrysostom says (Hom. lxv in
Matth. ) that in these words "He points out that it is heathenish to
seek precedence; and thus by comparing them to the gentiles He
converted their impetuous soul. "

On the other hand, to desire to do good to one's neighbor is in itself
praiseworthy, and virtuous. Nevertheless, since considered as an
episcopal act it has the height of degree attached to it, it would seem
that, unless there be manifest and urgent reason for it, it would be
presumptuous for any man to desire to be set over others in order to do
them good. Thus Gregory says (Pastor. i, 8) that "it was praiseworthy
to seek the office of a bishop when it was certain to bring one into
graver dangers. " Wherefore it was not easy to find a person to accept
this burden, especially seeing that it is through the zeal of charity
that one divinely instigated to do so, according to Gregory, who says
(Pastor. i, 7) that "Isaias being desirous of profiting his neighbor,
commendably desired the office of preacher. "

Nevertheless, anyone may, without presumption, desire to do such like
works if he should happen to be in that office, or to be worthy of
doing them; so that the object of his desire is the good work and not
the precedence in dignity.