The Evangelical Counsels

123. Notion. Counsels are good actions commanded by no law, yet better than their opposites, as virginity, which is better than marriage, fasting, which is better than temperance.

a. Besides actions commanded or prohibited by law, there are many others neither commanded nor prohibited but licit, among which are contained those which are commended to us as counsels. For God manifests His will to us in a twofold way, either by commanding or by persuading and commending. Commanded actions are necessary for obtaining the end; counsels are not necessary, but free and left to the choice of each one.

b. Not all actions commanded by no law pertain to counsels: for it belongs to the notion of counsel that it be an action better than its opposite. Therefore marriage, although it is not commanded, is not a matter of counsel, because it is not better than virginity.

c. Counsels differ from laws in several ways: a. laws oblige all; counsels oblige only those who have bound themselves to their observance; b. laws oblige by their own force from the divine will, counsels only dependently upon the human will; c. laws are means necessary for obtaining eternal life, counsels are free means which nevertheless conduce more securely and perfectly to eternal life. Because counsels are not necessary but free, their works are called works of supererogation (Werke der Ubergebuhr).

From these declarations are understood the qualities which belong to counsel, namely that it be: a. a free work not commanded; b. a better good; c. a work of supererogation.

¹ St. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, l. 2. St. Thomas, I-II, q. 108, a. 4; II-II, q. 184, a. 3; q. 186, a. 7. Suarez, De religione, tract. 7, l. 1, c. 6-9. Bellarmine, De monachis, c. 7-13. Ballerini-Palmieri IV, n. 4-8. Gopfert, Moraltheologie, 6th ed. (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1908), I, n. 36-41. Simar, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, 3rd ed. (Freiburg: Herder, 1893), p. 45 ff. Schwane, De operibus supererogatoriis et consiliis evangelicis (Munster: Theissing, 1868). A. Weiss, Apologie des Christentums, 3rd ed. (Freiburg: Herder), vol. 5, p. 203 ff.

124. Their existence. 1. Although from most ancient times several erred against Catholic doctrine concerning counsels, nevertheless Protestants and Rationalists deny and attack the counsels themselves on principle.

The heretics of ancient times (Apostolics, Encratites, Manichaeans, Pelagians, Helvidius, Jovinian, Vigilantius, etc.) erred in that they said determinate supererogatory actions were commanded or prohibited. Thus some said poverty was commanded (on the contrary, national economists of our time altogether condemn poverty spontaneously chosen for the sake of God); others affirmed that the use of meat and wine was illicit. But they did not deny the existence itself of counsels. Protestants and Rationalists, however, attack the counsels themselves: the former indeed from the doctrine of the enslaved will and of good works as superfluous, the latter from the moral principle of Kantian philosophy, by force of which man must strive toward the highest moral perfection by all apt means.

2. That besides precepts there are also counsels is gathered:

a. From the conversation of Christ with the young man asking about perfection: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments ... If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow Me."¹

By these words Christ the Lord superadds something to the precepts, whose observance is said to be necessary for salvation; something which is better and more perfect and not necessary, but to be chosen at will, and He commends it for obtaining greater happiness. Therefore He speaks of a counsel.

b. From St. Paul: "But concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy from the Lord, that I may be faithful ... Therefore he who joins his virgin in marriage does well; and he who does not join her does better."²

By these words the Apostle says that virginity is not commanded, and from divine inspiration he commends it not only as good, but as better than marriage. Therefore by these things he commends a counsel.

c. From the very nature of moral actions it is clear that there are very many good actions which are not commanded and at the same time are better than their opposites; but in species counsels can be referred to three heads:

a. To the motive from which precepts are observed: for that precepts be observed not from a motive of natural honesty, but from a supernatural motive, and especially from the motive of charity of God, pertains to counsels.

b. To abstinence from indifferent actions: for indifferent actions, especially those which are referred to delights, although under certain conditions they are not evil, nevertheless impede the tendency toward the ultimate end and bring it into danger; therefore to abstain from them, insofar as they are not necessary, is a matter of counsel.

c. To the exercise of virtues: for very many good actions and actions better than their opposites are either in no way commanded or at least not commanded at all times, as virginity, frequent reception of the sacraments, hearing Mass on weekdays, frequent prayer, etc.

¹ Matt. 19:17 ff.

² 1 Cor. 7:25-40.

125. Evangelical counsels. Among counsels the evangelical counsels stand out, namely poverty, chastity, and obedience rendered to man, which are called evangelical because they are promulgated by Christ the Lord in the Gospel and by word and example are commended in a special way as means of Christian perfection, so that at the same time there is promulgated the counsel of instituting a peculiar state of life in which obligation to the observance of these counsels exists.

a. The individual counsels are contained in Sacred Scripture:

a. The counsel of poverty: "If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell what thou hast, and give to the poor."¹

b. The counsel of chastity: "Not all receive this word, but those to whom it has been given ... There are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven. He who can receive it, let him receive it."² By these words Christ the Lord signifies that virginity is a good more excellent than marriage, a good which He does not command, but commends to those who from the gift of grace can receive its worth.

c. The counsel of obedience: "If anyone wills to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow Me."³ By these words there is contained not only commanded abnegation, but also abnegation not commanded, and especially that which consists in voluntary obedience rendered to man, since in the full sense it is denial of self, namely of one's own intellect and one's own will.

b. The Old Testament already commended certain counsels: a. sacrifices freely offered; thus peace-offerings were not commanded, but were offered freely; b. vows, which are commended in the law, but are not prescribed.⁴ The chief of vows is the Nazirite vow, by which a man consecrated himself to God in a special way either for a time or forever.

¹ Matt. 19:21.

² Matt. 19:11-12.

³ Luke 9:23.

⁴ Deut. 23:21 ff.

126. Objections. 1. Heretics who attack counsels contend that all good actions which we can exercise are commanded. To demonstrate this they appeal to various testimonies of Sacred Scripture:

a. "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect";¹ by these words, they say, every perfection, even the most excellent, by which we can become like God, is commanded. But in truth, by these words not every perfection is commanded to us, but that which consists in the love of enemies (v. 44). By the exercise of this we will be like the heavenly Father, who makes His sun rise upon the good and the evil.

b. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God from thy whole heart ... and in thy whole mind";² by these words, since perfect charity is commanded to us, whatever perfection we can attain is commanded to us. But in truth, by these words charity appreciatively perfect is commanded, which consists in this: that we avoid every sin, grave sin indeed under eternal punishment, but light sin under temporal punishment.

2. Modern cultivators of political economy attack the evangelical counsels, especially poverty and virginity, as contrary to the common good of society. But in truth, their difficulty arises from this: that, not thinking rightly concerning social good, they falsely place it solely in an accumulation of riches and in a great number of men.

¹ Matt. 5:48.

² Matt. 22:37.

(St. Thomas, I-II, q. 108, a. 4.)

I. Notion. Counsel is here understood as an ordering by which something, according to itself, is advised before another, but is not commanded. The object is that which, according to itself, is better than another; of this sort is, for example, virginity.

II. Existence of counsels is clear first from Sacred Scripture: "Now concerning virgins," says St. Paul, "I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, that I may be faithful.... Therefore both he who joins his virgin in marriage does well, and he who does not join her does better."¹ Then it is clear to reason that there are acts which, according to themselves, are more perfect than others, and therefore, according to themselves, are advised before others, but are not commanded. Thus, for example, according to itself it is more perfect to give a richer alms than a less rich one.

¹ 1 Cor. 7:25-40; cf. Matt. 19:17 sq.

III. Obligation of following counsel. 1. There is not, as is clear, an obligation of doing what according to itself is more perfect, but here and now is less perfect. Thus, for example, often here and now it is better to study, although prayer according to itself is more perfect.

2. Another question is whether there is an obligation of preferring what here and now is more perfect (understand: what is held by the one about to act here and now as more perfect) to an action or omission which here and now is less perfect. This question today is sharply disputed. Now some¹ affirm the obligation of doing what here and now is held by the agent as more perfect. Others² deny it, and it seems one must agree with them. For first, the more perfect does not oblige from the object, since it is not prescribed; nor from the fact that its omission could not be made for an honorable end, for it can be omitted on account of the honorable end of a less good work. Then, if the obligation of doing what is more perfect were admitted, by the same reason there would have to be admitted an obligation of doing it in a more perfect manner, and therefore from actual charity. But no one will have affirmed an obligation of this sort.

Objection 1. Since man is wholly ordered to the end, the order of reason requires that he attain the end as much as he can attain it. But one who prefers the less perfect to the more perfect does not satisfy this obligation.

Response. From the fact that man is wholly ordered to the end, it does not follow that he must attain the end as much as he can attain it. For if this were admitted, man would not only have to choose always what is more perfect, but also to perform it in the more perfect manner, that is, from actual charity. But at least the latter, as we noted above, no one will have admitted. It suffices that man always and in all things behave rightly toward the end; it is not required that always and in all things he behave toward the end in the more perfect manner.

Objection 2. No honorable end can be assigned on account of which the less perfect is preferred to the more perfect. An end of this sort does not consist in the fact that the more perfect is omitted precisely and only because it is pleasing to omit it, since such a volition would be idle, lacking pious utility or just necessity (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 54, a. 3). Nor does it consist in the end on account of which the less perfect is placed; for that end indeed suffices for placing the less perfect considered separately, but not for placing it when the more perfect occurs. In a word: no honorable reason is given for choosing the less perfect before the more perfect.

Response. Someone cannot honorably prefer the lesser good to the greater good by judgment; but he can honorably prefer it in desiring and choosing, because on the one hand the more perfect does not oblige by reason of itself or from the object, and on the other hand the less perfect, by reason of its own moral goodness, can be desired and chosen (cf. St. Thomas, De veritate, q. 23, a. 8, ad 9).

Objection 3. In Matthew it is declared: "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole soul, and with your whole mind";³ these words are difficult to explain in the opinion of the adversaries.

Response. These words are sufficiently explained concerning charity above all things, which is to be shown to God, the Supreme Good.

St. Thomas does not treat the question in a special article, but many texts are found which state our proposition clearly enough; wherefore it is pleasing to cite some of them. First he has these words: "The observance of each of them in some special case pertains to counsel in a qualified sense, namely, in that case; for instance, when a man gives some alms when he is not held to give, he follows the counsel of poverty as regards that deed; likewise when someone does not follow his own will in some deed which he could licitly do, he follows the counsel of obedience in that case" (I-II, q. 108, a. 4). From these things it is clear that St. Thomas supposes that also in particular, or in the concrete, there truly are better works to which a man is not held and which he can licitly omit. Then in the disputed question De veritate, q. 23, a. 8, ad 9, refuting the objection in which the choice of the lesser good is asserted to be perverse, he responds thus: if "someone by judgment prefers that which is less good to the greater good, there will be perversity of choice; but not if he prefers it in desiring; for man is not held to pursue better things always in acting." Finally, in II, dist. 39, q. 3, a. 3, ad 6, where he speaks of the obligation of conscience, which is the practical dictate of reason showing what must be done here and now, he says: "When conscience dictates to someone that it is good to do some work of counsel: if he does not do it, he does not sin, because he does not apprehend it as a due good and subject to precept."

St. Alphonsus does not explicitly treat the question, but he concedes that those who confess only some imperfections, about which it is doubted whether they reach venial sins, are absolved conditionally. Therefore he seems to deny that imperfections are necessarily venial sins.

Besides, note:

a) By the consent of all, one who neglects what here and now is more perfect can sin by reason of an inordinate motive, scandal, or contempt; furthermore he can expose himself to the danger that divine aids be diminished.

b) In practice it is often difficult to determine what here and now is more perfect, all the more because the reason that someone not be overwhelmed by excessive efforts, nor tortured by scruples, easily brings it about that what in itself is less perfect becomes here and now more perfect, or equally perfect.

c) "As regards the direction of souls, one must insist more closely on a pure and holy intention than on a longer examination of betterness. He who seeks God with a sincere will is led not so much by fear of sin as by the joy of love, and, arranging ascents in his heart, will freely fulfill all things which he perceives to be useful for greater holiness. In this sense is to be understood that very well-known saying of St. Augustine:⁴ 'Love, and do what you will.... Let the root of love be within; from that root nothing can exist except good.'"⁵

¹ Thus, for example, De Lugo, De poenit., disp. III, sect. 1, nn. 9-10; Garrigou-Lagrange, Perfection chrétienne et contemplation, t. III, p. 532.

² Thus, for example, Cajetan on II-II, q. 186, a. 2, ad 2; Prummer, Man. Theol. Mor., bk. I, n. 131, and bk. II, n. 324; Kruysbergs, in Collectanea Mechliniensia, 1929, p. 425.

³ Matt. 22:37.

⁴ VII In Ep. Jo., 8.

⁵ Cruysberghs, in Collectanea Mechliniensia, 1929, p. 429.

1. THESIS. —Besides those precepts which must be observed by all under pain of sin, there are others which are intended rather as counsels for those who wish to do more than the minimum and to attain Christian perfection, so far as this is attainable on earth. These Counsels (consilia evangelica) are: voluntary poverty (paupertas voluntaria), perpetual chastity (continentia, castitas sive virginitas perpetua), and voluntary obedience to a spiritual superior (obedientia voluntaria).¹

¹ Cfr. Matth. XIX, 12, 21; XVI, 24; Luke IX, 23.

All men without exception are bound to strive after perfection, but not in the same way or by the same means.² The so-called Evangelical Counsels do not in themselves constitute perfection. They are merely surer and more effective means of attaining perfection (instrumenta perfectionis). Their superior efficacy arises from the fact that they aid powerfully in removing the obstacles which obstruct the way to Heaven.³

² Cfr. Matth. V, 48; XIX, 12. — St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 184, art. 3: "In itself, Christian perfection consists essentially in charity, principally according to the love of God and secondarily according to the love of one's neighbor, concerning which the principal precepts of the divine law are given. ... Secondarily and instrumentally, however, perfection consists in the counsels, all of which, like the precepts, are ordered to charity, but in different ways. For precepts other than the precepts of charity are ordered to removing those things which are contrary to charity and with which charity cannot exist; but the counsels are ordered to removing impediments to the act of charity which nevertheless are not contrary to charity, such as marriage, occupation with secular business, and other things of this kind."

³ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 186, art. 7: "For the exercise of perfection it is required that a person remove from himself those things through which he could be hindered from directing his affection wholly toward God, in which the perfection of charity consists. There are three things of this kind: first, the desire for external goods, which is removed by the vow of poverty; second, the concupiscence of sensible pleasures, among which venereal pleasures are preeminent, which are excluded by the vow of continence; third, the disorder of the human will, which is excluded by the vow of obedience." — Ibid., qu. 189, art. 1, ad 5: "Certain precepts are principal, being as it were the ends of the precepts and counsels, namely the precepts of charity, to which the counsels are ordered—not in such a way that the precepts cannot be observed without the counsels, but so that through the counsels they may be observed more perfectly."

While all men have the same ultimate aim, their minor ideals differ according to the various offices and tasks assigned to each. The highest of these are represented by the Evangelical Counsels. How does a counsel differ from a commandment? A commandment is a matter of necessity, whereas a counsel is left to the free choice of the person to whom it is proposed, unless, indeed, it forms part of his vocational duties.⁴

⁴ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 108, art. 4: "This is the difference between a counsel and a precept: a precept imports necessity, while a counsel is placed within the choice of the person to whom it is given. Therefore counsels were fittingly added beyond the precepts in the new law, which is the law of liberty, but not in the old law, which was the law of servitude. Accordingly, the precepts of the new law must be understood to have been given concerning those things necessary for attaining the end of eternal beatitude, into which the new law immediately introduces us; but the counsels must concern those things through which man can attain the aforesaid end better and more expeditiously.”—Ibid., 2a 2ae, qu. 43, art. 7, ad 4: "Sometimes, however, the observance of the counsels is necessary for salvation, as is evident in those who have already vowed the counsels."

The Catholic doctrine of the Evangelical Counsels did not reach its full development until after the Protestant Reformation; but its main ideas are rooted in the very substance of Christian morality and clearly expressed in both Scripture and Tradition.

II. DEFINITION AND RATIONALE. —The distinction between the precepts of the Gospel and the so-called Evangelical Counsels, or counsels of perfection, is as old as the Church. It has always been Catholic teaching, (1) that there are works of supererogation, i. e. good works not enjoined as a strict duty; (2) that these works are not merely good in opposition to bad, but better in opposition to good (opera meliora), and (3) that whereas a precept binds of necessity, a counsel is a matter of free choice. 1. Justification, as effected by Baptism or Penance, is a state of grace meriting eternal life. But grace is merely in an incipient stage; it can and should be increased by good works. In performing such, man may either content himself with what is of strict duty, or he may go beyond the province of duty and perform works of charity. His reward will be in exact proportion to his merits. a) The distinction between precepts and counsels is distinctly Scriptural. When the young man asked what he should do to gain eternal life, Christ bade him "keep the commandments," and when he pressed the inquiry further, saying, "All these I have kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?" —Jesus told him: "If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow me."⁵ Here we have a clear distinction drawn between obedience to the commandments, and poverty as a state of higher perfection; between eternal life as the reward of ordinary good conduct, and a treasure in heaven laid up for those who sacrifice everything to serve God. This distinction is brought out even more clearly by the remark of the attending disciples, "Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee, what therefore shall we have?" and the Master's promise of a special reward: "In the regeneration [i.e. at the last judgment], when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Jesus added: "And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting." ⁶

⁵ Matth. XIX, 16 sqq.

⁶ Matth. XIX, 16-30; Mark X, 17-31; Luke XVIII, 18-30.

St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, not only presses home the duty incumbent on all Christians of abstaining from sins of the flesh, but counsels perfect chastity on the ground that it is easier for the unmarried to serve God with an undivided heart.⁷ A little further on in the same Epistle he clearly distinguishes between preaching the Gospel as a duty incumbent on him by virtue of his office, and the supererogatory good works (preaching without charge) for which he expects a special reward.⁸ b) The common sense of mankind has always discriminated between the conscientious performance of duty and heroic virtue, and awarded special honors to the latter.

⁷ 1 Cor. VII, 7.

⁸ 1 Cor. IX, 1-18. —Cfr. St. Augustine, De Opere Monack., c. 5, n. 6; c. 6, n. 7.

"The difference between matters of duty and matters of counsel has a prominent place in the universal conception of morality. There are some actions which are required of all. There are others which are strictly speaking not demanded of anybody, but regarded as specially meritorious or heroic. If there existed only duties in the strict sense, i. e. positive and negative precepts, the notion of 'moral heroism' might as well be abolished, at least so far as it implies extraordinary self-sacrifice in the performance of duty and the idea of something exceptionally difficult assumed over and above mere duty. In saying this we do not admit Ziegler's charge that Catholics regard moral heroism as super-moral. To follow the Evangelical Counsels is to perform a good work of superior moral value, something demanded of no one, not even of him who might be in a position to perform it. Is there any reason for assuming that morality does not admit of degrees? True, there are certain vocations and occupations which oblige those engaged in them to perform duties in excess of the average; but even within these vocations we find there are heroic acts not strictly required of any one but left to the free choice of volunteers." ⁹ 2. All good works are means of attaining perfection; but some are more effective than others. These are called Evangelical Counsels in the narrower sense. They have a relatively higher value than ordinary good works, for three reasons: (1) because, being more difficult, they demand greater effort, (2) because they are directly opposed to the three principal agencies of sin, concupiscence of the eyes, concupiscence of the flesh, and pride of life,¹⁰ and (3) because they are of special importance for the Church and the entire social order.¹¹ In recommending the three Evangelical Counsels as "bonum melius" the Church does not mean to condemn marriage, the holding of property, and the rational use of liberty as mala. On the contrary, she expressly upholds these as bona against excessive Rigorism. Voluntary chastity no more depreciates marriage than gold depreciates silver.¹² Moreover, poverty and virginity are bona meliora only when chosen from truly moral, and especially religious, motives.¹³

⁹ Ph. Kneib, Die "Jenseitsmoral," pp. 96 sq.; cfr. Gen. XLI, 39-45; 1 Kings XVII, 25.

¹⁰ 1 John II, 16. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 186, art. 7.

¹¹ Cfr. Rom. XII, 4 sqq.; 1 Cor. VII, 7, 20. —St. Ambrose, De Virginitate, c. 6, n. 34; De Viduis, c. 14, n. 83. —On the diversitas statuum et officiorum in Ecclesia cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 183, art. 2.

¹² Cfr. St. Methodius of Olympus, The Banquet, or On Virginity (Συμπόσιον ἢ περὶ ἁγνείας), When virginity came, the discourse did not wholly abolish procreation. For because the moon is greater than the stars, the light of the other stars is not thereby abolished. (Migne, P. G., XVIII, 48). —St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, IV, c. 25: Again, when you successfully practice chastity, do not behave arrogantly toward those placed below it in marriage. For marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled, as the Apostle says (Hebr. XIII, 4). And you who possess chastity—were you not born of married persons? Because you possess gold, do not therefore reject silver; rather, let those who lawfully make use of marriage also be of good hope ... those who have entered marriage for the sake of begetting children and not for the sake of loving pleasure. (Migne, P. G., XXXIII, 488).— Ambrose, De Viduis, c. 12, n. 72: "Marriage is honorable, but continence is more honorable (1 Cor. VII, 38). Therefore what is good is not to be avoided; what is better is to be chosen. Thus it is not imposed, but preferred." (Migne, P. L., XVI, 256). —Cfr. IDEM, De Virginitate, c. 6, n. 33-34; "The bonds of marriage are good, therefore, but they are nevertheless bonds; marriage is good, but it takes its name from a yoke, and from the yoke of the world, so that a woman desires to please her husband rather than God. ... Therefore let neither the one who has chosen marriage reproach continence, nor the one who follows continence condemn marriage. For the Church long ago condemned the hostile interpreters of this opinion, namely those who dare to dissolve the marital bond." (P. L., XVI, 274). —St. Augustine, Contra Secundinum Manich., c. 21: "I confess that in the Catholic Church I learned that, just as the soul and also the body—of which the one is endowed and the other subjected—so the good of the soul and the goods of the body are from none but the highest good, from which are all goods, whether great or small, heavenly or earthly, spiritual or bodily, temporal or eternal; and that the latter are not therefore to be reproved because the former are to be preferred." (P. L., XLII, 597).—IDEM, De Civ. Dei, XVI, c. 36: "Let us suppose both [Abraham and Isaac] to be good; even so, certainly a married man who is most faithful and obedient to God is better than a continent man of lesser faith and lesser obedience. But if all other things are equal, who would hesitate to prefer the continent man to the married man?" (P. L., XLI, 515). —IDEM, De Bono Coniugali, c. 23, n. 28: "It must in no way be doubted that the chastity of continence is better than nuptial chastity, although each is good." —Ibid., n. 29: "Marriage and virginity are two goods, of which the one is greater." (P. L., XL, 392, 393). —IDEM, Contra Iulian. Pelag., IV, c. 7, n. 38: "The good work of marriage is the lawful union of the sexes for the sake of procreation, the fruit of which work is the orderly begetting of children." (P. L., XLIV, 758). —IDEM, De S. Virginitate, c. 18: "I admonish the male and female followers of perpetual continence and sacred virginity to prefer their good to marriage in such a way that they do not judge marriage to be evil. And let them know that what was said by the Apostle [1 Cor. VII, 28, 38, 40] was said not deceitfully but plainly and truthfully. ... This is the Lord's doctrine, this is apostolic, this is true, this is sound doctrine: so to choose the greater gifts that the lesser are not condemned. (P. L., XL, 404). —IDEM, Sermo 104 (al. de verb. Dom., 27), c. 3, n. 4: "Both [Martha and Mary] were pleasing to the Lord, both lovable, both disciples." —Ibid., c. 2, n. 3: "Therefore the Lord did not reprove the work, but distinguished the office. ... The labor of multiplicity passes away, and the charity of unity remains." (P. L., XXXVIII, 617). —St. Jerome, Epist., 48 (al. 50), n. 2: "We are not ignorant that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled. We read God's first sentence: 'Increase and multiply and fill the earth' (Gen. I, 28). But we accept marriage in such a way that we prefer virginity, which is born from marriage. Will silver cease to be silver if gold is more precious than silver?" —Ibid., n. 17: "If I say that it is better to be a virgin than married, I have preferred what is better to what is good. But if I take another step and say that it is better to marry than to fornicate, there I have preferred not what is better to what is good, but what is good to what is evil. There is a great difference between the better thing which is placed before marriage and the thing placed before fornication." (P. L., XXII, 495, 507).—IDEM, Epist., 22, n. 19: "Someone may say: and do you dare disparage marriage, which was blessed by God? It is not to disparage marriage when virginity is preferred to it. No one compares evil with good." (P. L., XXII, 405). —Conc. Lat. IV. (a. 1215), c. 1: "Not only virgins and the continent, but also married persons who please God through right faith and good works deserve to attain eternal beatitude." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 430). —C. Kollin, O.P. (+ 1536), Eversio Lutherani Epithalamii, Cologne 1527: "The good of marriage is in no way disparaged when the virginal good is preferred to it, just as the moon is not despised when the sun is preferred to it in the brightness of its light. ... Does one who says that gold is better than silver do an injury to silver?" According to P. Kollin, who was a prominent Dominican preacher and missionary of the 16th century, ''celibacy is in itself preferable to matrimony; but he who has not the grace of continence, does better (melius facit) if he marries." Cfr. N. Paulus, Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther, Freiburg 1903, pp. 124 sq.; F. Falk, Die Ehe am Ausgange des Mittelalters, Freiburg, 1908.

¹³ Cfr. 1 Cor. XIII, 1-3.—St. Augustine, De Bono Coniugali, c. 10, n. 10: "What if, they say, all men should wish to abstain from all intercourse—from where would the human race continue? Would that all wished this, provided it were in charity from a pure heart and a good conscience and unfeigned faith." (Migne, P. L., XL, 381).—IDEM, De S. Virginitate, c. 1: "Those to whom it was said, 'He who can take it, let him take it' [Mt. 19, 12], are to be exhorted lest they be frightened, and frightened lest they be exalted. Therefore virginity is not only to be proclaimed so that it may be loved, but also admonished lest it be puffed up." (P. L., XL, 397). —IDEM, Enarr. in Ps., 99, n. 13: "Melius est humile coniugium quam superba virginitas." (P. L., XXXVII, 1280). —IDEM, Serm., (al. 44 de Diversis), n. 20: "There are no saints except those who have possessed charity. ... Of what kind, then, is charity, which alone profits greatly, without which other things profit nothing?" (P. L., XXXVIII, 44).

It is impossible to speak more respectfully of the married state than many pious monks have done at different periods in the Church's history. Thus Brother Berthold of Ratisbon (-J- 1272) says in one of his sermons: "God sanctified Matrimony by making it one of His seven Sacraments. It is holier than any order ever founded, more sacred than that of the barefooted friars, or the preachers, or the grey monks. In certain respects none of these orders can be compared with marriage, because marriage is a necessary order, and therefore strictly enjoined by God, whereas all other orders are merely of counsel. How could the predestined number of the elect ever be reached without Matrimony?" ¹⁴ The Church has one standard of morals for all because the moral law is one, though its application may vary. Christian perfection, which is the ideal of every Catholic, consists in observing the precept of charity, i. e., loving God and one's fellowmen. The Evangelical Counsels do not constitute perfection, but they are means of fulfilling the precept of charity more perfectly.¹⁵

¹⁴ Cfr. Denifle-Volz, Luther and Lutherdom, Vol. I, P. 1, pp. 261 sqq.; A. M. Weiss, O.P., Lutherpsychologie, 2nd ed., pp. 120 sqq.; Falk, Die Ehe am Ausgange des Mittelalters, Freiburg 1908.

¹⁵ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 108, art. 4: "Counsels must concern those things through which man can attain the aforesaid end better and more expeditiously." —IDEM, ibid., 2a 2ae, qu. 184, art. 3, ad 1: "From the very manner of speaking it is apparent that counsels are certain instruments for arriving at perfection."— Ibid., art. 5, ad 2: "It must be said that men assume the state of perfection not as professing themselves to be perfect, but as professing that they are tending toward perfection. ... Hence one who assumes the state of perfection does not commit a lie or simulation from the fact that he is not perfect, but from the fact that he abandons in his mind the intention of perfection." — Ibid., qu. 186, art. 1, ad 3: "Religio nominat statum perfectionis ex intentione finis." —Ibid., qu. 188, art. 7: "Religio ad perfectionem caritatis ordinatur." —Cfr. Denifle-Volz, Luther and Lutherdom, Vol. I, P. 1, pp. 146 sqq. —Weiss, Lutherpsychologie, 2nd ed., pp. 111 sqq.

"It is a mistake," writes Father A. M. Weiss, O.P., the famous apologist, "to assert, as Protestants do, that from the Catholic point of view the only genuine Christians are the members of religious orders and all others are second-rate and inferior. The only excuse for asserting such a foolish thing is that some religious have praised their state of life in exaggerated terms.... It is wrong to say that those who have embraced religion are the only real or first-rate Christians. There are no second-rate Christians or Christians improperly so called. But it is perfectly true that religious men and women strive to become perfect Christians, that they are bent on practicing their faith honestly and sincerely. True, this should be the aim of all and, generally speaking, can be attained by all who try. Yet, since the world offers innumerable impediments to the higher life, there have always been those who preferred to withdraw as much as possible from the world, in order more securely to fulfil the task incumbent upon all. This is the origin and meaning of the religious life." ¹⁶ That the Evangelical Counsels involve a bonum melius is taught in Sacred Scripture both directly and by implication.

¹⁶ Weiss, op. cit., p. 125 sqq.

Christ says: 'There are eunuchs who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." ¹⁷ Here we have a clear-cut distinction between those who remain unmarried for God's sake and those who "take not this word" because they cannot understand it. Hence voluntary celibacy is an ethical ideal that is not enjoined on all, but may be attained by those who have a special vocation and grace.

¹⁷ Matth. XIX, 11 sq.

St. Paul says: "Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord,¹⁸ but I speak my mind,¹⁹ as one by the mercy of God rendered trustworthy. I think²⁰ therefore that this (state) is good on account of the present distress —that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou not (so) bound? Seek not a wife. But if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such (as marry) shall have affliction in the flesh; but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short: henceforth let those that have wives be as having them not, and those that weep as weeping not, and those that rejoice as rejoicing not, and those that buy as possessing not, and those that use the world as not using it to the full. For the world as we see it is passing away. My desire is to have you free from care. He that is unmarried hath a care for the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married hath a care for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is drawn different ways. So also the unmarried woman and the virgin hath a care for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and soul, whilst the married woman hath a care for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. Now this I say for your own profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for the sake of seemly and devoted and undistracted service of the Lord. But if any man thinketh that he incurreth reproach as regards his virgin (daughter, by keeping her unmarried), she being past her youth, and if (in the circumstances) it ought so to be done, let him act as he wisheth: he sinneth not: let them be married.²¹ But he that standeth steadfast in his heart, being under no necessity but having power to accomplish his own will, and hath determined in his heart to keep his (daughter a) virgin —he shall do well. In a word, he that giveth his virgin (daughter) in marriage doth well,²² and he that giveth her not shall do better." ²³ Of a widow he says: "She is free to marry whom she will: only (let it be) in the Lord. But she is more blessed if she remain as she is, in my judgment; ²⁴ and methinks I too have the spirit of God." ²⁵ The Apostle, therefore, though he emphasizes the cares and trials of the married state, and the great advantages of virginity, does not "cast a snare," i. e., does not bind the faithful, but, distinguishing clearly between the divine command and his personal opinion, recommends virginity for the sake of God, i. e., for a higher moral end, as something that is better than marriage —a bonum melius. Similarly, when he asks for alms to succor the needy, he makes a distinction between precept and counsel, saying: "I speak not as commanding;... I give my advice.²⁶26."

¹⁸ ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου.

¹⁹ γνώμην.

²⁰ νομίζω.

²¹ γαμείτωσαν.

²² καλῶς ποιεῖ, bene facit.

²³ κρεῖσσον ποιεῖ, melius facit.

²⁴ κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν γνώμην.

²⁵ 1 Cor. VII, 25-40. (We use the Westminster Version). —Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXIV, can. 10. —J. Rohr, Paulus und die Gemeinde von Korinth, Freiburg 1899, pp. 62 sqq.; H. Achelis, Virgines Subintroductae, Leipsic 1902, pp. 30 sqq.; J. McRory, St. Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians, P. I, pp. 101 sqq.; Lutz, Die kirchliche Lehre von den evangelischen Räten, Freiburg 1909, pp. 69 sqq.

²⁶ 2 Cor. VIII, 8 sqq.; cfr. 1 Thess. IV, 2; 2 Thess. III, 6, 1 Tim. VI, 13 sq.

The so-called Apostolic Constitutions declare: "As regards virginity, we have received no precept, but leave it as a matter of conscience ²⁷ to the decision of those who choose it freely. But we exhort them not to make a vow lightly. ... When [a virgin] has vowed chastity, her deeds must correspond with her vow, in order that people may know that she took her vow with a serious intention, not to show contempt for marriage, but to give proof of piety."²⁸

²⁷ ὡς εὐχήν.

²⁸ Constit. Apost., IV, c. 14 (ed. 12; Funk, I, 235).

3. A precept, as said above, is a matter of strict obligation, whereas a counsel is left to the free choice of the person to whom it is proposed. Man is at liberty to choose between what is good and what is better.²⁹ There is no law compelling him to choose the more perfect means for attaining his end. It follows that to choose the less perfect means is no sin, and that every man is free to do so in case of doubt. But it also follows that those who feel morally certain that they are called to a life of higher perfection, are bound to obey the call.

²⁹ 1 Cor. VII, 37 sqq.; 2 Cor. VIII, 7 sqq.; IX, 7; Philem. 13 sqq. —Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXV, de Regul. et Monial., c. 17. —F. Sawicki, Katholische Kirche und sittliche Persönlichkeit, Cologne 1907, pp. 102 sqq.

"The Evangelical Counsels," says Bishop Martin, "are appointed for the perfection of the faithful in general, not of each individual in particular. There are circumstances which may render it impossible or dangerous for an individual to follow these counsels.... Hence God does not will all to follow them, but only those whom He has called and who are not prevented by other duties. On the other hand, a counsel may sometimes become a duty. Thus if I know that I cannot save my soul in the world, I am obliged to enter a religious order, because otherwise I should expose myself to great danger. But even in such a case it is not the counsel as such that binds, but the duty of choosing the right vocation." ³⁰ III. It is unnecessary to prove our thesis from Tradition. The Catholic Church is, so to speak, erected upon the Evangelical Counsels. The ideas of poverty and obedience are embodied in Christ Himself,³¹ and the high value of virginity appears from His life and that of His Blessed Mother.³² The Shepherd of Hermas clearly inculcates the Catholic doctrine of supererogatory works.³³ A number of treatises on virginity by St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Methodius, and St. Gregory Nazianzen give testimony to the belief of the early Church in the Evangelical Counsels. St. Augustine, paradoxical though it may sound, while he did not employ the term opus supererogationis, actually created it.³⁴ From the very beginning the Church put the Evangelical Counsels into practice and rejected the claims of Helvidius, Jovinian, Vigilantius,³⁵ and other heretics who attacked them.³⁶

³⁰ C. Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral, 5th ed., pp. 88 sq.; cfr. St. Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles, III, c. 134; F. X. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, pp. 142 sqq.; A. Ott, Die Bettelorden und ihre Verteidigung durch Thomas von Aquin, Treves 1903, pp. 26 sqq.

³¹ Cfr. Matth. VIII, 20; XXVI, 42; Mark XIV, 36; Luke II, 7, 51; VIII, 2 sq.; XXII, 42; John IV, 34; V, 30; VI, 38; Rom. V, 19; 2 Cor. VIII, 9; Phil. II, 7 sq.; Heb. V, 8; X, 7 sqq.

³² Matt. I, 18-25; Luke I, 34-38.—Cfr. G. M. Galfano, La Vergine delle Vergini, Palermo 1882, pp. 237 sqq.; Pohle-Preuss, Mariology, 2nd ed., St. Louis 1916, pp. 83 sqq.; Schaefer-Brossart, The Mother of Jesus in Holy Scripture, New York 1913, pp. 10 sqq.; O. Bardenhewer, Marias Verkündigung, Freiburg 1905; M. Meinertz, Der Jakobusbrief, Freiburg 1905, pp. 16 sqq.; E. Neubert, Marie dans l’Église Anténicéenne, Paris 1908.—On the Jewish view of virginity see Lev. XXI, 1-3, 13; V. Zapletal, O.P., Alttestamentliches, Fribourg (Switzerland), 1904, pp. 78 sqq.; H. Weiss, Das Gelübde Jephthes, Braunsberg 1907; E. Mader, Die Menschenopfer der alten Hebräer, Freiburg 1909.—On the essential distinction between Christian and Vestal virgins, see J. Lipsius, De Vesta et Vestalibus Syntagma, Antwerp 1603, pp. 31 sqq.; St. Ambrose, De Virginibus, I, c. 4, n. 15; De Virginitate, c. 3, n. 13; Epist., XVIII, n. 11; St. Augustine, Contra Faust. Manich., XX, c. 21; Prudentius, Contra Symmach., II, v. 1054 sqq.

³³ Cfr. V. Schweitzer, “Der Pastor Hermae und die Opera supererogatoria,” in the Theol. Quartalschrift, Tübingen, 1904, pp. 539 sqq.; A. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Leipsic 1906, pp. 186 sq.

³⁴ Cfr. St. Augustine, De S. Virginitate, c. 30: “For just as it can be said, ‘You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill,’ so it cannot be said, ‘You shall not marry.’ The former things are exacted; the latter are offered. If the latter are done, they are praised; if the former are not done, they are condemned. In the former the Lord commands what is due from you; but in the latter, if you spend anything beyond what is required, He will repay you when He returns.” (Migne, P. L., XL, 412).—The oft (but wrongly) quoted Serm. 161 de Temp. was not written by St. Augustine. Cfr. Ps.-Augustine, Append. Serm., 273 (al. 61 de Temp.), in Migne's P. L., XXXIX, 2258.

³⁵ Cfr. St. Jerome, Liber de Perpetua Virginitate B. Mariae adv. Helvidium; Libri Duo ad Iovinianum; Liber contra Vigilantium (Migne, P. L., XXIII, 183, 212, 339). Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 601 sqq.; W. Haller, Jovinianus, Leipsic 1897, p. 145; W. Schmidt, Vigilantius, Münster 1860, pp. 48 sqq.; A. Reville, Vigilance de Calagurris, Paris 1902.

³⁶ Cfr. J. Wilpert, Die gottgeweihten Jungfrauen in den ersten Jahrhunderten der Kirche, Freiburg 1892, pp. 6 sqq.

The principle underlying the Catholic teaching on the counsels was never seriously challenged until the time of the so-called Reformation. Protestants maintain that the commandment of perfect charity binds all men, and that no one can go beyond it. But Christ plainly says that we love God if we "keep His commandments." ³⁷ Hence if we wish to love God, we must perform the good deeds required of us as a matter of duty, and avoid sin. But in the choice of means we are free. We can choose either the more or the less perfect. In other words, we are not bound to love God in the most perfect manner possible, or do all the good we can do, or always choose that which is better in preference to that which is simply good. To practice the highest conceivable degree of charity (amor intensive smnmus) is a privilege reserved to the holy souls in Heaven.

³⁷ Cfr. John XIV, 21, 23 sq.; XV, 10; 1 John II, 3-6; V, 3; 2 John VI. —St. Gregory the Great, Hom. in Evang., XXX, n. 1: "Truth says: If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word. The proof of love, therefore, is the performance of the work." (Migne, P. L., LXXVI, 1220).

Another Protestant objection is that every man is bound to become constantly more perfect, and no one can achieve more or merit a greater reward than the rest. Those who raise this objection rest it on Luke XVII, 10: "When you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do." The command to be as perfect as possible binds all. But no one is bound to be always doing the most perfect good work he is capable of. Every man is free to choose between the various means that lead to perfection. To deduce from the general precept which bids us to strive after perfection, the strict duty of doing not only that which is good, but that which is better, nay the best we are capable of, would lead to undue rigorism. On the other hand, upon closer examination the Scriptural text quoted will be found to contain nothing more than an enunciation of the fundamental truth that whatever good there is in us we owe primarily to the grace of God, and therefore we should always be humble.³⁸

³⁸ John XV, 5; 1 Cor. I, 31; III, 7; 2 Cor. III, 5; X, 17. —Cfr. Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 16: "Far be it that a Christian man should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord, whose goodness toward men is so great that He wills those things which are His gifts to be their merits." —Cfr. St. Celestine, Epist. ad Episc. Galliae, I, c. 12, n. 14 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 141).

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 1a 2ae, qu. 108, art. 4; 2a 2ae, qu. 184, art. 3 and 4; qu. 186, art. 3-7. —IDEM, Summa contra Gentiles, III, c. 130-137 (Rickaby, God and His Creatures, London 1905, pp. 293 sqq.) —IDEM, An Apology for the Religious Orders, Edited by J. Procter, London 1902. —A. Winterstein, Die christliche Lehre vom Erdengut, Mayence 1898, pp. 87 sqq. —J. G. Barthier, De la Perfection Chrétienne, Vol. II, pp. 5, 39, 105, 150. —J. Mausbach, Catholic Moral Teaching and its Antagonists (tr. by Buchanan), New York 1914, pp. 270 sqq. —H. Denifle, O.P., Luther and Lutherdom (tr. by Volz), Vol. I, p. 1, pp. 146 sqq. —F. J. Lutz, Die kirchliche Lehre von den evangelischen Räten, Paderborn 1907, pp. 48 sqq. —A. S. Barnes in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. IV, pp. 435 sq.—H. J. Cladder, S.J., Als die Zeit erfüllt war, Freiburg 1915. —Suarez, De Statu Perfectionis, c. VI sqq. —St. Francis de Sales, Treatise of the Love of God, Book VIII.—Addis and Arnold, Cath. Dictionary, 9th ed., London 1917, pp. 335 sq. —Thos. Slater, S.J., The Foundation of True Morality, N. Y. 1920, pp. 51 sqq.

162. Evangelical counsels. To the precepts which must be observed in order to merit eternal life, especially in the New Law,⁶⁵ there have been added certain counsels, so called evangelical counsels, concerning supererogatory works,⁶⁶ by which eternal life and Christian perfection can be obtained more expeditiously and more perfectly. There are enumerated especially three evangelical counsels: the exercise of voluntary poverty, obedience, and perfect chastity. In diverse places Christ commends these counsels. Voluntary poverty is commended by these words: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments; ... if you wish to be perfect, go, sell the things which you have and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me."⁶⁷ - Chastity or perfect continence is commended by these words: "There are eunuchs who have castrated themselves for the kingdom of heaven."⁶⁸ "But concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel."⁶⁹ - As an exhortation to perfect obedience theologians are accustomed to consider the following words of Christ: "If anyone wishes to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me; for he who wishes to save his soul shall lose it; but he who shall lose his soul for my sake, shall find it."⁷⁰

Although Christian perfection does not consist in the observation of these counsels, but in perfect charity, nevertheless these counsels are the best means for obtaining Christian perfection. For they effectively remove obstacles in the way of salvation; which obstacles indeed are the threefold inordinate concupiscence, namely, of the flesh, of the eyes, and of pride.⁷¹

⁶⁵ Even in the Old Law there existed certain particular counsels, for example, the offering of a peace victim (Lev. 3:1 sqq.), the vow of Nazirite (Num. 6:2 sqq.). Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. I-II, q. 108, a. 4.

⁶⁶ Werke der Übergebühr.

⁶⁷ Matt. 19:17 and 21.

⁶⁸ Matt. 19:12.

⁶⁹ 1 Cor. 7:25.

⁷⁰ Matt. 16:24-25. Cf. S. theol. I-II, q. 108, a. 4 ad 3.

⁷¹ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. II-II, q. 186, a. 7, and Contra Gent. l. 3, c. 130.

St. Thomas, I-II, q. 108; q. 106, a. 1, ad 1; a. 4.

319. The new law must order exterior acts (q. 108, a. 1 and 2). - For although it is principally the grace of the Holy Spirit, nevertheless it fittingly hands down certain precepts not only concerning interior acts, but also concerning exterior acts, so that it is a true law (Mt. V, 17; XXVIII, 20; Council of Trent, sess. 6, can. 19, 20 and 21). And indeed it contains:

1. certain ceremonial things concerning the sacraments, for the very reception of grace (e.g., Jn. III, 5): for we have grace through the Son of God visibly made man; whence grace flowing from the incarnate and visible Word must be led down to us through visible signs, which are the sacraments and the sacrifice;

2. also moral precepts concerning acts of virtues both internal and external, which dispose to grace or pertain to its use:

a) precepts concerning acts which are necessary as a disposition for the reception and conservation of grace, whether as to the intellect, such as knowledge of the principal truths of faith or of the preambles concerning the manifestation of the divinity and humanity of Christ; or as to affection, namely those things which pertain to contempt of the world, without which man is not capable of the Holy Spirit (Jn. XIV, 17);

b) precepts concerning acts which are necessary for the right use of grace, not only concerning internal acts, which are the very grace and charity ordering us internally to God and neighbor; but also concerning external acts, which are produced from the impulse of grace: for grace is operative through charity, and therefore it must also manifest itself through external works (Eph. V, 8; Jn. XII, 36; Mt. X, 13), some of which have a necessary fittingness or contrariety to grace, and these are prescribed or prohibited, e.g., confession and denial of faith (Mk. XVI, 16; Mt. X, 32; XXVIII, 19, 20 [the original misprints XXV, 19, 20]; Jn. XVI, 9), and many others handed down in Mt. V, 22 sq.

3. But other works which are not necessary for grace are not prescribed: if these look to each person individually, they have been left to his liberty; if they look to common utility, they have been left to temporal and spiritual superiors. And therefore besides moral and sacramental precepts, no other ceremonial or judicial things were given, but they were left to the Church.

Hence, by difference from the old law, which is called the law of servitude, the new law is called the law of liberty, not only a) because by it we are freed from the servitude of sin (Rom. VI, 18), but also b) because the new law obligates only to those things which are necessary to salvation to be done, or contrary to it to be avoided, and leaves other things to liberty, nor is it like the old law, which determined many ceremonial and judicial things and left few things to the choice of men (Acts XV, 1; Gal. V, 1); c) because it makes us fulfill these precepts freely, not by fear and a servile mind, but insofar as by the interior instinct of grace and love we willingly fulfill them.

320. The new law fittingly orders interior acts, so that men may be totally subject to God (q. 108, a. 3). - For Christ, in the sermon which He gave on the mount, 1) promised beatitude to various excellent works; 2) ordered the interior acts of man as to himself: a) concerning means, that we abstain not only from exterior evil works, but also from interior ones and from occasions of evils; b) concerning the end, that we not establish it in human glory, or riches, or pleasures; whence He proposes three contrary good works: prayer, almsgiving, and fasting; 3) ordered the interior acts of man as to neighbor, lest we judge rashly or unjustly or presumptuously, nor trust the unworthy too much; 4) teaches the mode of fulfilling the law, by imploring divine help, by applying effort toward virtue, and by caution against seducers (Mt. V-VII).

321. In the new law, which is the law of liberty and perfection, counsels are fittingly added concerning those things which are necessary, not for obtaining the end, but so that we may obtain it better and more expeditiously (q. 108, a. 4). For man is placed in the middle between worldly and spiritual goods, so that the more he clings to the one, the more he withdraws from the other; and although it is not necessary for beatitude that man totally relinquish earthly things, because he can use them according to reason, nevertheless he will arrive at it better and more expeditiously by totally renouncing those goods. Now:

1. The goods of this world are of three kinds: a) riches, to which the concupiscence of the eyes excites, and the counsel of poverty proposes that these be relinquished (Mt. XIX, 21); b) the pleasures of the flesh, about which the concupiscence of the flesh is concerned, and the counsel of virginity or continence teaches that these be relinquished (Mt. XIX, 11-12; I Cor. VII, 25-40); c) honors, which the pride of life pursues, and which we relinquish by perfect obedience (q. 108, a. 4).

2. Similarly, the disquiet of secular solicitude is cast upon man especially concerning three things (Lk. VI, 24; IX, 23; XII, 22): a) concerning the management of exterior things, and this solicitude is taken away from man by the counsel of poverty; b) concerning the governing of wife and children, which is cut off by the counsel of virginity; c) concerning the disposing of one's own acts, which is cut off by the counsel of obedience, by which someone commits himself to the disposal of another (cf. C. Gent. III, 130).

3. Finally, man has a threefold good: a) the good of exterior things, which someone offers totally to God by voluntary poverty; b) the good of his own body, which he offers by perfect chastity; c) the good of the soul, which he offers totally by obedience, by which someone gives to God his own will, through which man uses all the powers and habits of the soul (II-II, q. 186, a. 7).

322. The new law is universal (q. 106, a. 4). For:

a) it is imposed on all men (Mt. XXVIII, 18-20; Mk. XVI, 15-16; Rom. I, 16); but some precepts are immediately obligatory, e.g., of believing and receiving Baptism; others mediately, namely on the baptized, e.g., the precept of confession and communion;

b) it is imposed on all subsequent times, because none more perfect can exist, since 1) it immediately joins men to God and introduces them into the last end (Heb. X, 19-20), 2) it causes grace itself through the sacraments, which truly sanctify, and 3) it has a sacrifice of infinite dignity. And surely in this life a more perfect divine law or religion cannot be given, since a greater union of man with God cannot be devised: for here He was made man and by the Incarnation united Himself to us, so that He might make us gods and unite us to Himself through the life of grace; He nourishes and increases this life by uniting His flesh and blood to us in the Eucharist, so that we may be united to Him by perfect vision and intimate possession of Himself in heaven. Thus in the religious order the maximum toward God is attained, than which something greater cannot be devised. Whence

c) the new law can be changed by no one, nor can the Church properly dispense in it, but only interpret it authentically in the name of God; and it is to endure until the consummation of the age. Hence in the Scriptures it is called a stable kingdom (Mt. XVI, 18; XXVIII, 20), the last time (Acts II, 17; I Jn. II, 18), a covenant remaining forever (Jer. XXXI, 40; Mal. I, 10-11; Heb. XIII, 20; Mt. XXVIII, 20), a new and eternal testament (Mt. XXVI, 28; Lk. XXII, 20; Heb. XIII, 20; IX, 20).

Therefore the new law differs from the old law: 1) by reason of the efficient cause, because it is from Christ not only as He is God but also as man (Heb. I, 1); 2) by reason of the formal cause, because principally it is grace and charity, which it gives ex opere operato, while the old law gave knowledge of precept and of sin, but not help; 3) by reason of the material cause, because it was borne for all and in perpetuity, declares the precepts perfectly, adds counsels, imposes few external things, but many internal things which nevertheless are easy to fulfill from grace; 4) by reason of the final cause, because it immediately procures eternal happiness.

Although the use of marriage is good, nevertheless the state of virginity and celibacy is preferable to it.

I. There is Canon 10 of the Council of Trent, session XXIV: If anyone shall say that the conjugal state is to be preferred to the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity or celibacy than to be joined in marriage: let him be anathema. This is the doctrine to be defended. We suppose not only that marriage is good, but that the use of marriage through carnal copulation is good, that is, an act honorable and holy in itself. For the comparison is not properly instituted between virginity and celibacy on the one side, and marriage simply on the other, since with marriage virginity and the perfection of celibacy can consist; rather, the comparison is with marriage exercising itself through the mingling of flesh, or conjugal copulation. There is no need, beyond the things said in Thesis II, to bring forward other things to prove that this use of marriage is a good act. For from what was said there it is clear that this act was instituted by nature for the best end, which is offspring, and that it is moreover an act of justice in rendering the debt; God himself approved it when he said to the first parents: "Increase and multiply" (Gen. I, 28; IX, 1).

This being supposed, therefore, the comparison is instituted between Marriage exercising itself through carnal mingling and virginity or celibacy. Moreover, it must again be observed that the Tridentine Fathers make a comparison between states, that is, not between the persons who live in these states, or between the perfections with which those persons can be endowed from their own virtue, but between states, that is, between those things which belong to each state from its own nature. But a state is a condition in itself immovable and perpetual of men obligated to certain works or offices. Since the comparison is made between states, hence again it is not made between those things which can be accidental to the account of state, of which sort would be some consecration. Besides, it must be observed that the celibacy of which there is speech is not, so to speak, negative celibacy, namely the mere lack of the conjugal bond, with which an immoral and wicked life can be joined, but positive celibacy, in which, namely, someone alien to nuptials resolves from the soul to lead a life exempt from the pleasures of the flesh. Finally, it must be considered that the comparison is made not by reason of just any goodness, but of moral perfection, which man obtains on account of this or that state; and this moral perfection is the supreme good which man can attain in this life, to which therefore the rest must be subordinated, and on account of which it cannot happen that he is impeded from helping others; indeed, in itself, it is necessary that he exist as more apt for procuring the true good for others. But this moral perfection is that blessedness which man can attain in this life, the beginning and pledge of future blessedness.

II. Therefore for the Tridentine Fathers the question concerned perfection and blessedness, to which state each belongs more. But the Fathers teach, according to the perpetual tradition of the Church, that, when account is taken of perfection and of true blessedness according to God, the state of virginity and celibacy is to be preferred to the state of marriage. That this is true is easily demonstrated. For it is clear, first, from the doctrine of the Apostle, 1 Cor. VII. The Apostle affirms that it is good (καλόν) for a man not to touch a woman (v. 1); that it is good (καλόν) for the unmarried and widows if they remain in that state, that is, without nuptials, as the Apostle himself remained (v. 8). Nevertheless he adds that if they do not contain themselves, that is, if they cannot contain themselves, they should marry, giving the reason that it is better to marry than to burn (v. 9), that is, to be overcome by the temptation of concupiscence, not merely to be tempted; for he who remains chaste when placed in the fire of temptation is not burned, that is, consumed by fire, but purified. Here there is speech of moral goodness. Therefore the unmarried state is called good simply; the married state is called good on account of avoiding incontinence, namely lest one sin; and since this is the least moral goodness, the unmarried state will be good on account of something more. The former state is good in itself and desirable; the other is good on account of a certain native infirmity of soul, lest something worse happen. Therefore comparison by reason of goodness is instituted between each state, and the appellation "good" made of the state of unmarried women or unmarried men has a comparative force, so that it is the same as "better," according to the custom of the Hebrews. But do not infer from those things which the Apostle here says about the state of married women that it is good only on account of the end of avoiding incontinence; for from the Apostle himself it is clear that it is good on account of other ends, for example, on account of the procreation of children (cf. 1 Tim. V, 14). But the very fact that here the Apostle mentions this one end alone, among the several goods which are in marriage, confirms what we say: that the Apostle, having regard to moral goodness or perfection, prefers virginity to marriage. For if the Apostle is said, when he wrote these things, to have had before his eyes only the moral perfection of those whom he was addressing, and to have wished to commend each state to them from this moral perfection which each person can find in it, and therefore to have spoken to them as though answering the question:

As regards the moral perfection which someone can acquire in either state, which excels, virginity or nuptials? If, I say, you conceive the matter thus, you plainly understand why the Apostle mentions this one good alone out of the many which are in marriage: namely the restraining of concupiscence, lest it break out into sins. For the other goods were altogether ἀδιάφορα to this question. For since moral perfection is situated in this, that we live according to the spirit and not according to the flesh (Rom. VIII, 12), it was necessary to compare each state according to this, if the question was which is morally more perfect. But with this question set aside, there was no reason why the other goods of Marriage, not only physical but also moral, should be passed over in silence. Therefore by reason of moral good the Apostle compares virginity with marriage so that he prefers it to marriage. This indeed is openly declared at the end of the discourse (v. 40): "she will be more blessed if she remains thus," that is, unmarried. Hence it is that abstinence from the conjugal act is called by the same Apostle sanctity, which is not asserted of those who use marriage: "The unmarried woman thinks of the things that are the Lord's, that she may be holy in body and spirit; but she who is married thinks of the things that are of the world, how she may please her husband" (v. 34). And on account of this excellence of virginity, it is the object of counsel (v. 25): that is, it is not merely counseled, not commanded, because it is an indifferent thing, not necessary, which is also true of marriage; but because it contains a more eminent perfection than can generally be exacted from all. For this is the account of the evangelical counsels. This moreover is clear when the words of Christ in Matthew XIX, 10-12 are compared, in which Christ, commending the excellence of the gift of virginity, asserts that it is not given to all, but to those to whom God wills. Read Chrysostom on both places. But there is no need for us to observe that in the Apostle's discourse Marriage is considered insofar as it is exercised through copulation; for thus it contributes to the remedy of concupiscence, and thus it is true that the married woman thinks of the things that are of the world.

III. But, they say, marriage is called by the Apostle honorable in all (τίμιον ἐν πᾶσι; Heb. XIII, 4), but virginity never is. Besides, virginity itself is commended by the same Apostle not in itself, but by reason of another: "I think," he says, "that this is good on account of the present necessity" (1 Cor. VII, 26). I answer to the first: those words of the Apostle contain an exhortation rather than praise, that the honor owed to nuptials be shown by spouses in all their acts, and that nothing be done which would dishonor Christian nuptials, as used to happen among the Gentiles. For the rest, even if nuptials are honorable, it does not follow that virginity is not more honorable; and this, although not in as many words, the Apostle nevertheless signified when he preferred it to marriage. I answer to the second: those words of the Apostle do not pertain to giving the reason why virginity is good, but to presenting a certain persuasive reason for his counsel concerning preserving virginity, or to making souls more inclined to embrace that counsel, arguing also from the present necessity or from the present inconveniences of marriage, as he declares below. Therefore it is a commendation of virginity drawn not from the object, but from a certain condition of the subject: that outside it man is liable to more tribulations of the flesh. But this is not the same as saying that this is the only cause why virginity is good.

IV. It is clear, second, from the doctrine of the Fathers against Jovinian: read Jerome against the same, read also Ambrose On Virginity and Augustine On Holy Virginity. The Church professed this doctrine from her cradle; she has always held virgins in the greatest honor and has followed them with a certain singular reverence. Surely there would have been no reason for this special esteem if she had judged virginity equal to nuptials or inferior.

It is clear, third, from intrinsic reason. For that state in which the spirit is preferred to the flesh, in which the goods proper to man insofar as he is rational are procured, in which the virtues most difficult because of the impediment of concupiscence are exercised, in which the most noble end, which is the union of the soul with God, can in itself be more fully obtained, and in which therefore generosity and greatness of soul shine forth, is more perfect and more blessed than that state in which one gives work to animal desires and procures those things which are also common to brute beasts, in which satisfaction is made to concupiscence, although within due limits, and in which it is not permitted in a special way to be free for God alone. But such is the case; therefore. The argument of the Apostle in the cited place, vv. 32-35, returns to this. Augustine brings forward another reason in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 2, whose force a Christian man cannot fail to feel: "Since the whole Church herself is a virgin betrothed to one man, Christ, as the Apostle says, how worthy of honor are her members, who guard even in the flesh itself what the whole Church guards in faith, who imitate the mother of her husband and Lord? For the Church too is both mother and virgin. For whose integrity do we consult, if she is not a virgin? Or whose offspring do we address, if she is not a mother? Mary corporally bore the Head of this body; the Church spiritually bears the members of that Head. In each, virginity does not impede fecundity; in each, fecundity does not take away virginity. Therefore, since the whole Church is holy both in body and spirit, and yet the whole is not virgin in body, but in spirit, how much holier is she in those members in whom she is virgin in body and spirit?"

V. But that marriage is a sacrament indeed makes it the case that grace is conferred upon spouses ex opere operato, and that the necessary actual graces are given for the operations of their state; but it does not make their operations more perfect than those which are proper to the other state, nor does it prevent sanctifying grace, and the same grace more abundantly, from being acquired by virgins ex opere operantis. But the perfection and blessedness of a state is situated in the perfection of its proper acts and in the very possession of grace, not in the mode by which that grace is acquired.

VI. But those things which Augustine piously and subtly discusses concerning the perfection of married persons in the Old Testament, even of those who spread children among several wives, to whom he does not dare to prefer the continence of Christians (On the Good of Marriage, chapter XIX ff.), these things, first, do not regard all indiscriminately, but those Patriarchs, and those like them if there were any, whose sanctity is commended to us in the Scriptures; for he openly names them, and it easily appears that Augustine always directs his mind to them. Second, according to Augustine, the perfection of the Patriarchs using marriage, not less than the perfection of the continent in the New Law, is nevertheless not the perfection proper to the state, but the perfection of the person (cf. chapter XXIII), which perfection in those men the use of marriage did not impede; because, as he supposes, they applied themselves to children not from any lust but from the sole will of propagating the people, or worshippers of God, and therefore from a will moved by charity, and that indeed in that age in which the people of God, God so disposing, was to be propagated by carnal generation. Therefore, according to the same Augustine, they bore a soul prepared for continence and would actually have embraced it if they had believed that, in that age, it was more expedient for them. Therefore, comparing their continence in preparation of soul and in true desire for it with the actual continence of Christians, Augustine does not dare to prefer these to those. But third, you see that the reason for the excellence of the Patriarchs is finally placed by Augustine in continence, which, as he supposes, they had in vow; and therefore, from this very discussion of Augustine, continence in itself excels the use of marriage.

You will say: abstinence from marriage deprives of the greatest good, that is, the increase of peoples; therefore it is certainly not better than the use of marriage.

I answer: abstinence deprives the man himself who abstains of the greatest good: I deny; for his greatest good is not offspring. It deprives others: I subdistinguish; with injury, I deny (see following, n. 74); apart from injury, I again subdistinguish: namely, when a disposition suitable in itself has even been obtained for procuring for the community goods more excellent than a simple increase, I concede; when the increase of the community is impeded, I again subdistinguish: an increase useful and desirable, I deny, for as long as natural inclination in general exercises its force, that will never be lacking; a possible increase, I again subdistinguish: one that would for the most part be harmful, and can be compensated by better goods through the said abstinence, I concede; otherwise, I deny. Cf. the following thesis.

I ASSERT first that some of the Evangelical counsels are holy, against the heretics, as related by Bellarmino lib. 1. cap. 8. First the counsel of Castity is proved.

THE FIRST place of Scripture is adduced by D. Bonavent. in Diaeta salutis, titulo 6. cap. 2. Matth. 19. There are Eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take it, let him take it. That these are they who vow continence in religion, S. Epiphanius asserts, haeresi 58. S. Hieronymus on this place; S. Augustinus, lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 30. S. Fulgentius, lib. de fide ad Petrum, cap. 3. That here indeed it is not commanded is plain, because above he said, praising matrimony: What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder, and it is confirmed by what follows: He that can take it, let him take it, as D. Bonavent. notes, serm. 6. de tempore.

Pseudomartir, de caelibatu, and others answer, that that is signified significatively "for the kingdom of heaven," on account of preaching the Gospel more expeditiously.

But against them are all the holy Fathers, expounding with us: Cyprianus, de habitu Virginum. Hilarius on this place. Chrysostomus here. Hieronymus lib. I. in Iovinianum. Augustinus de sancta Virginitate, cap. 24. The same hold Beda, and Anselmus, here.

Here he alludes to that of Isaïae cap. 56. Let not the Eunuch say: Behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the Eunuchs: They that shall keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and hold fast my covenant: I will give them in my house, and within my walls, a place, and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall never perish.

THAT what is here treated of is those continent of their own will, of whom Matth. 19. speaks, not of the maimed, or so born, who are continent of necessity, the Saints teach: Hieronymus, and Cyrillus on this place; Augustinus in the Book de sancta Virginitate, cap. 24. Basil. lib. de vera virginitate. Ambrosius in the exhortation to the Virgins; and Gregorius, 3. part. Pastoralis, cap. 29. And it is plain from the reward, that there is promised to them a greater glory than that of the sons and daughters of God.

S. Augustinus adds subtly: If anyone contend that Isaias speaks of true Eunuchs, still our cause is helped; for if to Eunuchs, who are continent of necessity, there is promised a greater glory than to the just who are married; certainly a greater will be given to those continent of their own will.

THAT here continence is not commanded but urged, the aforesaid Fathers teach; S. Hieronymus proves it from those words: They that shall choose the things that I will. That the vow of continence is holy is proved, because eternal glory is promised to it. D. Augustinus praises this vow excellently, lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 25. as is related at the end from D. Bonaventura.

IT IS PROVED secondly by D. Bonavent. on 3. sapientiae: Blessed is the barren and unspotted, who hath not known a sinful bed: she shall have fruit in the visitation of holy souls. And the eunuch, who hath not wrought iniquity with his hands, nor thought wicked things against God: for a special gift of faith shall be given him, and a portion in the temple of God. For the fruit of good labours is glorious, and the root of wisdom that never faileth. That this place is like the former, D. Hieronymus teaches, loco citato.

IT IS PROVED thirdly by D. Bonavent. in 4. d. 38. art. 2. quaest. 1. in corpore; for the Lord compares the Church to the good earth, of which one part rendered fruit a hundredfold, another sixtyfold, another thirtyfold; which place, expounding, Cyprianus, de habitu Virginum; Hieronymus, lib. I. in Iovinianum; Augustinus, de sancta Virginitate, cap. 44. et 45. teach that by that parable is distinguished the merit of chaste marriage, widowhood, and virginity. From which it is plain that Virginity is a greater good and more meritorious than conjugal chastity, and so is a counsel of God.

IT IS PROVED fourthly by D. Bonavent. in the exposition of the Missa, at the fraction of the most holy Hostia, and in the serm. de Virginibus, from prima Corinth. 7. where the counsel of continence is proposed in many ways: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Likewise: It is good for a man so to be. Likewise: Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. Similarly: But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they so continue, as I also. Likewise: I would that you all were, as I myself am. Likewise: Concerning Virgins I have no commandment of the Lord, but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. Where note that Paul presents himself as a faithful minister of God in giving this counsel. Likewise: He that joineth his Virgin in marriage doth well: and he that joineth her not doth better. The unmarried and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy in body and in spirit. Finally of the widow: She shall be married to whom she will: only in the Lord. But she will be more blessed if she so continue, according to my counsel: and I think that I also have the Spirit of God. Where thou seest that this counsel is attributed to the Holy Spirit.

Lutherus answers in the epithalamio, that the Apostle indeed indicates that he inclines to continence, but that at last he dissuades from it: But because of fornication, let every man have his own wife; and let every woman have her own husband.

Calvinus answers nearly the same in his commentary on this place, namely that he wishes to say: I would urge continence, but because it is impossible, let every man have a wife; just as if anyone should say: It would be good neither to eat nor to drink; but because without these you cannot live, eat ye and drink.

BUT on the contrary, for the Apostle says: I would: I give counsel; but I would not command: And this is the unanimous commentary of the holy Fathers. See Chrysostomum, and others on this place, Ambrosium lib. de viduis, near the end. Hieronymum lib. I. in Iovinianum. Augustinum lib. de sancta Virginitate, cap. 13. who, as if he had foreseen the empty invention of his apostate, namely that the Apostle would deter from continence, himself wrote the contrary in cap. 16.

In this manner he exhorts to virginity and perpetual continence, that he might also somewhat deter from nuptials.

MOREOVER, if continence is impossible, why does Paul labor so much in giving this counsel? And the absurdity will be plain if the sayings of the Apostle are applied after the example of Calvinus. It would surely be ridiculous for the Apostle to say: It is good not to eat. Likewise: Be without food, seek not food. Likewise: Concerning not eating I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel: that no one should eat. Likewise: he that eateth doth well, and he that eateth not doth better. Likewise: he doth not sin who eateth, but he will be more blessed, if he so continue according to my counsel. From the ridiculous doctrine of Calvinus these absurdities would follow.

NOR does he wish all to have necessity of marrying, as Lutherus himself confesses, who excepts those who have the gift of continence, but warns those who are unwilling to be contained to marry, lest they fornicate: He that containeth not, let him marry.

Petrus Martyr answers on this place that the sense is: Let them be continent who have the gift of continence. It is good for a man not to touch a woman, that is, not to have a wife; but because almost no one can promise himself that he has this gift, let him accept the commandment, or counsel, of God, Genes. 2. It is not good for man to be alone.

BUT the answer is empty, for God said this to Adam, who in the state of innocence was adorned with the gift of continence, and he said it for the species to be preserved and for a temporal good; but the Apostle speaks universally on account of the spiritual good of the individual. Wherefore as virginity is a gift of God, so also conjugal continence: Every one hath his proper gift from God: one indeed after this manner, another after that. Therefore, as he who marries has need of this gift, and is not on that account removed from marriage, because he can obtain it from God; so also here.

They answer thirdly that Paul praises continence only as useful, either for driving away the molestations of marriage (Lutherus says, in the epithalamio) or for serving God more easily (Melancthon, and P. Martyr say).

But the Apostle asserts that it avails also for pleasing God, as D. Bonavent. notes, loco cit.: The unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, how she may please God, that she may be holy in body and in spirit.

It is proved fifthly from that of Lucae primo: How shall this be done, because I know not man? and from prima Timot. 6. For when they have grown wanton in Christ, they will wish to marry: having damnation, because they have made void their first faith. I have sufficiently expounded these places in the preceding disputation, quaest. 10. where I showed that vows are pleasing to God.

It is proved also from the sacred Councils: Ancyrano can. 18. Chalced. generali can. 16. Carthag. tertio cap. 33. and Carthag. quarto cap. ultimo; Toletano quarto cap. 55. Turon. 2. cap. 16. Maguntiensi cap. ultimo, where it brings in the Elibettinum decree 13. and the sixth of Colonia. Romano sub Sylvestro can. 10. and Fotouilicense, where the solemn vow of virginity is enjoined to be most gravely observed.

The same the SS. Pontifices impose: Clemens lib. 3. Constit. Apostolicarum, cap. 1. Cyricius epist. prima, cap. 6. Innocentius I. epist. 2. cap. 12. Leo I. epist. ad Rusticum Episcopum Narbonensem, which is 90. cap. 13. Gelasius epist. 33.

In the same way Constantinus Magnus Imperator abrogated that law of the Romans, by which the childless, or those bereft of children, were deprived of hereditary succession. The cause of the abrogation Eusebius writes, lib. 4., to have been on account of those who vowed celibacy out of piety, lest the political Law seem to punish piety.

Thus also Iovinianus Imperator made a Law, that no one should dare to seek a sacred Virgin in marriage, nor look upon her immodestly, as had been done in the time of Julian the Apostate, and he imposed the punishment of death. Lutherus was guilty of this punishment. Sozomenus writes this law, lib. 6. cap. 3. and it still exists in C. lege si quis, de Episcopis, et Clericis.

It is proved also by D. Bonavent. both in Pharetra lib. 1. cap. 38. and in 4. sent. d. 38. quaest. 9. from the Fathers, who commend the vow of chastity wonderfully, as most pleasing to God and profitable to salvation.

S. Gregorius lib. 15. moral. cap. 12.: The virginity of the flesh was by no means commanded, but only praised. For if it were commanded, surely marriage would now be turned into a fault.

S. Augustinus lib. de virginitate sancta, cap. 12. Tom. 6.: Assuredly the Virgins will have something great beyond the others in that common immortality of the saints, because they have something already not of the flesh in the flesh. And below, cap. 27.: The Virgins are they, and they follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. Whither do we think this Lamb goeth? Certainly whither no one either dareth or is able to follow him, unless you? Where I believe the joys are great, perchance distinguished from all the other joys in that kingdom. The joys of the Virgins are Christ's: of Christ, in Christ, with Christ, after Christ, through Christ, for the sake of Christ. And cap. 5.: That birth of one holy Virgin is the glory of all holy Virgins. And those Virgins themselves, with the Virgin Mary, are the Mothers of Christ, because they do the will of his Father.

S. Cyprianus de habitu, et disciplina Virginum, cap. 3. Tom. 2.: If continence followeth Christ, virginity is destined for the kingdom of God.

D. Ambrosius lib. 3. de virginitate, Tom. 4.: They who do not marry, and do not take wives, are as Angels on earth, that they may not feel the tribulation of the flesh, may know not servitude, and that, as it were stripped of the infirmity of the body, they may think not the things of man, but the things of God.

I ASSERT secondly that the vow of poverty is a holy Counsel of God. Thou hast very many arguments and authorities in D. Bonavent. in Apologia Pauperum, of the third responsio, chapter one.

It is proved by D. Bonavent. in the first place cited, and in Diaeta salutis, tit. 4. cap. 1. near the end, and tit. 6. cap. 2. from that of Matth. 19.: If thou wilt be perfect: Go, sell all that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven. D. Aug. epist. 89. quaest. 4. and in Psal. 103. concion. 3. refers this whole place excellently to the Monastic profession.

Calvinus answers lib. 4. Instit. cap. 13. § 13. that that young man lied, when he said: All these things I have kept (that is, the commandments) from my youth, and therefore Christ, mocking him, said to him: Go, sell, etc. That he had not fulfilled the commandments he proves, because the great commandment is to love God above all things, and yet he did not love God with his whole heart, because, having heard: Go, sell all things for love of me, he went away sad.

But Calvinus strikes his foot with the hoe; for if Christ imposed that commandment on that young man, impossible no less than to number the stars of heaven (as he himself says), by what argument is he convicted of sin, because he went away grieving?

The same Petrus Martyr answers nearly with Calvinus; therefore both, now reprobate, lie.

I press the point, for in 10. Marci it is said: Christ loved him. By what argument then do they either convict him of lying, or ironically lead him on to things simply impossible?

Pseudomartyr insists that this is a commandment: If thou wilt be perfect, for in Matth. 5. we are commanded: Be ye perfect, as also your Father is perfect.

It is answered that that perfection, like that of the eternal Father, is simply impossible, unless one be some god; therefore only imitation is urged in charity, not is every work commanded.

Martyr answers that this commandment was given to this young man alone.

LUTHER rejected the distinction between the counsels and precepts of the Gospel with scorn. He says: "This distinction only shows that those who make it do not know what the Gospel is. What the Papists call counsels are, in fact, precepts, for instance the words of Our Lord:¹ If one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other; If a man will contend with thee in judgment and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; Whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two.... Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you."²

¹ J. Verres, "Luther: An Historical Portrait," p. 153.

² Matt. v. 39-44.

It was not merely his necessary opposition to vows of religion which he had broken that led him to adopt this attitude toward counsels in general. He was forced into it by his fundamental doctrine of justification by faith alone, and his consequent disparagement of good works. If faith alone saves us, good works fall into the background, and distinctions between them, of good and better, of precept and supererogation, become migratory. As Luther himself says: "In this faith all works are equal and one is the same as another; all difference vanishes between works, whether they be great, small, short, long, many or few. For the works are not pleasing for their own sake, but for the sake of the faith, which alone and without distinction is present, works, and lives in each and every deed, no matter how many and how various they may be, just as all the members receive life from the head, and move and have their name; and without the head no limb can live, move, or have a name."¹

In this Luther has been followed by almost all Protestant writers. "The Protestant theologians," says J. O. Hannay, "denied that there was any choice given to man between a higher and a lower kind of Christian life. The fundamental command to love the Lord with all the heart was binding upon all, and as there was no possibility of doing more than this so every failure to attain to the fullness of such love was sin."²

They assert that the Catholic doctrine of good works leads to the division of Christian morality into two stories, the lower one of the commandments and the higher of the counsels.

Whether the Catholic doctrine does this or not we shall see just now, but in the meantime let us not omit to notice what the Protestant doctrine implies. It implies that nothing short of the most absolute and most perfect love will suffice to fulfill the commandment. Not only is every act against charity sinful, but anything short of the most perfect charity possible is sinful also. In all our actions we are bound under pain of sin to act with the highest degree possible of perfect love. We are never permitted to relax our efforts. What is less good than might have been achieved is sinful. The sphere of what is permissible vanishes, every action is either the best possible or it is sinful. Such moral perfection is for the blessed in heaven, it is not possible for men on earth. It necessarily leads to that other Lutheran doctrine, that it is not possible to keep God's commandments, we all sin necessarily by every breath we draw. It also leads to that practical divorce of religion from everyday life which is so characteristic of modern Christianity. Of course Probabilism becomes a total perversion of Christianity in the light of this Protestant doctrine.

¹ Mausbach, "Catholic Moral Teaching," p. 251.

² Hastings' "Encyclopaedia of Religion," iv. 204.

The Catholic doctrine about counsels of perfection is professedly based on Holy Scripture. According to that doctrine Christian perfection is not proposed as the aim of a favored class, it is proposed to all. "Be you therefore perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect," were words addressed by Our Lord to all His followers. The holiness of God Himself was proposed to them as their ideal of moral conduct, not that they could hope to equal the infinite perfection of God, but they were bidden to practice all kinds of virtue and never to stop in their pursuit of greater and higher attainment. This Christian moral perfection consists in charity, love of God and our neighbor. There is no greater or higher perfection than what is commanded in the words: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."¹ as are not in extreme want is the first degree of the counsel of alms-deeds" — to lend or give to such as are in extreme want is, of course, a commandment not a counsel — "to give it them is a degree higher; higher still to give all, but the highest is to give oneself, dedicating our person to their service.... Virtues have then a certain sphere of perfection, and commonly we are not obliged to practice them to the height of their excellence. It is sufficient to go so far in the practice of them as really to enter upon them. But to go farther, and to advance in perfection, is a counsel, as the acts of heroic virtues are not ordinarily commanded, but counseled only. And if upon some occasion we find ourselves obliged to exercise them, it is by reason of some rare and extraordinary occurrence, which makes them necessary for the preservation of God's grace."¹ commandments there are certain essential elements, a certain minimum of observance, without which the virtue does not exist and the commandment is not fulfilled. This is true even with regard to divine charity itself, the queen of all the virtues, the first and greatest of the commandments. There is a certain minimum without which divine charity does not exist, but rising above that minimum there is an infinity of degrees of perfection, which, step by step, leads up toward the infinite perfection of God Himself. To quote St. Francis of Sales again: "Though there are so many degrees of love amongst true lovers, yet is there but one commandment of love, which universally and equally obliges every one, with an exactly like and entirely equal obligation, though it be observed differently, and with an infinite variety of perfection; there being perhaps no souls on earth, as there are no angels in heaven, who are perfectly equal to one another in their love.... It is a love which must prevail over all our loves, and reign over all our passions. And this is what God requires of us — that among all our loves His be the dearest, holding the first place in our hearts; the warmest, occupying our whole soul; the most general, employing all our powers; the highest, filling our whole spirit; and the strongest, exercising all our strength and vigor. And inasmuch as by this we choose and elect God for the sovereign object of our soul, it is a love of sovereign election, or an election of sovereign love."¹ commanded would inevitably fall short of fulfilling the commandments. These principles help us to understand the teaching of Our Lord and St. Paul.

And this command was not given to a select few, it was given to all without exception. Catholic morality is not divided into two stories, a lower story of the commandments and a higher of the counsels. It is true that besides the commandments Catholics recognize in the Gospel counsels also. The Christian scheme of life does not consist in one dead level of uniformity. It does not consist in an impossible ideal, below which all is sin and corruption. Between the highest virtue attainable by human nature and sin there is a large field of infinitely varied perfection where all who are saved find a place, though perhaps no two are equal. As St. Francis of Sales says:

"In counsels there are various degrees of perfection. To lend to such poor people

¹ Matt. xxii. 37.

So that in all the virtues and in all the

¹ "Treatise on the Love of God," Book viii., c. 9.

Catholic doctrine, then, does not make two stories of Christian morality; there is only one morality for all Christians. The commandments merge into counsels, and counsels in certain cases become commandments. Nobody can practice all the counsels, all should practice some, says St. Francis of Sales. One who should limit himself to the bare performance of what is

¹ "Treatise on the Love of God," Book x., c. 6.

In the first portion of the Sermon on the Mount, which we have in the fifth chapter of St. Matthew's Gospel, Our Lord lays down the broad principles of Christian perfection. That perfection requires the observance of both commandments and counsels, but Our Lord does not distinguish between them. The first beatitude comprises both commandment and counsel, inasmuch as a certain degree of poverty of spirit or detachment from riches is necessary for salvation, while in its higher degrees it is a counsel only. It is a matter of precept not to lose patience with those who revile and persecute us, while it is a counsel of perfection to be glad and rejoice at such trials. Not to take an unnecessary oath is a matter of precept, to be content in our speech with Yea, Yea; No, No, is, in general, a matter of counsel. Not to resist evil, and to turn the other cheek to the smiter is a matter of precept in so far as it is forbidden to seek private revenge for wrongs done to us, to forego the right of self-defense, or the right to have an injury punished by lawful authority is a matter of counsel, unless some other consideration requires that punishment should be exacted. Reprisals are not morally wrong, and the public authority, in the execution of its duty to its subjects, may be compelled to have recourse to them. To hate one's enemy is wrong and contrary to charity, to show special love for him is a matter of counsel. Luther and Protestant writers generally interpret all these texts as so many positive commands, but the only result is to remove Christian morality far from the sphere of practical human life.

The Sermon on the Mount was addressed to a great concourse of people as well as to the intimate disciples of Our Lord. It contained practical lessons of conduct for all. The most spiritual and the worldly minded alike could draw instruction from it suitable to the wants of their souls. Those who were prepared to give themselves wholly and entirely to God with the utmost generosity, as well as those who were content to save their souls, could take its lessons and apply them to their own special needs. The distinction between precepts and counsels was implicit and implied. On the other hand, in the nineteenth chapter of St. Matthew this distinction is plainly expressed. The young man asked what he was to do to have life everlasting, to save his soul. If thou wouldst enter into life, and save thy soul, keep the commandments, said Our Lord. The young man had kept them all from youth upward, and he asked if there was anything else, better, more perfect, that he could do. "And Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."¹ The words could hardly be plainer. In Christian morality there is something higher and better than merely keeping the commandments, though it is sufficient to keep the commandments in order to save one's soul. That higher and better course is voluntary poverty, which is not a commandment, not even for the young man —“If thou wilt be perfect," says Our Lord. It is a counsel of perfection, not because it makes those who embrace it perfect in charity, but because it removes out of their path, the love of riches, the greatest obstacle to wholehearted love of God. The evangelical counsels, then, do not form a second story in the edifice of Christian morality, they require and pre-suppose the observance of the commandments, nor do they make those who embrace them perfect; they only place them in a state of life which makes the acquire-ment of perfection comparatively easy. That is why they are called counsels of perfection.

¹ Matt. xix. 21.

Similarly with regard to the counsel of virginity. The disciples had said, If a man cannot have a divorce from his wife, it is expedient not to marry. "All men take not this word," was the answer, "but they to whom it is given.... He that can take, let him take it."¹ Obviously, to marry is good, God has joined husband and wife together, but there is a higher and a better calling for such as feel that they have the necessary grace; that higher and better calling is to observe perfect and perpetual chastity for the love of God.

St. Paul obviously understood it so: "Both he that giveth his virgin in marriage doth well, and he that giveth her not doth better."²

¹ Matt. xix. 11, 12.

² 1 Cor. vii. 38.